Weekly initial jobless claims rise by 0.485% …
posted at 10:45 am on September 8, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
Initial weekly jobless claims rose 2,000 to 414,000 from last week’s adjusted figure of 412,000, in what any statistician would say is statistical noise. It represents a 0.485% change from the week before. The rolling 4-week average rose 3750 to 414,750, a change of 0.912% from last week’s report. Both are barely deviations week-on-week, and both fall solidly into the range of results we have seen from this measure over the last several weeks.
Which is why, of course, it comes as a complete shock to Reuters:
New U.S. jobless claims rose unexpectedly last week, further evidence of a weak labor market just hours before President Barack Obama delivers a major address to Congress on the issue.
Applications for unemployment benefits rose to 414,000 in the week ending September 3 from an upwardly revised 412,000 the prior week, the Labor Department said on Thursday. Wall Street analysts had been looking for a dip to 405,000.
Just how unexpected was this result? Reuters explains in the next sentence:
Excluding one week in early August, claims have held above 400,000 since early April.
Wow. Has anyone revived the panel of economists Reuters employs yet? I imagine their smelling-salts budget must be astronomical.
Since I’m pretty sure some editor at Reuters will think twice about letting this stay as is, I’ve captured the moment in graphic form:
Apparently, every negative economic indicator is “unexpected” at Reuters, which prompts the question as to whether they’re actually paying any attention to results — or just buying the White House spin.










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Reuters is a dumb organization.
taney71 on September 8, 2011 at 10:48 AM
I’d like to meet the person who is continuously surprised by the unemployment reports. He must be a complete imbecile.
scrubjay on September 8, 2011 at 10:48 AM
And I bet that will be revised as well to be over 400K
ConservativePartyNow on September 8, 2011 at 10:49 AM
he sits in the oval office
ConservativePartyNow on September 8, 2011 at 10:50 AM
More like writing the spin for them.
John Deaux on September 8, 2011 at 10:51 AM
Is Reuters employing economists or astrologists?
rbj on September 8, 2011 at 10:51 AM
My guess is that the word “unexpected” comes from the fact that the Obama administration probably puts out statements “expecting” jobless numbers to drop by a certain amount, based on complex models obtained from Biden’s posterior. Then, when the jobless numbers exceed the model’s prediction, they say the jobless numbers “unexpectedly” rose. Clever.
Outlander on September 8, 2011 at 10:51 AM
Well, at least Fiona is still employed.
Do comments at Reuters ask for names of the surprised economists? I’m not giving them a click if they’re so clueless.
NaCly dog on September 8, 2011 at 10:52 AM
I expect job claims to go way down starting tomorrow!
SouthernGent on September 8, 2011 at 10:54 AM
Did Reuters even write that? Isn’t that just a reprint of a press release from the Government Labor Department?
Skandia Recluse on September 8, 2011 at 10:54 AM
yep, these changes need to exceed 9K before they are worth noting.
ted c on September 8, 2011 at 10:54 AM
The Obama Recession, you bone it you own it.
Chip on September 8, 2011 at 10:57 AM
I saw Gretchen Carlson interview Jay Carney on Fox and Friends this morning regarding the president’s speech tonight.
She mentioned the $300/$400 billion the president is expected to ask for, which Carney said would be “paid for”. I was hoping she would ask if China was paying for it or the evil rich folk.
I can barely stand watching Carney mouthing the typical talking points. There is no way I can watch the president spew the same garbage about jobs that he has been lying about for too long.
VibrioCocci on September 8, 2011 at 10:57 AM
Luckily, they are too stupid to realize that by using the word “unexpectedly”, it makes Obama seem like a failed leader.
faraway on September 8, 2011 at 10:57 AM
Unexpectedly when I put my hand in a running blender the results were bad. But what really surprised me and caught me off guard was that when I did it a second time my injured hand sustained additional injuries. I expect better results when I try it for a third time later today.
NotCoach on September 8, 2011 at 10:57 AM
From the (AP): “Businesses have stopped hiring.”
I laugh at those who think the Presidential debates couldn’t be Obama v “Inanimate Carbon Rod” and IRC not be elected.
Marcus on September 8, 2011 at 10:58 AM
Uhm, ICR
Marcus on September 8, 2011 at 10:58 AM
“The economy tricked me!” – Barack Hussein Obama
NotCoach on September 8, 2011 at 10:58 AM
..it would appear that a lot of the candidates — particularly Romney — had it right last night when they described Obama and his asss-clown administration as “clueless”.
The War Planner on September 8, 2011 at 10:59 AM
At least a carbon rod is a building block for life. Obama, not so much.
