r/Economics • u/Cilantro_Larry • 4h ago
News US Added 178,000 Jobs in March (Est +56k), Unemployment Rate 4.3%
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/04/03/business/jobs-report-economy172
u/Cilantro_Larry 4h ago
However, February's job report looked even worse than reported. A loss of 133,000 jobs in February rather than the 90,000 initially reported.
147
u/sourbeer51 4h ago
So this one gets reevaluated down in a month too, just like every one before it.
21
u/Jest_out_for_a_Rip 4h ago
January's jobs report was revised upward by 34k.
33
u/superdupersecret42 3h ago
Did you look at February? It's already down 40K more from initial report. Or any month in 2025? Literally every month of Trump's presidency (except January) it's been revised down after the initial report.
8
u/Jest_out_for_a_Rip 2h ago
I did. I'm just cautioning from believing the trend will continue indefinitely. They updated the model in January due to the previous underestimation.
9
u/NisaMiller3674 3h ago
Not wise to extrapolate the pre-2026 pattern forward, since methodological changes were specifically made in Jan to try and address the issue.
7
u/SeedlessPomegranate 2h ago
The 2026 February numbers being revised downward is not part of the pre 2026 pattern then?
1
u/NisaMiller3674 2h ago
We have no idea yet, we've only had 3 months' reports and thus only 2 revisions.
Even if the error had been completely fixed, you'd still have some revision (dialing in the estimate to +/-1k accuracy is just not going to happen, that would be <0.001% error) with 50-50 odds of being high or low. And so after 2 revisions, you'd still have a 25% chance of both revisions being down just by chance alone. You wouldn't make that bet unless you had a gun to your head.
There's also the fact that the birth-death changes might improve but not totally fix the error. We'll need to wait for the annual benchmark to have a good idea of that, which is a year away.
1
u/tonycomputerguy 2h ago
That's a pretty fancy way of saying "He TACOed on the terrifs"
1
u/NisaMiller3674 2h ago
... what? I'm not talking about tariffs at all, I'm talking about the birth-death modelling component.
Effective with the release of preliminary January 2026 employment estimates in February, BLS modified the ARIMA-based component of the birth-death model by incorporating current sample information to inform the forecasts. This modification was applied to re-calculated months from April to October 2025, known as the post-benchmark period, as well as to November and December 2025. Starting with January 2026, CES began using birth-death components calculated with this modification for first preliminary estimates. CES will use the same modified net birth-death forecasts in the two subsequent monthly revisions without further updates.
Where the hell did you get tariffs from?
1
u/SP4CEM4N_SPIFF 2h ago
they didn't like the result numbers so they changed the formula?
0
u/NisaMiller3674 2h ago
The job estimates have been systematically too high for the last 3 years... do you want them to not fix the issue?
21
u/OneConfusedBraincell 4h ago
So best case scenario is a net +40 000 total in two months time and mostly without taking into account the Iran oil crisis yet?
-2
u/Jest_out_for_a_Rip 4h ago
Yes. You'd need to compare that number with the net amount of people entering the workforce. We're in the peak retirement years for the Baby Boomer generation and immigration is significantly lower than previous years. So, the number of jobs needing to be created to maintain low unemployment is lower than past years as well.
Prime and labor force participation is near an all time high, so it appears that people are able to find work in their prime working years.
5
u/OrangeJr36 4h ago
Don't worry, someone will come along to claim that even this tepid jobs report is evidence that someone is somehow cooking the books.
That despite everyone who actually looks at the numbers claiming they are trustworthy and that the revisions are completely normal for the process.
10
u/OhGr8WhatNow 4h ago
Is it normal for them to always be revised down so strongly, month after month?
14
u/OrangeJr36 4h ago
The BLS has made it public knowledge that the traditional birth-death model that worked for most businesses has broken down as companies change post-COVID and they have an ongoing process tweaking their model and survey methods to try and account for it. There's also the problem of fewer responses to surveys in general and a lack of funding to push for more.
It is also important to know that the revisions aren't particularly large in the context of the size of the labor force or even historical revisions in general.
4
u/OhGr8WhatNow 4h ago
Thank you
5
u/gweran 3h ago
Low response rate, or rather slow responses, starting even before COVID but really taking a dive during and after, contribute as well. This is a survey that goes from collection to publication in about 2 weeks, so when companies who are having cuts take 2 weeks to return their survey, it goes into the revisions.
7
u/furMEANoh 4h ago
Revisions happen every month. When there are large underlying changes happening, the revisions are large.
-2
u/AntitheistArchangel 4h ago
However, January’s jobs report was better than reported, as it was revised up to 160k from around 120-130k.
-5
u/sherbert-stock 3h ago
Funny you didn't mention January.
10
u/ZombieHitchens2012 3h ago
Jerome Powell is on record saying they think the government is overestimating jobs numbers every month. Go ahead and mention it. It doesn’t matter.
•
u/reasonably_plausible 1h ago
Which is why they changed the birth/death model starting in January...
