BLS jobs report revises 2025 down to +181,000 total jobs added for the year

[Johnny2X2X]

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Whoa, we added basically no jobs in 2025. 15,000 per month. Trump's tariffs destroyed the greatest jobs creation era in American history.

+130,000 jobs in January, UE 4.3%.

Trump destroyed the job market. Joe Biden added an average of 336,000 jobs each month during his time in office. Trump just added 181,000 in his first year. An absolute disaster for working people as you're starting to see wage suppression.

[Chasstev365]

1. Yet the billionaires Trump sycophants keep artificially inflating the Stock Market.

As mother use to say sizing up a situation, "This won't end well."

[Johnny2X2X]

3. What you're seeing is a total divorce for working people and economic indicators

And it's just the beginning IMO. AI speculation, job cuts, and deregulation are fueling stock prices. American workers are struggling and taking it on the chin while investors are sitting by the pool watching it pour in. This is Trumped up Trickle Down economics, if you aren't in the investor class, you're going to have nothing.

Basically, the only working class people right now that are going to be OK are the ones within 10 years of retirement that have robust 401Ks that are growing. Because people who retire off their investors are now part of the investor class. They've rigged the system where work isn't rewarded enough for people to live, their only hope is to try to save to join the investor class.

[WSHazel]

4. It's not billionaires doing that, it is us

Well, it is technically the US government. Bessent is borrowing money and pumping it into financial markets to pump up asset prices. This will end badly.

[UpInArms]

2. If you believe this report,

I have a bridge to sell you

[leftyladyfrommo]

5. Does this count all the jobs lost? nt

[Johnny2X2X]

6. We need to add 140,000 jobs per month to keep up with population growth

Joe Biden added 16 Million jobs, 2.2 Million in 2024. To go from 2.2M to 181,000 the next year is falling off a cliff.

[WSHazel]

7. There is no statistical justification for pulling 800,000 jobs out of 2024

And when I say none, there is literally NO JUSTIFICATION for doing that. The jobs surveys are snapshots in time. Restatements occur because surveys come in late, and the surveys are usually less than the estimates. This can add up over time, but it is typically resolved within about 6 months where there are no further outstanding surveys. 2024 already had its downward revision, so making a new one of 800,000 is simply Trump shifting Biden jobs into 2025.

This means that the economy actually lost a boatload of jobs in 2025.

[Wiz Imp]

12. You have no clue what you're talking about

As someone who worked on the current Employmment statistics program for over 30 years, I can assure you that the jobs data is being produced in a statistically sound way and the methodology has not changed for over 50 years. As I said, you just have no clue. Everything you "think" is true about the jobs data is in fact false.

Benchmark revisions, which is what is being reported here, are not "restatements" and have nothingto do with surveys coming in late. Benchmark revisions have nothing to do with any survey data. They are due to complete universe data being reported to each state's unemployment insurance system as required by federal law of every employer in the country covered by unemployment insurance (accounts for about 95% or more of all jobs in the US) . This data (also known as the QCEW data) lags the monthly estimates by about 6 to 8 months. The Benchmark process replaces the monthly survey based estimates with the QCEW total universe counts. This is done only once a year due to the complex nature of the process.

[WSHazel]

15. Slow your roll

I work in capital markets and use this data, so moderate your insults.

The surest way to know someone is a blowhard is when they bombard you with jargon when attacking you. Your tirade gets to the punchline that you claim the data lags 6 to 8 months, which is basically the same thing I said. It is February 2026, six months ended in August 2025. What is the justification for restating 2024 down by 40%?

As someone who works in capital markets, I will point out that YOU have no idea what you are talking about when you minimize the impact of the government publishing data that is clearly bulls***. Trump fired the last head of the BLS and kept nominating stooges to that role until he got one that could get approved. That significantly undermined confidence in this data, and these goldilocks numbers the BLS is spitting out just makes it worse.

Our entire economy in the U.S., and all the stuff we have and access to credit and companies having so much access to capital, is a fantasy created over the last 100 years and supported by a financial system that is the destination for capital around the world. When our government posts data that looks like bulls*** and is so clearly politically skewed, it undermines our financial system, which undermines our entire economy and risks the standard of living of every single person on this board and in this country.

