Those INITIAL Unemployment Claim numbers!

[Neubarth]

Those INITIAL Unemployment Claim numbers!


----------------------------------------------------------------------
INITIAL CLAIMS are the total number of people who have filled out claims for unemployment insurance each week across the nation. They are almost always revised a few days after they are issued, as not all of the states send in all of their claim numbers.

Note that in May the total of people claiming UI was close to 3 Million. Those were people who were previously employed and felt that they were entitled to UI. Some of course will be ruled ineligible. That usually runs about 2% across the states. If it was three of four percent, May still had two and a half MILLION people who filed and probably got their payments.

So, how in hell can Obama say that only 345,000 were newly unemployed in May????????? This administration is so damned ethically corrupt it is unbelievable!


WEEK of 6/20
WEEK of 6/13 608 K
WEEK of 6/06 605 K previously 601 K
WEEK of 5/30 625 K previously 621 K
WEEK of 5/23 625 K previously 623 K
WEEK of 5/16 636 K previously 631 K
WEEK of 5/09 643 K previously 637 K
WEEK of 5/02 605 K previously 601 K
WEEK of 4/25 635 K previously 631 K
WEEK of 4/18 645 K previously 640 K
WEEK of 4/11 613 K previously 610 K
WEEK of 4/04 663 K previously 654 K
WEEK of 3/28 674 K previously 669 K
WEEK of 3/21 657 K previously 652 K
WEEK of 3/14 644 K previously 646 K
WEEK of 3/07 658 K previously 654 K
WEEK of 2/28 645 K previously 639 K
WEEK of 2/21 670 K previously 667 K
WEEK of 2/14 631 K previously 627 K
WEEK of 2/07 627 K previously 623 K


From now on in, these are the only numbers that I will look at to see if the Economic collapse is slowing down. So far it is not. anytime, you have two million people a month losing their jobs, there are no green shoots.

 

[pinqy]

Those INITIAL Unemployment Claim numbers!So, how in hell can Obama say that only 345,000 were newly unemployed in May????????? .

He didn't. The 345,000 you're referring to was the NET CHANGE in NON-FARM ESTABLISHMENT, NOT newly unemployed. Please at least try to understand what the different figures are and what they mean before you complain. You only sound silly.

Oh, and side note...neither the President nor his advisors have any access to or knowledge of the monthly Employment or Unemployment numbers until the night before the release...when it's too late to change anything, even if he could. The current Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the ONLY BLS political appointee, was appointed by BUSH, not Obama.

 

[oreo]

Government statistics are "always" revised. They are not an exact. I think we're seeing a little slow-down in the number of newly unemployed--because of typically higher employment in the summer months. But what is disturbing to me--is that we are not seeing old unemployed find new jobs. We have highly educated people applying for convenience store clerks.

 

[pinqy]

Government statistics are "always" revised. They are not an exact. I think we're seeing a little slow-down in the number of newly unemployed--because of typically higher employment in the summer months.

Unlikely...the official numbers, such as the initial claims Neubarth listed, are seasonally adjusted to account for exactly that kind of regular change.

In fact, the actual number of initial claims for the week of June 13 was 554,405. 608,000 is the seasonally adjusted number.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Government statistics are "always" revised. They are not an exact. I think we're seeing a little slow-down in the number of newly unemployed--because of typically higher employment in the summer months. But what is disturbing to me--is that we are not seeing old unemployed find new jobs. We have highly educated people applying for convenience store clerks.

I got laid off in April. Since the job market is pathetic and will continue to be so for the long term, I haven't applied for benefits yet. I am getting severance right now that keeps my insurance and such. Were I to get a job without insurance, I would loose the severance benefits anyway.

Anyway, I look at the want ads daily. In the portland OR area, there are pathetically few jobs open, and those that are open have really high experience lists that are outside my area.

Back in April, there were a lot more jobs available than there are now. Even the folks that were hiring in April and laying off now.

