The Chaser Report - Trump Lowers Unemployment To -1000%

Episode Date: August 6, 2025

In the face of statistics that reflect poorly on him, Donald J. Trump is taking a stand. Following the U.s President's logic, Charles and Dom start wondering what other numbers they can reject purely because they don't like them, like the vote count for the Logies, as a totally random example.---Buy the Wankernomics book: https://wankernomics.com/bookListen AD FREE: https://thechaserreport.supercast.com/ Follow us on Instagram: @chaserwarSpam Dom's socials: @dom_knightSend Charles voicemails: @charlesfirthEmail us: [e-mail] CEO’s Super-yacht upgrade Fund: https://chaser.com.au/support/ Send complaints to: [e-mail] Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Chaser Report is recorded on Gadigal Land. Striving for mediocrity in a world of excellence, this is The Chaser Report. Hello and welcome to The Jacea Report with Dom and Charles. Now, Charles, today we're a little late to this, admittedly, but it's a fascinating story out of the Trump administration, Charles, in response to weak job numbers, numbers that didn't really fit the golden era narrative that was coming out of the White House, the indisputable economic recovery spearheaded by his. Excellency President Donald J. Trump? And that is, look, the data was rigged. The data was rigged.

And as a result, what do you do when you get jobs started back that you don't like? Do you change your policies? Do you perhaps maybe try and create a whole bunch of new jobs yourself? Or do you sack the Department of Labor official responsible for putting together those numbers every month? That one. That one. That one. That one. Erica McIntypha, I think, Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics confirmed on a bipartisan basis by the Senate in 2024, but surprisingly weak hiring data in July. Ironically, Charles sacking this woman is only going to make the stats worse next time.

Hey, hey. Unless you hire someone who knows where their bread is butted to do your stats next time round. Let's take a quick break and I believe you've got a theory about this. So Donald Trump says the economy's doing great with the capital G-R-E-A-T. Yes. Despite job growth essentially just tanking. If you believe the official. stats. Yes. Now, the funny thing about this firing is that that woman who they fired doesn't

actually see any of the data until it's been compiled. Like, her job is essentially the front man of the operation. Well, that's all the more reason to get rid of her. If she's not able to change the data, what's she even there for? Yeah, because it's based on 100,000 surveys of different businesses all across the country, because it's a sort of $30 trillion economy that they're doing. And It's completely based on, I thought it was sort of based on subjective assessment, but the reason why it's seen as probably the crucial piece of data in the economy is it's based on actual objective numbers. What they do is they get a sample of 100,000 and they say, how many people did you employ last month? Oh, that's very dubious. How many of that 100,000?

How many of them Charles are part of the deep state? Yeah. Who want to make President Trump look bad. Yes. Right. Democrats, Charles. Yes. Okay.

We can't have them. Their numbers can't be believed in the same way that in 2020, those people who voted for Democrats, their numbers can't be believed either. You can't trust a Democrat. Right. To come up with a number. Yes. Sorry.

Yes. And that's why in future elections, we shouldn't count any of their votes. The point is, it's a very nerdy job. It's not really anything to do with politics. So there's a bunch of surveys. Yeah. Conduct the surveys. You compile the data and see what they say.

It would be, well, you know, like, it would be like, firing one of those people who I'm sure you've met in your life who are just fascinated by numbers and data. Actually, you should fire those people. Yeah. And I think that should be punished with interest. Yeah. Exactly. Anyway, this is my theory, which is, because the thing that's sort of making everyone go, why, why did this happen now? Like, what, what is going on that makes this a thing that he would do now? Is that the data that she was fired over just wasn't that bad. There was 73,000 new jobs in July. Yeah. Charles, can I just make. the point that Donald J. Trump heroically spent the first half of the year sacking people from

the government. So if you factor in those, they probably created a shit ton of jobs. Yes. But Elon and Doge and so on. Yes. They sacked Tony of people that it probably wasn't just number. They were just number. She sacked for the government being too effective. Yeah. Yes. That's right. The Bureau of Labor Statistics. Yeah. Yeah. They didn't, they should have discounted the Doge job cuts because they were a triumph. They weren't job cuts. They were job wins. Well, this is the thing, this is part of the equation is they did adjust the June and May figures down as well at the same time, right? And that sort of, they were in, that was like 150,000 jobs reported initially in the initial data. But once they got all the stats together

and did the final reporting, they realized that actually job growth has been quite a mimics. It's been like 17,000 per month. Yeah. Well, the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisors Stefan Moran, this is from the New York Times, went on CNBC, suspiciously. Yeah, very suspicious. The change to the job numbers was actually just due to quirks in the seasonal adjustment process. It happens all the time. It's like literally happens every single time they do data.

