The number of new unemplyment claimms (lost jobs) for the previus week was announced this Thursday morning, and again showed a FAILURFE of President Obama: NO "improvement" this entire year.
First, as usual, we need to dispose of last week's media LIES. As usual, The Maverick Conservative got it EXACTLY right llast week, while the media again got it wrong (as the media lies on reporting this number never end). What The Maverick Conservative told you last week was thaat new unemployment claims announced lasst week most likely were 380,000, even though the media "repoted" the number as 377,000 (the initial ESTIMATE released by the Labor Department). Again, The Maverick Conservative got it RIGHT. Last week's released number was REVISED upoward, as The Maverick Conservative told you it would be (see last Thursday's article) , to 380,000. For YEARS, this weekly number has been REVISED the next week UPWARD (95% of the time): almost always 3,0000 or more. Yet, the lemmings in the media keep reporting the initial number released each Tursday as if this will not happen. Thus, the media LIED last week when it said that new unemployment claims had dropped 12,000, when they actually only dropped 9,000. It was worse than that, really, as the number for the previous week was REVISED last week,, UPWARD by 6,0000. The initial number for the previus week had been annnouned as 383,000, but was REVISED last week to 389,00000. Thus, you have the amazing spectale of the media HEADLINES (baesd always on the initial estimate, and not the revised number) showing a "droP of 12,000 last week, and a rise of "onlyl" 6,000 this week, and yet we are likely right back where we started (3890000), or maybe worse. Indeed, if ou go back a week, it gets even worse, as the headlines were OFF (as media lies continue) 6,000 (as jsut explained, with the headline number being 383,000, up only slightly, while the actual , REVISED, number was 389,000). The headliens of the LIARS in the media LIE this way each and every week, as if lthe same thing is not happening week after week.
Again, The Maverick Conservative willl tel it like it is, as the media liars do not. Here are the REVISED numbers of new unemplyment claims for the past three weeks (including this one): 389,000; 380,0000 and 389,000. "But, Skip, the REVISED number for this week hasn't even been determined yet." You are finally getting th epoint. Indeed it hasn't. But that did not stop The Maverick Conservative (next week's news today) from "reprorting" LAST WEEK that the REVISED number was 380,000 (exactly right, as it turned out, which has regularly happened for The Maverick Conservativeve, which has almsot ALWAYS been more correct than the media liars). For the record, this week's INITIAL number was "reported" as 386,000. But that number will be REVISED next week, and it is a LIE to do headlines as if this is not going to happen (and did not happen for the previus week). Remember two weeks ago, when the initial number was annunced as 383,000? THAT number turned out to be a LIE, as the number ws REVISED to 389,000. Thus, the CONSERVATIVE "best estimate" for this week is 389,000 (an upward revison of 3,000) . If the number were REVISED upward by 6,000, as happened two weeeks ago, the number this wekk will actually be 392,000. Remember, even the REVISED numbers are ADJUSTED numbers (using a subjective formula). This "seasonal adjustment" can be as much as 100,000. So why does the Labor Department not ADJSUT (as The Maverick Conservative does, and the media should do) for this CONSISTENT underreporting of 3,000 or more EVERY WEEK? The only answer to this is that the Labor Department LIKES the HEADLINE LIES every week--making the weekly number look CONSISTENTLY better than it actually is. Yu and I know that the actual "facts" NEVER catch up with the LYING headlines, and I think the Labor Department LIKES it that way (as do many otehr peole, includng the peole in the media who LIE every week by not pointing this out).
So where are we? The Maverick Conserative also tells lyou that. To recap, here are the numbers on new unemplyment claims for the past 3 weeks, starting with three weeks ago: 389,000' 380,000; 386,000 (to be REVISED, most likely to 389,000 or above). These are BAD numbers. The number of new unemplyment claims dropped below 400,000 at the end of 2011, and has NOT IMPROVED this entire year. Yes, with good weather and glitches i the seasonal adjustment, the number dropped in Febuary to a low of 351,000, and cntinued below 360,000 for several weeks. The number SEEMED to have"settled" into a range of 35000-365,000: NOT IMPROVING, but still an "improvement" over what happened the previsu Februrary. The same SEASONAL PATTER occurred in 2011 (and really in 2010 as well), when the number dropped to 375,000 (causing media "orgams" about an 'improving' trend--orgams which the lucky media peole again got to experience this year, as the number dropped to 351,000). Thus, you will notice that there has been a SLIGHT year-over-year "improvement", but NO IMPROVEMENT within the year: NO steady "improving trend".
