- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
CNBC and the concept of "steadily improving labor market conditions"
Posted on 2/20/14 at 12:02 pm
Posted on 2/20/14 at 12:02 pm
Opening sentence to this morning's first-time unemployment claims number:
"The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits fell last week, pointing to steadily improving labor market conditions, despite two straight months of weak hiring."
Despite this:
"Initial claims for state unemployment benefits declined 3,000 to a seasonally adjusted 336,000... Economists polled by Reuters had forecast first-time applications for jobless benefits falling to 335,000 in the week ended Feb. 15. "
And this:
"The four-week moving average for new claims, considered a better measure of underlying labor market conditions as it irons out week-to-week volatility, rose 1,750 to 338,500. "
To get a clearer picture of that 336,000 number, consider that in the previous 25 weeks of the half-year reporting period, the number of new claims was BELOW 336,000 more than 50% of the time (13/25, including being below 312,000 for all 4 weeks in September).
The unidentified author may be in need of a new "pointer".
LINK
"The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits fell last week, pointing to steadily improving labor market conditions, despite two straight months of weak hiring."
Despite this:
"Initial claims for state unemployment benefits declined 3,000 to a seasonally adjusted 336,000... Economists polled by Reuters had forecast first-time applications for jobless benefits falling to 335,000 in the week ended Feb. 15. "
And this:
"The four-week moving average for new claims, considered a better measure of underlying labor market conditions as it irons out week-to-week volatility, rose 1,750 to 338,500. "
To get a clearer picture of that 336,000 number, consider that in the previous 25 weeks of the half-year reporting period, the number of new claims was BELOW 336,000 more than 50% of the time (13/25, including being below 312,000 for all 4 weeks in September).
The unidentified author may be in need of a new "pointer".
LINK
4
Posted on 2/20/14 at 12:04 pm to NHTIGER
cNBC
Posted on 2/20/14 at 12:40 pm to Jwho77
quote:
cNBC
I fully understand that.
So explain this:
"The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits fell last week, pointing to steadily improving labor market conditions, despite two straight months of weak hiring."
Sound familiar? It's the exact same wording that the un-named author of the CNBC website article used to open their story.
Except that's the opening line to this morning"s REUTERS story on the same topic by Lucia Mutikani.
The Reuters story is date-stamped three hours later than the CNBC story, which would indicate that Mutikani based her choice of words on the CNBC story, whether she edited the piece at some point between 8:30 AM and 11:31 AM or not, because the CNBC story is date-stamped 8:30 AM, which is exactly the time the Labor Dept. released the numbers this morning.
Did one of the news organizations "copy" the other without attribution? It's an impossible circumstance that both stories would open with the same sentence word-for-word. The result is that Reuters readers who do not keep up with the actual numbers are left with the same misleading labor market "assumption" that the CNBC readers are.
For the record, they didn't get it from the Labor Dept. release (see for yourself below). The Labor Dept. release sticks to hard numbers, with no commentary on its significance to the labor markets.
Reuters readers are thus left with the same conclusion that CNBC readers are, with no substantiating data to support that conclusion.
Blogs across the country will cite these two stories, further passing on a conclusion that has no supporting information to back it up. And that's how misconception and misinformation permeate the electorate.
(If I'm an editor at Reuters, I'm suggesting Ms. Mutikani either edit her opening, or attribute it directly to CNBC.)
Reuters story:
LINK
Labor Dept. Release:
LINK
If I had used the Reuters story to open, instead of the CNBC story, would that have made a difference to you?
Posted on 2/20/14 at 12:45 pm to NHTIGER
Reuters would have a more liberal-biased reputation than CNBC (different than MSNBC/NBC News in the eyes of many).
All you just pointed out was the well-known and obvious fact that most of the media take their talking points straight from the White House.
All you just pointed out was the well-known and obvious fact that most of the media take their talking points straight from the White House.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 12:45 pm to NHTIGER
So if I read this correctly the 335,000 new claims is just for one week. If going back 25 weeks the 4 in September were the best. Using the Spetember number of 312,000 per week as the average for the 25 weeks I come up with 7,800,000 new claims in the last 6 months.
Things are indeed looking up.
Things are indeed looking up.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 12:55 pm to NHTIGER
Nice catch
Posted on 2/20/14 at 12:56 pm to NHTIGER
Initial claims, unemployment numbers, participation rate, CPI, GDP, etc. metrics only matter to the audience of CNBC in one way, "how will said metric affect Yellen's pumping".
Posted on 2/20/14 at 1:16 pm to Jwho77
quote:
Reuters would have a more liberal-biased reputation than CNBC (different than MSNBC/NBC News in the eyes of many).
All you just pointed out was the well-known and obvious fact that most of the media take their talking points straight from the White House.
I agree with your first statement, which is why I used the "less liberal" (as weird as that sounds to most people) CNBC source initially.
As for your second statement, I believe I pointed out more than the fact that the "well-known and obvious" fact that those media sources have an allegiance to this administration . In this case, the "talking point" could not have come straight from the White House since the original story was released moments (literally) after the Labor Dept. released the report, and prior to any administration official commenting on the numbers.
I'm suggesting that oftentimes the talking points originate with the pro-administration media and the Administration pounces on them for their benefit. There is a lot of reporting about the Administration providing the media talking points, but I am expressing my belief that it is a two-way street, that they just as often adopt the talking points they use FROM the media, rather than the other way around.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 1:18 pm to NHTIGER
its almost spring everything is rosey during the early spring then reality sets in come summer time..go back and look at what they were saying about these numbers last spring. same bullshite and %rates rose in the houseing market because of it.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 1:25 pm to Geaux-2-L-O-Miss
quote:
So if I read this correctly the 335,000 new claims is just for one week. If going back 25 weeks the 4 in September were the best. Using the Spetember number of 312,000 per week as the average for the 25 weeks I come up with 7,800,000 new claims in the last 6 months.
Actually, none of the weeks in September even reached 312,00. Which is why I said all four weeks were BELOW 312,000. The 4-week September average was actually 305,000 (294k, 311k, 307k and 308K).
Posted on 2/20/14 at 1:29 pm to NHTIGER
Was that Liesman?
Posted on 2/20/14 at 1:50 pm to hawkeye007
quote:
its almost spring everything is rosey during the early spring
You mean like this?
Reuters, today, Feb, 20th :
"The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits fell last week, pointing to steadily improving labor market conditions, despite two straight months of weak hiring." - Lucia Mutikani
Reuters, Feb. 14th, 2013:
"Jobless claims hint at firming job market"
" The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits fell more than expected last week, offering hope the sluggish labor market recovery may have picked up a step."
Guess who ---- Lucia Mutikani.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 1:51 pm to prplhze2000
quote:
Was that Liesman?
It's the website story - no author identified.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 2:01 pm to NHTIGER
He gone Galt.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 2:09 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
Actually, none of the weeks in September even reached 312,00. Which is why I said all four weeks were BELOW 312,000. The 4-week September average was actually 305,000 (294k, 311k, 307k and 308K).
Ok September was 305k/wk. I used 312k for all 25 weeks (average of 312k)which with half the weeks being over 335k makes my number below the actual number. How can this be good that almost 8 million people filled first time unemployment claims in the last 6 months.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 2:17 pm to Geaux-2-L-O-Miss
quote:
How can this be good that almost 8 million people filled first time unemployment claims in the last 6 months.
It's not good. I'm on the same side of the issue as you apparently are. My "correction" of your 312,000 September average number was posted simply to keep the discussion factually accurate, not to dispute your point, nor its significance.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News