Weekly initial jobless claims at 388K

posted at 9:21 am on April 26, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Up? Down? All around?  The new level for weekly jobless claims this week hit 388,000, according to the Department of Labor, which would have been an increase of 2,000 over last week’s initial level of 386,000.  Last week’s report got revised upward by 3,000, though, so the DoL calls this a decrease of 1,000:

In the week ending April 21, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 388,000, a decrease of 1,000 from the previous week’s revised figure of 389,000. The 4-week moving average was 381,750, an increase of 6,250 from the previous week’s revised average of 375,500.

The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.6 percent for the week ending April 14, unchanged from the prior week.

The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending April 14 was 3,315,000, an increase of 3,000 from the preceding week’s revised level of 3,312,000. The 4-week moving average was 3,311,750, a decrease of 9,750 from the preceding week’s revised average of 3,321,500.

The four-week moving average tells the story more clearly.  Just two weeks ago, it was at 368,500 while the jobless claims increased.  The ramp-up in joblessness is not a huge trend, but it’s definitely turning into a trend, and it’s going in the wrong direction.

AP’s Chris Rugaber notes that this is the highest level in three months, both in the weekly level and in the four-week rolling average:

The number of people seeking U.S. unemployment benefits remained stuck near a three-month high last week, a sign that hiring has likely slowed since winter.

The Labor Department said Thursday that weekly applications dipped 1,000 to a seasonally adjusted 388,000. It was little changed from the previous week’s figure, the highest since Jan. 7.

The four-week average, a less volatile measure, rose to 381,750, also the highest in three months.

Rugaber shoots down the notion that the slowdown occurred because of “temporary layoffs during the spring holidays” by noting that hiring has obviously not rebounded since.  I’m not aware of any significant seasonal cycle of drops in employment over spring breaks.  The fact that the March jobs report was so mediocre and that this trend has been under way for a month makes it pretty clear that this is no seasonal burp.

For comedy, try Reuters, which headlines its report “Jobless claims ease but four-week average rises”:

 New claims for unemployment benefits fell slightly last week but a trend reading rose to its highest since January, the latest sign of a weaker pace of healing in the still-struggling labor market.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits dropped by 1,000 to a seasonally adjusted 388,000, the Labor Department said on Thursday. The prior week’s figure was revised up to 389,000 from the previously reported 386,000.

Er … right.  Jobless claims “eased” only if you compare the revised number from last week to the initial number from this week.  If the pattern holds, next week’s revised number will be a few thousand higher than today’s number, which is exactly what we saw over the last few weeks.  The story in this case isn’t that jobless claims are easing, but that they’re increasing.  The AP gets it right, while Reuters apparently is trying out for a spot on Team Obama.

Hey, at least they didn’t repeat the 400K myth this week.  Maybe we’ll see less of it as claims keep climbing higher to the 400K level.

Update: Suitably Flip has more on the revisions game:

For the 59th week of the last 60, the previous initial jobless claim report was revised upward, from 386,000 to 389,000.  And once again, this enables the Labor Department to report a week-over-week decline in new jobless claims, from the adjusted 389,000 to an adjusted 388,000.  Upon next week’s revision, this week will almost certainly have shown another increase.

If that sounds familiar, it may be because last week, the government reported a decline of 2,000 (but only after upwardly revising the previous week by 8,000).

Looking back over the last five weeks, the cumulative reported weekly changes (from previous weeks’ adjusted data to the new unadjusted numbers) showed a net decline of 1,000, despite an actual cumulative net increase of 24,000.  And that’s without the 5th revision factored in, at which point the cumulative increase will be closer to 30,000.

In addition to serving as fodder for another round of “Jobless Claims Fall” headlines, this week’s underestimate has the additional side effect of avoiding the probably true headline “Jobless Claims Reach New 2012 High” from being written (at least for another week).  They started at 390,000 in early January and, assuming next week brings an upward revision of more than 2,000 (revisions have ranged from +3,000 to +10,000 over the last month), then we’re already sitting at year-to-date highs.

Give credit to the AP for actually headlining the news, rather than the spin.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Hiring won’t happen until business expansion happens. Business expansion won’t happen until this bumbling marxist loses HIS job.

wildcat72 on April 26, 2012 at 9:24 AM

And what’s the workforce participation rate? How many discouraged workers are out there not looking for work?

rbj on April 26, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Unexpectedly!

