These are the new unemployment claims for the past 3 weeks, beginning withtthe current week's number announced Thursday (yesterday): 390,00 (announced yesterday as 387,000, but extremely likly to be revised next week to 390000); 383,000; and 389,000. The number has pretty much "settled in" between 380,000 and 390,000, although "dips" tward 375,000--or 3ven 370,000--have occurred n the past three months. See the previus part I of this article for a discussin of the actual numbers, and how this blog gets them right. This article will look at the significance of the numbers.
As the headline states, these nuumbers are a record of FAILURE by Barack Obama. Despite media orgasms as the number of new unemplyment claims LOOKED to be "imroving" early this year, there has been NO "improvement for this entire year. We fell under 400,0000 at the end of last year--repeating the pattern of the year before (2011), when the number dropped to a reported 375,000 in February (to be greeted by similar media orgasms). This year the number of new unemployment claims "dropped" to right at 350,000 in February, and settled into a "range" of 350,000-365,000 for about two months. This represented a sLIGHT "improvement" over LAST YEAR, but that ignores both the better weather and teh fact that the FORMULA (and baseline) for "computing" these adjusted numbers is CHANGED basically every year. This is espeically true of those monthly employment numbers ("jobs created" and teh unemployment rate). Again, the 350,000 number in February was probably FICTIONAL. If it was not fictional, then we have DETERIORATED since February ("headling in the wrong direction").
Thus, the 3500,000 (351,000) low in Februar, and the 350,000-365,000 range, quickly disappeared (as hapened in 2011 as well, as we headed into summer). We had a three week SPIKE, where the number of new unemployment claims AVERAGED 390,0000 (always realizing that these are NOT "concrete" numbers, but subjectivve numbers using a "seasonal adjustment" formula). That "spike" was probably a little bit "fictional", as was the "drop" all of the way to 350,000. But we then went into a range of 370,000-390,000,--wher we are now, except that we havve now "settled" more toward 380,000-390,000. You shoul be able to see, again that this represents NO IMPROVEMENT since the beginning of the year.
But what is a "good" number? No, 350,000 is NOT a "good" number. Everyne agrees that 400,000 is a REALLLY BAD numbe, and that we can't "create" a SUBSTANTIAL number of jobs at that level. We are really right at that level NOW. But we really need to be CONSISTEENTLY at 300,000 or BELOW. Yes, we really should be able to get to new unemplyment claims around 250,000, in a HEALTHY economy (or strong recovery). 380,000-390,000 just does not cut it. As the headline states, President Obama has FAILED again on jobs.
And it is really worse than just the number of new unemplyment claims. That is a measure of layoffs, but it also tells you a lot about the other employment numbers. We have now had new unemplyment claims at 380,0000-390,000 for MOST OF JUE. And we had similar numbers--maybe even SLIGHTLY etter--in MAY, when we had DISMAL "job creation" and an INCREASE in the unemplyment rate. Therefor, June is already "baked in" (correctly using a phrase that Wall Street MISUSES to LIE about stock prices and "news"). June job numbers CANNOT BE GOOD (unless the numbers lie). You will hear the idiots in the financial 'media' taling as if they are "waiting with bated breath" for the June jobs numbers. Are they really that STUPID (actually, they are).? The June jobs numbers are ALREADY DETERMINED, within a a very narrow range, unless there iare lglitches in the "seasonal adjustments". If we got a "good" jobs "report" for June, it would be INCONSISTENT with the many economic numbers that we have had over the past month, and especialy with the number of new unemployment claims.
It is now getting serious for President Obama. When teh media was having orrgasms, in February, about how the economy was "obviously improving", it DID NOT MATTER (as polls are meaningless until right at the electin, with limited meaning even thien). As this blog told you (correctly, as usual),, the economic numbers for February, March, April, and even May mean almost NOTHING for a November election. However, that is no longer quite true as we get to the end of JUNE. Yes, the numbrs--and reality--in July,m August, September and October are MORE SIGNIFICANT. Remember, the November numbers (for October) will be TOO LATE to affect the electin. And the economy is like the Titanic: it takes a LONG time to really "turn around", unless the momentum is allready there. We have NO MOMENTUM.
We are approaching the point where things can get BAD (collapse of Europe, or more big bans, for example). But things cannot really "get good", or obviously better, if we are STAGNATED (stalled). Now it is absurd to suggest thatt he Federal Government can "control" tehe economy in any event. But we are reaching the pont that NOTHING eith3er Obama or anyone else can do will AFFECT the way the econmy will look at the beginning of November (other thann gross shocks to the econmy on the bad side). Oh, I think Obama can still have some hope of a 'miracle" through july, and maybe August. But the way the economy will look on electoin day is beginning to be BAKED IN.
This lob is on record as PREDICTING Obaama will lose the electin, IF the economy is not obviusly BETTER by election day (nope, the "same" is not good enough). Again, the June numbers already appear to be pretty much "baked in". Obama is heading to the pont that he CANNOT RECOVER (as the economy is not really "recovering"), because the state of the economy on electin day will be alreaey deterined. As stated: July, and maybe August. Does it really look like we can "turn around" the Titanic by the end of August, or even have the PERCEPTION that we are doing so (perceptin being a big thing, but NOT from the PROPAGANDA put out by the meidia but the way people see actual signs of rel improement "on the ground").
Thus, these numbers on new unemplyment claims do have importance. They may already SIGNAL the DEFEAT of President Obama. Remember, the economy did not APPEAR to "improve" the previous two years (2010 and 2011) until NOVEMBER of each year. This blog has previously told yu that Obama is facing a SEASNAL PATTERN, where the economy just does not look "good" in the summer--even as it appears to look "better" as we head into Christmas and February of the new year. It could not happen to a nicer guy (Obama--sarcasm disease recurring). No, by the way, Obama does not strike me as a "nice guy". He strikes me as an egomaniac. You say it takes one to know one? You may be right. That is how I KNOW that President Obama is NOT a Christian (as an agnostic myself, as Bill Maher and I both use our own knowledge of ourselves to tel you that President Obama is not a Christian).
Stay tunned for the "cliffhanger" resolution next week. Will the media ever get it right? Wil Obama ever ADMIT that he has failed on jobs? Okay. I admit it. These are shamel, FALSE attempts to build "suspense". The media has been wrong for at least 100 STRIGHT WEEKS. How can this be a "clliffhanger"? And President Obama has NEVER admitted he made a mistake, except to explain how he has REVERSED himself based on "evolving". George W. Bush was FLEXIBLE by comparison.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).