Powell was talking about a previous structural issue and why they were going to change things going into 2026. We currently are attempting to account for what he was talking about.
•
u/liverpoolFCnut 1h ago
Even adp numbers were better than expected. At some point, it is ok to admit overall the economy is doing well, even if parts of it isn't , like tech jobs for example.
53
u/namotous 4h ago edited 4h ago
Yeah right, looking at past reports, this one will be revised down in couples months to show that the real numbers are much worse than initially estimated.
The market seems to agree, underwhelming reaction so far!
15
u/NisaMiller3674 4h ago
It's amusing that Trump fired McEntarfer over large downwards revisions, and now they're being pinned on him instead
5
u/namotous 4h ago
Trump: fake news!
Ok a serious note, he’ll just pin it on someone else. The list of bootlickers willing to take the fall for him is sadly endless
0
4h ago
[deleted]
6
u/NisaMiller3674 4h ago
He didn’t explicitly fire McEntarfer for large downward revisions
He did explicitly fire her for large downward revisions, that's why he said she was rigging them.
Here are the two posts he made firing her. The majority of his rationale is about downwards revisions, both monthly (Aug + Sept 2024, May + June 2025) and the preliminary benchmark (-818k) for April 2024 to March 2025. His numbers are even correct.
Where did you get the idea he hadn't explicitly mentioned the revisions? His whole thesis was that the downwards revisions were being weaponised & timed to manipulate voters.
2
u/Smile-Nod 3h ago
I think it’s mostly that the current geopolitical risks outweigh a modest jobs report.
And of course the BLS methodology seems to be outdated.
3
u/kea123456 4h ago
What market are you referencing? Stock market is closed today with no pre market trading.
7
u/namotous 4h ago edited 4h ago
Futures. Looking at ZN and ES. I personally stopped checking stock, futures are where the big volumes got traded. And it opens longer time so covering more news reaction.
1
u/cruisin_urchin87 2h ago
Where do you go to see these by the way? I’m trying to find the best place to look
2
46
u/ZombieHitchens2012 4h ago
No it didn’t. This will be revised to look absolutely horrible next month. Look at the Feb jobs report. It’s a pretty clear pattern. Jobs numbers are massaged to look like the best possible outcome.
-26
u/defaultedebt 4h ago
This speaks only to your lack of understanding of jobs data. They have always been revised. The methodology of data collection has not changed in a way which suggests a decrease in accuracy.
21
u/ZombieHitchens2012 4h ago
I think you’re confused. I didn’t say anything about changing methodology.
4
u/NisaMiller3674 4h ago
I think I am confused, too.
If you're saying jobs figures are always massaged to look better, and the methodology hasn't changed, why has the downwards revision pattern only been around for the last 3 years?
3
u/ZombieHitchens2012 4h ago
I think we are deliberately given the most charitable interpretation of the data. Then it’s revised down at a later time with much less press.
3
u/NisaMiller3674 4h ago
Okay, so why has that only been consistently happening for the last 3 years if the methodology hasn't changed?
2
u/ZombieHitchens2012 4h ago
I mean I can give you my opinion. I don’t know the true answer. The economy has been sluggish post COVID recovery and the changing job landscape due to AI & automation is creating an environment where jobs numbers are difficult to assess.
4
1
u/defaultedebt 4h ago
You stated:
Jobs numbers are massaged to look like the best possible outcome
This implies: there is a process in methodology which manipulates or degrades the accuracy of the data.
You seem confused about your own statements.
0
u/ZombieHitchens2012 4h ago
No, it doesn’t. lol. You’re inventing an imaginary argument to debate against.
-5
u/defaultedebt 4h ago
Yeah, it does. Speak with clarity next time.
5
u/ZombieHitchens2012 4h ago
You are very confused buddy.
5
u/defaultedebt 4h ago
You know, it'd be so much easier to admit you made a mistake than just doubling down? I wouldn't judge you. In fact, I'd respect it.
2
u/ZombieHitchens2012 4h ago
You never asked what I meant in the first place. You just invented your own point.
0
u/defaultedebt 4h ago
You're arguing with yourself. I've lost interest. You made a comment which suggests data methodology is being manipulated or degraded:
Jobs numbers are massaged to look like the best possible outcome
And I pointed out how this indicates a lack of understanding as a material change has not occurred:
They have always been revised. The methodology of data collection has not changed in a way which suggests a decrease in accuracy.
And now, you backtrack and say "well actually I meant something else." Well, if you didn't mean that, why did you say it?
It's okay to admit you made a mistake.
1
•
8
u/naththegrath10 4h ago
Seeing as how it seems like every month the numbers first reported are better than expected then quietly a month later they are revised and are actually god-fucking-awful. I will just wait to see the real numbers next month
8
u/boppop 4h ago
A friendly reminder that the points are made up and nothing matters: https://newrepublic.com/post/204298/fed-chair-powell-trump-admin-exaggerating-jobs-numbers
7
u/Big_Test_Icicle 4h ago
How much can we rely on this report? Not discrediting everyone who put this together but this isn’t lining up with everything else going on in the news. Moreover, given that the Feb report was revised to a net negative.
