Skip to comments.We've Gotten To The Bottom Of The Mysterious Jobless Claims Report!
Posted on 10/11/2012 10:55:29 AM PDT by rawhide
Well, we're glad to say that we've finally gotten to the bottom of what happened.
We spoke to a source at the Labor Department. According to this source, who is an analyst at the Department, here's what happened:
ALL STATES WERE INCLUDED in this week's jobless claims. Assertions that "a large state" was excluded from the report are patently false. HOWEVER...
It is likely that some of the jobless claims in one large state--California--were not included in the claims reported to the Department of Labor this week. This happens occasionally, our source says. When a state's jobless claims bureau is short-staffed, sometimes the state does not process all of the claims that came in during the week in time to get them to the DOL. The source believes that this is what happened this week. The California claims that were not processed in time to get into this week's jobless report will appear in future reports, most likely next week's or the following week's. In other words, those reports might be modestly higher than expected.
The source believes that the number of California claims that were not processed totalled about 15,000-25,000. Thus, if one were to "normalize" the overall not-seasonally-adjusted jobless claims number, it would increase by about 15,000-25,000.
This week's "normalized" jobless claims number, therefore, would be about 355,000-365,000, not the 339,000 that was reported. This compares to the 370,000 consensus expectation.
In other words, had all of California's jobless claims been processed in time to make the jobless-claims release, this jobless number would still have been better than economists were expecting--but not as much better as it appeared.
Again, the as-yet-unprocessed claims will appear in future reports. So next week's number may well be higher than expected.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
...Just omitted one of the ingredients from the recipe....
Nothing like leaving out the sour data from one big state to sweeten the message.
Yeah, like when their hero is getting his ass toasted in the polls. Also, some mistakes of omission are done on purpose. Color me SKEPTICAL AS HELL.
Sure. Only most of a large state was left out.
Lies, dang lies, and statistics. Normalize = fudge factor. Aka SWAG. Total bovine excrement.
RE: ...Just omitted one of the ingredients from the recipe....
So, if the ingredients WERE INCLUDED in the recipe, what would the unemployment rate be?
I truly hope that all these outright manipulations of the UE/jobs numbers once and for all expose the entire system for the pure rot that it is. Real UE is well northward of 17%, I would say it is around 20%, and millions are working part-time when they desperately need full time work.
If/when Romney is elected, I so so hope that the BS ends, although there will be a powerful block that once again will take the position of ‘untruth in the numbers’ simply because their side now is in power.
Sooo...it’s not that the numbers were excluded by the BLS. It’s just that they were not included.
Translation: “We did NOT, I repeat NOT, exclude any data. We did however include the absence of certain data.”
The other thing, due to seasonal adjustments, these are usually adjusted down
If you kill a large ag state input like cali, you would further skew the data.
I read an article from conservative NRO that explained the 7.8 UE number was not a conspiracy but an “accounting fluke” that happens once out of 100 times.
Now these missing California numbers “happen occasionally”.
So both of these are flukes - one happening right after Obama’s bad debate, and the other on the morning of the VP debate.
I see - there was not enough in federal stimulus coffers helping out the near-bankrupt state of Mexifornia; so we can blame the GOP in the House of Representatives for the bad data given to the BLS, I guess?? /sarc
One of the dirty secrets the report does not contain is the number of people rejected for unemploment insurance. States are seriously backlogged at getting claims processed so those in the backlog are not included in the report. The number of people that have failed to get their claims approved number in the hundreds of thousands. Colorado, for instance, is at least two months behind, and that’s the official and low number. So, if we were to include the number of people waiting to get their UI claims processed the number for the week would be at least 1000,000 higher.
Well then, it appears Moonbeam laid off the unemployment counters.
Seems like bad news for Obama to me. Those numbers will inflate future reports closer to the election. How sad is that? /s
I'm sure the 0bama regime thought they could get away with their little ruse, but it served it's purpose - those morons that support comrade 0bama believe the numbers.
Gee. If the bad grades I got in college “had not been reported,” I would have graduated on the dean’s list! Today’s system in which Fs are not counted is just some of the PC bullshit that makes most colleges worthless.
Henry... you lie for satan... California DID NOT TURN IN A REPORT... PERIOD.
I am more inclined to believe Jack Welsh, who says that in order to have the huge jump in employment that these numbers represent, we would see a booming ecomomy. That there would be other noticble ecomomic indicators that we were finally recovering. Until I see persons with gravatas, like Jack Welsh, saying that they can see indicators of a recovery, I'm going to be prone to look askance at improbable numbers like these coming out of Obama's government departments.
So it is known for a fact that the unemployment rate is NOT 7.8% at this time. They don’t know what it is, but it’s higher.
He just neglected to include his clothes.
What really happened was the government workers who were responsible for retrieving the data were to busy RETRIEVING THE SECURITY FORCES from BENGAZI.
I bet it happened in more than one state too.
Good question. Maybe when Carter was the incumbent and Reagan was mopping the floor with him?
“Seems like bad news for Obama to me. Those numbers will inflate future reports closer to the election. How sad is that? /s”
I works great for O...after a quiet upward revision of this week’s report, next week’s will be a ‘drop’ again.
Did he add "Yeah, that's the ticket" after his little explanation?
Or, the books were cooked and the lashback was much stronger than the BLS expected so they made up the Calif story.
How in the world are these people surviving if Colordo is 2 MONTHS behind in processing new unemployment claims?
Hopefully by not living paycheck to paycheck in the first place.
Translation: We did NOT, I repeat NOT, exclude any data. We did however include the absence of certain data.
...the absence of certain data...
That really has a Catch-22 ring to it... thanks