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

Skip to comments.

New Jobless Claims: Thunderdome Edition
Townhall.com ^ | May 4, 2012 | Political Calculations

Posted on 05/04/2012 5:35:50 AM PDT by Kaslin

Previously, we advanced two possible hypotheses that might explain what is currently happening with the number of seasonally-adjusted initial unemployment insurance claim applications being filed in the U.S. each week:

  1. The number of new jobless claims filed each week is in the process of leveling out somewhere between 370,000 and 380,000, which is about 60,000-70,000 higher than the typical levels that were recorded before the December 2007 recession began.
  2. Rising oil and gasoline prices in the U.S. have derailed the most recent falling trend in new jobless claims, and a new, negative trend has begun where the number of claims filed each week is rising.

In that post, we indicated that we might not know which hypothesis was correct until sometime this summer. But that was before the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics released its initial estimate of the number of new jobless benefit claim filings on Thursday, 26 April 2012. Now, it is very possible we might know the answer as early as this upcoming Thursday, 3 May 2012.

We've updated both charts showing our two hypotheses to incorporate the data as it stands as of the BLS' 26 April 2012 report. The first chart illustrates our first hypothesis:

Residual Distribution for Seasonally-Adjusted Initial Unemployment Insurance Claims, 26 March 2011 - 21 April 2012

In this chart, we would seem to be realizing our first hypothesis, in that the indicated trend, which we've identified as Trend I, is in the process of flatlining.

Western Electric Rules for Detecting Breaks in Established Trends Using Statistical Control Charts Now take a closer look. Focusing in on the data from 4 February 2012 through 31 March 2012, we see that the mean trend line for all data reported since 3 December 2011 has shifted in the past week so that all but one of these data points are below the line.

Following the well-established rules developed by Western Electric over half a century ago to determine whether or not an existing trend has broken down after having been in statistical equilibrium, which are visually depicted in the bell-curve image (it's not there for decoration!), we find that all it would take for us to declare this hypothesis to be false is for the most recent data, for the week ending 21 April 2012, to be revised upward by more that 2,000 claims, as the resulting change in the mean trend line will place the data for these nine consecutive weeks below it.

If the BLS keeps to its recent track record, it will definitely be revising the number of new jobless claims recorded for the week ending 21 April 2012 upward when it revises its data for that week this Thursday, 3 May 2012 - the only question is by how much.

Our second chart shows what the new trend would look like at this point in time:

Residual Distribution for Seasonally-Adjusted Initial Unemployment Insurance Claims, 26 March 2011 - 21 April 2012, Trend J begins?

This Thursday, our two hypotheses regarding the current trend in new jobless benefit claim filings will enter the theoretical Thunderdome, and very possibly, only one will leave. Stay tuned!


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-88 last
To: 1rudeboy
LOL! You shouldn't drink and post, rude.

You know nothing about me, but I've seen your garbage on FR for way too long.

Of COURSE a snotty, know-nothing reprobate like Toddy would be one of your comrades-in-arms.

As for Willie Green - I remember him, but he was never one of my comrades. BTW - I consider you to be a FR Johnny-come-lately... **snicker**

51 posted on 05/06/2012 10:45:14 AM PDT by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
By the way, a lot of the regulars have gotten suspended.

The ones who forgot that this is a Constitutionalist site. That's why I've never been suspended.

You & Toddy - apparently you forget from time to time.

52 posted on 05/06/2012 10:48:27 AM PDT by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe; 1rudeboy
Abbott and Costello explain unemployment

Basically, guys like rude don't want you to believe your own lying eyes:

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.

ABBOTT: Good "subject". Terrible "times". It's about 9%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.

COSTELLO: You just said 9%.

ABBOTT: 9% Unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right 9% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that's 9%...

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or 16%?

ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.

COSTELLO: If you are out of work you are unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed.  You have to look for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: But ... they are out of work!

ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.

COSTELLO: What point?

ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn't be fair.

COSTELLO: To who?

ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work...Those who are out of work stopped looking. They gave up. And, if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles, that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 9%. Otherwise it would be 16%.  You don't want to read about 16% unemployment do ya?

COSTELLO: That would be frightening.

ABBOTT: Absolutely.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means they're two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to just stop looking for work.

ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.

COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said!

53 posted on 05/06/2012 10:52:37 AM PDT by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

There was a FReeper, long before your time, who would spam threads when they were losing an argument. (Not that we’re having an argument, here—I simply posted some facts). Out of respect for the deceased, I will not mention her name. You, on the other hand, need some anti-menopausal medication.


54 posted on 05/06/2012 7:54:03 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
I guess you're entitled to your own facts.

