jobless claims fall to 333,000(prior revised from 336 to 337-so drop of 2

[papau]

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

Aug. 12, 2004 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT

SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA

In the week ending Aug. 7, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 333,000, a decrease of 4,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 337,000. The 4-week moving average was 339,250, a decrease of 4,250 from the previous week's unrevised average of 343,500.

The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.3 percent for the week ending July 31, unchanged from the prior week's unrevised rate of 2.3 percent.

The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending July 31 was 2,896,000, a decrease of 5,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 2,901,000. The 4-week moving average was 2,883,250, a decrease of 14,500 from the preceding week's revised average of 2,897,750.


UNADJUSTED DATA

The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 290,226 in the week ending Aug. 7, an increase of 8,312 from the previous week. There were 348,207 initial claims in the comparable week in 2003.

The advance unadjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.2 percent during the week ending July 31, unchanged from the prior week. The advance unadjusted number for persons claiming UI benefits in state programs totaled 2,771,143, a decrease of 43,161 from the preceding week. A year earlier, the rate was 2.7 percent and the volume was 3,417,741.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5682838/

Initial jobless claims dipped to 333,000 from 337,000 in the previous week, the Labor Department reported on Thursday, contrary to Wall Street economists’ expectations that they would rise to 338,000. The department originally reported claims in the July 31 week totaled 336,000 but it revised that number up modestly.
SO WITHOUT PRIOR WEEK ADJUSTMENT IT WAS 336000 to 334000!

Retail sales up 0.7% in July - Not quite up to the predictions - as posted on Bloomber -Retail Sales Probably Increased 1.2 Percent in July, Led by Auto Purchases, Sales at U.S. retailers probably rebounded in July from the biggest decline since February 2003 as incentives from automakers lured buyers, a survey of economists showed ahead of a government report today

[demnan]

1. But that's probably just

because peoples' unemployment gave out!

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

2. exactly - unemployment running out is statisticly the same as being hired

:puke:

[Maeve]

3. No, this is initial claims, first filings

The continuing claims dropped, too--and that's where it can be because they ran out of benefits.

Employment has stabilized somewhat, with fewer folks losing jobs. That's an improvement, but not enough to let Dubya keep his "turning the corner" slogan! (We've turned so many corners, we're going round in circles!)

[Joanne98]

4. Thankyou for clearing that up

do you know if they count people registered at the Employment Office as looking for work? Because if they do, wouldn't getting people to do that raise the unemployment numbers?

[Maeve]

10. The usual unemployment figures are from household surveys

A different method altogether. Part of the problem with that number is that "discouraged workers", those who quit looking because there is nothing out there are dropped from the "unemployed" category--only those looking are "unemployed" (I don't defend it, I just report it!)
The payroll figures are about as close to reality we get in these stats and we still aren't adding enough jobs to deal with the population increases, much less making up for the jobs lost in the past three and a half years.

[sandnsea]

19. New jobs, laid off, no benefits

That could account for the odd difference between low job numbers and unemployment claims. If you've already gone through your benefits, got a new job, got laid off from it, then you don't qualify for benefits. I wonder if there are any new welfare application numbers. That could show where these people without jobs and unemployment are going.

[underpants]

5. Where is the RW getting this"680,000 jobs created last month" from?

I heard Novak say something about that on Crossfire yesterday and I have no idea where they get that number from or how they could have figured it.

Anyone?

[imax2268]

6. got me...

they seem to grab these numbers out of thin air...

[Frodo]

7. The household survey.

The two surveys are showing dramatically different results.

So which one will they hang their hat on?

[underpants]

9. Oh the one that showed 5.5% unemployment

the bls actually has that number on their webpage.

I guess we will never get to see what the number is under the normal reporting criteria.

[papau]

11. Greenberg says to not use Household for jobs - only 60000 phone calls and

pressure to say I am working at home - and not admit unemployed.

[Frodo]

13. That's a bit of a stretch on greenie's remarks

And that's the first time I've ever seen a survey with >100,000 individuals refered to as "only".

