U.S. Initial Jobless Claims Fell By 25,000 to 315,000

[papau]

http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT

SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA

In the week ending May 1, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 315,000, a decrease of 25,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 340,000. The 4-week moving average was 343,250, a decrease of 3,750 from the previous week's revised average of 347,000.

The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.3 percent for the week ending April 24, a decrease of 0.1 percentage point from the prior week's unrevised rate of 2.4 percent.

The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending April 24 was 2,935,000, a decrease of 69,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 3,004,000. The 4-week moving average was 2,977,750, a decrease of 15,250 from the preceding week's revised average of 2,993,000.


UNADJUSTED DATA

The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 280,417 in the week ending May 1, a decrease of 34,588 from the previous week. There were 377,383 initial claims in the comparable week in 2003.

The advance unadjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.3 percent during the week ending April 24, a decrease of 0.1 percentage point from the prior week. The advance unadjusted number for persons claiming UI benefits in state programs totaled 2,934,769, a decrease of 102,684 from the preceding week. A year earlier, the rate was 2.9 percent and the volume was 3,621,019.


http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&refer...

U.S. Initial Jobless Claims Fell By 25,000 to 315,000 Last Week
May 6 (Bloomberg) -- The number of Americans filing initial claims for jobless benefits dropped to 315,000 last week, the fewest since October 2000, a government report showed.

Initial applications fell by 25,000 in the week that ended Saturday from 340,000, the Labor Department said in Washington (as usual prior week is increase so current week looks better). The number of people continuing to collect state jobless benefits declined to 2.935 million in the week that ended April 24, the lowest since June 2001. The statistics are reported with a one- week lag to initial claims.

The labor data precede a report tomorrow that may show the economy added 170,000 jobs last month following the biggest gains in almost four years during March. Job creation is needed to keep consumer spending strong as borrowing costs increase and the effects of last year's tax cuts diminish, economists said. <snip>

http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/wkclaims/r... ?

Subject: Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Data - Report r539cy


Initial Claims Continued Claims I.U.R Covered Employment
N.S.A S.F. S.A. N.S.A S.F. S.A. N.S.A S.A.

02/28/2004 342,140 99.9 342,000 3,674,294 120.2 3,057,000 2.9 2.4 126,250,343
03/06/2004 339,007 99.4 341,000 3,551,292 115.4 3,077,000 2.8 2.4 126,250,343
03/13/2004 312,067 93.6 333,000 3,513,900 116.1 3,027,000 2.8 2.4 126,250,343
03/20/2004 304,462 88.6 344,000 3,385,174 111.0 3,050,000 2.7 2.4 126,250,343
03/27/2004 296,776 86.6 343,000 3,310,942 110.5 2,996,000 2.6 2.4 126,250,343
04/03/2004 304,249 92.1 330,000 3,112,845 104.9 2,967,000 2.5 2.4 126,084,041
04/10/2004 350,739 96.8 362,000 3,143,186 104.6 3,005,000 2.5 2.4 126,084,041

[mhr]

1. There Are Fewer And Fewer People Left To Fire

Is it any wonder that the numbers would trend down eventually?

But some facts still remain like my situation and the situation of thousand more.

------
Republicans Worst Nightmare - People Like Myself

Unemployed 4 years!

Two College Degrees:
BSEE
MBA

Special Training:
FAA Certified Commercial Pilot

Military Service:
Officer United States Navy

Professional Work Experience:
Long and Varied

Slowly becoming impoverished!

Can't get low income jobs - too much experience, too many aliens
Can't find middle class white collar jobs - outsourced or already filled

Unemployment insurance? What's that?

[papau]

2. The DOL has dropped the estimate of total employed under program

So they know the crap they put out is just to make the media happy and busy.

But it is a lock that tomorrows jobs report will show around 200,000 new jobs in April - and it is a lock that they will all be temp/part time.

I'm in DC until Monday - but I look forward to what the internal numbers in tomorrows report will show. Of late the only "good" news was because of deficit spending by the Gov - hell of a way to maintain a no jobs growth economy.

I suspect the interest rate game to improve, even as rates increase, as the "hurdle" rate for new investment gets easier to meet - and all this because folks are begining to factor in a Kerry win in Nov.

The same thing happened - and Greenspan noted in Aug 2001 - when Bush locked down the USSC vote in Dec 2000.

[Frodo]

9. Papau - can you direct me to where that comes from?

I've seen that "they were all part-time" argument several times over the last four weeks and can't identify what it is based on. At first I assumed it was the same juvenille "sour-grapes" jabs that both parties have made when the other side is doing well ("they're all burger flipping jobs" or "I know he's created tons of job... I've got three of them") but people are acting like there's an actual report I'm missing saying "# of PT jobs vs. # of FT jobs".

