Obama Fails Again on Jobs: Loses 1,698,000 Jobs in Four Weeks

This is my (virtually) weekly report on the Labor Department's weekly report on new unemployment claims (a measure of layoffs) released on Thursday--as it is released essentailly every Thursday, reporting the number of new applications for unemployment for the previous week ("seasonally adjusted", and NOT an ojective "count" , like counting on your toes and fingers--the "raw" count being reported by the Labor Deparment but NOT by the mainstream media, in one of those "journalistic" crimes).


The headdline is exactly accurate, so long as you are willing for the Obama administraton to take "credit" for GROSS jobs "created/saved". New unemployment calims do represent GROSS jobs lost, as do the attempts by the Obama administration to measure GROSS jobs "created/saved" by the "stimulus" bill. !The numbers would indicate that 1,698,000 gross jobs have been lost in the past four weeks. Here are the weekly numbers for the past four weeks, beginning with the most recent week (and giving both the originally reported number and REVISED number, as each weekly report revised the number initially reported the previous week--not because of the "seasonal adjustment" but simply because the number was errroneiuoly calculated the previous week): 414,0000 (to be revised next week); 430,000 (revised from 427,000 initially, in HEADLINES, the previous week); 426,000 (revised from 422,000); and 428,000 (revised from 424,000). The four-week average, which is less volatile and less misleading than a single week (since the numbers for individual weeks jump around based on temporary factors and statistical glitches)--the four-week average STAYED the same. (exactly).. That is because the number five weeks ago was 414,000 (revised from 409,000). Thus, there was NO IMPROVEMENT in the more reliable afour-week average, and the number stayed above 400,000 for the 10th straight week. That is significant, because 400,000 is universally recognized as too HIGH for there to be any significant improvement in the labor market/employment situation (dismal). Further, the present four-week average is such that theere has been NO IMPROVEMENT in SEVEN MONTHS (not just 4 weeks or 10 weeks).


The liars of the AP, along with the rest of the mainstream media, reported that the number of new unemployment claims dropped/improved by 16,000 from the previous week. Note that this is an objective LIE--a lie repeated every single week by the mainstream media. It is not just that the mainstream media ignores that the four-week average did NOT IMPROVE by even a single job "saved". Note that the media is comparing apples and oragnes. They are comparing this week's UNREVISED number with the REVISED number from the previous week. This is not just nit-picking, because the REVISED number has been consistently 3,000 or 4,000 HIGHER than the innitially reported number. Thus, the CORRECT headline would be that the volatile weeklly number "imporved" by 13,000, and NOT by 16,000, comparing apples to apples (initially reported number to initially reported number). Last week, for example, the HEADLINES reported that the number "edged" up 1,000. Look at my report, in the first paragraph, of the past four weeks, and you will see that the number actually rose 4,000 last week. Further, given the volatile nature of the weekly number, 13,000 (or, really, 16,000) is really NOTHING--well within the margin of error. That is, of course, also true of 4,000, but the actual increase of 4,000 last week was FOUR TIMES the initially reported increase. From a psychological point of view, that is significant, and that is the ONLYL way the media is reporting these numbers. As usual, the mainstream media is NOT INTERESTED in the FACTS. Otherwise, they would report these numbers in context, as I do. Now the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (complete, official name) DID purport to put the numbers in context, but the AP LIED (as usual), putting the nubers only in the context of previous AP LIES.


Now the initial AP headlline did, at least, say that Thursday's reported number "remained high"--the headline correctly saying that Thursday's number was BAD news, instead of good news. The AP would revert to PURE LPROPAGANDA later in the day (see below). But the actual story under the firt headline repreated a number of AP LIES.


The AP story--referring not to the data but to prior AP stories making incorrect points--said that new unemployment claims had dropped to 375,000 in Februarly, suggesting that there had been a consistent IMPROVEMENT to that point. The correct thing about what the AP said was that the 375,000 number was the LOW--the BEST number of tthe year, and of several years. But it was not SIGNIFICANTLY lower than the number reached at the end of last year, and did not represent a CONSISTENT improvement at the beginning of this year. What happened, as this blog reported, was that the number improved significantlly in the FALL of 2010, after failing to improve for at least 10 months, beginning in November of 2009 (when the number of new unemplyment claims dropped under 500,000 for the first time siince Obama became President). In fact, the number SPIKED in the summer of 2010, baqck to the WORST levels since late November of 2009. The number then proceeded to improve in the FALL of 2010, as it had the previous fall (indicating, perhaps, that there is a DIFFERENT seasonal pattern now in the Amerian economy). By the end of 2010, the number of new unemployment calims had dropped to the 400,000 level, and there is STUCK (stopped improving--despite the LIES of the AP). That is wwhat this blog told you. The number started BOUNCING AROUND the 400,000 level, with NO consistent trend. Yes, the number reached that "low" of 375,000, but that was the LAST BOUNCE DOWN THAT LOW (and only 25,000 below the 400,000 level).


