playing with unemployment numbers

[DWCAP]

I am having some issues with the published unemplyoment data. Has anyone else noticed that it seems each week we get excited about the employment numbers falling, only to have them later revised back up to a level we wouldnt have gotten excited about last week?

Lets just take this weeks data.

1) they revised the “lower than expected data” back up.
-“A dip in continuing claims several weeks ago was later revised higher. Initial claims rose by 3,000 to a seasonally adjusted 608,000 in the week ending June 13, above analysts’ expectations.”

2) Everyone is all excited now about the huge drop in continuing claims this week.
-“The department said the total unemployment insurance rolls fell by 148,000 to 6.69 million in the week ending June 6, the largest drop in more than seven years.”

[quote]The drop in continuing jobless claims likely reflects the decline in first-time claims, meaning that fewer people are joining the rolls.
“Continuing claims … ought to be falling now given that initial claims peaked more than two months ago,” Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S. economist for High Frequency Economics, wrote in a note to clients.
[/quote]

Except:

[quote]Still, millions of Americans are receiving unemployment compensation under an emergency federal program authorized by Congress last summer and extended by the Obama administration’s stimulus package.

About 2.4 million people received benefits under that program in the week ending May 30, an increase of more than 102,000 from the previous week. That’s in addition to the 6.7 million people receiving benefits under the 26-week program typically provided by states.[/quote]

So it is a 148000 drop, but 102000 of them just moved to a different unemployment role. That isnt a much of a drop, that is mostly reshuffling the deck. The 46k drop actually observed is likely to be revised higher IMO, and is probley more due to factors like people not knowing about the emergency plan, not applying in time, not qualifing, or getting short term work that will put them back on the roles as soon as the summer is over.

I may be way off, but this isnt data that screams recovery within a few months to me, but then again I am still waiting on the fall recovery promised last year.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/06/18/national/w054959D81.DTL&type=business

[UCGal]

I’ve noticed the same thing… The revised number from the previous week almost always is revised to a larger number.

I look around at my employer, my friends’ employers… there’s not a lot of hiring going on and a lot of layoffs going on. Some of the bigger companies are doing it in trickle form, to avoid reporting it as a layoff… but a steady trickle still adds up.

[UCGal]

I’ve noticed the same thing… The revised number from the previous week almost always is revised to a larger number.

I look around at my employer, my friends’ employers… there’s not a lot of hiring going on and a lot of layoffs going on. Some of the bigger companies are doing it in trickle form, to avoid reporting it as a layoff… but a steady trickle still adds up.

[UCGal]

I’ve noticed the same thing… The revised number from the previous week almost always is revised to a larger number.

I look around at my employer, my friends’ employers… there’s not a lot of hiring going on and a lot of layoffs going on. Some of the bigger companies are doing it in trickle form, to avoid reporting it as a layoff… but a steady trickle still adds up.

[UCGal]

I’ve noticed the same thing… The revised number from the previous week almost always is revised to a larger number.

I look around at my employer, my friends’ employers… there’s not a lot of hiring going on and a lot of layoffs going on. Some of the bigger companies are doing it in trickle form, to avoid reporting it as a layoff… but a steady trickle still adds up.

[UCGal]

I’ve noticed the same thing… The revised number from the previous week almost always is revised to a larger number.

I look around at my employer, my friends’ employers… there’s not a lot of hiring going on and a lot of layoffs going on. Some of the bigger companies are doing it in trickle form, to avoid reporting it as a layoff… but a steady trickle still adds up.

[Arraya]

Yup, the are playing the confidence game they best they can with consistently bad numbers. The underlying fundamentals and what is driving unemployment have not changed since the downturn started. Eventually, the market will have to look down again and we will get another round of panic.

This guy does a really good job of dissecting the job numbers. This is from earlier this month for May.

http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/may-employment-report-not-believable/20102

As before, my assumption is that these numbers are quite fuzzy, not worth the paper they are printed on, and heavily falsified to achieve narrow political and market influencing aims.

While I can certainly understand, and even find some compassion for, the desire to manipulate the data to inject some confidence and optimism into the populace and markets, I must regretfully conclude that such efforts are more damaging than helpful.

We did ourselves no favors by fibbing to ourselves during the blowing of the credit bubble, and we do ourselves no favors by repeating that behavior now. We need good and believable data. I judge that our markets would respond better in the long run to believable data, and that we actually owe it to ourselves to provide the most honest and accurate assessments of reality that we can.