[papau]

18. No Problem

Except I do not claim great ability in using DU Search function so I can't link to my earlier posts.

I posted at the time that the all jobs were part time/temp comes from the actual jobs report - 308000 new jobs, and an increase in part time /Temp from 2.4 m to 2.7 - but note that the DOL said later that the increase in Temp jobs was only 280,000 - so their were 28000 non-temp jobs created - but then also note that tomorrow we will see the 308000 revised downward!

As to claims and covered employment - below is what I posted. Please note the 126,250,343 covered employment 2/28/04 has now changed to 126,084,041 covered employment 4/10/04.

Initial Claims Continued Claims I.U.R Covered Employment
N.S.A S.F. S.A. N.S.A S.F. S.A. N.S.A S.A.

02/28/2004 342,140 99.9 342,000 3,674,294 120.2 3,057,000 2.9 2.4 126,250,343
03/06/2004 339,007 99.4 341,000 3,551,292 115.4 3,077,000 2.8 2.4 126,250,343
03/13/2004 312,067 93.6 333,000 3,513,900 116.1 3,027,000 2.8 2.4 126,250,343
03/20/2004 304,462 88.6 344,000 3,385,174 111.0 3,050,000 2.7 2.4 126,250,343
03/27/2004 296,776 86.6 343,000 3,310,942 110.5 2,996,000 2.6 2.4 126,250,343
04/03/2004 304,249 92.1 330,000 3,112,845 104.9 2,967,000 2.5 2.4 126,084,041
04/10/2004 350,739 96.8 362,000 3,143,186 104.6 3,005,000 2.5 2.4 126,084,041

Hope that helps!

[mhr]

30. So 126,250,343 Minus 126,084,041 Equals 166,302 Fewer Employed People

Seems clear that despite all the spin on net new jobs that total employment is declining.

Or is this not the way to view these numbers?

[papau]

31. Fewer employed people with UE insurance from the States

Meaning job "growth" is "hidden" or "Temp" - or a lot of self-employed folks making a fortune - the latter if you like GOP spin!

[mhr]

32. So These Numbers Reflect The Total Number Of People Eligible For UI

I see.

So as you say this means that fewer people are being employed in "traditional" jobs that offer benefits like unemployment insurance.

And as you suggest this is indicative of the fact that the economy is not generating enough jobs to cover all those that want to work in traditional jobs with benefits.

In other words the total covered employment reflects the failure of the economy regardless of the spin from republicans.

Thanks for clarifying the definition.

[Frodo]

34. Ahh. Ok, I found it. You're misreading that number.

http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t05.htm


That figure is the number of people employed part-time who want full-time work but can't get it. It's highly variable and similar in a lot of ways to the "discouraged" category of UE reporting (people stop looking for work and the UE rate goes down even though no jobs are created - or - as things start to improve, a number of people who had given up looking start looking again and the UE rate actually goes up somewhat).


As evidence for my position take a look at the actual figures. It went from 4.437 Million up to 4.733 Million last month. Do you really think that there are only five million part-time workers out there today? Lots of companies have gone to better than 50% PT. Hell, WalMart may have more than 4 Million PT all by themselves.

The change in denominator for the insured UE rate is not particularly useful either since it is based largely on the household data. If we want to count THAT as the number of jobs out there we have to concede a couple million jobs created instead of a couple million lost.

[papau]

36. Correct as to definition - but all other numbers net to no change - so

what is wrong with saying that the increase in working folks was only in the people employed part-time who want full-time work but can't get it.

Sounds like a supply side econ discussion where you hear that one is "wrong" but without reasons - and then without a reasoned alternative conclusion.

And as for the survey result as to covered employment for UE - that tracks back to the taxes paid for UE - a very solid number - as are the claims numbers.

The Household survey sucks when you try to use it for total employed - a point Greenspan and every other econ person I know agrees with that is not "Blinded by the Right".

[Frodo]

39. What's wrong is that the two numbers are just coincidentally similar.

The figure quoted includes an increase in full-time road construction workers who only get paid for 32 hours because it rained two days, or fill-in teachers who had only 25 hours this week because they don't get paid for spring break days, or people taking unpaid leave for a few days to care for a family member, etc etc etc. It does't necessarily reflect part-time "jobs" at all. They are mostly FT jobs that only paid PT wages (32hrs or less) at some point during the month.

