Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

We've Gotten To The Bottom Of The Mysterious Jobless Claims Report!
businessinsider.com ^ | 10-11-12 | Henry Blodget

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: jobless

1 posted on 10/11/2012 10:55:35 AM PDT by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rawhide
Well, the books are not "cooked".

...Just omitted one of the ingredients from the recipe....

Nothing like leaving out the sour data from one big state to sweeten the message.

2 posted on 10/11/2012 10:57:59 AM PDT by ptsal (E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawhide
"This happens occasionally, our source says."

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.

FUBO!

3 posted on 10/11/2012 11:00:41 AM PDT by Mich Patriot (PITCH BLACK is the new "transparent")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawhide
Assertions that "a large state" was excluded from the report are patently false.

Sure. Only most of a large state was left out.

4 posted on 10/11/2012 11:01:29 AM PDT by Yashcheritsiy (It's time to make Obama a minor footnote in the pages of history)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

Lies, dang lies, and statistics. Normalize = fudge factor. Aka SWAG. Total bovine excrement.


5 posted on 10/11/2012 11:02:11 AM PDT by VRWC For Truth (Roberts has perverted the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ptsal

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?


6 posted on 10/11/2012 11:02:35 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

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.


7 posted on 10/11/2012 11:02:41 AM PDT by Abiotic (The ship of democracy, which has weathered all storms, may sink through the mutiny of those on board)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

Sooo...it’s not that the numbers were excluded by the BLS. It’s just that they were not included.

Got it.


8 posted on 10/11/2012 11:04:59 AM PDT by XenaLee (The only good commie is a dead commie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ptsal

Translation: “We did NOT, I repeat NOT, exclude any data. We did however include the absence of certain data.”


9 posted on 10/11/2012 11:06:41 AM PDT by Publius Maximus (It was a nice Republic, while it lasted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

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.


10 posted on 10/11/2012 11:06:45 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawhide
Who goofed, I've got to know!
11 posted on 10/11/2012 11:06:53 AM PDT by Michael.SF. (Obama Lied, Stevens died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

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.

Oooookkkkkk.....


12 posted on 10/11/2012 11:13:00 AM PDT by over3Owithabrain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mich Patriot
This happens occasionally? Okay, so, when was the last time this happened?
13 posted on 10/11/2012 11:15:43 AM PDT by LibertarianLiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

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


14 posted on 10/11/2012 11:16:43 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

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.


15 posted on 10/11/2012 11:19:49 AM PDT by CodeToad (Padme: "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

Well then, it appears Moonbeam laid off the unemployment counters.


16 posted on 10/11/2012 11:22:07 AM PDT by DAC21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

Seems like bad news for Obama to me. Those numbers will inflate future reports closer to the election. How sad is that? /s


17 posted on 10/11/2012 11:29:23 AM PDT by CityCenter (It's too late, Obama yeah, it's too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ptsal
Well, the books are not "cooked".
...Just omitted one of the ingredients from the recipe....
Nothing like leaving out the sour data from one big state to sweeten the message.

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.

18 posted on 10/11/2012 11:29:23 AM PDT by The Sons of Liberty ("Get that evil, foreign, muslim, usurping, gay bastard out of MY White House!" FUBO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

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.


19 posted on 10/11/2012 11:30:42 AM PDT by pabianice (washington, dc ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

Henry... you lie for satan... California DID NOT TURN IN A REPORT... PERIOD.

LLS


20 posted on 10/11/2012 11:32:02 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (OUR GOVERNMENT AND PRESS ARE NO LONGER TRUSTWORTHY OR DESERVING OF RESPECT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawhide
According to the author, they verified the numbers with "a source" in the Labobor department... "a source"... that would be ONE PERSON... Which person... how objective is that person... might that person be a Democrat? Considering that the author is a frequent guest on MSNBC, CNN and NPR, might this author also be a Democrat? Where is the evidence that backs up the claim that any skewing of numbers is related to a single weeks data that is missing from a single state? The author has offered no tangible evidence to verify that these numbers are, in fact, for the most part accurate. He is just forwarding words from a single individual. "No need to dwell on this folks, no fire here, move along". As we all know, people never lie, do they?

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.

21 posted on 10/11/2012 11:32:38 AM PDT by DCBurgess58 (In a Capitalist society, men exploit other men. In a Communist society it's exactly the opposite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

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.


22 posted on 10/11/2012 11:40:10 AM PDT by throwback (The object of opening the mind, is as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawhide
The emperor is not naked.

He just neglected to include his clothes.

23 posted on 10/11/2012 11:41:44 AM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DCBurgess58

What really happened was the government workers who were responsible for retrieving the data were to busy RETRIEVING THE SECURITY FORCES from BENGAZI.


24 posted on 10/11/2012 11:42:21 AM PDT by spawn44 (MOO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ptsal
ONE of the ingredients, this is not Rode Island or Alaska. This is California. It is 10% of the entire population of the country. It is also a state with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country and has been mired in a four year depression!
25 posted on 10/11/2012 11:50:18 AM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rawhide
This happens occasionally, our source says. When a state's jobless claims bureau is short-staffed . . .


             

26 posted on 10/11/2012 11:54:41 AM PDT by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mich Patriot
"Color me SKEPTICAL AS HELL."

I bet it happened in more than one state too.

27 posted on 10/11/2012 12:25:47 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianLiz
"Okay, so, when was the last time this happened?"

Good question. Maybe when Carter was the incumbent and Reagan was mopping the floor with him?

28 posted on 10/11/2012 12:46:33 PM PDT by Mich Patriot (PITCH BLACK is the new "transparent")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CityCenter

“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.


29 posted on 10/11/2012 12:57:48 PM PDT by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rawhide
We spoke to a source at the Labor Department. According to this source, who is an analyst at the Department, here's what happened:.............

Did he add "Yeah, that's the ticket" after his little explanation?

30 posted on 10/11/2012 1:04:51 PM PDT by The Cajun (Sarah Palin, Mark Levin......Nuff said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ptsal
Well, the books are not "cooked".

Or, the books were cooked and the lashback was much stronger than the BLS expected so they made up the Calif story.

31 posted on 10/11/2012 1:53:43 PM PDT by upchuck (I miss my dog Snoopy. May 16, 1997-September 24, 2012 -- 15 years, 4 months. Forever in my heart.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

How in the world are these people surviving if Colordo is 2 MONTHS behind in processing new unemployment claims?


32 posted on 10/12/2012 9:45:39 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

SSDD.


33 posted on 10/12/2012 9:48:12 AM PDT by Jane Long (Soli Deo Gloria!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles

Hopefully by not living paycheck to paycheck in the first place.


34 posted on 10/12/2012 10:08:28 AM PDT by CodeToad (Padme: "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Publius Maximus
.

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

35 posted on 10/12/2012 4:59:42 PM PDT by ptsal (E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson