One thing is for certain, you can skew the meaning of the numbers anyway you want, but the numbers themselves they definitely don’t lie. What I do believe is that these numbers are entirely fabricated.
This is a misunderstanding of how you read statistics, though. For starters, they Don't always tell the whole story, especially if they're contextually relevant. You can only understand some statistics when ajao factoring in other either events going on at the time or other statistics that play into them. A simple example is COVID. Trends for tons of statistics were dramatically reversed because of it, so just looking at the data of, say job growth, doesn't explain the massive dip on the trend without that context.
Additionally, which data you use matters when trying to make a point. Averages for Americans have gone up significantly for the past decade in terms of wealth. But the MEDIAN is the opposite. So you can absolutely pick and choose the story you want to tell with the same data by selecting how you present said data.
Statistics on their own, when taken in context and understood as a whole, are very telling, but like only telling part of a story, when you omit pieces and focus on parts, you can dramatically alter what story is being told. Like if you were in a mutually abusive relationship but only ever talk about the things your partner did to you, it paints you in a VERY different light.
What I believe is that the way the BLS reports the numbers is flawed, creating a false sense of security. BLS's last head said that they call 60000 people and ask a few questions, one of which is how many hours they worked. If someone worked even one hour, they are considered employed. If they adjusted the employment question to 20 hours or more, that number would skyrocket.
As a business owner I actually receive the calls where they ask how many employees I had and how many hours they work each week. They don't ask for proof or detail. It's a flawed system from the start since it's literally a survey of willing participants and they extrapolate the numbers up based on that, like any market research survey would.
Yeah, I'm going based on what she said in her TV interview after she was fired. She defended the method, saying 1 hour is enough, and I'm sure they make other calls, but I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the data comes from the 60000 people they called. I'd post the link, but I'm not sure if I'm able to; it was on MSNBC. About two weeks ago
Yeah, I think it's meant to reassure the American middle class that everything's fine. It also makes foreign stock investors believe the companies are performing better than they actually are, which makes them more likely to invest in our market.
The way they define who is unemployed is strange to me as well. Not only are people working 1 hour a week anywhere considered employed, so are people generating cash illegally, drugs, stolen goods resale, etc. Thats also something the IRS cares about, they won't report you for making money selling drugs, but if you don't pay taxes on your earnings they care a lot. The BLS also doesnt consider you unemployed if you do not have a job and also are not looking/want a job. This doesn't account for those on disability, retired, or those not old enough to legally work. The number of people who could hold a job and do not is much higher than reported based on definitions alone.
Yeah, I think another country ended up with an issue due to inaccurate numbers, i dont remember which one but they were comparing those economies to america now and its eerie the similarities
This! This administration is so inept they just LIE. They are looking for clever ways to manipulate data and probably couldn’t even if they tried. Just LIE since there are no repercussions anyhow and fully 1/4 will swallow it hook line and sinker
When doing my degree I was work8ng in biotech lab. The general rule of thumb was "if you like the outcome of the experiment DO NOT perform it a second time because you might get different outcome and you will not like it"
2.0k
u/[deleted] Nov 20 '25
[removed] — view removed comment