US initial jobless claims fall to 522,000

[OhioChick]

Source: Economic Times India

16 Jul 2009, 1841 hrs IST, AGENCIES

WASHINGTON: New claims for US unemployment benefits fell for the second week running last week, government data showed Thursday.

The Labor Department said that first-time claims for unemployment insurance benefits fell to 522,000 in the week ended July 11.

That was better than the average consensus forecast of 565,000 and well below the revised 569,000 for the preceding week.

The Labor Department, however, cautioned that the weekly data had been skewed for a second week by timing of layoffs in the automotive sector.

"This big drop is not an indication of what's going on economically, it's more an issue with the seasonal factor," a department statistician told reporters.



Read more: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/International-Business/US-initial-jobless-claims-fall-to-522K/articleshow/4785924.cms

---

Funny how they make 522,000 sound like a "good thing."

[ananda]

1. Only half a million going jobless a month...

Must be a recovery. Our troubles are ending.

sarcastic smiley here

[Yavin4]

3. Actually, It's 500,000+ A Week, Not A Month

The report is a weekly report. So, 522,000 new claims were for last week.

[scheming daemons]

5. No.. it is a weekly report on the MONTHLY pace...

..that is why it is often revised up or down after the fact.


What it means is... the jobs lost last week would indicate a pace of 522,000 job losses per month.


It's a rolling 4-week average.

[Zynx]

7. Even in boom times, jobless claims run at the rate of 320,000 to 340,000 a week.

These numbers reflect the gross number of people who go on unemployment benefits in a week, not a net number for job creation. These are very different things.

[OHdem10]

2. WSJ: Bernanke(Fed Chm) is planning for an economy which

recovers but recovers with large unemployment.
This is not the lagging indicator effect.

No jobs for high numbers of people.




Honesty is finally showing up.

[MercutioATC]

4. It's actually as LOT worse than that.

"The unadjusted figures for last week actually showed that new claims rose by 86,389 last week, which would push the total to 667,534."

"Those adjustment difficulties also were behind a big drop reported for people continuing to draw unemployment benefits, the analyst said.

The number of people still collecting benefits fell by a seasonally adjusted 642,000 to 6.27 million, the lowest level since mid-April.

The unadjusted figures for continued claims showed an increase of 63,714. That data lags initial claims by a week."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Jobless-claims-drop-but-apf-3440402076.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=6&asset=&ccode=


This is the time of year that auto factories typically lay off a bunch of people, and the "adjusted" numbers reflect an expectation of those job losses. The auto industry has already layed off so many people that they're not laying off as many now as they usually do...

...but the actual number of people applying for first-time unemployment benefits is UP...it's not down...and the number of people receiving continuing benefits is also UP.

[Zynx]

6. The seasonal adjustments may not be perfect, but they are better than quoting NSA numbers.

I ask you to look at how much the NSA numbers swing around, particularly toward the end of a year and the beginning of the new year.

[MercutioATC]

8. I disagree...for these two reasons:

1) The raw data is always going to be more accurate than an adjusted number. It's true that we experience regular seasonal variations, but as long as we understand that, I'd rather see actual data. (My natural gas usage spikes in the winter and drops off to almost nothing in the summer. I understand the trend, and I'd rather see the actual usage numbers than just a monthly average based on a year's total consumption.)

2) More importantly, the adjustments made to the raw data are based on traditional seasonal trends. When the current situation creates a large variance from traditional seasonal trends, adjusted data becomes less indicative of the actual current situation.


I'd rather see the raw data than an a number derived from a grossly inaccurate adjustment.

[Zynx]

9. Very well:

In a three month span, jobless claims rose by almost 360,000. Do you know what I am talking about? October 1999-January of 2000.

Looking at seasonally adjusted numbers I could have told you that jobless claims were flat.

http://www.ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/wkclaims/report.asp

I can tell you with a great deal of confidence that the numbers will not reach an near-term equilibrium up at 680,000 like you suggested. There are still some seasonal factors at work during the summer. Manufacturers in diffusion index surveys have indicated that they will shutter plants more or less how they normally do during the summers plus additional layoffs.

By the way, by your standard we were experiencing quite a recovery in the January 10th through May 16th period where initial claims dropped by 416,000 on a not seasonally adjusted basis. Holy Lord the economy must have been getting better in a hurry. Seasonally adjusted numbers would have told you that the labor market was stuck at a pretty steady rate of contraction throughout that period.