***NOTE*** BLS Numbers Are Cooked. "Continuing [unemployment] Claims" numbers went up !!!

[uponit7771]

If the week by week unemployment claims numbers go up

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/04/weekly-jobless-claims.html

Continuing claims, which provide a clearer picture of how many Americans remain unemployed, totaled 21.5 million, a gain of 649,000 over the past week, also worse than Wall Street expected.

... THEN its VERY VERY unusual that the Unemployment Rate (UE) goes down unless the Labor Force Participation Rate is adjusted down but that's not the case ...

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf (page 2)

The labor force participation rate increased by 0.6 percentage point in May to 60.8 percent, following
a decrease of 2.5 percentage points in April.

So what happened?

THIS CRAP 👉🏽

However, there was also a large number of workers who were classified as employed but absent from work. As was the case in March and April, household survey interviewers were instructed to classify
employed persons absent from work due to coronavirus-related business closures as unemployed on
temporary layoff. However, it is apparent that not all such workers were so classified. BLS and the
Census Bureau are investigating why this misclassification error continues to occur and are taking
additional steps to address the issue.

REALLY BLS ?!?!

The same "mistake" for 3 months straight now the BLS is making in gathering UE data.

The footnote goes on to include there's a 3% variant which would make the actual UE Rate 16.8.

I'm blown away that someone at the BLS is not throwing up red flags on these "adjustments" like this seeing its nakedly misleading.

We have to get the functionaries out of the government, the trains full of bodies can't run on time if there are people willing to say something.

Your take?

tia

[benld74]

1. Books be cooked, similar to rumps taxes

[still_one]

2. They aren't "cooked", they measure different things. Employed people

compared to last year was 20 million less while the continuing claims was 4 million more than last MONTH.

What it says is that things have bottomed out in the unemployment picture.

It does not mean that the economy is fine. It does not account for the number of businesses that won't recover or those that can't meet rent or mortgage.

What it unfortunately suggest is that the republicans will most likely not go for another stimulus package, which the states desperately need, and the consequences of that, along with the potential of complacency with the health crisis, could bring things down even lower, very fast

[uponit7771]

3. No, *INCREASED* continuing claims does not mean things have "bottomed" out in UE picture. That ...

... number is usually the gut check number sort of like hospitalizations when it comes to CV19 ... its hard to fake the continuing claims and harder to fake the hospitalization rates increasing when it comes to CV19.

The continuing claims picture is week by week and looks like they adjusted for California and Florida ... that might by the discrepancy.

[still_one]

10. True, and no doubt the payroll program, PPP, affected the unemployment number, along with opening up

of certain jobs such as construction, added to job creations

[uponit7771]

13. +1,

[C_U_L8R]

4. Why's Wall Street playing along?

This will come back to bite them hard in the ass.

[uponit7771]

6. Yep, this is either the biggest short squeeze in history or the biggest bear market trap in history

[BannonsLiver]

5. My take is it's not a great look to be perceived as rooting for higher unemployment numbers.

[uponit7771]

7. We agree, we also agree that telling the truth using facts & rooting for negativity are 2 different

... things.

I don't know why the second had to be said at all though

[unblock]

9. please. we're rooting for accuracy.

bls *admits*, down in a footnote, that the actual headline number would be 3 percentage points higher if they corrected an error in their internal process, but their policy is not to do that.

so aside from any other potential issues, they're already saying the real number is higher than the number they're blaring out.


of course we want people who want jobs to have jobs. to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. we just want what's actually going on in the real world to be accurately reflected in the official statistics that people rely on to form their perceptions of reality as well as to base policy decisions on.

[BannonsLiver]

11. There is obvious disappointment with some the number isn't higher.

I don’t disagree with your point about accuracy and I expect when nobody’s looking these numbers will be revised upward, but there is clearly disappointment. Not everyone is talking about accuracy.

[unblock]

12. people are disappointed in the evident lack of accuracy in the reported numbers.

*no one*, as far as i can tell, is actually rooting for more people to be unemployed.

i have yet to see a post suggesting "gee, i wish more people actually lost their jobs"

[uponit7771]

14. Can you point to a post of people rooting for higher unemployment amongst Americans?

[dalton99a]

8. Kick

[uponit7771]

15. Kick for Notice

[Marcuse]

16. NOAA revisited.

?itok=4_j-JrGQ