Jobless Claims Plunge to Jan. 2001 Low

[papau]

edited as I forgot rule to title with headline

Jobless claims fall to 348,000 in latest week, lowest since Jan. 2001

http://www.reuters.com/financeNewsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=GLSPAAV0J35FKCRBAEOCFFA?type=businessNews&storyID=3768822
Jobless Claims Plunge to Jan. 2001 Low
Thu November 6, 2003 08:32 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of Americans filing first-time claims for jobless benefits took an unexpectedly sharp plunge last week, reaching a level not seen since before the economy tumbled into recession in 2001, a government report showed on Thursday.

Initial claims for state unemployment aid fell 43,000 to 348,000 in the week ending Nov. 1 from a revised 391,000 in the prior week, the Labor Department said. It was the lowest claims level since late January 2001, two months before the recession began.

Wall Street economists had expected claims to slip to 380,000 from a strike-elevated 386,000 initially reported for the week ending Oct. 25.

A spokesman for the department said he could not point to any special factors to account for the big drop in claims last week, but said problems with seasonally adjusting the data could be a factor. "Every week we encourage (looking at) the four-week average. This is certainly one of those weeks," he said. <snip>

On Friday, the department releases its employment report for October. Financial market economists are looking for U.S. payrolls to rise 55,000 after a 57,000 gain in September. They expect the jobless rate to hold steady at 6.1 percent.
© Reuters 2003. All Rights Reserved.

[Maeve]

1. The best since Dubya took office, huh?

Not the way it will be reported, tho...

[mhr]

2. So One Wonders About This Little Tidbit, Layoffs surge 125%

A short snippet from CBS news indicates that US job losses continue.

------
http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/newsfinder/pulseone.asp?dateid=37929.4167939815-809414361&siteID=mktw&scid=0&doctype=806&

10:00am 11/04/03

U.S. October layoffs surge 125%, Challenger says By Rex Nutting
WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- Layoff announcements from U.S. companies more
than doubled in October to 171,874, the highest in a year, according to
the monthly tally released Tuesday by outplacement firm Challenger Gray
& Christmas. October is typically the largest month for layoff notices,
as companies slash costs at the end of the fiscal year. The Challenger
survey is not adjusted for seasonal factors. Layoff announcements had
fallen for three months in a row before October's 125 percent increase.
In October, the auto industry sacked 28,363 workers, followed by 21,169
in the retail sector. Telecommunications companies cut 21,030. So far in
2003, 1.04 million job reductions have been announced.

[papau]

3. We wait for Fridays Jobs report to see how many new jobs there are

I do not trust Bush Stats when first released

The jobless claims for the last 4 weeks have all been revised upward so as to report that the new week was lower.

Not that Bush lies - he just has trouble finding the truth - about anything.

[truthisfreedom]

44. what? are you serious? did they really revise the last four weeks data?

n/m

[JNelson6563]

5. This is what I wonder about

and make sme think that Team Bush is just getting bolder with their number manipulation tactics. Take that phoney GDP number for instance....

Julie

[papau]

6. "problems with seasonally adjusting the data could be a factor"????

I like the ready excuse!

Just so you know that we know we are liars.

[JNelson6563]

13. Amen brother Papau!

It's not really a lie if you wink when you tell it....;-)

Julie

[Guaranteed]

4. A week is far too small of a time frame for statistics like this.

It means next to nothing.

[MaineDem]

7. Part time jobs?

How many people have taken part time jobs because they can't find something full time? This isn't figured in. People aren't working to make a living wage and this number is a distortion of the actual facts. In my humble non-economics opinion, of course.

[mhr]

10. There Are Six Different Unemployment Rates U1-U6

Only U-3 is reported by the press.

U-6 covers those folks that are underemployed, unwilling part-timers, and long term unemployed.

This article tells the tale.
------
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/business/5962629.htm

May 29, 2003

Unemployment: It depends on how you define it

By DIANE STAFFORD
Columnist

You've been out of work for 18 months and know 15 others who are vainly
job hunting. You suspect that the 5.8 percent unemployment figure for
April is government propaganda.