But don't take my word for it. Just take a look at capital flows. Investors will want to get paid extra for investing in a market where they can't trust the government's data or regulatory system. January 20, 2025 was a great day to invest in virtually any global index, and these same global indexes have crushed the U.S. since then when brought back to U.S. dollar terms. As far as I can tell, the only thing holding investors back from investing more aggressively overseas is a lack of product overseas, but the market will solve for that.

This data matters, and the stuff coming out of the BLS is obviously bulls***. The market agrees with me on this, not you.

[EdmondDantes_]

16. There was a change in how small businesses are calculated

https://epicforamerica.org/education-workforce-retirement/bls-downward-revision/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brandonkochkodin/2025/09/10/heres-what-explains-the-big-jobs-revision/

That's why there was such a massive revision to the jobs numbers.

[WSHazel]

18. I get that for the most part

But the revision already occurred. Why is there a massive new revision, 6 months later, that jumps back to 2024 rather than placing those lost jobs in 2025 where they probably belong? A year ago, the BLS revised the 2024 numbers down 911,000. Now they are revising it down again by 800,000. I get there is a bit of date disparity, but going back to the same well twice is very suspicious.

If the current estimates as of February 2026 are accurate, which is a leap of faith, how do they know that the majority of the downward revision occurred between 13 and 25 months ago rather than last year? Jobs numbers are a snapshot in time. Why are they jumping back well over a year to change those numbers other than to make the more recent changes look better?

[Wiz Imp]

21. Last time I respond to you but to repeat, you have no clue how the Benchmark revision process works.

From BLS:

BLS annual benchmark revisions, which have been part of regular BLS employment estimation processes since 1935.

BLS uses the additional data to make a more accurate estimate of employment levels by industry for the previous March. The difference between the previous estimate of employment and the new, more accurate estimate is called the "benchmark revision."

At the time of the benchmark revision, estimates of employment changes in the 11 months before and 9 months after March are adjusted proportionately to match the new, more accurate March employment levels by industry.

The benchmark process involves revising data for 11 months prior to the benchmark month (March 2025 in this case) and 9 months after. The process has not changed in 90 years.

Revised data for every month from April 2023 thru December 2024 were released at this time last year.

Revised data for every month from April 2022 thru December 2023 were released at this time in 2024.

There is nothing suspicious. It's how the process has worked for 90 years.

[WSHazel]

23. I understand what the words say

They already made a massive revision to 2024, and now they are making another massive revision. The BLS is saying that its original estimate was revised down by 60% over the next two years. Incidentally, both massive downward revisions occurred under a President that constantly attacks the prior President who was originally credited with the job growth.

Has there ever been an 800,000 job downward revision to two years earlier in the history of the BLS?

I don't know if you are a closet MAGA or why you are taking it this personally, but the numbers look like bulls***, and the market agrees with me on this.

You can keep calling me stupid and provide all the links you want, I know I am right, and I think you know I am right too.

[Wiz Imp]

19. Extremely weak & misleading explanation.

They should have just said there was a problem with the birth-death model and left it at that. When to explain the issue with the birth-death model, it makes no sense.

The reason is a surge in new business formation.

Census Bureau data show that before 2020, Americans were filing about 300,000 new business applications a month. The number was steady for years. Then the pandemic hit. Since then filings have averaged more than 400,000 a month. Some months have been higher. People want to work from home. More are willing to try entrepreneurship. New tools, including AI, make it easier to start.

If they're significantly underestimating new business formation wouldn't that likely mean underestimating job creation?? Yet jobs were overestimated.

They should have just stuck with their last sentence.

What’s for sure is the past two years of record revisions show the birth-death model isn’t capturing the jobs picture as well as it once did.

And blaming job revisions entirely on the birth/death model is ridiculous. A significant factor in the revision is an inaccuracy in the estimates due to extremely poor response rates to the survey.

