Yes, the headline is ot a joke. It is absolutely accurate. As usual on Thursday, the "adjusted" number of new unemployment claims (a measure of layoffs--lost jobs) came out this morning. It was yet another BAD number (424,000), as the number has not gone as low as 400,000 (itself a pretty bad number) in six weeks, while the four-week average is back to the level it was at LAST FALL. The number of repported new unemployment claims went UP 10,000 (and counting) this wek, and the four-week average stayed essentailly the same (438-439 thousand) as my article set forth last week. The four-week average, at least, should improve some next week, because we will be dropping off that rather anamolous 478,000 week. But the number had dropped to 400,000 and below by the end of last year, and there were a number of weeks below 400,000 (the four-week average even falling below that number) early in this year--lathough not by much. Obviously, whatever minor improvement we had last fall has STALLED completely.
These are the numbers for the last 4 weeks of reported new unemployment claims, as revised (from most recent to least recent): 424,000 (to be revised next week); 414,000 (revised UP from 409,000); 438,000 (revised UP from 434,000); and 478,000 (revised UP from 474,000). Note that the media LIES every time they report the weekly number--including comparing apples and oranges. For example, look at this week's number, and last week's REVISED number. The media headline today is that new unemployment claims went up 10,000, but that is FALSE. It is comparing apleds and oranges, because this wweek's number will be REVISED. The media is comparing last weeek's REVISED number with this week's UNREVISED number. A lie. No, we don't even know how much the new unemployment claims increased from the previous reported week, although 14,000 would be a good guess (because the revised number has consistently--although not always--gone UP 4,000, as is true for the last four weeks, except that this last revised number went up 5,000, from 409,000 to 414,000). You can see that the media also lies by reporting this weekly number as a CONCRETE, EXACT NUMBER, when it is no such thing (as is true of all of these employment numbers--which are not only revised but arrived at through a SUBJECTIVE formula of seasonal adjustment). Thus, it is obviouis that each weekly number has a limited meaning. That is why I report--being more accurate than the mainstream media--the numbers for FOUR WEEKS, and put even those in context of the trend over many months. That trend has been BAD over the past six months.
Further, the economic news in general has been BAD. The government put out a report (yes, the Obama Administration showing up its own leader as Liar-in-Chief) that this is the WORST job recovery, by far, in SIXTY YEARS (essentially since World War II), and that there are 5% LESS jobs in the economy now than when the recovery began in 2009. The GDP (Gross Domestic Product--a broad measure of economic growth) was CONFIRMED for the first quarter to show essentially a flat line (especially when you consider mommodity and food infaltion, and the Federal Reserve doing its own failed "stimulus")--the "growth" being an anemic 1.8%. For comparison, the "growth" the first six months of the RECESSION was reported at 1% or so--including another failed "stimulus" by Bush and the Democrats who controlled Congress as our economy tanked. Housing data continues to be dismal. Unemployment rate ROSE to 9%. All of these numbers, AND the rise in new unemployument claims, gives lie to the one anomaly here: the supposed adding of 244,000 new jobs in April. If you think these are concrete, indisputable numbers, you might remember--as it is true--that the government REVISED net jobs added at one point last year by REDUCING the previus reported numbers by some 330,000.
Yes, the weather can affect the number of new unemployoment claims. But athat is true BOTH WAYS. That is, "god" weather can make the numbers appear better than they should (because of the seasonal adjustment). We do seem to have had more bad weather this year, but that should not really affect the nweekly number OVER TIME (another reason to ignore the media lies in reporting each weekly number). The only way that the weather MAY affect the number of new unemployment claims over a rather extended period of time is if the weather affects the whole economy. In that case, however, we may have a PERMANENT effect on the economy, which means something in itself (albeit not Obama's fault, as most of this dismal performance is). No, you can't even say HOW the weather will affect each weekly number. Yes, bad weather can cause a TEMPORARY jo loss (in construction, for example). But, at the same time, bad weather can cause unemployment offices to CLOSE and people dealing with tornados to not get around to filing an unemployment claim. Again, this shows that the weekly number, in and of itself, is not nearly as significant as the media reports it is. It is impossilbe to really figure out the TIMING of how eather will temporarily affect new unemployment claims. But the TEMPORARY effect should disappear over relatively few weeks.
