Jobless Claims: No Trend, No Improvement and Media Lies

"Weekly jobless claims fall 12,000, to 367,0000"



Yes, it is Thursda,l which means that the weekly report on new unempoloymne tclaims (filed the previious week) came out. My question: Do our media people EVER get tired of exosing themselves as LIARS every single week? The basic lie is to report this number as if it is an EXACT number, when it is a number written on water: REVISED the next week and with a "margin of error" of at leawst 50,0000 (because it is an ADJSUTED number, based on a fallible "seasonal adjustment). See this blog's articles over YEARS, and specifically the two artiles last week (Wednesday night, and Thursday morning, as the Wednesday night article PREDICTED the Thursday results almost EXACTLY).



Look at the SPECIFIC lies in the quoted headline. Did the number really "fall" 12,000? Nope. that is a LIE. On an apples-to-apples basis, the number fell 10,000. The number REPORTED LAST WEEK was 377,000. That is a "fall" of 10,000. Yes, that number was REVISED this week to 379,000. But, if you are not a LIAR (as ALL of our media people are), youi compare that REVISED number with teh REVISED number to be reported NEXT WEEK. You will note that last Thursday I TOLD you (next week's news this week in this blog) that the 377,000 number would be REVISED to about 380,000. It was revised to 379,000. It is almost always revised UP an average of about 3,000. Thus, the 367,000 number is another media LIE. It is not onlyl subject to seasonal adjustment errors, but it is noting but an ESTIMATE (and should be reported that way, along with the "raw" number--before seasonal adjustment--along with the raw and seasonally adjusted numbers for the SAME WEEK LAST YEAR)). The pretty good (for January) weather alone is enough to account for the "seasonally adjusted" "improvement" between last year and this year. Even so, the numbers over the past 3 months or so show NO IMPROVEMENT, and NO TREND (not matter twhat the LIARS in the media tell you).




Doubt me? Never do that. Here are the numbers for the past 4 weeks, starting with the most distant week: 402,000 (REVISED from 399,000); 356,000 (REVISED from 352,000; 379,000 (REVISED from 377,000) and 367,000 (not yet REVISED, but most likely about 370,000). Notice how these numbers go UP and DOWN, with NO TREND and NO IMPROVEMENT (on average). It is even more obvius if you go bac before the 402,000. Thyat number itself was UP from a number around 380,000. Previiusly the weekly numbers had varied (for twomonths or so) between 365,000 and 385,000 (approximately). This is NO TREND. Oh, it is true that the average number is down from the 400,000 level at which it was STUCK for another several months, and down more significantly from last summer, but that is the POINT. The number went BELOW 400,000 at the begining of LAST YEAR, before RISING i the slate spring and sumemr. Is THAT the real "rend" here? There is certainly no CONSISTENT "trend" in the weekly number over the PAST YEAR, nor over the past THREE MONTHS. You have to pick you STARTING POINT carefully, and then IGNORE the fluctuations in between, to come up with an alleged "trend". But that is what the media are: LIARS. As stated, to the exent there is any SMALL "improvement" over last year, or over the 400,000 level we reached arounnd the early fall, the WEATHER is enough to fully explani it. But even the "sasonally adjusted" numbers, as they stand, show NO TREND. Want to do a thought experiment on the LIE here?


To be completed. Actually, it WAS completed, but cmputers are ruining the world. The last part oft the article was somehow DELETED, and I will have to redo it (not saved). Have I told you that Google anoys me? Well, it does.