Comments [moderated] (0)
AP’s Rugaber Doesn’t Like DOL’s Lack of Excuses for Jump in Initial
Claims, Makes One Up
Filed under: Economy,MSM Biz/Other Bias,MSM Biz/Other Ignorance,Taxes &
Government — TBlumer @ 8:56 pm
It would appear, according to the Associated Press’s Christopher
Rugaber, that something unusual had to explain why initial unemployment
claims as reported by Uncle Sam’s Department of Labor rose to a
seasonally adjusted 424,000 during the week ended May 21 when they were
expected to decline. In previous weeks, poor performances have been
explained by DOL spokespersons as due to the unusually late Easter, the
weather, Japanese supply interruptions, and Jupiter not being aligned
with Mars (okay, I’m kidding about the last one).
Apparently, one thing is for certain in AP-Land: The troubling
400,000-plus plateau in weekly initial claims can’t possibly have
anything to do with Obama administration’s economic policies (or lack
thereof).
Today, as Bloomberg noted, the Department of Labor offered up no
excuses: “There were no special factors behind last week’s increase, a
Labor Department official said as the figures were released.”
Rugaber wasn’t satisfied with that answer, and decided he would roll out
one of his own without any evidence. The AP reporter has also developed
a strange obsession with reminding everyone on a weekly basis when
initial claims peaked (bolds are mine):
The number of people seeking benefits rose by 10,000 to a seasonally
adjusted 424,000, the Labor Department said Thursday. No states cited
extreme weather as a factor in the increase, a department spokesman
said. Tornadoes and floods have devastated several states in the Midwest
and South in the past month.
Applications are above the 375,000 level that is consistent with
sustainable job growth. Applications peaked at 659,000 during the recession.
How weird is it that a reporter would attempt to cobble together an
excuse when the DOL, which has been more than glad to supply one or more
in previous weeks, didn’t have any?
As to the ritual citation of the 659,000 claims during the recession,
it’s getting more than a little old, as is the selectivity in data
reporting designed to make things appear better than they really are.
Chris, initial claims peaked during the week ended March 28, 2009, well
over two years ago. Let’s look at what has happened since June 2009,
when the recession as normal people define it ended:
During the recession’s last full week, initial claims were 601,000.
For the next 21 months, initial claims slowly declined. During each of
the four weeks in the period that ended April 2, they averaged just over
390,000, getting somewhat close to the 375,000 the AP reporter dubiously
claims is “consistent with sustainable job growth.”
Then “something” happened. In each of the past eight weeks, as seen
below, seasonally adjusted claims have been over 400,000:
In fact, the four-week moving average has been over 430,000 during each
of the past four weeks.
While quoting from the AP’s obfuscatory report and compare those quotes
to reality, here are three questions for the wire service and Chris
Rugaber (I could come up with more):
Is it more important that initial claims had their “first increase in
three weeks,” or that they have remained stuck above 400,000 for the
past eight?
Is it more important that claims “peaked at 659,000 during the
recession” over 110 weeks ago, or that the four-week moving average has
stubbornly trended upward for most of the past eight weeks?
Is it more important that the four-week moving average “declined for the
first time in seven weeks,” or that it’s barely lower than the 441,500
reported during the week of November 13, 2010 (and will more than likely
be revised upward next week)?
The questions answer themselves.
Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.
Comments [moderated] (0)
Initial Unemployment Claims Exceed Expectations (i.e., They Went Up,
When They Were ‘Expected’ To Go Down)
Filed under: Economy,Taxes & Government — TBlumer @ 8:51 am
The hits just keep on coming:
In the week ending May 21, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted
initial claims was 424,000, an increase of 10,000 from the previous
week’s revised figure of 414,000. The 4-week moving average was 438,500,
a decrease of 1,750 from the previous week’s revised average of 440,250.
Heres the updated chart, which once again shows the previous initial
release upwardly revised:
“Unexpectedly,” via Reuters:
Figures showing new claims for U.S. unemployment benefits unexpectedly
climbed to 424,000 last week from a revised 414,000 in the prior week
also put pressure on the market.
Can’t wait to see the latest batch of excuses.
________________________________________
UPDATE: At the Street.com — “Economists were expecting jobless claims to
drop to 400,000 …”
UPDATE 2: The not seasonally adjusted claims number is about 9% below
last year’s for the same week. That’s a narrower year-over year
difference than most previous weeks.
UPDATE 3: Eight weeks ago, an analyst confidently asserted that “The
downtrend … is undeniable.” Uh, no.
UPDATE 4: Chris Rugaber at the Associated Press trots out a potential
excuse even when DOL says it isn’t one –
No states cited extreme weather as a factor in the increase, a
department spokesman said. Tornadoes and floods have devastated several
states in the Midwest and South in the past month.
I don’t blame Rugaber for asking the question. But when the answer is
no, you don’t bring it up, you look for other explanations. Really
Chris, you could as easily have written that “No states cited people
leaving their jobs but hedging their bets by filing for benefits in the
run-up to last week’s end-of-the-world theatrics.”
Comments [moderated] (3)
1Q11 GDP, First Revision (052611); Stays at an Annualized +1.8%
Filed under: Economy,Taxes & Government — TBlumer @ 7:44 am
The initial report in late April came in at an annualized 1.8%.
This link is predicting an upward revision to 2.2%. This one has 2.1%,
while noting that “even a GDP revision on the higher end of the scale
would still mark sluggish growth that is unlikely to pull down
unemployment over the long term.”
Reuters has a consensus prediction of 2.1%.
The report will appear here at 8:30 a.m.
Here it is — another disappointment compared to expectations:
Real gross domestic product — the output of goods and services produced
by labor and property located in the United States — increased at an
annual rate of 1.8 percent in the first quarter of 2011, (that is, from
the fourth quarter to the first quarter), according to the “second”
estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the fourth
quarter, real GDP increased 3.1 percent.
The GDP estimates released today are based on more complete source data
than were available for the “advance” estimate issued last month. In the
advance estimate, the increase in real GDP was also 1.8 percent.
So the Reagan vs. Obama post-recession scoreboard remains as follows:
I’d say today’s disappointment is another example of Gangster
Government’s Economic Shadow.
_______________________________________
UPDATE: At Business Insider — “What’s worse, personal consumption fell
to 2.2% from 2.7%, when it was expected to rise to 2.8%.” There’s the
influence of “The Shadow” again.
Comments [moderated]
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
