Jobs: No Improvement in More Than Two Years (Entire Obama Presidency)

The mainstream media could not containt their GLEE today over the "good" jobs numbers. Women, and even men, were having multiple orgasms right there on your TV screen. These people lieve in a world of FANTASY, and not reality. The "news" was "good" only in that it was not bad. I am serious. The "news" showed NO substantial improvement in the Obama Presidency. Trend? What "trend"? It depends on when you tart. What the media wants to do is use the WORST numbers of 2011, and ignore that there has been NO improvement from January of 2011, and the unemployment rate has shown essentailly no improvement since July of 2009 9 (yes, 2009, right after Obama's policies were put into effect). Further, the MONT TO MONTH "trend" is non-existent. Doubt me? Never do that. I am never wrong no these figures.


The unemployment RATE announced today was 8.5%. That was "down" .1% from the ANNOUNCED figure for November of 8.6^. These figures, of course, are written on water. More about that later. In other words, the unemployment rate did NOT "improve". It was UNCHANGED (.1% being statistically insignificant). But weren't f200,000 jobs "created" in December? Yes, but so waht? Not only is that figure not sufficient to lower the unemployment rate, but thre is NO TREND (despite the media LIES you have heard). This number has BOUNCED AROUND month after month, and it CHANGES (remember again, these figures are written in water, rather than permanent ink). Remember that month--this summer--when ZERO jobs were "created"? Well, that number was REVISED to show at least 50,000 jobs "created". Then the number was REVISED again. These numbers keep getting REVISED, months after the original number is reported, and yet the media picks out the numbers they want to HIGHLIGHT to show a non-existent "tgrend".


howw about giving the FACTS. Waht do I mean? I mean give a chart for the month-by-month numbers for 2011 and 2010, maybe even showing the REVISIONS, and caompare 2010 numbers with 2011. Let us take January of 2011 (this year). What was the unemployment rate? I think it was the first two months of 2011, the unemployoment rate dropped below 9% (8.9% and 8.8%). Yes,k last month's "great" improvement to 8.7% was essentailly the SAME unemployment rate with which we started out for 2011. What "trend"? It is a "trend" ONLY if you START with the WORST numbers of 2011.


It gets worse than that. You can look at theis blog's (correct) articles for the end of 2010 and beginning of 2011. The media put out the SAME propaganda. The "trend" was a "steadily improving" economy". The AP put "steadily impraoving" in EVERY story. The uneemployment rate "dropped" below 9%. The weekly jobless claims numbers (as now) dropped a little below 400,000 The media was hyping the "TREND". It turned out there was NO "trend". The unemployment rate went back up. The weekly jobless claims went back up above 400,000. The economy "slowed down". What"trend". We are now just back about where we were to START 2011. Then, if you go to 2010, as stated, a "steady improvement" was "obverved" supposedly throhout the year. The "jobs created". went "positive" in early 2010, and there were individual months when they were about that same 200,000 initialy reported this month. Again, it was supposedly an irreversible "trend". Some 'trend". It did not even last into the summer of 2011. Then look at July of 2009, The unemployment rate DROPPED from 9.5% to 9.4%. It woould not be that low again until that period ending in that 8.9% rate, and 8.8% rate, at the beginning of 2011. That did not stop the media from HYPING the "trend" then--the "improvement". Looked at correctly, the unemplyment rate has NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ILMPROVED since Julyu of 2009--less than 1%, and approaching that oONLY in the last two months. What "trend".



Noope. It is a LIE to take the numbers of jobs and jobless claims from 2008 and 2009-the FREE FALL time of the Great Recession--and compare present nubmers with them. Oh, you can do that to show that things are not gettin gWORSE now, as they were then. But you cannot show a TRND that way. You can only show a TRND by showing a "steady" improvement--maybe with a glitch or two, but ssteady--over 2010 and 2011. That, you CANNOT DO. And the media can't do it. They just declare a "trend" and hope people won't notice the LIE.


What is going on here? These numbers on jobs are SEASONALLY ADJUSTED numbers. For this reason alone, the "margin of error" in the monthly "jobs created" is at least 100,000. The "margin of error" in that weekly jobless claims number is at least 50,000 (in any individual week). This is indicated by the fact that the RAW (not seasonally adjusted number) number of new unemployment calims often changes by 100,000 from week to week. The "adjusted" number NEVER changes by more than 25,000 (well, almost never). You can see what happpens if the seasonal pattern CHANGES, and the "adjustment" formula is WRONG. Weather, by the way, also plays a factor in seasonal adjustments, and the weather this late fal and winter has been really GOOD (for the most part, in heavily populated areas). In short, the numbres do NOT now show a "trend". That could, of course, change, but you cannot create a "rend" by forever comparing the WORST numbers of the Great Recession with the present numbers. A "trend" means a STADY IMPROVEMEMENT--not that the numbres are better than the worst numbers when the economy was collapsing.


