Posted on 05/04/2012 5:35:50 AM PDT by Kaslin
Previously, we advanced two possible hypotheses that might explain what is currently happening with the number of seasonally-adjusted initial unemployment insurance claim applications being filed in the U.S. each week:
In that post, we indicated that we might not know which hypothesis was correct until sometime this summer. But that was before the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics released its initial estimate of the number of new jobless benefit claim filings on Thursday, 26 April 2012. Now, it is very possible we might know the answer as early as this upcoming Thursday, 3 May 2012.
We've updated both charts showing our two hypotheses to incorporate the data as it stands as of the BLS' 26 April 2012 report. The first chart illustrates our first hypothesis:
In this chart, we would seem to be realizing our first hypothesis, in that the indicated trend, which we've identified as Trend I, is in the process of flatlining.
Now take a closer look. Focusing in on the data from 4 February 2012 through 31 March 2012, we see that the mean trend line for all data reported since 3 December 2011 has shifted in the past week so that all but one of these data points are below the line.
Following the well-established rules developed by Western Electric over half a century ago to determine whether or not an existing trend has broken down after having been in statistical equilibrium, which are visually depicted in the bell-curve image (it's not there for decoration!), we find that all it would take for us to declare this hypothesis to be false is for the most recent data, for the week ending 21 April 2012, to be revised upward by more that 2,000 claims, as the resulting change in the mean trend line will place the data for these nine consecutive weeks below it.
If the BLS keeps to its recent track record, it will definitely be revising the number of new jobless claims recorded for the week ending 21 April 2012 upward when it revises its data for that week this Thursday, 3 May 2012 - the only question is by how much.
Our second chart shows what the new trend would look like at this point in time:
This Thursday, our two hypotheses regarding the current trend in new jobless benefit claim filings will enter the theoretical Thunderdome, and very possibly, only one will leave. Stay tuned!
Sure looks like a lot of number fixing going on. There is no way it should have gone down
It’s going down because so many people have stopped looking for a jobs.
If everyone stops looking the unemployment rate will be 0 by election day.
Between now and the election there is absolutely no way you can trust any employment or economic numbers being "reported" by the administration and/or the MSM. No way.
They will report signs of recovery in multiple sectors of the economy. They'll report job growth, housing starts, fewer businesses failing, etc. All rosy indicators. All made up.
Ok, there may be a few niches with some real recovery. But nothing like the storm of lies that is coming. Don't trust anything you get from the MSM - not that I do anyway. But now, look for them to be completely in the tank for their fellow socialists/fascists.
That is correct and the bad news for Obie is that the reason for the drop is being included in the media’s breathless reporting. It stinks and they can’t hide the smell any longer.
Now, because you no longer qualify for Federal unemployment benefits, if you don't have a job, you don't count. You are a 'discouraged worker' or some such and no longer in the labor force.
Fewer people in the labor force, divided into (the number who are officially out of work (declining also), means the fraction of officially unemployed people will get smaller as the (former) workers are no longer officially part of the labor force.
The timing is such that the numbers should just get better running up to the election as more out of work workers who are no longer officially unemployed are discarded from the labor rolls.
Probably no coincidence, either.
“Ok, there may be a few niches with some real recovery”
You know one segment of the job market where there is no recovery? Government jobs, over half a million lost under Obama.
No amount of number spinning will make them believe they have a job.
Dang. I could get laid off today and unemployment could tide me over until I’m eligible for SS. HAHAHAHA!
It’s going down because so many people have stopped being counted as looking for a jobs.
False. Unemployment compensation has nothing to do with how the unemployment rate is calculated.
Now, if I'm wrong, kindly show me how and provide some links so I can be better educated on the subject. Thanks.
To summarize: the government keeps track of the number of folks receiving UI. It results in the numbers reported as "initial claims" and "continuing claims." Those two numbers stand alone from the "unemployment rate" (U-3 or otherwise). The "labor force participation rate" (which is the primary method to massage the U-3 number) also has nothing to do with the number of folks receiving or not receiving UI.What do the unemployment insurance (UI) figures measure?
The UI figures are not produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Statistics on insured unemployment in the United States are collected as a by-product of UI programs. Workers who lose their jobs and are covered by these programs typically file claims ("initial claims") that serve as notice that they are beginning a period of unemployment. Claimants who qualify for benefits are counted in the insured unemployment figures (as "continued claims"). Data on UI claims are maintained by the Employment and Training Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of Labor, and are available on the Internet at: http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp.
These data are not used to measure total unemployment because they exclude several important groups. To begin with, not all workers are covered by UI programs. For example, self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, workers in certain not-for-profit organizations, and several other small (primarily seasonal) worker categories are not covered. In addition, the insured unemployed exclude the following:
- Unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits
- Unemployed workers who have not yet earned benefit rights (such as new entrants or reentrants to the labor force)
- Disqualified workers whose unemployment is considered to have resulted from their own actions rather than from economic conditions; for example, a worker discharged for misconduct on the job
- Otherwise eligible unemployed persons who do not file for benefits
Current Population Survey FAQ's, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Nice change of subject, rude. But you already knew that...
Smokin' Joe: Now, because you no longer qualify for Federal unemployment benefits, if you don't have a job, you don't count. You are a 'discouraged worker' or some such and no longer in the labor force.
True.
See my post #14. I meant to ping you to it, but got my foot stuck in the BS.
Read my #13 and weep that you didn’t.
Your crap’s not worth reading.