Philly on April 26, 2012 at 9:26 AM

What ever happened to Fiona…the chick with the cellphone? Hope she wasn’t in Columbia looking for work.

Dingbat63 on April 26, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Yeah, …but…college loans….and the Buffett rule. Oh, and Seamus the Irish Setter.

a capella on April 26, 2012 at 9:27 AM

When’s the next jobs report? Next Friday?

Doughboy on April 26, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Nothing a little “tweaking” of the labor participation rate can’t fix. Get to it, BLS! You’ve got a President to save.

Weight of Glory on April 26, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Er … right. Jobless claims “eased” only if you compare the revised number from last week to the initial number from this week. If the pattern holds, next week’s revised number will be a few thousand higher than today’s number, which is exactly what we saw over the last few weeks. The story in this case isn’t that jobless claims are easing, but that they’re increasing. The AP gets it right, while Reuters apparently is trying out for a spot on Team Obama.

Hey, at least they didn’t repeat the 400K myth this week. Maybe we’ll see less of it as claims keep climbing higher to the 400K level.

Glad I wasn’t the only one to catch that. At this rate of “easing”, we’ll be back at 400K this time next month.

Remember what I said the prior two weeks about this one being the key because of the prior two weeks being skewed due to Easter, and that to show that things weren’t sliding, the number needed to be under 370K this time around? Grab your hats; things are getting very bumpy. Like last year, there’s no downward slope to the annual Easter bubble.

Steve Eggleston on April 26, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Hiring won’t happen until business expansion happens. Business expansion won’t happen until this bumbling marxist loses HIS job.

wildcat72 on April 26, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Were he not so incompetent, we’d all be government employees by now …

ShainS on April 26, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Last week’s report got revised upward by 3,000, though, so the DoL calls this a decrease of 1,000:

How convenient. I have no faith in any agency under this administration. Defense is being run by a politician with no relevant experience. State is being run by a woman who got the job as a sop to a particular wing of the Democrat Party. DoL and other agencies make up statistics to further the “narrative” that the economy is not a moribund mess completely of the Democrat’s making.

Happy Nomad on April 26, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Obama eats dogs.

Malachi45 on April 26, 2012 at 9:29 AM

And what’s the workforce participation rate? How many discouraged workers are out there not looking for work?

rbj on April 26, 2012 at 9:25 AM

We’ll know that on May 4, as that comes out monthly. It’s not going to be pretty.

Steve Eggleston on April 26, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Obama eats dogs.

Malachi45 on April 26, 2012 at 9:29 AM

And at the rate this economy’s going, so will we.

Steve Eggleston on April 26, 2012 at 9:29 AM

I’ve been tracking the weekly numbers and weekly headlines here: http://www.chrisofrights.com/2012/04/jobless-claims.html

It’s amazing. If you just looked at the headlines, you’d think things were getting better every single week.

Chris of Rights on April 26, 2012 at 9:30 AM

When Haitians and Congolese start offering us foreign aid, you know we’re in the crapper.

Bishop on April 26, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Up? Down? All around?

Paul Revere and the Raiders?

50sGuy on April 26, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Quick question: If jobless claims keep falling every week, why’s the number getting bigger?

Weight of Glory on April 26, 2012 at 9:31 AM

If you think my butt the number is too big, you gotta check my sister the adjustment

Archivarix on April 26, 2012 at 9:32 AM

When’s the next jobs report? Next Friday?

Doughboy on April 26, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Unless I misread my copy of the release schedule, next week Friday is that day. Call it Black Friday.

Steve Eggleston on April 26, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Unless I misread my copy of the release schedule, next week Friday is that day. Call it Black Friday.

Steve Eggleston on April 26, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Maybe Obama will get lucky and no one will hear about the jobs figures if they’re all out seeing The Avengers.

Doughboy on April 26, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Cue the idiotic ed telling us that Obama is doing a good job rhetoric. Its getting old.

At least they had a good month in February talking about ‘trends.’ Now that the word ‘trend’ is the wrong way, the media will have to find a new buzzword to latch on. And obviously ‘unexpectably’ has run it’s course.

Bensonofben on April 26, 2012 at 9:34 AM

The revision BS is absolutely brazen.

Has any MSM report taken note of it? We’ve been ranting about it for at least a year now.

forest on April 26, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Quick question: If jobless claims keep falling every week, why’s the number getting bigger?

