Does that mean that there are 400k ‘jobs’ yet filled. Or were they phantom jobs that never existed?? The answer to THAT question holds much more meaning than the click-bait post.
Nobody asks REAL questions any more, they just consume a headline and move on. Folks need to start using the 6” between their ears.
My interpretation is that job reports are likely to look horrible for a while. But the reason isn't necessarily bad for Americans. In fact, when you see these numbers they look very good for Americans. More Americans getting jobs and higher wages.
When hundreds of thousands of foreign-born people lose their jobs, maybe they will self-deport to find work in their home countries.
Either way, foreign-born people losing jobs and American-born citizens getting jobs, sure sounds like America First to me.
And, if we can get the non-English speaking/NON-ROAD SIGN READING foreigners out of the cabs of semi-trucks, our roads will be a heck of a lot safer to travel. I can't believe how many erratic lane swerving, left-lane parking semis are on the roads right now. Makes me sick!
Also sounds like Americans were so disheartened they pulled themselves out of the job market. Or some of our youth thinks they can live off their parents dime forever.
The article from ZeroHedge, titled "It Was All A Mirage: 2.5 Million Native-Born US Workers Were Just Revised Away," is partially accurate in describing a specific data revision but misleading and exaggerated overall in its interpretation and framing.
The core claim revolves around revisions to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Current Population Survey (CPS, or household survey) data, specifically tied to annual population control adjustments. These adjustments align the survey's weighting with updated U.S. Census Bureau population estimates.
Key facts from BLS and related analyses:
In early 2026 (with the March 6, 2026 release of February data), BLS implemented the 2026 population control adjustments, which revised January 2026 estimates.
When applied retroactively to December 2025 data for comparison, the adjustment decreased the estimated civilian noninstitutional population (age 16+) by about 231,000.
It reduced the labor force by ~1.417 million and employment by ~1.432 million overall.
This led to notable effects on breakdowns, including a significant downward revision to native-born employment levels in recent months (e.g., the article cites a ~2.5 million wipeout in one month like January, with native-born employment dropping back toward 131 million, near 2019 levels after previously hitting ~133 million highs in 2025).
The article correctly notes that prior reported surges in native-born employment (e.g., +2 million or more under the early Trump term in 2025) were inflated by earlier population controls (from the January 2025 adjustment, which added population/employment due to higher immigration estimates under Vintage 2024 Census data). Those earlier controls caused implausibly large reported increases in native-born population and employment (millions added without real demographic explanation), while foreign-born numbers appeared to drop sharply.
However, the article is inaccurate or misleading in several ways:
It frames this as "2.5 million native-born workers revised away" as a sudden, singular event exposing "fake news" or a "mirage" unique to Trump's policies succeeding. In reality, these are standard annual technical adjustments to population benchmarks, not evidence of fabricated job gains. Similar adjustments occur every year (e.g., 2024 and 2025 adjustments also shifted numbers, sometimes upward for native-born due to revised immigration estimates).
The "mirage" narrative ignores that the earlier 2025 surge (the one being "revised away" now) was itself a statistical artifact from population controls overestimating native-born growth (or misallocating weights), often linked to undercounted immigration in prior estimates. Multiple economists and analyses (from sources like Jed Kolko, Bloomberg Opinion, FactCheck.org, CEPR, St. Louis Fed) described the 2025 native-born "boom" (e.g., +2-2.5 million) as implausible or illusory for similar reasons—no massive unexplained native population influx occurred.
The article sensationalizes with terms like "statistical fake news" and ties it directly to undermining Trump's accomplishments (e.g., rotation from foreign- to native-born workers), while downplaying that foreign-born numbers were also affected and that real labor market dynamics (e.g., enforcement, deportation effects) may have contributed to some foreign-born declines, though the big swings were benchmark artifacts.
No evidence supports a literal "2.5 million workers" disappearing; it's level adjustments from reweighting the survey sample to better match Census benchmarks, not revisions to actual job counts from prior months (historical data pre-adjustment aren't retroactively changed for comparability).
In short: The revision happened broadly as described, and it did reduce reported native-born employment levels significantly from their 2025 peaks. But the article overstates the drama and causality, presenting routine (if large) statistical methodology as proof of deception or policy failure, when it's more accurately a correction to earlier overestimations in the same survey system. For reliable context, refer directly to BLS notices on population controls or neutral analyses rather than sensationalized summaries.
Does that mean that there are 400k ‘jobs’ yet filled. Or were they phantom jobs that never existed?? The answer to THAT question holds much more meaning than the click-bait post.
Nobody asks REAL questions any more, they just consume a headline and move on. Folks need to start using the 6” between their ears.
My interpretation is that job reports are likely to look horrible for a while. But the reason isn't necessarily bad for Americans. In fact, when you see these numbers they look very good for Americans. More Americans getting jobs and higher wages.
When hundreds of thousands of foreign-born people lose their jobs, maybe they will self-deport to find work in their home countries.
Either way, foreign-born people losing jobs and American-born citizens getting jobs, sure sounds like America First to me.
And, if we can get the non-English speaking/NON-ROAD SIGN READING foreigners out of the cabs of semi-trucks, our roads will be a heck of a lot safer to travel. I can't believe how many erratic lane swerving, left-lane parking semis are on the roads right now. Makes me sick!
Actually you are probably more right than you think!
Also sounds like Americans were so disheartened they pulled themselves out of the job market. Or some of our youth thinks they can live off their parents dime forever.
Well do they need to work with all the welfare benefits, and their theft by fraud?
Kick 'em out! Get 'em off the dole!
u/#byebye
Exactly!
Going by those numbers, American workers appear to be 4 times as productive too.
The article from ZeroHedge, titled "It Was All A Mirage: 2.5 Million Native-Born US Workers Were Just Revised Away," is partially accurate in describing a specific data revision but misleading and exaggerated overall in its interpretation and framing.
The core claim revolves around revisions to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Current Population Survey (CPS, or household survey) data, specifically tied to annual population control adjustments. These adjustments align the survey's weighting with updated U.S. Census Bureau population estimates.
Key facts from BLS and related analyses:
The article correctly notes that prior reported surges in native-born employment (e.g., +2 million or more under the early Trump term in 2025) were inflated by earlier population controls (from the January 2025 adjustment, which added population/employment due to higher immigration estimates under Vintage 2024 Census data). Those earlier controls caused implausibly large reported increases in native-born population and employment (millions added without real demographic explanation), while foreign-born numbers appeared to drop sharply.
However, the article is inaccurate or misleading in several ways:
In short: The revision happened broadly as described, and it did reduce reported native-born employment levels significantly from their 2025 peaks. But the article overstates the drama and causality, presenting routine (if large) statistical methodology as proof of deception or policy failure, when it's more accurately a correction to earlier overestimations in the same survey system. For reliable context, refer directly to BLS notices on population controls or neutral analyses rather than sensationalized summaries.