In your world, things are much worse off. And, guess what, in your
world, you're right.

The "real" unemployment rate for you is 9.8 percent. You can look it up.
It's every bit as real as the 5.8 percent that was reported in the
media. So what's the deal?

The deal is that there are six government-sanctioned definitions of
unemployment. The six measures produce a broad range of unemployment
numbers. For April 2003, the range was a scant 2.5 percent to a scary
9.8 percent.

One of the midrange numbers, dubbed U-3 and defined as "total
unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force," is the official
unemployment rate.

Snip ......

[MaineDem]

12. Great information

Thank you!

[54anickel]

18. This clears up a LOT!! I must me U-6

Thank you!

[papau]

25. It appears we do not publish U-6 weekly since Bush took office

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.toc.htm

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

HOUSEHOLD DATA HOUSEHOLD DATA

Table A-12. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

(Percent)
1st 4 are Not seasonally adjusted - Seasonally adjusted Measure
Sept. Aug. Sept. Sept. May June July Aug. Sept.
2002 2003 2003 2002 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003

U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of
the civilian labor force................................. 1.9 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.4

U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as
a percent of the civilian labor force.................... 2.8 3.3 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4

U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor
force (official unemployment rate)....................... 5.4 6.0 5.8 5.7 6.1 6.4 6.2 6.1 6.1

U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent
of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers..... 5.6 6.3 6.0 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached Workers .................................................. 6.3 7.1 6.8 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employedpart time for economic reasons, as a percent of thecivilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers....................................................... 9.0 10.0 9.8 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

1 Data not available.
NOTE: Marginally attached workers are persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for a job. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. For further information, see "BLS introduces new range of alternative unemployment measures," in the October 1995 issue of the Monthly Labor Review. Beginning in January 2003, data reflect revised populationcontrols used in the household survey.




Table of Contents
Last Modified Date: October 03, 2003

Series Id: LNS14000000Seasonal AdjustedSeries title: (Seas) Unemployment RateLabor force status: Unemployment rateType of data: PercentAge: 16 years and over
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1993 7.3 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.8 6.6 6.5
1994 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.6 5.5
1995 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.6
1996 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.4
1997 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.7
1998 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4
1999 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.9
2001 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8
2002 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.0
2003 5.7 5.8 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.4 6.2 6.1 6.1

[La_Serpiente]

8. Is there any way we can see the methodology that they use?

Maybe they are changing it as we speak.

[papau]

26. New Bush method is to change seasonal adj monthly - there is a

description at the BLS site

[UpInArms]

9. related story - more layoffs in the future

http://www.thewbalchannel.com/money/2614133/detail.html

Southwest Closes Call Centers; Layoffs Possible At Delta

Southwest Airlines is cutting its human services to accommodate increasing online sales of airline tickets. Southwest officials announced that three of its nine national phone reservations centers will close by February 2004. Company executives said a decline of incoming calls is forcing the move. The centers impacted include Dallas, Salt Lake City and Little Rock, Ark.

In all, 1,900 employees will be affected;

<snip>

More layoffs are possible for one of the nation's largest airlines. Leo Mullin, the chief executive officer of Delta Air Lines, said the nation's third-largest carrier could eventually be forced to lay off more workers if management fails to get deep wage concessions from pilots.

Delta has already cut 16,000 jobs in two years.

...more...

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

11. They are reporting the U1 number.

It is, perhaps, the most misleading number. The U6 is, without a doubt, the most accurate number regarding the employment picture in the US.

[54anickel]

14. This is just effin' bull!

Initial Claims!
I saw a report of layoffs increasing 125%.
Someone else posted earlier this week of a survey of HR specialists that most companies have no plans to hire until mid or late 04, early 05! (Gotta find that one)

Many companies, like mine, had what's considered a massive layoff. Those are covered by the WARN act. You get 60 days pay from the date of notification. Then there is severance pay that the company can assign to specific dates. All of that "pay" pushes out you Initial Claim. You can open a claim a certain amount of weeks prior to being able to collect unemployment, but that is the beginning of your 52 week eligabiity. So for me, waiting until all that "pay" is used up before filing the initial claim makes sense as I was salary. The only ones that would have filed their intial claim right away were the production workers that would want their benefits based on the summer overtime they put in - puts them closer to qualifying for the maximum UE weekly benefit check.