Look at the PATGTERN here. lWhat happened in the second half of 2009,as the economy supposedly bounced back from the depths of the recession? The economy "grew" at more than 5% one quarter, and close to that for the entire second half of 2009 (GDP growth). Talk about a "trend'!!!!! l The economy has NOT grown atthat pace since, and "g\rew" atless than 2% for all of 2011. Now that is going the WRONGB direction (not the right direction). This seasonal pattern has continued. As staeted above, the media dnoted the SAME "steady mprovement" at the end of 2010 that it is noting now (without reporting the fact that they were putting out the ame stories at the end of 2010, which proved FALSE, while this blog correctly noted they were wrong). Now, at the end of 2011, the SAME thing seems to be occurring. The economy SEEMS to be "bouncing ack". But is this REAL, or jsut a NEW, extreme seasonal pattern. In other words, when the numbers were showing a TERRIBLE economy this summer, ws it really "that bad", or just an example of the new seasonal pattern? Are we just "bouncing along tghe bottom", not getting worse but not getting better? The case for that is at least as good as the case for an "improving trend".


Look how much room for manipulation there is in these numbers. Look what the DISHONEST people at CNBC did with the REVISED unemployment rate numbers. Remember the 9% rate for October? Well, that was REVISED to 8.9%. Then the 8.6% number last month was REVISED to 8.7%. Then the RAW (unrevised) number for December was reported at 8.5%. I LAUGH at what the DISHONEST ECOMIC FASCISTS of CNBC did with this, because if I started CRYING I would never stop. CNBC actually had the GALL to suggsest that these REVISED numbers show a "steady trend" of a drop of .2% per month. I feel like screaing. The very REVISIONS show that these numbers are WRITTEN ON WATER, and that there is an enormous margine of error. The idea that you can see a "steady" .2% drop is ABUSRD. One of the problems is that you are not even using apples to apples. This month's number is a RAW number--in the sense of not being REVISED. You are comparing it with REVISED numbers. You are a LIEAR if you say, like CNBC, that it makes any sense to try to make a "steady" trnd out of that. Who knows what this month's number will be REVISED to (haning preposition, but it is too hard to aovid that grammatical 'crime").


Look at teh weekly new unemployment claims. Three and four weeks ago those claims had dropped to a SEASONALLY ADJUTED 36,000 and 365,000 (teh "best" numbes since Feburary of 2011, and SLIGHTLY better than the 375,000 reached then, before we went back up above400,00). What happened then? Well, last week the number wsa initially reported as 381,000, UP 15,000 (a higher number being WORSE, since this is a number representing layoffs). That number was REVISED upward by 6,000 this week. Did I not tell you that these numbers are WRITTEN ON WATER? That meanst the number whihc SHOULD have been reported last week was 387,00--not far from that 400,000 number (well within the marging of error of that number, as a matter of fact). This Thrusday, the number of new unemplyoment claims (always reported for the previous week) wa reported--BEFORE REVISIONS--as 372,000. The meida--incliuding the LIARS at CNBC---promptly reported that the number had drropped 15,000. The media in general HYPED the supposed "trend" of "iimprovement in this number. Note lthat the LIE here is comparing the REVISED number for the previous week with the UNREVISED number reportedd this week. And this really is a LIE repeated over and over again by the media.See prvious articles of this blog over at least a TWO YEAR period. This number is almost ALWAYS reviised upward--usually 3,000 or 4,000--but 6,000 for the previous week. Look at what happens if you add 6,000 to the 32,000. You would then have a number for the most recent week of 378,000--hardly any different from the 381,000 initially reported as BAD news last week. Look at it another way. Trend? The "trend" is WRONG. Remembber, this number dropoped to 365,000 in the past month. No, for tow weeks in a row, this number has RISEN to above 70,00000 In fact, after next week's revison, the TWO WEEK AVERAGE is likely to be above 380,000, as compared with a previus two week average of about 365,000. Tren? None, except in the WRONG directin.


Now, if you are paying attentin, you realize that these SHORT-TERM numbers dont men much. The question is whether there really is a "trend", or jsut a recurrent seasonal pattern that will be reversed after the Christmas season is fully past. us. That is what happened last year Will this year repeat. These weekly "jobless claim" numbers are NOT substantially below levels they reached in early 2011, and even late 2010-a LITTLE bettter, but not much (the weather alone would explain the SLIGHT 'improvemetn"). To have a "trend", these numbers are gong to have to STEADILY GO DOWN, over MONATHS and not weeks. Similarly, the number of month "new jobs created" is going to have to go CONSISTENTLY UP--not just bounce around. Untilk we show thqat we are just not repeatign the same thing that has happened the past three yers ("improvement" in the second half of the eyar, REVERSED in the beginning of the next eyar), there is NO TREND.


