Click to enlarge.
We just keep drifting further and further away from the red trend line.
Click to enlarge.
The slope of the blue trend line is not consistent with euphoria, to put it mildly.
Click to enlarge.
For those keeping track at home, this week mark's the 64th straight upward revision to the previous week's data.
Here's a fun way to spend the afternoon. Take 64 pennies, shake them up, toss them onto a table. Repeat until they all come up heads. You have an 18 quintillionths (million-trillionths) of a chance (1 / 2^64) with each attempt. Enjoy!
See Also:
Initial Claims Danger v.14
Source Data:
St. Louis Fed: Initial Claims
DOL: Initial Claims
Extreme danger? Maybe we've just reached a new lower plateau of permanent prosperity. In the new eCONomy the glass is 1% full and 99% empty.
ReplyDeletemab,
ReplyDeleteI guess I just prefer to see the dark side of things. The glass is always half empty. And cracked. And I just cut my lip on it. And chipped a tooth. - Janeane Garofalo
I don't understand how the DoL model can be that broken and left broken for more than a year, unless it electioneering.
ReplyDeleteMr Slippery,
ReplyDeleteI don't think it has to be nefarious.
What if their cyclical model encounters structural problems and can't automatically detect them?
What if the revisions were based on incoming data from small businesses (and small businesses are suffering more than big businesses)?
Just a few thoughts. I wouldn't claim to know why the model isn't working properly (it clearly isn't). It also wouldn't surprise me if part of the model is based on historical data that no longer applies (maybe Jeremy Siegel has offered them advice, lol).
You know, kind of like assuming that 40.6 million jobs will appear once we get out of the rough patch. Facepalm.
Here'e the thing. If the model is off in the same direction every week for more than a year, wouldn't one of the bright minds at the DoL change it?
ReplyDeleteMy suggestion would be to take the incoming data and add 3,000 to it every week.
Mr Slippery,
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, when the government starts tweaking the data using arbitrary adjustment factors (without solid theories to go with them), that's when I'd start to worry (as a holder of TIPS).
On the other hand, if the goal is to come up with the best possible preliminary estimate in a Guess that Actual Initial Claims Competition, then I'd certainly be adding 3,000!