New unemployment claims data (for the previus week) was released Thursday, and again showed NO improvement in the job market this entire year. I know, by th eway , that the Labor Department said there were 372,0000 new claims for unemployment last week, and that our dishoenst media 9especially the financial media) reported this as a "fact", but MY headllne contains the (more likely) correct number. It is not my eyesight, or a typo. The CORRECT number (really ESTIMATE, since the "sasonal adjustment' creates a built in margin of error of 50,000 or so) is much more likely 374,000, than the INITIAL 372,000 reported by the Labor Deparment. How can I say that, in conflict with the expets in the Labor Department? It is because the Labor Department is DISHONEST (no more pussyfooting around--when you report a weekly number wrong in ONE DIRECTION for year after year after year, yoiu are DISHOENST, especially when you donot make a major effort to ADJUST the GLILTCHES). And the LIARS of the media are WORSE in the way they report the Labor Department information.
Look at this blog's weekend article on the numers the Labor Department reported last week, for the previus week. Again, this blog was EXACTLY right, and the Labor Dpeartment was proven to be dishoent---along with our media. The number of new unemployment clais initially reported last week was 366,0, up a mere 2,000 from the REVISED 364,0000 for the week before that. As this blog's article said, the media DOBLED DOWN last weeek on DISHONESTY, trying to suggest not ony that the number was essentailly "unchanged", but that the fact that the four-week moving average moved "down" last week actually meant that last week was an IMPROVING number. This blog told you in the wekend article, correctly, that the REVISED number of new unemployment claims which SHOULD have been reported last week was likely either 368,000 or 369,000. Dead on, as usual (as you get tomorrow's news today in this blog). The REVISED number which SHOULD hav been reported last week was 368,000, up 4,000 (rather than the minuscule 2,000 the media suggested ws nothing. In additn, this blog told you taht the move "down' in the four-wek moving average was a statistical FLUKE, brought about my the way the weeky number has been jumping arund since the edn of June (as "seasonal adjustmennt" anomlies continue, as they have all year). Thus, the number "dropped off" the four-week movieng average last week was 388,0000. This blog told yu that the number to be "dropped ff" this week would be 367,0000 (notice the impossible "drop' of 31,000 that happened a month ago--the result of thoose "seasonal adjustment' inaccuracies). This blog told you that the fact that the number to be dropped off this week was the lower 357,0000 meant that thefour-week moving average would likely GOUP this week , for the same statistical reason It did. you will note that the 17,0000 difference between 374,000 and 367,000 meant that the four-week average ROSE over 4,000 this week (using the more correct 374,000 number for this week), essentially offsettnig the "drop" in the four-week moving average last week. No. The media stories this week did not highlight this PROFF of their DECEPTION (not to metnion proof of the validity of what appears on this blog).
This is what Dow Jones "reported" on its radio "money repoort:": "The Labor Department counted 372,000 people who reported losing jobs last week, up 4,0000 from the previus week." Can you LIE any worse tha Dow Jones (again PROVING my view of the unfair and unbalanced network not really being any better than the others, as Dw Jnes and the Wall Street Journal have a common ownership, and affiliation with, the unfair and unbalanced network). SSob. Where to start. So many lies, so little time. No, the Labor Department did not COUNT ANYTHING., or at least did not reprot what they "cunted". The article on Marketwatch.com (also LIARS--ssee the weekend article) noted the revsion of last week's nummber from 366,000 to 368,000, based on lack of "complete data". Amazing, isnot it, how the "complete data ALWAYS makes the number HIGHEER, usually by a very consistent number (used to be 3,000, and now seems to be usally 2,000, although 3,000 last week). A few times, the number has really risen a LARGE amount, such as 5,000, 10,000, or even more, although usually the ERROR is pretty consistent). Obviusly, if tehe Labor Department is "counting on its fingers", as it just counts up the new unemplment claims, it is not doing a very good job. But Dow Jones peole are much worse LIARS than that. The Labor Department does not even pretend to have "counted" 372,0000 new unemplyment claims. Rather they "counted" (compiled, with incomplete data that will be revised next wee, almost surely UP 2,000 or more) a RAW NUMBER, which the Labor Department then SEASONALLY ADJUSTMENT. This "adjustment" can be as much as 1000,000 or more, and is based on a "formula" to "smoooth out" the variations in new unempllyment claims created by purely seasonal factors (predictable rise in hiring heading into Christmas beng an obvus example). This"seasonal adjustment" is NOT "counting", and can be WAY OFF (expalining the bouncing around since the end of June). The "seasonal adjustment" is NEVER EXACT: never a "counting" number. It is ALWAYS an "estimate" based on a falible forumula. It is basically an educated guesss as the "raw" number is MASSAGED to supposedly give a more meaningful number. I sitll maintain that HONEST "jounalists" (no such creature appers to exist today--a myth, like unicors) would ERPORT the "raw" number, alnog wiht the "seasonally adjusted" numbe.r. But the idea is that this wuld merely "confuse yyou" (let you know actual INFORMATIN, and that the way the media is reorting thesee numbers as exact is DISHONEST).
