Obama and Jobs, Jobs, Jobs: Obama Loses 819,000 Jobs in Two Weeks (No Improvement)

Yes, the number of unemployment applications for the preceding week is reported basically every Thursday--the measure of layoffs (gross job losses) in the economy every week. In the first eight months of 2010, that number fluctuated between 440,000 and 500,0000--a very high number whech failed to improve over a period of some 18 months. However, after spiking up in the summer of 2010, that weekly jobless claims number DID improve until the end of last year--eventually falling below 400,000 (still a high number) near the end of last year, for the first time in more than two years. Now some of that may be somewhat fictioinal, as it is hard to beliegvve that theeconoomy was BAD in the summer of 2010 and so much BETTER (turning on apparently a dime) in the last quarter of 2010. There may be something of a technical glitch here. Nevertheless, the number did seem to be substantially improving--if not to a level good enough to lower the unemployment rate much--over about a 3 month period. Problem: We are now STUCK again: No improvement in almost 4 months.


Last Thursday's reported number (NOT a concrete number, as explained below) was 403,000, and the previous week ws REVISED upward 4,000, to a total of 416,000. This is back to the levels of the late fall of 2010. And, wore, the numbre has NOT continued consistently down. Yes, there were dips down--toward 380,000, which is not really s significant improvement over 400,000 unless the number STAYS at that level. It has not. The number blips down, to headlines saying how the number shows an "improving" job market and economy. The number then SURGES back up, to muted headlines. When the number SURGED to 416,000 (initially reported as 412,000), the despicable AP (as featured on Yahoo "News", as usual) failed to even rep9port the number in the headline--further not reporting a "surge" which "surprised" perpetually surprised economists (not reporting it, that is, in the eliberatgely dismissive headline). The mainstream media tried to suggest that the "sruge" was an aberration (possible, of course, since the weekly number means little because of its volatility), not changing the overall "trend". Problem: the TRND was not there since the end of the year, as the weekly number has bouunced around 40,000--maybe averaging slightly under 400,000, but not by a statistically significant amount (especailly since thesee numbers are NOT "hard" numbers, but ADJUSTED numbers (again, as explained below). Thus, even before the surge to 416,000, the number was pretty much STUCK (unless it stopped bouncing up, which that 416,000 number made moot). Now the number stayed above 40,000 (subject to revision this week, but those revisions have usually been UP). Thus, we are NOT IMPROVING (again).


The headline is absolutely accurate--MORE accurate than the AP headline (criticized by me in an earlier article) about how the United States defaulting on its loans would be a disaster to the economy (a total non sequitur and really false, because it was intended to equate failure to raise the debt ceiling with a default, and that is false). Obama DID lose 810,000 jobs in two weeks, and that number is not totally irrelevant (as the AP headline was on "default"). Now it is true that these are GROSS JOBS, which means Obama did not lose a NET of 819,000 jobs in those two weeks. However, I am merely using the standards of the Obama Administration's dishonest attempt to measure the "success" of the "stimulus" plan (a failue) by "coutning" GROSS JOBS. That is, of course, absurd, as it is somewhat absurd for me to say that Obama has reallyu "lost" 819,000 jobs in two weeks. True, but not relevant on NET jobs, although very relevant on whether we are making progress on net jobs. The headline is my satiric way of again showing you that President Obama is Liar-in-Chief--trtying to get "credit" for GROSS jobs "creaqted", while taking no "blame" for gross jobs LOST.


You may have the media generated impression that the weekly report of new unemployment claims is a solid number--arrived at by COUNTING the number of new applications for unemployment (using fingers and toes, if you have ever worked for the mainstream media). Wrong, Dancing Buffalo ("may a demented buffalo defecate on your shoes, while you are still in them"--Johnny Carson/Karnak reference). Yes, they do "count" (in one way or another) the actual number of (reported) new applications. However, that number is SEASONALLY ADJUSTED,, using a formula that itself has to be continually ADJUSTED. Tht ADJUSTED number is the number that is widely reported (atlghough the Labor Department does report the raw number, which anyone can look up and which can be sometimes--briefly--be referenced in the financial media like CNBC). This is often not a minor adjustment. It is SIGNIFICANT. And just look at what is really going on. Is it possible to believe that we get the "seasonal adjustment" right every week, when the economy is changing so much every year, as the recession itself indiccates? In your dreams--not reality--can this "seasonal adjustment" be regarded as an exact number. Really, the "margin of error" in the weekly reported number has to be at least 10%, if not more. Yes, the errors in any individual week smooth out OVER TIME, but each week's number is pretty MEANINGLESS *exceot as oart if kiiubg at tge bynbers iver tune). That is not even to consider that each week's reported number is REVISED the next week--a revision which has recently been 3 or 4 thousand in most weeks, and usually upward. Tese constant revisions even call into question the COUNT of actual claims filed, before adjustment.