NotCoach on September 8, 2011 at 11:00 AM
Revised? I didn’t hear anyone in the administration crowing about that one, either.
MassVictim on September 8, 2011 at 11:00 AM
How long now has it been they have been “surprised”?
golfmann on September 8, 2011 at 11:02 AM
Last week’s figure was unexpectedly upwardly revised again.
forest on September 8, 2011 at 11:02 AM
Tingles Matthews: “Voters don’t care. Obama believes in science!”
Marcus on September 8, 2011 at 11:02 AM
Hey, look on the bright side. They’ll all get 99+ months of unemployment checks. Just think: A 7+ year vacation!
UnderstandingisPower on September 8, 2011 at 11:10 AM
I saw Gretchen too, she was surprisingly aggressive. I also saw the little commie Jarrett on, saying that little Bammie would focus on closing loopholes. Of course these nutball socialists have a whole new view of what constitutes a ‘loophole’.
slickwillie2001 on September 8, 2011 at 11:17 AM
In Nov 2012 everything will unexpectedly get better.
angryed on September 8, 2011 at 11:17 AM
Maybe this is the real reason The Won wanted to bore us on Wednesday instead of tonight. You have to admit this is pretty good stuff to hit the news before you go on national TV to tell the country how effective you’ve been but you need to do more of the same.
Cindy Munford on September 8, 2011 at 11:21 AM
All I care about, come Nov 2012 (or, I suppose I should say, January 2013) I want the unemployment rate to “unexpectedly” increase by ONE, if you catch my drift.
Vyce on September 8, 2011 at 11:26 AM
Let me be clear. Make no mistake. The time for putting your hand in the blender is over. The time for letting me explain how to place your other hand in the blender is now.
Drained Brain on September 8, 2011 at 11:27 AM
I used to think Reuters was a quality news organization because it was founded by Edward G. Robinson.
Dr. Carlo Lombardi on September 8, 2011 at 11:28 AM
Can we start referring to tonight’s address as a “Pre-game Show”?
tomg51 on September 8, 2011 at 11:30 AM
Ed, this running theme you have about “unexpected” movements is completely off-base, as I’ve commented several times. This is just how journalism reports ANY economic news: they poll economists, get an estimate, and if the actual number is outside the range of those estimates, they say the movement is unexpected. It might be a dumb way to report news, but it’s the way that everyone does it, and it’s true for all types of economic news (company earnings reports, jobless reports, etc.), and no matter the direction.
Here’s a random recent example of them using it when jobless claims were below economists’ estimates: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/28/usa-economy-jobless-idUSN1E76Q1FC20110728
Here’s an example from a random stock, just to show that this is common practice for even trivial news: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/11/us-elizabetharden-idUSTRE77A22720110811
You can find tons of these if you just read economic news on a regular basis. There’s no reason to attribute bias. It’s just a way of reporting, even if you think it’s not an effective way to report the news.
And if you think it’s the economists’ fault for constantly giving bad estimates, while economists don’t do a particularly good job of predicting these things, it’s almost impossible to predict accurately and I’m sure none of us could do better on a consistent basis (otherwise we could get filthy rich on the stock market).
tneloms on September 8, 2011 at 11:30 AM
What the heck keeps happening to my comments? Do you guys have an issue with cnsnews or something?
dogsoldier on September 8, 2011 at 11:30 AM
It would help if he believed in math.
forest on September 8, 2011 at 11:32 AM
What you won’t hear tonight.
The question of course is what can actually be done to substantively improve the economic situation? Well here’s my 2 cents worth just for starters.
Reform the corporate tax code to create multi-tiered system.
Tier one: If your business income is derived from the manufacture, transport or sales of real physical goods you get taxed on that income at a very low rate. This would apply from top level heavy industry all the way to the bottom where the mom and pop shop is selling gas and potato chips. There should be differentiations within this rate depending upon what percentage of components or raw material goods are derived domestically and what percentage are imported. This would encourage the expansion of on shore business to produce or procure components or raw materials here at home rather than importing them. In other words, a tariff by other means.
Tier two: If your business income is derived from speculation, i.e. just moving money from one pile to another and not actually producing any real goods as exemplified by the FOREX carry trade, commodity speculation, stock and bond trading, you get taxed at a much higher rate and have severe restrictions placed on what are allowable deductable expenses. This would not include the individual who trades within small accounts or their own 401K or IRA to try and make a few extra bucks to put their kids through school or make their retirement a little easier. We’re talking large institutional speculators trading on their own accounts not managing the accounts of individuals below certain threshold levels.
