Yeah, I wonder why an gotus agency needs a support group. This is something like if there were to be "Friends of IAS" group in Bharat.The fact that a government agency has an organization that lobbies on its behalf tells you everything you need to know.
AI tells me:Revisions which are consistently in the same direction are not “normal.” They’re supposed to be random and normally distributed in any survey that isn’t fundamentally biased or broken. Basic statistics 101 stuff
An analysis of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) monthly "Employment Situation" reports reveals several instances where revisions to the previous two months' job figures have moved in the same direction as the trend set by the current month's initial report. This pattern, often noted by economists and market analysts, can amplify the signal sent by the latest jobs data, indicating a strengthening or weakening labor market.
The BLS routinely revises its initial estimates of nonfarm payroll employment for the two preceding months. These revisions are a standard part of the data production process, as they incorporate additional information from survey respondents who reply after the initial data collection deadline. While these revisions can be both upward and downward, there are occasions where they appear to follow the narrative of the most recent jobs report.
Here are some notable instances from recent years where the revisions to the prior two months' job gains were in line with the trend suggested by the current month's data:
2023: A Year of Consistent Upward Revisions Early On, Followed by a Downward Shift
Throughout the first half of 2023, the labor market consistently outperformed expectations, and the subsequent revisions from the BLS often reinforced this narrative of a surprisingly robust job market.
May 2023 Report (released in June 2023): The initial report for May showed a strong gain of 339,000 jobs, significantly exceeding economists' forecasts and signaling continued strength in the labor market. In the same report, the BLS revised the job gains for the previous two months upwards:
March's figure was revised up by 4,000 from +236,000 to +240,000.
April's figure was revised up by a substantial 93,000, from +253,000 to +346,000.
Link to BLS Report: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archiv ... 022023.htm
News Analysis: News outlets at the time highlighted these upward revisions as further evidence of the labor market's resilience.
September 2023 Report (released in October 2023): This report delivered a significant upside surprise with a preliminary estimate of +336,000 jobs, again well above expectations. The revisions for the prior two months also trended upward, reinforcing the report's strong message:
July's employment change was revised up by 79,000, from +157,000 to +236,000.
August's employment change was revised up by 40,000, from +187,000 to +227,000.
Link to BLS Report: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archiv ... 062023.pdf
News Analysis: Economists and journalists pointed to the combined strength of the headline number and the significant upward revisions as a sign that the labor market was not cooling as quickly as many had anticipated.
However, a shift appeared in the latter part of the year.
December 2023 Report (released in January 2024): The initial estimate for December was a solid +216,000. However, the revisions for the two preceding months were both downwards, suggesting a slight cooling trend in the latter part of the year.
October's job gains were revised down by 71,000, from +150,000 to +79,000.
November's job gains were revised down by 26,000, from +199,000 to +173,000.
Link to BLS Report: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archiv ... 052024.htm
News Analysis: While the December number was strong, the downward revisions to the prior months tempered some of the optimism and were seen by some as a sign of a moderating job market.
2024: A Continuation of the Revision Trend
The pattern of revisions aligning with the current month's trend has continued into 2024.
February 2024 Report (released in March 2024): The February report showed a robust gain of +275,000 jobs, beating expectations. In line with this strong showing, the previous two months also saw upward revisions:
December 2023's job gains were revised up by 43,000, from +290,000 to +333,000.
January 2024's job gains were revised up by a significant 124,000, from +229,000 to +353,000.
Link to BLS Report: The revisions are mentioned in the summary of the March 2024 Employment Situation report. The exact figures can be found in the historical data tables on the BLS website.
News Analysis: The substantial upward revisions garnered significant media attention, with many reports emphasizing the renewed strength of the U.S. labor market at the start of the year.
Understanding the Revisions
It is crucial to note that the BLS's revision process is a standard statistical procedure designed to improve the accuracy of its data. The initial estimates are based on a sample of employers, and the subsequent revisions incorporate more complete data. While the alignment of these revisions with the current month's trend can be interpreted as a confirmation of an emerging pattern, the BLS itself does not explicitly state that it revises figures to match a trend.
Economists generally view the revised data as a more accurate reflection of the labor market's health. The instances highlighted above demonstrate how these routine statistical adjustments can contribute to the evolving narrative of the U.S. economy, providing a clearer, albeit delayed, picture of its trajectory.