BTW - it's an in-person survey that takes hours, not a brief phone call with "pressure to say I'm working at home".


Greenspan prefers the establishment survey for what it does best - counting the number of people on payrolls. He didn't say there was something "wrong" with the HS. It just measures other things.

[sandnsea]

20. They changed home workers

A few months ago. They never used to count the little things people do to try to make ends meet, like mowing lawns or selling stuff on Ebay. Now they count all of that as having a home business. I wouldn't be surprised to learn they count dealing drugs as a home business. If they'll try to make burger flipping a manufacturing job, they'll do anything.

[papau]

22. And Greenie recommends against using Household for jobs - so main

point is not in question (as you say, the Household "just measures other things")

As to 60,000 households being more than 100,000 individuals - score - perhaps - for the DOL

But the reason 60,000 is used is because of the stat difficulty of estimating a number around 140,000,000 with the known bias of phone surveys and question wording

Indeed question wording studies suggest the bias against saying I am not working - not Greenie.

In any case - point to you, Frodo. Good to see you posting!

Thank God I do not make a living as a media writer as I would have to agree I am a bit sloppy - but then compared to others that do make their living in the media - I at least get the intent correct!

I think!

????

:-)

[RivetJoint]

8. The Households Report N/T

[snowFLAKE]

12. It's quite possible that 680,000 jobs were created

And something like 650,000 jobs were lost.

The key point is how many NET jobs were created or lost - there's always going to be a good many jobs created in an economy the size the USA's - the important thing is whether even more were un-created at the same time.

[underpants]

14. That could be correct

Welcome to DU snowFLAKE if'n I haven't before. :hi:

As noted above it appears to be from household surveys but either way once again they are only giving half the equation.

[Frodo]

15. Sorry to correct again. BOTH figures are "net" growth.

They aren't half stories... they are contradictory stories.

Both are valid measures. And likely NEITHER is wrong.

[underpants]

16. Okay

I was referring to the 308,000 JOBS CREATED story from a few months ago but the unemployment rate actually went up but that was not reported at all-basically there was still a net loss of jobs.

You are right.

[Yavin4]

21. The Discrepancy Is Probably Due To The Increase In Temp Work

Because the job market has been miserable for four years running, people are more likely to take real short term temp work, even if it's a day or two. So, let's say Jane Doe takes a three day temp assignment. She won't show up on the payroll of the company that used her services, and she may not show up on the payroll of the temp company. However, when she gets called by the BLS, she shows up as having a job because if you work during a two or three week window around the phone survey, you are counted as employed.

[unfrigginreal]

17. Unadjusted 8,000 increase translates to an adjusted 4000 decrease?

How does that happen?

[Frodo]

18. "Seasonal" adjustments.

In a "normal" year with consistent job growth and stable conditions, you STILL get incredible fluctuations in the unemployment filings. People get "laid off" for the summer, or lots of hiriing right before the holidays, or reductions in construction jobs during the coldest months of winter, etc etc etc.

None of these are what you want to look at when comparing how the job market is doing this week/month. For instance, a recent story was the impact layoffs in the auto industry had. It seems that around this time every year there is a mass layoff of auto workers for a few weeks as the plants re-tool for the new models. Everyone expects it (it's almost a "vacation" for the auto workers) and they all get their jobs "back" at the end of the period. So "intial filings" could jump WAY up one week and then plummet back down the next week... but it wouldn't tell you ANYTHING about how things are going in the job market.

So they balance all of these factors into a "seasonal adjustment" so that (in theory) you can be comfortable that if the adjusted figure changes substantially, you're actually seeing something significant.

In this case, there are 8,000 more people filing than last week, but based on previous years, a "stable" market would have led to a 12,000 person increase. So the end result is 4,000 better than expected.

But it balances out. There were some weeks earlier in the year where the "adjusted" number was 350k or so, but the "real" number was like 227k. Even though the "real" number is FAR better, it still doesn't mean anything because you EXPECT it to be low at that time of year.

[papau]

23. Yet one more reason to follow 4 week averages - except when we

get close to an election :-)