U.S. Jobless Claims Tumble to 328,000

[Freddie Stubbs]

By JEANNINE AVERSA, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The number of people filing new claims for unemployment benefits dropped last week to the lowest level in more than three years, a promising sign that companies feel better about the economy's prospects and are less inclined to get rid of workers

The Labor Department (news - web sites) reported Thursday that new applications filed for jobless claims declined by a seasonally adjusted 14,000 to 328,000 for the week ending April 3. That marked the lowest level since Jan. 13, 2001.

The jobless claims figures were better than economists were expecting. They called for a slight decline from the previous week to around 340,000.

The more stable four-week moving average of claims, which smooths out weekly fluctuations, also went down last week by 3,250 to 336,750. That represented the lowest level since November 25, 2000.

more: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040408/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy_3

[Yavin4]

1. Bush Gets Credit When Things Are Not As Bad As They Use To Be

Like the kid who gets a "D+" instead of an "F", Bush gets credit for things not falling completely apart. Bush survives because he redefines reality on his terms. Yes, in a Bush world, 328K new claims for UI is a good number, but in the real world, 328UI claims IS NOT a good number. Weekly new claims for UI have averaged well over 300K for most of his term. That's not a good number. Getting new weekly UI claims back to where they were in 2000 IS NOT A SIGN OF PROGRESS!!!!!



Just like Iraq, Bush twists reality in order to support his agenda.

[denverbill]

2. More like the kid was a straight-A student til Bush, then starting flunkin

Now, he's improved from F's to D-'s. Let's hear a big cheer everyone!

I think by now everyone here knows all about how these numbers are calculated. The economy sucks dishwater and every day brings new bad news of layoffs and jobs outsourced.

Just about the only people hiring are the mercenary recruiters.

[Catfight]

3. Great analogy, F+ if you ask me. n/t

[Frodo]

4. Not exactly.

In the REAL world 328k is a very solid number. Anything under 400k is considered "stable employment" anything under 350k is considered solid growth in employment.

"Weekly new claims for UI have averaged well over 300K for most of his term."

Well, for ALL of his term actually. He's unlikely to dip under 300k for more than a week or two this summer. A sustained 300k number would be fabulous growth. Clinton only got the number below 300k for a little over a year of his second term and that was just about the hottest the job market ever got.


Don't shoot the messenger, that's just the way it is. Don't make the mistake of playing down Clintons fabulous performance as if it was the "expected" level. Even getting close to that would be "great". The problem is it's "too little too late".

[mhr]

9. Frodo - Your Comments Are Irrelevant As Usual To Those Unemployed

See the post below and stop trying to put lipstick on a pig.

You arguments are nothing more than apologies for the Busj administration.

For those untested, do a search on Frodo to see that he has consistently defended the Bush administration on this issue.

Why? Who the hell knows?

Disclaimer - Frodo is employed and is indifferent to those out of work. Unemployed persons, like myself (46 months), know all to well that the argument over a few thousand workers is meanigless. The question is why has the economy stopped creating enough new jobs and what will it take to get the job creation machine going again. Clearly, outsourcing does not help. Clearly as well, the Bush Administration reliance on tax cuts and trickle down voodoo economics has had marginal, if any, impact.

[Frodo]

12. "Constantly pointed out where you were wrong" is not the same thing

as "constantly defended the Bush administration"

You happen to be wrong independent of your political views. The article you've linked about a dozen times in the last week is poor economic science.

Feel free to search back on our arguments on this issue and compare my predictions to yours and see who came closest to reality.


"Frodo is employed and is indifferent to those out of work."

I don't believe that's a fair statement. My conversations with you have never implied I was indifferent to your plight.

"Unemployed persons, like myself (46 months), know all to well that the argument over a few thousand workers is meaningless."

Right... so ONE unemployed person is the relevant figure but a few thousand is not worth talking about?

The basis for your argument (while absolutely understandable given your personal situation) is not rational. If ANYONE is unemployed then any new jobs for other people is meaningless. SURE, for that person (you) it is. But on a political discussion board trying plan election strategy it's entirely appropriate.

And just a few more months like this and we've lost ourselves an election issue. As I predicted six months ago.

[Teaser]

13. Frodo is just pointing out economic facts

I don't always agree with him, but his analysis is honest.

[area51]

54. No,

Frodo is, as usual, being a shill/troll for this republinazi administration. He's trying to shit on the unemployed people on DU. As another poster said, Frodo doesn't have the guts to quit his job & find another job to "prove" his lie that jobs aren't hard to find.

[Frodo]

56. Actually, not that it's any of your business,

but I HAVE gone through a job change in the last year. I had to sell my house and move to a new state. (Which, BTW, does not make me "better" or "smarter" than anyone else OR make jobs "easy to find")


Let's test your theory shall we. Let's imagine that it's the last couple years of the Clinton administration. Unemployment is about as low as it's been in recent history and salary's are on the rise. Economically speaking things are about as good as it's possible to get.

Imagine we have this same argument. There are still 270,000-300,000 people laid off every week (check the stats) and there are millions of people unemployed (a small number who have been unemployed for some time).

Here's your question: When I point out that things are actually going pretty well... am I "trying to shit on" those people who are unemployed? (Because there were still quite a few of them).

I'm merely pointing out (frequent) incorrect assumptions about how economics works. People who assume you drop off the UE figures when your benefits run out, or that the initial filing figure is the negative version of the "job creation" figure, or that (seasonally adjusted) numbers are insignificant because "we always gain jobs in November because of the holidays" etc. etc. etc. I refuse to accept incorrect assumptions to prove I'm a Democrat. Imagine Kerry using some of these points in a debate? He'd look like an idiot.

When things are improving (and they have been for at least six months and despite fact after fact people continue to call me a republican shill) do I have to hide my head in the sand and pretend it isn't happening to make you feel better? Why can't you just yell "It's about D@mn time and ain't nearly good enough!" ???


And I don't believe I've ever claimed that jobs aren't hard to find. Can you show me an example?

[Heyo]

30. Do mine eyes deceive me?

Do I see actual not-partisan recognition of reality here?

(rubbing eyes)

Could it be?

Heyo

[Frodo]

32. Not really.

Do I see actual not-partisan recognition of reality here?

Nope. You see an entirely partisan recognition of reality.

I don't look inconvenient political news and say "how can I convince myself and others that this doesn't exist". I say "How do we handle this new reality?"

[madrchsod]

5. but 328000 people are out

of work that`s so fucking good about that?

[Frodo]

7. What's "good" about it.

Even in the roaringest best of times some people lose jobs every day. When tens of millions of people are employed there is going to be some moving around. This isn't "328 thousand fewer peolpe had jobs this week" because there is no comparable report on how many people STARTED a new job today (not a "new job", but an existing job that was held by someone else a month ago).

Obviously the "new hire" number would fluctuate too (were it measured/reported), but it is presumed to be in that 350-400k range. So "new filings" under 400k are considered "pretty good" and under 350k a "good". Ever getting it below 300k is "GREAT".

[TexasBushwhacker]

53. But the number isn't realiable ....

.... even in the best of circumstances. As you said, it doesn't indicate how many people started new jobs. It also doesn't indicate how many people were dropped from the unemployment rolls because their benefits expired. It also doesn't reflect someone who's resorted to working as a "perma-temp" through an agency who doesn't get called for a week or two at a time, or a person who's come to the end of thier contract and doesn't have any new work coming in the foreseeable future. It doesn't include a person who's had to take a job at a significant drop in wages from their previous job.

[Frodo]

57. Well, that's mostly right.

Your first point is correct. It doesn't measure new jobs. It doesn't "indicate people dropped...etc" either, but mostly because they AREN'T dropped when benefits expire (a common mistake here). The rest is also correct.

But it doesn't pretend to be any of those things. It's a fluid (and highly variable week to week) measure of newly unemployed people. That is at one or two removes from "total unemployed" and is obviously a much smaller data point than the monthly UE numbers (but it IS weekly - which is part of it's value).

It isn't so much an issue of "reliable" as what it is properly used for. But it IS "valuable". Take a look at the chart going back 15yrs or so:


Obviously, you can see that movement of even several thousand from week to week is just statistical "noise", but you can look at the overall chart and identify pretty easily where we were in tough times, when they were improving/declining, and when things were going great.

Can I look at the drop in 1993 from 425k/wk to about 330k/wk and tell you exactly how many new jobs were created in a particular month? Nope. Not even close. But can I say with certainly that the job picture was improving dramatically and rapidly? Absolutely. And we've taken that same ride (just look at the chart) over the last 10-12 months or so. The one CRITICAL difference (and what people keep ignoring) is that unusual gap between the blue and red line over the last two years.

[mhr]

6. Irrelevant Numbers - The Missing 9.4 million Jobs

These Numbers Are Irrelevant in context for those that are unemployed.

The fact is that the economy has stopped producing jobs in numbers large enough to absorb either new entrants or those displaced.

So what that the rate of layoffs has declined. There simply are not enough new jobs.

http://www.comstockfunds.com/index.cfm?act=Newsletter.cfm&category=Mar ...

Comstock Funds
Charlie Minter
7 April 2004

Although the 308,000 increase in March payroll employment may seem like a lot compared to what we’ve been getting and what most have been expecting, it actually falls far short of what we should be seeing at this stage of a recovery. Here’s what we found in examining the last seven economic recoveries.

In the first six of these recoveries beginning with May 1954 employment rose by an average of 7.7 percent over the first 28 months with a high of 9.1 percent and a low of 5.5 percent. This includes one cycle that peaked in 24 months with a gain of 7.4 percent. Even in the recovery that started in March 1991, employment climbed 2.2% over the first 28 months. For all of the seven recoveries, employment rose by an average of 6.9 percent over 28 months. So let’s not hear any more about employment being a lagging indicator. It is not, and even if it were, 28 months is surely enough time to catch up.

In the current recovery employment has actually declined 0.2 percent in the first 28 months that includes the March number and the revisions that were released on Friday. If employment had increased by 6.9 percent, the average of the past recoveries, March payrolls would have come to about 139.9 million rather than the 130.5 million actually reported. This means that there are now 9.4 million fewer jobs than there should be at this point in the cycle, and that we needed an average increase of 322,000 jobs for each of the past 28 months to equal the average job growth of the last seven expansions.

Snip ......

[Tempest]

15. Your link is broken

http://tinyurl.com/2o7e2

[nolabels]

41. More effing lies by *co they stated there were going to be 4 million......

new jobs created because of latest new tax cuts for the rich

Job slump puts Bush in bad light


By Patrice Hill
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
(snip)
"The unemployment rate of 5.6 percent continues to be below the averages of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s," said Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao, but "as the president has said many times, we're not going to rest until every American who wants a job can find one."
A Republican Party campaign consultant conceded that the weak job growth after more than two years of economic recovery and 2.2 million job losses is hurting Mr. Bush.
"Is the Bush campaign suicidal over the jobs-formation news? Well, maybe not exactly suicidal, but I can tell you I'm very unhappy — depressed — with the news, and I normally reflect the views of the campaign," said the consultant, who did not want to be named.
"This is really bad news" both for the president as well as millions of job-hunters because "it means the president's program is failing," said Peter Morici, business professor at the University of Maryland.
(snip)
http://www.washtimes.com/business/20040305-100448-5882r.htm


We the undersigned, endorse the following petition:
Show us the real unemployment rate!
Target: Richard Armey House Majority Leader
Sponsor: Danny Offerman
(snip)(345 7:58 pm PDT, Apr 6 fred samuels)
Last year (August 8, 2003) I was fired from my manufacturing job in Decatur, Georgia after twenty nine years. I didn't think Jr. could get my job too, but he did. I had to file bankrupcy and my unemployment benifits ran out after twenty six weeks. Those fired in 2002 got one hundred and four weeks. I think it is only fair to treat everyone equally. Now I have no income, no health insurance (now that I need it most) and I am fixing to lose my house of ten years that I fought so hard to get. And to top it off, the company I worked for fired me with only one year to go so I could get my pension for "Thirty and out", now I'll have to wait until I'm sixty two to get it. Cost me ninty thousand dollars. And then my own Senators, Saxby Shambiss and Zig-Zag Zell Miller voted against the amendment on Feburary 26, 2004. And to make matters worse Kerry and Edwards weren't there to vote. The bill failed by two votes. Of course last year when congress went home for the holidays without voting on the extensions, Jr. said that should be the "number one priority" when they reconvened. Then he and the republicans blocked it three times. He's the biggest crook in the history of the world. After causing those buildings in New York to come down by national policy movements, I'll never forget him laughing and carring on with those firemen throwing the baseball were three thousand people had just died, because he failed to protect the American people. Is "this" the American Dream? It's all a lie. And, God has already slapped the U.S. upside the head twice, (not to mention all the other taps) but ain't nobody got a clue. Except a few, and I thank them. The rest are zombies that slurp up all the propaganda from the "bought and paid for media" like it was candy. Jr. was in Georgia the other day, thanking a small group of people in Greensboro Georgia for contributing two hundred million dollars to his campaign. But the law says one thousand dollars per person. Course it ain't gonna matter soon, if they keep cutting the trees down and the population keeps growing. They'll be laying in the streets. And we will join the dinosaurs destiny, extinction. Maybe that's God's plan, let some species worth a shit have a try at it. Sine Die.
(snip)

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/371840291?ts=1081445746&sign=1&sign=563930451&sign=563930451


Fred's story sounds familiar :donut:

I have taken pay cuts many times going from job to job as a journey man truck mechanic, but never 50% to 80% of one, which seems the level *co would expect (would be wanting) all of us to cope with. I am not fooled, I have a decent job, but still am expecting it to be attacked in substance sooner or later.

[teryang]

8. That's 14,000 part time jobs (maybe) paying

...8 dollars an hours or less (probably less since the employer shifts the costs of new employment to the new employee) with no benefits.

Whoopee!

[RummyTheDummy]

31. Exactly

So a bunch of pimply faced kids got jobs at Burger King. All is well....all is well.

[Frodo]

33. That song and dance didn't work for Republicans in the 90's - Why do you

assume it will work for us?


They were always replying to "3 million new jobs" with "I know, my cousin has four of them!". How did they do in that election?


Of the 308k figure, 28k were in "Leisure/hospitality" (where Burger King falls - though plenty of jobs in that industry/sector are quite a bit better)

By comparrison - there were 71k new Construction jobs, 42k Professional/Business, 39k Education/Health (no idea why those get lumped together), 31k Government, and (bad for me) a tiny 6k in the financial sector.

The evidence doesn't support that they are all "burger flipping jobs" nor (as has also been claimed) that they are all part-time jobs.

