*JOBS numbers- LIE-Missing ONE LARGE state*

So because one state's labor department didn't report all of their numbers to the Labor Department, they are lying about the numbers. You guys are so desperate I can smell the stench through my laptop.

Yes idiot thats what it means....

Are you that dense that you don't understand this? The numbers will be on next week's report. This will not be the first time this has happened. You righties are so fucking rabid that you all hop on here to be the first one to jump on these stories without thinking them through.
 
So because one state's labor department didn't report all of their numbers to the Labor Department, they are lying about the numbers. You guys are so desperate I can smell the stench through my laptop.

With all due respect, "Ace"...if you're crunching numbers but the numbers you're crunching don't include everything that they should...then how valid is your outcome?

I'm having a hard time reconciling the fact that we're creating fewer and fewer new jobs for the past three months yet suddenly the unemployment rate drops by a full half a percentage point. Either massive amounts of people gave up and dropped out of the work force or there is something fundamentally flawed with the sample that was just taken. The fact that this happens a month before the election is what stinks to high heavens.
 
We're not the ones inventing a conspiracy theory for every shred of news that comes out that we don't like.

Its not a theory you tard LOL

It's not a conspiracy theory that Obama himself personally altered the numbers for political gain?

Fine, then prove he did. Then it won't be a crazy conspiracy theory; it will be fact.

I guess the proof won't be coming anytime soon.

Still want to say that it's not a conspiracy theory?????????????
 
Fox News just reported the state which did not REPORT it's unemployment numbers is indeed CALIFORNIA.. Gee, there's a surprise?! Daryl Issa was on and is going to hold Hearings and have the Labor Dept testify under oath! LOL Hahahahaha YOU LIBERAL LIARS AND THIEVES are not going to get away with anything any longer!!!!

And yet Califiornia is shown as an increase in initial claims. So assuming it was California that failed to report, and the numbers were imputed, then it's hardly due to CA that the intitial claims went down. We can always check next week when the claims by state are released.
They'll be on to some other hair brained conspiracy theory by then.
 
One State.

Well one LARGE State.

Well, it's PROBABLY California.

The Labor Department factors this trend into its seasonally adjusted figures. But last week, a Labor economist said one “large” state didn’t report additional quarterly figures as expected, accounting for a substantial part of the decrease. The official wouldn’t disclose which state, but said it would be released with next week’s report as usual.

“One omission by one state–you wouldn’t think it would be a big deal, but in this case it drove the number down by 10%,” said analyst Stephen Stanley with Pierpont Securities.

Economists are speculating the state could be California, the most populous state in the nation.

“It was likely a state with a large population and we suspect that it was California based on the occasional massive swings that have occurred in its claims data in the past,” said Daniel Silver, an economist with JPMorgan, in a note.

“In short, this reading is worthless in terms of informing on the general economy,” Mr. Stanley wrote in a research note.
-- excerpted from: Which State Distorted Jobless Claims Data? - Real Time Economics - WSJ [emphasis added.]
 
One State.

Well one LARGE State.

Well, it's PROBABLY California.

The Labor Department factors this trend into its seasonally adjusted figures. But last week, a Labor economist said one “large” state didn’t report additional quarterly figures as expected, accounting for a substantial part of the decrease. The official wouldn’t disclose which state, but said it would be released with next week’s report as usual.

“One omission by one state–you wouldn’t think it would be a big deal, but in this case it drove the number down by 10%,” said analyst Stephen Stanley with Pierpont Securities.

Economists are speculating the state could be California, the most populous state in the nation.

“It was likely a state with a large population and we suspect that it was California based on the occasional massive swings that have occurred in its claims data in the past,” said Daniel Silver, an economist with JPMorgan, in a note.

“In short, this reading is worthless in terms of informing on the general economy,” Mr. Stanley wrote in a research note.
-- excerpted from: Which State Distorted Jobless Claims Data? - Real Time Economics - WSJ [emphasis added.]

any idea what the numbers would have looked like had CA reported?
 
What Happened With Jobless Claims - Business Insider


After this morning's surprisingly positive jobless claims number was released, three things happened:

Lots of people felt better about the economy

Democrats cheered because they thought the number would help Obama

Republicans seized on confusing reports that the numbers had "excluded claims from one large state" (probably California) and blasted the number as wrong and misleading.

Since then, the argument has raged on, and there have been a variety of different reports and interpretations.

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.

So, who's right about today's jobless claims number?

Everyone's right!

Jobless claims were better than expected, even after adjusting for an unusual anomaly
There was an unusual anomaly that made this week's jobless claims look better than they would otherwise have been.


Read more: What Happened With Jobless Claims - Business Insider
 
Last edited:
I'm confused, 144,000 jobs added then today it's 339,000 new jobless claims and still, the unemployment rate is down from 8.2 to 7.8?

The numbers just don't jive.
 
What Happened With Jobless Claims - Business Insider

What Happened With Jobless Claims - Business Insider


Business Insider



The link is working for some reason but it's there. It was Californifcation.

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.

So, who's right about today's jobless claims number?

Everyone's right!

i think that pretty much settles it.
 