BTW - the above wasn't spam, it was mockery. There were those who were good at it, before your time. :-)

55 posted on 05/06/2012 8:21:44 PM PDT by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

Sorry, sweetheart. Unemployment compensation has nothing to do with the way the unemployment rate is calculated, despite whatever fiction you write. Fact.


56 posted on 05/06/2012 8:24:57 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Ah, my little sweet-cheeked darling rude changes the subject again.

Here's what we were talking about, meine kleine hübschling:

The unemployment rate depends heavily on the labor participation rate.

Here is an actual Fed economist on the subject (not some anonymous Interwebs sniper with an unknown agenda):

"Interpreting the Recent Decline in Labor Force Participation" - Willem Van Zandweghe (in the Economic Review of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. )
http://www.kc.frb.org/Publicat/EconRev/PDF/12q1VanZandweghe.pdf

Published 1st quarter, 2012.

Your eyes flash beautifully when you're angry, rudey. But don't worry your pretty little head about it. You might catch on eventually if you think about it long enough.

57 posted on 05/06/2012 9:08:29 PM PDT by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil
The unemployment rate depends heavily on the labor participation rate.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2879786/posts?page=13#13

LOL!

58 posted on 05/06/2012 10:10:35 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
At this point, any numbers from the federal government should be ignored. The administration is a fraud. They will lie about absolutely anything and everything.

They will lie about economic numbers without hesitation.
59 posted on 05/06/2012 10:20:14 PM PDT by Jay Santos CP ("Idiocracy"... It's no longer just a movie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil
If you simply went back and re-read my #13 completely, you wouldn't be yammering about subjects being changed. I will tell you this, though, it's pretty darn clear you know you are arguing a point that is not in dispute.

I'll post the "summary" of my #13 again:

the government keeps track of the number of folks receiving UI. It results in the numbers reported as "initial claims" and "continuing claims." Those two numbers stand alone from the "unemployment rate" (U-3 or otherwise). The "labor force participation rate" (which is the primary method to massage the U-3 number) also has nothing to do with the number of folks receiving or not receiving UI. [emphasis added]

Pay particular attention to the italicized portion. It is what set you off. It's odd that you think the subject is something different a day later.
60 posted on 05/07/2012 7:50:50 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
I really don't see how anyone can be that stupid. There's just no way. I wonder if some old argument on an unrelated subject is being rehashed, here.

How is it even possible to confuse unemployment compensation with the labor force participation rate? Who honestly believes that the following two statements are in conflict?

unemployment compensation has nothing to do with the unemployment rate
the unemployment rate depends heavily on the labor participation rate

Would it be easier if I tried to explain that I'm not eligible for UI (I'm not), but if I lost my job I would be counted as unemployed as long as I'm looking for another?
61 posted on 05/07/2012 8:01:26 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
I really don't see how anyone can be that stupid. There's just no way.

It's not easy, but he works at it.

62 posted on 05/07/2012 10:01:34 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

It’s amusing watching that sweet little girl rude/Toddy talking to herself...


63 posted on 05/07/2012 10:44:36 AM PDT by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

It’s amusing watching your ignorance on display.


64 posted on 05/07/2012 12:34:12 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Quoth the loud-mouthed bannee. You really are priaptic over this thread, arentcha, Toddy?

It's like your very own BMW motorcycle seat...

Well, let's see who you've harassed lately:

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:toddsterpatriot/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change

There seems to be a pattern here...

65 posted on 05/07/2012 3:08:02 PM PDT by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

Wow, you talk dirty when people point out your ignorance.


66 posted on 05/07/2012 3:10:54 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
You're not "people", Toddy - you're some electrons.

The notion of the opinion of some electrons on "ignorance" is also quite amusing.

67 posted on 05/07/2012 3:40:24 PM PDT by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

Do you ever wonder how many times he or she has been banned? I wonder if that’s the reason for the sensitivity.


68 posted on 05/07/2012 5:47:23 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

There’s only so many ways I can point out that you are wrong. At the end of the day, you are still wrong.


69 posted on 05/07/2012 5:48:51 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Thread from this morning:

The Vanishing Workers [The labor participation rate is back where it was in December 1981].

Note how many times unemployment compensation is mentioned. Hint for the rest of you who cannot count: zero.
70 posted on 05/07/2012 5:52:20 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
If you go to the Department of Labor website, you can see that the April 7th, 2012 numbers show initial claims were 390,000 and continued claims were about 3,450,000 while total unemployed, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for April 2012 was 11,910,000.

Clearly over 8 million people are unemployed and not collecting unemployment.

Of course if facts could kill that meme, this wouldn't be the 100th thread you've had to try to correct the error.

71 posted on 05/07/2012 6:14:21 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Of course if facts could kill that meme, this wouldn't be the 100th thread you've had to try to correct the error.