Weight of Glory on April 26, 2012 at 9:31 AM

The magic of revisionism. The number two weeks ago was revised upward by 8K. Last week’s number was revised upward 3K, which actually was a bit less than the average +4K revision over the past year. This one is likely going to end up being at least 390K.

Steve Eggleston on April 26, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Unless I misread my copy of the release schedule, next week Friday is that day. Call it Black Friday.

Steve Eggleston on April 26, 2012 at 9:32 AM

RACIST!!!!!!!

Call it a Friday of color.

Happy Nomad on April 26, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Steve Eggleston on April 26, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Oh I know. I was just trying to be cute. Apparently that falls as flat on the internet as it does in my day to day life…

Weight of Glory on April 26, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Recovery summer decade!

antipc on April 26, 2012 at 9:38 AM

RAAAAACIST!!!!11!!11!1eleventy!!11

Call it a Friday of color.

Happy Nomad on April 26, 2012 at 9:35 AM

There’s 5 A’s, a few 1′s, and an eleventy in “RAAAAACIST!!!!11!!11!1eleventy!!11″ :-)

Steve Eggleston on April 26, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Oh I know. I was just trying to be cute. Apparently that falls as flat on the internet as it does in my day to day life…

Weight of Glory on April 26, 2012 at 9:37 AM

I am usually better at seeing the <humor> tag. My bad.

Steve Eggleston on April 26, 2012 at 9:39 AM

It’s quite amazing how we’ve gone from 350k only six weeks ago to 388k this week.

Yet every week the headline reads: Initial Jobless Claims Drop. LOL!

kevinkristy on April 26, 2012 at 9:39 AM

I am usually better at seeing the tag. My bad.

Steve Eggleston on April 26, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Not your fault. Ask my wife, I can hide the funny like no one else.

Weight of Glory on April 26, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Quick question: If jobless claims keep falling every week, why’s the number getting bigger?

Weight of Glory on April 26, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Does it matter when the numbers are fictional in the first place? Think about it. Why do we measure by the number of initial jobless claims?

We should be using the U-6 rate which is defined as:

Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force.

That number is 15% but Obama never mentions those marginally attached to the labor force because he is selling the idea that his policies are making the economy rebound like gangbusters.

Happy Nomad on April 26, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Pay no attention to the lousy job numbers, America (or the rising price of gas and food, or the rising debt, or the rising number of Americans and illegal aliens getting food stamps, or any of those other racist numbers).

Did you know Mitt Romney took his dog on vacation 30 years ago?

AZCoyote on April 26, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Why aren’t we getting over 1 million claims for month, if you’re getting 386,000 per week?

bflat879 on April 26, 2012 at 9:44 AM

I can’t wait to see the political GDP number.

Anybody know exactly how inflation is accounted for in the GDP numbers? I have a sneaking suspicion that the gross underestimate of the inflation rate will lead to the high $ amounts being spent on gasoline and other inflated goods being misconstrued as growth. Seems like an easy way for these guys to fake the numbers to show growth that’s not occurring.

forest on April 26, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Didn’t we have an article last week about how financial firms are now becoming quite aware of the numbers game, so they’re no longer factoring it in?

Also, isn’t this a good thing?

Because when the MSM is forced to report the 390K+ number, it’s going to be after weeks of “unemployment decline” numbers?

Isn’t this going to create a shockwave effect?

Consider if all you’ve heard, are numbers dropping – 380k, 375k, 370k – then next week, you get hit with “unemployment at 395K”.

If you didn’t know better, you would think it was close to a 30K spike.

budfox on April 26, 2012 at 9:45 AM

To be revised upward after you stop paying attention.

Washington Nearsider on April 26, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Does it matter when the numbers are fictional in the first place? Think about it. Why do we measure by the number of initial jobless claims?

Happy Nomad on April 26, 2012 at 9:42 AM

The initial jobless claims, unlike the unemployment rates, is a weekly measure. As for the unemployment rates, even the U-6 rate underreports things as it does not include those who still want to work but last looked more than 52 weeks prior to the survey.

Steve Eggleston on April 26, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Hey things could be worse. The Obama administration could be involved in grenade trafficking.