[EdmondDantes_]

28. Not necessarily.

A new business is estimated to have x employees on average. Today maybe businesses have fewer employees because of productivity gains, perhaps they fail faster. Regardless there was a change in that calculation that resulted from consistent larger than historical errors.

"Since the 2020 benchmark, CES estimates have been subject to persistent and relatively large birth-death forecast errors. To help address these forecasting issues, BLS modified the model-based component of birth-death by incorporating current sample information to inform the forecasts starting with the 2024 benchmark released with the January 2025 Employment Situation. This modification was initially only applied from April to October 2024, known as the post-benchmark period. November 2024, December 2024, and January 2025, as well as monthly estimates, did not at the time use birth-death components calculated with this modification."

https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesbdqa.htm

[Wiz Imp]

17. Wow! Dunning Kruger in action!

It takes a lot of chutzpah to believe you know more about BLS data than someone who worked on the program for 30+ years. You've made it clear you have no clue and you're so full of yourself you don't care about facts so it will be pointless to try to engage in a debate with you. But for those who may read this post who are actually interested in the truth, I'll share some of the basic explanations of the process directly from BLS.
https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/HTML/IF12827.html

This In Focus provides an overview of BLS annual benchmark revisions, which have been part of regular BLS employment estimation processes since 1935. Benchmark revisions incorporate less timely but more comprehensive data into employment estimates.

Survey

The CES survey, also known as the payroll survey or the establishment survey, is a monthly survey of approximately 119,000 businesses and government agencies. The employers surveyed are randomly selected to represent all nonfarm employers by state, industry, and employer size categories. After selection, employers are surveyed for at least two years. Each month, BLS asks these employers how many civilians were on their payroll during the pay period that included the 12th day of the month.

Employment reports received by the last Friday of the month are incorporated into "first preliminary estimates," which BLS releases on the first Friday of the next month. Additional employment reports received in time for the following month's estimates are incorporated into revised, "second preliminary estimates." Employment reports received from more employers responding to the survey in time for a third month of estimation are incorporated into "third and final sample-based estimates" for each month.

Business Birth and Death Modeling

Some businesses cannot be chosen for the CES survey because they are too new to be included. Other businesses do not answer the survey because they are no longer operating. Patterns of business openings and closings over the year vary by industry in predictable ways. BLS uses historical data to model employment changes due to business "births" and "deaths" and updates this model with new data every year. This modeled component is part of all national-level CES employment estimates (except during the COVID-19 pandemic, when use of the model was modified because business births and deaths were not following usual patterns).

Seasonal Adjustment

Some month-to-month changes in employment are part of seasonal patterns, such as the opening and closing of ski resorts as the seasons change. Seasonal employment patterns differ by industry. BLS uses historical data to model these patterns and produces both seasonally adjusted and unadjusted estimates of month-to-month changes.

Benchmarking

The CES program produces estimates of month-to-month changes in the number of jobs soon after the end of each month. However, BLS revises these estimates of monthly employment changes based on additional data on overall civilian employment levels.

Additional Data

BLS receives additional data on employment levels after publishing the survey-based CES estimates. Employers are required to report the number of workers in jobs covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) on their payrolls to states every quarter. UI covers about 97% of nonfarm payroll employment in the United States. These payroll reports are then forwarded to BLS, which receives them several months after CES survey responses. BLS also receives periodic employment data for employers not covered by UI, such as railroads.

These additional data sources provide information on the actual employment of all covered employers. They are not affected by which businesses respond to a survey or by the accuracy of models. BLS uses these additional data to further revise, or benchmark, estimates of employment. The same data are also used to produce the model of employment changes due to business births and deaths.

Benchmark Process

BLS uses the additional data to make a more accurate estimate of employment levels by industry for the previous March. The difference between the previous estimate of employment and the new, more accurate estimate is called the "benchmark revision."

At the time of the benchmark revision, estimates of employment changes in the 11 months before and 9 months after March are adjusted proportionately to match the new, more accurate March employment levels by industry.

Benchmark Timing

Benchmark employment estimates for the previous March are released in early February. However, in August BLS releases a "preliminary estimate" of the overall size of the upcoming benchmark revision.

