Jobs, Jobs, Jobs: Obama Loses 445,000 Jobs Last Week--Back to the Level of December, f2009

First, the title is absolultely accurate (to the extent the statistics themselves are accurate). The weekly number for new unemployment claims (a measure of layoffs and lost jobs) came out today, and that number ROISE 35,000--to 445,000. In other words, the Obama economy LOST l35,000 MORE jobs last week, and the total is back to the same level it was at in December of 2009 (more than a full year ago), and several times in early 2010.

Note that the headline, and the above paragraph--although dead on accurate--is a PARODY of the dishonest and incompetent (including Fox) reporting of the media on a very subjective and volatile number (the number of new unemployment claims each week). It is also--really mainly--a parody of the general distortion of jobs data by the mainstream media and leftist Democrats (who distorted the data in exactly the opposite way during the Bush Administration--hypocrites that they are).

Yes, we are talking about GROSS jobs here. That, of course, is not the important number. The important number is NET jobs--although a weekly jobless claim number above 400,000 means that we are NOT (most likely) progressing substantially on net jobs. And a RISE of 35,000 is BAD news--plus being "unexpected" for the incompetent and perpetually surprised econommists ("incompetent" unelss you correctly realize that NONE of these people has ecough information or wisdom to determine how to manage and predict the economy, which totally DISCREDITS the idea of centarl planning: of management of the economy by econoists and goverfnment bureaucrats).

Segue to the STIMULUS. What did the Obama Administration do on the "accounting" for the success of the "stimulus" plan? Oh, you know the answer to this one. They counted GROSS jobs--a totally IRRELEVANT number, and they did that dishonestly. Thus, my headline only takes the Obama Administration, and the mainstream media, at their own word, applying their own standards: what matters is GROSS jobs!!!! That is, of course, false. But to try to say that the Obama jobs policy has been a success, instead of the abysmal failure it has been, they had not choice. It is a FACT that NET jobs have NOT been created since the passage of the "stimulus" bill. In fact, we have a NET LOSS of jobs. If they try to talk about NET jobs, they have no evidence at all that the "stimulus" added ONE NET JOB. It is entirely possible--I would argue that it is so--that the "stimulus" created GROSS jobs sucked all of the air out of the private sector economy, and PREVENTED net jobs from being created. What is certain is that net jobs have NOT been created.

Yet, MSNBC (I heard Crhis Matthews say it) labled it an obvious political LIE that the Obama "stimulus" did not create a single job. MSNBC, and the entire mainstream media, of course, take "f1984" as their Bible. They are masters of the Big Lie. It is an Orwellian Big Lie to suggest that the creation of GROSS jobs by "stimulus" spending automatically means that NET jobs were created. We know, in fact, that they were not. But might not the "stimulus" have "saved" the loss of even more jobs? That is possible, but there is NO EVIDENCE by which to measure whether that is true or not. There is NO such recognizwed statistic ("saved jobs"), which amounts to a Big Lie in itself (the attempt to "quantify" "saved" jobs when no such statistic has ever existed in the past). It is certainly possible--I would say likely--that NOT ONE NET JOB was created by the Obama "stimulus".

How can that be? Just look at the weekly jobless claims number. Why is it misleading to suggest that the Obama economy LOST 445,000 jobs last week? Easy. Ys, that many jobs were LOST (or at least the new unemployment claims number suggests that), but it is likely that almost that many jobs were GAINED. It is the NET that matters, but that is also what matters in evaluating the "success" (failure) of the Obama "stimulus". For every job "created" by government actioin, how many were lost? That is the relevant question, and yet this obvious point is almost never made in the media--even by the iooncompetents at Fox News. Of course, MSNBC and Crhis Matthews are deliberately dishonest on the matter, along with the AP and the rest of the mainstream media, but Fox News does little better at EXPLAINING these economic statistics and their meaning (or lack of meaning).

The jobless claims number (new unemployment claims reported weekly) is NOT, or example, a definitive, concrete number. It is--at least partly--a SUBJECTGIVE number, because it is SEASONALLY ADJUSTED using a fallible formula. Yes, there is a RAW number, which you might regard as concrete, but that number (not usually reported, in a proof of media INCOMPETENCE) is also often misleading. For example, think CHRISTMAS. Hiring increase approaching Christmas, and firing decreases. But that is due to CHRISTMAS--at lest in part--and does not necessarily represent a real improvement in the labor market Even the weather can affect the weekly unemployment claim number, but economists can see the weather like the rest of us. They STILL never get it right. The point is that you have to look at the jobless claims number over time, AND you have to consider that there may be special factors going onn--especially around the holiday season--that cause the weekly numbers to be misleading (perhaps, for example, because the long recession has DISTORTED the holiday seasonal adjustment accuracy, by making it difficult to assume that old patterns of holiday hiring and firing are still relevant).

