What are the odds?

Meister

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Jan 15, 2009
64,920
39,587
2,605
Conservative part of the Northwest
$BLS-Revised-Claims-17.jpg

Despite What the Media Says, New Unemployment Claims Ticked Up to 367K | Red Dog Report

Every week this year the BLS had to revise unemployment up.
What are the odds that they couldn't get it right one time, or revised it down just one time?
I'm smelling Tuna, and it isn't pleasant. Why do you ask? Because the media picks up on the reported claims each week, but really doesn't follow up with real facts using the revised numbers the following week. Obama just looks better and better with fraudulent numbers, imo.
 
View attachment 19109

Despite What the Media Says, New Unemployment Claims Ticked Up to 367K | Red Dog Report

Every week this year the BLS had to revise unemployment up.
What are the odds that they couldn't get it right one time, or revised it down just one time?
I'm smelling Tuna, and it isn't pleasant. Why do you ask? Because the media picks up on the reported claims each week, but really doesn't follow up with real facts using the revised numbers the following week. Obama just looks better and better with fraudulent numbers, imo.

They do it all the time...and barely a whisper in the Mainstream Media protecting Obama.

Good find.
 
Seems odd doesn't it, that the numbers are ALWAYS revised upwards. What really bugs me though, is the notion that if you stop looking for a job then you don't count as an unemployed person.
 
View attachment 19109

Despite What the Media Says, New Unemployment Claims Ticked Up to 367K | Red Dog Report

Every week this year the BLS had to revise unemployment up.
What are the odds that they couldn't get it right one time, or revised it down just one time?
I'm smelling Tuna, and it isn't pleasant. Why do you ask? Because the media picks up on the reported claims each week, but really doesn't follow up with real facts using the revised numbers the following week. Obama just looks better and better with fraudulent numbers, imo.

oh oh......i think i hear Dean, Chris and TM coming down the lane......
 
View attachment 19109

Despite What the Media Says, New Unemployment Claims Ticked Up to 367K | Red Dog Report

Every week this year the BLS had to revise unemployment up.
What are the odds that they couldn't get it right one time, or revised it down just one time?
I'm smelling Tuna, and it isn't pleasant. Why do you ask? Because the media picks up on the reported claims each week, but really doesn't follow up with real facts using the revised numbers the following week. Obama just looks better and better with fraudulent numbers, imo.

DUH, Presidents always play this silly game. They know that many more people will see and Remember the Initial Reports, than will ever notice the Corrections announced later. with out fail since Obama has been in Office. Both with the GDP numbers, and Unemployment numbers, they have Reported numbers that look better then later revise them down. Each and every quarter.


Nothing but dishonest leadership, Par for the Course.
 
The article is about Unemployment Insurance Claims. BLS doesn't have anything to do with those. UI claims are reported by the Employment Training Administration of the Dept of Labor.

What are the odds that they couldn't get it right one time, or revised it down just one time?
I'm smelling Tuna, and it isn't pleasant. Why do you ask? Because the media picks up on the reported claims each week, but really doesn't follow up with real facts using the revised numbers the following week. Obama just looks better and better with fraudulent numbers, imo.
The latest release, yesterday, was for 370,000 new UI claims for the week of May 13-19. Look at the time frame.....The individual offices report their numbers to the State, the State reports to DOL, DOL adds everything up, applies seasonal adjustment (to account for normal changes, like adjusting for the tide when measuring water level) for the official numbers, writes the report, sends it to publication. That's 3 working days. You find it strange that many offices/states don't report in time or file incomplete reports? It would be odd if there was a downward revision.

The odds are definitely AGAINST getting a full complete report in 3 working days.
 
Seems odd doesn't it, that the numbers are ALWAYS revised upwards. What really bugs me though, is the notion that if you stop looking for a job then you don't count as an unemployed person.

Why does that bug you? The purpose of the UE rate is to measure how much available labor is not being used...how difficult it is to actually get a job. If someone is not trying to get a job, they're not available for work, and since of course they won't get hired if they don't try to get a job, they don't tell us how hard it is to get one.

But let's look at examples: A woman is laid off and looks for work. While unemployed, she decides the family is better off if she doesn't work and stays home with the kids. Would you consider her unemployed?

A student goes to college, starts looking for a part time job for extra money, doesn't find anything he likes, and decides he doesn't really need a job anyway and quits looking. Is he unemployed?

I could go on. The point is that there are many many reasons people stop looking for work that have nothing to do with the actual labor market, so it doesn't make much sense to include them as unemployed. There are around 6 million people not classified as unemployed who say they want a job, but over half of them either couldn't take a job if offered to them on a silver platter, or haven't done anything to look for work in over a year. And of those who stopped looking, over half stopped looking for personal reasons: family responsibility, daycare issues, transportation issues, illness, injury, pregnancy, etc.
 
View attachment 19109

Despite What the Media Says, New Unemployment Claims Ticked Up to 367K | Red Dog Report

Every week this year the BLS had to revise unemployment up.
What are the odds that they couldn't get it right one time, or revised it down just one time?
I'm smelling Tuna, and it isn't pleasant. Why do you ask? Because the media picks up on the reported claims each week, but really doesn't follow up with real facts using the revised numbers the following week. Obama just looks better and better with fraudulent numbers, imo.

oh oh......i think i hear Dean, Chris and TM coming down the lane......

Which one needs a heart, a brain, or courage?
 

Forum List

Back
Top