BSo the jobs numbers everyone's been arguing about today just got a lot more interesting.
AWhich ones? We've had revisions, and we've had revisions of revisions.
BSteve Rattner on Bluesky — he was Obama's car czar — posted that when first reported, 2025's jobs reports added up to 1.2 million new jobs.
AOkay...
BBut after revisions, he says the economy added just 116,000. Ninety percent less.
AThose numbers aren't right. I checked the Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
BThey're not?
AInitial reports through this year had about 2.1 million jobs. Revisions cut that to around 1.7 million. That's a big cut, but it's nothing close to 116,000.
BSo the real story is still a downgrade, but not a wipeout.
ARight. And the idea that 90% of job gains just vanished — that's not in the official numbers at all.
BWell, I'll give Rattner credit for making us both look twice. But he's picked the wrong hill to die on with a guy who fact-checks at 7:43 on a Thursday.
AIt's what I do. But here's what the fight's really about: are the revisions a sign the labor market was never that strong?
BMy take? The direction matters more than the precise number. Jobs were overstated. That's not good.
ABut 1.7 million is still a healthy pace for a year.
BCome on. You can't just wave away a revision of that size. That's real people, real paychecks, real spending.
ANo, wait— I'm not waving it away. I'm saying the economy's still creating jobs. Just not as many as the first print claimed.
BAnd that's exactly why people feel worse than the headline numbers say. Their lived experience is closer to the revised truth.
AI won't argue with that. The revision problem is real. But let's not invent a crash that didn't happen.
BFine. BLS says 1.7 million. I'd still watch what the next revision does to that.
ASpeaking of things that feel worse than the numbers, there's a post from a writer I actually know.
BOn Bluesky? Who's it from?
AJared Yates Sexton. He says the American economy is almost completely predicated on selling useless, meaningless stuff.
BThat's a pretty dark read, but he's not entirely wrong. A lot of retail is just... stuff you didn't need.
AHis exact line: almost every store is just a Spirit Halloween with better aesthetics and more expensive things.
BThat's actually funny, and it stings a little. We're drowning in things meant to make a pretend childish life feel complete.
ABut is that new? Department stores sold useless things fifty years ago. The difference is the distribution.
BYou're a former trader, I'm a markets guy. We spent our whole lives watching people pay for intangibles. So I don't buy the morality play.
ANeither do I, entirely. People have always wanted things that signal status. The internet just made it easier to see what everyone else is buying.
BAnd easier to buy it at 2 AM while you can't sleep.
ANow you're getting personal.
BDifferent world entirely: El Salvador just launched a military rescue operation in Haiti.
ARight, Zerohedge posted it a few minutes ago.
BFour Salvadoran troops were kidnapped in Haiti. President Bukele says the military will go get them.
AThey're aviation technicians, on medical evacuation duty, according to the AP. A gang ambushed their armored vehicle.
BThat's a dangerous situation. Haiti's gang violence has been relentless, and now Salvadoran personnel are in the middle of it as part of the UN-backed force.
AThis is exactly the kind of story where you hope the rescue succeeds, but you know the environment is about as hostile as it gets.
BBukele's betting that sending in the military is the only card he has. If it fails, it's a catastrophe.
AAnd if it succeeds, it's a propaganda win for the toughest-talking president in Latin America.
BEither way, four families are waiting on a call from Port-au-Prince tonight.
AWhile that develops, here's something from a friend of the show's universe: Matthew Downhour on Bluesky.
BWhat's his angle?
AHe says it's becoming nearly indisputable that you can run a modern economy on renewable power — and that dirty energy has become a political signifier.
B'Modern economy' is doing a lot of work there. You can run a service economy on renewables. Try running steel plants.
ABut that's the point he's making. The argument stopped being about what's possible and became about what team you're on.
BWhen energy becomes a badge instead of a balance sheet, we've lost the plot.
AI think there's something to that. Even coal-state Democrats won't say the word 'coal' anymore.
BAnd renewable executives won't say 'natural gas,' even though it kept the lights on through the last cold snap.
AIt's theater on all sides. Meanwhile, the grid needs everything: gas, nuclear, solar, wind, and somebody to pay for it.
BThat 'somebody' is always the customer. Which brings us to Michigan, and a post from Wajahat Ali.
AHe says the GOP's Islamophobia strategy won't work this time in Michigan because the economy is terrible and people have wised up.
BThat's an opinion, not a data point. But I'll say this: Michigan's economy has a lot of voters who've been waiting for a manufacturing revival that hasn't shown up.
AAnd in Michigan, foreign policy and Middle East politics matter in a way they don't in Ohio. It's one of the most complex electorates in the country.
BTrying to predict Michigan from a Bluesky post is a fool's errand. But the debate is real: economy versus grievance.
AAnd at least this year, the economy is the louder character in that story.