Oregon has a unemployment rate of nearly 15%. It seems there is no one left to fire.

 

[Neubarth]

Those INITIAL Unemployment Claim numbers!So, how in hell can Obama say that only 345,000 were newly unemployed in May????????? .

He didn't. The 345,000 you're referring to was the NET CHANGE in NON-FARM ESTABLISHMENT, NOT newly unemployed. Please at least try to understand what the different figures are and what they mean before you complain. You only sound silly.

Oh, and side note...neither the President nor his advisors have any access to or knowledge of the monthly Employment or Unemployment numbers until the night before the release...when it's too late to change anything, even if he could. The current Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the ONLY BLS political appointee, was appointed by BUSH, not Obama.

Total BULLSHIT! The Secretary of Labor makes the calls on all reports, and SHE is an Obama appointee.

As regards your other claim, you are trying to deceive people. We do not need that here.

The Employment Report
Importance (A-F): This release merits an A.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.
Release Time: First Friday of the month at 8:30 ET for the prior month
Raw Data Available At: http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.toc.htm.
The employment report is actually two separate reports which are the results of two separate surveys. The household survey is a survey of roughly 60,000 households. This survey produces the unemployment rate. The establishment survey is a survey of 375,000 businesses. This survey produces the nonfarm payrolls, average workweek, and average hourly earnings figures, to name a few. Both surveys cover the payroll period which includes the 12th of each month.

The reports both measure employment levels, just from different angles. Due to the vastly different size of the survey samples (the establishment survey not only surveys more businesses, but each business employs many individuals), the measures of employment may differ markedly from month to month. The household survey is used only for the unemployment measure - the market focusses primarily on the more comprehensive establishment survey. Together, these two surveys make up the employment report, the most timely and broad indicator of economic activity released each month.

Total payrolls are broken down into sectors such as manufacturing, mining, construction, services, and government. The markets follows these components closely as indicators of the trends in sectors of the economy; the manufacturing sector is watched the most closely as it often leads the business cycle. The data also include breakdowns of hours worked, overtime, and average hourly earnings.

The average workweek (also known as hours worked) is important for two reasons. First, it is a critical determinant of such monthly indicators as industrial production and personal income. Second, it is considered a useful indicator of labor market conditions: a rising workweek early in the business cycle may be the first indication that employers are preparing to boost their payrolls, while late in the cycle a rising workweek may indicate that employers are having difficulty finding qualified applicants for open positions. Average earnings are closely followed as an indicator of potential inflation. Like the price of any good or service, the price of labor reacts to an overly accommodative monetary policy. If the price of labor is rising sharply, it may be an indication that too much money is chasing too few goods, or in this case employees.

 

[pinqy]

Total BULLSHIT! The Secretary of Labor makes the calls on all reports, and SHE is an Obama appointee

No, she doesn't. She has no access and no knowledge of the numbers until the night before release. The Commissioner of BLS runs BLS, which is only administrativly under DOL. The Secretary sets broad policy but has no other dealings with BLS.

As regards your other claim, you are trying to deceive people. We do not need that here.

No, you still don't understand. The 345,000 decline comes from the Non-Farm Establishment payroll survey..and ONLY that one (though it is released in the same report as the household survey) It does NOT in any way measure newly unemployed as you claimed, but the CHANGE in TOTAL non-farm employment by establishments. Excluded are the self employed, agricultural workers, and domestic workers. Show me one thing that claims it measures NEWLY unemployed as you falsely claimed.

 

[Neubarth]

You come across as totally insane, or a pathological liar! I could care less about Keith Hall. Why do you even bring him up. Is he one of your butt buddies?

Supposedly, nonfarm payrolls for May fell to 345,000. I doubt that any rational people really believe this. If they want to believe it, that imaginary number was considerably better than the supposedly expected loss of 520,000 (Totally fictional numbers that they pull out of their keisters to make the public happy). And it was much better than in April (-504,000), March (-652,000), February (-681,000), and January (-741,000).

