I wonder if it’s because increasing the cost of doing business with massive tariffs nobody asked for or needs is causing businesses to get nervous and stop hiring.
Not to pile on, but there is a huge public misunderstanding when it comes to economic data.
The data is lagging, usually by a full year. The policies that lead to that data are from the year before data collection, at a minimum, more likely two+ years.
Economic policies generally take time to ripple through the economy. Generally. There are exceptions. Interest rates tend to affect things pretty quickly relative to other changes.
I will point out that our labor data can no longer be trusted as the organization is no longer politically neutral. Pushing the jobs record down means more blame for Biden and a much lower bar for Trump to meet in order to "improve" future jobs numbers.
> Trump ordered McEntarfer's removal on August 1 after data showed a surprise weakening in the U.S. labor market last month. The BLS employment report revealed meaningful revisions to job figures for the prior two months that raised investor worries that the Federal Reserve may need to play catch-up with interest rate cuts.
Agreed, the Trump administration is _heavily_ leaning on this as evidence to support their argument that "Biden's economy" was a "disaster":
> Today, the BLS released the largest downward revision on record proving that President Trump was right: Biden’s economy was a disaster and the BLS is broken.
> The benchmark revisions make clear the economy President Trump inherited was even weaker than we thought.
The economy is not great and has not been great for years. That has been the reality for almost all Americans.
It’s very odd to make this about Trump vs Biden. This has been brewing for nearly two decades. Forever-QE made us forget about the real health of the economy.
I don't think this is about the past two admins inasmuch as the current admin transparently and in the open cooking the books to shift blame and accountability off of themselves. There's nothing wrong with reevaluating how we look at the economy to be more realistic but this "adjustment" isn't that. I think every side of the political spectrum has said something to to the effect of needing to capture the disconnect between the usual signals and the face that everyone on the ground feels like they're doing worse.
Trusting a government to both decide on how best to determine a metric that also happens to be a measure of their success, collect the data themselves, and report on it always been a conflict of interest at best. And, well, we're now seeing that conflict play out. That's the sad part about this whole thing, the data could be correct but now everyone has good reason to distrust it.
Please remember that the 'Third World' doesn't refer to countries in squalor. It referred to the bloc of nations that were not aligned with either the Western bloc (First World) led by the US or the Eastern/Communist bloc (Second World) led by the USSR. Quoting directly from Wikipedia:
> Strictly speaking, "Third World" was a political, rather than economic, grouping.
> Since most Third World countries were economically poor and non-industrialized, it became a stereotype to refer to developing countries as "third-world countries".
> Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the term Third World has decreased in use. It is being replaced with terms such as developing countries, least developed countries or the Global South.
A 'modern colloquial usage' that's mildly described as a 'stereotype' on Wikipedia. A more precise description is that it's a revisionist redefinition that represents the disdain towards countries that refused to sacrifice their sovereignty for money, after suffering extended periods of exploitation. And it predictably undermines the historical picture of the socioeconomic realities that existed during the cold war - a picture that doesn't resemble in any way what the US is inflicting upon itself now.
how about drumming up some public support for an open access post-scarcity economy where we shift focus to quality instead of profit and use our resources for building resilient planetary infrastructure...
>how about drumming up some public support for an open access post-scarcity economy where [...]
Right... as if scarcity is some sort of social construct that can be abolished by "drumming up some public support"? Maybe we should start small and start with energy scarcity, by "drumming up" some support for cold fusion?
Trump took office in January, so I'm guessing this has nothing to do with tariffs like people are implying? I didn't read the article (paywall), but if that is the case why was this misreported? couldn't he have just blamed biden or something? Either way, that sounds like a big number, is it interest rates that are causing this?
People often get hyper-focused on a single cause, but there is a whole range of forces driving a sharp decline in jobs. All of this is visible, yet we are marching toward an economic crisis of our own making. I believe the best term for this is "gray rhino".
* Tariffs and Trade Uncertainty – Elevated tariffs and rapidly shifting trade policies are raising costs for manufacturers and discouraging hiring and investment (Investopedia; Atlanta Fed survey; CBO analyses).
* Automation and AI Displacement – Automation and AI, especially in low-skill occupations, are reducing new job creation and wages for some workers (academic studies in arXiv and PMC).
* Restrictive Immigration Policies – Tightened immigration and visa processes are straining labor supply, particularly in sectors that rely on immigrant workers (Axios, 2025 labor coverage).
* Small Business Strain from Economic Pressure – Tariff-related uncertainty is leading small businesses to slow hiring or lay off employees (Joint Economic Committee report, 2025).
* Offshoring and Outsourcing Trends – Technological advances are enabling offshoring and automation, substituting domestic labor with remote or machine-based alternatives (academic research in World Development, 2024).
