Thursday, July 5, 2012

Obama Loses 377,000 Jobs Last Week: June Worst month of Year (Failure on Jobs Continues)

No, the above is not the media headline.  That is because our media LIES.

First, let us go to last week's LIES (althugh the Bloomberg headline pretty much got it right last week). The weekly number of new unemployoment claims filed the previuos week comes out every Thursday.  The number is based on very subjective "seasonal adjustments", and is especially unreliable around holidays. You will note that last week led into the 4th of July holiday week.  The number is also REVISED (almost always UPWARD) each succeeding Thursday.  Thus, the initial number announced two weeks ago on Thursday was RVISED upward 5,0000 last Thrusday (to 392,000 from 387,0000).  This made the number APPEAR to "drop" 5,0-00 from the previus week's REVISED number, as the intial number released last Thursday was 386,000.  You will note that is abut the SAME (as Bloomberg accurately reported) as the initial 386,000 released the previous Thursday (before the revision to 392,000).  The pont is that this number only means somethning OVER TIME., and AFTER REVISIONS.  Last week's initial number, of 386,000, for example, was REVIOSED UPWARD (as this blog again CORRECTLY predicted) to 388,0000 (a meaningless 1,000 less than the usual upward revision of 3,000 or more).

Okay.  Look at June.  For almost all of June, the AVERAGE of new unemployment claims was right around 390,0000--a BAD number. June was the WORST month of the year, even with today's UNREVISED number of 374,0000 (expected, unless lou are a media LIAR, to be REVISED UPWARD to 377,0000 or more nextg week). By any measure, June wa a BAD MONTH, and hshowed NO IMPROVEMENT in the "job market" the entire first half of the year. You will remember that the (fictional?) "range' estalbished around lthe month of February was 350,0000-365,0000.  Today's number was at least 10,000 ABOVE that range, and hardly a "good" number.

That did not stop the media LIARS. Again, the despicable AP headline, "featured" on Yahoo "News", was that:  "Hopeful signs emerge for struggling job market."  The "lead" paragraph said that "emcpoyers stepped up hiring in June.'  As I have just shown yu, EMPLOYERS STEPPED UP FIRING IN JUNE. The other media headline that LIED was that:  "Jobless claims fall 14,000 last week, to 374,000".  As usual, that headline is an outright, objective LIE.  On an "aples-to-apples' basis, claims "fell" a meaningless 12,000 (386,000--the INITIAL rlrep;orted number for last week--to 386,000 (the INITIAL reported number for this week).  Based on the CONSISTENT upward revisions, it is even more of a LIE, since you can EXPECT an upward revisin next week of at least 3,000.  Remember, the revison of the initial 387,0000 number released two weeks ago was a full 5,0000, all of the way to 392,000.. That revision HAS been as much as 12,000 and more, although that is rare (not, however, any more rare--less rare--than a DOWNWARD revision).  Remember, ALL of June shows the labor "market" at its WORST level of the year (as far as new unemployment claims are concerned).

Therefore, how can the LIARS of the AP, and rest of the media, talk about 'hopeful signs".  Easy.  They did what they always do. They IGNORED the data inconsistent with their NARRRATIVE (agenda), and only considered the data in the most "favorable' way possible for the propaganda they wan to spread.  Thus, they have pretty much IGNORED the BAD DATA for all of June (previous weeks going past the BAD news as quickly as possilble), while playing up ONE PRE-HOLIDAY WEEK as an "important sign" (which it is not). Then they used the ADP (payroll processing outfit for which my friend Sylvia works as a "configuratin analyst")  data for June as a "further indication" of "hopeful signs" (when the media has previously IGNORED ADP data when it is unfavorable.  ADP data "showed" that private employers "added" 175,000 jobs in June. But ow is that POSSIBLE, when June was the WORST omnth (at the very least tied for that spot) for JOB LOSSES all year?  The answer is that it is NOT POSSIBLE. That is, the data is INCONSISTENT.  Somewhere, the "seasonal adjustmetns' are gong awry.  Sure, it is p9ossible that the BASD newson new unemplyment claims is misleading, and that it is THOSE numbers which are "wrong".  But there is no reason to assume that.  All yu can say right now is that the ADP number--even though a number under 200,000 is NOT GOOD in the first place--is INCONSISTENT with other months, when FEWER JOBS were "added", despite BETTER (ven if only slightly) jobless claims numbers. 

