Jobless claims decline to 334,000

[papau]

Jobless claims decline to 334,000 in latest week from revised 337,000 in prior week.

http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm

November 18, 2004 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT

SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA

In the week ending Nov. 13, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 334,000, a decrease of 3,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 337,000. The 4-week moving average was 338,250, an increase of 1,000 from the previous week's revised average of 337,250.

The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.2 percent for the week ending Nov. 6, unchanged from the prior week's unrevised rate of 2.2 percent.

The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending Nov. 6 was 2,792,000, a decrease of 16,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 2,808,000. The 4-week moving average was 2,803,250, an increase of 500 from the preceding week's revised average of 2,802,750.


UNADJUSTED DATA

The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 310,837 in the week ending Nov. 13, a decrease of 43,724 from the previous week. There were 347,719 initial claims in the comparable week in 2003.

The advance unadjusted insured unemployment rate was 1.9 percent during the week ending Nov. 6, unchanged from the prior week. The advance unadjusted number for persons claiming UI benefits in state programs totaled 2,398,544, a decrease of 35,603 from the preceding week. A year earlier, the rate was 2.4 percent and the volume was 2,996,755.<snip>

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aSHxjWmLGQ.0&refer=news_index

U.S. Jobless Claims May Have Fallen to 330,000, Survey Says
Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) -- The number of U.S. workers filing initial claims for unemployment benefits probably fell last week and kept at the lowest sustained level in four years, according to a survey of 41 economists.

The median forecast calls for first-time applications to drop to 330,000 from 333,000, which would be the third week in which claims were less than 335,000. The last time claims were that low for that long was in November 2000, before the last recession. The Labor Department releases the data at 8:30 a.m. in Washington. <snip>

The index of leading U.S. economic indicators probably fell for a fifth month in October, signaling the economy will be hard- pressed to accelerate. The New York-based Conference Board's gauge of how the economy will perform over the next three to six months, to be issued at 10 a.m. Washington time, is forecast to fall 0.1 percent for a second month, according to the median estimate.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia may report its regional manufacturing index is signaling a more subdued pace of growth. The index is forecast to decline to 23.1 for this month from 28.5 in October, according to forecasts. Readings above zero pint to growth. The report is set for 10 a.m. Washington time. <snip>

[liberal N proud]

1. So 3,000 more loose Un-Employment benifits

[papau]

2. Reuters version below-as no one notes"extended benefits" nowhere available

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&ncid=749&e=1&u=/nm/20041118/bs_nm/economy_claims_dc

Jobless Claims Dip, Match Forecasts

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of Americans filing first-time claims for unemployment benefits dipped to 334,000 last week, the government said on Thursday, matching economists' forecasts.

Initial claims for jobless aid fell 3,000 in the week ended Nov. 13 from a revised 337,000 the prior week, the Labor Department (news - web sites) said. Wall Street economists had expected 334,000 claims after the initially reported 333,000 for the week ended Nov. 6.

A department analyst said the federal government's closure in observance of the Veterans Day holiday during the week had no impact on the data.

The number of unemployed who remained on the benefit rolls after claiming an initial week of aid fell 16,000 to 2.79 million in the week ended Nov. 6, the latest period for which data are available. <snip>

[MrUnderhill]

3. "Decrease of 3,000 from the previous week's" 337,000... except last week

it was reprted as 333,000.


Just fiddling around the edges... I know... but it seems like the wrong way to report the stroy.

[byronm]

4. PATHETIC numbers considering its christmas season

And the scary thing is, almost everyone i know is charging up everything this christmas. Everyone has thousands if not hundreds of thousands in debt and credit card companies and banks are happily letting people spend beyond there means to get bigger cars, bigger tv's and bigger houses.

Wait until feb 1st when all the seasonal help is fired, the flu is in full swing and the normal cycle of contract/construction labor slows down...

The only reason manufacturing has increased is the dollar has plumeted, but something is going to break and were either going to see some major inflation or some crumbling of crucial markets (keep an eye on the insurance market to burst..)

[MrUnderhill]

6. The numbers are seasonally adjusted to account for that.

The unadjusted figure actually dropped 43,724 from last week, but they largely expected that.

[mhr]

5. So Besides The Long-Term Unemployed Like Myself (53 Months)

There are Still 2,790,000 Americans receiving unemployment insurance which only lasts 6 months.

Think about all the long-term unemployed competing for jobs with 2.79 million people that have been out of work for six months or less.

And what about those that have given up looking all together. One wonders how many millions that would be?

Local friends tell me to expect between 10 and 20 twenty thousand telecom layoffs right after Christmas.

See what Dubya Did To Dallas, TX below:

[MrUnderhill]

7. An update for your chart... Doesn't look much better.

[mhr]

8. Notice How Dallas, TX Still Has Fewer People Employed

Than The Beginning of 2000.

I'd also bet bottom dollar that these charts are jiggered to reflect a reality favoring Bush.

[MrUnderhill]

10. I wondered about the variation on the lines...

Is that normal variation (maybe San Antonio has better local government? Or maybe USAA has been hiring a lot of people?), or is there a political reason behind it?

Are San Antonio & Houston Republican while Dallas/Ft Worth is not? Is there favoritism being showed?

Now that I think about it... that may not fit. Wasn't the Dallas/Ft Worth area one of the few big cities to go for Bush?

[TahitiNut]

12. San Antonio and Houston have far more Federal government jobs.

("more" in proportion to their population, that is) San Antonio is virtually overrun with military bases (Army and Air Force) and has a large retired military population with continuous incomes.

[mhr]

13. San Antonio = Military Jobs ----- Houston = Oil Jobs

Dallas = Telecom ---- Austin = Software, Semiconductors

Both Telecom and Software were heavily hit with the NASDAQ crash in 2000. Here in Dallas, there are still hundreds of empty buildings that housed telecom workers before the bust. I understand that Austin has the highest number of houses on the market per capita of any US city.

That pretty much sums up the differences with the rest of the state

[Wright Patman]

9. San Antonio

may have relatively more employment, but how much do the jobs that are available there pay compared to the ones in Dallas?

This is the problem with unemployment statistics in general. A person could be working three part-time jobs and still not be able to "put food on his family."

[MrUnderhill]

11. Maybe... but you would also need to compare cost-of-living differences.

n/t