Jobless claims unexpectably rise, last week's count.

[saveliberty]

pingy,

I do take exception to your statement, "Whether or not someone has ever received, applied for, or been eligible for unemployment benefits has nothing to do with the unemployment rate."

The questions asked by the Census Bureau to compile unemplyment figures, are very similiar to what it take to qualify for unemployment benefits. Falling off the unemployment rolls is about equivalent of falling off the count.

You miss the point.

How the unemployment rate is defined is done so in a very methodical manner, and has always been such. He is telling you how it is defined. Whether or not you agree with it is a different matter altogether.

I didn't miss his point, I simply made an observation relating to his point.

 

[uscitizen]

Yes the trend is still down, just not as far down. We hare still hemorraging nearly 1/2 million jobs per month.

I guess we have a shortage of jobs that can be cut.

The snow storm is a good thing for the posi spin types. They can blame the poor holiday sales figures on the weather.

 

[Neubarth]

I HAVE BEEN POINTING OUT FOR OVER A QUARTER OF CENTURY THAT THE DOL AND BLS STATS ARE TOTALLY BOGUS. There are always some young idealistic kids who will argue with you. If you point to irregularities during a Recession or Depression like we now have, the immature kids will say that the numbers are skewed by all of the economic torment.

So, I can go to any period that is considered fairly steady state and pull their make believe numbers versus the data as compiled from the states for UI claims. Here, I will pull a few weeks in 2006. Look at this and remember the DOL claims its "Adjustments are Seasonal" which is a laughable lie from the depths of hell.

Dec. 2, the phony government number was 324,000 the number reported from the states 449,309
Nov. 25, the phony government number was 357,000 the number reported from the states 322,410
Nov. 18, the phony government number was 321,000 the number reported from the states 365,994
Nov. 11, the phony government number was 308,000 the number reported from the states 284,842
Nov. 4, the phony government number was 308,000 the number reported from the states 324,979
Oct. 28, the phony government number was 327,000 the number reported from the states 300,091

Do you see the total lack of consistency. One week the ADD to the state numbers and the next week they subtract. Then they add the next week and subtract the week following and so on and so on. You can get very confused if you think of this as being seasonal. You end up going through six seasons in six weeks. I have been told that they laugh like hell at these Official Government UI claims numbers because they go out of their way to make them look asinine.

 

[Neubarth]

There you go again....more lies and spin....it's clearly stated in your links that PEOPLE WHO ARE NOLONGER SEEKING EMPLOYMENT ARE REMOVED FROM THE FIGURES.....how about some honesty from you instead of lies and bullshit Obama talking points.

Pinqy made the same arguments when Bush was in power. His explanations of the statistical methodologies have nothing to do with politics.

In the California Farming communities where there is fifty percent or more unemployment, there are few jobs available. If there are no jobs being offered, it is stupid to say that you are looking for work. You can not apply where there are no jobs, and most of the poor people in those small towns refuse to leave their spouses and children behind to find work in LA. They can't afford to move them to LA, because they simply do not have the rent money in hand to pay a first and last month and a cleaning deposit. So they stay in the small towns and take the food stamps and live with their families on handouts. I could write several books on what I have seen during this Depression in those towns.

 

[pinqy]

pingy,

I do take exception to your statement, "Whether or not someone has ever received, applied for, or been eligible for unemployment benefits has nothing to do with the unemployment rate."

The questions asked by the Census Bureau to compile unemployment figures, are very similiar to what it takes to qualify for unemployment benefits. Falling off the unemployment rolls is about equivalent of falling off the count.

But no questions are asked about UI benefits in the UE survey. Sure if you stop looking for work you are no longer counted as unemployed and you are no longer eligible for benefits, but those are seperate: you're not no longer counted because you're no longer eligible for benefits, but because you're no longer looking. It's not the receipt or eligibility of UI that matters.

For the Unemployment rate, the ONLY criteria are whether you worked in the last week (other than vacation or sick leave etc) and whether you've looked for work in the past four weeks. This includes people fresh out of school and looking for their first job, re-entrants to the labor force, retirees looking for a part time job, people who quit their jobs. None of these are eligible for UI benefits. At the same time someone who has a part time job and is receiving suplemental UI benefits is not unemployed.

