Nottice that The Maverick Conservative AGAIN got last week''s RVISED numbe of new unemployment claims EXACTLY RIGHT ((388,000, revised upward 2,000 from 386,000). Problem: The weekly numbr itself has become TOTAL FICTION (the "seasonal adjustment" obviusly so far out of kilter as to render the numbre pretty much meanginless--at least for now). Thus, this blog will not attempt to do my usual insightful analysis of what the reported number "means". It means NOGHING, other than that the whole process is out of whachk.
Headline: Jobless clims drop 35,000, to 353,000."
Readers of this blog know, of curse, that the headline--as is true of VERY mweekly media headline for YEARS on this subject--is a LIE. This number has been REVISED upward for 4 straight weeks, by a steady 2,000. Before that, the usual revision wsa 3,000 and more. For some reson (deliberate refusal to make an "adjustment", surely), it has "seeted in" at a "steady" LIE of 2,0000 (the intitally reported number being at least 2,000 less than what everyone KNOWS the REVISED number will be). But the sbuheadline makes it clear that it is not just the failure to consider the INEVITABLE revision next week that makes the reported numbers for the past three weeks NOT REAL (the whole number, and to just tkhe inevitable understatement of a few thousand). Here is that headline: "Big swings in number linked to auto-sector conditions." Translation: The SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT haS gone OFF OF TE RAILS. This---as this blog has reported for years while "journalists" tgell you LIES--is NOT a "concrete number" (the weekly number of reported new unempllyment claims). It is a SUBJECTIVE number, based on a "seasonal adjustment" formula that often provides the WRONG result. A real "sjournalist" would not only report THAT, but would report the number of RAW "new unempllyment claims" every week, along with the adjustment, and then report the same numbers for an equivalent week last year. And then the "journalist" would ask an economist to EXPAIN what appeatrs to be happening (with the numbres themselves), and to explain any wild swings. But what do 'economists" know. It is not like they have been correctly PREDICTING these "big swings".
What "big swings?" Well, here are the numbers for the past 5 weeks, starting with the UNREVISED number for this week: 353,000 (to be REVISED to 355,000 or more, if patterns hold); 388,000 (revised from 386,000, as this blog CORRECTLY told yu, in advance); 352,0000 (despite the intital media LIE that the number was 350,00, and the "lowest" in four years, despite the initially reported number having been 348,000 TWICE in February); 376,0000; and 388,000 (part of the "steady" number right around 390,000 for MOST OF JUNE).
Has the ECONMY "bounced around" the past four weeks? Not a chance. Thus, the subheadline is correct: these numbers are FICTION: the bouncing up and down of 35,000 and more the past 3 weeks. You don't even need the "explanation" to know thaqt the numbers are FICTION. This kind of "bouncing around" is ALWAYS the result of GLITCHES in the "seasonal adjustment". Now it is true that the RAW number "bounces around" even more, based on seasonal patterns. That merely emphasizes that this weekly numbre only has "meaning" OVER TIME (as in months)Thus, it has SOME significance that this number has NOT IMPROVED over this entire year--"smoothing out' the wilder swings up and down.
You should be able to foresee a problem here. First the FORMULA by which ALL of teh emplyment numbers are "calculatted" is CHANGED every year. The census "caused" SUBSTANTIAL changes in the "base" numbers used to calculate MONTHLY "employment numbers". Then you have the INCREASING questin of whether "seasonal adjustment" numbers even approach "reality". If you are a "journalist" again, y9u shuld surely be reporting the CALENDAR MONTH number, compared with the SAME calendar month for last year, and the QUARTERLY number, compared witht he sAME QUARTER last year (RAWnumbrs, with the idea that the "seasoanl adjustment' should not usuall MATTER when comparing entire calendar months, and calendar quarters, with the SAME period last year. Then you have Easter (a holiday which jumps around), and other small glitches. But this kind of REPORTING would at least give peole an IDEA of the real situation, instead of the LIFES that "journalists" are now feeding us. One of the LIES it that these numbers (weekly or monthly) are "exact numbers".
So the problem should be obvious to you. These numbers are so built on wather, and the methods of "calculation" so CHANGING, that the chances of MANIPULATION are rising exponentially. It is not even that the "policy makers" of the Obama Administratin have to "order" a "manipulation". "Economists" and BUREAUCRATS with an AGENDA (not to mention just incompetent) can massively distort these numbers. If you understood what is happening over the past several weeks, you shuld realize that even PRIVATE companies cn DISTORT the numbers. GM,for example, is correctly known as GOVERFNMENT MOTORS. What if GM changed its "seasonal patern" DELIBERATELYL. No, I have no rfeason to believe that has happened. But it COULD HAPPEN. And that is a major problem NO real "journalists" exist anymore. And yet that is what we NEED ral "journalists" for: to DIG into these numbers and not only explain how unreliable they ar,e but maybe even try to glean whatever "real meaning' is in these numbers. This is NOT "in the weeds" (the new mantral for LAZY "journalists" not wanting to do their jobs). This is what is NECESSARY for "journalists" to do their obs, if they were real "journalists". As stated, however, no "real jurnalist" now exists (of whom I am aware, although I keep thinking there must be SOME exceptions).
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad yeesight). What is "funny" (not "laughing" funnny but CRYING funy) is that IF te initally trported number of new unemplyment claims had only been 350,000 this morning, instead of 353,000, the media could have LIED for the FOURTH TIME since the number hit 351,000 in February, and called the number "the lowest in four years", only to be able to have the headline available yet AGAIN as the number ws REVISED next week back to 351,000 or above. I atually wish the reported number had been 350,000. "Journalists" are LEMMINGS with an AGENDA. They could not have helped themselves, as they coululd not help themselves IMMEDIATELY making the Colorado shooting all about "un control" (not to mentin the "pop psychology"). If the number theis morning had been reported at 350,000, "junliasts" WOULD have FALSELY reported that as the "lowest number in four years", s they have ALREADY DONE three previus times this year (after the yearly low of 351,000--revised--was reached in February, when the initial number was TWICE reported at 348,000, before revisn).