There is no connection between this number and the number of part-time workers hired this month. (Or do you want to look at the previous month where less than 100k jobs were created net, but there were almost 300k fewer part-time employees on the report you cited. Does Bush get credit for replacing 300k PT workers with 400k FT workers for that 100k net gain? Are you sure you want to go there?)

The number varies heavily month-month based even on something as small as how many holiday's there were (not everyone gets paid for holidays). It's really a coincidence that it happens to be about 300k in a month that 300k jobs were "created".

And, no - I'm pretty sure that the UE number does NOT come from UE taxes paid. That number is only revised annually and doesn't track from month to month (you would have two people shown as employed if I left one company today and went to work for another next week since both would be paying taxes but I'm still one person).

[leftyandproud]

5. mhr...I'm sorry.

someone needs to say it, but I seriously think you are using shrub as an excuse not to try and get a new job...We have posts here every day of people finding jobs...why? Because they are out all day, every day dropping off applications and trying to find work. So you mailed off a bunch of applications a few years ago and didn't get a call...sorry to hear that. Please STOP surfing DU and go find a job today...NO, you may not be able to get your dream job...You may not be paid half of what you once were but there ARE jobs available. I lost my job in 2000 (got replaced by a computer.) I was unemployed two weeks and found something else that paid an extra .50 per hour..yippee I thought...worked there another two years and got laid off when the company left town. Well shit I thought...so, I started searching again...updated my resume, unplugged the cable from the wall and never touched my computer until I found something else...found another job within a week paying a bit more than my last one. There are PLENTY of $10-11/hr jobs out there right now...basic assembly/data entry/customer service type stuff. Are you too good for this stuff? Why not give it a shot? So you aren't making $30 an hour any more...big deal. Most people don't make this much, but at least you will be doing SOMETHING. I have a feeling had Bush not been selected, you wouldn't be sitting on your ass all day for FOUR F*CKING YEARS. Go get a job...any job...even if you think it is beneath you. Add something to the economy and stop complaining EVERY DAY. There is work out there...not hard labor, but basic office work that pays at least twice the minimum wage for entry level stuff. Learn something new and DO SOMETHING with your life other than bitching about Bush 24/7. If he gets elected this Nov, will you be doing the same thing until 2009 or will you say f*ck it...It's time to get a job...
?

Try something new. Get yourself a simple entry level job paying $17-20,000 a year...not glamorous, but a good job nonetheless. Had you done this in 2000, you would probably be in management making your old salary by now.

flame away

[Frodo]

7. That's simply not fair. If you've spent any time here you know

that mhr (while wrong on many of these economic reports because he maps his own personal experience onto the entire labor market) has certainly NOT been shirking on attempts to get a job.


Your jab is innaproprite (and a bit cold-hearted).

[mhr]

8. Another Twenty Resumes Out The Door This Week!

Attending Job Fair On Monday In Downtown Dallas!

The last job fair had 3000 people for 300 positions.

The reaction at these events is typically old white guys need not apply!

On the direct response front, I have not heard from a headhunter or company in over two years now.

BTW, Dallas is in the top ten of all cities for most lost jobs in the last three years. In Telecom alone, 112,000 people lost their jobs in North Dallas for 2001 and 2002. Those jobs never came back and the North Dallas economy has not created equivalent or even slightly less equivalent jobs since then.

Those are the facts!

You can choose not to believe it if you want too. However, myself and thousands of others are experiencing the same thing!

You are way off base and I take serious offense at your suggestion.

[leftyandproud]

10. ..

well mhr, I got the impression that you went on an application blitz back in 01/02 and have given up for the past two years, dwelling on shrub and seeming to blame him for single handedly destroying everything. At the very least, you most definately could get a job at a temp company like Manpower or Kelly Services. The have many temp to perm positions where you could get hired on for good after three months, and most of these places are desperate for help, which is why they hired someone to find it for them. Again, the work is not ideal...It may suck in some cases, but it will get your foot in the door and keep you busy until the economy in your old line of work picks up again. Sorry if I sounded harsh earlier but I really have been getting the impression that you won't take something you consider 'beneath' you, something paying less than you would like. I do data entry at an insurance company now and most people I work with are in there 30's, 40,s & 50's. The customer service department will hire you in your 70s as long as you have decent phone skills. Maybe I'm making a mistake by assuming my area is a representation of the whole country...I may be wrong, and it may be worse in Dallas. I just find it hard to believe that an employer would turn you down for a $10-11/hr job because you were "overqualified" for it...but I certainly don't have that problem to worry about, so may be wrong. I do wish you the best. Sorry for being presumptuous earlier.