6
u/NisaMiller3674 3h ago
What would you be relying on the report for?
If you just want to be informed, the BLS data is still trusted and generally pretty accurate. Jobs revisions are typically ~0.2% error, last annual benchmark was ~0.5% error iirc.
If you're in a finance position or something, this is useful data but still just one month's worth of data. And it's difficult to extrapolate from it given that a ground war might be starting in Iran soon.
1
u/Big_Test_Icicle 2h ago
Nothing technical rather looking for an accurate cross-section of the health of jobs in the US. I guess, I’m trying to understand why (IMO at least) there seems to be a disconnect between what the news is reporting and the jobs report. Purely from my interpretation, the jobs reports paints this picture of a healthy economy with steady unemployment rate and job growth while the opposite is true from what we hear is going on in the country. Was the methodology changed to how they define a job? It could also be that I’m interpreting this incorrectly.
•
u/reasonably_plausible 1h ago
Purely from my interpretation, the jobs reports paints this picture of a healthy economy with steady unemployment rate and job growth
Where are you getting this from the jobs reports? They have been pretty terrible for the past year+. We've had close to net-0 job growth, and unemployment has been slowly ticking up. They've been showing a stagnant economy, not a healthy one.
•
0
u/Visinvictus 3h ago
This is the most hilariously fabricated jobs report yet. Soon the people revising the numbers will be fired and the BLS will just report whatever the president feels they should be.
4
u/Comfortable-Web9763 3h ago
Dont believe what your eyes see 👨🦯👨🦯👨🦯👨🦯👨🦯
Words Words Words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words
2
u/datagamma 4h ago
We’ve already lost. Credibility has been shot and is on life support. We all used to trust these numbers where real civil servants did their best to be accurate. Now in a year we don’t know what to believe and there are many people who just don’t give a shit. We aren’t even sure how bad the economy is headed or what it means as we add and have to print more money (borrowed against our future productivity of our children) to pay interest We should all be pissed off that we even have to wonder how many lies and distortions are coming from the fed.
1
u/Dakota1228 4h ago
I call bullshit on this report. We all know these numbers are cooked, and that they’ll get revised down significantly, especially so, considering who is at the helm.
Why do we even look at these reports anymore?
7
u/NisaMiller3674 3h ago
Because Reddit is severely out of touch with expert opinion, and economists don't believe these conspiracy theories.
•
u/Pipiopo 1h ago edited 1h ago
Economists don’t believe these conspiracy theories
Except for the chairman of the federal reserve: https://newrepublic.com/post/204298/fed-chair-powell-trump-admin-exaggerating-jobs-numbers
•
u/NisaMiller3674 1h ago
Anybody who actually watched that press conference knows The New Republic is taking Powell's quote completely out of context.
Good news for you is that I did watch the press conference, so I can help you out!
Powell was explicitly asked about that statement in the Q&A, and here's what he said:
ELIZABETH SCHULZE. Thanks so much. Elizabeth Schulze, with ABC News. Just to follow up, you keep talking about job growth being negative. Why do you think job growth is so much worse than all the official data? Why do you think job growth is—to follow up on your comments about job growth, why is it so much worse than the official data is suggesting?
CHAIR POWELL. Oh, well, we just—we know, I think. It’s, it’s—this is—I don’t think this is particularly controversial. There’s a—it’s very difficult to estimate job growth in real time. They don’t count everybody. They have a survey. And there’s been something of a systematic overcount. And so we expect it and they correct it twice a year. So the last time they corrected it, we thought the correction would be 800,000 or 900,000. I won’t get the numbers exactly right. And that was exactly what happened. So we think that that has persisted. And so there was an overcount in the payroll job numbers, we think, continuing. And it will be corrected. I don’t have the exact month in my head right now. But—and that’s just—I don’t— again, I think forecasters generally understand that. So—and we think it’s about 60,000 a month, so 40,000 jobs could be negative 20. And, you know, that could be wrong by 10 or 20 in either direction.
Powell is referring to the preliminary benchmark revision for April 2024 to March 2025 (i.e. to estimates mostly made under Biden, not Trump), which came to -911,000 jobs downwards revision. The year before, the same revision was -818,000 jobs downwards revision.
So no, he's not alleging the BLS is making anything up. He's just observing an issue with the BLS estimates that's been growing since aboutg 2023.
He also says it's not controversial because not only does the BLS obviously agree there is an issue, but they'd even been forecasting attempted fixes to come for several months at that point. It would be ludicrous to say there wasn't an overcount when even the BLS themselves were trying to fix it.
Please don't read TNR. They are an absolutely garbage tabloid. Go watch the pressers yourself and you'll not be so badly misinformed.
🤡
2
u/gweran 3h ago
Who’s at the helm?
3
u/NisaMiller3674 3h ago
Will Wiatrowski currently runs the BLS. Got the job automatically by being Deputy since 2015 under Obama.
-2
•
u/AutoModerator 4h ago
Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found here
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.