[Update: There has been some flak over this post at Hot Air, where Ed Morrisey said: "I got several e-mails criticizing me for (a) not having cited the reference for the origin of the numbers, which is more a criticism of Uncommon Misperceptions, and (b) not having shown the entirety of 2009 to show that the job market did improve."
This is retarded. As noted in the first line of the post below, this is a follow-on post to the original post at Innocent Bystanders. The original post cited the origin of the numbers (the Department of Labor, of course), and gave a plot of the entirety of 2009. RTFP, dorks.
I should also note, though, that people who download the latest data set from the Dept of Labor find numbers that are slightly different than the ones I used for this chart. This chart reflects the revised numbers published weekly in the news releases from DOL. On March 25, 2010, DOL announced that they were revising the seasonal adjustment factors all the way back to 2005, which gave different claims numbers. So the data presented here is based on the old seasonal adjustment, except for the data for the last month.
Little known fact: the seasonal adjustment added almost 150,000 claims over the time period in the chart below.]
I tried to make this point yesterday at Innocent Bystanders, but I don’t think it came through very well. And I don’t think it’s been pointed out anywhere in the media, so it’s really worth making the point well. So, sans plus ado, here’s the point:
For the past 5 1/2 months, the initial unemployment claims data have not really changed. Here’s what I mean:
The data are oscillating about a slowly increasing value, indicating that, if anything, unemployment claims are increasing. That means that for the past 5 1/2 months, every time the administration has told us that the unemployment situation is slowly recovering, and that the data show “the right trend,” they have been absolutely mistaken.
The media has been doing their typical baby duck analysis: every day is a brand new day, every unemployment claims report is the first one they’ve ever seen. So we get headlines like, “job situation improving” when the number of claims drops, and “unexpected increase” when the number rises.
For half a year the claims data has just been oscillating – going nowhere. And nobody seems to have noticed.
April 16, 2010 at 7:43 am
I have noticed. But Im a nobody.
April 16, 2010 at 7:48 am
I have noticed. But Im a nobody.
Then start blogging! Fame, fortune, and lucrative commercial endorsements are waiting to be had!!
Plus there’s the babes.
April 16, 2010 at 10:35 am
sometimes the obvious is the last seen
April 16, 2010 at 10:40 am
What has been noticable elsewhere is the term “unexpectedly” or variations thereof. Enough to be something of a running joke. Your baby duckling theory of analysis is one option. The other is that the MSM is so enamored with their Dear Leader, and so unwilling to be critical, that they willingly and knowingly phrase things in such a way as to attempt to dupe their audience, which they clearly hold in contempt.
April 16, 2010 at 10:43 am
What has been noticable elsewhere is the term “unexpectedly” or variations thereof.
Yes, that’s why I used the term here and in many other posts here and at Innocent Bystanders. It is a running joke.
…your baby duckling theory of analysis is one option. The other is..
I think both are true. Even if they were more objective, they would do a terrible job of putting the news in context.
April 16, 2010 at 10:51 am
Hey thats a pretty good idea.
April 16, 2010 at 10:51 am
Geoff,
I’ve got an interesting graph you may want to show. Basically it shows the Feds constantly lowering the interest rate until now we are about at 0% interest. Also it clearly shows that every time the interest rate was increased a recession resulted. The lone exception being the mid 90s when we had the internet expansion.
At this point we are in a no win senario as any increase in interest rate will cause another economic shock. Yet the interest rate can’t remain near 0% because eventually nobody will buy government bond to finance the deficit.
Let me know if you want the data. I didn’t see an email address anywhere.
April 16, 2010 at 11:13 am
I totally was not expecting this.
Hey look! A puppy!
April 16, 2010 at 11:24 am
Average voter:
Daaaw, look at that puppy!
April 16, 2010 at 11:35 am
this is unprecedented…”thank you, Ear Leader.”
April 16, 2010 at 11:47 am
I’ve got an interesting graph you may want to show.
I covered that situation from a different, more controversial, almost-causing-my-cobloggers-to-douse-me-with-gasoline-and-set-me-afire angle in this post. I talk about the prime rate in the comments.
April 16, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Clearly, unemployment is racist.
Let’s not forget the 1.2 million census temps in those numbers.
April 16, 2010 at 12:13 pm
I talk about the prime rate in the comments.
But a graph would be better. A graph is always better.
April 16, 2010 at 2:06 pm
I think the commentary on the graph with the quotes from the Obama administration is the best part: each time things look a little better, they try to sell us on things being in recovery, repeatedly. Granted, its part of their job to spin but its nice to have it in concrete to show the failure of their attempts.
April 16, 2010 at 4:02 pm
I have yet to see anyone talk about the rate that people get off jobless benefits, if they do at all. Is that kind of data tracked, and if so, is it released to the public?
I think using new unemployment claim filings as a means of tracking employment trends is flawed, because you are not seeing the whole picture. People could be claiming unemployment insurance for a week between jobs, for instance, and we have no way of seeing that, from what I can tell.
April 16, 2010 at 10:51 pm
“I think using new unemployment claim filings as a means of tracking employment trends is flawed, because you are not seeing the whole picture. People could be claiming unemployment insurance for a week between jobs, for instance, and we have no way of seeing that, from what I can tell.”
Also it misses the people who lose their jobs but don’t claim unemployment benefits.
April 16, 2010 at 11:00 pm
I don’t think accurately counting the unemployed is actually the goal of any of the government’s metrics.
April 17, 2010 at 12:38 am
Mark, If I understood your question you meant when the unemployment benefits expire. That is the “K” stat at Dept. of Labor. It shows total unemployment. They define someone who is no longer eligible for benefits as having “Stopped Looking”.
Personally I think that is when they start looking seriously. Currently that number is at bout 18.1%.
The other question I would like to see addressed are the new modifications to the “seasonal adjustments” that started in February. First time the mods have been altered in 5 years and it results in a lowered unemployment rate.
Sound fishy to you?
April 17, 2010 at 5:58 am
Geoff,
nice post. I would like to see the above graph overlaid with a graph of gas prices. I would think they would match up well.
The stock market crowd likes to use the interest rate as a gauge to determine economic activity. I think gas prices has more to do with it. If we hit $4.00/gal again this summer we get a double dip.
April 17, 2010 at 8:47 am
Outstanding post. Looks like an L-shaped recovery to me.
April 17, 2010 at 9:43 am
Classic! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Every time Obama opens his mouth, it is if the kiss of death awaits.
April 19, 2010 at 11:19 am
I think the American people are too engaged to be duped by the MSM and their little code words…..Look a baby wolf!