Although BLS benchmarks employment levels only once per year, it publishes quarterly employment totals from the UI data by industry and geography about six months after the quarter ends. Federal Reserve district banks in Dallas, Philadelphia, and New York use these employment totals to estimate and publish their own estimates of benchmarked employment more frequently than BLS.

BLS continues to benchmark national level employment estimates annually because quarterly revisions can be larger than annual revisions and because the seasonal pattern of employment changes in the CES is different than the seasonal pattern of employment changes in UI data.

https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesbmart.htm

Establishment survey benchmarking is done each year to align employment estimates from the survey with employment counts derived primarily from the administrative file of employees covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI). All employers covered by UI laws are required to report employment and wage information to the appropriate state UI agency four times per year. The UI data are obtained and edited by each state's Labor Market Information agency. They are tabulated and published through the BLS Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) program. Both the QCEW and CES categorize their data using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). About 97 percent of total nonfarm employment within the scope of the establishment survey is covered by UI and is available to the CES program via QCEW records.

To create a continuous time series between the new March benchmark level and historical sample-based data from the prior March benchmark level, employment estimates for the months between the most recent March benchmark and the previous year's benchmark are adjusted using a linear "wedge-back" procedure. This procedure assumes that the total estimation error accumulated at a steady rate since the last benchmark. For the 9 months following the March benchmark (also called the post-benchmark period), BLS applies previously derived over-the-month sample changes to the revised March level to get the revised estimates. New net birth-death model forecasts are also calculated and applied during post-benchmark estimation. More information on benchmarks in the CES program is available in Benchmark in the Calculation section of the CES Handbook of Methods.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/ces/calculation.htm#benchmark

For the CES-N program, annual benchmarks are constructed to realign the sample-based employment estimates for March of each year with the universe employment counts for that month. Population counts are much less timely than sample-based estimates, and they are used to provide an annual point-in-time census of employment. Only the not seasonally adjusted March estimates are replaced with population counts.

Population counts are derived primarily from administrative files of employees covered by unemployment insurance (UI). All employers covered by UI laws are required to report employment and wage information to their state’s labor market information agency (LMI) four times a year. Approximately 97 percent of employment falling within the scope of the establishment survey is covered by UI. A benchmark for the remaining 3 percent is constructed from alternate sources, primarily records from the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) and County Business Patterns (CBP). This 3 percent is collectively referred to as noncovered employment. The full benchmark employment level developed for March of a given year replaces that March’s sample-based estimate for each basic cell. Each annual benchmark revision affects 21 months of not seasonally adjusted data from April of the prior year through the following year’s December. The CES-N program also updates seasonal adjustment models with each year’s benchmark revision, and 5 years of seasonally adjusted data are revised with the benchmark release.

Monthly estimates for the year preceding the March benchmark are readjusted using a "wedge-back" procedure. The difference between the final benchmark level and the previously published March sample-based estimate is calculated and spread back across the previous 11 months. The wedge is linear; eleven-twelfths of the March difference is added to the February estimate, ten-twelfths to the January estimate, and so on, back to the previous April estimate, which receives one-twelfth of the March difference. This procedure assumes that the total estimation error since the prior benchmark accumulated at a steady rate.

Estimates for the 7 months following the March benchmark (April through October) are also recalculated. Beginning with the March benchmark as base employment, the post-benchmark estimates are calculated by multiplying the sample-based link, or relative over the month change, for each month to the prior month’s employment estimate and then adding an updated net birth–death forecast.

All data revised as a result of benchmarking are published in February of each year with the first release of January estimates. Additional history may be revised if corrections or series reconstructions are necessary.

[WSHazel]

20. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Where in that does it say the BLS goes 2 YEARS back in time to downwardly revise very old jobs numbers by 800,000? Because that is what happened this morning. Coincidentally, this has the effect of moving those 800,000 jobs out of Biden's tally and onto Trump's, over a year after any downward revision should have been made.