Marketwatch, some of the most dishoenst peolle who have ever lived, was the entity that made so much of the "four-week average" last week. This week, the HEADLINES did not mentin that the four-week average had basically retraced the previus "drop" over which Marketwatch had made so muc. Both Marketwatch and Dow Jones stuck with this LIE that the new unemplyment claims rose 4,000, when that is an OUTRAGEOUS LIE. Yu CANNNOT (as an honest person, whcih leaves "jurnalists" out, I guess) COMPARE a REVISED NUMBER (last week's revised 368,000) with an UNREVISED number (this week's initially reported 372,000). You are comparing apples and oranges. You either have to compare this week's UNREVISED number with last week's UNREVISED number, or else WAIT for the revised number next week. Or wyou can ESTIMATE the revisin, as I do, and often come very close. Again, it is a LIE to compare a revised number with an unrevised nummber, especially when yu KNOW that the revision is ALWAYS in ONE DIRECTION (usually very coonsistent).
No. It is simply a fact: Today's "journalists" are sorry specimens of humanity, both incompoetent and massively dishonest. And, as stated, the Labor Deaprtment has to be regarded as dishonest to keep reorting this SAME kind of df "revisin" week after week, year after year, allways in ONE DIRECTIN. The "data" is obviusly being compiled in a way that ALWAYS understates the number n the initial report.
This constant dishonesty is annoying. But these weely numbers--another media LIE wehn they hype an individual week--are significant ONLY over time. Here, we have a yearly RANGE between 351,000 and 390,000, with NO "improvement' as the year as gone on. In fact the BEST numbers were ni a period from late January to early March, when the "range' was 351,000 to a little above 365,000. Notice that we are now in the MIDDLE of the yearly range, and ABOVE the TOP of the range we seemed to have reached n February. Again, what this all MENS is that we are NOT IMPROVING. We bounce around weekly, and even monthly (as the seaonsal adjustment fails oto get it right ni certain months, or maybe alllmonths as seasonal patterns change), but overall we are STUCK. We are STALLED in a BAD PLACE. Note that if we o=move UP from here (the 374,0000 that likely should have been reported this Thursday), we will be right back toward the 390,000 area were were in for most of June. If we back off from the 374,000, then we may seem to get back to the type of range we were in early this year. In all events, there is NO TREND, and the job market is STALLED.
To show just how little trend there is, let me give yu the (revised, except for this week, where I have done the revision) numbers starting at the end of June, after we had about four weeks AVERAGING almost 390,000 for most of June): 374,0000 (I think, although this may have been revised higher), 352,000 (impossilbe drop), 388,000 (impossible rise), 357,000 (impossible drop), 367,000, 364,000, 368,000 and 374,000 (as I have revised it, since others will not). Q.E.D. We are NOT IMPROVING (especially when you realize that early this year we were in that lower range of 351,000 to 365,000). The seasonal adjustment is not getting the seaonsla pattern right, but it is obvius we are STUCK. This is confirmed by the fact taht the unemplyment RATE is the SAME as it was in January. Monthly jobs data (also adjusted) has shown NO improvement over the year. GDP has "grown" almsot nothing: 1.5% this last quarter, and 2% the irst quarter. You may remember that the first two quarters of 2008 showed GDP GROWTH, even thugh the 2008 recession OFFICIALLY began on January1 of that year.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkning. (bad eyesight)).