Business
Commentary: Claiming a historic gain in blue-collar wage growth, Trump shows how to use statistics to mislead
You may have seen an eye-opening statement recently from the Trump White House crowing about its success in pushing up “blue-collar wage growth.”
The statement was headlined: “Blue-Collar Wage Growth Sees Largest Increase in Nearly 60 Years Under Trump.” It purported to track real wages for hourly workers during Trump’s first five months in office, and compared that figure to the first five months in office of Trump’s predecessors.
“We’re just getting started with pro-growth, pro-prosperity policies that finally put America First,” the White House boasted.
A really strong economy was handed off to the Trump administration, and so far, it has mostly held.
— Josh Bivens, Economic Policy Institute
There are enough questions about how the White House arrived at this conclusion, and why anyone should trust it, to mark it as a sterling demonstration of how to employ cherry-picking to lie with statistics.
In conjunction with the announcement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent gave a preening interview to the New York Post, a Trump-friendly daily that repeated the claim without examination. He also appeared on a New York Post podcast to promote the administration’s purportedly near-record-setting achievement.
Bessent didn’t disclose the administration’s methodology, or explain what the first five months of a presidential term was supposed to reveal, so I had to parse the data myself, with the crucial assistance of some professional economists. More on that in a moment.
The basis for Trump’s claim is a government statistic tracking inflation-adjusted hourly earnings for production and nonsupervisory employees in the private sector, pegged to prices in 1982-1984.
The workers tend to be rank-and-file employees, though economic analysts Philippa Dunne and Doug Henwood of TLRAnalytics note that it’s a stretch to call them “blue-collar.” The term customarily applies to laborers, not “bartenders, teachers, or retail workers” whose earnings are also tracked by the statistic.
Trump cited wage growth from Jan. 1 through May 31 this year. As it happens, however, Trump wasn’t president for that entire period; he took office on Jan. 20, so at least some of his claim covered the last three weeks of the Biden administration.
In other words, some of what Trump bragged about was the work of Biden — the strength of whose economy spilled over into Trump’s term. (Trumpworld hasn’t been shy about blaming Biden for economic problems that have bubbled up over the last few months, so it’s a bit churlish of him to deny Biden credit for this.)
Indeed, one important question related to Trump’s claim goes to what he has actually done that would produce wage gains on this scale. The answer is: nothing. The likelihood is that whatever phenomenon is measurable at this point in the year reflects the Biden economy.
“A really strong economy was handed off to the Trump administration,” says Josh Bivens, chief economist at the labor-affiliated Economic Policy Institute, “and so far, it has mostly held.”
In the New York Post podcast, Bessent attributed the purported wage gains to Trump’s “emphasis on manufacturing,” along with “12 or 20 million illegal aliens coming out of the workforce.”
In neither category, however, have Trump policies actually achieved anything solid. Manufacturing output, as measured by the Federal Reserve, fell in three of the first five months of this year, following a powerful gain in December, the last full month of the Biden administration. As of May, U.S. manufacturing is operating at a slightly lower percent of capacity than it was in December.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics says that manufacturing employment fell by 8,000 in May, by 2,000 over the three months ending in May, and by 9,000 over the six months ending in May. If there’s a renaissance in manufacturing jobs attributable to Trump industrial policy, it’s not visible in the official numbers.
Bessent’s statement about the millions of “illegal aliens” coming out of the workforce is especially chimerical. Authoritative estimates place the total of undocumented residents in the U.S. at about 11 million to 11.7 million. Unless Bessent thinks that every one of them is no longer in the workforce, he misspoke. (I am being charitable).
Immigration and Customs Enforcement itself claims to have deported 65,000 immigrants in the first 100 days of Trump’s term, ended April 29. To assert that taking those individuals out of the workforce was enough to have triggered a surge in hourly wages for legal residents is absurd.
That’s especially so because many undocumented workers take jobs that employers find difficult, if not impossible, to fill from among legal residents.
Annualized five-month wage growth has been stronger in 12 of the last 32 months — including a long period during Biden’s term — than in Trump’s first five months (circled).
(Josh Bivens, Economic Policy Institute)
As Amy Taxin and Dorany Pineda of the Associated Press reported, in some parts of California’s agricultural belt as many as 45% of farmworkers have stopped coming to work since federal agents launched sweeping raids on farms and other locations employing immigrants. The construction industry also has suffered from a dwindling supply of immigrant workers, with few legally present workers available to replace them.