Here is what the AP said in its story:, trying to suggest a steady "improvement" which was not occurring, as this blog told you at the time: "The number stayed under 400,000 for seven of nine weeks." Remember, 375,000 was the ABERRATIONAL LOW. That was in February. EVERY number after that was ABOVE 375,000. Yet, the despicable AP was saing that there was a STEADY TREND of improvement. That was pretty much true in the FALL of 2010. It was NOT TURE this year. Rather, what happned was that the number BOUNCED BACK above 400,000, and bascially stayed right around the 400,000 level. No improvement, allthough for a few weeks the four-week average dropped SLISGHTLY below 400,000. We were, in fact, STUCK right around 400,000. The next week (after those "nine" referenced by the AP) was ABOVE 400,000. hat makes 7 of 10 weeks, and we never looked back as we went CONSISTENTLY above 400,000 (now for those 10 straight weeks--a real TREND, and not just 7 of 9, with the "7" including several right AT 400,000). You think I am being "unfair" to the despicable AP? You haven't heard anything yet.


Continuing with its "narrative" (having nothing whatever to do with the facts--see the previious article in this blog), the AP said the following: "Then the number (previously steadily improving, according to the AP lie) begain to deteriorate in Apirl. It reached a high of 478,000, and has been slowing improving since.". What can you say about "journalists" who have this litttle regard for the facts. Note how the AP would UNDERMINE its own story if it simply reorted a CHART of the week by week numbers since last November 1.


This is what actually happened. First, here are the weekly numbers right around the 478,000 (obviuosly an aberration, as I said it probably was at the time): 434,000, 478,000 and 438,000. Then, as happened five weeks ago, the numbr dropped SuDDENLY all of the way down to 414,000 (initially reported at 409,000, as the AP built to an orgasm of "improvement"). In other words, we have merely returned to where we were five weeks ago. And we PROBABLY have not even done that. Remember, the REAL number that should have been reported on Thursday is PROBABLY at leat 417,000. That is not even what makes the AP LIE so obvious.


"Slowly"? As if we have had a slow, steady "improvement"? Can you LIE any more obviusly than that. We had an INCREASE of 44,000 to reach 478,000 (a reason to suspect it was an aberration). Then we had a DECREASE of 0,000. Slowly? Forget it. Then we had another DECREASE of 20,000 or so. Then we had an INCREASE of 14,000. Then we SLOWLY INCREASED to 430,000. Why do I highlight this numbe? Look at the number right FEFORE the spike to 478,000. That number was 434,000. Statistically, that is the SAME as the 434,000. Note how the numbers have been bouncing around, with NO TREND, except the CONSISTENT trend of staying above the BAD 400,000 level. This AP idea of a "slow improvement" is ABSURD. It is an objective LIE. And you can see that the 13,000 decrease reported on Thursday (on an apples to apples basis) is PEANUTS, compared with some of the weeekly moves UP and DOWN. Q.E.D. The despicable AP is dishonest and incompetent.


Nope. It did not quite end there. The AP--later in the day--had this headline: "Layoffs ease, as housing numbers improve." Note that the AP headline, "layoffs ease" has been used as often as the headline, "Obama focusing on jobs". The AP has it on ONE CLICK status, whenever it wants to put out pure PROPAGANDA on the status of jobs. The AP NEVER uses this headline: "Layoffs worsen." In fact, if the number of new unemplyment claims goes higher, the AP does not refer to "layoffs" at all. It refers to "new applicatons for unemployment". As shown above, this headline was a LIE. This Thursday's report of new unemployment claims was NO EVIDNCE that layoffs have "eased". The fluctuation reported on Thursday was well within the STATISTICAL NOISE that would be reported by any competent "journalist". (No, it is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the housing numbers, which have been uniformly dismal, such that the minor "improvement" in certain numbers referenced by the AP is hardly significant.)


I am feeling more and more like Job (Bible: I keep feeling this should be spelled "Jobe", the way it is pronounced, especially for this article, which makes me uncertain of the correct spelling). As readers of this blog know, I have been CURSED with Lot's fate. I have been assigned a Sodom and Gomorrah search of AP articles, to see if I can find ONE honest, competent AP reporter. This is especailly galling, since I am an agnostic (sort of like Obama, who Bill Maher and I agree is NOT a Christian). I have been on this search more than SEVEN YEARS. Was even Lot cursed to this extent? I think not. WHY should this futile search go on. Needless to say, I have NOT found a single honest, competent AP reporter. I can't believe I ever will. Thus, my adivce to you: STAY AWAY from anyone and anything connected with the despicable AP, and under no circumstances look at anything unusual occurring at an AP facility. If you turn into a pillar of salt, don't blame me.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight, including an inability to pick up "spell check" shading).