Breaking: Jobless Claims in U.S. Decline to Lowest Level in Five Years

[Hissyspit]

Source: Bloomberg

Jobless Claims in U.S. Decline to Lowest Level in Five Years
By Lorraine Woellert
August 01, 2013 8:30 AM EDT

Claims for jobless benefits unexpectedly dropped to the lowest level in more than five years, extending swings typical for the month of July.

Applications for unemployment insurance payments declined by 19,000 to 326,000 in the week ended July 27, the fewest since January 2008, from a revised 345,000 the prior week, the Labor Department reported today in Washington. The median forecast of 50 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for 345,000. A government analyst said no states were estimated, and the data were still being influenced by the auto plant shutdowns that play havoc with the figures at this time of year.

Businesses have been operating with tight workforces as they wait for signs of a sustained pickup in consumer demand. A slowdown in firings might signal that employers are becoming more confident in the recovery and preparing to grow payrolls, which would encourage household spending, the biggest part of the economy.

“The labor market is still improving,” Aneta Markowska, chief U.S. economist at Societe Generale in New York, said before the report. ”It underscores the resiliency of this economy and the underlying momentum in the private sector.”
Claims estimates in the Bloomberg survey ranged from 333,000 to 365,000. The Labor Department revised the previous week’s figure to 345,000 from an initially reported 343,000.

Read more: http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-01/jobless-claims-in-u-s-decline-to-lowest-level-in-five-years.html

[Kingofalldems]

1. Obama will destroy America

[nobodyspecial]

2. And just think if Congress

didn't thwart Obama's every effort at job creation. Given its abysmal approval rating, it is apparent people have caught on that they are willing to destroy the country in an effort to attack Obama.

[Scurrilous]

3. We're doomed. Collapse is imminent.

I'll be in the bunker, sitting on the ammo box, gnawing on beef jerky.

[Fringe]

51. Lol!

I know that you are joking, but This is exactly what the Obama haters are thinking now.

If its good, no credit is given to Obama. if its bad then, its all his fault.

[Bonduel]

58. Isn't this exactly what some here do with the Republican Congress

I guarantee if the numbers were bad we would blame the repugs in congress for the news, but if it's great we will give credit to the President.

In some ways we are not so different

[Fringe]

64. I don't..

And it seems to me here on du lately Obama gets blamed for everything. Du is becoming free republics twin.

[90-percent]

4. It's fragile

Cynic that I m, I feel there will very soon be another burst bubble for us all. The musical chairs game where the music stops, and the only people that got any money are the already wealthy.

The next bubble could possibly be triggered by massive defaults of student debt. Talk about people with nothing left to loose..imagine investing 100K in your education and finding nothing but minimum wage jobs available for you to earn the money to pay your student loan back.

I'm also concerned about the 700 TRILLION in derivatives still floating around the stock market. All that phony money amounts to about ten times the GDP of the entire planet!* The complete lack of prosecution of Wall Street criminals guarantees this lucrative misbehavior will continue, perhaps on an even bigger scale. It's too bad the federal crackdown on legal medical marijuana doesn't leave the resources to prosecute Wall Street.

-jim

*from memory - actual data is probably same but different

[Sunlei]

19. don't think a student can ever walk away from their loan. For the rest of their life they owe.

I agree with you about the student loan bubble that has been built up. The huge rise in college costs, along with the grab-fest of Gov. education money from grants, military grant money was well planned.

In 5-6 years those collecting the interest payments from student loans will start calling for a federal Gov bail-out. Just like banks did with mortgages they profited from huge on interest paid.

[damnedifIknow]

5. Count the people who have dropped out of the work force

and those stats might be a tad different.

[LittleGirl]

7. +1

my friend has been unemployed on and off now for 4 yrs. She is filing for welfare now.

[rocktivity]

9. When I was in college, I was told you should always automatically double the unemployment rate

Last edited Thu Aug 1, 2013, 01:41 PM - Edit history (1)

to include people trying to enter the market, the underemployed, and those pushed off the rolls when their eligibility ran out.


rocktivity

[Lucky Luciano]

14. Uhhhh...these are first time unemployment CLAIMS numbers.

It means this is the count of people who file to collect unemployment assistance in the last week following a recent layoff. There is a seasonal adjustment involved, but outside of that, it is pretty straight forward.

