ETA News Release: Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Report (08/09/2012)

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Last edited Thu Aug 9, 2012, 01:43 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Department of Labor, Employment and Training Admin

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT

SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA

In the week ending August 4, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 361,000, a decrease of 6,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 367,000. The 4-week moving average was 368,250, an increase of 2,250 from the previous week's revised average of 366,000.

The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.6 percent for the week ending July 28, unchanged from the prior week's unrevised rate.

The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending July 28 was 3,332,000, an increase of 53,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 3,279,000. The 4-week moving average was 3,304,750, an increase of 4,500 from the preceding week's revised average of 3,300,250.

UNADJUSTED DATA

The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 317,580 in the week ending August 4, an increase of 4,934 from the previous week. There were 354,408 initial claims in the comparable week in 2011.


Read more: http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/eta20121632.htm

---

Good morning, Freepers and DUers alike. It is time once again for the weekly unemployment insurance initial claims report.

Here for your viewing pleasure are this week's data, brought to you as a nonpartisan public service. This is just one example of the good work your civil servants are performing for you.

Decrease this week. Not much, but 6,000 is 6,000.

I can't recall when I started posting the number every week, but this has probably been going on for at least a year. I seriously do not care if the week's data make Obama look good, or Romney look good, or Chairman Mao look good, or anybody else. They are just numbers, and I post them without regard to the consequences.

You will also note that I welcome people from Free Republic to examine the numbers as well. They paid for the work just as much as members of DU did, so I invite them to come on over and have a look. "The more the merrier" is the way I look at it.

I do not work at the ETA, and I do not know anyone working in that agency. I'm sure I can safely assume that the numbers are gathered and analyzed by career civil servant economists who do their work on a nonpartisan basis. Numbers are numbers, and let the chips fall where they may. If you feel that these economists are falling down on the job, drop them a line or give them a call. They work for you, not for any politician or political party. Maybe they're all voting for Romney. That's up to them.

The word "initial" is important. The report does not count all claims, just the new ones filed this week.

Note: The seasonal adjustment factors used for the UI Weekly Claims data from 2007 forward, along with the resulting seasonally adjusted values for initial claims and continuing claims, have been revised. These revised historical values, as well as the seasonal adjustment factors that will be used through calendar year 2012, can be accessed at the bottom of the following link: http://www.oui.doleta.gov/press/2012/032912.asp

[Beacool]

1. Thank you for the info.

I too don't care who it makes look good or bad, facts are facts. Besides, since the Reagan era the unemployment figures are B.S., not counting the people who are underemployed or gave up looking altogether is nonsense.

[pinqy]

2. Nonsense?

"Underemployed" have never ever been classified as Unemployed because, well, they have jobs, which means they're Employed.

As for people not looking for work...until 1967 the definition allowed people who gave up looking due to poor market conditions in depressed regions to be counted as unemployed, but it was at the interviewer's discretion and was never systematic. It's also extremely subjective, which is why it was dropped from the definition. As far as the labor market goes, it doesn't matter why someone is not looking for work, they won't get hired and do not represent available labor.

Until 1994, people who had been offered a job but had not yet started work were classified as unemployed without having to meet job search requirements. Since 1994, they do have to.

People on temporary layoff expecting to return to work are exempt from the job search requirement.

None of those changes occurred under Reagan.

None of that has anything to do with this thread, which is about UI claims, not unemployment level/rate.

[fasttense]

3. There comes a time when people run out of unemployment benefits.

Just like Clinton's and the RepubliCON's new fangled welfare legislation, the unemployed can use up their benefits. Yes, yes I know this is initial filings but it does count those people who were unemployed 2 years ago, then found a job, but 2 years later got laid off yet again. But if you are unemployed for an extended length, you can use up your unemployment benefit and can NOT file an initial claim again. This makes the numbers of initial claims look smaller.

Also, those people who have jobs without benefits (which is most of the new jobs created since 2008) are NOT eligible to file. This also makes the number of initial claims look smaller.

Initial claims filings should be tracked but a decrease is NOT an indicator of an improving job market.