Here is an actual Fed economist on the subject (not some anonymous Interwebs sniper with an unknown agenda):
"Interpreting the Recent Decline in Labor Force Participation" - Willem Van Zandweghe (in the Economic Review of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. )
http://www.kc.frb.org/Publicat/EconRev/PDF/12q1VanZandweghe.pdf
Published 1st quarter, 2012.
And it's bad form to parachute onto a thread accusing anyone of BS when they've cited to authority. The "hidden agenda" stuff I can leave behind. Jonah Goldberg illustrated how the allegation is a symptom of a weak mind.
So, if I am engaged in BS (with an alleged hidden agenda), you should have no trouble demonstrating it. Otherwise, you are just talking out of your behind.
the "unemployment rate depends heavily on the labor participation rate," and my comment that,They simply do not contradict each other. You just might be too dense to see it. Looks like my crap is worth reading, after all.the "'labor force participation rate' (which is the primary method to massage the U-3 number) also has nothing to do with the number of folks receiving or not receiving UI" does not contradict mine.
I don't hang out here much. I hang out on economic forums. Whoopsie! Your bad.
I've seen your agenda here on FR. FR is not really a good place for economic stuff, and we both know it. I was just firing a warning shot across the bow of your strawman.
Jonah Goldberg is a tool. He dropped the ball on Derbyshire - a major sign of a weak mind, too influenced by the Beltway twaddle.
So, if I am engaged in BS (with an alleged hidden agenda), you should have no trouble demonstrating it. Otherwise, you are just talking out of your behind.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:1rudeboy/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change
It’s amazing. You print the actual facts from the actual source and certain morons still deny reality.
I never called you a moron, Toddster, but have it your way...
rude & Toddy, the economic blowhard twins. :-)
Joe,
You are at least partially right.
To be counted as “unemployed,” a person must be actively searching for work.
By definition, people drawing Unemployment Benefits must look for work, and, by definition, are unemployed.
Once their UI Benefits are exhausted, however, some people - but not all people - end their job search and drop out of the workforce.
Those people are NOT counted as unemployed.
You’re batting 0 for 2.
Watch out for those facts, you might be allergic.
As a practical question, how does the government count the people who are not receiving unemployment benefits? There are no people getting a check, so how do they keep track of people no longer in the system?
**snicker**
Still the same smarmy dweeb you always were, eh, Toddy?
Bucking for another 4 month layoff? You just can't keep yourself from trolling, can you?
Don't worry, Toddy & rude will show up in a while to tell me I'm stupid...
The same way they track people every month to calculate the unemployment rate. Pretty sure there's link upthread.
Hey, you got one right.
Did someone hack your account?
8.1% of what?
So they 'estimate' by talking to 60,000 out of 200,000,000 or so. Yea, that's scientific. In other words it's a f****** guess at best at complete bull**** at worst. Toss the fact that this administration lies as easily as I breathe and I'm taking the latter.
President Obama, Democrats and Unions would be able to take so much more if they could convince the environmentalists gas under $3.00 would help them all.
So why don't you have a nice cup of STFU? ;-)
They could talk to 200,000,000. Is that your suggestion?
Does this mean you won’t defend Williams? LOL!
Does this mean you’re still drinking and trolling? LOL!
I didn’t make a suggestion. I called “bullshit” on their “estimated” numbers.
Which households are they calling? When are they calling them? Where are these households located? What exactly are these households being asked? Who’s doing the answering? What biases are inserted by those doing estimating?
Until you know the answers to these questions you’re talking out off your ass.
I’m still pointing out idiocy.
You needn’t be so self-critical...
It does a monthly “Household Survey” of about 60,000 homes.
From that survey, and from other data like unemployment claims, the government estimates the total number of people working and the total number not working BUT looking for work.
They compute the “unemployment rate” based on those two numbers.
It’s true, I’ve pointed out Williams’ idiocy before.
I remember seeing that, and laughing. Toddy gets so carried away with his own "wit" mostsometimes that he shoots his yap off to the wrong people.
It was a nice, quiet four months, with minimal incompetent verbal diarrhea on the economic threads. Unfortunately, Toddy's timeout is over now. :-)
Please check the link to the FAQ's I posted in my #13, that started the parade of my admirers.
I'm not going to let a bunch of loud-mouths keep me from helping you to understand that unemployment compensation has nothing to do with the calculation of the unemployment rate. And to summarize, it's because not everyone is eligible for it.
So, if you are looking for a statistical snapshot of the population, in order to be scientifically valid you cannot limit the population you survey in that way (again, for reasons the BLS discusses in #13).
Well, you always could, but you would introduce bias. Now, that is completely a separate issue from the other ways that the BLS introduces bias into the calculation of the unemployment rate. But you shouldn't complain about oranges by talking about apples.
Hey, have you heard if that Anti-FReeper website is running its “Most Popular” contest this year? I have a title to defend.
By the way, a lot of the regulars have gotten suspended. There can’t be that many of them that think it’s a big deal. It’s the people who re-register, or register multiple accounts so that they can “hide” that are homos.
Exactly, those and other questions about the statistical massaging done after they collect the survey “data,” all point up how this (U3 or other) number is just a SWAG that can be polished to be basically anything that is desired at a given point in time. I would suspect that close to 95% of people in this country think/believe that the widely reported U3 “number” is based upon some type of an actual count or accumulation of real “data” (with the vast majority believing that UE claim data makes up some substantial part of it).
Of course, the PTB like it that way. Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em BS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
