Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 07/19/2012 8:41:26 PM PDT by Kaslin
In case you missed it (which wouldn't be surprising given how quiet the press has been since the related report's release, the Department of Labor reported that initial claims for unemployment rose to a seasonally adjusted 386,000 from a review (up, or course) 352,000 the previous week.
An unbylined Reuters report carried at CNBC (HT to an NB tipster) bizarrely described this result as a "rebound," both in its headline and text:
Weekly Claims Post Rebound; Jobs Market Still in Doldrums
The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits rebounded last week, pushing them back to levels consistent with modest job growth after a seasonal quirk caused a sharp drop the prior period.
Initial claims for state unemployment benefits increased 34,000 to a seasonally adjusted 386,000, the Labor Department said on Thursday. The prior week's figure was revised up to 352,000 from the previously reported 350,000.
Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims rising to 365,000 last week. The four-week moving average for new claims, a better measure of labor market trends, fell 1,500 to 375,500.
Claims data is volatile in July because of the timing of the annual auto plant shutdowns for retooling.
Automakers are not embarking on wholesale plant shutdowns, throwing off the model that the department uses to smooth the data for typical seasonal patterns.
The first bolded sentence is only true because last week's number was so artificially low -- not because of auto industry shutdown, but because, as explained this morning the seasonal deflation factor are so large (leading to a lower result than would have been seen if the same factors were used this year as last year.
The final bolded sentence would, if shutdown activity really is lower, cause you to expect claims should lower than they are.
Don't ask me to try to make sense of this -- except that, like so much other business reporting, it seems to minimize the actually negativity and deterioration that is really occurring.
I don’t know if it’s a “rebound”, but it is certainly “unexpected”.
The moment that such data became important politically is the moment that it must become subject to manipulation and fraud. Politics is fraud...and no politician will allow the data to be out of his/her control.
The numbers are bad for the incumbent, but still they are complete fictions in his favor.
Yeah I saw the reuters article and it was incomprehensible.
Up is down, left is right in the bizarro world of cornered libs.
This must be one of those stories written by a computer algorithm. A rise in the data triggered the use of the word”rebound”.
Unemployment rebounds. Incomes ease.Taxes enhance.Spending invests. 0bummer needs more euphemisms for his failures.
Newspeak, 1984 style.
And if you hear something negative about 0, hit the mute button or put your fingers in your ears and yell na-na-na-na.
Which would matter if more than 12 papers used Reuters wire job...
Reuters is merely echoing Pelosi’s economic theory. The more money that is redistributed as unemployment, or for food stamps the greater the growth of the economy. It is a complex system based on Obama’s theory that government is the only valid source of production and wealth, and therefore the destruction of private sector production and wealth is necessary for the greater good and social equality.
Wow! I read this earlier and thought this is the ultimate in spin! On purpose and by design by placing a couple key words in there for the benefit of the uninformed and least intelligent among us. Others who may be skimming over the article could even come away thinking this story is somehow positive!
Reuters is pulling out all the tricks of classic propaganda. North Korea doesn't even try this hard.
Funny how they're almost always (or always?) "revised" up. Lower numbers are reported with much fanfare. The inevitable revision up, to more believable (but not wholly believed) numbers is a footnote a week or two later.
We are all being lied to consistently by a government run amok, ruled by people desperate for power and control over our lives.
“Up is down”
No, Down is UP! Go price a down pillow...
How would this same article have been written during the Bush years by Reuters and AP?
“Unemployment claims soar” would have been the opening.
“Yeah I saw the reuters article and it was incomprehensible.”
Well, it worked, then.
I have noticed that the recent claims numbers have been described as a “rebound”, or an “upswing”, or an “uptick”. It’s brilliant, really - the “unexpected” trick was getting mighty worn-out and wasn’t fooling anybody anymore.
It’s amazing that in 2006 the Progressive press echoed the Progressives in Congress and repeated incessantly that it was the “worst economy in sixty years” while unemployment was low; they said only hamburger-flipping jobs were being created.
Now that we have a bad economy and a Progressive is pulling the levers, we’re in a “recovery”, with more than eight
per-cent unemployment for three years, more and more people on food stamps, disability applications on the rise, house prices falling, companies not hiring, increased taxes with the promise of higher taxes next year.
Down is up and up is down.
IMHO
Of course you are correct! For example, the number of unemployment claims jumped [unexpectedly, as usual] but the lefties tout that as a “good” thing, so you can understand why I’m confused. On the other hand, if you or a member of your family are one of the ones in that statistic, you don’t quite see the positive aspect, and you sure the hell ain’t voting foe the socialist democrats in November!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.