A fundamental question about the White House claim is why it chose to measure itself against the first five months of previous administrations. Why not the first five months of all presidential terms? Or any other five-month period?
I asked the White House and Treasury Department to comment on the administration’s statistic. I got no answer from the White House and nothing on the record from Treasury.
The time frame cited by the White House is curiously selective. The historical comparison to the first five months of one-term presidents and the first terms of two-term presidents doesn’t apply to Trump: “This is Trump’s second term, so he’s not really a member of this club,” observe Dunne and Henwood.
They note, further, that the five-month annualized gain in worker wages is “a silly metric.” The statistic is notoriously volatile, and averaging such a short period only exacerbates its ephemerality.
Judging from five-month annualized averages over time, moreover, “Trump’s 1.7% is high, but not eye-popping,” Dunne and Henwood told me.
They’re right. Going back to October 2022, the five-month average was higher than Trump’s in 12 of the last 32 months. That includes five months of Biden’s term — July through October 2024. The highest annualized five-month gain in real average hourly wages was recorded in September 2024, when it reached about 3.2%.
What makes the question especially pertinent is that, with a few notable exceptions, little of significance happens in the first five months of a new presidential term. It takes time for newly-elected presidents to assemble their cabinet, cue up a legislative program, address the problems — or coast on the economic health — bequeathed them by their predecessors.
Obama’s first term was consumed with undoing the damage of the Great Recession, which was a product largely of Republican economic policymaking. During his term, Biden had to deal with the consequences of the COVID pandemic.
It’s proper to recognize that even assembling the statistics that the Trump administration decided to torture for its news release may become more difficult in the future. That’s because Trump is taking a hatchet to the government’s economic data infrastructure.
Several datasets have been deleted from federal websites. Budget cuts and mass firings will hobble data collection, and expert advisory committees serving the Census Bureau, BLS and Bureau of Economic Analysis have been disbanded. The result of these and other assaults, wrote Jed Kolko, a former undersecretary for economic affairs at the Commerce Department overseeing data operations at the Census Bureau and BEA, will include the destruction of trust in U.S. economic data.
“Governments hide or manipulate the numbers only when they’re bad, as Argentina did with inflation, Greece with public finances, and China with its youth unemployment rate,” Kolko wrote.
The consequences will extend beyond government agencies. “In the private sector, businesses use federal statistics for investment and marketing decisions,” Kolko added. “Official statistics on population growth, housing conditions, local demographics, and local spending patterns drive decisions about where to build factories, open stores, locate jobs, and construct housing. … Financial markets trade on macroeconomic releases, and investors rely on clear, confident signals from the Federal Reserve, which itself depends on trustworthy economic data.”
Trump may not realize that he’s playing with fire by crowing about what could be an ephemeral gain in an obscure statistic. Many economists expect the initiatives he is pursuing to produce a slowdown in economic growth, or even a recession. Corporate executives’ uncertainties about Trump’s tariff policies have already stifled industrial planning, including decisions about when and where to build new factories.
That won’t be positive for wage growth, obviously. Do Trump or Bessent care? One would hope so, but the evidence that they do hasn’t appeared anywhere but in this White House news release. If things turn sour, what will they have to brag about?
A bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to homeowners who take steps to reduce wildfire risk on their property died in the Legislature.
The Senate Insurance Committee on Monday voted down the measure, SB 1076, one of the most ambitious bills spurred by the devastating January 2025 wildfires.
The vote came despite fire victims and others rallying at the state Capitol in support of the measure, authored by state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Pasadena), whose district includes the Eaton fire zone.
The Insurance Coverage for Fire-Safe Homes Act originally would have required insurers to offer and renew coverage for any home that meets wildfire-safety standards adopted by the insurance commissioner starting Jan. 1, 2028.
It also threatened insurers with a five-year ban from the sale of home or auto insurance if they did not comply, though it allowed for exceptions.
However, faced with strong opposition from the insurance industry, Pérez had agreed to amend the bill so it would have established community-wide pilot projects across the state to better understand the most effective way to limit property and insurance losses from wildfires.
Insurers would have had to offer four years of coverage to homeowners in successful pilot projects.
Denni Ritter, a vice president of the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., told the committee that her trade group opposed the bill.
“While we appreciate the intent behind those conversations, those concepts do not remove our opposition, because they retain the same core flaw — substituting underwriting judgment and solvency safeguards with a statutory mandate to accept risk,” she said.