They use this claim of decreasing unemployment numbers in spite of the fact that the Unemployment insurance claims have continued to come in at approximately 620,000 a week, or over 2.4 MILLION a month.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has started using a fantasy model to estimate what may be going on in those parts of the labor market where the statisticians do not get data.

One of these is the Birth/Death Adjustment Model which pertains to small and new corporations in “10 non-farm super-sectors, including leisure and hospitality.” This bogus model said 220,000 new jobs were added in May.

The BLS then assumed that 7,000 financial service jobs and 43,000 construction jobs were created; and, of course, fully manned with the unemployed workers.

That, of course, is highly unlikely because in the other part of the BLS report, where actual real data are available, both sectors showed job losses of 89,000. Obviously reality and fantasy are vastly divergent. The Obama Administration could care less. The important thing is to reassure the people that “the recession is almost over.” The numbers are manipulated each and every month to create that illusion.

So, throw out the asinine Birth/Death Adjustment Model, throw in the actual job losses in the sectors and we find approximately 600,000 jobs were actually lost in May! That is an ‘ell of a lot different than Obama wants us to believe.

Ahhh, but we are not done with the fantasy of improving employment. There is a new source of data called “Aggregate-hours worked.” This is an index that fell 0.7 percent in May after a 0.3 percent drop in April. So not only are there more people unemployed, but those that work are working fewer hours in the work week.

As you all know, the Official Unemployment Rate rose to 9.4 percent in May, up from 8.9 percent in April. That is a 0.5% increase in unemployment. The labor pool is roughly 155 Million people. Let’s do some simple math. Let’s multiply the Official Labor Pool (155,000,000) by the amount of unemployment increase to get a better feel of how many people were added to the official unemployment numbers (0.5 X 155,000,000 = 775,000) Amazing! The actual number of unemployed increased 775,000 while Obama and his minions were claiming that it was only a 345,000 increase.

Even these numbers are suspect because the DOL does not tabulate those people who (They say) have dropped out of the Labor Pool. They number close to ten million and are not counted.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Government statistics are "always" revised. They are not an exact. I think we're seeing a little slow-down in the number of newly unemployed--because of typically higher employment in the summer months. But what is disturbing to me--is that we are not seeing old unemployed find new jobs. We have highly educated people applying for convenience store clerks.

I got laid off in April. Since the job market is pathetic and will continue to be so for the long term, I haven't applied for benefits yet. I am getting severance right now that keeps my insurance and such. Were I to get a job without insurance, I would loose the severance benefits anyway.

Anyway, I look at the want ads daily. In the portland OR area, there are pathetically few jobs open, and those that are open have really high experience lists that are outside my area.

Back in April, there were a lot more jobs available than there are now. Even the folks that were hiring in April and laying off now.

Oregon has a unemployment rate of nearly 15%. It seems there is no one left to fire.

Actually, unemployment in Oregon was 11.8% in Apr, 12.1% in May. Iowa's rate is...5.4%, Nebraska 4.4%.

I think you need to move....

 

[Toro]

No, she doesn't. She has no access and no knowledge of the numbers until the night before release. The Commissioner of BLS runs BLS, which is only administrativly under DOL. The Secretary sets broad policy but has no other dealings with BLS.

This is correct. The politicians generally leave the statisticians alone. The statisticians are professionals.

Government statisticians are frustrated. “Economic Data Seems Accurate” doesn’t make for a catchy headline, so the press, they say, are too quick to give credence to conspiracy theories. “We go out of our way to be transparent,” says Thomas Nardone, who during 32 years at the Bureau of Labor Statistics helped implement many of the changes in calculating the unemployment rate. “We’d be remiss if we didn’t make changes,” he says. “I’ve never seen measurement changes that were politically motivated.”

