Unemployment and Employment: Lies and the Media

What happened with last Friday's employment data for January? Was it not "freat" "news". No, it was not. Oh, it was not BAD "news", unless you correctly consider that the overall news shows no real IMPROVEMENT in the employment situation. But what the report really did was again PROVE that this blog is right about the fundamental LIE in the way these reports are reported by an INCOMPETNET media all about agenda.


What is that fundamental LIE? This blog has told you over and over again. The LIE is that these are CONCRETE, EXACT NUMBERS. This is not a matter of opinion. This is a BLATANT LIE. Thu7s, the "gain" in employment for the PREVIOUS two months was "adjusted" upward by 60,000. Further, the total number for 2011 was "adjusted" upwad by six figures. These monthly employment numbers are a SUBJECTIEV ESTIMATE. The unemploymnet RATE is based on a SURVEY of households (a POLL). I don't know what Gallup is showing, but in some previous months Gallup was showing an unemployment rate (their own poll) of more than 10%, while the government figure was 9%. These constant "adjustments" to previous figures show that the "margin of error" in these monthly figures is huge: MORE than ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND as to the monthly employment number. Yet, the media REPORTS these numbers as if they represent a real COUNT. The employment "gain" or "loss" is based on another SURVEY of empoyers. It is obvious that this is not a "count", when you realize that there is no REPORT filed in this country (for now, until freedom is totally submerged in government requirements) whenever a person is hired. Thus, the ADP (private payroll processing firm) showed a gain of 170,000 in private jobs for January. The government showed 250,000. As I said, the numbers themselves show a margin of error every month of at least 100,000. It gets WORSE.


What happened last January, and again this January (evidently even more obviously for this January)? The government CHANGES ITS METHODOLOGY in making this ESTIMATE it makes every month. The Fox business network (really part of the "unfair and unbalanced network"--probably meaning I should NOT use the "Fox" name BANNED from this blog) reported that the government itself--the people who put out these numbers--said that you cold not really "comparte" December and January, because of the substantial change in methodology, including SUBSTANTIAL "adjustments" made because of Cnesus data. Say what? About the ONLY "use" these numbers have is a COMPARISON, since the individual numbers are nothing but an ESTIMATE (undermining the comparison as well, but making a mockery of the idea that the numbers for ach month are some sort of "holy writ" that give you an exact idea of the unemployment rate and number of people employed).


So did the unfair and unbalanced network concude that the numbers for January MEANT NOTHING--at least until you could see how the numbers proceed this year under the new "methodology'? Not on your life. These are INCOMPETENT people with an AGENDA. No, I am not saying that the agenda here, with this network,is to support Obama (although it IS to support the ESTABLISHMENT). Rather, as Michael Crichton devastatingly showed in his "fictional" novel, "Airframe", what you can say for certain is that the agenda has NOTHING to do with real INFORMATION. Topday's media is NOT INTERESTED in INFORMATION. Yep. The person on the unfair and unbalanced network SAID EXACTLY THAT (if not qite in those words).


What the unfair and unbalanced network told you was that the details of these numbers, and what they really mean, is going INTO THE WEEDS (one of the faovrite terms on the unfair and unbalanced network, to attempt to exucse their INCOMEPETENCE and total disinterest in real information)--which no modern "journalist" wants to do for fear of lBORING you DOLTS out there who just want the media to give you HYPE. Do you reciprocate this total CONTEMPT, in terms of your oopinioni of modern "journalists'? I do. In fact, my CONTEMPT of them is ten times their contempt of me. Thuys, the guy on the unfair and unbalanced network said that" "It is up to economists and the like to figure out these numbers.".............................................................................................................................Sorry, I was on the floor laughing/crying again. It is why there was a lag in new articles in this blgo. It really is getting to be too much for me. The dishonesty and incompetence is simply beyond belief.


The "business anchor" on the unfair and unbalanced network even "denied" that these numbers are "MANIPULATED". First, that is a LIE. The numbers ARE "manipulated". that is a FACT. The only question is whether they are MANIPULATED for the DELIBERATE purpose of DISTORTING the "news" to help the present adimnistration. You are hardly being a real "journalist" if yo DISMISS this possibility out of hand. No, as I have often said, I don't believe in "conspiracy thwories". Thuys, I do NOT beliveve that the Obama Administraitn has ORDERED that this data be "fudged". But these numbers are so SUBJECTIVE--especailly the monthly numbers based on SURVEYS--that the POSSIBITY exists that the people coming up with these numbers are pushing their own agenda (even, perhaps, unconsciously).