This tier would not apply to transactions wherein these same institutions make loans to businesses engaged in tier one activities or mortgages or car loans and the like, provided they keep those loans on their own books and maintain a real interest and indeed risk in how well those loans perform. The very minute that they bundle those loans into CDOs (collateralized debt obligations) all previous and future income becomes taxed at the tier two rate. If they simply sell those loans to another entity, any profit derived over and above the normal expected rate of return on that loan would be taxed at tier two rates, except in the case where the proceeds of the sale are then used to extend further business and job creating loans.
Tier three: Over a set period of time either phase out and then ban OTC derivative trades and the creation of CDOs or tax and regulate them at such a rate as to make them completely unprofitable. Ban the issuance of CDSs (credit default swaps) to anyone other than the primary risk taker. Ban financial and securities firms from taking out CDSs on the securities they have sold to their customers either directly or indirectly through subsidiary companies.
Don’t hold your breath waiting to hear any of our politicians talking such common sense as long as the revolving door between Wall Street and the Treasury Department remains in operation. Even suggesting it would unleash a pestilence of lobbyists and under the counter campaign contributions to kill it like nothing that has ever been seen.
We have been suckered into believing the fixed pie theory. It’s a fallacy perpetrated by the left and the banks. The money exists, government policy, and in this case tax policy, must be changed to pull it out of speculative none productive applications and into manufacturing and trade where real wealth and jobs are created, the economy expands and the pie gets bigger.
http://theeveningchronicle.blogspot.com/2011/09/before-president-speaks.html
LCT688 on September 8, 2011 at 11:33 AM
Another 414,000 people hit the bricks.
Youngstown state university repoerts the defacto unemployment rate at 29%
shadowstats shows it somewhat less.
www DOT cnsnews DOT com/news/article/real-unemployment-rate-rose-august-162-2
Reports what a couple congressmen have recently said, that the actual count of the unemployed is approximately 30 million.
FailBama’s feeble do-over of porkulus will not make a dent in a problem of this magnitude. Not that he cares. It’s all about the CAMPAIGN.
dogsoldier on September 8, 2011 at 11:37 AM
Next week it is EXPECTED that the Rueters writers will STILL not invest in a Thesaurus.
barnone on September 8, 2011 at 11:41 AM
Haha, U R really stoopid!!!
Use da other hand, ya Dummy!
/any White House expert policy advisor
VelvetElvis on September 8, 2011 at 11:51 AM
I’m predicting that new unemployment claims will be in a range from 400K-425K for the next six months. I’m not an economist.
Care to wager who will be unexpectedly wrong more often in the next six months, me or the experts at Reuters?
VelvetElvis on September 8, 2011 at 11:58 AM
ROFLMAO! Ouch! That’s gonna leave mark! Well played!
Mr_Magoo on September 8, 2011 at 12:09 PM
FIFY
kooly on September 8, 2011 at 12:20 PM
tneloms on September 8, 2011 at 11:30 AM
Why predict at all? I mean, really, what’s the point? Do they ever report “as expected?”
Mr_Magoo on September 8, 2011 at 12:29 PM
Could be right. I imagine a lot of folks with give up trying after hearing TheOne(tm) talk.
OBQuiet on September 8, 2011 at 12:30 PM
I dunno, after she got laid off at Gulfstream, I heard she was hired at Gibson Guitar Corp…
Fallon on September 8, 2011 at 12:30 PM
.
Actually, Reuters continues to use the “unexpectedly” language to dog-whistle Ed Morrissey into mentioning it in his analysis of the current abysmal job statistics. Any good analyst would know that!
ExpressoBold on September 8, 2011 at 12:43 PM
I totally agree that it’s a somewhat silly way of reporting news. The economists do give a range, and small deviations like this shouldn’t be considered particularly noteworthy. But my point is simply that this is standard practice (e.g., “earnings were higher than expected, and the stock rose today”) and that it’s true in both directions, and has nothing to do with bias.
By the way, for the record, they’re not “experts at Reuters.” They’re economists who normally analyze these numbers who are polled by Reuters as well as many other news organizations. They don’t work for Reuters or any other news organization.
tneloms on September 8, 2011 at 1:16 PM
I meant to address my comment above to you too.
tneloms on September 8, 2011 at 1:17 PM
Probably hides his own Easter Eggs, too.
Proud Texan on September 8, 2011 at 1:45 PM
Wait… something’s coming through in my crystal ball…
It a headline from the future:
“Unemployment unexpectedly drops to 3.6% Experts say the P_____ administration policies not likely to be the cause.”
Steve Keeley on September 8, 2011 at 2:26 PM
And then can’t find them.
Steve Keeley on September 8, 2011 at 2:27 PM
You noticed what happened to me last week, eh?
Seriously, they did keep “unexpectedly” in the final revision.
Steve Eggleston on September 8, 2011 at 2:48 PM