[emphasis added.]
No need to tell us that. Most of us realize the WSJ doesn't post in large, hysterical blue font.

God alone knows how little a dullard like you understands or "knows."

And the name of the color is just "blue."

"Hysterical" refers to your normal state. The derivation of that term is kind of amusing. You wouldn't understand.

:thup:
 
What Happened With Jobless Claims - Business Insider

What Happened With Jobless Claims - Business Insider


Business Insider



The link is working for some reason but it's there. It was Californifcation.

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.

So, who's right about today's jobless claims number?

Everyone's right!

i think that pretty much settles it.
Yep. Under Obama the economy is slowly improving. What a disaster if the great unwashed morons vote Mitten into office. It would be returning to policies that got us into this mess.
 
QUOTE=thanatos144;6140387]Look at all the progressive sheep scrabbling to spin this LMAO it is like watching crack heads scour the carpet for a rock they think they dropped.[/QUOTE :lol:
 
What Happened With Jobless Claims - Business Insider

What Happened With Jobless Claims - Business Insider


Business Insider



The link is working for some reason but it's there. It was Californifcation.

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.

So, who's right about today's jobless claims number?

Everyone's right!

i think that pretty much settles it.
Yep. Under Obama the economy is slowly improving. What a disaster if the great unwashed morons vote Mitten into office. It would be returning to policies that got us into this mess.

:cuckoo:

If you buy the cooked book numbers, the economy is AT LONG LONG LAST first showing SOME signs of possible improvement.

But you need to be tragically stupid or a lib to buy the Administration's "numbers."

The mess we are in and the much worse mess into which we are heading is entirely the fault of the liberal Democratics like the Failure in Chief, Nancy Pelousy, Dingy Harry Reid and their cohorts.

:cuckoo: "slowly improving." Newsflash, you dishonest hack dimwit. It's October 2012. The ONE assumed the helm in January of 2009. I know you are too slow to do tough number crunching, so I'll help you out. That's just a couple months shy of 4 full years. That's nearly his entire first term. Also his last.
 
One State.

Well one LARGE State.

Well, it's PROBABLY California.

The Labor Department factors this trend into its seasonally adjusted figures. But last week, a Labor economist said one “large” state didn’t report additional quarterly figures as expected, accounting for a substantial part of the decrease. The official wouldn’t disclose which state, but said it would be released with next week’s report as usual.

“One omission by one state–you wouldn’t think it would be a big deal, but in this case it drove the number down by 10%,” said analyst Stephen Stanley with Pierpont Securities.

Economists are speculating the state could be California, the most populous state in the nation.

“It was likely a state with a large population and we suspect that it was California based on the occasional massive swings that have occurred in its claims data in the past,” said Daniel Silver, an economist with JPMorgan, in a note.

“In short, this reading is worthless in terms of informing on the general economy,” Mr. Stanley wrote in a research note.
-- excerpted from: Which State Distorted Jobless Claims Data? - Real Time Economics - WSJ [emphasis added.]


So he's claiming that California had 33,000 new claims they didn't report?
 
Yep, Obama's leadership kept us from sliding into a depression. The recession was a big one for sure, and the credit default nonsense assured that.

Screaming, hysterical blue font and rightwingnutter conspiracy theories aside, things are cooking along. The economy just keeps getting better.
 
Obamination and his goons will do anything to retain power.

They will leave out a bad state to look good for the election.

They don't give a shit about fixing the economy, they just want 4 more years to fuck things up worse to make real "change."
 
One State.

Well one LARGE State.

Well, it's PROBABLY California.

The Labor Department factors this trend into its seasonally adjusted figures. But last week, a Labor economist said one “large” state didn’t report additional quarterly figures as expected, accounting for a substantial part of the decrease. The official wouldn’t disclose which state, but said it would be released with next week’s report as usual.

“One omission by one state–you wouldn’t think it would be a big deal, but in this case it drove the number down by 10%,” said analyst Stephen Stanley with Pierpont Securities.

Economists are speculating the state could be California, the most populous state in the nation.

“It was likely a state with a large population and we suspect that it was California based on the occasional massive swings that have occurred in its claims data in the past,” said Daniel Silver, an economist with JPMorgan, in a note.

“In short, this reading is worthless in terms of informing on the general economy,” Mr. Stanley wrote in a research note.
-- excerpted from: Which State Distorted Jobless Claims Data? - Real Time Economics - WSJ [emphasis added.]


So he's claiming that California had 33,000 new claims they didn't report?


"He?" The author of the linked piece " Which State Distorted Jobless Claims Data? - Real Time Economics - WSJ " is named Sarah. IS that who you make reference to?

I think the report was written clearly enough for even a dope like you to figure out.

When a big state fails to report its numbers, the "report" generated also fails to include those numbers.

Thus, the report is pretty much worthless. Well, perhaps not entirely worthless. I wonder if Plugs Biden will nevertheless refer to it tonight?
 
Last edited:
Obamination and his goons will do anything to retain power.

They will leave out a bad state to look good for the election.

They don't give a shit about fixing the economy, they just want 4 more years to fuck things up worse to make real "change."

Except the Administration didn't leave anything out. You can't report on information you haven't received. It will be in next week's report.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top