Looking at weekly initial claims is totally meaningless. Monthly and quarterly numbers make much more sense. Actually, looking at claims themselves is almost meaningless as it does not include those that have totally exhausted their UE benefits and just given up on looking for employment.

Gads! This misAdmin just pisses me off to no end!

[mhr]

16. Tell It Brother 54, Been Unemployed for 39 Months!

Unemploymnet Insurance? What's That?

[54anickel]

19. 39 months!!!

Holy Sh*t! Geez, do I even BOTHER with a resume at this point? I've been so bummed I haven't even started working on one. Of course, I'm a "displaced worker" IT specialist. But B*sh has come to my rescue and I can qualify for $3K for a 2 year tech school degree to learn a NEW trade! Chef, auto mechanic, Geez! 3K over 2 years ain't gonna help me with the mortgage payment dude.

[mhr]

20. Yep 39 Months, 1,427 Resumes Sent and Posted On 105 Job Boards

The result, NADA!

Two college degrees and lots of work experience means nothing these days.

Welcome to the BFEE's vision of Amerika.

[RDANGELO]

15. These 55,000 jobs,

are these supposed to be new jobs or a net increase. I wish they would be specific. If these are new jobs, we could still be losing more jobs than we are creating?

[mhr]

17. You Got It RDANGELO, See www.jobwatch.org For The Net Losses

eom

[salin]

27. they are the jobs created by the great Walmart 'illegal/janitorial' bust

someone has to fill the jobs created by interupting that little scheme.

;-)

[kentuck]

21. Thousands with unemployment benefits are running out....

and are not counted at all...

[mhr]

22. These Folks Are Counted In U6 - See Earlier Post In Thread

Unfortunately, U6 is never reported!

eom

[54anickel]

23. Does this mean we'll have to listen to the pompous ass

tell us his plan is working today?
I can't stand the thought of another "How great I art" speech today.

[yellowcanine]

28. I believe today is a "foreign policy day" so maybe

you will be spared having to listen to the pompous ass talk about this - but of course if you really don't want to hear the pompous ass at all you are going to have to turn your radio off.

[yellowcanine]

24. Preparing for a bad employment report on Friday?

I am wondering if the Labor Dept is anticipating a worse than expected October employment report tomeorrow and this is designed to take the edge off? Don't these weekly unemployment claim reports always get revised upwards after all of the regions finish compiling their claims data?

[Ruby Romaine]

29. there is a book about this-

"How to lie with statistics"
By Darrell Huff

published every 10 years or so since the 1950's
It's time for a new edition!
Get it from your local library.

[ColumbusGirl]

34. There is a new edition out...

I saw it recently at Barnes & Nobles... I still have mine from when it was a required read in college. :)

[loudnclear]

30. "new jobless claims" Everyone who could be unemployed almost is

What is the total number unemployed? That's not down.

[mhr]

36. Over 9 Million Folks Are Officially Unemployed

Challenger-Gray has stated in the past that the real number is closer to 15 million folk.

[Gloria]

31. I wonder about the lag factor.....Here in Las Cruces, NM, the last call

center, Excel, announced it is closing in December. 300 jobs will go down the tubes then, but until then, these people are still employed.

Excel and two other call centers were the biggest deal to hit Las Cruces over the last couple of years. Two went out of business pretty quickly, now Excel. Excel was always recruiting; lots of part time work for second jobbers and students. They say they're just consolidating at their other locations to stay competetive....overseas call centers pressuring them.

300 jobs, part time or otherwise is a very big deal in a town the size of Las Cruces!! Just in time for Christmas....

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

32. Question for Papau since I think you have some expertise

This report only deals with people on unemployment roles, correct? This report does NOT address those that are unemployed that are no longer eligible or have exhausted benefits. Right?

[mhr]

35. You Got It, These Numbers Are Only For Those Folks Claiming

Unemployment Insurance for the First Time.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

47. Thanks. I depend on DU'ers that know the classifications on

these issues.