[NMDemDist2]

37. so 1/3 of new jobs are

construction or goverment. Seasonal construction and goverment bloating. Just peachy

[Frodo]

39. Not bad.

Impressive spin. And quickly done at that.

But we still gave them the blame for "seasonal firings" didn't we? Construction jobs are pretty good honest work (and lots of overtime).

"Government bloating" is a pretty good one, and especially biting since the Republicans harp on such things (and because those are numbers Bush has more control over - "Go hire another 200k - I need the numbers!"). But we really ought to let one of THEM bring that up.
Democrats complaining about Government jobs seems hypocritical.

[rppper]

73. about construction jobs

"Construction jobs are pretty good honest work (and lots of overtime)."

nice point here, BUT......

construction jobs are not just honest, they are labor intensive, and most construction crews are unlikely to hire you if you are over 35 or so for exactly that point, unless of course you have a skill, such as cabinet making, masonary skills or other type of construction orientated skill.

so essentially, you start out as a laborer, hauling stacks of 2x4's on your shoulders all day long, or perhaps roofing, which entails hauling heavy rolls of tar paper and shingles up onto a roof(and if you have ever roofed in florida, you know what a fun job that is)and laying them down. or maybe you get to help level ground for foundation work...aka=shoveling all day.

whatever the case, you start at about 8.00 an hour, no benefits for at least 90 days and you are relegated to back breaking job that will quickly wear away ones body if you aren't accustomed to the work. most construction companies will not hire a 35 y/o out of work tech type for basic labor because they know he or she wont last the duration. the seasonal part doesnt really apply here in florida, but it does in the northern area of the country. you also dont work when it rains, and your chances of recieving an injury that can permanantly disable you are staggeringly high...see no benefits above...

frodo, i have never read into your posts here, but i have to wonder if you have ever been in a construction type atmosphere working for a living. the pay is good, no doubt, but it isnt a very good option for someone who is unacustomed to the jobs it entails. during my periods of unemployment i have done construction labor, but i am not your prototypical office guy either.

thank god i have a good back and i'm in reasonably good health. i got by after much use of ben-gay and tylenol. others jumping into the job were not so lucky. i wont even get into the wide array of injuries i witnessed, and that the watering down of OSHA regs by this administration have left many of these laborers in an unsafe working enviroment. try hammering with a broken arm...sure, you got to go to the hospital under workmans comp, but your future afterwards is left up to how good you heal. that sir, is not a rosey picture.

your comparisons to the economy under clinton and the job loss chart are all well and good to, but we did not have 3 million more americans out of work in conjunction with the same 300k turnover rate. that rate in itself is not bad, true enough, but the rate is stagnent and not advancing the additional 3 million people back into the work force. you can suger coat a turd all you want, it'll still be a turd when you bite into it and it will still leave the same bad taste in your mouth.

edited for grammuuuur.....

[Frodo]

74. Not "for a living" since I was in school, but yes.

Road construction. Lot's of overtime, lots of sun(burns), lots of being at the mercy of the weather, lost a bit of weight, etc.

I admit (being in college and not intending to stay there long), that I may have viewed the job differently then some who were there long-term (and I don't consider it a "career" unless you are moving into a skilled job), but I have enourmous respect for the guys I left behind.

So, yeah, I consider them "real jobs" and not comparable to "burger flipping".

Either way though - new construction jobs means increased construction. Increased construction means more spending on the part of municipalities (for roads) or businesses (offices or homes). All of these are "good" things.

More burger-flipping just means fatter citizens.

[teryang]

40. And a bunch of college educated 50 year olds

...got jobs at walmart.

[teryang]

10. That's 14,000 new jobs maybe at

...8 dollars an hours or less (probably less since the employer shifts the costs of new employment to the new employee) with no benefits.

I did better than that in todays dollars at age 15 with no hs education. Now it's the average new job.

Whoopee!

[coloradodem2005]

11. Well...

...it could be because people lost their unemployment benefits.

[alittlelark]

14. Don't the #'s go up every spring

due to construction being resumed?

[Longhorn79]

16. Yeah, they always go up (and I think this is a statistically mild spring),

but that is also factored into the expectations of the analysts.

[Frodo]

17. Actually no.

The numbers are "seasonally adjusted", so Spring shouldn't make a difference unless THIS Spring is different from LAST Spring.

BUT, even NON seasonally adjusted, the "raw" figure is actually right around 300k this week (actually UP slightly from the previous report) and the adjustment ADDS about 20-30k to it. The "raw" figures for Dec/Jan were actually well into the 400k range (I think) and were adjusted down because you get layoffs in January every year.

[Longhorn79]

23. What does Krugman have to say about all this?

Anybody have a link handy?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

18. Warmer weather = more construction sites are hiring.

[Frodo]

19. Remember that this isn't the "new jobs" number

It's the number of people filing for first time unemployment. it doesn't deal with how many people are hired.

[shrike]

20. Actually, the way things are going in Iraq today

I don't think anyone is going to pay too much mind to this number.

[cosmicdot]

21. wonder what these folks' status will be 6 months from now

what prompted their job loss? job obsolete? downsized? outsourced?

based on *'s jibberjabber in NC, wonder how many will 're-train' and become bioinformatic specialists?

without doing something to radically redirect our creativity and human resources, i.e. alternative energy - whatever progressive work initiatives; we need a catalyst to excite people ... with all the outsourcing savings going to stock options and executive salaries and bonuses, I think the current economy is close to dead ... the old ways have met their Berlin Wall ... the Soviet Union of the American Ecnomy is breaking down ... it's time for the good ol'boys of the old system to fade away, and take their pseud-leadership and totalitarian ways with them ... this includes the corporate Dems on the Hill as well, i.e. Feinstein whose husband's business has Carlyle Group investment money ......

bring on real leadership ...


Let's ask George:

[0007]

22. Phoney numbers

As more National Guard units are called up, more unemployed go to work.

[LiberalFighter]

71. What happens when (if) the Iraq war is over?

Where do those troops go back to and where do the people that had their jobs go to?

[Frodo]

72. A couple points on that.

How many national guardsmen do you think are over there? There are lots fighting (and more than a few dying) but it's still something like 150,000 soldiers. More than half active dupty military and are currently doing thier jobs - so there's nothing to change when they "come back".

As of the end of last year, there were about 60,000 National Guard and Reserve members in Iraq of Kuwait.

IF they all came back now and IF none of them got their old jobs back (basically illegal) or displaced some temp holding it for them... it wouldn't be a rounding error on the UE report (they are currently not counted as employed OR unemployed) and would have less effect on the jobs report than the stricking grocery workers did.

[Yavin4]

24. All of These UE Figures Mean One Thing: "Capitulation"

I think that the American worker is capitulating on their careers. I think that people are doing the exact opposite of Monster.com's motto, "They're Settling". Last week's famous 308K new jobs in March report showed a net loss in IT jobs of 1,000 and zero job growth in mfg. It also showed huge job growth in "services". Taken together, the logical conclusion is that people are taking whatever jobs that are out there.

So, in the short term, Bush and people like Frodo who ony look at data points can make the political argument that jobs are being created, but the reality of the job is something entirely different. The reality is that there is no new emerging sector of this economy that's producing jobs which is what we had in the economic expansion of the 80s and the 90s. Reality is being obscured by numbers spinners like Frodo, who want you to believe that there's a major difference between 328K new UI claims and 400K new claims per week, and that 328K new UI claims mean that boom times are here.

Frodo, put your money where your mouth is. Quit your job today and see how fast you can get another one.

[Frodo]

26. Ohhh. Not to steal mhr's debating style, but I'd be willing to bet..

That the 90,000 people who would have been laid off last week (if the numbers were what they were at this point last year) but weren't... would disagree with you that there is little difference between 328k and 400k.

I have't claimed "boom times" as you say, but I don't need to quit to demonstrate the facts. Tell me when you considered a "boom time" in employement? And what were the weekly filing numbers then?

Give me a f* break about this "data points" argument. I've been reading this into the employment data for over six months and TOLD you all what was coming. It's inevitible and it has NOTHING to do with Bush (but by tying him incorrectly to the issue and setting the bar so low you've given it to him for the election.)

This has not been a "single data point" argument - it's MONTHS of combined news that everyone here wants to "wish away". Like your post here - how does worker "capitulation" keep employers from laying people off? It might relate to the hiring side of things, but if so you'd expect a lowering of the UE rate (as we HAD been seeing) as people were also giving up looking. NOW it's going UP (despite new jobs) as people who had given up start looking again.

[Yavin4]

36. Let Me Answer Your Question

{{how does worker "capitulation" keep employers from laying people off? }}

We cannot tell from this number whether workers are getting laid off or not. All that this number tells us is whether workers are filing new claims. My "capitulation" point is that workers are accepting less and less when it comes to work, and at this point, they're more likely to take another part-time McJob somewhere than they're going to file for UI and wait for their careers to return.

The C++ programmer who took a part-time job at Best Buy and got cut is not going to file a new claim nor is s/he going to wait for another C++ job. They're going to capitulate and look for another McJob.

[Frodo]

38. I appreciate your response. But there is one thing missing.

You CAN tell whether workers are getting laid off or not. You can only file for unemployment benefits if you lose your job through no fault of your own. So it wouldn't be "fewer people are quiting because they are afraid to look for work and settle for what they have".

Certainly, if you move from one job right into another without filing unemployment then your theory fits somewhat better. But it means that there are some jobs to be had quickly out there (something I'm not prepared to claim) and that you know you can get it right away. There is no benefit to NOT filing for benefits as soon as possible. Even if it's only a week or two that's still real money.

[Yavin4]

45. My Response

{{Certainly, if you move from one job right into another without filing unemployment then your theory fits somewhat better. But it means that there are some jobs to be had quickly out there (something I'm not prepared to claim) and that you know you can get it right away.}}

You've never tempted before have you? That's exactly how temping works. You work a two or three week assignment. You get cut. You wait a week or two, and then you get another two or three week assignment. Also, if you have a McJob for only a few weeks, you can't claim UI if you've been cut.

My overall point is that the very nature of jobs and careers is changing. American workers are accepting less and less. They're taking the crappy jobs that are there instead of holding out hope for a return to their careers. That's why these numbers look positive when they're not.

[teryang]

43. exactly

As the situation gets worse, it's not reflected in the numbers. Kerry is onto to this, thank god.

[54anickel]

55. I would take issue on one point Frodo -

You state "I've been reading this into the employment data for over six months and TOLD you all what was coming." In the SMW thread you mentioned it part of being the normal business cycle, and has historically repeated itself, which is true. But the normal business cycle claim is what I would take issue with.

These past 3+ years have been anything but normal. Unprecendented artificial stimulus through 40 year low interest rates, tax-cuts and an adminstration that has a proven track record of deceit and manipulation of information. This has not been a normal business cycle. The jobs report, the UE initial claims report, the "non-existent inflation being reported has ALL taken economists by complete surprise. Could they all have been so far off? In my years of watching this stuff, I've seen the pundits off, but not by such huge amounts on so many reports in a single month. Sorry, this makes me suspicious.

Sure, layoffs were bound to decrease sooner or later, you can only cut the herd down so far. Hopefully someone will be able to dig through these reports and find out what really happened. Bits and pieces are already leaking out and hitting the press on the jobs report. I think time will tell, but I do not agree that you can simply attribute this to the normal business cycle alone. If you do, you risk the danger of being caught off guard.

If they cooked the books again, I hope it comes out. This maladmin has done the little investor a huge disservice if these numbers are being manipulated in some way. There are already calls for investigations into the suspected early release of the jobs report as millions of dollars were fleeced by the insiders with advanced notice.

I am sure this will be another one of those things we will need to agree to disagree on. I hope you're correct. I just don't see how a normal business cycle could be taking place in the midst of such unprecedented stimulus and the new additional factors of out-sourcing and off-shoring.

[Frodo]

58. I actually don't disagree with you.

Most of your points are right on.

My theory on why things are this way can be summed up with "Japan". They had massive incredible stimulus (0% rates - Banks could just take money for free) and STILL were unable to stay out of a devestating deflationary environment. If you read back to a few weeks/months (ok a year or two) before everyone here started the inflation gloom and doom drumbeat you will see that people were pretty sure we were headed down the same path. THAT was not a "business cycle" kind of thing since they are barely coming out of it now a decade or so later.

Another reason (JMO) might be the strength of the Reagan/Clinton economies (yes, I put them together in a lot of ways). We will ALWAYS have the occasional recession, but they are now far less frequent and far less devestating. Clinton (ok I don't really give blame/credit to Presidents, but it helps to simplify) helped pull us out of a pretty short dip and solidified things so well that when we DID go in to another one around the change of the guard it really was a pretty mild one. The unemployment rate never approached the levels we had seen before, so it isn't nerely as elastic coming back. Darn good thing for us because if it WAS a normal recovery (again not Bush's credit at all) things would look INCREDIBLE by the election and we could just retire Kerry's jersey now.


Oh. In reading your post again - I have something to add on inflation. I don't buy (surprised? I didn't think so) that "hidden" inflation is rampant. It's that "Japan" thing again. We just barely missed sliding into that deflation hole (that would have been FAR worse) that we are riding on that bloody edge between the two. I think we WILL fall off, AND it will be toward higher inflation. But I don't expect anything above 3% or so in the next 2-3 years.

[54anickel]

60. I believe it would be a mistake to compare the 2 (US & Japan)

It's late and I don't want to get into it too much (you know how I'll keep digging) ;-)

Japan was a creditor nation, huge saving rate, etc. The US is a debtor nation, low savings big deficit and getting bigger by the hour.

Japan only recently got into the practice of printing yen like there is no tomorrow to buy our debt. Inflation is simply the increase in the money supply (too many dollars chasing too few goods). Japan may very well have to face the consequence of inflation in their future as will China as their economies heat up. Not to mention what we may face with the stimulus we have had in the money supply.

We are still increasing our money supply, M-3 just increased again last month (can't remember by how much). The deflation that Greenspin was worried about was in debt based assets - stocks and housing not so much in goods and services. Japan suffered deflation throughout their economy. I do believe there is the possibility for deflation in debt derived assets. So that would include homes and the huge derivative markets we have in the US. I believe those were the Feds concerns when they spoke of deflation. And what was Ben Bernake's answer - the printing press and helicopter drops of money.

Sometimes I think their goal is to see a huge deflation in wages. As long as wages do not increase (the inflation Greenspin worries about) the Fed can be patient on raising the rates. JMHO on that one.

[Frodo]

62. They speak a different language too. AND gave us "Iron Chef"

I'm aware that Japan is not exactly the same as the US.

