New Jobless Claims: Thunderdome Edition

Townhall.com ^ | May 4, 2012 | Political Calculations

[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:

1. The number of new jobless claims filed each week is in the process of leveling out somewhere between 370,000 and 380,000, which is about 60,000-70,000 higher than the typical levels that were recorded before the December 2007 recession began.
2. Rising oil and gasoline prices in the U.S. have derailed the most recent falling trend in new jobless claims, and a new, negative trend has begun where the number of claims filed each week is rising.

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!

[1rudeboy]

I really don't see how anyone can be that stupid. There's just no way. I wonder if some old argument on an unrelated subject is being rehashed, here.

How is it even possible to confuse unemployment compensation with the labor force participation rate? Who honestly believes that the following two statements are in conflict?

unemployment compensation has nothing to do with the unemployment rate
the unemployment rate depends heavily on the labor participation rate

Would it be easier if I tried to explain that I'm not eligible for UI (I'm not), but if I lost my job I would be counted as unemployed as long as I'm looking for another?

[Toddsterpatriot]

I really don't see how anyone can be that stupid. There's just no way.

It's not easy, but he works at it.

[kiryandil]

It’s amusing watching that sweet little girl rude/Toddy talking to herself...

[Toddsterpatriot]

It’s amusing watching your ignorance on display.

[kiryandil]

Quoth the loud-mouthed bannee. You really are priaptic over this thread, arentcha, Toddy?

It's like your very own BMW motorcycle seat...

Well, let's see who you've harassed lately:

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:toddsterpatriot/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change

There seems to be a pattern here...

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wow, you talk dirty when people point out your ignorance.

[kiryandil]

You're not "people", Toddy - you're some electrons.

The notion of the opinion of some electrons on "ignorance" is also quite amusing.

[1rudeboy]

Do you ever wonder how many times he or she has been banned? I wonder if that’s the reason for the sensitivity.

[1rudeboy]

There’s only so many ways I can point out that you are wrong. At the end of the day, you are still wrong.

[1rudeboy]

Thread from this morning:

The Vanishing Workers [The labor participation rate is back where it was in December 1981].

Note how many times unemployment compensation is mentioned. Hint for the rest of you who cannot count: zero.

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you go to the Department of Labor website, you can see that the April 7th, 2012 numbers show initial claims were 390,000 and continued claims were about 3,450,000 while total unemployed, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for April 2012 was 11,910,000.

Clearly over 8 million people are unemployed and not collecting unemployment.

Of course if facts could kill that meme, this wouldn't be the 100th thread you've had to try to correct the error.

[1rudeboy]

Of course if facts could kill that meme, this wouldn't be the 100th thread you've had to try to correct the error.

One of the funnier things about correcting the misperception is how people react.

1. They run away and sulk, or
2. parse the language and argue it means the opposite of what it means, or
3. call me a troll, or
4. claim they meant something else, or
5. exclaim that "Your crap’s not worth reading."

Good times.

[kiryandil]

You return like a dog to its regurgitation.

Yum!

There’s only so many ways I can point out that you are wrong. At the end of the day, you are still wrong.

There's only so many ways I can point out that you're just a guy posting on the Internet. You've got a fanboi to cheer you from the cheap seats, which means doodley-squat.

I agree that you think you're right about something. **snicker**

[kiryandil]

Note how many times unemployment compensation is mentioned. Hint for the rest of you who cannot count: zero.

Well, you've got that strawman about beat to pieces...

[1rudeboy]

Let's review the comment (#5) that I corrected, again.

Now, because you no longer qualify for Federal unemployment benefits, if you don't have a job, you don't count.

It is false, for the reasons I demonstrated. It's also where you parachuted in. So if it's a strawman, point it out to the guy who made it.

[1rudeboy]

I neglected to mention, this is usually the point where the APB goes out on one of the anti-FReeper sites: “halp, I’m getting my ass kicked.” And the clown parade begins.

[kiryandil]

I figure I'm doing the rest of Free Republic a service by keeping you two matched beauties pinned down over your vomit pile.

That way, you're not gadding about the rest of the forum, abusing other Freepers over "how many of rude's or Toddy's strawmen can dance on the head of a pin".

BTW - I guess I'm not as familiar with "anti-FReeper sites" as you and undoubtedly Toddy seem to be, having never had a reason to frequent such sites.

I have beaten up on some few anti-FReepers here over the years. It was fun, and they were more skilled than you two Siamese inbreds. :-)

[1rudeboy]

I have beaten up on some few anti-FReepers here over the years.

Not likely. You can't even remember what you write day-to-day. And instead of simply admitting that you were wrong, as I have countless times, you engage in insults and otherwise just pout about it. Some skill.

[1rudeboy]

Check this out. Now we are “pinned down.” LOLOL

[kiryandil]

I've pinned you down here since Friday morning.

Your puke pile is beginning to smell, not that anyone else is noticing... :-)

Me, I've got state monthly revenue reports to review. That's where the real economic action is at.

You can keep up the Abbott & Costello routine with the irrelevant, fictitious unemployment rate all you want to.