Last 8 weeks of REPRTED (as adjusted) new unemplylment claims from Labor Dept., going from older to most recent week: 362,000; 362,000; 367,000; 372,000; 335,000 (lol); 330,000 (lol); 371,000; and 366,000 (to be REVISED tomorrow). Read my previus article, or my articles over the previus tow YEARS (at least), and see how accurate I have been, IN FORESIGHT.
The above sequence of numbers is, of course, IMPOSSIBLE (as far as reflecting reality). And it is the 335,0000 and 330,0000 that are ou of step with the othe numbers. Note, hoever, that what hoses FICTITIOUIS numbers created were HEADLINES of a "5-year low" in new unemplyment claims, which was an UNCORRECTED LIE, since the numbers were NOT REAL.
Even mainstream media business sites like Marketwatch.com (whose people I have correctly called liars) recognize that the 335,0000 and 330,0000 were FANTASY numbers. Thre is no way that the "labor market" "dipped" for just those two weeks, and no way new unemplyment claims "dropped" 37,0000 one week, and then ROSE 41,000 2 weeks later. Statistically impossible, absent some major event (like Sandy) that did not occur. As stated, even Marketwatch said this had to be a "seasonal qurik". What is a "seasonal quirk"/ It is an ERROR in the Labor Dept. "seasonal adjustment, either because of a disruption/change in the usual seasonal pattern or because Labor Dept. simply MISCALCULATED (incompetence or dishonesty). There is no doubt about the media, which refuses to report these weekly new unemplyument numbers for the FALLIBLE, SUBJECTIVE ESTIMATES they are, meaningful ONLY OVER TIME. What is clear--throwing out the obvious FICTIONS of those two aberrational weeks--is that we have returned to the SAME range of new unemplyment claims that occurred for ALL of 2012 (abesnt Sandy related aberratins and that one week where Labor Dept. simply neglected to COUNT California): 351,0000-392,0000. You will again note that we are almost EXACTLY in the MIDDLE of this range, meaning NO "improvement' in the labor market for at least a YEAR. Indeed, from mid-January to about mid-March of 2f012, the range of new unemplyment claims was about 350,0000-365,0000. We are now ABOVE the TOP of thqat range.
Notice that I was also right that there is something CURIOUS (suspicious to the point of obvious dishonesty) in the 335,000 and 330,0000 numbers for those two weeks. As I informed you in the previus article, and over the past YEAR, the Labor Department's INITIAL report of the weekly number of new unemplyment claims is almost ALWAYS REVISED UP, usually by 3,0000. Until ONE time more than a month ago, the number had ot been "revised" DOWN in FOREVER. It has been SLIGHTLY more common for there to be NO CHANGE, but that has been UNUSUAL. Taht is what is more than crious. BOTH the 335,0000 and the 330,0000 were UNCHANGED when the "revision" was announced the next week. I have trouble imagining how that happened without some kind of dishonesty. Then came the "jump" from 3330,0000 to 368,0000, a supposed rise by 38,0000. EXCEPT, suddenly the REVISON went ack to the former 3,0000, and the REVISED number (second to last number in quoted series) was 371,0000, or a rise of 41,00000. That made the series lok even WORSE, and the Labor Dept. had an obvius incentive to keep the HEADLINES as tame as possible. Note that such incentive did NOT exisxt as to the 335,0000 and 330,0000, because those numbers were SUSPICIOUISLY LOW (in fact, erroneous, although no correction will ever be made).
So what about last week's reported 366,0000? Will the REVISED number to be released tomorrow AGAIN revert to the same DISHONESTY of a CONSISTENT "revision" in only one directin, and by a remarkably consistent amount? We wil see. Note, also, that the number of new unemplyment claims to be initially reported tomorrow is a prolbem for the Labo Dept. No, It is NOT a problem for our DISHOENST MEDIA, because hey have NO SHAME. They just ignore problems and inconsistencies with these nubmers, to extent they can. But what if number released tomorrow is again 335,0000 or less? Aain, that would be an IMPOSSIBLE number, merely highlighting the ABSURDITY of this series of numbers. In contrast, if the number of new unemplment claims initially reorted tomorrow (to be revised, remember, the followng week) goes UP, it merely highights how ABSURD the 335,0000 and 330,0000 weeks were. It is almsot impossible for the Labor Dept. to avoid looking BAD: at best, incompetent; and, at worst, dishonest and incompetent. "Best" for the Labor Dept. would probably be a "drop to 350,0000 or so, which wuld at least make a further "drop" in future weeks more plausible. NOTHING can save the media here. Over the past YEARS, I have DOCUMENTED media DISHONESTY and INCOMPETENCE so obvius and extreme that media relporting on these numbers has to be regarded as a JOKE. NOTHING can save the 'reputatin" (lol) of "journalists" on these weekly new unemplyment claim numbers. Note, again, that this blog REPORTED the OBVIUS when the number of new unemplyment claims "dropped" to that 50year low of 335,00000 so abruptly: number was OBVIUS FICTIN, and to treat it as "news" to be taken at face value was ABSURD Yet, that is exacltyl what most of the media did, and ALL of them did in those LYING HEADLINES.
Is there ANY number of new unemplyment claims that could be released tomorrow that wuld have much meaning? This is a TRICK QUESTIN. The Big Lie in reporting these weekly numbers is that they are CONCRETE, COUNTING numbers where ONE WEEK means much. The ONLY significance of tomorrow's released number is how it FITS in the SERIES of weekly numbers OVER TIME. Thus, it means more an more the longer we STAY in that same RANGE we have been in for over a YER. But if we have some sort of MAJOR move (up or down), that will be very SUSPECT (unless and until future weeks show new trend, and even then a supposed "drop" OR "rise' of 35,0000 or 40,0000 tomorrow has to be regarded as FICTIN (basent some very coonvincing "explanatin" of why such a sudden CHANGE is REAL).
I say again that we already KNOW that the supposed ACCELEARTIN of "job growth" over the past 3 monts is FICTIN/FALSE. (or at least is INCONSISTENT with other data) . GDP DECLINED in the 4th quarter, and yet "job growth" in November and December supposedly ACCELEARTED. Nope. This is NOT POSSIBLE. Something is WRONG with the numbers.
P.S. Still no proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). I do try t check the typig of the numbers as closely as I can, and I repeat the numbers enough to try to make any typing error rather obvius as to any one number.