In voting against the bill Sen. Laura Richardson, (D-San Pedro), said: “Last I heard, in the United States, we don’t require any company to do anything. That’s the difference between capitalism and communism, frankly.”
The remarks against the measure prompted committee Chair Sen. Steve Padilla, (D-Chula Vista), to chastise committee members in opposition.
“I’m a little perturbed, and I’m a little disappointed, because you have someone who is trying to work with industry, who is trying to get facts and data,” he said.
Monday’s vote was the fourth time a bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to so-called “fire hardened” homes failed in the Legislature since 2020, according to an analysis by insurance committee staff.
Fire hardening includes measures such as cutting back brush, installing fire resistant roofs and closing eaves to resist fire embers.
Pérez’s legislation was thought to have a better chance of passage because it followed the most catastrophic wildfires in U.S. history, which damaged or destroyed more than 18,000 structures and killed 31 people.
The bill was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles advocacy group Consumer Watchdog and Every Fire Survivor’s Network, a community group founded in Altadena after the fires formerly called the Eaton Fire Survivors Network.
But it also had broad support from groups such as the California Apartment Association, the California Nurses Association and California Environmental Voters.
Leading up to the fires, many insurers, citing heightened fire risk, had dropped policyholders in fire-prone neighorhoods. That forced them onto the California FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort, which offers limited but costly policies.
A Times analysis found that that in the Palisades and Eaton fire zones, the FAIR Plan’s rolls from 2020 to 2024 nearly doubled from 14,272 to 28,440. Mandating coverage has been seen as a way of reducing FAIR Plan enrollment.
“I’m disappointed this bill died in committee. Fire survivors deserved better,” Pérez said in a statement .
Also failing Monday in the committee was SB 982, a bill authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, (D-San Francisco). It would have authorized California’s attorney general to sue fossil fuel companies to recover losses from climate-induced disasters. It was opposed by the oil and gas industry.
Passing the committee were two other Pérez bills. SB 877 requires insurers to provide more transparency in the claims process. SB 878 imposes a penalty on insurers who don’t make claims payments on time.
Another bill, SB 1301, authored by insurance commissioner candidate Sen. Ben Allen, (D-Pacific Palisades), also passed. It protects policyholders from unexplained and abrupt policy non-renewals.
Times Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.
Politicians in Washington and the reporters who cover them have an often adversarial relationship.
But on the last Saturday in April, they gather for an irreverent celebration of press freedom and the First Amendment at the Washington Hilton Hotel: The White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.
Hosted by the association, an organization that helps ensure access for media outlets covering the presidency, the dinner attracts Hollywood stars; politicians from both parties; and representatives of more than 100 networks, newspapers, magazines and wire services.
While The Times will have two reporters in the ballroom covering the event, the company no longer buys seats at the party, said Richard W. Stevenson, the Washington bureau chief. The decision goes back almost two decades; the last dinner The Times attended as an organization was in 2007.
“We made a judgment back then that the event had become too celebrity-focused and was undercutting our need to demonstrate to readers that we always seek to maintain a proper distance from the people we cover, many of whom attend as guests,” he said.
It’s a decision, he added, that “we have stuck by through both Republican and Democratic administrations, although we support the work of the White House Correspondents’ Association.”
Susan Wessling, The Times’s Standards editor, said the policy is a product of the organization’s desire to maintain editorial independence.
“We don’t want to leave readers with any questions about our independence and credibility by seeming to be overly friendly with people whose words and actions we need to report on,” she said.
The celebrity mentalist Oz Pearlman is headlining the evening, in lieu of the usual comedy set by the likes of Stephen Colbert and Hasan Minhaj, but all eyes will be on President Trump, who will make his first appearance at the dinner as president.
Mr. Trump has boycotted the event since 2011, when he was the butt of punchlines delivered by President Barack Obama and the talk show host Seth Meyers mocking his hair, his reality TV show and his preoccupation with the “birther” movement.
Last month, though, Mr. Trump, who has a contentious relationship with the media, announced his intention to attend this year’s dinner, where he will speak to a room full of the same reporters he often derides as “enemies of the people.”
Times reporters will be there to document the highs, the lows and the reactions in the room. A reporter for the Styles desk has also been assigned to cover the robust roster of after-parties around Washington.
Some off-duty reporters from The Times will also be present at this late-night circuit, though everyone remains cognizant of their roles, said Patrick Healy, The Times’s assistant managing editor for Standards and Trust.
“If they’re reporting, there’s a notebook or recorder out as usual,” he said. “If they’re not, they’re pros who know they’re always identifiable as Times journalists.”