[winter is coming]

44. But it does nothing to capture the number of long-term unemployed, nor does it

give a feel for what sorts of jobs the employed are working. Granted, I'd rather see this stat falling than rising, but it's not as good a metric for how the jobs economy is doing as it once was.

[Lucky Luciano]

46. By definition, it was never intended to be a long term unemployment gauge.

It was, in fact, intended to show how many newly unemployed have asked for unemployment assistance. That said, a trending decline in this number will correlate with improvements in the total unemployment picture. Get this number down to 250K and things have real potential to look good. In a normal scenario, the low 300s are good, but with this much slack in the labor force, we need that number much lower to fix the unemployment situation.

[JoeyT]

50. A trending decline indicates an improvement in the unemployment picture,

or that everyone that had jobs that were able to be cut have already been cut. This picture is only a small part of the total, like one piece of a jigsaw puzzle.

[Lucky Luciano]

55. Sure. I agree with that.

Correlation to overall unemployment definitely exist, but it is definitely not 1.

[primavera]

66. So why do we care?

Not trying to be inflammatory, I just can't help but notice that we like to trot out this figure regularly and I've never really understood why it's particularly meaningful to anyone other than those who are concerned about government spending on unemployment insurance. Owing to the number of long-term unemployed persons and marginally employed persons, jobless claims seems like a misleading indicator of the extent and quality of American employment. If it's not a reliable indicator of anything other than the amount we're spending on jobless claims, why are we looking to it? We might as well trot out some headline that 63% of American workers dislike Brussels sprouts. Okay, fine, but who cares? What meaning does the figure have?

[Lucky Luciano]

67. The correlation is not a perfect 1, but it does have

...meaningful correlation. I can assure you that things are better when that number is 250 and not 750. When the number is low enough, it is likely that there is more hiring than firing.

[Hosnon]

63. Well, yes. This stat is intentionally designed to measure initial claims.

Not people falling off.

Completely different measure.

[sunwyn]

6. Is it true everyone in North Carolina lost their unemployment?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

8. The numbers are bogus.

[geek tragedy]

10. LMAO. If the numbers are bad, it's Obama's fault. If they're good, they're bogus.

Textbook.

[geek tragedy]

12. Oh, you're a BLS Truther like Jack Welch.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/jack-welch-on-bls-conspiracy-jack-welch-is-raising-the-question.php

I don't know why anyone who repeates rightwing conspiracy theories regarding Obama cooking the BLS books would be considered a troll.

P.S. You agree with the Tea Party on three things (1) immigration (2) guns and (3) Obama is to blame for everything and does nothing right. You can drop the "more progressive than thou" act any time now.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

13. No.

[geek tragedy]

15. you blamed Obama personally for the numbers being 'bogus'

That's direct accusation that Obama is tampering with the numbers.

Did you mean to make that accusation, or was it just the ODS speaking?

Btw, you didn't vote for Obama in 2012, did you?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

16. Not personally. Professionally.

If you didn't already know it, he is professionally in charge of the federal government.

[geek tragedy]

17. So, it was the ODS speaking.

You just blame Obama for everything, including the BLS which has no political appointees. Gives you an excuse to avoid voting for Democrats.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

18. Actually, I'm an FDR-type Democrat who has voted for other Democrats, including Obama.

The reason why I'm pissed at Obama is that he betrayed us all.

Obviously, the reason why you're not pissed at Obama is that he did not betray you. The only logical reason for that is when he adopted Republicans for his Administration and adopted Republican principles, that met with your authorization mindset.

Here's a clue: When you engage in name-calling and say obviously untrue statements, you are not going to get anyone to stop anyone from speaking the truth.

[geek tragedy]

20. You dishonestly blamed Obama for the BLS numbers being 'bogus'

Which was kind of a double whammy, in that you didn't bother demonstrating that they were bogus, let alone justifying your nutter-butter, Teahadist theory that the imaginary flaw in the BLS methodology/results is Obama's fault.

And, I fully understand that pissed off old white men who don't like immigrants
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3092037
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014187274#post1
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2671726
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014125270#post1
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017133264#post3
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022401782#post8
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021329917#post7
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=813106
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=813720
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3140442
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=162144
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=146448

but do like guns aren't big Obama fans.

They certainly are not the Democratic base.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

24. No.

[bhikkhu]

22. You feel Obama betrayed us all, therefore the numbers must be bogus

and any good news or progress that conflicts with that feeling must be lies and propaganda.

Well, there is a sort of logic at work there...

