Record 20 million-plus collect UC in 2009: Fewer people getting fired, but nobody finding jobs

[Karmadillo]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091231/D9CUGAHG2.html

By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER

WASHINGTON (AP) - A record 20 million-plus people collected unemployment benefits at some point in 2009, a year that ended with the jobless rate at 10 percent.

As the pace of layoffs slows, the number of new applicants visiting unemployment offices has been on the decline in recent months. But limited hiring means the ranks of the long-term unemployed continues to grow, with more than 5.8 million people out of work for more than six months.

The number of new claims for jobless benefits dropped last week to 432,000, the Labor Department said Thursday, down sharply from its late March peak of 674,000. The decline signals that the economy could begin adding a small number of jobs in January, several economists said.

<edit>

The Federal Reserve and private economists expect joblessness to stay above 9 percent through the end of 2010.

The slow pace of hiring will force Congress and the Obama administration in 2010 to spend as much as $70 billion to extend jobless aid for the long-term unemployed, or else let benefits - which were extended several times in 2009 - expire for millions of people.

"Fewer people are getting fired, but nobody is finding a job," said Dan Greenhaus, chief economic strategist at Miller Tabak.

Thursday's report illustrates the two different trends: first-time jobless claims are falling as layoffs ease, but the total number of people collecting unemployment checks is still rising.

more...

[tonysam]

1. That's the problem in a nutshell

Jobless claims going down means little when those who are unemployed can't find work.

Our elected officials don't seem to care about creating laws which would create jobs.

[THUNDER HANDS]

2. my uncle said his friend has been collecting unemployment for over two years now

seriously. I didn't even know that was possible.

[tonysam]

5. I've been collecting it since August of 2008

This is the longest I have ever been unemployed; the previous was six months.

It's horrible out there, and it's worse when you're past 50.

[evlbstrd]

8. Amen.

[dysfunctional press]

6. oops

wrong place

[Subdivisions]

3. 432,000 is low? Whateverrrrr... n/t

[tonysam]

4. Leave it to somebody who doesn't read the article

and not understand what the problem is--there are FEW jobs to be had, and nobody in Washington wants to do a thing about it.

[Subdivisions]

9. So, you think 432,000 new claims is a good thing? My point was that, though

initial claims dropped doesn't mean it's good news. That's still a LOT of new claims. Also, I read the article. I also read one stating basically the same thing at about 9am this morning. So, if you don't think that I understand the problem, you don't fucking know me! I suggest you go back and read some of my posts on the current state of the economy and the financial crisis. Until then, shut the fuck up about what I do and do not understand.

[truedelphi]

16. Thank you for your persistance.

People hear and think what they want to.

The Administration has already decided it can live with the fact that most of us who are unemployed will stay that way for another two, three or four or five years.

They are very interested in making Wall Street and the MIC happy - the rest of us don't matter.

[Karmadillo]

17. It baffles me why a Democratic administration doesn't give a higher profile to job creation.

The New Deal might be old school, but it's a school they might want to attend a little more frequently if they want to avoid a meltdown during the next election.

[Chan790]

18. Come to DC...

I moved here because I lost my apartment and job in NYC and within three weeks had too many job offers to consider.

Mind you, I'm not some high-powered skilled worker...I'm a career retail and customer-service drone. I'm now a bank teller, salaried. There is no shortage of jobs here.

[dysfunctional press]

7. yes, it's slower than 674,000

try a little reading comprehension next time.

[Subdivisions]

10. Does that make it good, dysfunctional? Everybody acts as if just because the initial

claims went down to FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY TWO THOUSAND that it's a good thing. It's NOT!

Now, go refer to the last two sentences in my post #9 above.

[dysfunctional press]

11. so...you'd prefer it to be 674,000...? or even higher than that?

in answer to your question- yes, when compared to job losses of 674,000, 432,000 job losses is a GOOD thing, because it means that the job losses are slowing.

[Subdivisions]

12. So, based on my posting history, what is the answer to the question:

"you'd prefer it to be 674,000"?

You have completely missed my point. And to think, you were the one with the smartass remark about my reading comprehension. My comment was not directed at the OP. It was not directed at the context of the OP's cited article. It was sarcastic remark towards the absurdity that, even though it's lower, that 432,000 more initial jobless claims is a good thing. It's not in any way, shape, or form, a good or "better" thing. Period! Until there are new jobs created instead of ones being lost, NOTHING ABOUT THE NUMBERS ARE GOOD! One more job lost is still a BAD thing!

[dysfunctional press]

13. "..NOTHING ABOUT THE NUMBERS ARE GOOD!"

the FACT that they are slowing is a good thing.

[Subdivisions]

15. No, it's not. I dare you to ask just one of the new claims how good it is. You

just don't get it. So, I'm done.

[dysfunctional press]

19. you do understand that they have to slow, before it turns around, right?

apparently, not...:shrug:

[Hannah Bell]

14. k/r