[littlexsparkee]

ADP crunches the numbers too and they were more in line with the revised estimates - there was nothing preventing companies from acting on that. How can you claim this is fireable without context about how the calculations/revisions occur and their side of the story? These trade policies are engendering so much uncertainty, combined with the shakeup in the federal workforce - honestly something like this was pretty foreseeable...

[rhelz]

// how can you claim this is fixable w/o ... //

Recall, her job wasn't to predict how many jobs would be created. Her job was to measure how many jobs were created.

Yeah, I'm sorry, but a plus-or-minus 250,000 margin of error is just too high. We have every right to expect more accurate measurements than that.

[watwut]

Nah, you are just reaching to excuse purely political firing.

[rhelz]

Trump has certainly politicized this firing, but it is not a firing without cause. If Trump knew a quarter ago that his tariffs were taking employment, he could have done something about it.

Instead, the read he got seemed to indicate that he wasn't hurting employment at all.

We have to be careful not to overstate our case. If we just complain indiscriminately about everything Trump does, nobody will or should take us seriously.

[exceptione]

> If Trump knew a quarter ago that his tariffs were taking employment, he could have done something about it.

The understandable mistake is wanting to interpret the regime like it is something like a natural, healthy part of society, a rule-abiding, constructive force seeking win-wins, seeking broader support, seeking consensus. It isn't, and the failing to highlight that it is the failing of the 4th estate.

There is electorate and there is selectorate. The people in power all knew what was coming; the outrage is just circus. The people that decide over Trump do not have such things as "jobs", it is not a concern at all. Even an economic crash won't affect them.

[blackbear_]

> If Trump knew a quarter ago that his tariffs were taking employment, he could have done something about it.

Absolute bullshit, because everybody was saying this all along.

"More than 5.6 million jobs could be at risk due to Trump’s latest economic policies" April 9th, https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelwells/2025/04/09/what-job...

"A new report by Goldman Sachs examining how President Donald Trump's tariffs will impact the labor market [...] found that would lead to a net negative impact on employment across the economy" April 15th, https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/how-trumps-tariffs-could...

"How Trump's Metal Tariffs Could Eliminate 75x More US Jobs Than They Save" February 11th, https://www.investopedia.com/metal-tariffs-cost-at-least-75-...

"In recent days, some trade associations and labor unions voiced warnings about tariff-related job losses." February 4th, https://abcnews.go.com/Business/trump-tariffs-canada-mexico-...

"President Donald Trump’s plan to impose a 25% tariff on all imported aluminum could cost 100,000 American jobs" February 25th, https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/25/economy/trump-aluminum-ta...

[Detrytus]

Well, there's a difference between an opinion/forecast about future (which Trump could dismiss as just a routine criticism of everything he does) and the actual, hard data.

[blackbear_]

That is true, but he still had the final call. Whether he ignored those concerns, or seriously engaged with them and decided to take the risk nonetheless, it's really unfair to make excuses and shift the blame now.