For most of The Times’s reporters and editors, though, the evening will be experienced from home.
“The rest of us will be able to follow the coverage,” Mr. Stevenson said, “without having to don our tuxes or gowns.”
A former female staffer who worked for Beast Industries, the media venture behind the popular YouTube channel MrBeast, is suing the company, alleging she was sexually harassed and fired shortly after she returned from maternity leave.
The employee, Lorrayne Mavromatis, a Brazilian-born social media professional, alleges in a lawsuit she was subjected to sexual harassment by the company’s management and demoted after she complained about her treatment. She said she was urged to join a conference call while in labor and expected to work during her maternity leave in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, according to the federal complaint filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
“This clout-chasing complaint is built on deliberate misrepresentations and categorically false statements, and we have the receipts to prove it. There is extensive evidence — including Slack and WhatsApp messages, company documents, and witness testimony — that unequivocally refutes her claims. We will not submit to opportunistic lawyers looking to manufacture a payday from us,” Gaude Paez, a Beast Industries spokesperson, said in a statement.
Jimmy Donaldson, 27, began MrBeast as a teen gaming channel that soon exploded into a media company worth an estimated $5 billion, with 500 employees and 450 million subscribers who watch its games, stunts and giveaways.
Mavromatis, who was hired in 2022 as its head of Instagram, described a pervasive climate of discrimination and harassment, according to the lawsuit.
In her complaint, she alleges the company’s former CEO James Warren made her meet him at his home for one-on-one meetings while he commented on her looks and dismissed her complaints about a male client’s unwanted advances, telling her “she should be honored that the client was hitting on her.”
When Mavromatis asked Warren why MrBeast, Donaldson, would not work with her, she was told that “she is a beautiful woman and her appearance had a certain sexual effect on Jimmy,” and, “Let’s just say that when you’re around and he goes to the restroom, he’s not actually using the restroom.”
Paez refuted the claim.
“That’s ridiculous. This is an allegation fabricated for the sole purpose of sparking headlines,” Paez said.
Mavromatis said she endured a slate of other indignities such as being told by Donaldson that she “would only participate in her video shoot if she brought him a beer.”
“In this male-centric workplace, Plaintiff, one of the few women in a high-level role, was excluded from otherwise all-male meetings, demeaned in front of colleagues, harassed, and suffered from males be given preferential treatment in employment decisions,” states the complaint.
When Mavromatis raised a question during a staff meeting with her team, she said a male colleague told her to “shut up” or “stop talking.”
At MrBeast headquarters in Greenville, N.C., she said male executives mocked female contestants participating in BeastGames, “who complained they did not have access to feminine hygiene products and clean underwear while participating in the show.”
In November 2023, Mavromatis formally complained about “the sexually inappropriate encounters and harassment, and demeaning and hostile work environment she and other female employees had been living and experiencing working at MrBeast,” to the company’s then head of human resources, Sue Parisher, who is also Donaldson’s mother, according to the suit.
In her complaint, Mavromatis said Beast Industries did not have a method or process for employees to report such issues either anonymously or to a third party, rather employees were expected to follow the company’s handbook, “How to Succeed In MrBeast Production.”
In it, employees were instructed that, “It’s okay for the boys to be childish,” “if talent wants to draw a dick on the white board in the video or do something stupid, let them” and “No does not mean no,” according to the complaint.
Mavromatis alleges that she was demoted and then fired.
Paez said that Mavromatis’s role was eliminated as part of a reorganization of an underperforming group within Beast Industries and that she was made aware of this.
-
Health36 seconds agoRiley Gaines shares 5 wellness tips she swears by as a new mom: ‘Really powerful’
-
Sports7 minutes agoChiefs and Browns make first trade of 2026 draft and both eventually fill needs
-
Technology13 minutes agoHow Florida retiree lost $200K in fake PayPal refund scam
-
Business19 minutes ago
Senate committee kills bill mandating insurance coverage for wildfire safe homes
-
Entertainment25 minutes agoFormer Live Nation executive says he was fired after raising ‘financial misconduct’ concerns
-
Lifestyle31 minutes agoThey set out to elevate karaoke in L.A. — and opened a glamorous lounge that pulls out all the stops
-
Politics37 minutes agoHouse Oversight chair says some members support a Ghislaine Maxwell pardon
-
Sports49 minutes agoDefending champion UCLA women’s basketball lands top transfer, continues roster overhaul