Krugman was mostly kidding here, he was defending the BLS while acknowledging that Trump is Trump, and the reaction was, basically, that the BLS was INCORRUPTIBLE and that it was grossly irresponsible to suggest any other possibility.
I was amused by this at the time, because it fits in with the general view of many economists that all people are corruptible - they all respond to INCENTIVES - except economists, who never bend their work in favor of those lucrative expert witness (or other) gigs.
If I were working at the BLS right now, I'd be very corruptible. I'd say, "fuck it, I'm going to keep my job and retirement plan." Sure, boss, +1 million jobs this month, every month, there are now more jobs than people. Whatever you say, boss.
I'd look at all the institutions that were caving - law firms, universities - and understand that no one was going to have my back, that all of those people - law school partners, university presidents, people much richer than me - were going to do just fine.
I'd understand that no one was going to reward me for a noble stance, and in fact those universities would probably blacklist me if I tried to move from BLS to an academic job. The University of Pennsylvania would not risk their Trump Treats to hire me.
That's how corruption works!
To be clear, I didn't think the stats were being cooked then, and neither did Paul! I just think that it is more important to warn about the fallibility of sainted institutions than to assert their infallibility. Wolfers thought the greater danger was even suggesting the possibility, not that there was a possibility.
Institutionalists believe that the people must have faith in institutions whether or not that faith is earned. Perhaps especially if that faith is not earned.
A light breeze knocked over half the country in 6 months. Our institutions are not strong and it is wrong to expect more from the workers than the leaders!