It’s unclear how such an action would help lower U.S. borrowing costs.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 38 points 2 months ago (6 children)

It’s so beyond the pale too. I mean yeah, numbers have been fake for years now, dating back to before covid even.

But this gigantic estimate, then getting blown out by 3x?! Bruh.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    That is so much Russian talking point crap

    Provide evidence or STFU

    Saying the Fed has always been lying is just trolling to sow distrust.

    We have enough already.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Well not lying, but not what everyone thinks it is.

    One person picks up a side job after getting hours cut at his work? That's a new job created, even if that person makes less than they used to.

    A guy gets laid off but registers with a gig app to try to pick up some driving or delivery tasks with spotty income prospects? That person is not "unemployed".

    You aren't recognized as looking for work despite having no job? You don't count as unemployed either.

    The "underemployed" is probably better to get an idea.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    All true. But done consistently the trend will give you insights into how people are doing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Sure, but situations evolve that change the meaning.

    15 years ago, being an independent contractor was relatively rare and pretty deliberate. Now that's just being registered with Uber, Lyft, Doordash. So lots of people stop becoming "unemployed" and become "independent contractors" due to what is essentially a cultural shift. Being an "employed" independent contractor is trivial now, but says nothing about income prospects.

    The side job scenario certainly isn't new, so your point is taken there, that number of jobs "created" always could have been either good or bad without context.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    They were fake before? How? I'd argue that they need to use U-6 vs. U-3, but people have been saying that for years. Usually that data is something people could find for themselves, but most of the "liberal media" reports on U-3.

    This administration has shown that no amount of corruption and scheming is beyond them, though, and tiny-d donnie values only loyalty to him, so now the numbers are suspicious.

  • source
  • parent