Is this AI generated? Besides the em-dashes, I don't think anyone cites "Investopedia" as a source (not the specific entity, but in that format), or makes citations in (source, year) format.
Because I don’t have to waste my valuable time and mental energy to check the knitting before I wear them.
Hey I review and use LLM code slop as much as the next programmer, and I use it for lots of topics too, but I am not spending a second on reviewing LLM slop output on HN comments. Honestly it’s somewhat insulting that you expect me to.
> but there is a whole range of forces driving a sharp decline in jobs
Technically, there is no decline in jobs. There were more jobs as of March 2025 than a year before. Less than reported earlier, but the overall number of jobs is still growing.
> there is no decline in jobs. There were more jobs as of March 2025 than a year before. Less than reported earlier, but the overall number of jobs is still growing
I don't think tariffs affected the numbers for the entire year that drastically since Trump had only been in office for 2 months out of the entire years period that this was looking at.
> I don't think tariffs affected the numbers for the entire year
Major policy or hiring gets slowed down during the election year, especially surrounding the voting month. Maybe that pace never picked up due to tariffs and other policy uncertainty?
> * Restrictive Immigration Policies – Tightened immigration and visa processes are straining labor supply, particularly in sectors that rely on immigrant workers (Axios, 2025 labor coverage).
I like how this is always framed as strained supply instead of upward pressure on wages, as if increasing wages is simply impossible and only supply matters. Then people look at graphs like this[1] and wonder: "What the heck is going on?"
Ongoing discussion (177 points, 152 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45182111
I wonder if it’s because increasing the cost of doing business with massive tariffs nobody asked for or needs is causing businesses to get nervous and stop hiring.
Naww, must be someone else’s fault.
Not to pile on, but there is a huge public misunderstanding when it comes to economic data.
The data is lagging, usually by a full year. The policies that lead to that data are from the year before data collection, at a minimum, more likely two+ years.
Economic policies generally take time to ripple through the economy. Generally. There are exceptions. Interest rates tend to affect things pretty quickly relative to other changes.
Well, seeing as this is a record of jobs created last year ... yeah.
This data is from the Biden administration, predating the current Trump policies.
I will point out that our labor data can no longer be trusted as the organization is no longer politically neutral. Pushing the jobs record down means more blame for Biden and a much lower bar for Trump to meet in order to "improve" future jobs numbers.
> Trump ordered McEntarfer's removal on August 1 after data showed a surprise weakening in the U.S. labor market last month. The BLS employment report revealed meaningful revisions to job figures for the prior two months that raised investor worries that the Federal Reserve may need to play catch-up with interest rate cuts.
https://www.reuters.com/business/inflation-data-draw-scrutin...
Agreed, the Trump administration is _heavily_ leaning on this as evidence to support their argument that "Biden's economy" was a "disaster":
> Today, the BLS released the largest downward revision on record proving that President Trump was right: Biden’s economy was a disaster and the BLS is broken.
> The benchmark revisions make clear the economy President Trump inherited was even weaker than we thought.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/09/bls-revisions-sh...
The economy is not great and has not been great for years. That has been the reality for almost all Americans.
It’s very odd to make this about Trump vs Biden. This has been brewing for nearly two decades. Forever-QE made us forget about the real health of the economy.
It would be very odd if it didn't follow on the heels of this:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/sep/04/trump-burea...
I don't think this is about the past two admins inasmuch as the current admin transparently and in the open cooking the books to shift blame and accountability off of themselves. There's nothing wrong with reevaluating how we look at the economy to be more realistic but this "adjustment" isn't that. I think every side of the political spectrum has said something to to the effect of needing to capture the disconnect between the usual signals and the face that everyone on the ground feels like they're doing worse.
Trusting a government to both decide on how best to determine a metric that also happens to be a measure of their success, collect the data themselves, and report on it always been a conflict of interest at best. And, well, we're now seeing that conflict play out. That's the sad part about this whole thing, the data could be correct but now everyone has good reason to distrust it.
Third worldification of the United States.
Please remember that the 'Third World' doesn't refer to countries in squalor. It referred to the bloc of nations that were not aligned with either the Western bloc (First World) led by the US or the Eastern/Communist bloc (Second World) led by the USSR. Quoting directly from Wikipedia:
> Strictly speaking, "Third World" was a political, rather than economic, grouping.
> Since most Third World countries were economically poor and non-industrialized, it became a stereotype to refer to developing countries as "third-world countries".
> Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the term Third World has decreased in use. It is being replaced with terms such as developing countries, least developed countries or the Global South.
That’s a cool historical fact but the modern colloquial usage is synonymous with poor (financially) countries.
