It is a broken record, but I will continue to note it so long as media lies continue 9as they have for YEARS), and so long as the Labor Department maintains a 3,000 person LIE in the number of new unemployment claims it "reports" every Thursday (supposedly filed previus week, although the number is ALWAYS REVISED the next week UPWARD, usually by at least 3,000, and althogh the number is NOT a "counted" number, but a subjective 'seasonally adjusted" number).
Thus, lok at where this blog wsa RIGHT last Thursday, and the Labor Dept./media WRONG. The UNREVISED number of new unemployment claims reported last Thursday was 388,000, up 46,000 from the FICTIONAL 342,000 (REVISED) for the week before. As this blog told you, in foresight, thke "report" in the previus sentence was a LIE. This blog told you that the "actual" (ignroing, for now, seasonal adjustment problems and perhaps other "technical" problems) numbre--the REVISED number to be released this Thursda--would be 391,0000, or more. Dead on again, as usual. The actual REVISED number that shuld have been used last thursday (or my 391,000) was 392,000, UP a full 50,0000 (half a 100,000) from the FICTIONAL 342,000 (revised) for the previus week. Again, as has been true for EVERRY week--aside from maybe 3--in the past TWO YEARS, this blog was ACCURATE, while the media and Labor Department were WRONG. This is especially bad as to the constant LIE of "comoparing' the UNREVISED number "reported each Thursday with the REVISED number for the previous week. This is a blatant LIE not only because you are comparing apples and oranges (a revised number with an unrevised number), but because the revision is almost ALWAYS in one directin (up),, and by a remarkably consistent number (mostly right around 3,000--sometimes 2,000 and sometimes 4,000, and sometimes even higher, but almost never DOWN). For the Labor Depar. to produce a number every Thursday with a CONSISTENT ERROR in one direction is a LIE. I am sorry It is. If I can properly "adjsut" the number every week, then so can the Labor Department. Sure, I start with the Labor Dept. number--for lack of a better one--but I KNOW one way it is WRONG, and so I adjsut "my" number (as I have in the headline above).
The Labor Dept/media lie this week: that new unemployment claimms for last week went up 369,000. As stated in the headline, based on the CONSISTENT ERROR by the Labor Dept., the actual number of new unemployment claims last week (subject to other glitches) was, most likely, 372,000. The even bigger LIE is that the number of claims "dropped" 23,000: from the REVISED 392,000 to the UNREVISED 369,000. On an apples to apples basis, the number of claims actually "dropped" 19,000: from an unrevised 388,000 to an unrevised 369,000. Of course, we know that to report any "drop" at all is FICTION, because of the way the number has bounced around the past few weeks.
Look at how RIGHT I was last week. Two weeks ago the media HEADLINES were about a "4-year low" in new unempoyment claims: that 342,000. That 342,000 number ws TOTAL FICTIN--as I told you at the time. It was inconsistent with both the weekly trend and what we KNOW is a SLOW economy (no sudden "improvement'). Well, the next week (reported last Thursday), the number of new unemployoment claims supposedly "jumped" that 5,000, all of the way to match the YEARLY HIGH (that 392,000). That is, of course, IMPOSSILBE< in terms of reflecting relaity. The LABOR MARKET did NOT suddenly "improve' to its best status in 4 years, and the--in one week--go back to its WRoST STATUS of the entire year. I told lyou last week that the "best guess" as to a correct number, although the numbers have to all be regarded as FICTIN, was to AVERAGE the two weeks, leaving you close to the 370,000 level. Exactly right again, if you can believe this week's likely number of 372,00 (or the Labor Dept.unrevised number of 369,000).In other words, this week's number is CONSISTENT with weeeks prior to the previus weeks, and with the AVERAGE of the last two weeks. It also happens to be right in the MIDDLE of the RANGE of new unemployment claims for the entire year: 350,000-390,000 (ignoring total FiCTIN of 342,000 two weeks agoo). The number of new unemployment calims has NOT IMPROVED this ENTIRE YEAR. The number is STUCK, ina BAD PLACE Ignoring weekly fluctuations).
As this blog has correctly stated, for years, each individual weekly number of new unemployment claims is basically WORTHLESS, because it is subject to GLITCHES in the "seasonal adjustment"--a SUBJECTIVE formula by which the Labor Dept. "adjsuts" its raw count (by as much as 100,000). This is the Big Lie in the way this weekly number is "reported"; as if it is a CONCRETE NUMBER OF CLAIMS COUNTED, instead of a FALLIBLE ESTIMATE.
Even the DISHOENST people at Marketwatch (although maybe not QUITE as dishoenst as the world class disheonst peoplle at CNBC) could not swallow the obvius fictions of the past two weeks. Thus, they dutifuly LIED about this week's number of 369,000 being a "drop" of 23,000, but the subheadline properly dismiossed this "drop" as FICTIN, by saying that the number of claims showed a "stubbornly slow labor market". Marketwatch has not yet come around to the correct view that the weekly report does not mwan ANYTHING, except as one data point in an analysis OVER TIME. In the present case, Marketwatch came close to lurching into the truth: that the "labor market" has NOT IMPROVEMD this entire year. Yep. This is a major OBAMA FAILURE. Marketwatch could also no longer stand the obvius, absurd fluctuatins of the previus two weeks. Markewatch had an explanatin: CALIFORNIA.
