See previus articles on this subject over past several weeks. Dead on, as usual. Here are the reported new unemplyment claims for the past NINE weeks: 362,000, 362,000, 367,000, 372,000, 335,000 (lol), 330,000, 371,000, 368,000 and 341,0000 (to be revised tomorrow). Labor Dept. is back to CONSISTENT "revision", where the "revision" the week after the previous week's number is reported is ALWAYS in one directin: UP. Thus, last Thursday, the previus week's reported 366,0000 was revised upward 2,0000, to 368,000. But look at the NINE numbers, and you can see the main problem here. This "series" is IMPOSSIBLE (as far as representing real events).
For SIX of the past NINE reported weeks, the number of new unemplylment claims has averaged above 365,0000, with not much variation from that average. For THREE of the past NINE reported weeks, the number of new unemlyment claims has averaged 335,000, again with little variatin from the average in the three individual weeks. But the six weeks and the three weeks are not even CONNECTED. Thus, you can't even hypothesize that some "major" event, or major change in calculatin, happened to cause either the job market or the calculatin to shift suddenly. In mathematics/physics, this kind of anamalous dta points are called "discontinuities". In other words, there is NO "rend" curve that can really fitin these "breaks" in the data. It actaully seems that the Labor Dept. is doing somethign DIFFERENT in the six weeks than it is in the three weeks. In all events, these numbers--especailly the "breaks" toward 335,0000--must be regarded as FICTION. Needless to say, our DISHOENST mediais not quite reporting it this way, even though Marketwatch.com called the 335,000 and 330,0000 numbers "seasonal quirks". Trnaslatin: Labor Dept. ERRORS in the "seasonal adjustment" made to the "raw" number of new unemplylent claims reported each weeek. This "seasonal adjustment"is why each week's number is a FALLIBLE, SUBJECTIVE ESTIMATE, rather than a "concrete", "counting" number. Failure of media to make this clear EVERY WWK is an Orwellian Big Lie. At best, weekly numbers have real significance only OVRE TIME. But are they becoming so UNRELIABLE, due to incompetence/dishonesty, as to be now USELESS. The longer these obvius discontinuities continue, the more that is the only sensible conclusion. At the very least, someone needs to EXPLAIN exaclty WHY we have one grouop of weekly numbers clustered around one number, and another group of weekly numbers (lesser number, to be sure, so far) clustered arund a far diferent number. Sure, the "seasonal adjustment" is obviusly ERRONEUS, and out of whack, but WHY--and why in exactly this peculiar pattern.
Tomorrow, the Labor Dept. again reports the number of weekly new unemplyment claims (for last week), as well as the revision to the 341,0000 reported last week. We are at a pont where NO number will realy make sense, in terms of the numbers for the past nine weeks. But a number EITHER above 360,000 or below 345,0000 would continue this year's STRANGE, impossible sequence of numbers. No. I don't think a number of, say, 350,0000 would make the last nine weeks make sense. NOTHING can do that. It would just make the SERIES look less ABSURD. Al the Labor Dept. can really do now is have the FUTURE series of numbers seem to fit some kind of trend. Last nine weeks are hopeless, and discredit Labor Dept. Media has long been discredited.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight), other than I try to recheck NUMBERS as carefully as I can, and ut in enough redundancy that you can spot obvius typing error.