Obama Fails on Jobs Again: Loses 1,641,000 Jobs in Four Weeks (as AP Lies)

Thursday's report on new unemployment claims for the previous week came out this morning. As usual, this blog was proven oorrect about media LIES. Last week, the reported numbre (for the previous week) was 417,000. The REVISED number, released today, was 421,000. This blog AGAIN told you last week that the actual number would likely be 420,000 or 421,000, and that media reports to the contrary were LIES: comparing apples (unrevised numbers) with oragnes (revised numbers). Thus, the number rose 9,000 last week, and not 5,000. Here ae the actual numbers for the past 6 weeks, starting from the week furthest away: 401,000 (REVISED up); 402,0000 (not, amazingly, revised, if I remember correctly); 399,000 (REVISED up from a HYPED 395,000--hyped as showing some sort of great "improvement"); 412,000 (REVISED from 408,000); 421,000 (REVISED from 417,000); and 409,000 (not YET revised, as that will happen next week). Is there a TRND here? Yes, the "trend" is that the number cannot get under the BAD 400,000 level, as the 4 week average went UP this week (making a LIE out of the AP headline that the jobless claims "fell" last week, especailly when you take into account that the Verizon strike supposedly "inflated" last week's number--see last week's blog article).


Now I can't get over the feeling that the despicable AP reads this blog, or has contact with people who do. Why do I say that? First, the AP story that was on my AT&T/Yahoo default page this morning FAILS to even give the actual NUMBERS (anywhere near the beginning of the article). So much for "news". You need no further evidence that the late Michael Crichtno was right: these people in the media are NOT INTERSTED in information. They are only interested in their storyline. (See Michael Crichton's "Airframe"). The AP is obvioiusly tired of me poinnting out that they LIE every time they actually report NUMBERS (although they almost never do report them in the lead, since the "lead", for a modern "journalist", is a place for OPINION and AGENDA rather than facts. If the AP does not report the numbers, how can it lie about them? What the AP did was take this blog's conclusion over tlhe past several months, and TWIST it into something the AP can endorse.


What has this blog told you? I have told lyou that the number of new unemployment claims is showing NO IMPROVEMENT. It has shown no improvement over the past six weeks, despite that AP HYPED 395,000 initially reported those weeks ago, and it has shown NO IMPROVEMENT over this entire year (the number reaching 400,000 at the end of last year, and falling to a four eek average well below 400,000 in February).


If lyou were the AP, how would you "spin" this? Remember, there is no such thing as an honest, competent AP reporter. That has been proven by my futile Sodom and Gomorrah search over the past 7 years. You would do what the AP did. You would IGNORE the actual numbers. You would NEVER do what I did above, and report the numbers over the past 6 weeks, or refer to the lack of improvement over the YEAR. What you would do, and what the AP did, is report that jobless claims "fell" last week (ignoring both the settle Verizon strike and the fac that the four week average went UP). You would then go on to say, without really referencing that we are stuck in a BAD place above 400,000, that: "...showing little sign of a pick up in layoffs".


Yep. I could never make this up. The AP said that it is GOOD NEWS that we are MPT O<{RPVOMG/ What about Obama's claim that we are "going in the right direction"? "Not improving" is NOT "going in the right directioin". What the AP is saying is hat we should be HAPPY things are not getting WORSE. What a reelection campaign this is going to be!!!! Obama slogan: "Vote for me, and things will stay the same.". Inspiring, right? Makes you feel good, right? No, this is an AP LIE. By any ordinary standard, today's jobless claims numbers were BAD news. Yes, the AP almost quoted ME ,when the AP cited an "expert" (plagarizing me) that the "trend" in jobless claims is FLAT. In the strange world of the AP, this is "good news" because there is no proof that layoffs are getting worse. Forget that we are supposedly in a RECOVERy, whre layoffs are supposed to be going DOWN. "No improvement", for the AP, is "god news" (if they can't point to anything better).


Notice that you COULD say that the "trend" is UP for layoffs. We have gone from 3 weeks right at 400,000, to three weeks above 410,000 (apples to apples, assuming that this week's reported number of 409,000 will be REVISED upward to 412,0000 or 413,0000). In other words, if there is a "trend", it is in the WRONG direction. However, this blog has shown you that these numbers have a "margin of error" much worse than this, and that these kinds of small variations are pretty much meaningless. Thus, we ARE "flat". However, we are "flat" ABOVE 4000,000, and that is BAD. That is the real "tred" here. The "best" number over lthe past 20 pluls weeks has been 399,000 (400,000, in other words, as tkhere is no statistical difference between 399,000 and 400,0000). In February, the number had reached 375,000, and the despicable AP was citing a solidly "improving" "trend" that DID NOT EXIST (as I said at the time, as the AP kept insisting on such a trend even as the number bounced back to 400,000). Message to the dishonest people of the AP: "What is the 'trend' since the number went to 375,000?"


I really can't wait for those Obama campaign ads trumpeting: "Layoffs have not gotten any worse. It is ture that they have not gotten any better, and that the unemployment rate has not gotten any better, but you need to vote for Obama to keep the status quo. It could be worse."


Yes, the AP WILL refer to the fourweek average on jobless calims, and used to cite it all of the time as the more 'reliable" measure of the "trend". Taht was when it fit the AP storyliine.


Note on the headline. It is absolutely accuratge that we LOST that many GORSS jobs over the previous four weeks. Isn't that isleading, since NET jobs are what really matter? Exactly. That is the SATIRE of that headline. When Obama talks aobut "creating" jobs, and COUNTING the jobs his Big Government policies have "created", he is referring to GROSS JOBS. Oh, he will sometimes talk about the net private jobs created, but NOT when he is talking aobut jobs the "stimulus" created. In other words, Obama does what the headline does. He switches back and forth between gross and net jobs, whenever it suits him. This is dishonest, and you might regard the TRUE headline as dishonest. That is the point. No, at least I do NOT switch back and forth between gorss and net jobs in this article, and I make it clear what I am talking about. But I will tell you that it is NET jobs that matter, and that Obama is NOT "creating" enough "net" jobs to help the unemployment rate. yhou can see that because the unemplyment rate is NOT IMPROVING, and the jobless claims numbers CONFIRM the message being given fy the LACK OF IMPROVEMENT in the unemplyment rate.


P.S No proofreadin or speel checking (bad eyesight).