I am a fan of Dr. Antoni.
I follow him on Twitter and have mentioned his stuff here a dozen times or so.
These five mentions come up using Hannity search tool.
(more)
https://community.hannity.com/search?q=Antoni%20%40Gaius%20order%3Alatest
1 Like
He is kind of an odd choice for a boring statistician job.
On twitter he is brainy, and level-headed but very outspoken.
In a calm, thoughtful manner he will post stuff like this, and then update it and repost it monthly.
This post, also by him, is a little bit gaspy and exclamatory, (like a tabloid trying to get atention by making things sound exciting) which is unlike him, but he is quoting someone else.
1 Like
From the heritage foundation? Contributed to project 2025? Makes sense.
2 Likes
so when he brings more accurate numbers early via some change in weighting Trump wonât like it. If he continues to bring in adjusted numbers due to low participation Trump wonât like it. Looks like a dead-end job to me.
The BLS has been doing that survye since 1947 (or 1948) and has changed its methods (mulitplies) several times. Sooner or later it was goign to change them no matter what.
ADP used to use that same method and abandoned it a few years ago.
(ADP changes its mulitpliers too) in favor a a model developed by Stanford U. â> Since doing so ADP numbers
â> Point being BLS methods are so out-dated ADP abandoned them. Changing them is the right thing to do. (Firing the chick in charge is not.)
but it wasnât about the Stanford model else he would have brought her in and asked why she isnât using it and then decide on a change. Point is this wonât change anything on his dissatifaction with BLS unless the esteemed professor is willing to be The Great Massager.
You guys and your conspiracy theories.
2 Likes
To my knowledge no one is chalenging the BLSâs final number.
The problem is that they reort one se tof numbers and then wen the reviosions come in they have been HUGE compared to where they were in the past.
For a VERY long time (I have the data on another thread) half the revisions came in on one side and half on the other and the average revsion was 9,000 jobs.
Now all the changes are on the same side,
revision are routinely in the 60,000-120,000 range and
in the past three months BLS revisions have erased almost 400,000 jobs.
They are using a bad multiplier. And Dr. Entendorfer should have blown her own whistle and said âThese reveions are too big. Weâre gonna fix this.â
Thatâs not a conspiracy. He works for the Heritage Foundation and contributed to Project 2025.
Oooooooo
Sinister.
1 Like
FYI, I canât see your avi
Just reference his TS post, he believes the final numbers are wrong because the âeconomy is boomingâ and by inference he expects them to be fixed by the new hire.
In your estimation, is he gonna play it straight, or is he going to tell the emperor his clothes look great?
Of course he is gonna play it straight.
So did the last chick.
Problem with the alst chick was she kept saying "wel we know these preliminary numbers are crap so, weâ;; just put a little âpâ in parenthesis next to them. All the real numbers will come out in a few months anyway. No need to correct out method.
That is literaly what they do month after month.
â> The monthly revisions she was coming up with had gotten almost as big as the entire monthly change itself. (When the prelim numbers are that far off, what;s the point in even publishing them?)
Picgure this conversaton:
"So how many jobs were created this month?
âWell about 100,000, but we are usually off by about 90,000 or so.â
Wouldnât say âsinisterâ. Just predictable.
Somebody needs to tell these guys they lost the election.
Their Biden style opinions arenât wanted and sure as heck not needed!
Okay, but that wasnât Trumpâs beef. He said the members were âphonyâ and âriggedâ. That doesnât suggest a problem with methodology.
the best way to avoid terrible job numbers is to not report them.
itâs a page from his brilliant covid plan, âIf we stop testing right now, weâd have very few cases, if anyâ
1 Like
Well I donât want to be backed i to defending Trumpâs decision to fire.(I discussed that at length in another thread,)
But hypothetically:
If your method is flawed, and you know your method is flawed you could, for political reasons, drag your feet on fixing it.