You can see how BADLY the "journalists" of the media "report" the facts here. Firt, the RAW number should ALWAYS be reported, just as prominently as the adjusted number. Otherwise you are not reporting the facts. It should ALWAYS be noted that the number is subject to revision, and the weekly revisions should be prominently reported. You CAN do all of this in the LEAD paragraph, but that is not how modern "journalists" do the lead. The despicable AP lead every week is an INTERPRETATION of the adjusted number--treathing that number as an exact number. I have reported previously instances where the mainstream media has treated a "drop" of 3,000 claims as significant, when we KNOW that the weekly revision alone may turn such a "drop" into an equally meaningless "increase" of a thousand or so. It is disgraceful "reporting", but what else do you expect of modern "journalists"?


This same lackof concrete certainly applies to other reported employment related data. For example, the monthly number of jobs "created" (or "lost") is SEASONALLY ADJUSTED. As with the number of new unemployment claims, this monthly number is aslo subject to extraneous factors like the WEATHER. What about the "unemployment rate"? That is, perhaps, the most unreliable number of all. It is a POLL (I kid you not). It is a SURVEY of a SAMPLE of households. (The media, by the way, fraudulently reports POLLS of every kind, in addition to its fradulent reporting of employment data as exact, since polls are not "exact" numbers either.) Gallup has consistently been reporting an unemployment rate of 10% based on its POLL, while the Labor Department has been reporting well under 10% (now right at 9%). These numbers are all written in quicksand--not totally meaningless, as the only numbers we have, but hardly "hard" numbers the way they are reported. Over the past three years, by the way, these three numbers (jobless claims, jobs created or lost each month, and monthly unemployment rate) have often been INCONSISTENT in terms of "trend" (although all numbers have consistently shown very little improvement, beyond stabilization).


What have you learned? Well, Thursday (tomorrow) the weekly number of new unemployment claims will be reported, along with the revision of last week's number. Say that number is 397,00. You might then see "reporting" that the "trend" has again been proven to be improving, and that it is "encouraging" that the number is back "below" 400,0000. You, having read this article, will know such reporting to be FALSE. First, the number might not be "under" 400,000 at all, because it will be subjet to REVISION the following week. Further, you willknow that the "margin of error" in the number is so large that it is crazy to talk abou 3,000 below 400,000 as being significant. It would be meaningless. In fact, one week's number--any week's number--is pretty much meaningless no matter what it is.


Doubt me? What if Thursday's reported number is 380,l000--seemingly a significant drop. However, since you have read this article, you KNOW that such a number, in itself, will not really be "good" news. Why? Because 380,000 will still leave the AVERAGE for the past 3 weeks at 400,000--a BAD number. Further, the weekly number has bounced around 400,000 since the end of last year, and this shows NO IMPROVEMENT in basically a whole third of a year.


Well, you say, is there ANY number that you would consider "good" news? Nope, and you have to understnad this to understand how you must look at this weekly number. Say Thursday's number is 350,000--a good, although not really outstanding, number, if consistently maintained. What would hat ONE WEEK number indicate? It would mainly indicate a GLITCH--a fictional number. After the weekly numbers have gone UP for two weeks in a row (up from where they were in previous weeks), an EXTREME drop cannot be real. Now it MIGHT indicate that the 400,000 number the previous two weeks was also fictional, and that the situation really is improved. But that could only be concluded after fruther weeks of numbers. So some weekly numbers are obviuosly better than others, but NO week is "good news" in and of itself, in isolation. This is especailly true when the previous two weeks have been above 400,000, and when that same 400,000 level has been where we have basically been for 4 months and more. In that situatin, there is no such thing as "good news". There is only better news and worse news. "Worse" news would be a number that continues right at 400,000, or above.


The more weeks we get above, or right at, 400,000, the more likely it is that 2010 will be repeated. In 2010, starting in about early May, the weekly jobless claims numbers DETERIORATED to their worst level since the end of 2009. Beginning in the late fall of 2009, there were 10 months or so of NO IMPROVEMENT--with the numbers seeming to be worsening. Was that "real" worsening, or has the economy just developed new seasonal patterns? Who knows? And has the "seasonal adjustment" been CHANGED, because of last summer? Will the summer again show an apparent detterioration? You can see how interpreting these numbers is NOT easy, and how bad a job the media is doing giving you the facts.


Note lthat I did not even get into the subject of "discouraged workers", undereemployed people, and temporary workers when discussing this data. That sort of thing makes it even more complicated to examine the true employment picture. But the numbers themselves are NOT EXACT, and it is false to report them as if they are.


P.S. No prooofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).