One of the funnier things about correcting the misperception is how people react.

1. They run away and sulk, or
2. parse the language and argue it means the opposite of what it means, or
3. call me a troll, or
4. claim they meant something else, or
5. exclaim that "Your crap’s not worth reading."

Good times.
72 posted on 05/07/2012 6:31:24 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
You return like a dog to its regurgitation.

Yum!

There’s only so many ways I can point out that you are wrong. At the end of the day, you are still wrong.

There's only so many ways I can point out that you're just a guy posting on the Internet. You've got a fanboi to cheer you from the cheap seats, which means doodley-squat.

I agree that you think you're right about something. **snicker**

73 posted on 05/07/2012 6:34:45 PM PDT by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Note how many times unemployment compensation is mentioned. Hint for the rest of you who cannot count: zero.

Well, you've got that strawman about beat to pieces...

74 posted on 05/07/2012 6:36:42 PM PDT by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil
Let's review the comment (#5) that I corrected, again.

Now, because you no longer qualify for Federal unemployment benefits, if you don't have a job, you don't count.

It is false, for the reasons I demonstrated. It's also where you parachuted in. So if it's a strawman, point it out to the guy who made it.
75 posted on 05/07/2012 6:42:03 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

I neglected to mention, this is usually the point where the APB goes out on one of the anti-FReeper sites: “halp, I’m getting my ass kicked.” And the clown parade begins.


76 posted on 05/07/2012 6:45:05 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
I figure I'm doing the rest of Free Republic a service by keeping you two matched beauties pinned down over your vomit pile.

That way, you're not gadding about the rest of the forum, abusing other Freepers over "how many of rude's or Toddy's strawmen can dance on the head of a pin".

BTW - I guess I'm not as familiar with "anti-FReeper sites" as you and undoubtedly Toddy seem to be, having never had a reason to frequent such sites.

I have beaten up on some few anti-FReepers here over the years. It was fun, and they were more skilled than you two Siamese inbreds. :-)

77 posted on 05/07/2012 7:17:40 PM PDT by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil
I have beaten up on some few anti-FReepers here over the years.

Not likely. You can't even remember what you write day-to-day. And instead of simply admitting that you were wrong, as I have countless times, you engage in insults and otherwise just pout about it. Some skill.

78 posted on 05/07/2012 7:21:30 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

Check this out. Now we are “pinned down.” LOLOL


79 posted on 05/07/2012 7:25:23 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
I've pinned you down here since Friday morning.

Your puke pile is beginning to smell, not that anyone else is noticing... :-)

Me, I've got state monthly revenue reports to review. That's where the real economic action is at.

You can keep up the Abbott & Costello routine with the irrelevant, fictitious unemployment rate all you want to.

80 posted on 05/07/2012 7:30:04 PM PDT by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil
I've pinned you down here since Friday morning.

You've done nothing of the sort, you child. I've edited three articles, played computer games, gone to work, written a letter, checked baseball scores, and watched a movie. You are not that good.

81 posted on 05/07/2012 7:34:14 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Touchy, are we?

Your posting history tells a different story:

http://www.freerepublic.com/~1rudeboy/

Whole lot of little rudeboygirl not goin' on...

You're so apoplectic that someone would dare to diss you that this thread is all you're thinking about.

You won't be able to NOT reply to me on this thread for 48 hours. Me, I can take it or leave it.

BTW - is your fanboi Toddy busy with his homeys over at the Anti-Freepers?

82 posted on 05/07/2012 7:44:16 PM PDT by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

If you post to me, or speak about be, then I’ll post to this thread. And I don’t know what linking to my posting history accomplishes. I’ve probably posted 700 threads and 50,000 comments.


83 posted on 05/07/2012 7:48:38 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

Didn’t even last five minutes....


84 posted on 05/07/2012 8:12:57 PM PDT by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

be


85 posted on 05/07/2012 8:29:21 PM PDT by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

I hope her reports are closer to reality than her performance here.


86 posted on 05/07/2012 9:15:48 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
1. Defend the indefensible.
2. Then become indignant when challenged.
3. Then claim that you were talking about something else altogether.
4. Finally, pat yourself on the back for your sacrifice.

The only thing I'm left wondering is how much time will he spend under the rock before he crawls out and does it again?
87 posted on 05/08/2012 5:45:42 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

And speaking about be...

Hey, look! - some of us (that being me) have enough self-restraint to actually not reply to a thread for 48 hours or more:

You won't be able to NOT reply to me on this thread for 48 hours. Me, I can take it or leave it.

Others, who have less self control, can only last minutes (less than 5 minutes, to be exact).

88 posted on 05/10/2012 4:56:20 AM PDT by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-88 last

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