« | »

New Jobless Claims Edge Down – Not Really

From Reuters:

Jobless claims edge down last week

Lucia Mutikani
WASHINGTON | Thu Aug 4, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – New laims [sic] for unemployment benefits were little changed last week, a government report showed on Thursday, pointing to a marginal improvement in the labor market.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits nudged down 1,000 to a seasonally adjusted 400,000, the Labor Department said.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims rising to 405,000. The prior week’s figure was revised up to 401,000 from the previously reported 398,000

Here is how Reuters trumpeted last week’s number:

U.S. jobless claims fall below 400,000

WASHINGTON, July 28 (Reuters) – New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits fell more than expected last week, dropping below the key 400,000 level for the first time since early April

But the Obama administration will have gotten the headlines it wanted. And that’s all that really matters.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, August 4th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

2 Responses to “New Jobless Claims Edge Down – Not Really”

  1. spudmom says:

    Dear Administrator, can we get a graph of the “announced” stats overlaid on the “revised” stats so we can accurately estimate the amount of propaganda we are being fed with these numbers? Have we ever seen the revisions go the other way (better than first announced?)

  2. proreason says:

    What good is this jobless claims statistic anyway. I think it has only gotten so much attention because it is so easy to manipulate by the criminals in the bureaucracy.

    The economy can be raging, and jobless claims might still be half a million. The difference would be that people could easily find new jobs.

    And since about 10 million people have been thrown out of work by Little Lenin, OF COURSE new jobless claims have to be relatively low relative to the full-employment economy of 2007 and 2008. Because the workforce is smaller, stupid.

    So, take the 400,000 number and make it 500,000. That would be more accurate compared to a full employment economy.

    You can bet your last dollar that the reason they use the raw number rather than a % of the workforce is because it makes this depression seem more like a recession.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »