Now remember, this spike isn't really important. The unemployment numbers are only important and indicative of a trend when they go down. Got it? If so, you might qualify for a degree in journalism. Just don't count on landing a job after graduation unless the government bails the industry out.
So, if you were a working journalist today, what would you write? Hmm.
WASHINGTON -- The number of newly laid off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week as the recovery of the nation's battered labor market proceeds in fits and starts.
The Labor Department said Thursday that the number of new jobless claims rose to 480,000 last week, up 7,000 from the previous week. That was a worse performance than the decline to 465,000 that economists had expected.
The four-week average for claims, which smooths out fluctuations, did fall, dipping to 467,500, the 15th straight decline, viewed as an encouraging sign that the labor market is gradually improving. The four-week average is now at its lowest point since late September 2008, the period when the financial crisis was hitting with full force.
Unemployment claims have been on a downward trend since this summer. That improvement is seen as a sign that jobs cuts are slowing and hiring could pick up as soon as early next year. But the rise in weekly claims of 7,000 last week, which had followed an increase of 19,000 the previous week, shows that the improvement has been halting.
Just because we're unemployed doesn't mean we have to stop living like American's!
http://bit.ly/ozqT6
(satire)
Posted by: bondwooley | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 09:15 AM
Hide the Incline!
Posted by: Lauderdale Conservative | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 09:16 AM
Hey good news!! The price of my home has gone down almost $100,000 and my 401K is only down 40% in the last 18 months....
Happy days are hear again!!!
Posted by: JustOneMan | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 09:40 AM
My local smelleee commie rag (L.A. Daily News), had "unemployment down" on yesterday's front page.
I no longer know what the future brings. I can't see Bibi, not attacking Iran, in a major fashion, within the next three months.
If not, all bets are off ... and you/we/us mofo's. Are on our own. With a Muslim traitor. In the white House.
GHUA
Posted by: Elmo | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Typical reporter-speak:
It's not about the increase in jobs (or joblessness or government spending). It's about the rate of increase.
SO:
If government spending rises, but rises less fast than before, it's really a cut.
If unemployment increases, but increases less fast than before, it's really falling.
The one exception is homelessness under Republicans. That's always rising.
Posted by: Lurking Observer | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 10:40 AM
LOL. So, the 4-week average went down yet again did it? Astonishing! Of course, since the number went up two weeks ago, and up again this week, unless there is a really dramatic drop THIS week, that trend is about to come to a crushing halt, as soon as the ONE week of really good numbers, and ONE week of decent numbers, drops off.
TWO weeks of good numbers equate to EIGHT weeks of positive news stories. I really do wonder if they believe this crap or if they just get paid enough they are willing to lie?
Posted by: Tim McDonald | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 10:42 AM
It's like the Gordian knot of jobs reporting.
Posted by: Ray Robison | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 10:47 AM
The operative word for this - Crap
Posted by: JDehav | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 10:48 AM
After consuming several pounds of roast goose and figgy pudding my weight rose unexpectedly. Alert the media!
Posted by: BlogDog | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 10:52 AM
If a Republican was president instead of saying "as the recovery of the nation's battered labor market proceeds in fits and starts" they would say something more like, "as the recession continued to deepen into depression..."
You just can't believe anything the media says because it's all propaganda for the Dems.
Posted by: Mark | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Amazing how a reduction in the number of jobs lost translates into good news. How about some real truth for once. Most of us aren't as ignorant as the dems and big media seem to believe we are.
When the number of jobs gained is above the number of jobs lost, I might believe that the end of the recession is beginning.
Posted by: trlbasser | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 11:13 AM
>as the recovery of the nation's battered labor market proceeds in fits and starts.
Translation: The hoped for Obama-riffic "recovery" that should have happened because of Obama's magical "stimulus" hasn't done crap, as the teabaggerz predicted accurately would happen. We have to pretend that it is happening, though, and simply asserting that "recovery" is happening makes it so!
DAMN YOU BUSH!
Posted by: Good Lt. | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Note teh egregious spelling error "extention" at the bottom of teh AP article.
Layers and layers of fact-checkers, pricey editors, heaps of professionalism.
Posted by: Luke Pingel | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 11:32 AM
If these J-school people had taken calculus, they could have been REALLY dangerous.
Imagine a headline "Fourth Order Derivative of Joblessness Shows Point of Inflection!"
Posted by: Whitehall | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 11:45 AM
This is the effect of going Gault. Just wait until after the Christmas season is over, I know for a fact that my wife and I are spending a lot less this year. According to Gallup spending for Christmas in December is down by 20% from 2008 and that was a bad year. That is going to be a disastor for the retail market. We are going to see huge lay offs in Jan. as businesses start cutting back just to survive.
When the comercial relastate bust hits we are really going to see things get bad. Many people have no margine of error left in their finances. I have two jobs right now, if my second job can hold out until May we won't have to tighten our belt any further. If it cuts back my hours again we can still get by without a problem, but if it goes under we are going to have to really cut back on some stuff. My second job gets me about $550.00 extra a month and that goes along way towards our getting the un neccesary things. If we lose that we will start cutting all the extras. Now imagine what it will be like if you get tens of thousands of families doing the same things.
Posted by: southdakotaboy | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Looks like the journalists settled for taking statistical analysis at the University of East Anglia.
Posted by: Mr. W | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Unemployment is increasing, in the midst of the Christmas shopping season, when many retailers hire additional seasonal workers.
What does that tell you about the real impact of the current jobless numbers?
Posted by: elaine | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 12:36 PM
I guess the single one month jump from Oct to NOV of 185% in the EUC was just a quirk? Wait till you see the EUC for NOv to DEC.... pissssssttt.. they have not relesed it yet, wonder why?
Posted by: Lenny | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 12:50 PM
Elaine:
See, if we had universal healthcare, all those companies would be hiring, b/c all those folks out there would be buying more.
So, really, it's b/c we don't have universal healthcare that we're in the recession we're in.
And for that, I blame Bush!
Posted by: Lurking Observer | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 01:15 PM
It's usually not that difficult to find out who wrote an AP article, and that's what I do when I find one of them that I don't like. I then make the reporter the subject of my post, with the goal of showing others how that reporter can't be trusted. Because this post doesn't do that, it won't have much long-term impact.
And, in case anyone would like to reduce U.S. unemployment, go to public events and ask questions on video like the one in the second update here:
http://24ahead.com/ask-janet-napolitano-questions-washington-dc-friday-november
Don't fiddle while unemployment burns; do something or at least encourage others to do something.
Posted by: 24AheadDotCom | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 01:18 PM
In other news from AP.....
Marine engineers note that the Titanic has not sunk any lower since it first started on a uneven downwards trend in 1912. "It appears that the decline is over, and that we can soon expect the Titanic to resurface," noted Ima Butthead, a well-known expert in marine engineering. "By spring of next year, if not before, we can expect the distance between the hull of the Titanic and the surface of the ocean to begin to lessen."
The decline of the Titanic took place before Barack Obama became President. "Just another mess the Republicans left us with," said White House press secretary Gibbs noted. "But this latest report is more evidence of green shoots in the economy."
Experts caution that while the worst seems to be behind us, there may still be setbacks. "The Titanic was not sunk in a day, but was the culmination of nearly a decade of record deficits, the Iraq War, and global climate change," said another expert, economics professor Wi Lye. "Damage of that magnitude takes time to repair."
Posted by: Mwalimu Daudi | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 01:54 PM
Labor Department mind-reading act in Vegas:
"You have just come into a very large sum of money. Am I right?"
"Hell no, I just declared bankruptcy! You're WRONG!"
"Sir, I'm not wrong. The data I had to work with is giving off contradictory signals and is too complex to easily interpret."
Posted by: MarkJ | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 02:07 PM
Attn: 24AheadDotCom,
The authors of this story are By MARTIN CRUTSINGER and TALI ARBEL. I did a Google on the first 2 sentences and found the byline on another site: http://www.kansascity.com/438/story/1636255.html By the way, they spelled "extension" correctly on the other site and the article is slightly longer and more detailed.