Katherine Abraham served as commissioner of BLS during the Clinton administration. Commissioners, unlike the statisticians who work for them, are political appointees. Now a professor at University of Maryland, Abraham says she did see political pressure, but rarely, and never with results. Once, she says, a prominent lawmaker told her the BLS might get more funding if it would agree to propose changes that reduce the appearance of inflation. Abraham says she rebuffed the offer.

True or False: U.S. Economic Stats Lie at SmartMoney.com

 

[pinqy]

You come across as totally insane, or a pathological liar! I could care less about Keith Hall. Why do you even bring him up. Is he one of your butt buddies?

Since you claimed that he, as Commissioner of BLS is a "Obama stooge" you certainly seem to care.

Supposedly, nonfarm payrolls for May fell to 345,000.

Are you retracting your lie that this was claimed to be newly unemployed?

They use this claim of decreasing unemployment numbers in spite of the fact that the Unemployment insurance claims have continued to come in at approximately 620,000 a week, or over 2.4 MILLION a month.

I'll use small words to explain. First, UI claims are measured weekly. The person making a new claim may have been unemployed for weeks (and so dropped off the non-farm employment count weeks earlier). Secondly, the Establishment survey only looks at one week of the month...reports are for number of employees in that week. In the four weeks between reports, more people will have been let go (claiming UI) and more people will have been hired, so that the level change is lesser than the UI claims.

Let's look at BLS's Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) for April 2009 (because the May turnover figures aren't in yet): In the month of April, approx 4,718,000 people left their jobs (2,557,000 were laid off or fired, 1,771,000 quit, and the rest retired or otherwise seperated without being fired, laid off or discharged or quitting). Gee....2,577,000 people were fired in April....that's pretty close to the number each month claiming UI benefits. But at the same time, 4,165,000 people were HIRED in April. That's why the Employment Level didn't go down as much as you're claiming it should. People were hired! Now, the numbers from JOLTS don't match up with the Employment situation numbers because the Establishment survey covers one week of the month, while Jolts looks at hires and seperations for the entire month.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has started using a fantasy model to estimate what may be going on in those parts of the labor market where the statisticians do not get data.

Right....the population can't be updated every month...new businesses start, and some businesses fail. That has to be accounted for or it would throw everything off.

One of these is the Birth/Death Adjustment Model which pertains to small and new corporations in “10 non-farm super-sectors, including leisure and hospitality.” This bogus model said 220,000 new jobs were added in May.

The BLS then assumed that 7,000 financial service jobs and 43,000 construction jobs were created; and, of course, fully manned with the unemployed workers.

It's not an assumption, it's a statistical model based on years of research. And no, it is not claiming that only unemployed worker gained the new employment (though obviously some did) but also changes from other jobs, second jobs etc.

That, of course, is highly unlikely because in the other part of the BLS report, where actual real data are available, both sectors showed job losses of 89,000.

That's not the "other part," it's the SAME SURVEY. Table B-1 of the Employment Situation survey.

Those losses INCLUDE the gains from the birth death model. Also, you're comparing seasonally adjusted numbers with unadjusted numbers. Let's look at the unadjusted numbers. In April, the Construction industry had 6,202,000 employees which INCLUDES 38,000 from the birth death model. In May the number was 6,331,000, including a 43,000 adjustment from the birth death model. Total change was + 128,000 construction employees. HOWEVER, because this time of year usually sees an increase in construction, the numbers are seasonally adjusted to remove the predictable seasonal patterns so we can see the real pattern. So seasonal adjustment changes the April number to 6,362 and the May number to 6,303 for a loss of 59,000.

In other words although there were approx 128,000 more construction employees (that's net change, 128,000 more were hired than left) all of that is due to seasonal changes...removing the seaonal changes, the change we see from the poor economy is a decline.

The numbers are manipulated each and every month to create that illusion.

How? Who exactly does it at what level?