Wigglesworth on April 26, 2012 at 9:47 AM

And what’s the workforce participation rate? How many discouraged workers are out there not looking for work?

rbj on April 26, 2012 at 9:25 AM

That is what scares me… After Romney wins, he needs to update the unemployment rate to real unemployment which is about 17%, give or take a couple percentage points. Otherwise, the discouraged people are going to start looking again and we can add 400,000 jobs and the unemployment rate will go up because more people will begin looking.

If he takes the hit on his first week and says “Obama has been cooking the books” from there on it will make his numbers look better on a weekly basis. The last thing we need is a Dem President again in 4 years from now.

jeffn21 on April 26, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Again!…Liars figure…so figure’s lie!
JugEars is not the only one eating dog!

KOOLAID2 on April 26, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Oh I know. I was just trying to be cute. Apparently that falls as flat on the internet as it does in my day to day life…

Weight of Glory on April 26, 2012 at 9:37 AM

I am usually better at seeing the tag. My bad.

Steve Eggleston on April 26, 2012 at 9:39 AM

The Ministry of Truth is making it pretty difficult to tell the difference between jokes and serious these days.

59 of 60 weeks revised in the same direction? You’d think that’s gotta be a joke, right?

forest on April 26, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Why aren’t we getting over 1 million claims for month, if you’re getting 386,000 per week?

bflat879 on April 26, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Nothing To See Here

budfox on April 26, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Give credit to the AP for actually headlining the news, rather than the spin.

The AP telling the truth? Where’s the headline that Hell froze over?

Bitter Clinger on April 26, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Why aren’t we getting over 1 million claims for month, if you’re getting 386,000 per week?

bflat879 on April 26, 2012 at 9:44 AM

This only measures the “unemployed” portion of the job churn because unemployment is a government program (for better or for worse). Honestly, I’m all right with that because if government were able to measure the “hired” part on a weekly basis, that would mean that government has become the dominant employer.

Steve Eggleston on April 26, 2012 at 9:50 AM

You know what’ll really improve the job market? That absolutely massive tax increase we’re scheduled for starting in January 2013 that the Democrats are so excited about. Then we’ll really be cooking with gas.

eyedoc on April 26, 2012 at 9:52 AM

So, if the weekly claims have been so bad lately, what does that mean for the April jobs report we’ll see in a couple of weeks? I’d imagine it’s going to be pretty bad.

eyedoc on April 26, 2012 at 9:54 AM

They can spin this disaster any way they want, but the reality ultimately catches up with people’s lives.

“The real world is all around us,” political advisers told Jimmy Carter in the final days of the 1980 campaign when the bottom fell out of his polling numbers.

No one should spend ten cents on ANYTHING not essential b/w now and Election Day. Clothing, durable goods, automobiles, expensive restaurants — delay or cancel ALL purchases. An improving economy only helps Obama.

matthew8787 on April 26, 2012 at 9:56 AM

That is what scares me… After Romney wins, he needs to update the unemployment rate to real unemployment which is about 17%, give or take a couple percentage points. Otherwise, the discouraged people are going to start looking again and we can add 400,000 jobs and the unemployment rate will go up because more people will begin looking.

If he takes the hit on his first week and says “Obama has been cooking the books” from there on it will make his numbers look better on a weekly basis. The last thing we need is a Dem President again in 4 years from now.

jeffn21 on April 26, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Actually, he needs to start doing that now, or else the MSM is going to blame him for the uptick and forget the “people returning to the labor market” meme they hand Barry every few months.

Always remember what the MSM did to Bush 41.

He raised taxes and explicitly said “we would not see the benefit until his second term”. The MSM only reported “broken promise”.

Within the first six months of Clinton’s term, the economy rebounds, and every headline gave Bill the credit, while buried deep within, they would add “oh, yeah, this is because of Bush policies, because nothing of Clinton’s has been enacted yet”.

Romney is going to get the same treatment for different results.

budfox on April 26, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Things are just fine so just slow down here. A talking head said just last night on the “TV” so you know its right that unemployment would be 7.8% by election day.

BullShooterAsInElk on April 26, 2012 at 9:57 AM

It’s amazing. If you just looked at the headlines, you’d think things were getting better every single week.

