At AP, Fewer Unemployment Claims 'Suggests' That 'Employers Kept Hiring'
You're going to have a hard time convincing me that Associated Press CEO Dean Singleton's lavish praise of President Barack Obama noted earlier this week by Matt Sheffield at NewsBusters hasn't trickled down to the beat reporters and affected their day-to-day coverage.
Take this opening sentence from the AP's Christopher Rugaber written shortly after the Department of Labor released its weekly unemployment claims report: "The number of people seeking U.S. unemployment benefits fell to a four-year low last week, suggesting employers kept hiring in March at a healthy pace." Really, Chris? Exactly how does less firing translate to more hiring? It doesn't (historical correlation, to the extent that it's there, doesn't signify causation). There are any number of firms which are not letting people go but which are also not hiring. Several other paragraphs from Rugaber's report follow:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓Weekly applications dropped 6,000 to a seasonally adjusted 357,000, the Labor Department said Thursday. That's the fewest since April 2008.
The four-week average, a less volatile measure, fell to 361,750, also the lowest in four years. The average has dropped nearly 13 percent in the past six months.
When unemployment benefit applications drop consistently below 375,000, it usually signals that hiring is strong enough to lower the unemployment rate.
The downward trend in applications is a promising sign ahead of Friday's report on March job growth.
... "We believe that the economy has entered a more self-sustaining phase of the recovery with stronger job creation," said John Ryding, an analyst at RDQ Economics, in a note to clients.
Last week's "lowest in four years" number was adjusted upward to 363,000, which moved it into a tie for the lowest in four years; of course, Chris didn't tell us that. This week's number, after next week's virtually certain upward revision, will probably be still be lower than 363,000, and will remain as a legitimate four-year low.
As to Rugaber's "suggested" tie-in of firings to hirings:
- During the five weeks ended February 2, 2008, weekly claims averaged a seasonally adjusted 341,000, about 6% or so lower than the results of the past several weeks. In January 2008, seasonally adjusted employment increased by a puny 41,000. Following Rugaber's "logic," the jobs increase should have been in the hundreds of thousands.
- A response to the previous might be, "Well, the unemployment rate was much lower." That's exactly right. With unemployment at 8.3% currently, which is predicted not to change tomorrow, and the economy picking up a bit (though still very unimpressively by historical standards), many employers are lifting their hiring freezes. That has nothing directly to do with how many other employers are letting workers go.
Oh, and claims have been below Rugaber's 375,000-claim benchmark for lowering the unemployment rate for each of the past six weeks, and seven of the past eight. Yet the unemployment rate is predicted to stay the same. It looks we have another "suggestion" which might be going awry. If the expected tracking doesn't materialize, Chris may need Dean Singleton's permission to remove the boilerplate.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
I said it last week
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 04/05/2012 - 11:55am.
This weeks number could be higher than last week's but still be lower after the revision. Well, this week's number is actually slightly lower than last week's initial number, but 2000 lower isn't nearly as impressive as 6000 lower. It's all a farce as far as I'm concerned. The BLS numbers bear no resemblance to reality.
We read about things like
Submitted by ricklail on Thu, 04/05/2012 - 1:54pm.
We read about things like this everyday:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/04/05/1982639/penney-cuts-600-workers-1...
We are being lied to.
Hiring numbers
Submitted by PeterStone on Thu, 04/05/2012 - 12:19pm.
Just curious but when an employee of mine retires or quits for a better job and I hire someone to replace him - isn't that listed as a new hire by the government?
?????
...and when 340,000 new unemployment claims are filed, and only 200,000 'new jobs' are created - what happens to the 140,000 difference.
?????
...and when you factor in the 1% increase in new members of the work force due to population growth - doesn't that mean a REAL increase in the unemployment numbers.
?????
Shhhhh.
Submitted by c5then on Thu, 04/05/2012 - 1:28pm.
The narative that they want to tell is of an improving eceonomy. They refuse to let actual data and pesky facts get in the way of that narative. Luckily for them, the American population to a large extent is challenged by even simple math when the numbers are "big", so they don't have to worry too much.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
What about people that have
Submitted by MrSnuggles on Thu, 04/05/2012 - 1:09pm.
What about people that have exhausted all their unemployment? How many of those are there each week?
They don't count.
Submitted by c5then on Thu, 04/05/2012 - 1:41pm.
If the socialists get their way, we will have half the country working for the government and half the country out of work and not looking and therefore have 0% unemployment.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Tom......You have known and documented for a long time the
Submitted by Rush Fan on Thu, 04/05/2012 - 6:10pm.
agenda-driven liberal bias of AP reporters. So I know that you know that these reporters may enthusiastically agree with Dean Singleton's comments, but they certainly don't need additional "trickle down" incentives to continue their biased coverage.
Yes and no
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Thu, 04/05/2012 - 7:25pm.
The incentive is there; it's clear that they don't need to worry at all about holding back.
Well...
Submitted by amyshulk on Thu, 04/05/2012 - 8:20pm.
All I know is I'm getting credit card offers again. And NOT at sky high rates. Now if the ones that reduced our limit and/or raised their rates on us {with an excellent score btw} would drop back to reality, I'd start to believe things are getting better. All I think now is the banks got leaned on to loosen credit again. How else can we pay for the gas & food with inflation? Insanity. It's the new normal!!!
Ronald Reagan
Happy for you Amy
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 04/05/2012 - 8:45pm.
But small business credit hasn't loosened up, at least not around here.
Radical1979
Submitted by amyshulk on Fri, 04/06/2012 - 10:34am.
I wasn't clear - I think the banks got leaned on so they'd start giving out these "offers" to skew perceptions.
There are more people to sway via this approach than to actually doing anything to *help* the economy for the small businesses. O and the D's are in bed with the big businesses, and they don't want the competition!
I am sickened that they {D's AND R's} are playing politics with our lives!!!
Ronald Reagan