Just because A causes B and A cause C doesn't mean there's any real connection between B and C.

 

[Neubarth]

Yes the trend is still down, just not as far down. We hare still hemorraging nearly 1/2 million jobs per month.

I guess we have a shortage of jobs that can be cut.

The snow storm is a good thing for the posi spin types. They can blame the poor holiday sales figures on the weather.

UI claims are way over two million a month. Most of those people are not finding jobs, but that is OK because the government soon lists them as "not looking for work" and they are no longer counted in the Labor Force.

 

[pinqy]

Do you see the total lack of consistency. One week the ADD to the state numbers and the next week they subtract. Then they add the next week and subtract the week following and so on and so on. You can get very confused if you think of this as being seasonal. You end up going through six seasons in six weeks.

Why are you taking the word "seasonal" so literally? I don't get it. Based on what the individual weeks have done in the past, looking at trends, the portion of the change that is due to the time of year can be filtered out. I really wish I knew how to show you a graph of comparison. Without seasonal adjustment, there are a lot of spikes in the graph. Seasonal adjustment smooths that out.

 

[saveliberty]

Yes the trend is still down, just not as far down. We hare still hemorraging nearly 1/2 million jobs per month.

I guess we have a shortage of jobs that can be cut.

The snow storm is a good thing for the posi spin types. They can blame the poor holiday sales figures on the weather.

UI claims are way over two million a month. Most of those people are not finding jobs, but that is OK because the government soon lists them as "not looking for work" and they are no longer counted in the Labor Force.

Not sure, but could, "not looking for work" also mean retired in many cases. Baby boomers are a large group and could be a big part of the number represented in the graph.

 

[pinqy]

Not sure, but could, "not looking for work" also mean retired in many cases. Baby boomers are a large group and could be a big part of the number represented in the graph.

Right. Here's the breakdown of what BLS uses (not seasonally adjusted):
Adult Civilian Non-Institutional Population (everyone 16 and older, not in prison, mental institute, or the military):236,743,000
Labor Force: Employed (worked in the reference week) 139,132,000 + Unemployed (didn't work in the reference week but lookin the previous 4 weeks) 14,407,000 = 153,539,000
Not in the Labor Force (did not work or look for work): 83,204,000
Breaking down Not in the Labor Force further...of those 83,204,000, 5,618,000 say they want a job. Of those, 2,323,000 say they are available to work and have looked sometime in the previous 12 months. These are called the Marginally Attached. Of those, 861,000 have stopped looking because they don't think they'll find work. These are called "Discouraged Workers." The remaining 1,462,000 marginally attached didn't look for non job-market reasons...transportation, child care, disability, illness, etc.

Now, the Not in the Labor Force number has grown by percentage, not just pure numbers, but percentage wise as many people have stopped looking for work and fewer people have started. The Labor Force Participation Rate (65%) hasn't been this low since 1986. But keep in mind it went up steadily since the 70's and more women entered the labor force.

The Employment Population ratio, is miserable as well at 58.5% The worst since the early 80's. Very steep decline. Hopefully, we're near the bottom of that, but how near is questinable.

 

[Neubarth]

Do you see the total lack of consistency. One week the ADD to the state numbers and the next week they subtract. Then they add the next week and subtract the week following and so on and so on. You can get very confused if you think of this as being seasonal. You end up going through six seasons in six weeks.

Why are you taking the word "seasonal" so literally? I don't get it. Based on what the individual weeks have done in the past, looking at trends, the portion of the change that is due to the time of year can be filtered out. I really wish I knew how to show you a graph of comparison. Without seasonal adjustment, there are a lot of spikes in the graph. Seasonal adjustment smooths that out.

You just do not get it do you. The "seasonal adjustments" spike the data in any direction the DOL wants it to go on any given week. There is no correlation between sanity and logic in those adjustments. Witness the last four months where the Seasonal Adjustment number was nearly a fifth of a million off from the actual numbers in from the states and PR.

This nonsense has gotten totally out of control since Obama and that Mexican bitch took over.

 

[pinqy]

There is no correlation between sanity and logic in those adjustments.

So, you retract your previous claim that the adjustments are fake in order to make things look better and now claim they just do them at random? Interesting.