Here's a link to an article from 2002 talking about the potential problem. It isn't that both ran into deflation fears in the same way, it's that there are similar ways of trying to get out of it (or avoid it). Ours WOULD be caused by an asset bubble collapse, but it would still be devestating. It is beginning to look like we've dodged that bullet - and if at the cost of higher inflation? Well, it will depend on how bad it gets, but I'd say "Yes".


http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1325469


As for your definition of "inflation" I wish you would stop by the Econ threads and let Dan know.

Particularly take a look at some of the discussion of how you can have massive increases in oil prices and have that end up being DEflationary. There seems to be a thought that ANY price increase is, by definition, inflation.

[54anickel]

64. Interesting article. I've never heard of this explanation before, then

again it does start with "Contrary". I'll have to chew on this for a while, it's got me thinking, the wheels are spinning.

Sorry to hear you're having trouble with the inflation definition in the Econ threads. Perhaps they are also thinking "contrary to popular opinion".

You can sway them Frodo, I know you can. You are good at what you do. ;-)

Contrary to popular opinion, inflation does not always rise when the economy expands, nor fall when it shrinks. Instead, the future path of inflation depends largely on the size of the output gap. If the level of GDP is below potential (meaning there is spare capacity), inflation can fall and keep falling, even if the economy is growing briskly, until GDP rises back to potential and the negative output gap is eliminated. But if America's growth remains below potential (3-3.5%, according to most economists), the output gap will actually widen, putting even more downward pressure on prices.

P.S. You rove shill you. :evilgrin:

[Frodo]

65. I'd say my chances of swaying them are...

... about 50/50

[54anickel]

66. HA! Good one Frodo. Got me on that one. n/t

[underpants]

25. Wow that's more in one week than the "new" jobs in March

Sssssh can't mention that on the TV.

[Frodo]

28. A common misconception.

Neither report counts the people being hired to replace people who are fired. The jobs report is an increase in the "net" number of workers. This just measures one side of the "some quit - some replace them" churn of everyday business.

Think about it this way. if you were to compare ONLY the "new jobs" figure to the sum of the weekly "job loss" figures for the same month? Clinton wouldn't have created a single job. There is no month in his two terms (in history probably) where it would work. The best "new jobs" report I can find was around 500k and the best 4wk average Initial Claim number report I can find is about 275k.

That would still mean losing around 700k jobs a month. Obviously, that didn't happen.

[daleo]

27. A problem for Bush with unemployment rates

As employment actually improves, more discouraged workers are drawn into the labor force (at least to look). Typically, the rate that these people are drawn in exceeds the increase in employment during the initial growth stages, and therefore the unemployment rate actually inches up.

This is the converse of what has been happening lately, where job growth was low or falling, but unemployment rates did not increase (sometimes they went down) due to the increase in discouraged workers.

The political effect will depend a lot on how the media spins this, which will mostly likely be as positive as possible for Bush, based on recent media behavior.

[Frodo]

29. Absolutely true.

As I predicted when the rate started falling even though no jobs were created.

The only problem is that we went on to set the jobs report as the gold standard (when it really isn't). We panicked (when the top-end number mirrored Clinton's re-election numbers) and said over and over "but THIS is the number you should care about!". We'll have a tough time backing off from it now.

Yes, the media will spin it against us (as you say). And they will likely do it with our own words.

[daleo]

44. It seems sure that most media will give this a pro-Bush spin

Still, the concept that rising unemployment rates means a worse economy is a very sticky one - it is hard to get out of one's brain. Most people will probably not get, or not trust, the subtlety of the argument that rising unemployment rates are "actually a sign of improvement" - they will see it as spin.

It will seem to echo the argument that more soldiers dying in Iraq is a sign that things are coming under control, which few people will believe either. Together the two claims have the air of desperation about them, regardless of their truth value.

So, I still think this is a negative for Bush.

[Cocoa]

34. it's morning in America

for about the 50 zillionth time in the last 3 years, we're on the verge of good times again.

[Frodo]

35. Should that be "mourning"?

[davsand]

42. Given the number of folks dropping off the radar I'm not convinced.

HOW many folks lost benefits due to the lack of any federal extentions in unemployment benefits? Those federal programs ended as of the end of December, and if I'm correct, that 13 week extension would be running out right about now.

How do I know this, you may ask? I'm one of them. I'm not working and have no further benefits available. I now have the option of taking a McJob to bring in some money, or else I can just suck it up and stop buying food for my family.

"THINGS" are NOT better.

Laura

[llmart]

46. And what about those people

in my age group - 55? They aren't really "laid off". They are "asked" (read intimidated) into early retirement and at 55 you think, "what the hell; I've worked all my life and now I have to go do some menial labor, part-time job just to pay for health insurance. I'm not really eligible for unemployment because I wasn't technically laid off. But I haven't been at the company long enough to have much in the way of retirement and I won't get Medicare for another 10 years. Where is that reflected in the new claims number? We are the largest group of people in this country - baby boomers - and we are getting the shaft.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

47. So people are no longer eligible to collect

that's all that means. Happens in all administrations, but the Boston Globe said last week that there were 100,000 unemployed people in Massachusetts alone that were no longer eligible for unemployment insurance, but still didn't have a job.

