politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Unexpectedly?!
Exactly what dumbass didn't expect this? Oh Magats that's right
If they had long term memory they'd be very upset right now.
2 days ago:
https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/articles/employers-add-63-000-jobs-in-february-beating-forecasts
I expected that was all lies, so it's still expected. Unless you believed the lies. But then that would be on you. I also expect that the job losses actually are well in excess of 100,000. There's no way the administration would give anything but the flimsiest lowball number they think wouldn't get called out immediately.
They're not lies, they're estimates based off of ADP statistics.
There's 3 kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Our unemployment numbers are purposefully bullshit and have been for years too.
Do you have any sources for that? I'd love to read up on it.
The TL;DR version is that the unemployment numbers that tend to get reported are U-3, whereas many people think the U-6 numbers are a more accurate reflection of the real experience.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080415/true-unemployment-rate-u6-vs-u3.asp
I got you
https://dailyconsensus.substack.com/p/the-hidden-reality-of-unemployment
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sonariglinton/2025/06/30/why-the-jobs-report-doesnt-tell-us-the-truth-about-the-economy/
https://smartasset.com/career/problems-with-the-unemployment-rate
https://fee.org/articles/is-the-unemployment-rate-a-deceptive-statistic/
Thank you! 🙏
Yes, their methodology. Exclusion of discouraged workers, part-time workers wanting full-time work, and strict "actively seeking work" definitions ensure the numbers don't actually reflect the reality. But rather the more rosy fiction those in power wish to push.
So no resources that I can read?
Well, if someone points out the official methodology is designed to undercount. One might want to read said methodology. Apart from that, the Internet is your oyster, as well as cable news. Pick a source you find reputable. Fox and NBC point it out any time its advantageous to their chosen candidate. Even trump remarked on it himself in 2023 to attack biden. There are clips from Maddow from 15 years ago talking about it under Obama too. It's a chestnut old as time used to attack those in power, but never with intent to fix the systemic problem.
Yeah, but the trend has been significant revision downward for months now. Anyone who's been watching was expecting this.
That means the prediction was 22k new juobs, had just been decreased to 11k new jobs, and then shot up to 48k...
That's not a sign that we should expect good things, that was a sign that someone may have caved from pressure after saying 11k.and went with a number that was obviously bullshit.
Apparently some people believed it tho, so I can admit when I'm wrong. I tend to overestimate people