A 'modern colloquial usage' that's mildly described as a 'stereotype' on Wikipedia. A more precise description is that it's a revisionist redefinition that represents the disdain towards countries that refused to sacrifice their sovereignty for money, after suffering extended periods of exploitation. And it predictably undermines the historical picture of the socioeconomic realities that existed during the cold war - a picture that doesn't resemble in any way what the US is inflicting upon itself now.
With all the innovation in AI, you'd think there's more accurate way to track jobs data.
it's almost like there actually isn't any innovation
it's almost like the administration doesn't care for accurate data
Recession!
Ghost jobs, time wasters, unemployment, etc.
There must be a way to opt-out by constructing a sane, parallel world where things just work.
how about drumming up some public support for an open access post-scarcity economy where we shift focus to quality instead of profit and use our resources for building resilient planetary infrastructure...
>how about drumming up some public support for an open access post-scarcity economy where [...]
Right... as if scarcity is some sort of social construct that can be abolished by "drumming up some public support"? Maybe we should start small and start with energy scarcity, by "drumming up" some support for cold fusion?
Its not abolishing it its about adapting to it
How should we "adapt" to the non-existence of fusion power?
My mistake I interpreted post scarcity as post consumerist abundance
Just like the global south "just" needs better governance to boost economic growth?
I guess the whole labor department is gonna get fired by Trump.
Trump took office in January, so I'm guessing this has nothing to do with tariffs like people are implying? I didn't read the article (paywall), but if that is the case why was this misreported? couldn't he have just blamed biden or something? Either way, that sounds like a big number, is it interest rates that are causing this?
“It’s like 911, times a thousand.”
People often get hyper-focused on a single cause, but there is a whole range of forces driving a sharp decline in jobs. All of this is visible, yet we are marching toward an economic crisis of our own making. I believe the best term for this is "gray rhino".
* Tariffs and Trade Uncertainty – Elevated tariffs and rapidly shifting trade policies are raising costs for manufacturers and discouraging hiring and investment (Investopedia; Atlanta Fed survey; CBO analyses).
* Automation and AI Displacement – Automation and AI, especially in low-skill occupations, are reducing new job creation and wages for some workers (academic studies in arXiv and PMC).
* Restrictive Immigration Policies – Tightened immigration and visa processes are straining labor supply, particularly in sectors that rely on immigrant workers (Axios, 2025 labor coverage).
* Small Business Strain from Economic Pressure – Tariff-related uncertainty is leading small businesses to slow hiring or lay off employees (Joint Economic Committee report, 2025).
* Offshoring and Outsourcing Trends – Technological advances are enabling offshoring and automation, substituting domestic labor with remote or machine-based alternatives (academic research in World Development, 2024).
Is this AI generated? Besides the em-dashes, I don't think anyone cites "Investopedia" as a source (not the specific entity, but in that format), or makes citations in (source, year) format.
I created the list and had an LLM review it to ensure I wasn't just pulling stuff out of thin air. Looks like it switched my hyphens for em-dashes.
Isn’t it usually the opposite you are supposed to do? LLM output and make sure it is factual because LLMs cannot tell what is factual or not?
I can’t even get myself to read what you “wrote” because of the LLM tinge though lol.
It seems odd that you're fixated on the tool used rather than the content itself. Do you refuse to wear clothes because a machine made them?
Machines don’t typically make clothes that are not wearable. An LLM will produce content that is incorrect.
Because I don’t have to waste my valuable time and mental energy to check the knitting before I wear them.
Hey I review and use LLM code slop as much as the next programmer, and I use it for lots of topics too, but I am not spending a second on reviewing LLM slop output on HN comments. Honestly it’s somewhat insulting that you expect me to.
No, I refuse to read arrogant slop that someone had to shove through a machine because they can’t think or write for themselves anymore.
> but there is a whole range of forces driving a sharp decline in jobs
Technically, there is no decline in jobs. There were more jobs as of March 2025 than a year before. Less than reported earlier, but the overall number of jobs is still growing.
> there is no decline in jobs. There were more jobs as of March 2025 than a year before. Less than reported earlier, but the overall number of jobs is still growing
Correct [1].
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS
I don't think tariffs affected the numbers for the entire year that drastically since Trump had only been in office for 2 months out of the entire years period that this was looking at.
> I don't think tariffs affected the numbers for the entire year
Major policy or hiring gets slowed down during the election year, especially surrounding the voting month. Maybe that pace never picked up due to tariffs and other policy uncertainty?
> * Restrictive Immigration Policies – Tightened immigration and visa processes are straining labor supply, particularly in sectors that rely on immigrant workers (Axios, 2025 labor coverage).
I like how this is always framed as strained supply instead of upward pressure on wages, as if increasing wages is simply impossible and only supply matters. Then people look at graphs like this[1] and wonder: "What the heck is going on?"
[1] https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/