General Discussion

Wiz Imp

(9,287 posts)

25. You may be right, but they both referred to the same rport from Challenger.

Thu Dec 11, 2025, 11:21 AM

Dec 11

I assume you saw this.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/layoffs-hit-highest-level-2025-133648974.html
Layoffs hit highest level in 2025 since pandemic: Challenger

THe more complete analysis I saw was this:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/layoff-announcements-just-hit-highest-141826666.html
Layoff announcements just hit the highest level since the pandemic
some excerpts:

U.S.-based employers have announced plans this year to eliminate nearly 1.2 million jobs through the end of November. It’s only the sixth time since 1993 that announced job cuts through the month of November have surpassed 1.1 million. The last time was in 2020, when planned cuts totaled 2.3 million by this point in the year.

Normally the Challenger report carries relatively little weight among market participants and economists because it only tracks publicly announced job cuts, most of which haven’t happened yet. While the announcements are made by U.S.-based firms, Challenger includes cuts to jobs overseas in its tally for multinational firms.

Here's the actual report directly from Challenger:
https://www.challengergray.com/blog/challenger-report-71321-job-cuts-on-restructurings-closings-economy/#:~:text=NOVEMBER%20CUTS%20FALL%20FROM%20OCTOBER,companies'%20fiscal%20year%2Dends.
Challenger Report: 71,321 Job Cuts on Restructurings, Closings, Economy

Through November, employers have announced 1,170,821 job cuts, an increase of 54% from the 761,358 announced in the first eleven months of last year. Year-to-date job cuts are at the highest level since 2020 when 2,227,725 cuts were announced through November. It is the sixth time since 1993 that job cuts through November have surpassed 1.1 million.

Notice this part of the report that is NEVER reported in the media:

HIRING PLANS IN 2025
Through November, U.S. employers have announced 497,151 planned hires, down 35% from the 761,954 announced at this point in 2024. It is the lowest year-to-date total since 2010, when 392,033 new hires were planned through November.

To be clear, I am a retired government statistician who worked on the BLS jobs program and I can ssure you that the data so far has been legit. The BLS data is produced by career civil servants and would be impossible to manipulate without it being called out by whistleblowers. So I get angry when I see people say the know for sure Trump is "fudging" the data. I know for certain that is not true. However, that doesn't mean the BLS data is completely accurate. It comes from a relatively small statistical sample and is subject to all kinds of errors associated with statistical samples. But there is a big difference between sampling error (which is unintentional) and manipulation (which is intentional). Any errors in the data so far are completely unintentional.

One final thing - I am not saying that Trump would not TRY to manipulate the data. Pretty much every honest statistician and economist in the world have been concerned about that since the election. However, so far it has not happened, and if/when it does happen, it will be obvious and the statisticans and economists around the world will call it out.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

progree Sympthsical

36 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Employment Numbers Are being Fudged, So Says Jerome Powell [View all] gab13by13 Dec 10 OP

No effn doubt that ALL negative numbers are being fudged vapor2 Dec 10 #1

Didn't Krasnov just hold an economic rally in the Poconos, gab13by13 Dec 10 #2

BLS numbers have not been "fudged" and Jerome Powell did not Wiz Imp Dec 11 #15

Did you read the supplied link ? KS Toronado Dec 11 #20

Thank you. You're right, he did not. And a technical note from the BLS on the size of sampling error progree Dec 11 #22

Kick dalton99a Dec 10 #3

Read an article on Yahoo the other day... Xolodno Dec 10 #4

That is absolutely NOT what they said. Wiz Imp Dec 11 #14

Think we may have read two different articles. Xolodno Dec 11 #21

You may be right, but they both referred to the same rport from Challenger. Wiz Imp Dec 11 #25

You don't have to explain it to me. Xolodno Dec 11 #34

The article doesn't say that has anything to do with Trump EdmondDantes_ Dec 10 #5

BLS has had since April to revise its numbers down, gab13by13 Dec 10 #6

The same amount of time every other president does EdmondDantes_ Dec 11 #23

I don't remember when Biden was president that those numbers had to be lowered, gab13by13 Dec 11 #27

Because your memory isn't accurate is my guess EdmondDantes_ Dec 11 #31

Does this include the 911,000 downward revision over the period April 2024 through March 2025 progree Dec 12 #35

and does this include the 589,000 downward benchmark revision from April 2023 thru March 2024? progree Dec 12 #36

Wall St. Will listen to Powell, not Trump. Nt Fiendish Thingy Dec 10 #7

This is why Powell is lowering interest rates, gab13by13 Dec 10 #8

Every month, they re-state previous months' numbers... Mark.b2 Dec 10 #9

You obviously know nothing about how sample based estimates are derived. Wiz Imp Dec 11 #13

The only thing I know is the quality of the estimates... Mark.b2 Dec 11 #19

The estimates are based on a relatively small statistical sample Wiz Imp Dec 11 #26

Thank you! Very interesting and helpful. Nt Mark.b2 Dec 11 #32

AND popsdenver Dec 11 #10

I was in post office yesterday to mail Christmas stuff tavernier Dec 11 #24

Nope popsdenver Dec 11 #33

The Fed lowers interest rates when the economy is doing badly. It's to stimulate the economy IronLionZion Dec 11 #11

You sound exactly like Trump Wiz Imp Dec 11 #12

I simply want you to explain one fact for me, gab13by13 Dec 11 #28

I wouldn't trust any figures Figarosmom Dec 11 #16

This is why I think a lot of magas are now quitting. C Moon Dec 11 #17

why does it say the US Skittles Dec 11 #18

I am not backing down, gab13by13 Dec 11 #29

Investors rely on the accuracy of these numbers lame54 Dec 11 #30