I started my career as an auditor, so I have experience in catching the numbers shell game. The first hour of the first day of training when I was 22, the instructor told me something that has always stuck with me. "There is no materiality for fraud". When you catch someone lying about numbers once, it is a certainty that they have lied before and will lie again.

Double revising very old numbers to make the new numbers look better is a sign that the BLS is not even trying that hard to hide what it is doing. The numbers look like bulls*** and the guy producing them is a known liar. What else do we need to know? No amount of jargon you throw at me or links about what is supposed to be happening with the numbers are going to make Trump's jobs numbers look more accurate.

[Wiz Imp]

22. Right here:

https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/HTML/IF12827.html

At the time of the benchmark revision, estimates of employment changes in the 11 months before and 9 months after March are adjusted proportionately to match the new, more accurate March employment levels by industry.

That means data are revised back 21 months from the present. (April 2024 thru December 2025).

BLS annual benchmark revisions, which have been part of regular BLS employment estimation processes since 1935.

The process has not changed in 90 years.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

[WSHazel]

25. Just so we are aware of your position

Wiz Imp: The BLS numbers are absolutely accurate and produced with the highest integrity.

Also Wiz Imp: It is perfectly reasonable for the BLS to massively restate the jobs numbers from 2 years ago twice, moving them out of Biden's column and into Trump's, with the second restatement appearing to be a round number of 800,000 jobs, which makes it look even more ridiculous.

Either the BLS numbers are absolutely accurate or they are subject to massive revisions two years later if the new President wants more jobs on his track record. Which is it?

[Wiz Imp]

26. 🙄

You have completely ignored everything from BLS that completely explains why the data you think is manipulated is no different than benchmark data that has been released for 90 years using the exact same process.

You clearly do not understand the difference between a total universe count and a sample based estimate.

The exact same thing happened last year. From the release on February 2025.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02072025.pdf

The over-the-year change in total nonfarm employment for March 2024 was revised from +2,900,000 to +2,346,000 (seasonally adjusted).

which means that 2023 data was revised downward by 554,000 jobs "2 years later". I'm not sure what your explanation is for Biden blatantly manipulating that data according to your logic.

I''m done.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see"

[Wiz Imp]

27. One final thing.

Because I need a good laugh. How do any of these revisions move jobs out of Biden's column and into Trump's? Such a statement proves you don't understand how statistics work.

[OrlandoDem2]

8. I do not believe we added 130,000 jobs in January 2026

Not for one second!

[Johnny2X2X]

9. That's not a good number

130,000 is a bad number. They just thought it would be worse, that's why 130,000 is seen as a surpise.

If they wanted to cook the books, they'd cook them and report at least decent numbers.

If Biden would have had numbers like these, the media would be demanding his resignation.

[Johonny]

10. How has unemployment not gone higher?

Because these job number are awful.

[Johnny2X2X]

11. It's risen some, like a half point

It's going to rise, the economy is simply not creating jobs right now.

[Johonny]

13. Media making it sound like these job numbers

Are good. But they aren't and likely to be revised down. Nowhere around me is hiring. My company took the opportunity to give a lot of no raises this year because the job market is so soft they don't worry about people leaving.

[Johnny2X2X]

14. These numbers are a total disaster

The corporate media is awful now. If Biden had a year like 2025 was for job creation, the media would be demanding he quit.

[TexasBushwhacker]

24. Because many people, myself included, just stop looking

I just turned 69. I had intended to work until age 70, but was let go from my last full time permanent job in May '23. After 4 false starts, I decided I'm done. I found an apartment could afford on just my Social Security. I'm filing for bankruptcy to discharge my $60K of credit card debt. I'm selling my car, which is worth $15K and putting the money into savings until I can find a reliable beater.

Baby Boomers are still reaching retirement age at a rate of 10K PER DAY, and will continue to for a few more years. Of course, some continue to work, but many, like myself, are retiring earlier than we wanted.

At the same time, the brilliant Dr. Oz says we need people to get into the workforce earlier (How dare you want to continue your education!) and stay later, as if employers are fighting to hire people like me who have gray hair, are fat and walk with a limp because of arthritis. FUCK THAT!