Look at this blog's articles since last Wednesday, and really for YEARS, on the UNRELIABILITY of SUBJECTIVE employment data, and the media LIES in reporting the numbers as if they are exact, concrete numbers.
What data are we talking abut? We are talking aoubt he monthly data on the "unemployment rate" and the "jobs created" in the previous month, as well as the weeky data on new unemployment claims (which weekly data for the past week will come out tomorrow morning). Now I told you that the employment data for January was extremely suspect because they CHANGED THE METHODOLOGY (admitting that th edata could not be compared with December data, which made it pretty much USELESS). Beyond that, I told you that the data on the unemployment RATE was based on a POLL, while the data on "jobs created" is based on ANOTHER POLL, with the additonal uncertainty that the data is SEASONALLLY ADJUSTED (based on a subjective forumla). Enter Gallup.
You remember Gallup. Gallup is the "granddaddy" of all POLLING outfits. Well, Gallup does its own POLLING on the unemployment rate. What Gallup found was that the unemployment rate was 9% at the end of January. The government found a rate of 8.3%, but the government said they CHANGED the methodology. Thye point is NOT that Gallup is right and the government wrong (although this CHANGE in methodology might lead ou and me to SUSPECT that Galluyp is more likely to provide a useful comparison with prior numbers). The pont is that these monthy employment numbres are WRITTEN ON WATER, as this blog has told you. They are UNRELIABLE, especiallly for any individual month. Oh, Gallyup further found an UNDEREMPLOYMENT rate of 19.1%--fully 4% MORE than the governmento found that "smal business" has NO HIRING PLANS (to speak of-85% of small businesses not planning to hire ANYONE). No, I am noth thrugh yet.
Hank Paulson, former Treasury Secretary and DEMOCRAT hero (bailout guy, who worked hand-in-glove with "Bailout Ben" Bernanke) said that the January employment data was an ABERRATION. He questioned whether the 250,000 supposed new "jobs' in the privatge sector was consistent with the other data. What other data? Well, for starters there is the ANEMIC GDP "growth" rate for 22011, which was about 1.7%. Then there is that weekly jobless claim data, which really shows hardly any "improvement" since February of 2011. Then there is the ADP (private payroll processing firm) report of 170,000 jobs "created" in the private sector in January. The ADP "growth" in jobs is possible. The government number is IMOSSIBLE. It is total FICTION. Paulson said the 8.3% unempllyment rate was an "aberration", but Galllup pretty much debunked that number anyway. Had enough? Not quite? Okay, there is more.
This nextg one came for the LOCAL radio news, although it was surely a anotional news "feed" or story. Remember twhat this blog told you about the SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT in these emplyment numbers, includng the weekly new unemplyment claim number to come out tomorrow? That seasonal adjustement is affected by the WEATHER. We have had a mild winter, so afar, in comparison with recent winters. This DISTORTS the "seasonal adjustment", based on a 'normal" winter. The radio report ut it another-inaccurate--way. The radio report said that we could CREDIT the mild winter with IMPORVING the economy, as constuction firms hired emplyoees (and did not lay off peoopl because of the weather). The mild winter further helped SHOPPERS be able to go out there and buy. The radio report even mentined auto sales being connected to the weather, as to which I have some doubts. But the pont is that this blog TOLD YOU that the mild winter would DISTORT the emplyment numbers, because it DISTORTS the "seasonal adjustment".
Did you spot why the radio report is WRONG? No, it is true that constructin picks up when the weather gets better, and the mild weather "helps" emplyment. However, do you understand that this is NOT REAL. That is, constructin ALWAYS picks up when the weather gets better. The only question is WHEN. Sure, there may be some SMALL "permanent" "improvement" as construction firms, and others (helped by "global warming") "geel better" about their business, and MAYBE get some buiness that is not jsut a SHIFT in TIMING. But the main DISTORTION in the emplyment numbers is because of the SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT. Those workers would probably have been hired anyway, but it is a matter of TIMING. That means that when the weather ORDINARILY gets "better, the "seasonal adjustment" will again be DISTORTED (the other way) by the fact that the "improvement" has already occurred from the mild weather. A "mild" winter cannot really "improve" the economy, except in a small way. It can only APPEAR to "improve" teh economy by DISTORTING the numbers which build in BAD WATHER ordinarily prsent in January.
