Ravenwood - 12/06/02 09:17 AM
Jobless claims fall to 21-month low - New claims for unemployment benefits plunged last week to their lowest level in 21 months -- USA Today, December 5, 2002.
Jobless Rate Surged Unexpectedly in November - The nation's unemployment rate unexpectedly shot up to 6.0 percent in November, the highest level since a peak almost nine years ago when the country was struggling to emerge from the last recession. -- NY Times, December 6, 2002.
Interestingly, both stories were written by the AP.
UPDATE: USA Today runs this Reuters article just 24 hours after they ran an article that claimed unemployment numbers are "offering some cheer to workers as they head into the holiday shopping season. "
Jobless rate soars to 6% in Nov. - a troubling sign for the economy -- USA Today, December 6, 2002.
Actually, both figures were correct. New claims for unemployment benefits have been dropping steadily, and the level for new claims is the lowest it has been in almost 2 years.
Unemployment came in at 6% last month. But AP was incorrect in saying it's the highest level in almost nine years. According to the BLS, unemployment hit 6% in April.
The two figures can be reconciled by realizing that even though fewer people were losing their jobs in the past month, not enough new jobs were being created elsewhere in the economy to employ them all.
The new claims figure is a better indicator of future economic growth than the unemployment figure, so I'm not alarmed by this month's blip in unemployment...neither is the stock market, apparently.
While the figures my jibe with reality, the spin by AP and Reuters is comical.
One article is filled with cheer, while the other is filled with doom and gloom.
Posted by: Ravenwood at December 6, 2002 12:42 PMOh, you're right about that, Steve.
It's as if the AP was looking for an excuse to write about how horribly the economy is performing. Maybe they were disappointed that they were forced to write about good economic news yesterday and went overboard on today's story. And, of course, they had to ignore an inconvenient fact to do so :) At least Reuters got that fact right.
(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