That is the reason I prefer the weekly "report' of new unemoplyment calims. As this blog has reported for YEARSD, the media LIES about the weekly reort, and the "significance" of each weekly number. The "seasonal adjustment" leads to an enormous "margin of error" in EACH weekly number. However, there is a CUNT involved here (unlike with the unemoplyment rate and the number of people employed, except to the extent you can use SOCIAL SEUCRITY reports to make such a "count"). As this blog has stated, the media SHOULD report the CONT of new unemplylment claims every week, and compare that with the previous year, or even multipl,e years, to see whether there is any 'year-oer-year" mprovement. At the very least, the "raw" count MUST be reported, along with the "seasonally adjusted number, to give an idea of the ture margin of error here, and to allow people to see the actual INFORMATION. But look at what you can do with the unemplyment claims. You can COMPARE the FULL YEAR counts. There can be NO "seasonal' adjustment" here!!!!!!!!!! The number of people on unemployment is a CONT (mainly), as is the total number of new claims in a year. The number of people on unemllyent changes as people "dorp off" the list, when their benefits run out. But the TOTAL number of new claims can be "calculated" by simply ADDING the weekly count. If you add the non-seasonally adjusted new claims for the entire year, then you SHOULD come up with the SAME number as adding the "seasonally sdjusted" claims. I suspet you don't, but I leave it as an exercise for peole who can see better than I to figure that out from Lbaor Department records. Still, the weekly number of new unempllyment claims, OVER TIME, can be CHECKED as to the "accuracy" of the weekly "adjustments'. That makes these numbers LESS subject to "manipulation" than the monthlly numbres on emplyment, or even the YEARLY numbers. The yearly numbers on emlplyment have been "adjusted" as much as 900,000 LATER (not currently, but in other years). As this blog has told you, these numbers are WRITTEN ON WATER.


What does the weeky unemplyment claims data, as well as the GDP data, tell you over the last YEAR? Someone else will have to tell me--someone who can naviage the webiste-what the media SHOULD tell me and youy: how the YEARLY new unemplyment calims (no "seasonal adjustment" necessary or possible) compare for 20111 and 2010. But the REORTED (in the media) data shows NO IMPROVEMENT in all of 2011. That is , the weekly number dropped to 375,000 in February of 2011, and the four-week AVERAGE dropped below 400,0000. That is about where we are now. Oh, there ha been some SLUGHT 'year-over-yer" "improvement", but that SIGHT improvement could be TOTALLY explained--more than explained, realy--by WEATHER affecting winter constuction (wich affects weekly unemplyment claims, but NOT the real emplyment situatin, except maybe slightly). The weeky new unemlyment claims ROSE in the late sring and summer of 20111 to well OVER 40,000, which is supposed ot INCREASE the unemplyment rate and show a DTERIORATING emplyment sit;uation. There was some SLUIGHT increase in the unemplyment RATE, but the "number of juobs" reported monthly was INCONSISTENT with the other data. That includes the GDP data, showing a SLOWDOWN in the first sixx months of last year (still prettymuch continuing). Thuys, the MONTHLY emplyment data has to be somewhat SUSPECT. The "underemployment" rate is stil a sky high 15.2%--"down" hardly at all from the December 15.3%.


What is "funny" is that this is NOT HELPING Obama (any "manipulation"--intentionally or simply as a sresult of te continued tinkering and "massaging" of thes numbers). The INCOMPETENT media act like the 2012 election is being held TOMORROW. That, of course, is NOT TURE. It does not matter whether these "adjusted" numbers for January are accurate or not, or whether the people are being MISLED. What matters is how the economy looks going into NOVEMBER of this year. That meanst hat what matters are the numbers for June, July, August and September--starting maybe in April and May. Unless thye change the "methodology" AGAIN, "good' numbers NOW don't matter at all, and even make a hard "comparison" as to whether the situatioin is 'improving" over the course of this year (as the numbes showed it did NOT over the course of 2011--at least up to November). This blog has told you that the real problem with Obama policies is that they make a real 'recovery' IMPOSSIBLE--not that they prevent the economy from showing SIGNS of a TEMPORARY recovery. This bog has also told you that the economy is showing signs of being much more SEASONAL--whether just because of the COOKING of the nujmbers or because of a truly different seasonal pattern. Obama's problem is that this "new" seasonal pattern--if it continues--would make the economy look WORSEW in the SUMMER, right before the November election. Will that "trend" hold? I obviulsy don't know, but it is an example of media LIES to report "polls' on Obama NOW as being some sort of real indicaiton of how things will look at the end of October. It is not just thatthose polls are not definitive. Rather, they mean NOTHING--noting at all.


Nor do the January empllyment numbers mean much. Oh, as this blog has stated for some time, the overall numbers mean that the economy is NOT getting WORSE. You would have to say that the econmy has even gotten SLIGHTLY better since 20009. But it is the weakest "recovery" since the Great Depression, and the real quesitn is whether I am rigtht on Obama ppolicies (and Bernake policies): Have those poicies made a REAL RECOVERY IMPOSSIBLE? Tie will give us the answer to that. Time and LUCK. Wht do I mean by "luck"? Well, I could be right, as usual, and Obama still be reelected because the econmy SEEMS to be looking great at the end of Octobver. That is not impossible. I doubt it will happen. But it COULD hapen, in which case Obama MIGHT win. What we can say for certain is that the emplyment numbers for January will have NO effect on how things look in September and October (except to the extent that the change in "methodology" makes it EASEIER to show a "false" improvement by changing the "starting point" of the data).


The weeky unemoplyment claims number will appear again on Thursday. Again, the "best guess" would be that the numbver will return to the recent "average of between 375,000 and 380,000--with a revision of last week's reported number up to about 370,000. But these weekly numbers are volatile. All you can be sure of is that MY "guidance" will be BETTER than that consistenty WRONG "survey" of econmist "expectations" (those constatnly "surprised" econmists beloved of our icompetent media and of our Wall Street peoplee--who are jointly The Stupidest People on Earth).


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