Last Friday, the Labor Dept. issued monthly employment numbers that have to be regarded as total FICTIN: purporting to show a DROP (although slight) in unemplyment and 146,000 "added" jobs (not good, but strange with Sandy)--despite Supestorm Sandy.
Why fiction? Look at how those numbers CONFLICTED with the weekly numbers on new unemplyment claims. Here are the numbers on new unemplyent claims released the pat four weeks (released every Thursday, as they will be tomorrow): 451,0000 (18 month high), 416,000, 395,0000, 370,0000 (to be REVISED upward tomorrow by the disheonst Labor Dept, as this was the UNREVISED number released last Thursday). Note that EVERY one of these numbers would have been new HIGHS for the YEAR, before the 451,0000, until we got to last week's annnounced 370,000. But even that nuber was in the MIDDLE of the YEARLY range for the weekly number of new unemplyment claims (351,0000-392,000, before Sandy and disregarding 342,0000 when dishoenst Labor Dept. neglected to COUNT most or all of new claims from California, and never corrected the admittedly erroneous number).
How can Superstorm Sandy cause a HUGE jump in new unemplyment claims, and the unemplyument rate DROP? It can't. These numbers are INCONSISTENT, and REQUIRE exlanatin. But our dishoenst Labor Dept. and media simplyl refuse to look into the obvius discrepancy here, althogh they WILL do so to explain the UNFAVORABLE results of Sandy (such as that huge jump in new unemplyment claims).
What happened? I don't know, for sure. These monthy numbers are getting less and less reliable, to the pint of being entirely useless. The weekly number of new unempllment claims--despite being itself subject to errors and manipulatino--seems to be giving a better picture, OVER TIME, of wha is going on in te labor markte. Notice that the weekly number of new unemplyment claims seems to have given the EXPECTED results from Sandy, while the monthly numbers appar to be FICTIN. Yes, the weekly number of new unemplyment claims was DISTORTED by Sandy, but those high numbers still represented REAL lsot jobs: just not necessarily the ongoing picture of the labor market as Sandy's immediate impact dissipated. No. You jsut can't reconcile the weekly numbers and the monthly numbers, as the monthy numbers seem to indicate NO impact from Sandy at all. That is not possilbe, and the economy did NOT "improve" that muc (as the weeklly number of new unemplyment claims indicated), such that Sandy's losses were matched by big gains elsewhere.
Again, what happened. Problem MAY be in Labor Dept., and unreliability of monthly numbers. There is at least ONE other POSSIBLE way to envision that the monthly numbers might be misleading (besides the way the numbers are collected and calculated, including the timing of when the info was obtained during the onth). As I have previusly stated, Sandy did INCREASE emplyment in some ways, although the net effect was surely negative. Waht aobut all of those TEMPORARY and PART-TIME DISASTER RELIEF peole? It is possible that Sandy actually distorted the monthly numbers in a "positive" directin, even though Sandy's effect on the economy and labor market was really negative. As this blog has told you, the problem with Sandy is that it is hard to PREDICT exactly how Sandy will afect the numbers for individual months and individual weeks. For example, if tomorrow's weekly numbe of new unemplyment claims wer "really good", would that mean real "progress" in the labor market? Almsot surely NOT. It wouud merely mean that the DISTORTINS from Sandy, includng distortins of seasonal patterns, had gone the other directin. ObamaCare, by the way, remains the REAL "fiscal cliff", as it starts to realy affect employers in 2013. As I have stated on Twitter (where my material has been appearing more requently lately @mavconservative, despite the obvius fact that I am not really a Twitter person), my positin is that we would be MUCH better off going over the "fiscal cliff" (as usually described, not including the really terrible effects likely from ObamaCare) than we are likely to be with any "deal" "negotiated" by tghe COWARDLY GOP.
Oh. I made an ERROR in my aricle of almost two weeks ago, when I acutally gave the DISHOENST Labor Dept. too much credit. I said that the Labor Dept., for the first time in livng memory, had actually revised the number of new unmplylument claims DOWN, rahter than the ALWAYS upward revison over many previus months, and even years. Not so. Somehow, because of a mistake by my media source (entirely possible), or because of my own eyesight, I got the idea that the number of new unemloyment claims was reported as 383,0000, down 23,0000 from the previous week. That would have made the previus week 406,000,m nstead of the initially reported 410,000. Actually, the number of new unemloyument claims was reported as 393,000, down 23,000 from a REVISED 416,000. I was off 10,000, and the dishoenst Labor Dpet. had REVISED the prvius week UPWRD from 410,000 to 416,000: a continuance of the DISHONESTY of the usual, consistent upward revsion week after week. Thus, last Thursday, the Labor Dept. again REVISED the preius week's 393,000 to 395,000, which is te number I included in my recakkp of the past 4 weeks above. as stated, the number of new unempllyment claims initially reorted last week was 370,000. Youi can EXPECT that number to be REVISED tomorrow (or "today", since this is being typed right at midnight El Paso taime) to 373,0000 or so (using most common weekly revision of UP 3,000). Everything else I said in that article two weeks ago was accurate, and even my error did not cuase me to give any credence to the Labor Dept. suddenly beocmign more honest. I was right in my expressed skepticism, as the revisin turned out to be the same directin in which it always is made: UPWARD (as the dishonest media keeps reporting the initial, UNREVISED number as if it is not gong to be REVISED the next week in only one directin).
Again, it is difficult to "predict" what tomorrow's number of initiallly reported new unemplyment claims will be. The distortins of Sandy, including the subtle one on the "seaosnal adjustment', may still be operating. Further, we are in the CHRISTMAS season, and the Labor Dept. numbers around holidays are esopecially unreliable. Even without Sandy, the Laor Dept. often gets the "seasonal adjustment" WRONG as seasonal patterns change from year to year. As this blog has correctly told you, I don't think these numbers are gong to mean much--or at least we won't know what they may mean--until at least mid-January. And since 2010 there has been a consistent FICTINAL "improvement at the end of one year and the beginning of the next (through February), that has turned out to be FALSE as we go into spring and summer. These numbers will ONLY have any significance OVER TIME, and we may be all of the way into April before we can arrive at any reasonably confident evaluatin of how the labor market is doing in 2013. The usual SEASONAL "improvement" ni new weeekly unemloyment claims has NOT yet occurred this year. It remanis to be seen if it will maek a belated appearance as we head toward the end of the year, and beginnng of next year. Then there is the fact that the BASE numbers and formulas used to CALCULATE both the weekly and monthly numbers usually CHANGES in January.
The media may have orgasms, as usual, if the numbers APPEAR to be good", as they have FALSELY appeeared for the past 3 years. We will have to wiat and see for the real situation to become established. Or, rather, YOU will have to wiat and see for my DEFINITIVE evaluatin of the situatin. I can give you better analysis than anyone else, but even I cannot accurately tell you the real status of the labor market until there is enough reasonably reliable data to see whether the PATTERN of the last three years is repeating itself or not. And I really am afaid that these numbers--weekly and monthly--are becoming more subject to possible manipulatin with every passing week and month. Tha tis why you have to TRY to RECONCILE the vaiurs numbers (includnig GDP growth and other non-emplyment data) with EACH OTHER. Yu cannot reconcile the last four weeks of new unemplyment claims with the supposed MONTHLY emplment numbers for November. We will see what time adn more data, bring to us in the way of clues.
No. Whehter the economic data starts to really look better or not, ObamaCare (along with so many other things, including the Fed makng real recovery impossible because printing money will cause immeidate SPIKES in inflatin as any "recovery" starts) is a SWORD OF DAMOCLES hangng over the American economy. I don't see how we survive it.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).