U.S. jobless claims highest in a month

[rfranklin]

U.S. jobless claims highest in a month By Rex Nutting
WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) - U.S. weekly jobless claims rose to their highest level in a month in the weeks ending April 10, the Labor Department said Thursday. The seasonally adjusted four-week average of first-time filings for state unemployment benefits rose by 6,750 to 344,250, the highest level since March 6. Wall Street economists expected a slight increase in filings. Initial claims in the most recent week jumped by 30,000 to 360,000, the highest since early February. The data in the first week of April are particularly difficult to seasonally adjust, a Labor Department official said. Meanwhile, the number of workers receiving state benefits fell below 3 million for the first time since the summer of 2001. Continuing claims dropped 22,000 to 2.98 million.

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/default.asp?siteid=&avatar=seen&dist=ctmw

[Mountainman]

1. workers receiving state benefits fell below 3 million

Is this because they found jobs or because they ran out of benefits? I think the latter.

[Frodo]

2. Definitely the later.

Obviously SOME people are finding jobs, but the identifying mark of this cycle is that the "jobless" number if slightly improving, but the "long-term jobless" number is staying high. Lots of THOSE people are running out of benefits and dropping off of the "state benefits" rolls.

I'm sure this will be just the incentive they need to go get a job.... they've obviously been slacking off living off the government dole... < /sarcasm>

[kysrsoze]

3. There's been a lot of seasonal hiring.....

construction, ballparks/amusements, etc. A number of the new hires were due to Californian grocery workers returning. I'm not convinced things are turning around all that fast.

Now we finally have recognition of existing inflation. Could be worse, but still not all that great if you ask me.

[74dodgedart]

6. Nat'l Guard callups, etc

[Frodo]

7. How?

How do national guard callups affect first-time filing numbers?

[74dodgedart]

23. I don't believe that military are counted in employement numbers

but, you don't recieve unemployment if you get called into full-time service. If you return from full-time service and don't have a job, you are unemployed (and may apply for unemployment).

The posting I was answering was refering to seasonal-jobs and how that can effect job numbers.

[Mithras61]

24. Military are counted as employed

since Ronnie Raygun changed the rules back in ~'80. It was one of the tricks he used to push the official Unemployment Rate down...

[Frodo]

25. Sorry. No. Military are not counted as "employed" OR "unemployed"

They are not part of the "labor force" for this calculation, so they don't have a positive or negative effect.

The only possible effect I can think of is if the reserves call up an individual who is currently unemployed. He wouldn't count as gaining a job, but he would come out of the labor force AND the count of "unemployed". A net positve.

[74dodgedart]

29. Exactly

The only possible effect I can think of is if the reserves call up an individual who is currently unemployed. He wouldn't count as gaining a job, but he would come out of the labor force AND the count of "unemployed". A net positve.

Exactly...Making the unemployement numbers look better than they are..

Or if they come off duty and don't have job, they get counted as unemployed.. a negative.

[Frodo]

30. Well, yes and no.

It wouldn't make the "initial filing" number look any different. And it wouldn't impact the "establishment" number (which is treated as the gold standard by many here). It WOULD slightly effect the reported unemployment rate, which was not the topic of the day.

[74dodgedart]

31. I give

Its not worth arguing about... The way I interpreted the post I was responding to was that temp and seasonal jobs are affecting the employment numbers...The fact that people who may otherwise be counted as unemployed, or may be "first time filers" are serving and therefore does have an impact. But, thanks for the input.

[HawkerHurricane]

4. Thank Gawd that the economy has finally turned around...

Now what will the Democrats run on? :eyes:

[TroglodyteScholar]

5. the DoL

I, being a laid off worker, was at the DoL the other day...and I mentioned to the lady who was helping me that there were 308,000 new jobs created recently, and that I wasn't seeing a lot of them. She told me, "308? None of them are in middle Georgia, that's for sure."

People who work for the DoL ought to be political, damnit. They could probably help open peoples' eyes.

Maybe I'll put in an application for this job. Couldn't make me any crazier than paying close attention to the Bush admin.

[Blue_Roses]

9. ugh...

chicken catcher? :puke:

[teryang]

8. The "suprise" unemployment report

What suprise? This is completely consistent with the current trend.

[Frodo]

10. "completely consistent with the current trend" ???

Which trend is that??

[teryang]

12. The trend of increasing numbers of unemployed

...since Bush took office. The total number of unemployed is up. Initial claims is only a signal not a trend.

[Frodo]

16. THAT trend ended months ago.

Living in the past won't win us any elections.

The message needs to be "it's too few too late" not "jobs? I don't see no stinking jobs!"





Here's the two graphs in question... again "which way is the TREND going"??

[stewert]

17. Frodo..........

We basically had one month of real job growth, and most of those jobs
were low paying part time jobs with no benefits.

I think it is way too soon to declare the job recovery is happening. One
month with 308,000 new jobs does not make a jobs recovery.

Now if the economy adds 300,000+ jobs per month for 2 or 3 months in
a row I would agree with you. This could be a one month bump in job creation.

To suddenly declare the jobs are back after a one month increase of 308, 000 is
ridiculous at this point.

You seem to be the only person here that wants to make these claims, don't you
find that odd ?