[Arraya]

Yup, the are playing the confidence game they best they can with consistently bad numbers. The underlying fundamentals and what is driving unemployment have not changed since the downturn started. Eventually, the market will have to look down again and we will get another round of panic.

This guy does a really good job of dissecting the job numbers. This is from earlier this month for May.

http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/may-employment-report-not-believable/20102

As before, my assumption is that these numbers are quite fuzzy, not worth the paper they are printed on, and heavily falsified to achieve narrow political and market influencing aims.

While I can certainly understand, and even find some compassion for, the desire to manipulate the data to inject some confidence and optimism into the populace and markets, I must regretfully conclude that such efforts are more damaging than helpful.

We did ourselves no favors by fibbing to ourselves during the blowing of the credit bubble, and we do ourselves no favors by repeating that behavior now. We need good and believable data. I judge that our markets would respond better in the long run to believable data, and that we actually owe it to ourselves to provide the most honest and accurate assessments of reality that we can.

[Arraya]

Yup, the are playing the confidence game they best they can with consistently bad numbers. The underlying fundamentals and what is driving unemployment have not changed since the downturn started. Eventually, the market will have to look down again and we will get another round of panic.

This guy does a really good job of dissecting the job numbers. This is from earlier this month for May.

http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/may-employment-report-not-believable/20102

As before, my assumption is that these numbers are quite fuzzy, not worth the paper they are printed on, and heavily falsified to achieve narrow political and market influencing aims.

While I can certainly understand, and even find some compassion for, the desire to manipulate the data to inject some confidence and optimism into the populace and markets, I must regretfully conclude that such efforts are more damaging than helpful.

We did ourselves no favors by fibbing to ourselves during the blowing of the credit bubble, and we do ourselves no favors by repeating that behavior now. We need good and believable data. I judge that our markets would respond better in the long run to believable data, and that we actually owe it to ourselves to provide the most honest and accurate assessments of reality that we can.

[Arraya]

Yup, the are playing the confidence game they best they can with consistently bad numbers. The underlying fundamentals and what is driving unemployment have not changed since the downturn started. Eventually, the market will have to look down again and we will get another round of panic.

This guy does a really good job of dissecting the job numbers. This is from earlier this month for May.

http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/may-employment-report-not-believable/20102

As before, my assumption is that these numbers are quite fuzzy, not worth the paper they are printed on, and heavily falsified to achieve narrow political and market influencing aims.

While I can certainly understand, and even find some compassion for, the desire to manipulate the data to inject some confidence and optimism into the populace and markets, I must regretfully conclude that such efforts are more damaging than helpful.

We did ourselves no favors by fibbing to ourselves during the blowing of the credit bubble, and we do ourselves no favors by repeating that behavior now. We need good and believable data. I judge that our markets would respond better in the long run to believable data, and that we actually owe it to ourselves to provide the most honest and accurate assessments of reality that we can.

[Arraya]

Yup, the are playing the confidence game they best they can with consistently bad numbers. The underlying fundamentals and what is driving unemployment have not changed since the downturn started. Eventually, the market will have to look down again and we will get another round of panic.

This guy does a really good job of dissecting the job numbers. This is from earlier this month for May.

http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/may-employment-report-not-believable/20102

As before, my assumption is that these numbers are quite fuzzy, not worth the paper they are printed on, and heavily falsified to achieve narrow political and market influencing aims.

While I can certainly understand, and even find some compassion for, the desire to manipulate the data to inject some confidence and optimism into the populace and markets, I must regretfully conclude that such efforts are more damaging than helpful.

We did ourselves no favors by fibbing to ourselves during the blowing of the credit bubble, and we do ourselves no favors by repeating that behavior now. We need good and believable data. I judge that our markets would respond better in the long run to believable data, and that we actually owe it to ourselves to provide the most honest and accurate assessments of reality that we can.

[4plexowner]

and don’t forget that we need 150K new jobs per month for college grads, etc

a little fact that the analysts and reporters conveniently forget when they are spinning the numbers

[4plexowner]

and don’t forget that we need 150K new jobs per month for college grads, etc

a little fact that the analysts and reporters conveniently forget when they are spinning the numbers

[4plexowner]

and don’t forget that we need 150K new jobs per month for college grads, etc

a little fact that the analysts and reporters conveniently forget when they are spinning the numbers

[4plexowner]

and don’t forget that we need 150K new jobs per month for college grads, etc

a little fact that the analysts and reporters conveniently forget when they are spinning the numbers

[Author]

Posts