And that the government's own policies on immigration might have led to less hiring in May and June. Yes. And you're not going to be having much time to hire people when a lot of your workforce is getting deported. And that's what she should have did. She should have gone up to Trump and gone, but it's because of your brilliant policies. Yes.

She could say, you know, if she'd just sucked up the house. Anyway, point is, why do it now? Like, you'd expect it that would actually, you know, it would have to be a negative number. Like, oh, the economy's going backwards that actually, you know, would, you know, because it's almost like drawing attention to how bad your economy is to sack the person who's job it is to compile the data, right? But this is my theory. Okay.

Which is that Donald Trump knows that he's about to run the economy into the ground. Like, actually the data is going to get worse and worse and worse, partly thanks to the massive tariffs, but also partly due to the fact that they've got these ice agents going around who are literally being hired on quotas to go around and deport people. It's an extraordinary mass effort, by the way. You haven't had a look at just having people are being kicked out in a kind of industrial process with vast numbers of plane loads leave every day. It's huge.

And they're going not, they're not necessarily being sent to where they came from. No, no, no. They're being sent to, like, Rwanda and where was the other place? No, Salvador. South Sudan. It's like just, you know, just very, very worrying thing. And the big beautiful bill, which they just passed, made ICE the top 10th most funded military organization in the world. Didn't they get 150 billion or something to do this?

Yeah. So they're now bigger than the FBI and the CIA and all those sorts of other. Ice is hiring. And they're bigger than the Australian military? This will sort, this will sort, well, that's not shocking, but this will sort itself out because the ice is hiring so many people. I just wonder, Charles. Do you think ICE would buy the submarines of us?

They might do. They'll probably need them. Yes. Yeah, but because the planes keep getting tracked by all those little dorks on the flight tracking website. It's very embarrassing. But Charles. Oh, wait a minute.

The submarines don't exist. Yeah, that's true. Charles, what could happen is they won't be able to hire enough people. And you know what happens in the US when they can't hire enough people? They just hire illegal immigrants. Yeah. So I think ice. They'll do deportions via a call center in India.

What they need to do is just offer an amnesty and then citizenship. Yes. If you serve as an ice agent, imagine the levels of bureaucracy that would be involved in that. Oh, the irony would be lost on all of them. That's right. But no, no, but this is my theory is that Trump knows that data is only going to get worse. So he needs to install someone now who will be his lackey, knowing that, you know, like, oh, if I release the wrong data, you know, I'll get it in the neck.

Because, like, it's a preemptive strike against the data that's about to remove. Yeah, but they also, it's worth noting that the Bureau of Labor Stats also tracks things like inflation. And you know how embarrassing bad inflation numbers can be for a government. And we just saw in the last election. I mean, that was the key of Peter Dutton's campaign. Admittedly not a very successful campaign, but they did try and, they were always bang on about the inflation numbers.

If you've got someone who can massage those numbers, I mean, Charles, it just, goes to show if you start the whole process with the premise that all the numbers for the Trump administration must show what a success it is. If you just have that limitation, you're never going to go wrong. But, Dom, confidence in the economy is a key driver of investment. Yeah. Right. So just ignore the numbers and be confident. And just be confident. Yeah. It's like being one of those ugly but confident men in their 20s who get all the women when you are failing to get anyone. It's also, oh, that's a flashback, isn't it? But it's also loyalty. I mean, are you loyal to America or are you not?

Yes. And if you're properly loyal, you won't, it's the term thought crime, Charles. You don't want any disloyal thoughts to come in, such as the jobs numbers aren't very good or inflation is bad or this policy, this tariff policy isn't actually working at all. In fact, might be damaging our economy. Do you think one of the problems with Australia is the Australian Bureau of Statistic? I mean, obviously. Yeah.

Yeah, that if we just had better data, meaning more rosy data, then interest rates could go down. Like, Michelle Bullock wouldn't be worried if she knows for certain that all the data from now on is going to look really good. We just need numbers that accurately match up as self-perception. Yes. That were a big success as a country. Yes. And that there are no problems. In particular, the Bureau, the Crime Stats Bureau, you wouldn't want that, particularly in America.

You don't want any numbers on that stuff. that'll make it seem like the government's lost control of all manner of things, like violence against women. So what do you do about that? Sack them. Oh, you just sack them? You don't want to, you don't call the numbers. Just get rid of the numbers.

Yeah, that's right. Numbers will only lead you as trying. I mean, this is, I didn't do mass for the H.S.C., Charles. I don't trust. My distrust numbers goes back a very long way. Very 20th century concept, especially when it comes to governance. I don't say, there's no connection, really. Yeah, yeah.

Okay, well, it sounds like, it sounds like, it sounds like we agree on this, doesn't it? The Trump has done. The Trump has done a very good thing. Well, yeah, and that we shouldn't question him. Well, but also, let's see what the numbers say. I mean, if when the numbers come back from the new appointee, yes, when the numbers are much more rosy, we'll see that in fact, everything's fine.

