Obama Fails Again on Jobs: Loses 835,000 (838,000?) Jobs in Two Weeks

The number for new unemployment claims (a measure of layoffs--gross lost jobs, indicating how stupid Obama rally is hwen talking about minor numbers of GROSSS jobs his programs "create" at MAJOR cost) came out of Thursday. As usual, it was a bad number (although requiring explanantion). First, however, we need to note that this blog has again exposed the media LIES in the way this weekly number is reported. Last week's reported unumber of new unemployment claims was rEVISED upward, as this blog told ou it would be (next week's "news" today!!!!), from 432,0000 to 436,000--about a 3 month HIGH. Was, however, even that number "real"?


Thursday's reported, UNREVISED, number of new unemployment claims was 399,000. Based on history, that number will be REVISED upward next week to either 402,000 or 403,000. You will notice that this APPEARS to be a "drop" of 37,000. Except that is IMPOSSIBLE (not jut improbable). Approximately 2 months ago, the number of new unemployment claims APPEAREWD to "drop" to 400,000 for 3 straight weeks (the last of those weeks being about twomonths ago). Then the number went STRAIGHT UP to last week's 436,000. If youi believe these numbers--falsely regard them as exact numbers, as reported by the media, instead of written on sand or water, as correctly reported here), the job market got steadily WORSE for almost two months, and then dramatically turrned on a dime. IMPOSSIBLE. Didn't happen. What did happen?


Let us go to the AP story yesterday. Despite a LYING headline ("Jobless claims and revision of GDP number ease economic fears"), even the AP could not stomach this impossible 37,000 jobs "turnaround", without any obvious, dramamtic iimprovement in the economy, and despite the tREND of the past two moonths. Oh. And ECONOMISTS (the stupidest people on Earht) had expected above 420,0000. No, the AP appears to have been reading this blog (as the despicable people should, if they want to improve their competence). The AP had an early paragraph--although after the false headline and lead--that said the apparent "drop" in the number of jobless claims was probably due to a glitch in the SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT. Plus, the AP did NOT (having read this blog, I twell you) make a big deal out of the number dropping "under 400,000 (a statistical lie, even if the 399,000 were real, and almost guaranteed to be REVISED above 400,000 next week). I would bet that much of the mainstream media was not--not having the benefit of the continual correction of this blog--able to refrain from LIES about the dramatic "improvement" of the jobless claim number.


Te AP was right (after getting past the lies of the headline and lead). The only explanation for otherwise inexplicable numbers is the SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT. As this blog has told you for YEARS< the number of new unemployment claims (not to mention the monthly numbers on net jobs "created", or lost) is NOT an objective number achieved by Federal bureaucrats couting on their fingers and toes. It is a SUBJECTIVE number, ased on a formula trying to factor out routine SEASONAL changes in the job market (think CHRISTMAS here). This "seasonal adjustment" is LARGE--usually dwarfing the nominal "change" in the number from week to week (or month to month). This means it is a LIE to report the weekly number, as basically all of the media does, as a reliable, exact number. This number does mean something, but only OVER TIME. Weekly fluctuations mean almost NOTHING.


That is why my headline--aside from noting that this week's reported number will likely be revised UP by 3,000 or 4,000 next week--uses a two week AVERAGE to note the real significance of this week's number. That average (taking into acount the probable revison) is 419,0000. That is a TERRIBLE number. The FOUR_WEEK average is above 420,000--a TERRIBLE number. Now this week's number may eventually distort the four-week average somewhat (lookk what happens if we get 3 weeks of 420,000, to go along with this week's 400,000), but it is still a better indication of where we are.


But is it not "good" news that the new jobless claims numbe did not KEEP going up, as it had been, beyond 436,000? Yes, that is the ONLY sense in which this week's reported number of new unemployment claims (the reporting being for last week) was "good" news Was the 436,000 number any more "real" than this week's unbelievable number? Maybe not. This week's number, and the bouncing up and down of the past 6 months, would indicate that we are STUCK in approximately the same place--a BAD place. We seem to be STUCK at a level above 400,000--a RANGE between 400,000 and 440,000. That is a BAD range to be in. However, you cannot say that the number is significantly DETERIRATING. We have NOT IMPROVED this entire year, and we appear to have DETERIORATED (slightly) since the four-week average dropped (briefly) below 400,000 in February (one week going to 375,000). But, OVER TIME< we definitely appear to be STUCK in a BAD place of NO IMPROVEMENT. The unemployment rate cannot improvve with weekly jobless claims consistently above 400,000.


There yu have it. Again, this blog has done what the media will not do: explain these numbers coherently to you (hopeefully coherently, with no proofreading or spell checking, due to my poor eyesight). The MONTHLY numbers on employment will come out. Remember the lessons here. Obama was actually right last month--although that does not keep him form LIES other months, contradiciting his exuces when he thinks he needs them): One month is very unnreliable, because the MARGIN OF ERROR alone in thiese numbers is LARGE. The"seasonal adjustment" is huge. It is subject to HUMAN ERROR. And seasonal patterns CHANGE. Therefore, you have to look at the numbers over time. Over time, they have been BAD, because they are continuing to show NO IMPROVEMENT. Given the present four-week average of new unemployment claims, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the employment numbers for September to be "good". Nor would you expect the number to be significantly worse than for August. What you would expect is that we are STUCK in our bad place, and that any statistical "noise" in the weekly or monthly numbers is meaningless unless and until some sort of real trend is established over a number of months. No, it is NOT true that we are "headed in the right direction". We are presently STUCK--running in place without getting anywhere. That is really where we have been since the summer of 2009.