I think just like Trump, Trump cult members are desperate and flailing.Vayutuvan wrote: ↑02 Aug 2025 01:36{removed from here: image of Leonard Bernado letter from John Durham's report annex}
If this is true, then he might be fearing the deep state just like IG before imposing emergency. She was afraid of CIA/the US trying to pull her down. JP and Janata Party were funded by the US was the rumor then.
Rumor now is that Sam Pitroda is CIA pasand.
You can find it in the annex itself or from Senator Grassley's website:The Durham annex states, “The Office’s best assessment is that the … emails that purport to be from Benardo were ultimately a composite of several emails that were obtained through Russian intelligence hacking of the U.S.-based Think Tanks, including the Open Society Foundations, the Carnegie Endowment, and others.” (Pg. 17)
Yes, the very document of which a snapshot of a page is provided by Senator Mike Lee, just a little bit further says that it is Russian disinformation. Funny that Senator Mike Lee did not read the actual document.Vayutuvan wrote: ↑02 Aug 2025 01:42 Is the above email doctored? Senator Mike Lee posted it on X.
https://x.com/SenMikeLee/status/1951299811031880102
The New York Times and other Democrat mouthpieces who helped craft and push the Russiagate hoax are counting on their readers to not look at the actual documents.
Yes, absolutely. The shoe is on the other foot and it is being used.
GrrrGraphics-Ben GarrisonCartoons
@GrrrGraphics
Well, this is interesting- Former Special Counsel JACK SMITH is now under investigation by the HATCH ACT unit by the Office of Special Counsel.
What goes around comes around!
Did you VOTE for THIS? I sure did!
Flashback Friday Jack Smith cartoon!
How come with support from "honest to good" statisticians, they got all the job data wrong during Biden era and now with Trump? Even govt employees can be fired for incompetence in the US. Nobody had done it till now doesn't mean it cannot be done or it should not be done.A_Gupta wrote: ↑02 Aug 2025 03:03 A Govt statistical org needs friends to ensure it gets adequate funding, and to try to keep Congress or the Executive from politicizing it. This Friends of BLS organization is a collaborative effort of various groups, including the American Statistical Association (AmStat) and the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics (COPAFS).
We are stuck with this nuisance on BRF. "Ignore" button dabaao, sukh chain paao.A_Gupta wrote: ↑02 Aug 2025 08:16 I'm not stupid enough to be on X/Twitter.
You assert the BLS got the numbers wrong - I'm supposed to believe your assertion? When you didn't even read the document from which you posted that Leonard Benardo email which, as you can verify for yourself, is called Russian disinformation by the author of that document.
IAS is an administrative job with considerable powers. A BLS statistician has none, probably cannot even notarize documents. Why you conflate the two roles is beyond human reason.
Also note that if I am civil with you, it does not mean I respect you. It keeps going down with each baseless piece you post. I don't know why you make it a hobby of misleading BRF.
^^ Gautam ji, I will respond to this article in Challenge of China thread shortly.g.sarkar wrote: ↑02 Aug 2025 08:50 https://www.rediff.com/news/column/the- ... 250731.htm
The Leverage Trump's US Has On Xi's China Has Shrunk
AAKAR PATEL, July 31, 2025
Obama Apologizes To California AG Over 'Best Looking' Remark
April 5, 20133:40 PM ET
Eyder Peralta
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said today that President Obama called California Attorney General Kamala Harris to apologize.
Obama made waves Thursday during a fundraiser in which he referred to Harris' looks.
"You have to be careful to, first of all, say she is brilliant and she is dedicated and she is tough, and she is exactly what you'd want in anybody who is administering the law, and making sure that everybody is getting a fair shake," Obama said according to The Washington Post. "She also happens to be, by far, the best looking attorney general in the country."
Carney said Obama called Harris last night right after the trip.
"He called her to apologize for the distraction created by his comments," Carney said.
As soon as the comments became public, they were dissected everywhere.
Salon's headline: "Twitter to Obama: Commenting on Kamala Harris' appearence was stupid, sexist."
They quote writer Zerlina Maxwell tweeting: "Men wondering why it's not ok to comment on a woman's looks whenever/whereever they want need to google 'male privilege.' Now."
The Root's Keli Goff, however, disagrees.
"[Harris] is beautiful — a beautiful black woman, to be exact," she writes. "And none of us should apologize for celebrating that, including the president — who, for the record, is the best looking president our country has had."