Thus, that apparent "range" of 350,000 365,000 was exposed as FICTION. The number suddenly juped to THREE STRAIGHT WEEKS where we AVERAGED (revised numbers) 390,000. Most peole sort of "agreed" that THIS was a "fiction", offsetting (lthough THIS was never acknowledged) the FICTIN of the supposed "drop" to 351,000. The number then again "settled" into a RANGE of 370,000 to 390,000. You can see that this represents a DETERIORATION from those "great" numbers in February. Either we are going in the WRONG DIRECTIN, or the previus "range" of 350,000-365,000 was simply FICTION. Both may be true.
What is a GOOD number? We know that any number "approaching" 400,000 is a BAD numbreer. But what is a GOOD number (needing to be SUSTAINED over time)? No, 350,000 is NOT really a "good" number. It is a number that allows SOME "job growth", but not enough to really pull down the un unemplyment rate. After all, at SOME point, unless we are in a new recession n to p of the one we have never really pulled out of, most employers have FIRED EVERYONE THEY CAN. There are no longer so many people to be fired. That may partly "explain" the SLIGHT year-over-eyar "improvement since the end of 200( even as there has been no CONSISTENT "improvement" within any year. The same seasonal patern has recrred in 2010, 2011, and 2012, hwere it looks like we are "on our way" in February, only to see an apparent DETERIROATION as we head into the summer.
The EVIDENCE, backed up by the stubborn unemplyment rate, low labor force participatin, and slow GDP growth, is that we have had LITTLE IMPROVEMENT since the end of 2009. Yes, we have STABILIZED, at a BAD point. But there has been NO SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT. Remember, the numbers used to CALCULATE the unemplyment rate, and some of these other employment numbers, were CHANGED at the beginning of this year (based on Census data)). And there was a REVISION of "formulas" at the beginning of 2010 and 2011 as well. The change at the beginning of this year wsa so substantial that the Labor Department itself said that "comparisons" with December data were not valie. Thus, yaear-over-year data is SUSPECT. If we are really "improving' we should be "improving" MONTH AFTER MONTH, within each yyear. That is not what has happpened, making the data a little suspec (because of this recurring seasonal pattern within each year0, and leading to a conclusoin that there is really NO "improving" trend. We are STALLED.
What is a "good" number for ne unemplyment claims? Well, in a rel RECOVERY, or in a turly healthy economy, you shoululd have numbers at 250,00 and below. You shuld be CONSISTENTLY below 300,000. So far, in this supposed "recovery", we have not ONCE gone below 300,000. Again, we are STALLED, and really have been STALLED since the end of 2009. It is not really a coincidence that the end of 2009 represents when OBAMA"S POLICIES can be said to have taken full effect. The only REAL BOUNCE in the "recovery" came in the second haal of 2009, before Obama's policies couuld really have had much effect (other than maybe the bailut policies, but taht is the problem with the bailout policies: they made a REAL "recovery" impossible).
A note on the headline: It is absolutely accurate, as the 389,000 is actually the MOST LIKELY revised number for the number onf new unemployment claims released this week. "But, Skip, these are not net jobs. These are gross jobs. you are misleading people.". That is absolutely correct. These new unemplyment claims do represent GROSS JOBS lost--not net. However, I am jsut folowing the lead of the Obama Administration, the CBO, and so many Obama supporters talking abut jobs "created or saved" (lol) by the Obama "stimulus". Besides being totally fictinal, those numbers are based on GROSS JOIBS. How many jobs have Obama's policies COST? It is a meaningless absuridty to try to measure the GROSS JOBS "created" by the Obama "stimulus". It has no meaning. The number of GROSS JOBS LOST represented by the number of weely new unemplyment claimshas MORE MEANING. To the extent the way I have uput it in the headline is somewhat misleading, I feel NO "guilt". If Obama and his supporters are going to play games with GROSS JOBS, then so am I.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight), although I do the best I can (including repetition) to avoid errors in the numbers typed. As stated, the SUBSTANCE of the reporting of the numbers is much MORE ACCURATE than reported by the LIARS of the media.