That's all that number in the original post means.

[newyorican]

48. People looking forward to Prez Kerry?

:shrug:

[54anickel]

49. Looks that way in Ohio -

Jobs report not so rosy

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/5049/1/210

snip>
Economists across the board point to these as indicators of a weak demand for labor. “Monthly reports are volatile. You cut through the data and look at the underlying trends. This report does not show a true growth of labor demand,” Lee Price, research director at the Economic Policy Institute, told the World.

The monthly jobs report comes down to spin versus reality. And in vote-rich, manufacturing-based, heartland states like Ohio, workers face the reality of economic insecurity. A Wall Street strategist told Bloomberg News, “The Bush administration has every right to bask and say that their tax cuts have made a difference, but I think there’s probably still some anxiety in places like Ohio.”

snip>

At the opposite end of the state, Radford sees a sense of urgency among people. “More individuals come up to me and say, ‘we have to get this man out of the White House.’”

In terms of issues, “Jobs and the economy, along with health care, are about equal. The situation in Iraq, everyone is concerned. There is less and less confidence in the current administration’s foreign policy affairs,” Radford said.

“I was very encouraged today . About 3,000 people attended the rally for Sen. John Kerry. And not all were Democrats,” he said.

[54anickel]

50. Is the US employment report a turning point?

http://business-times.asia1.com.sg/story/0,4567,113226,00.html

Take a look beyond the headline numbers, and details emerge that are far from encouraging. The US labour market is still fragile.

snip>

It may well have. We simply do not know. All we know is that there are many aspects of the March employment report that do not fit well with the headline euphoria. Those inconsistent facts are:

1. The employment-population ratio declined from February.
2. The labour force participation rate remained unchanged in the month.
3. The proportion of unemployed workers without a job for more than six months increased a full percentage point from 22.9 per cent to 23.9 per cent. In March 2003, this proportion stood at 21.5 per cent.
4. Hours worked fell in March, despite the record number of jobs added.
5. Nearly 84,000 jobs were due to 71,000 jobs in the construction sector and 13,000 workers who came back from a strike in California. This will not be repeated in April.
6. Further, nearly 66,000 jobs were added in education, health, accommodation and food services. These are not likely to be high-paying jobs.
7. Hourly earnings rose 1.8 per cent during the year to March 2004 - far lower than required to support consumer spending if tax refunds and mortgage refinancing taper off. Tax refunds are running at much lower levels compared to last year and signs of nascent strength in mortgage refinancing would be snuffed out by the sharp rise in bond yields. Therefore, this employment report actually dampens the prospect that consumer spending could be sustained.

more...

[The_Casual_Observer]

51. Unemployment claims

This isn't a measure of new jobs. This is a measure of how many lost them. I would expect this figure with the increase in service and temporary/seasonal jobs last month.

No big deal & rightly didn't get and coverage today, nor did it move the stock market.

[54anickel]

52. Realize that, just seemed both were being discussed. n/t

[walmartsucks]

59. Just think

1.84 million more jobs created and we'll be right back where we started when shrub took office. Now that's what I call progress!

[bawood]

61. Please help me to understand...

But aren't these numbers meaningless? I mean, if there is a constant decline in jobs, unemployment claims would naturally shrink right?

[Frodo]

63. Well.

A "Constant decline in jobs" would CAUSE unemployment claims, so I'm not sure that's valid.

It's true (if that's what you're saying) that if companies are cutting 3% of staff each year, the number that 3% represents would continue to go down as the number of employees shrank, but that isn't the situation we are in... First time filers has decreases about 25-30% in the last year or so - the number of employed people has fluctuated a percent or two, but not enough to have the kind of effect I think you're anticipating.

[rman]

67. it means they are running out of people to lay off

after all, they can't lay off *everybody* since then no work could be done. even with all the outsourcing, some work *has* to be done in the US. The more people loose their job, the closer you get to the absolute minimum number of employed. Then inevitably the rate of *new* unemployed declines.

"Promising" would be if the actual number of unemployed would decline, not just the rate of unemployment.
As of yet there are still some 3 million unemployed, and that number is still increasing. It's just that the rate at which the number increases has declined somewhat. That sounds good if it's the only thing you pay attention to.

[Merlin]

69. Reminds me of the definition of the height of Irrational Exhuberance.

I forget the author, but a couple of years ago he explained how to tell when a hyped market is about to crash.

You will know the bubble is about to burst when the most cynical, crochety, disbelieving old codgers finally decide to invest in it. That will be a sure sign that the market has run out of suckers.

[Frodo]

70. See #63.

[abelenkpe]

68. blah, blah, blah

I know 600 people who will be filling out their unemployment papers in three weeks. There is no recovery.