[Just Me]

11. Being an "overqualified" "mature" applicant is a REAL problem.

The only reason I got a temporary low-wage ($6.50/hr) position during tax season was because the business was owned by my friend's father. I have a JD, for crying out loud. Almost every HR person I have talked to has acknowledged that being "overqualified" is an obstacle.

REAL people are experiencing REAL struggles.

[54anickel]

19. I have to agree with your assessment on the "overqualified" "mature" -

(read over 40) problem. I stay in touch with a few of the 70+ that were laid off. Most of the younger folks that called themselves "bottom-feeders" at work have found jobs or at least temporary placements. All of us 10+ in the "middle of the food chain" that are "mature" are still out of work, getting the over qualified explanation. One had a telephone interview that went great, but after the personal interview she was deemed "over qualified". This could have been attributed to many reasons, but it makes you wonder about the "mature" thing.

I just got my first offer yesterday for a 4 week job, but they wanted me to start today. I would have snapped it up, but my "father-out-law" is having major surgery next week and has a 50/50 chance of making it through. There's no way I would not be there for my family for a 4 week offer.

[Frodo]

13. There's a hole in your theory

mhr is the unexplainable gap between the blue and red lines on this graph over the last two years. While things are dramatically improving in general there are an unaccountable number of people out there unemployed for much longer than in previous cycles.


Also

1) My first reaction to mhr was similar. I've got about 6-9 months income in cash reserves assuming that the savings plus a reasonable severance would keep us from tapping savings for at least a year and I just can't conceive of it ever taking a year to find a job in any market.

2) It's a very very hard thing for some people (particularly men) to go from six figures to flipping burgers. I'm not making an excuse... but it isn't always as simple as logic would make it sound. I could probably go four to six years eating into my retirement before my family would have to consider giving up the house or not eating and I honestly don't know how far into that nestegg I would go before I "gave up" what I thought I was worth. I probably would do something part-time. I really don't know.

[mhr]

14. I Have Applied For Some Of The Burger Flipping Jobs

The response here in Dallas is you must be kidding. We are not going to hire you when we can get illegal aliens, high school students, or poorly experienced and poorly educated immigrants to do that job.

The second response is along the lines of why should I hire you when you can do my job, my bosses job, and his bosses job as well? The unspoken comment is that highly experienced people like myself are a threat to the existing order in many companies. Why hire someone that will take your job eventually? No need to create unnecessary competition.

Sad but true!

[Frodo]

16. They're lying to you on that first one, but the second rings true.

I remember before the job market plunge we had tons of fast food places near my office and I could never understand a word the people in the drive-thru said. The companies had gone so far as to play pre-recorded messages for the "welcome to Wendy's. Would you like to try a combo?" part of the transaction. Then when they actually took my order I couldn't understand them. It was flat-out admitted that they can't hire people with decent language skills in that salary-range. Anyone who could at least speak the language well was a couple bucks outside what they could pay.

There's no reason to hire an "illegal immigrant" when they can get a well-spoken professional voice behind the microphone.

The second reason they gave you makes a LOT more sense.

But even more than that... I'd need to be desperate to hire someone who I know plans to leave the day another job opens up when more...umm.. "suitable" people who might be happy with the job are lining up to take it.

[mhr]

21. Dallas, Is Heavily Hispanic - Speaking Spanish Here Is A Plus

Many non speakers are at a disadvantage for the low wage positions and would not be understood by the growing Hispanic population.

So number one still applies, at least in Dallas.

Number two applies in spades. There are many, many, many very nervous employed professional people and they are feathering their nests in any way possible. Eliminating potential competition is one of many methods to insure job survival.

[Just Me]

20. Further, that "discouraged worker" notion,...

,...fails to characterize just how wearing long-term unemployment and active job-hunting can be on any human being. It's tough!!! And, it shows,...the weariness shows.

[mhr]

23. Agreed, Just Me - If Anyone Thinks That Being Unemployed Is Fun

Think Again!

The endless search is tiring.

The endless begging is tiring.

The endless defending is tiring.

The specter of diminished expectations is tiring.

The loss of hope is tiring.

The loss of a future is tiring.

The whole damned thing is tiring!

And on it goes!

[Just Me]

25. Seriously, the most "discouraging" aspect,...

,...for me are those who either by implication or explicity assume that I must be doing something wrong or that I must not be trying hard enough or that there must be something wrong with me. I have to swallow hard to take that disconnected evaluation from people. On the other hand, and in an attempt to see the situation from their perspective, I realize that the reason why they do such things is because I am, in fact, a well-educated and articulate and hard-working and attractive person. My circumstances make no more sense to others than it does to me.

So, there you have it. Up close and personal.