[AnotherMcIntosh]

27. No. Sorry, I can't help your lack of logic.

1. Obama did betray those of us who value traditional Democratic values. He did not betray posers.

2. The unemployment numbers are bogus. At a minimum, they are not calculated in the same way that the unemployment numbers were in FDR's time.

3. Only somebody that is stupid could claim to believe, or claim to think that others believed, that #1 caused #2.

[geek tragedy]

29. "traditional values' like immigrant bashing and gun love, maybe. nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

30. No. Traditional values, for example, like truth instead of name calling and making false statements

[geek tragedy]

32. False statements like blaming Obama for the fact that you don't like the BLS statistics.

Because they provide good news for Obama. Even though Obama has no say over how the BLS does its numbers.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

34. You are thread hijacking with all your rah-rah-Obama statements. Actually, Obama could ask for

truthful statements from the BLS. As the head of the federal government, it's likely that he could obtain such numbers by asking for them.

[geek tragedy]

35. The BLS is truthful. Their methodology is incredibly transparent and has been for decades.

If people want to object to the methodology, they have all the information needed to make an intelligent critique and propose an alternative measure based on the raw data.

And, no, he CANNOT tell the BLS to come up with the 'right numbers.'

The only President who attempted such a stunt was Richard Nixon when he decided to "count Jews" at the BLS because he thought their numbers were wrong and too helpful for the Democrats.

You're simply wrong, wrong, wrong, and incredibly wrong on this.

[geek tragedy]

37. If rejecting your rightwing talking points is wrong, I don't want to be right.

I support immigration reform and a path to citizenship--you and the Teahadists disagree
I support Obamacare and its implementation--you and the Teahadists disagree.
I support further gun safety measures--you and the Teahadists disagree.
I am glad Obama won instead of McCain and Romney. You and the Teahadists disagree.

Which of us is the troll?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

39. Obviously, with all your false statements, you are the toll.

[bhikkhu]

31. You feel that traditional democratic values have been betrayed

...therefore, anyone who does not feel betrayed must not be a true democrat?

If they changed how they calculate unemployment numbers back in, say, 1945, how does that make our current numbers bogus? Really, the BLS method and numbers are as transparent and reliable over the years as anyone could ask for. The CPI, on the other hand...

on edit...much of our personal perspective is based on how we feel, and much of how we feel comes from the vagaries of fate. I was able to keep my house and job through the recession, but only just. There but for a few random events beyond my control, I might have a broken family and be living on the street, or somewhere a little better, feeling unshakeably betrayed.

As one anonymous person on the internet to another, I shouldn't be snide, and I hope things improve for you and everyone you know who is in need.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

33. 1) I know, as do others, that Obama has betrayed those of us with traditional Democratic values.

2) It is a lack of logic to say that "anyone who does not feel betrayed must not be a true democrat." Those are your words, not mine. If you want an alternative explanation re "anyone who does not feel betrayed," some people are just plainly stupid.

3) The change in the way that unemployment figures were calculated occurred in recent years. "1945" has nothing to do with the recent changes.

4) I agree with your statement, you shouldn't be snide.

5) I'm sorry for your economic condition but that is unrelated to mine. I'm concerned about the future generation and generations. I'm in my early 70's, retired after a successful career, and have enough money to do whatever I want even if I live to be 99. I will not disregard what is being done to this country just because some anonymous posters claim to be Obama supporters.

[bhikkhu]

53. There has been no betrayal in my neck of the woods

I was trying to think what might be different in yours.

The only recent change to the method for calculating unemployment that I know of is this: http://www.upjohn.org/node/465 , which allows people to stay unemployed longer and still show up as unemployed in the data. It should move the data toward better accuracy, and cause an increase in the rate, rather than a decrease.

[Fringe]

52. True!

The man doesn't get credit for anything he does unless its not good.

[totodeinhere]

21. Those numbers in and of themselves are probably accurate enough. But the numbers

do not reflect the true unemployment rate as we all know. That's not Obama's fault. That's just how the numbers are calculated. And while this is good news we have a long way to go. One priority needs to be addressing the plight of the millions of long term unemployed who are becoming less and less employable the longer they are unemployed. It would also be nice if we could get a cooperative congress.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

23. Do you believe the unemployment numbers are calculated in the way that they were in the 1930's?

They are not.

How is it that you're concerned about saying "That's not Obama's fault" in response to my plain statement at #8, "The numbers are bogus."