Chris of Rights on April 26, 2012 at 9:30 AM

I wonder if that’s exactly the problem. Could it be that thousands of unemployed people, seeing the MSM headlines, actually have hope that some businesses are hiring now that we are supposedly in a recovery? And they don’t find out the cruel truth until they’re turned down by one business after another? It would be beautifully sweet poetic justice if the crooked Obama regime lost popularity in the end because of their constant accounting tricks.

jwolf on April 26, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Seems to have leveled off, after the drop we experienced for the first 2 months. After an initial growth spurt to start the year, the economy appears to be slowly slightly as Spring moves on; we will be looking carefully at the GDP number due out tomorrow and the employment report due out next week. One good sign (as far as employment is concerned): Corporate profits continue to be very strong, which implies that the employment situation should remain stable. Looking for +150-200K jobs gain in the report next week.

Markets taking it all in stride, seemingly more concerned with Europe and China at this point …

TouchdownBuddha on April 26, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Things are just fine so just slow down here. A talking head said just last night on the “TV” so you know its right that unemployment would be 7.8% by election day.

BullShooterAsInElk on April 26, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Yeah. Didn’t Bernanke make that claim yesterday?

He knows as much, and certainly more, than we do.

budfox on April 26, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Hey things could be worse. The Obama administration could be involved in grenade trafficking.

Wigglesworth on April 26, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Hey, what is the problem? Even if they exploded and killed innocent people, the ATF would have been able to identify just which grenades they provided!

Happy Nomad on April 26, 2012 at 10:02 AM

I can’t wait to see the political GDP number.

Anybody know exactly how inflation is accounted for in the GDP numbers? I have a sneaking suspicion that the gross underestimate of the inflation rate will lead to the high $ amounts being spent on gasoline and other inflated goods being misconstrued as growth. Seems like an easy way for these guys to fake the numbers to show growth that’s not occurring.

forest on April 26, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Real GDP, the change in which is the percentage reported, uses the Consumer Price Index (I believe the Urban Consumer variety, and specifically the “all-goods” version which includes energy and food) as its inflation modifier, and is expressed in constant (at this point, 2005) dollars. For the first quarter of this year, the CPI-U increased at a 3.7% annualized rate.

Nominal GDP, on the other hand, does not take inflation into account.

Steve Eggleston on April 26, 2012 at 10:02 AM

People can always remember how cool Obama is while sending out resumes for jobs. I suggest they watch him slow jam the news.

The MSM was impressed at how cool he was when he did that.

milcus on April 26, 2012 at 10:02 AM

We’ll know that on May 4, as that comes out monthly. It’s not going to be pretty.

Steve Eggleston on April 26, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Mittens needs to hammer that home. Do not accept the Bureau of Lying Statistics 8.2% bullsh!t (which will magically be 7.5% by November, if not lower).

If the economy is recovering, why aren’t home sales going up — people in my neighborhood have given up trying to sell their houses.

If the economy is recovering, why do unemployed college graduates need help in getting rid of student loans — shouldn’t they be employed?

rbj on April 26, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Keep repeating, “it would have been so much worse”. That’s the weak cover up for the failure, blame Bush & not the Dem Congress of ’07 & 08. But we can’t know how much worse because that’s pure speculation. We do know how much worse under Obama and his Party.
The media is going to have to do some massive lies for their hero Barack.

arand on April 26, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Obama eats dogs.

Malachi45 on April 26, 2012 at 9:29 AM
And at the rate this economy’s going, so will we.

Steve Eggleston on April 26, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Winner!!

docflash on April 26, 2012 at 10:05 AM

You know what’ll really improve the job market? That absolutely massive tax increase we’re scheduled for starting in January 2013 that the Democrats are so excited about. Then we’ll really be cooking with gas.

eyedoc on April 26, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Whoops; we can’t cook with gas. Charcoal is also out; it contains the word “coal”, after all. Oh, I know; we’ll cook with a wood fir…er, nope, can’t have an open flame producing carbon dioxide either.

Electric it is, but with no coal-fired plants, no nukes, no fracking for natural gas, and no hydroelectric, good luck getting juice during the rolling blackouts necessary to not overload the windblown and sunburnt system.

Steve Eggleston on April 26, 2012 at 10:05 AM

God forbid our Marxist bumbling rapping boob gets re-elected….November unemployment could easiy hit a million a week…..everyone I know is just hanging on in the hope he goes…if he returns, I myself will lay off 40% of my staff and go into 1st gear for the next 4 years…no more busting my ass for higher taxes, low pay and working to keep my employees employed.

SDarchitect on April 26, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Cue the idiotic ed telling us that Obama is doing a good job rhetoric. Its getting old.

That all depends on which persona ed tries on for a particular day hour thread page of a thread.

ed seems to be inspired by the awesome Todd Haynes film I’m Not There, a biography of Bob Dylan in which six different actors played different sides of the folk legend.

Sometimes, ed is a radical left-wing secularist who thinks 0bama is just as much a “corporate stooge” and “warmonger” as Romney.

Or, ed can be a centrist Democrat who thinks the Bill Clinton who declared the era of big government to be over was just the greatest thing ever.

Lest we not forget, for a time ed was a Tea Party purist and Santorum supporter who hated Romney for being too liberal…unlike the ed who dislikes Romney for being too conservative.

MidniteRambler on April 26, 2012 at 10:16 AM

What ever happened to Fiona…the chick with the cellphone?

Dingbat63 on April 26, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Yeah. I was wondering, too. Maybe she gave up looking for work. Unexpectedly.

apostic on April 26, 2012 at 10:17 AM

After Romney wins, he needs to update the unemployment rate to real unemployment which is about 17%, give or take a couple percentage points. Otherwise, the discouraged people are going to start looking again and we can add 400,000 jobs and the unemployment rate will go up because more people will begin looking.

If he takes the hit on his first week and says “Obama has been cooking the books” from there on it will make his numbers look better on a weekly basis. The last thing we need is a Dem President again in 4 years from now.

jeffn21 on April 26, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Concur!!

Khun Joe on April 26, 2012 at 10:21 AM

November unemployment could easiy hit a million a week…..

SDarchitect on April 26, 2012 at 10:14 AM

But it won’t. Not with an election looming. The administration already has a plan how to cook the books to keep up the myth that the economy is improving and we just need to give the jug-eared bastard more time for his wonderful policies to work.

Of course, when President Romney does improve the economy, four years of blaming GWB will be replaced by four years of “I’m the one really responsible.”

Happy Nomad on April 26, 2012 at 10:23 AM

The ramp-up in joblessness is not a huge trend, but it’s definitely turning into a trend, and it’s going in the wrong direction.

,…..Stagnation.

“Hope and Change” that the fans of the Castro’s and Hugo’s celebrate.

4 more years of the chickenhawk,Wall St. bought President downgrade!!!!

Baxter Greene on April 26, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Obama ate my job.

itsacookbook on April 26, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Quick question: If jobless claims keep falling every week, why’s the number getting bigger?

Weight of Glory on April 26, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Now that’s just racist and look, over there! There’s a rainbow over The Won’s plane. It’s a sign. Eat your peas and shut up.

Oldnuke on April 26, 2012 at 10:33 AM

As much as I love and admire Ed, I sometimes thinks he goes overboard with the “MSM giving Obama a free pass on unemployment stats” meme. The Reuters article, at least the section he quotes, may be slightly skewed toward the Left, but on the whole it’s not that unreasonable. After all, weekly claims did decline, even by a small amount and for whatever reason (eased? declined? is one so much worse than the other?). The quoted section states the upward revision in last week’s claims, and prominently mentions the overall upward trend in joblessness for the past month. Skewed, maybe; “comedy,” no.

And as for all the shaking of the head about the “unexpectedly”‘s, those are usually based on comparisons with the consensus estimates of economists. If there has been a larger-than-normal spate of “unexpectedly”‘s over the past year, that’s because economists don’t expect economies to sputter like this one has, with a few months of improving stats and then yet another downturn.

Look, I am oh-so-well-aware how every sentence in many NYT and other MSM articles are purposely constructed to give the surface impression of balance when they are biased to the Left in the extreme. But to me, this report from Reuters just doesn’t seem to be one of those cases.

bobs1196 on April 26, 2012 at 10:39 AM

bobs1196 on April 26, 2012 at 10:39 AM

If you believe that when this past week’s jobless claims get revised next week, it will be below 389,000, I have a bridge to sell you.

Steve Eggleston on April 26, 2012 at 10:43 AM

slow jamming job creation.

t8stlikchkn on April 26, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Obama eats dogs.

Malachi45 on April 26, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Throw some dogs on the barby. With Obamanomics, we can’t afford steak.

Gunlock Bill on April 26, 2012 at 10:50 AM

The new level for weekly jobless claims this week hit 388,000, according to the Department of Labor, which would have been an increase of 2,000 over last week’s initial level of 386,000. Last week’s report got revised upward by 3,000, though, so the DoL calls this a decrease of 1,000:

So what happens next week, when that number is “revised” upwards? Will they then state that there WAS NOT a ‘decrease’ in the prior week?

Look for more of this crap as the election heats up.

GarandFan on April 26, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Real GDP, the change in which is the percentage reported, uses the Consumer Price Index (I believe the Urban Consumer variety, and specifically the “all-goods” version which includes energy and food) as its inflation modifier, and is expressed in constant (at this point, 2005) dollars. For the first quarter of this year, the CPI-U increased at a 3.7% annualized rate.

Nominal GDP, on the other hand, does not take inflation into account.

Steve Eggleston on April 26, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Thanks Steve. That’s what I was afraid of. So if inflation is actually more than 3.7% annualized, which it is, then they are counting some inflation as “growth”.

In spite of all this bad news I’m pretty sure they are going to secrete a GDP number of at least 2.5%.

forest on April 26, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Bye Obama

Conservative4ev on April 26, 2012 at 11:10 AM

And as for all the shaking of the head about the “unexpectedly”‘s, those are usually based on comparisons with the consensus estimates of economists. If there has been a larger-than-normal spate of “unexpectedly”‘s over the past year, that’s because economists don’t expect economies to sputter like this one has, with a few months of improving stats and then yet another downturn.

Look, I am oh-so-well-aware how every sentence in many NYT and other MSM articles are purposely constructed to give the surface impression of balance when they are biased to the Left in the extreme. But to me, this report from Reuters just doesn’t seem to be one of those cases.

bobs1196 on April 26, 2012 at 10:39 AM

You cannot be serious. Were this a Republican president, the lead headline for weeks would be that unemployment filings are revised UP for 59 of 60 weeks — this would be the lead narrative. And there wouldn’t be secondary push that the “economy is improving,” when clearly it is not. Indeed, they’d be talking DOWN the economy toward collapse — just as they did with Bush 41 in 1991-92.

As to the quoted economists, in any other profession they’d be fired for this performance — “unexpectedly” getting the trend wrong, week after week, for 59 of 60 weeks. All this proves is a demonstrated resistance to learning from actual experience.

matthew8787 on April 26, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Whoops; we can’t cook with gas. Charcoal is also out; it contains the word “coal”, after all. Oh, I know; we’ll cook with a wood fir…er, nope, can’t have an open flame producing carbon dioxide either.

Electric it is, but with no coal-fired plants, no nukes, no fracking for natural gas, and no hydroelectric, good luck getting juice during the rolling blackouts necessary to not overload the windblown and sunburnt system.

Steve Eggleston on April 26, 2012 at 10:05 AM

And this is what is putting Pennsylvania in play, along with other asinine decisions, such as restricting parents from allowing their children to work on family farms.

The Obama people are headed for the exits and have no clue of how stupid, dangerous, and out of touch they are.

matthew8787 on April 26, 2012 at 11:17 AM

MidniteRambler on April 26, 2012 at 10:16 AM

The Governor of Virginia is running a program for job growth nationally. He is an outstanding player in that area.

I have broken bread at his house and he is a smart man with very good people under him. He has some new ideas!

Now, the media should swing from down stories like this to cover him and the HOPE the other guys offer. This is how they write their shows when the Republicans mess up.

Mitt’s dad developed the Rambler. The image of one at midnight is a strange one.

IlikedAUH2O on April 26, 2012 at 11:29 AM

I’d love to know if previous administrations had the same tendency for under-reporting initial jobless claims in their original reports.

Is the 59 of 60 downward revisions unusual?

hawksruleva on April 26, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Since it was announced that the chocolate ration was “raised” to 10 grams, Winston had to revise previous erroneous reports that it was 15 grams before.

It is so much easier in the MSM when you do not have to explain why your story has changed.

KW64 on April 26, 2012 at 12:09 PM

bobs1196 on April 26, 2012 at 10:39 AM

If you believe that when this past week’s jobless claims get revised next week, it will be below 389,000, I have a bridge to sell you.

Steve Eggleston on April 26, 2012 at 10:43 AM

But do you want Reuters doing that job? Do you want them to editorialize and say we really doubt what’s going on because the numbers always get revised one way? How about when the corrections go the other way?

