The Bureau of Labor Statistics: The Rigorous and Necessary Methodology of the BLS

In recent weeks, some pundits have called for the elimination of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) following President Trump’s firing its Commissioner.  Prior to becoming an attorney, I worked as an economist for BLS for 5 years in Washington DC and San Francisco.  I primarily worked on the Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES), which is used to create the “market basket” of goods for the Consumer Price Index (CPI).  The BLS was established by President Garfield in the wake of economic turmoil and corporate corruption during the late 19th century.  Its creation was part of a broader effort to reform the federal civil service and ensure that government agencies operated with integrity and transparency. For over 150 years, the BLS has provided reliable economic data that informs public policy, business decisions, and academic research. Its mission has always been to present the facts, free from political influence.

There's plenty of reasons to question the reliability of the data and BLS understands this BETTER than anyone. To change the methodology of a survey takes YEARS of studies and so many tortious meetings where the BLS calculates/studies both the current methodology number with the new modified methodology number.  Sure, we may be under calculating unemployment (i.e. if you're not looking, you're not in), but BLS knows this and calculates it this way for a reason.  How do you survey someone who isn't participating? Better to keep the methodology consistent and be transparent about how it's calculated.

Certain government positions, like the BLS Commissioner, are intentionally designed to be non-political. This structure ensures that the agency's work remains focused on its core mission: providing accurate and unbiased data. The commissioner does not "set the numbers," just as the FBI Director does not personally make arrests. These roles are about oversight and ensuring that the agency operates according to established principles and methodologies.  Politicizing such positions undermines public trust and erodes the credibility of the institution. When leaders cast doubt on the integrity of agencies like the BLS, they risk damaging the very foundation of good governance.

Critics often misunderstand the BLS's processes and the dedication of its workforce. The agency employs rigorous methodologies to ensure the accuracy and reliability of its data. Changes to survey methodologies, for example, are not made lightly. They require years of study, extensive testing, and transparent reporting of both the old and new methodologies.  Revisions to data are a normal part of this process, reflecting the BLS's commitment to improving accuracy. Far from "cooking the books," these revisions demonstrate the agency's dedication to transparency and accountability.

Replacing the BLS with private-sector alternatives, as some have suggested, poses significant risks. Private-sector forecasts are often less transparent and may be influenced by corporate interests. The BLS, by contrast, operates with a clear mandate to serve the public good. Undermining its credibility not only jeopardizes the quality of economic data but also erodes trust in government institutions more broadly.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics is more than just a data provider; it is a cornerstone of non-partisan governance. Its work ensures that policymakers, businesses, and citizens have access to reliable information about the economy. Undermining the BLS for political gain threatens to unravel over a century of progress in good governance and transparency.