Thus, let us look at the new unemployment claims number over time. In the fall of 2009, as we headed toward the Christmas season, that number went STEADILY down (while the unemployment number stayed about the same, which has been true ever since). Thus, the AVERAGE for December of 2009 was 455,000 (with weekly dips to the same level as this latest weekly number). But that decrease in new jobless claims STOPPED with January of 2010. From that point, until May, the number bounced up and down between 440,000 and 490,000, with NO TREND (although for most of that period the desicable Associated Press LIED by saying an "improving" trend was in place--a "seady" improving trend, no less--whenever the weekly number jumped back up.

Then came the summer of 2010, starting in May. Suddenly, the weekly unemployment number STOPPED fluctuating toward the bottom on the RANGE it had been stuck in since December of 2009. Rather, the range moved UP. For one four week period, the AVERAGE was actually above 480,000, and the number did not drop below 450,000. In other words, the range SHIFTED (for the seasonally adjusted, subjective number) rom a range primarily jumping around 450,000 or 455,000 to a range where 460,000 was the BOTTOM (for the most part), and the top even went ABOVE 500,000. Yet, abruptely, the range went back down at the end of the summer--eventually even reaching the 400,000 level in December. How can this be explained?

Yes, there have probably been some variations in the economy, which seemed to weaken in the spring of 2010, and to stabilize again as we began to gear up for the holiday season. But the exlanation that seems to best fit the facts is that the seasonal adjustments are broken--distorted by the long recession. Was the BIG spike up in new unemployment claims in the summer a FICTION (in part) overstating the weakness? Probably so. Then was the apparent major improvement from September to the time of Christmas another FICTION overstating the improvement? Probably so. Look at the AVERAGE beginning inMay. In other words, average the weekly number over all of the weeks from the time the number started spiking up in May to the decline in the fall. What is the result? It is about the SAME as that 455,000 AVERAGE for all of December of 2009---probably a bit HIGHER than that.

Q.E.D. There really has been little or no "improvement" in the jobless claims number since December of 2009, and the attempt to read things in to these weekly numbers is more a sign of INCOMPETENCE (by economists AND media) than anything else. Obsiously, this weekly number is both volatile and subjective. IF you had a stready improvement over MANY monts (always allowing for a blip here and there), it might mean something. As it is, however, what we have is a number that DID "steadily" improve in the stabilizing economy in the second half of 2009, but which has NOT improved since in any kind of steady way. SOMETHING happened in the summer of 2010, but it may have been mainly a FICTIOIN. SOMETHING happened in the fall of 2010, but it may have been mainly a FICTION (glitch in the figuring of the number). Overall, the sitaution has remained the same for a whole year--NO improvement.

By the way, MINOR improvement in the weekly number does not mean much--even over time. The AVERAGE for ALL of 2010 was little changed from the average for December of 2009. If that average were to drop to 440,000 for 20111, would that mean much? Nope. In PERCENTAGE terms, it would be a miniscule "improvement". For there to be a real improvement since the fall of 2009 (again, MORE than a year ago), we need to AVERAGE under 400,000--preferably under 350,000. At this time, there is no indication we are going to do that.

On jobs, the Obama economic policy has been a dismal failure. But--to a degree--that is a matter of opinion. What is NOT a matter of opinion is that reporting of economic numbers and what they mean is INCOMPETENT. You will usually not even see the QUESTIONS I raise addressed--including the question of how the weekly jobless claims number can vary 20% or so, while the UNEMPLOYMENT number stays about constant (as it has since July of 2009). It is ABSURD to suggest that the unemployment number, over all o that time, can be explained by people coming back into the work force because they see an improving economy (the only--absurd--"explanatiion" I have seen).

We need real rekporting on economic numbers, their inconsistencies, and the multiple possible meanings. Instead, we continue to get INCOMPETENT reporting, and incompetent "analysis" from the Stupidest People on Earth (economists and the "analyusts" on Wall Street--not to mention the mainstream media).

P.S. Note, as usual, that this article has neither been proofread nor spell checked---because of bad eyesight--unless this note is deleted. Even so, it should still make more sense to you than almost ANY of the reporting on this subject.