Skip to comments.US unemployment aid applications little changed at 387,000, suggesting hiring will stay weak
Posted on 06/21/2012 5:59:13 AM PDT by Perdogg
The number of people seeking U.S. unemployment benefits dipped last week but not by enough to indicate hiring will pick up.
Weekly applications for unemployment aid declined by 2,000 to a seasonally adjusted 387,000, the Labor Department said. Thats down from an upwardly revised 389,000.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
As Lou Dobbs says its 64 out 65 weeks that it has been revised up.
Again... why don’t the bean counters just “revise” last week’s numbers and the job-growth benchmark to 450,000 and title it “Accelerating recovery?”
Or are they just waiting for a strategic moment a few weeks before the election? Because these weekly upward revisions followed by “drops” in first-time claims are laughable.
The female guest host on F&F (she is from their business channel) said that the net jobs creation since 2009 [when Obama took office] is at a negative 500,000.
That flies in the face of Team Obama’s continuing claim that they have created 4.3 million new jobs. They do add the delimiter that that was over the last 27 months — ignoring the first year of the Obama Admin.
While that 4.3 million ‘sounds’ impressive, if broken down, that only equates to about 39,000 NEW jobs per WEEK. However, NEW jobless claims are at nearly 390,000 per WEEK.
Obama’s job creation number [4.3 million] is only about 1 NEW job for every 10 jobs LOST.
The Media narrative this morning is “Jobless claims DOWN” but what they fail to tell us is that they revised last week claims UP.
66 of the last 67 weeks, previous weeks claims have been revised up, never once revised down.
Do do do the BLS two step.
So let me get this (this week’s numbers) straight in my haid...
This week’s number is 387k, which is down from last week; but only because they revised last week’s numbers up from the originally reported number of 386k.
So, they changed 386k to 389k so that today they could say 387k is lower than last week.
And next week they will have to revise 387k up so that next week’s numbers will also “go down” some magical amount.
Ok, got it.
“Or are they just waiting for a strategic moment a few weeks before the election?”
I’m figuring they’ll have gas to about $2.85 for election day.
When you’re up, you’re up,
When you’re down, you’re down,
When you’re only half way up,
You’re neither up nor down.
Somehow, I EXPECTED the numbers to drop this week...even though they went up. Only government could muddy up the meaning of up vs down.
You got it. And they do this slight-of-hand routinely in order to release “good news” for Obama.
You gents beat me to it. A downward revision, if it ever comes, will certainly qualify as unexpected.
66 upward revisions in 67 weeks.
It's "the sun is over the yardarm" time in America.
And the sheeple will rejoice (forgetting that it was $1 less when 0bama took power) across the land!!!
The price of gas is falling because:
1) those Eeeeeevil Oil Futures traders are looking at impending financial collapse in Europe and the fumbling Obama economic policies and wondering where the growth in consumption is gonna come from.
2) for the time being most of the world is convinced that nobody is gonna attack Iran any time soon.
Obama surely wishes he had the power to take the price to $2.85, but he does not. At least not without doing greater economic damage (by, for example, locking up a bunch of oil traders for kangaroo show trials)
OK, I rounded down the May numbers for first time UI claims to 1.8 million (not the upwardly revised weekly numbers). Then I factored in the total jobs 69,000.
So 1.8 million folks out of work fighting for 69,000 jobs!
This should be the headline!
26 people for every job opening, Holy crap!
Wonder when the "good" unemployment number will become 400,000?
Keep in mind that when they revise this week’s number by the expected 3,000 it will change this weeks “2,000 down” to “1,000” UP.
That is the dirt they are trying to sweep under the rug with these manipulations.