The weekly Labor Dept. initial report (to be revised next week) on new unemplyment claims came out this Thursday morning. As happens more often than not, this blog was EXACTLY right as to the REVISION of the initial report from last Thursday. The Labor Dept. has to be regarded as DISHOENST because of the extremely consistent under statement of new unemplyment claims, which the media promptly uses in HEADLINES that are almost always LIES.
For example, the number of new unemployment claims initially reported last Thursday was 372,0000. Thie article in this blog had the CORRECT headline : "Obama Loses 374,000 Jobs Last Week." The number of new claims is laways reported on Thursday for the previus week.
Why did this blog report lthat the number of new unemplyment claims whichSHOULD have been reported last Thursday ws 374,000, instead of the 372,000 initially reported by the Labor Department? Because the initial number is ALWAYS revised UPWARD the next week by 2,000. or more. It used to average 3,000 or more, but--for some reason--teh Labor Department has reduced the CONSISTENT error/dishonesty to 2,000. That has been the CONSISTENT revision upward for teh last two months or so. Tere was one week with a revison of 3,000, and I think one week with a revision of 1,000. But this averages out to 2,000, and EVERY other week has been revised upward by 2,000 the next week.
Look at the LIES last week. The number of new unemployment claims was reported as 372,000. It was actually 374,000, as REVISED in the numbers reported this week. The media reported that claikims had increased last week by 4,000. hey actuallly increased by 6,000. And this blog told you ALL of tis LAST WEEK (in advance of this week's revision). If this blog can do it, can't the Labor Department and the MEDIA? yep. But they are DISHONEST: in the case of the media, somme of the most disonest and incompetent peole who have ever lived.
It is not like this is some kind of aberration. The Labro Department, and the media, have been donig this SAME THING for YEARS (literally) . The number of nw unemployment calims is ALWAYS understated, and the medi aheadlines are ALWAYS LIES. For YEARS. And this blog has reported this almsot every week, for YEARS. DISHONESTY just does nto get any worse than this.
Dow Jones (part of the "unfair and unbalanced" empire) even had the gall to say last week that the Labro Department had "counted" 372,000 new unemployment claims last week. That is such a Big Lie that it represents some sort of "proof' that God does not exist. If God exists, Dow Jones offices EVERyWHEE shuld have been hit with THUNDERBOLTS last week. No, the Labro Department does NOT "count" the number o new unempyent claims, which are ALWAYS revised the next week. The Labor Department COMPILES data, subject to 'more complete data" the next week. Isn't it AMAZING that the "more complete data" is ALWWAYS erroneous in the SAME DIRECTGIN (understating the number of new claims)? In the past, it has been even more blatant, with the "revision" sometimes being MORE than 10,000 (a truly large number), and consistently 3,000 and above. Somehow, the Labro Department has decided to be a little "less" DISHONEST (like being a little bit pregnant).
What can yu say about our DISHOENST medai? As I say above, they are simply some of the most dishonest people who havve ever lived. First, they "report" (NOT in healines) that the3372,000 in new unmplyment claims initially reported last week was REVISED to 372,000. What they don't do, because they are DISHONESSST, is highlight a CORRECTIN of laast week's headlines, and admit those headlines were a LIE. Then the medai reports this week's new unemplyment claism reported by the Labor Department as 374,000, and say that is UNCHANGED (one of the worst LIES I have ever seen because it is repeated week aftger week, year after year). Note that the number is "unchanged" ONLY if yu compare this week's initially reported number of 374,000 with last week's REVISED number of 374,000. That is obviusly a LIE, expecially when you KNOW that the initally reported number is ALWAYS revised in the SAME DIRECTION. Comparing an UNREVISED number with a REVISED numbe is absur: apples to orange.You eitgher have to compare revised numbers or unrevised numbers, or unrevised numbers with unrevised numbers. "But we don't know the REVISED number to be released next week." Well, YES YOU DO (or can estimate it, as this blog did last week, adn routinely does). But if yu don't want to compare ESTIMATED revised numbers (estimated for nextg week), then yo can compare unrevised numbers. Note, in this case, whatever you do--honestly--give you the SAME RESULT: The best interpretatin of the data is that new unmployment claims ROSE 2,000 last week (NOT "unchanged", according to the media LIES). Either you can compare the unrevised 374,000 with the unrevised 372,000 (reported last week), or you can compare the EXPECTED revised number to be released next week (376,000) with the revised number from last week (374,000). Either way, the result is a RISE of 2,000, which is the only HONEST way to report the numbers released this morning.