Thus, all of the way around, this blog has informed you of the FACTS well in advance. The media, in contrast, LIES in reporting these numbers every week and every month. It is a LIE to treat these numbers, as concrete, exact numbers not affected by many SUBJECTIVE factors.
The weekly new unemplylment claims number is suposed to againcome out tomorrow. the "best guess" is that the number will be around 375,00, which is about the AVERAGE for the past few months. That is a VERY SLIGHT "improvement" from the numbers of last January-February, when the MEDIA was puttin gout the SAME stories that they are putting out this winter (about an "improving" econmy, when the EVIDENCE is not in on that pont). Again, the WEATHER alone is enough to "explain" the SLIGHT "mprovement" this year over last year. Last February , there was ONE week where the number reached 375,000, and the number was consistently under 400,m000, Still, this year the AVERAGE is cloe to 375,0000, which--as stated--is SLIGHTLY better than last year. One of the questins here is whether we are in a NEW "seasonal pattern, where the economy "looks beter" in the winter than it does in the sumemr. Se shall see. In the meantime, you should now realize that the ONE-WEEK number tomorrow will NOT tell you how the economy is doing. Now, IF the number is around 350,000, it will at least indicate a POSSIBILITY that this number will continue to get better. Only TIMNE will tell, and MANY WEEKS of 'steady" "improvement" ("steady" not meaning that the number goes down every week, but that it keeps setting "lower lows", and a lower average). If the number tomorrow mrnign is anywhere between 365,000 (to be REVISED, the next week, usually upward), and 400,000, then we are still in the patter that has been present for MONTHS (no "trend"). Either way, it is TIME that tells with these numbers. Right now, the numbers over the past MONTHS have NOT IMPROVED, although the numbers are SLIGHTLy better than last year. So we have NO TREND right now, and that will not change tomorrow. All tomorrow can do is look like the START of a "trend", if the trend is confirmed in future weeks. Now if the number went down to 325,000, you would have to call that "good" news. EXCEPT the news is probably TOOO GODD (like the mnthly emplylment numbers for January). A number that "good' would be a SUSPECT number, but would be subject to being CONFIRMED in future weeks (so could still be considered "good' news).
These numbers CAN be reported honestly, wiithout contempt for the viewer/rfeader. The problemis that our media NEVER reports these FALLIBLE numbers as they need to be reported. I will probably analyze tomorrow's weekly jobless claims number for you, and again inform you of the media LIES> But HONEST reporting means that you don't get a LIE about the "significance" of ONE WEEK. If the nubmer tomorrow is 400,000, that would agani indicate that we have NO TREND, and that it is possible that the "good" numbers we have been getting for the past few months--alghouh NOT 'improving--will not hold, and that we may revert to the pattern of last year. BUT, this would have to be CONFIRMED in future weeks. All a 400,000 number would indicate is that there contues to be NO IMROVING TREND over the past few months. Similarly, a number around 350,000 would be POSSILBE good news, since it COULD indicate a "permanent' "improvement" in the number this eyar. But that wuould be ture ONLY IF that "improvement" were CONFIRMED in future weeks. Tomorrow's number ha NO MEANING, except OVER TIME. And ANY individual week could turn out to be an ABERRATION, if teh "seasonal adjustment" is out of whack. You will remember that Bloomberg PROVED this blog right about that when it "explained' wild swings in the weekly number in the past month or two as resulting from "seasonal volatility". Desite the wild swings, the AVERAGE over the past two to three months has been STABBLE.
P.S. No proofreadnig or spell checkng (bad eyesight).