Unemployment/Jobless Clains: No Improvement in about Three Months--Media Lies Continue

The headline today (MarketWatch): "Jobless claims fall to 357,000"


Correct hedline: "New Unemployment Claims at Top of Range: No Improvement in Three Months"


Another correct headline: "The Maverick Conservative blog shows up media agian, as last week's reported jobless claims revised upward to 363,000."


Yep. Media HEADLINES for three weeks have trumpeted a "fall" in new unemployment claims (announced each Thursday, for the previous week). Yet, the number is HIGHER than it was before the first headline. How is that oossible? It is only possible because the media LIES every time it reports this weekly number--knowing it is only an ESTIMATE to be REVISED the next week (not to menntion "seasonally adjusted" by as much as 100,000 in a FALLIBLE adjustment). This may be the WORST three lweek stretch for the media reporting this weekly numbr. The media in fact, is no a roll of "unprecedented" LIES. They have botched the GeorgeZimmerman/Trayvon Martin story wore than they have ever botched a stroy (saying a LOT), and they are gettng WORSE on their weekly LIES on new unemployment claims. Yu should pay not attention, to the dishoonest, incompetent people in the media,.


Three weeks ago, the media ORGASMIC headlines were that new unempolyment claims had fallen to their lowest level since February, 2008. That, amazingly, represented the SAME headlines about six weeks previusly, when the initially reported number was 348,000. See how this number has NOT IMPORVED in abut three months? Well, those previus headlines proved FALSE, as the 348,000 was rEVISED. Three weeks ago the media did it AGaIN, with those orgasmic headlines over that SAME NUMBER: 348,000. Problem: The next week the number was REVISED upward 16,00, to 3654,000 (the highest in at least two months, and near the TOP of the three month range). So we went from what the media reported as a GREAT number, to a BAD number. It hardly phased the LIARS in the media and the Wall Street "press". Nope. The headlines last week wre that jobless claims had FALLEN AGAIN (loll--you just don't have any wrose LIARS than this). Yep. I could never make this up. The headline last week was that new unemploymment claims had FALLEN 5,000 bo 359,000. In actkual fact, as this blog told you, they had not "fallen" at all. First, the only reason the "headlinees" coululd say that they had "fallen" was tthe REVISOIN of the previous week al of the way up to 364,000. In previus weeks, BEFORE that week, the number had been between 350,000 and 355,000. Thus, we have the AMAZING spectale of the media reporting GOOD "news' for two staight weeks, hwne the number has actualy RISEN substantially.


It gets worse. What did this blog tell you LAST WEEK (Friday). This blog TOLD ou, a week in advace, appproximately what last weeek's rEVISED number would be. It was not the initiallly reported 399,000 It was actually 363,000 (if you can use "actualy" to describe these numbers written on wather). This means that the new unemplment claims which SHOULLD have been reported last week, if the number had been "accurate", actually ony fell' 1,000 (NOTHING). 363,000 was, again, at the TOP of the range for virtually this entire year: 350,000 to 365,000. Last week was a second BAD number. This week was a THRID BAD NUMBER in a row, as the fur-week average again went UP this week (even as the lying statement in the media was that jobless claims had FALLEN 6,000 from that REVISED 363,000).


Look at that 357,000 number initially reported this week. Based on CONSISTENT history, tha number will be REVISED next week: upward by at least 3,000. That will mean , if it happens, that the number will have been at least 360,000 for THREE STRAIGHT WEEKS--the WORST performance in months. We KNOW, o fcourse, that the number COULD be REVISED upward by as much as 16,000, although that was an unusually large revison. The consistent revsision, to th epoknt of making the initial estimate consistently DISHONEST, has been 3,00 or 4,000. It lamost NEVEr happpens that there is a DOWNWARD revision (maybe once or twice a year).


There yu have the CORRECT news: the number of neew unemplyment claims has been consistently BAD for the past 3 weeks, desapite the initial report three weeks ago that the number had dropped to a new fur-year low (lol). The four-week average continued to go PU this week, to a level indicating essentailly NO IMPROVEMENT almost this entire year.


This much is true. But the LIARS in the media simply refuse to make a pint this subtle. They are PATHOLOGICAL LIARS looking for a "storyline" based on numbers that they tink peole can "understand" (refusing to go "into the weeds" and "confuse" peple with the FACTS). What is true is that the LOW number last February, for this weekly number of new unemplyment claims, was 3k75,000. That number then DETERIRATED until the fall of 2011. That deterioration from the February numbers has occurred the past TWO years: both in 2010 and 2011. That pattern seems to be RECURRING, although not yet as dramatically as happened in 2010 and 2011. The good news is that the number, this year, is still below the LOW (that 375,000) number reached last February. No, it is still not nearly as god as the numbrs reached before that recession (beginning in January of 2008). Still, there is SOME year-over-year improvement. What there is NOT is any significant imrrovement in THIS YEAR. There is no "trend". What we have is a fairly signnificant drop, at the end of last year and beginning of thi syear, into that range of 350,000 to 365,000 (perhaps mainly "explainable" by GOOD WEATHER). Since then, we have STUCK (as we did the previus two years, before deteriorating into the summer). The bottom lne is that we have seen SOME "improvement" on a year-over-year basis, but NO IMPROVEMENT in the past several months (approaching 3).


Read this blog for accurate analysis. The MONTHLY emlyment nubers are due tomorrow (Good Friday). As this blog has told you, the problem with those numbrers is that the GAMES being played with those numbers (including revisions in the formulas and massive revisions ever month) make the reported numbers on "jobs gained" , as well as the unemplyment RATE, pretty much meaningless. ADP (the private ayroll processing firm for which my friend, Sylvia, works) reported a "moderate" (i.e., not impressive, by historical norms) growth in jobs of almost exactly 20,000. That would indicate that the government nubemers will be pretty much the same as last month's and that the unmemplyment rate will be basically iunchanged. But the GAMES being played with the government numbers are so large that almost anything iis possible.


P.S. No roofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).