New York Magazine posted a piece that counts the many times Obama has referred to "important, accomplished men" good looking. He's an "equal-opportunity flatterer."
The magazine reports:
So what do you think? Was Obama's comment sexist? Is it ever OK for a man in power to compliment someone based on looks?"Introducing HUD secretary Shaun Donovan last February, Obama declared, 'There he is, the good-looking guy in the front here.'
"At a speech last March, Obama pointed out his secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, by calling him 'a good-looking guy.'
"A couple of months ago, Obama gave a shout-out to the 'outstanding Secretary of the Navy,' Ray Mabus. 'There he is right there — the good-looking guy over at the end.'"
Update at 3:47 p.m. ET. Harris 'Strongly Supports Him':
Michael Falcone, ABC news deputy political director, tweets that Harris' spokesperson said "They had a great conversation yesterday and she strongly supports him."
Category:Obama administration controversies
Controversies related to the political administration of President Barack Obama (2009–2017).
See also the preceding Category:George W. Bush administration controversies and the succeeding Category:First Trump administration controversies
Decrease..no way .orange man passed his biigg beautiful bill and Elon left his Doge !!
I did, then undid, will redo.We are stuck with this nuisance on BRF. "Ignore" button dabaao, sukh chain paao.
The data can help with governance like in going from open-loop control & guidance to closed-loop.Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) This is the main instrument for collecting employment and unemployment data, covering both rural and urban areas. The PLFS uses a stratified, multi-stage random sampling framework and its methodology aligns with International Labour Organization (ILO) standards, providing annual, quarterly, and, since January 2025, monthly estimates.
The striking thing about these trends is how heavily they diverge from how the economy was projected to perform before Trump took office. As the economist Jason Furman recently pointed out, the actual economic growth rate in the first six months of 2025 was barely more than half what the Bureau of Economic Analysis had projected in November 2024, while core inflation came in at about a third higher than projections.
The worst might be yet to come. Many companies did in fact stock up on imported goods before the tariffs kicked in; others have been eating the cost of tariffs to avoid raising prices in the hopes that the duties would soon go away . Now that tariffs seem to be here to stay, more and more companies will likely be forced to either raise prices or slash their costs—including labor costs. A return to the 1970s-style combination of rising inflation and unemployment is looking a lot more likely.
The Trump administration has found itself caught between deflecting blame for the weak economic numbers and denying the numbers’ validity. In an interview with CNN this morning, Miran admitted that the new jobs report “isn’t ideal” but went on to attribute it to various “anomalous factors,” including data quirks and reduced immigration. (Someone should ask Miran why immigration is down.) And this afternoon, Trump posted a rant on Truth Social accusing the BLS commissioner of cooking the books to make him look bad.“I have directed my Team to fire this Biden Political Appointee, IMMEDIATELY,” he wrote. “She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified.” He then went on to argue, not for the first time, that Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell should be fired for hamstringing the economy with high interest rates. These defenses are, of course, mutually exclusive: If the bad numbers are fake, why should Trump be mad at Powell? (same Nobel winning logic as regards trade incentives to stop the India Pakistan conflict
Bi-coastals keep screaming that they have to pay more because of the tariffs. But it is deeper than that kind of simplistic thinking. Question to ask is why the progressive Dem ruled states are have higher cost of living than the rest of the country. For the most part, it is a byproduct of inefficient use and deployment of resources....
A more valid accounting of the differences in the standard of living of American citizens in different states requires recognition that prices vary from state to state and community to community. In general, a dollar has more purchasing power in the poorer states than it does in the richer states. The difference in housing costs from state to state is especially important. The Bureau of Economic Analysis has calculated that the regional price parity of U.S. states ranges from 84.4 in Mississippi (the cheapest state in which to live) to Hawaii at 119.3 (the most expensive state). In other words, an income of $0.84 in Mississippi equals an income of $1.19 in Hawaii with the U.S as a whole having an average PCPI of $1.00. To put it another way, the purchasing power of a dollar is $1.18 in Mississippi and $0.84 in Hawaii. The net impact of accounting for differences in the purchasing power of a dollar in different states is to narrow the gap in the standard of living between rich and poor states.[6]
Ranking states by PCPI, adjusted by regional price parity
Data in this table are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and are for the year 2022.[7] Adjusted personal income is found by dividing personal income by price parity.
...
Cartoons 
) used to post long screeds from that site. 
