Unemployment claims statistics hocus-pocus

[marmar]

This is an excerpt from a Bloomberg story about this week's unemployment claims figures being essentially the same as last week's. But read these paragraphs about continuing claims:


...(snip)...

The report showed the four-week moving average of initial claims, a less volatile measure, fell to 514,000 last week, the lowest level in a year, from 520,500.

Continuing claims fell by 39,000 in the week ended Nov. 7 to 5.61 million. They were forecast to drop to 5.59 million.

The continuing claims figure does not include the number of Americans receiving extended benefits under federal programs. Today’s report showed the number of people who’ve used up their traditional benefits and are now collecting extended payments jumped by about 119,000 to 4.16 million in the week ended Oct. 31.

...(snip)...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aE5S0GOy9vXo&pos=2


:wtf: Why would the continuing claims figure NOT include the extended benefits number? It leads me to believe the jobless claims stats are a load of bollocks.

[Warpy]

1. It's why the U-6 is the real number

since it also counts discouraged workers who are either not receiving unemployment or who are getting extended benefits plus those people who are under employed, doing part time work out of their fields just to stay alive.

The basic number is rubbish, in other words, meant to make us feel better than we actually are. I don't honestly think it's working any more, though, since we all see the retail places going under and we all know someone who is having a very hard time.

[brendan120678]

2. Because the government wants everyone to think that...

unemployment is going down and everything is all hunky-dory?
:shrug:

The official stats already are manipulated enough not to show true unemployment figures, and it's been that way for a very long time.

[FBaggins]

3. It's just to compare apples to apples

Why would the continuing claims figure NOT include the extended benefits number?


They're just trying to maintain as much data integrity in the series as possible. As long as both figures are reported or easily available it isn't a reason to be concerned.

If they included them there would a big "spike" in the data set that would need to be explained. It didn't mean that any more people had fallen into the category, it would just be that we decided to temporarily change who was paid. There's obviously a good reason for the payment, but why let it damage the data set and require you to put an asterisk on the chart? :)

[Motown_Johnny]

4. Bingo

[StarfarerBill]

5. Lies, damned lies, and statistics...