The statement "The numbers are bogus" does not refer to Obama at all. Your statment "That's not Obama's fault" seems to be prompted by the subsequent comments made by a troll.

Even you say, "But the numbers do no reflect the true unemployment rate as we all know." You're right. They don't.

Since you've raised the issue about Obama and how it's not his fault, please let me say that if he wanted truthful numbers, he could ask for them. As the head of the federal government, more likely than not, he could get them.

[geek tragedy]

26. "Your statment "That's not Obama's fault" seems to be prompted by the subsequent comments made by a

troll."

I agree.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=554096

AnotherMcIntosh (9,276 posts)
11. Wrong. If the numbers are bad, it's Obama's fault. If the numbers are bogus, it's Obama's fault.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

28. Begone troll.

[DCBob]

41. Why on earth would we want to go back to the way they were calculated in the 1930's?

If we did that we couldnt compare to recent years and recent decades that were calculated the way its being done now.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

42. Accuracy.

[DCBob]

43. How about accuracy in comparisons and trends?

To make any sense in numbers like this you need to have a consistent method of calculation. You cant just switch methods suddenly and expect that to tell you anything.

[totodeinhere]

45. I mentioned that it's not Obama's fault as an aside because whether you

do or not there are those at DU who seem to want to blame Obama for everything and I wanted to make it clear that I'm not one of them.

[LanternWaste]

47. Your entire argument regarding the job numbers appears to be predicated on the logical fallacy of

Your entire argument regarding the job numbers appears to be predicated on the logical fallacy of post-hoc-ergo-prompter-hoc.

[Sunlei]

25. less 'good fulltime ' jobs where a let go employee can even collect unemployment.

wonder what the breakdown is of the 343,000 collecting unemployment? who are they?

[DCBob]

38. Must be Obama messing with the numbers again trying to get reelected.

[geek tragedy]

40. obviously

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=554096

[lumberjack_jeff]

48. Unemployment rate is a useless metric.

The employment to population ratio shows that the situation for the working class still sucks.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

[DCBob]

54. comparing to the bogus Bush economy of 2003-2007 is also a useless metric.

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. "The Bush economy" was the normal one.

do you like this one better?



From 1994 to 2008, employment held relatively steady at about 63% of the working age population. It is now stuck at 58.5%

There are many good things that Obama can talk about. Recovering the economy shouldn't be one of them. It is no more appropriate to give him the entire blame than it is to give his predecessors the entire credit. However, there's no credit to spread around... it's all blame.

All oysters. No pearls.

Remind me again why immigration reform and more H1b's are such important things.

[DCBob]

57. Huh?? That was during the housing bubble and the other peak was during the dot com bubble..

both of those were abnormal economic situations.

[lumberjack_jeff]

59. Never since 1984 has this small a proportion of the working age population been employed.

There are 9.3 million people (6% of the working age population) who are unemployed today that would have had jobs in 1999.

It is time for drastic action, but Obama isn't a drastic action kind of guy, and the congress is an inaction kind of congress.

[DCBob]

60. So looking at the graph tell me what's "normal"?

Why should we assume the percentage should always go up? There a number of factors involved..

-- mothers working or not working
-- older workers retiring or working longer
-- more people going back to college
-- economic bubbbles providing more job opportunities

Just because that number goes down or up doesnt really mean anything good or bad. Its more a function of whats happening within our society.

[lumberjack_jeff]

61. Ludicrous. This number is the only relevant indicator of labor's power.

When 10% of the population needs your job, you will accept lower wages, part time work or contract/on call services. That's bad only. Oysters, not pearls.

It's exactly what the free-trade capital-centric economy that neoliberals want. It is as if the stimulus was engineered to deliver exactly this outcome.

People are going back to school because they can't find work, and older workers (over 65) aren't counted as part of the working age population. Social trends don't drive employment, employment drives social trends. Moms stay home because a part-time $8/hour job doesn't justify daycare.

Normal is the economic situation which has existed through my entire adult life; roughly 62%.

[DCBob]

62. I agree with you that 62% is about "normal" but thats comparable to around 1993.

You have been making comparisons to the bubble eras of the late 1990's and mid-2000's. Those are bogus comparisons. Clearly we still have problems and need alot more jobs but no need to exaggerate the situation with bogus statistics.

[Safetykitten]

49. Part time. It's all part time.

[GalaxyHunter]

65. GREAT NEWS!!!!!