Yes, the weekly number of new unemployment claims filed in the previous week (which, by definition, means lost jobs) was announced today (as it is announced basically every Thursday). Again, it was bad news. Remember, this number went down to r00,000 at the end of last year, and was bounding around that number (as low as 375,000) in February of last year. We are now back at the same level we were in November of LAST YEAR. We are not that far from the range weere in for 10 months, beginning in late November of 2009 (445,000-500,000).
Here are the numbrs of new unemployment claims for the past 4 weeks, beginning with the just announced number for last week: 428,000 (to be revised next week), 429,000 (no revision, for the firt time in almost forever); 420,000 (revised upward from 414,000); and 430,000 (revised upward from 427,000).
You will note that the headlines LIE yet again, indicating that the "journlists" writing the stories have either no concept of what is going on or feel that you are too dumb and inpatient to be told the real facts. "Joless claims edge down 1,000" is the way the lying headlines go. Sure, even the mainstream media cannot make this seem like "good' news. But it is still a LIE. For almost every week in six months--maybe a year or more-the weekly number has been REVISED the next week by at least 2,000--usually averaging about 3,000. Tahat means the number pobably "edged" UP this week--not down. The four-wek average definitely "edged" up. The media continues to report this weekly number as if it were a "hard" number. Well. I have told you that thesee people are incomopetent and dishonest. I guess I should not be surprised that they continue to be that way. Yes, they SHOULD do what I do: report at least the last four weeks, and even put the number in context over time.
Bottom line: There has been NO IMPROVEMENT in the job market for at least eight months. There has been very little improvement in 2 years. So long as the weekly new unemployment claims remain above 400,000, there caan be NO real improvement in jobs numbers. Thus, since that has been true for all of June, the number of net jobs "created" in June CANNOT be a good number, unless it is a false number. Yes, the headline of this article refers to GROSS jobs, as Obama does from time to time when talking aoubt the "success" of his "stimulus" program. It is net jobs that are more important, and new unemployment claims do not directly address net jobs. But you CANNOT have any significant growth in NET jobs wiehn the number of gorss jobs lost per week stays above 400,000 . That number needs to be 300-350,000.
Are people reading this blog, or am I just good I tild you last week that the 6,000 revision might mean that the revision this week would not be so large. as usual. It turned out to be NO revision!!!!!! Are people getting embarrassed by how obvious it is that these numbers are writtenn in sand? Maybe. Thee revisions are a fascinating story in themselves, if there were any competent reporters to write the story. Then there ae the SEASONAL ADJUSTMENTS--anatoerh fascinating story inn how these numbers are not really as solid as the media presents them.
Be comforted. You may fear for you job, or not have one. But you have Obama's word: "Iim here." Except when he is not, like going to Puerto Rico, Ireland, or--today--to Philadelphia for a fund raiser. On the job all of the time, that's him. Now it is ture that we are probably BETTEROFF the less he is on the job.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment