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 ...
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?
SSDD.
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
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.