Posted by: John Pearson | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 02:16 PM
"In other news from AP.....
Marine engineers note that the Titanic has not sunk any lower since it first started on a uneven downwards trend in 1912. "It appears thatthe decline is over, and that we can soon expect the Titanic to resurface," noted Ima Butthead, a well-known expert in marine engineering."
UPDATE from AP...
Today the IPCC announced that that the Titanic WOULD have resurfaced, but that darn man-made global warming caused the oceans to rise; resulting in the Titanic to unexpectedly not surface.
The Office of the President-Elect of the United States, which had previously stated that 'November 4, 2008 is the date that the oceans stop rising', could not be reached for comment.
Developing...
Posted by: Les Nessman | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 02:26 PM
Mwalimu and Les in da house ... rockin the turntables :-)
Posted by: Elmo | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 02:47 PM
After much crotch sniffing and leg humping in DC we expect to be counted among the employeed soon.
Posted by: Seeing Eye and Police Dog Union | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 03:31 PM
How about a SIMPLE HEADLINE: Job losses continue at an INCREASING RATE. The Recession is OVER!
If you're going to twist the truth, why not do it right. LIE directly in a manner that is obvious.
Posted by: jgreene | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 03:34 PM
Elaine,
you go ahead and keep "blaming Bush" and the rest of us will get to work fixing this mess once you libs are done screwing things up. Business as usual.
Posted by: hdanaj | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 04:49 PM
Moving the goal posts?
Every AP article on this subject since the first of the year has included a sentence similar to:
"Analysts believe that claims need to fall to about 425,000 for several weeks to signal the economy is actually beginning to add jobs." The earlier numbers start at 275,000 then move to 300,000 then 350,000 and now 425,000."
Posted by: gizzardj | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 06:17 PM
This isn't over. The canaries in the coal mine continue to die.
Ron D
Posted by: Ron Derven | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 09:00 PM
The jobless rate s totally meaningless. It does not reflect those out of work who cannot find work anywhere. The actual number is more likely well over 12% and with winter setting in the number of jobless will increase because the outdoor jobs go away. There maybe a depression-recession but judging actual store prices you would be hard pressed to see any relief. Why is it that Wal-Mart can get almost instant price cuts on drugs and the Federal Government cannot? There might be a close connection between the drug-insurance companies and senator's like Hatch.
Posted by: vitamins | Friday, December 18, 2009 at 02:21 AM
Your posting on unemployment is a hate crime.
Posted by: bandit | Friday, December 18, 2009 at 08:55 AM
bandit | Friday, December 18, 2009 at 08:55 AM
Buy that man a drink!
Posted by: Elmo | Friday, December 18, 2009 at 09:44 AM
I have a feeling the numbers are more around 17% when you add in those no longer on able to make a claim of unemployment and unable to find work.
The thing to watch here with these numbers is what they do when they revise them. Keep your eye out for that.
Posted by: Hal (GT) | Friday, December 18, 2009 at 11:27 AM
The problem is that typically the moving 4 week average is used by market economists. A great deal of time domain surveys are done using a moving average, like the Case-Schiller housing index, to better smooth out outliers and anomalies.
Unfortunately what you're doing here is making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Please, google "unemployment four week moving average", then change some of the advanced settings for time frame, and look at Nov 2001 thru March 2002, from AP sources. The same optimistic-style phrases were used then as now, like "New claims for state unemployment benefits fell for the fourth straight week, suggesting that the surge of layoffs seen after the terror attacks may be easing."
Now maybe this was still part of the "Everyone's a New Yorker" post-9/11 mentality that had yet to dissolve with the GWB-Deragement syndrome, but please note that the 4 week moving average is indeed the normal indicator that economists and market traders pay attention to more than the Thursday 10am numbers; especially since these 1 week numbers typically get adjusted as much as 10% by the next week.
Posted by: Pete | Friday, December 18, 2009 at 12:55 PM