All that is left for you and me and those who are in the same boat (and I know a number of REAL and good people who are in the same boat) to do is keep going. That is the only choice we have.

Meanwhile, being supportive is very helpful.

[mhr]

27. Last May, I Made A Trip To My Republican Representative - Pete Sessions

I told the staffers when scheduling the appointment that I had an issue of national importance to discuss.

At the meeting, I set the stage by laying my BSEE on the table, next my DD214, then my MBA, and finally my commercial pilot license.

I said we have a problem in this country when someone with this much skill and experience cannot find suitable employment.

The republicans present were speechless. They refused to believe that this story could be true. It was clear that they were, and probably still are, in deep denial.

I was very apolitical and even sent a nice thank you note after the meeting. I never heard one word from them again.

Clearly, this was not an issue they cared to consider or address.

The story speaks to your comment in that I get very similar responses from others as well.

No one wants to be confronted with the possibility of failure for those who have "technically" succeeded. It just does not compute in the national psyche and is not allowed as a possibility that our national economy could be faltering severely.

Essentially, this is a case of mass denial.

[Frodo]

28. Let's not push it. Ok?

Attractive?

[Just Me]

33. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Geez,...

[54anickel]

22. Frodo, it is so nice to see a truly compassionate post.

[Frodo]

24. Bah! I'm just having a bad day.

We all know he's really just a slug-a-bed who has turned down five decent jobs because the commute went through a "bad-air" part of town or they didn't have the right video games in the employee break room.

< /sarcasm>


I can say it a million times and I still get called a roveshill. I call the numbers the way I see them. People here don't want to believe them (and it will be our electoral downfall). It doesn't mean I'm unsympathetic.

Or maybe I'm just a "compassionate conservative"? :barf:

[papau]

37. I make 1/3 what I made in 96 - applied for similar to old slot at a

Fortune 50 company with a Board member and 2 Senior VP's recommending - and no response

The over 60 crowd has been designated as "surplus" -

Indeed even at 1/3rd of prior wages I make a great deal - so I guess I am lucky.

It is the US that is unlucky in having Bush destroy the economy.

[qanda]

29. Now, *that* was a compassionate post

/sarcasm

[rebellious woman]

3. Good God, in my area, the people can't find a part time job

where is this crap coming from....

[Paradise]

4. do numbers include those no longer entitled to unemployment insurance?

anyone know?

[Frodo]

6. They do not.

The numbers reported today are "initial filings" for unemployment insurance (and it's doubtful many people "apply" who are ineligible for the insurance) and "continuing claims" which obviously goes down as people exhaust their benefits. Tomorrow's numbers include them.

[Paradise]

12. finally, i know :) ! thanks Frodo n/t

[robcon]

15. Insured unemployed people are less than half of the unemployed

Among the reasons for the difference (2.3% insured unemployment rate vs about 5.8% total unemployment rate) are...

-Exhaustion of unemployment insurance benefits.

-Not enough work history to qualify for unemployment insurance (first-time entries into the job market, a history of sporadic employment, recent high school/college graduates, for example)

-Never applied for unemployment insurance (short-term layoffs with rehiring expected soon, etc.)

-Don't qualify for unemployment insurance because of being fired with cause, or being disqualified for unemployment insurance for not following the rules of the state Dept. of Labor.

I can't ever recall the insured unemployment rate to be even half of the reported total unemployment rate.

[Frodo]

17. You're preaching to the choir robcon.

Now, there's no shortage of people here who see the "new jobs" figure or "enemployment" figure and assume any improvement is due to people dropping off these rolls. Or who look at 300k "new jobs" and compare it to the 300k jobs lost weekly in this number and make a similar mistake.

I am not one of those people.

[KayLaw]

26. Question about jobs and age

Does anyone know the laws regarding child labor? Do they very from state to state or what? My m-i-l said my 14-year-old son should get a job because all her kids had jobs at that age.

You know, where I live, all the baggers at my Publix are senior citizens except one young man who is mentally disabled. Also, Iooked into getting my son a volunteer position at the SPCA, but there is a long wait for that because parents are hoping it will help their kids get a scholarship. Too, until a child is 16 his or her parent need to be with the child working side by side at all times.

Anyhow, I would not consider letting my son get a job but could he get one if he wanted one?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

35. 25,000 americans unemployeement benifits ran out ..and bet bush thinks

this will help his re-selection

[papau]

38. 1.5 million ran out of benefits in first 4 months of 2004.

But the DOL is doing no study to track what is happening to them.

I guess they are all self-employed and part of the new jobs created section of the jobs report to be released tomorrow!