Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The majority have been revised down in the past 2 years. The data is readily available to fact check, I suggest you do before coming here and embarrassing yourself in front of us that are well informed.
Sounds like you are the one suggesting conspiracy.
I hope you aren't trying to play gotcha! with me because my position has been consistent and well documented on job reports.
Agreed the #s are still decent, did you falsely accuse me of suggesting otherwise? Preplandemic UE was better under the previous administration than how UE is trending now:
Aug 19 3.6
Sept 19 3.5
Oct 19 3.6
Nov 19 3.6
Dec 19 3.6
Jan 20 3.6
Feb 20 3.5
...
Feb 24 3.9
Mar 24 3.8
Apr 24 3.9
I have consistently cheered the under 4% UE under the current and previous administrations(again, well documented in the job report posts in this very forum) so theres no hypocrisy here
The Conspiracy Conspiracy jab was at the whole they are cooking the books narrative (which is what the title of the post was).
There have been months that the #'s have been revised up, and there have been months where the #'s have been revised down. This has occurred under both Democratic and Republican administrations. To suggest that its somehow being cooked now, because of a good report, or because of revisions, but wasn't in the past (or vice versa for that matter) is just silliness and conspiracy nonsense, regardless of the side that does it.
Here's the recent historical data on unemployment data.
People are noting these number are statistically impossible on CNBC. They had 212,000 (the exact same number for several weeks. Take a look at the data. Also noted is that there are a lot of layoffs happening and these numbers do not seem to reflect it.
It's literally the same process for years or decades even.
No. The process has had changes, over the years.
Changed in 2002, 2007 and 2012, for instance.
Whether those changes are substantial, today, is a different matter.
No. The process has had changes, over the years.
Changed in 2002, 2007 and 2012, for instance.
Whether those changes are substantial, today, is a different matter.
So, are layoffs counted, or not.
And does anyone have a cite, for evidence?
(Not that that would prove they aren't cooking the books, but it might end the question of whether layoffs are affecting the count.)
Initial unemployment claims are claims filed by people who have lost their jobs (sometimes for layoffs, sometimes for other reasons) and file a first claim for unemployment insurance. These are run and reported by the states. The Labor Department adds up the totals each state reports every week and reports them on Thursday morning.
I should also note that it is not the Bureau of Labor Statistics (the link you provided) who compiles initial claims. It is just the generic section of the Labor Department that does this.
Mass Layoffs are a completely different category (and are indeed compiled by the BLS). These are events reported by companies, not states, and are only reported once a month (not once a week as in initial claims). They are described here: https://www.bls.gov/mls/
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