Let us go to the Obama/Democrat "stimulus" program, which utterly FAILEXD to "create jobs". I got a comment earlier this week--easy to find since it is the ONLY comment this week, which is one more than most weeks)., That comment correctly said that the Obama Administration claim of GROSS jobs "created and saved" was a crock. But it is a crock not just because much evidence shows the claimed numbers were MADE UP, and false (as shown by that government report on how we have LOST JOBS under Obama). Look again at my headline above. I told you it is not a joke, and it is not. It is accurate. However, it can be misleading if you do not understand that these are GROSS JOBS (not net). But look at how the Obama Adminjistration tried to claim jobs "saved and created". They tried to measure GORSS JOBS--a completely meaningless and misleading number, even if accurate). In other words, the Obama policies may have--in fact, DID--LOSE more gross jobs than they "created" (even if the Obama Administration could ot even get this meaningless number right). Yes, the number of new unemployment claims actually has MORE meaning--even though referencing gross jobs-than the "stimulus" jobs "saved/created", since the number of new unemployment claims does show something about the state of the job market (if only the media would have a clue as to how to report the real meaning).
Yes, inflation is out thre (courtesy of Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve, as well as out of control spending). That is why food and commodity prices are so high. As I have repeatedly shown, what Obama has done is create the "perfect storm". Inflation is somwwhat hidden, except for things like gas prices and food prices, because the economy is so WEAK. But the moment the economy starts to show strngth, things like gas prices will go completely out of control (along with many things not presently out of control because of the weak economy). That will SHUT DOWN the economy. We have created a situation where stagflation is inevitable. Our economy CANNOT GROW in any substantial way. Yes, Wall Street and corporatioins can make money by EXPLOITING the weak job market. But the economy can't really grow, and the job market can't really improve. This is just one of the ways that our enourmous deficits and debut--not to mention Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve--are KILLING any chance of a recovery. Yes, I have never been convinced of Ron Paul's crusade agaist the very idea of the Federal Reserve, but Ben Bernanke is lamost single handedly moving me toward Paul's point of view (even if I am not quite there yet).
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Note that I do appreciate comments, even though I can't really read them. That is one reason I will not usually directly respond to a comment. The other reason is that I have actually found it impossible to directly respond to comments because of the security methods Google uses (or at least used, since I gave up trying a few years ago). Be assured that I TRY to read any comments, rare as they are. And I do appreciate them, if only because they give me soome hope that I am not writing this blog solely for my own amusement, and to keep my mind busy. To me, that is not a very good reason to write a blog. I actually put a lot of thought into these articles, and I don't think much of people who say they don't care whether people read what they write. I would like people to read this blog--especailly considering the frustration that it may entail because of no proofreading. That is, I don't think people should read tihs blog BECAUSE of lack of proofreading, but that if I had readers who put up with it, it would--in a left handed way--indicate that they think the blog is worth the effort. As it is, I do not get the feeling that many people feel that way. This is perfectly understandable, especailly since I make NO effort to make this blog reader freindly (ther than to type as best I can, and organize my thoughts as best I can, realizing that there will be NO editing, meaning that what you see here is prettymuch straight "stream of conscioiusness", without any polishing at all). This is a long-winded way of saying I do appreciate the comment this week, and wish I had more, even though I know that any peole commenting will not receive the kind of feedback--from me, anyway--that might encourage them further. This is the reason that I, for awhile, posted my articles on the MSNBC blog website. I actually did get more readers (if not a whole lot moe), but I found I could not take the MSNBC mentality. So I came back here, to complete anonymity. If you are one of the few who read this blog, rest assured that you are getting better information on the meaning of these weekly new unemployment claim numbers than you can get anywhere else.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment