Since its introduction in 1963, the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index® (CEPCI) has been tracking changes to construction costs for chemical manufacturing and related process facilities. The data from which the CEPCI is calculated come from a carefully selected and weighted set of Producer Price Indexes (PPIs) assembled by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.bls.gov).
The BLS traces its history back to the establishment of the Bureau of Labor in 1884. BLS is the principal fact-finding agency for the field of labor economics and statistics, measuring “market activity, working conditions, price changes, and productivity in the U.S. economy to support public and private decision making.”
The BLS is one part of a constellation of federal agencies responsible for collecting, analyzing and disseminating data on a wide range of topics, from health and education to demographics and energy. The data are then used to inform decision-making by a host of groups, including legislators, policy makers, investors, business leaders and the general public. The objectivity and impartiality of these data are critical to their usefulness as a trusted public good.
Because of my involvement with the publication of the CEPCI, I was particularly dismayed when, on August 1, President Donald Trump fired the then-commissioner of BLS Erika McEntarfer. The dismissal came only hours after BLS released employment data that showed lower-than-expected job growth, and included some downwardly revised numbers. Apparently upset about the political ramifications of the reported data, Trump, among other things, called the data “phony” and claimed that McEntarfer “faked” jobs data for political purposes. There is, of course, no evidence for this, and the agency’s data and methods were defended by a host of economists from across the political spectrum.
Bill Beach, who served as BLS Commissioner During Trump’s first term, was quoted as saying the firing of McEntarfer, and the President’s statements following it, “set a dangerous precedent” and undermined the agency’s credibility.
The episode also elicited defenses of federal statistical agencies, more generally. For example, the presidents of the National Academy of Sciences and Medicine, Marcia McNutt and Victor Dzau, respectively, wrote in an August 8 statement, “Businesses, investors, and governments at all levels rely on trustworthy data to assess conditions, allocate resources and make plans. The ability of federal statistical agencies to produce objective and credible information — free from political or other undue influence — is critical to effective decision-making, as well as to public trust in government.”
To date, it appears that Trump’s actions have not yet diminished the BLS’ standing as the “gold standard” in available information on labor economics. However, actual — or even perceived — political influence on BLS and other federal statistical data would have profound negative consequences for all U.S. businesses and global partners.
Congressional hearings for the nominee to become the next BLS leader are expected in the coming weeks. Nominee E.J. Antoni, an economist at the Heritage Foundation, has drawn scrutiny due to past criticism of the BLS and contributions to the controversial policy framework “Project 2025.”
A broad coalition of interested parties that recognizes the importance of impartial data and supports the mission of federal statistics agencies will hopefully prompt legislators to find a BLS leader willing to defend the agency from political influence. ■
Scott Jenkins, senior editor