Obama Jobs Failure: Loses 1,692,000 un Four Weeks, "Down" frmo 1,7`7,000 Lost Jobs

Yes, the number of new unemployment claims for last week was released on Thrusday (see article before last). The "good" news is that Obama "only" lost 1,692,000 jobs n the previous 4 weeks, subject to the REVISION of this week's reported number. The BAD news is that last week's reported number was revised UUWARD by 9,000, meaning that the four week averfage reported last week was TERRIBLE--a total of 1,717,000 over the four weeks ending with last week. The four weeks average on the REVISED numbers for last weeek's reported numbers was an abysmal 429,000--an average no better than last FALL. That was the worst four-week average in weeks. This week's average "fell" to 424,000, before revision--still an terrible, number, and NO IMPROVEMENT for at least 8 months.


Here are the numbers of new unempoloyment claims for the past VIVE weeks, with original and revised figures (beginning with this week's reported number): 405,000 (to be revised next week); 427,000 (revised UP 9,000 from the number orininally reported); 432,000 (revised upward from 428,000); 428,000 (revised upward from 424,000); and 429,000 (amasingly not revised at all, which has happened no more than about 2 times this year). Before you get too excited about the "improvement" this week, remember that the WEEKLY number tends to fluctuate erratically. The number BEFORE the five weeks reported above was originally reported as 414,000, and revised to 420,000. The LYING media said THAT was an "improvement". One week means nothing, unless a trend is confirmed over several weeks. The four-week aaverage remained at a HIGH level of 424,000 this week, subject to revision next week, and that number is a jobs FAILURE. Further, last week was the week in which the July 4 holiday fell, AND Minnesota government remainsed shut down. We will have to see how the numbers shake out over the next few weeks to seee if any "improvement" is real--instead of statistical noise. Even if the number stayed at 405,000 over the next 3 weeks, that is still NO IMPROVEMENT in months. The number fell as low as 378,000 in February, after failling to the 400,m000 level at the end of the year. The four-wek average actually fell BELOSW (albeit not much below) 400,000 in February. Can y say "STAGNATION", and NO IMPROVMENT?


Read the next to previous article as to the LIES of the media every week on this new unemployment claims number reported every Thursday. This blog has consistently reported the FOUR WEEKS OF NUMMBERS, in perspective over the last six to nine months. That is reporting the "news" correctly. The way the media--all of the meida--reports these numbers is INCORRECT (even if no number is mistated). The other thing the media neglects to do, and which I just don't have the energy to do, is report the RAW number each weeek, along with the seasonally adjusted number. Yep. The weekly number is not only revised each week, for the previous week's reproted number. But it is NOT a matter of "counting" It is a SUBJECTIVE number, where the number of new unemployment claims is ADJUSTED (using a fromula) for ESTIMATED seasonal vriations. This is anothr reason that one week's numbers are pretty much meaningless, until confirmed by several weeks of numbers. If there is a GLITCH in the "seasonal adjustment" in an individual week, as there was a year ago when the atuo industry changed its RETOOLING shut down, the reported weekly number can be wildly inaccurate. And then there is weather, changes in seasonal patterns, ect. You get the idea.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight), although I do my best to check the numbers for typos. I am sure I occasionally miss a zero or something, but I try to be redundant enough to give you a correct picture. You can have absolute confidence that what I am TRYING to tell you is correct. In contrast, you can have absolute confidence that what the AP, and res of the media, is trying to tell you is WRONG. They either have no concept of what these weekly numbers really mean, or--slightly, more likely--they DO NOT CARE (dishonest propagandists that they are, and I include Fox News).