No. The record of new unemplyment claims thiis entire year has been a recorxcd of Obama fAILURE, and media LIES cannot alter that fact.

Oh.  The headline.  Did Obama really "lose" 377,000 jobs last week?  First, yu will note that I have ADJUSTED the number to reflect the EXPECTED REVISION nextt week.  I have done that often in recent weeks, and i have ALWAYS (ever single time) been MOE ACCURATE than the initial number HYPED by the media (as initially releaed lby the Labor Department, before the inevitable revisin the next week). But how can Obama "lose' 377,000 jobs this week, and an average of 390,000 jobs for about the previus 4 weeks, and still "add" jobs for the month (as jobs are expected to be added, even if the ADP number is inflated)?  Easy.  We are talking about the difference between GROSS JOBS and NET JOBS.  The wekly number of new unemplyment claims--NOT IMPROVED this entire year--is a measure of GROSS JOB LOSSES. Those job losses can be offset by hiring.  "Skip, aren't you ashamed of yyourself for misleading people?"  Not at all  I am merely using the OBAMA MEASURE for evaluating his 'stimulus" efforts, where Obama and his supporters only try to "measure' GROSS JOBS "saved"  (lol) or 'created".  Taht does not take into account the jobs that may have been LOST because of the government DOMINATION of the 'job maraket", and rfreezing out of the "private sector".  in other words, how many jobs have Obama's policies COST.  Since this is the WORST RECOVERY since the Great depression, the EVIDENCE is that Obama's policies have COST "net jobs".  Our economy should be ROARING by now, in any normal "recovery"--should have been ROARING in 2010 and 2011.  Instead, we have been limping along, and continue to limp along.  No, we are not YET facing Armageddon, but we WILL if we keep limping along thi way.

Note that I stand behind what I said on ObamaCare, and how the Supreme Court decisn HURT OBAMA.  ObamaCare remains a BLACK CLOUD over the U.S. economy, PREVENTING any real "jobs recovery".  If the Supreme Cuort had removed that cloud, even at the cost of rightly delcaring Obama to have acted unconstitutionally, it woulld have BOOSTED the economy (the main obstacle in the way of Obama's re-electin) AND given Obama a campaign isssue.  Again, objectively (and I AM "neutral", since I cnanot support Romney), the decision hurt Obama pretty badly. 

P.S.  No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight), although I do try to keep the numbers right.  If i leave off a "zero", or make an obvius typo in a number,  there is enough redundancy in the article so that you shuld easily be able to figure it out.  Substantively, the numbers are RIGHT.--week after week proven to be much MORE RIGHT than the liars of the media.  The monthy FEDERAL job figures of June, and the unemplyment rate, will be realeased tomorrow. Expect those numbers to be viewed in the same biased way by the media (and Obama, but that goes without saying).  As this blog has told you, these "monthy" emllyment numbers are SUBJECTIVE, and not "concrete", "counting" numbers.  You can expect some sort of "job gain", as the weekly number of new unemplyment claims has not been bad enough to actaully "lose" NET jobs.  But any really 'good" number (like close to 200,000) will be INCONSISTENT with the weely numbers on new unemplyment claims. The numbers on weekly new unemloyment claims are simply not good enogh to lower the unemplyment rate, ecept as a matter of statistical "noise".  As this blog has told you, of course, what matters is how the economy "looks' in SEPTEMBER and OCTOBER.  Any slight--probably "fictional"--"improvement" in June is NOT gong to matter, UNLESS it continues in future months.  As this blog has told you, Obama LOSES unless the economy IMPROVES SUBSTANTIALLY (or at least appears to do so) by election day.  I don't see how that can happen, with ObamaCare and all of the rest (taxes, regulatins, etc.).  But maybe miracles happen (skeptical agnostic though I am).  You can take it to the bank:  Data today, and any data tomorrow, are NOT 'hopeful signs" 'emerging".  That only happens OVER TIMME, and when the data is CONSISTENT. 

No comments: