New jobless claims number 514,000. Of course, as it is nearly every week,

[Subdivisions]

this number is "lower than expected". "Lower than expected" is the new good and a signal for the stockmarket to rally.

Here is the BLS chart showing unemployment trends over time:



Wow.

Inflation up .2%, oil and gold are up and the Dollar is down.

Meanwhile, Wall Street bonuses reach record highs on the backs of hard-working Americans' taxpayer bailout money. Bank of America received $30 Billion in TARP monies. B of A's bonuses are - wait for it - $30 Billion.

[bbernardini]

1. Just wait until the Teabaggers get a hold of that number. It'll be around 14 million. nt

[Subdivisions]

3. Funny. Someone un-recced the OP yet I can't see where they replied. n/t

[AllentownJake]

6. Talking about reality

by some on here is looked at as an attack on the President.

[Fumesucker]

9. Ironic, ain't it?

Democrats used to think of themselves as the "reality-based party".

Now that Dems are in power, not so much.

[AllentownJake]

14. We have a significant number of people on both sides

That party orthodoxy and talking points are a religion and not a means to an end for the people.

[Fumesucker]

8. Someone else did too, I recced and the recs stayed the same..

I suspect Chee.. err.. Moderate Centrists. :)

[Subdivisions]

13. You know, I don't mind an un-rec if the un-reccer speaks up and

makes a case. But just un-reccing and moving on is a act of cowardice to me and always will be.

If you feel the need to un-rec a post, have some guts and back up your poo-pooing.

[AllentownJake]

2. The number always appears lower than expected

Of course, anyone who has worked anytime in Corporate America understands the expectations game.

[Subdivisions]

4. Kick for OP edit: Added Fed Unemployment graph. n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

5. REC

:kick:

[JVS]

7. ""Lower than expected" is the new good and a signal for the stockmarket to rally."

Wait, I thought unemployment was a "lagging indicator". If lower than expected UE is being used as a cue for the the stock market, it doesn't sound like they agree that it is a lagging indicator.

[dmallind]

10. It does if you bear in mind two things

a) it's not the ONLY thing driving the market and more importantly

b) market valuation is a leading indicator.

[Subdivisions]

11. Doesn't matter what 'they' are doing. The comment is based on my own

personal observations and is not un-common in economic discussions around the Internet. I've been following this economic crisis since it was merely being predicted by people who were considered, at the time they made their predictions, to be chicken littles. Since then, nearly every BAD economic report has been described by CNBC and the MSM as "not as bad as expected" or "was lower than expected". These phrases have become known in the aforementioned economics discussions as "the new good". Furthermore, these "not as bad as expected" or "was lower than expected" developments have most often been the cause of stock rallies. Nowhere in my OP do you see anything about whether or not unemployment is a lagging indicator of economic recovery EXCEPT in the graph I posted.

So, if you want to turn this into another tedious debate about whether or not employment is a lagging indicator of recovery, look at the graph. It's right there.

[AllentownJake]

12. Economist have no clue what they are talking about

They start off with a backward premise, that somehow people exist to serve this thing called the economy, when the reverse is true. The economy exists to serve people. They are also under the false premise of constant growth.

They are still operating on a 19th century economic model in a 21st century world. It is why a majority of them can't see things like the collapse that just occurred.

You can't really expect to see improvement in a society when their is a an irrational quasi religious belief in the free market despite all evidence that it behaves rationally.

[ipaint]

15. I'm still waiting for those good paying, blue collar post nafta jobs to show up.

promises, promises.

[Statistical]

16. Nice chart.

I wish I could find one that is exactly the same but shows a % not raw numbers. Maybe I need to make my own. The US has nearly twice as many workers as 1940 now.

Second point is notice in post 1991 and post 2001 recessions unemployment rose for about 9 months before declining.

So everyone who think unemployment will peak tomorrow is setting themselves up for a long 9 months. GDP likely went positive in Aug or Sep of this year so the gray bar will end there (we won't know for a while the exact end of recession). 9 months is April 2010 at the earliest. This being a steeper recession I think unemployment will rise for a little longer than normal maybe 12 months which puts unemployment peak more like Aug or Sep 2010.

[AllentownJake]

17. Hello Republican Congress

If your analysis is correct.

[Statistical]

18. Well maybe I am wrong however to simply it.

In the last 8 recession the average length of time from GDP going positive (end of recession) to peak unemployment was 8.2 months.

Knowing this recession is steeper than any one before since the GD. If you were in Vegas and had to place a bet on over or under 8 months which would you pick?

[AllentownJake]

19. Not arguing about your analysis

I think it is well thought and reasonable. I'm simply taking the analysis and moving to the consequences of such an event. That consequence is 30-50 lost house seats and at least 5 lost Senate Seats.