The Chaser Report, news you can't trust. So do you think that, like, it's breaking out of this for a moment, do you think, like, what will happen? Like, do you think the next guy will also get in the neck because the data, like, how long will it take until the statisticians learn that to give the right answer? Well, in the job is Senate confirmed, so whether or not they get the next one through, but they've been pretty good at getting through. Yeah.

Well, they've got the numbers. Yeah. Not that numbers matter anymore. Yeah, what will happen? I don't know. I mean, the question of what's going to happen to the economy is the real thing based on the tariffs. I mean, this is completely uncharted territory. So if, I mean, the gamble that he's undertaking is so massive now that anything else is going to get lost.

Like it won't almost any economic indicator be determined by the tariffs and the immigration. Well, not if you say don't determine it by. Like, you mean the real numbers? Yeah. Right. Yeah. That's the problem. But now it's not determined by that.

So it actually solves the problem, which is the tariffs are going to make the numbers look bad. And now the numbers are not going to look bad. I mean, it actually, it's sort of just sensible administration really, isn't it? I mean, Charles, but there's other numbers that need. to be addressed next. Yes. Like, I've never liked, I've never liked the number seven. Poor old Channel 7.

I think we need to get rid of that. But, I mean, approval ratings. 23, what sort of bullshit numbers that? The people who collect approval ratings in the US, a lot of the numbers that they're publishing. Oh, well, they're fake polls. Fake poll. They're rigged. They're rigged.

So you get rid of that. And that voting system that they've got. That's right. Voting numbers. Totally rich. It's like, it's like in 2020. If you feel you won the election, you should be a lot. You should be allowed to say that you won the election and not letting numbers irritate.

I mean, it just is the triumph of narrative over numbers. That's what it is. And as people of the humanities, shouldn't we be embracing that? We should. Yes. We should. Emphatically, Charles. Well, I think, yeah, okay.

Well, then. Numbers are dead. And so how do we apply that to our own lives? Like, well, next time I go to the GP. Yes. And the GP goes, oh, your cholesterol numbers are back and there's worrying numbers on them. I go, no. I'm not worried about your numbers.

Let's sack the pathology lab. Sack the pathology lab. That's right. I don't want to know. I feel great. Yes. I feel great and I refuse to accept any number that says I'm not great. Yeah.

When I look at the bank balance. Yes. And it's much less healthy than I'd like it to be. I'll reject that and I'll take more money. Yeah. The bank will just have to give it to me because they won't be allowed to say. What the American economy has been doing for years. Yeah.

It's Donald Trump's approach to these things. I'll sue them. Yes. This is the next step. Is you sue them for defamation. You sue the pathologist. You've insulted me by saying that I don't have any money in the bank. That's clearly untrue.

I feel like I do. And you need to pay me for my hurt feelings. And then they will. Then I'll have money in the bank. It solves itself, Charles, solves itself. Do you think, because there's a real risk, right. Like, I think people have this narrative version of history that, you know, like, this is an aberration. That Trump will, you know, come and then it'll all explode in his face and there'll be a post-Trump.

era, right, where things get back to normal. I mean, didn't we, wasn't that the narrative in sort of 2020? And look what happened. Yeah. And from here, I think you look at it and you go, a far more likely scenario is that, no, no, no, like you sack all these things. It doesn't then go back. Like, this is the normal.

This is what happens. And, you know, if you're looking around for places where this has already happened, they're actually far longer running than democratic sort of regime. I mean, the king is the norm in human society. Russia started down this path arguably before Putin in the 1990s and has just stayed that way. Hungary has done that. Turkey arguably, like you're looking at regimes that, you know, previously had sons, well, I suppose the Soviet Union. Well, you know, another number that we need to get rid of is the number two.

Because Donald Trump will have done in a couple of years' time, he will have finished a second term. And you're not supposed to have more than two. But if you're not counting how many terms there are. Well, if you sack the mathematician who claims that three is more than two. Yes. Or you can just say, and the Supreme Court could just rule that actually three is less than two. Well, they can just say that the Constitution was actually referring to contiguous terms. This is the thing they try and do.

They don't need to even explain it because the Supreme Court has started not explaining their rulings. They just say, no, that's allowed. Although, Charles, if the Supreme Court doesn't count, then the Democratic minority can start to decide thing. No, but this is a brilliant way to get back control, yeah. They'll say, they'll say Donald Trump's, this is only his first term. Yes. Because he had a break.

Yes, we were on a break. We're part of the Oconiclass Network. Our audience stats data is we reject. Yeah, we reject that. It is high, but it's, it now is as high as we feel it is. We're number one. To the extent that that's the number that matters. Yeah.

Number one, the number that we are. Yeah, that's right.