As you all know, the Official Unemployment Rate rose to 9.4 percent in May, up from 8.9 percent in April. That is a 0.5% increase in unemployment.

No, it's not. Do you not know basic math? The Unemployment rate is Unemployed/(Employed+Unemployed). In April, that was 13,724,000/154,731,000 which is 0.089, otherwise expressed as 8.9% of 154,371,000. In May, it was 14,511,000/155,081,000 or 9.4% of 155,081,000 The % change in unemployment (level) was then (14,511,000-13,724,000)/13724,000...an increase of 5.7% The change in rate (which is a not too meaningful because it is of different bases) was (9.4-8.9)/8.9 = 5.6%

The labor pool is roughly 155 Million people. Let’s do some simple math. Let’s multiply the Official Labor Pool (155,000,000) by the amount of unemployment increase to get a better feel of how many people were added to the official unemployment numbers (0.5 X 155,000,000 = 775,000) Amazing! The actual number of unemployed increased 775,000 while Obama and his minions were claiming that it was only a 345,000 increase.

You're conflating two completely different surveys that measure differrent things.
One more time, the decrease of 345,000 is ONLY from NON_FARM ESTABLISHMENTS AND DOES NOT INCLUDE any changes for agriculture, self-employed, domestic workers, people entering or re-entering the Labor Force. The Household survey, which is where Unemployment numbers come from, does include all those people, so the numbers are higher. Look at Employment...Non-Farm Establishment is 132,151,000 and Household Survey is 140,570,000 (a drop of 350,000 people from April) Hmmm awfully close change, though. Now the number of Unemployed went up 787,000, but remember, Unemployed does not mean you lost your job, just that you don't have a job and are looking for one. So all those extra unemployed comes from people who didn't have and weren't looking for a job in April, but were looking in May (students, people whose spouses lost their job and started looking etc). Again, the 787,000 is Unemployed, NOT "people who lost their job."

Even these numbers are suspect because the DOL does not tabulate those people who (They say) have dropped out of the Labor Pool. They number close to ten million and are not counted.

The "They" is the people themselves. If you don't have a job, and aren't looking for one, you're not in the labor force.

 

[pinqy]

No, she doesn't. She has no access and no knowledge of the numbers until the night before release. The Commissioner of BLS runs BLS, which is only administrativly under DOL. The Secretary sets broad policy but has no other dealings with BLS.

This is correct. The politicians generally leave the statisticians alone. The statisticians are professionals.

Government statisticians are frustrated. “Economic Data Seems Accurate” doesn’t make for a catchy headline, so the press, they say, are too quick to give credence to conspiracy theories. “We go out of our way to be transparent,” says Thomas Nardone, who during 32 years at the Bureau of Labor Statistics helped implement many of the changes in calculating the unemployment rate. “We’d be remiss if we didn’t make changes,” he says. “I’ve never seen measurement changes that were politically motivated.”

Katherine Abraham served as commissioner of BLS during the Clinton administration. Commissioners, unlike the statisticians who work for them, are political appointees. Now a professor at University of Maryland, Abraham says she did see political pressure, but rarely, and never with results. Once, she says, a prominent lawmaker told her the BLS might get more funding if it would agree to propose changes that reduce the appearance of inflation. Abraham says she rebuffed the offer.

True or False: U.S. Economic Stats Lie at SmartMoney.com

Good quote...especially since I've known Tom for years...good guy, very professional.
To clarify some from the article, while the Commissioner is a political appointee, they are either economists or statiscians, often academics. And the Commissioner's term does not run concurrent to the President's...there's an offset. That's why the current Commissioner is a Bush Appointee, just as Katherine Abraham was a Clinton appointee under Bush during his first term.

 

[Toro]

Good quote...especially since I've known Tom for years...good guy, very professional.

Cool.

I've worked in government. I'd say that the amount of government interference was about 1/1000th of what some people think it is.