Oh, maybe not entirely. But I am not kidding, Marketwatch (and others) evidently BLAMED "technical problems" in CALIFORNIA DATA for distorting the results, along with "seasonal quirks". This is what I have told you for YEARS, as the media reports the Big Lie: I have told you that ANY individual week can be DISTORTED, and that these weeekly numbers only mean something (unless the Labor Dept. totally implodes, in which case they are gonig to mean nothing) OVER TIME. But look at what Marketwatch, and maybe the Labor Dept. itself, jsut told you. They just told you that distorted data FROM ONE STATE can DISTORT the natinal figures. And they also told yo that there is NOT a SINLGE "source" of data that goes into these weekly and monthly reports, but multiiple sources. That is all apart from the GLITCHES in the "seasonal adjustments". Let us go back to the MONTLY data for September, and that FICTIONAL 7.8% unemployment rate.
Do not these DISTORTIONS in the WEEKLY data from the Labor Dept. cast doubt on the MONTLY employment data? Of course they do. They show how distortion s in relatively isolated areas can DISTORT the national numbers. I don't believe in "greand conspiracies". But what did I tell you about that supposed "drop" in the UNEMPLOYMENT RATE? First I correctly told you it was FICTION Second, I told you that INFIVBIDUALS involved in productin g this data could DISTORT the numbers, without any "grand conspiracy". Was there a "grand conspracy" to FALSIFY weekly jobless claims numbers over the pprevius two weeks? Surely not. But is it POSSILBE that DISHOENST INDIFIVUALS were involved? Absolutely. And it does not really matter. The main pont is that Labor Dept. data is FALLIBE, and subject to LARGE ERRORS. Yuo hae to look at ALL of the numbers, OVER TIME, or else you are participating in a LIE (as our media does every week, and every month).
Go back to that unemployment rate for September. It was based on a POLL ("household survey") purportedly showing that 873,000 (lol) "jobs added" in September. THAT was the number--with 873,000 jobs added--used to "calculate" the "drop" in the unemplyment rate to 7.8%. That was ABSURD, on its face, and the number shuld have been dismissed as FICTIN. It was just as ridiculous asa the wild fluctuations in the weekly number of new unemplyment claims in the previus two weeks--really MORE ridiculous. Doubt me? The Labor Department's own OFFICIAL number of "jobs added" for September was an anemic 114,000. That was based on the "employer survey"--separate from the "household survey" used to "calculate" the unemplyment RATE. Notice that the "household survey" is NOT used to determine the "offical" number of "jobs created" each month. But, for September, these numbers were totally INCONSISTENT: with the number used to calculate the unemplyment rate being 750% (7.5 times) HIGHER than the "official" number of jobs created (that 114,000). Ad we KNOW that the 873,000 number was ABSURD. NO previous month of the Obama Presidency has been any higher than 25l0,000. The number was FICTIN, and everyone knew it. But CNBC, Marketwatch, and basicaly all of our media lIED ANYWAY. The RAL "story" was NOT the FICTINAL "drop" in the unemplyment rate, but WHY the number was so obviusly WRONG. But our dishoenst media--including, mostly, the unfair and unbalanced network--pretty much stayed away from that story. That is because most of them have an AGENDA, and those that don't are both COWARDS and unwilling to "go into the weeks" (showing how much CONTEMPT they have for us all, but not nearly as much CONTEMPT as I have for THEM).
How long am I gong to keep writing this SAME article about how RIGHT I am (week after week), and how WRONG the Labor Dept. and our media are? Well, I will probably keep writing this same article every week until I die, because THEIR LIES show no indicatin of stopping. And I have no intentin of letting them outlast me. Oh. Some of the LIES are becoming so bad (look at Marketwatch, and at the skepticism that cam thourgh on that FICTINAL September unemplyment rate) htat some usually involved in the lies are choking on them. But they still continue. So will I. The MONTHLY "jobs report" for October will come out next Friday. Will the Labor Dept DOUBLE DOWN on its LIES, along with the media? Remember, all it takes (as shown over the past few weeks) is for a FEW individuals to distort data, so long as there are not VIGOROUS CHECKS on suspicious data. There were obviusly no such checks on that absurd data tkhat went into the unemployment rate for September, which really rEQUIKRED a FULL EXPLANATIN of how such an extreme discrepancy could exist in the numbers. Nope. It is NOT enough to simply say that the nubmers come from different sources, when one of the sources is so obviusly WRONG. No "grand conspircy", but there are a LOT of DISHONEST people at work here, including in the media.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesiht). What is the excuse of the Labor Dept. and our media? Oh. I forgot. The PLAUSIBLE excuse for the latest obvious glitches is CALIFORNIA. Maybe we can blame CALIFORNIA for ALL of the obvius absurdities. California certainly deserves it, but I don't think California is the only entity to blame for treating obvius FICTIN as FACT.