[jiacinto]

33. Seasonal Jobs

Could this be people signing up for Christmas employment?

[bucknaked]

37. Our company hired somewhere between 100-500 "seasonal" employees

...across the nation (could be more), but sadly, they're pretty much gone after January. Not sure how many other retailers or consumer goods manufacturers practice this during the holiday season, but it could be one explanation.

[Yavin4]

38. Bush Is Cooking These Numbers

Don't give me any crap about how these figures are being report independently. BULL! The people who compile these numbers are people, not machines. They have mortgages, college loans, and bills just like the rest of us. They are cooking these UE figures just in time for the election.

Trust me, a year from now, no one will be unemployed.

[Barrett808]

43. Yes, taking a page from Poppy's book

Remember when unemployment suddenly fell just before the 1992 election? Turned out Bush I had cooked the books. I have every confidence the BFEE is at it again.

[banana republican]

48. The Numbers

I know a little bit about the "numbers" since my wife works for the people who collect them. The US Census Bureau collects raw data from a variety of sources. they take great pride in doing their jobs and getting "good" statistics. They do *not* however calculate the final numbers. The final numbers are calculated in Washington D.C. by the political cronies in charge of the various agencies. for example the FBI calculates the crime statistics; the Dept. of Labor calculates unemployment and job creation. The fox does indeed guard the hen house...

[banana republican]

39. Krugman's Comment

NY Times Oct. 31

The big question, of course, is jobs. Despite all that growth in the third quarter, the number of jobs actually fell. And new claims for unemployment insurance, a leading indicator for the job market, still show no sign of a hiring boom.

(By the way, for the last month there's been a peculiar pattern: each week, headlines declare that new claims fell from the previous week; a week later, the past week's number is revised upward, and the apparent decline disappears.)

And you believe the GOP?????

[grannylib]

40. They will revise numbers next week with no explanation

[area51]

41. Jobless in Geo. W. Hoover's America

I wish the economy would get better; it's not despite the perpetual lies of the republinazi pundits & craven press. If it were actually getting better, all of us unemployed would be able to get decent paying jobs.

[snippy]

42. It really, really, really, really, really, really, really pisses me off

that the DNC does not make sure that every American over the age of 12 knows that Republican presidents are always, always, always bad for job creation. Since the 1920's, the annual rate of job creation under republican presidents has always been lower than under democratic presidents. Bush is much worse on job creation than the typical republican president.

All of this data is from July, 2003.

Since the depression, a republican president has never had a better rate of job creation than any democratic president. The highest rate of job growth under a republican was 2.2% per year during Nixon's time in office. The lowest rate of job growth under a democrat was 2.3% per year during Kennedy's time in office. Bush has had a -0.7% annual rate which is the first negative number since the depression.

Since WWII ended, a total of 57.51 million jobs were created during the terms of democratic presidents which is an average of 2.054 million jobs per year. During the terms of republican presidents a total of 31.11 million jobs were created which is an average of 1.003 million jobs per year.

The consistency of this data is persuasive. My guess at an explanation is that even though presidents of both parties are beholden to corporate interests, democratic presidents also have to support labor. This results in compromises between business and labor under democratic presidents whereas republican presidents do only the bidding of business and actively try to harm labor.

The DNC should be running ads on this year round, every year.

[SoCalDem]

45. "Initial claims" is the "hook" here

The layoffs are tapering off , because most places have ALREADY laid off more people than they can , without closing their businesses..

AND.. until there is accurate reporting of ALL people who are unemployed (who want to..need to work), these numbers are like jello nailed to the wall..

People who were downsized months ago and who have started jobs for $7 an hour are still "unemployed", whether the government admits it or not..

and the ones whose benefits have run out, are not even counted..

numbers are funny.. you can make them say whatever you need them to say :eyes:

[chapter32]

46. A bogus and misleading statistics

Just because your unemployment checks run out and you are dropped off the “system” doesn’t mean you are employed. Currently, there is no way to track those unemployed who do not (can not) claim unemployment benefits.

It’s ironic that if you are unemployed for too long you actually help to make the system look good.