Reuters is there to report the numbers; that’s what they did.

bobs1196 on April 26, 2012 at 12:24 PM

I’d love to know if previous administrations had the same tendency for under-reporting initial jobless claims in their original reports.

Is the 59 of 60 downward upward revisions unusual?

hawksruleva on April 26, 2012 at 11:55 AM

I believe you meant “upward” revisions. There have been zero downward revisions in the past 60 weeks.

I’m working through the 2008 numbers now, and should have a Green Room post relating to this later today (dependent on time, of course, as I hope to also grab 2004 and 1996 numbers). While there is a history of revisions that year, there were fewer revisions total, a lower average revision, and perhaps most significantly, a fair number of downward revisions.

Steve Eggleston on April 26, 2012 at 12:37 PM

But do you want Reuters doing that job? Do you want them to editorialize and say we really doubt what’s going on because the numbers always get revised one way? How about when the corrections go the other way?

Reuters is there to report the numbers; that’s what they did.

bobs1196 on April 26, 2012 at 12:24 PM

They are editoralizing by comparing the tangerines of the past week’s initial numbers to the oranges of the prior week’s revised numbers. It has only been recently, and then infrequently, that Reuters has been mentioning what the revisions have been.

Steve Eggleston on April 26, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Last week’s report got revised upward by 3,000, though, so the DoL calls this a decrease of 1,000

Up, down, all around, government statistics, blah, blah, blah.
Ooh, look, a shiny metal object.

President 10-289 to the American people:
“You people are stupid, I’m cool, so vote for me.”

MichaelGabriel on April 26, 2012 at 12:46 PM

At least our President looks cool as our ship takes on more and more water. Weekly rounds on Leno, Letterman, Jimmy Fallon and SNL just might keep our minds off the real issues and the real images of our failing economy and failing country under this administration.

HoosierStateofMind on April 26, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Look, I am oh-so-well-aware how every sentence in many NYT and other MSM articles are purposely constructed to give the surface impression of balance when they are biased to the Left in the extreme. But to me, this report from Reuters just doesn’t seem to be one of those cases.

bobs1196 on April 26, 2012 at 10:39 AM

I think Ed was referring more to the headline than the article itself.

But al-Rooters is definitely fair game for criticism, going all the way back to when they Photoshopped news photos several years ago. Not to mention their genetic dislike of using the “D” letter when they run stories of politicians in trouble with the law. They only ID the “R” ones by letter.

And this isn’t the first time Al-Rooters has tried to spin the economy for O’bama…

Del Dolemonte on April 26, 2012 at 1:10 PM

What ever happened to Fiona…the chick with the cellphone? Hope she wasn’t in Columbia looking for work.

Dingbat63 on April 26, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Ah the fair Fiona! I’m nostalgic for straight reporting and headlines that make sense. Back in the days of the W presidency headlines BLARED: DEPRESSION APOCALYPSE DOOM LEVEL EMPLOYMENT!

Now we get headlines that are unintelligible and comedic in their effort to paint a rosy picture.

388k Hit bricks! <<< That's the headline. Except that value is um FAKE? Next week it will be 396k.

700k will exhaust their benefits by August. After that they will no longer be counted like the other 88 Million.

dogsoldier on April 26, 2012 at 1:53 PM

All this number tweaking reminds me of a joke an actuary friend told me to explain what it was that he did.

An accountant, a lawyer, and an actuary all applied for the same job. The interviewer asked only one question:
What is 2 plus 2?

The accountant quickly answered “Four!”
The lawyer answered “Depends…”
The actuary answered “What do you want it to be?”

itsacookbook on April 26, 2012 at 2:38 PM

700k will exhaust their benefits by August. After that they will no longer be counted like the other 88 Million.

dogsoldier on April 26, 2012 at 1:53 PM

And at that time the Rats and the presstitutes (though I repeat myself) will blame the Republicans for cutting off Peggy the Moocher.

Steve Eggleston on April 26, 2012 at 3:28 PM

More on revisions, then and now </promote_self_Greenroom>

Steve Eggleston on April 26, 2012 at 3:47 PM

With math like D.C.’s it’s amazing we are still running. Dazzling the world (and creditors) with B.S..

Cindy Munford on April 26, 2012 at 4:24 PM