Everyone else is looking for a pattern of job growth in multi months in a row, including
most of the economists. What if the job growth drops back to 20,000 or so for march ?

All I am saying is it is too soon to call this a jobs recovery until we get the data from 2 or
3 months in a row starting with the march jobs report.

[Frodo]

18. Did you read the charts?

The 12-month moving average is now positive. We're talking "trends" here.

You are OF COURSE right, when you say "it is too soon to call this a jobs recovery". I'll go you one farther... forget 2-3 more months (which we are absolutely going to get - count on it and adjust political message accordingly). This isn't a "jobs recovery" until the NET jobs from (whatever date the recession ended) turns positive. That MIGHT happen by the election.


To suddenly declare the jobs are back after a one month increase of 308,000 is ridiculous at this point.
I wouldn't say "jobs are back" (see above), but it's now five straight months of growth averaging 120k/month. Nothing to cheer at, but the message HAS to be "nothing to cheer at" not "I don't see any jobs"


You seem to be the only person here that wants to make these claims, don't you
find that odd ?

Yes. I would expect other people to live in the land of "reality" and adjust their strategy accordingly. When I see the team that is behind 6-0 marching down the field with a minute to play I don't say "they haven't scored all game - wait until there are points on the board to say anything".

I see a bunch of people playing "prevent defense" right now. And I've seen us throw games before that we should have won.

I'm screaming NOW. I'd much rather have you say "see, nothing to worry about" on election night than me posting "d@mnit I TOLD you so"

[teryang]

19. Emp. to population ratio falling since early 2000

This fall has been from 64.8 to the current 62.1 percent. The fed funds rate has been tracking (falling with) this ratio of employment to population.

[Frodo]

20. True - But "employment to population" ratio is not that relevant

It's the "employment to population that WANT employment" that counts.

The E/P ratio will contniue to fall as the population ages and the tax cuts will affect it as well (as some middle class find they can afford to get by on one salary).

[teryang]

21. The Fed is following this statistic

...they have not yet adopted the politically imprudent course of predicting employment figures based on rate of change snapshots which neglect the aggregate unemployment figures.

Perhaps when the 300,000 job increase figure is exceeded for a few to several months they may abandon this track.

[Yavin4]

11. The Real Story Here Is That This Far Into the "Recovery" And...

we still have not seen any real progress on hiring or job creation. At this point in a typical recovery, we'd be seeing massive hiring by now, and we're not even close to that.

[seemslikeadream]

13. Saddam built up a massive war machine

Saddam built up a massive war
machine while neglecting the basic
needs of his own people."
— G. W. Bush
(Source: The Whitehouse)

[John_H]

14. C'mon corporate media whores: Where are the two-day front page stories?

Thi big job "increase" of last month, created by a supermarket workers' stike ending, a one stime influx of construction workers goinf back to work for the season, and formerly full time workers taking part time service jobs to make ends meet got a two day cycle from GE, Disney, AOL, et. al.

When this month's figures show a decline, I'll bet my pay check that it gets a little blurb in the business section.

[SoDesuKa]

15. Bush Bragged "My Policies are Working"

Betcha Bush won't use these figures to brag about his policies. The on-again, off-again economic recovery is off again.

[mhr]

22. Hi Stewart Et Al, Thanks For Pointing Out How Pro-Bush Frodo Is

He seems to live and die by his instantaneous chart changes.

Regardless of his charts and "whatever" they show there are still a few points to consider.

- many of the jobs being created are low paying jobs
- many of the jobs being created are part time jobs
- most of the new jobs are not suitable replacements for jobs lost
- the economy is not creating jobs at the same pace as prior recoveries

Hence, it matters little that instantaneous trends move one way or another. If the overall trend is fewer jobs and less attractive jobs then that is a problem. If the Bush administration has done little to correct these problems then that is something the republicans can be held accountable for.

So, just because the instantaneous charts support Frodo's weak argument doesn't mean that there is not very viable criticism of how the Fed and the Bush administration has addressed the observed trends. Assuredly, the downsized and possibly reemployed worker, living on half or less of his former salary, cares more about the loss of income and lifestyle than Frodo's instantaneous trends.

Fortunately for democrats, and sadly for Bush, the misery of this economy out weighs everything else. Maybe one day Frodo will understand this when he pops his ahead above those numbers he loves.

[Just Me]

32. As an observer of the reality on the ground, charts mean nothing.

Since the publication of stats and charts and so on by corporatists directly conflict with what I see each and every day,...I simply no longer trust the accuracy of such publications. Perhaps the economy is fabulously benefitting those at the top, but the rest of us, the majority of us covering a broad width of educational and technical backgrounds are hurting, big time. I give far greater weight and credence to the populace than I will ever give to the corporatists.

[area51]

26. Difficulty in getting a job

Several Houston-area TV news shows have run stories on how despite the danger for civilians in Iraq, Halliburton/KBR have a steady stream of job applicants for positions in Iraq. Little wonder, because it's so damned hard to find a job in this Bush Depression.

[John_H]

27. kick

[osaMABUSh]

28. Funny thing is the War and terror moved ahead of the economy

as top issues on voters' minds. Just as some jobs are coming back and the Iraqi shit has hit the fan, folks are not as concerned about the economy.

Too bad for Shrub!

I think a majority has made up their minds that they don't trust Shrub and are not going to vote for him.