Of ocurse, we are still not talking "counting". The dishonest medai does not even REPORT the supposed "counting' number of actual new unemplyment claims filed. Waht the Labor Department does is take this "raw" number and SEASNALLY ADJUST IT (by 100,000 or more, sometimes). The medai ONLY reports the ADJUSTED number, which MISLEADS the public that this is a "concrete" number instead of a mere ESTIMATE based on a FALIBLE seasonal adjustment formula. Thus, this weekly number of new unemplyment claims only has significance OVER TIME. Any single week can be DISTORTED by a GLITCH in teh "weasonal adjustment'.
Over time, there is NO IMPROVEMENT in new unemplyment claims this entire year. The range for the entire year is basically 350,000-390,000. We are now almost exactly in the MIDDLE of that range, except that the last two weeks have "trended" toward the TOP of the range. And the range from late January to a time in March--a perod of more than twomonths--was 350,000-365,000. We are now ABOVE tghe TOP of that range. Thus, you COULD say that the job situatin has DETERIORATED since March. I won't say that, because I think the "seasonal adjustment' is not adequately accounting for a changed seasonal pattern and unusual weather.
What the data really seems to show is that we are STUCK. We are NOT MPROVING, and have NOT IMPROVED this entire year. This is especially isgnificant because ALLL of the methods/numbers used in calculating job numbers were CHANGTED on January 1. Tihs means that you can't really comparet numbers this year with numbers last year. The only "apples-to-apples numbers are WITHIN THIS YEAR. And ALL of those numbers are STUCK.
The unempllyment RATE has stayed the SAME, since January, at 8.3%: NO IMPROVEMENT this entire year. GDP "growth" is STUCK in almost neutral: 2% for the first quarter and 1.5% for the second quarter. Number sof net "new jobs added" have FALLEN since January/February, and have AVERAGED less than 100,000 a mnth for about 5 months. As stated bove, new unemplyment claims have NOT IMPROVED this entire eyar. STUCK. We are STUCK, in a BAD PLACE.
Not only are we STUCK in a bad place on the economy an d jobs, but there seems NO preospect of real "improvement'. Who can we "mprove' with hasoline prices at a RECORD for this date: with ObamaCare LOOMING over the economy; with HIGHER TAXES looing over the eocnmy; and with Europe collapsing? And we--Obama and Bailut Ben Bernanke--have made a real "recovery" impossible. With our deficit and PRINTING MONEY, any signs of a real "recovery" are ABORTED by an IMMEDIATE shut down of the economy as energy, commodity and food prices EXPLODE. Did I mention FOOD PRICES? Food prices are SKYROCKETING.. And this "stealth" inflatin CANNOT be "improved" with these deficits and MONEY PRINTING (BAilout Ben at work).
My borther, the trucking company executive and previus trucknig compay owner, says that 'his" company is getting LESS BUSINESS. In my brother's experience, trucking companies are a pretty good indicatin of economic activity. When their business starts falling off, it suually means TROUBLE for the economy.
My brother does nto think it is ossible for a real "recovery" to be in process by November. I have predicted tghat means OBAMA LOSES (if econmy does not improve by electin day). But. I am not quite so certain as my brother that Obama cannot somehow convince peole, with media assistance, that the ecomy is actually "improving', when it is not. It is obviusly APPEARANCE that matter here--not necessarily reality. Now I dont' think peole are easy to FOOL ont he eocnmy Thus, I agree with my brother that it is UNLIKELY Obama is gong to lull offf a "miracle' by seeming to produce an IMPROVING econmy by electin day. But I am more cynical than my brother, and do not consider it absolutely IMPOSSIBLE--just unlikely.
Stay tuned next week as we discover if the Labor Department and our media will EVER stop LYING. Odds are they won't, since they have put out the SAME LIES week after week, year after year.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).