I actually heard a CNN reporter simply put out OBASMA CAMPAIGN PROPAGAANDA. She said that 1.6 million jobs were "created" in 2011, compared with 8 million jobs "lost" ni 2008 and 2009, showing a TREND of improvement. That is the Obama PROPAGANDA line, and it is a LIE. Have you been paying attention? Do you see WHY i is LIE? Again, teh CNN reporter (as fed to CNNN by Obama0 is comparing 2011 with the WORST of the Great Recssion. What about 2010? Obama was saying teh sAME THING in 2010. These yearly numbers, by the way, are also subject to REVISION. It was recently reported, YEARS afterward, how much WORSE it was in the dark days of 2008-2009 than originally reported. But let us stay with the numbers we have. The "trend" is NOW. It is NOT a quesiotn of whether we are getting WORSE, the way we were in the WROSST months of the Great Depression. The question is whether theyre is a STEADY IMPROVING TREND NOW. 2010 is relevant to thtat question. That is what CNN INGOED. 2008 and 209 are IRRELEVANT to that question (of the PRESIENT TREND). But CNN ingored the RELEVANT information, in favorof the IRRELEVANT propaganda. What else is new. You don't see this? Then you should apply to work at CNN. Asumme you earn $50,0000 in 2007. Then you earn $30,000 in 2008 and 2009. Then you go up to $35,000 in 2010. Then you STAY at $35,000 for 2011. What is the TRND? The TREND is that you have STALLED, even though you ae "better off" than your worst years, although not as well off as you once were. If you do not STOP BVEING STGALLED, you will NEVER return to the level of prosperiry you were at before the down turn. Tht is the situation we are now in.


We keep BOUNCING ALONG THE BOTTOM. We are not getting worse. Neither are we getting substantially better. And there is NO TREND yet estalbished until we KEEP moving in a positive direcin, insteadof bouncing back and forth.


This bog has told you that Obama and Bernanke policies have made it IMPOSSIBLE ofr us to have a SUSTAINTED "recovery". That means that this blog does nto expect a "trend" to be possible, in terms of a SUSTAINED "improving trend". Notice how misplaced the orgasms of the pro-Obama mainstream media are. Waht happens if the SAME PATTERN occurs this year as in 2011? Then Obama will be in REAL TROUBLE, because things will be WORS right around the November election (in the summer of 2012). Now will hisory repeat that exactly? if you look at the price of oil and gasoline, you will see indications that maybe it will (gasoline prices in the spring and early summer being a major problem for the economy in 2011). It is barely possible Obama will GET LUCKY, and that the economy will be in an upward bounce this summer. However, there is no way to know. Recent hisotry would suggest MY scenario is more likely tha the media orgasmic scenario.


However, that is why I don't really worry to much abut what the meida says NOW--otehr than pointing out how partisan , stupid and dishoenst they are. What matter is how the economy is in August, September and October of next year. if the unemplyment rate is still 8.5% in October of 2012, and the "jobs created" are still boucing between 0 and 200,000, Obama is not going to be reelected (absent a GOP implosion). If the unemplyment rate is 7.5%. am dwe are CONSISTENTLY "creating" 250,000 jobs a month (2.5 million a year), then there is a good chance Obama will get reelected. Obviously, numbers in between these, or more "extreme" on either side, will eithe make the result more certainor more uncertain.


But the polls NOW mean NOTING, and the economic numbers rightnow mean very little. They will start meaning more in May, June , Julyu, etc., and it is the "rend" in September and October that is going to matter. I am certain the media has NO CLUE as to wht the situation will reallyy be. Even I-much smarter than them--cannot be sure. As stated, I AM sure that we have now made a sustained recoery imossible. I am also sure we ae in a DANTEROUS time, with Europe and a very volativle Middle East in turmoilk (either economic or political or both). It is not onlyObama's POLIXIES that could cause an oil price shock. This is one of the most dangerous years I can remember. Obama will have to be the LUCKIEST man alive to naviage thi mine field unscathed. No, I dont consider the possibility he actuallyhas the SKILL to do it. In fact, that is the problem with Obama, Bernanke and the new ECONOOMIC FASCISM: we are relying on mere MEN to CONGROL economic events, and even the best of men cannot do it without making fatal mistakes (eventuallY). But you know I am a pessimist.


No. I don't want" teh cconomy to "fail". Among other things, I trade the stock market i a way that could ruin my livelihood if there is a sudden major collapse. Objectively, however, I see an eventual collapsse as inevitable. It is jsut a matter of WHEn. We may stave off final collapsse for awhile, although I just don't see our presentpolicies allowing us to have a "real" recovery. Aboutt he best we can hope foris to "muddle through" YEARS of economic pain. Thatis why I say what Obama needs is the LUCK of an APPAENT economic "bounce" taknig place this summer. I don't think he will e that lu cky, but it is barely possible. Thre is already stealth inflation out thre. The moment a "strong" recovery starts, teh economy is going o be SHUT DOWN with inflation and high interst rate.s. It isbarely possible, although not likely, that Obama can reach the election while there appears to be a "stronger" recovery, and the inflation is not yete obvious. Good luck to us all. As readers of this blog know, I have given up counting on anything but luck. I have endosed Rick SDantorum, and feel he is he best of the current alternatives, but I don't think he is leader enough to really turn this country around (over "polkitics as usual" opposition)). And Mitt Romney, athe most likely GOP nominee, is probably going to be jstu as bad as Obama (in practive, because the GOP will not even feel it can FIGHT Romney, which is what made Bush such an ultimate disaster).


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).