U.S. weekly jobless claims total 1.186 million, lowest level of the coronavirus pandemic

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Last edited Fri Aug 7, 2020, 10:06 AM - Edit history (3)

Source: CNBC

ECONOMY

U.S. weekly jobless claims total 1.186 million, lowest level of the coronavirus pandemic

PUBLISHED THU, AUG 6 2020 8:30 AM EDT UPDATED MOMENTS AGO

Jeff Cox
@JEFF.COX.7528
@JEFFCOXCNBCCOM

Weekly jobless claims hit their lowest level of the pandemic area, totaling 1.186 million last week, well below Wall Street expectations.

Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had been looking for 1.42 million.

Amid worries that the employment picture was faltering after two record-breaking months of job creation, the claims number indicates some momentum. Continuing claims, or those who have collected benefits for two straight weeks, dropped by 844,000 to 16.1 million.

{snip}


Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/06/weekly-jobless-claims.html

---

https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf

News Release
Connect with DOL at https://blog.dol.gov

TRANSMISSION OF MATERIALS IN THIS RELEASE IS EMBARGOED UNTIL
8:30 A.M. (Eastern) Thursday, August 6, 2020

COVID-19 Impact

The COVID-19 virus continues to impact the number of initial claims and insured unemployment. This report includes
information on claimants filing Pandemic Unemployment Assistance and Pandemic Emergency Unemployment
Compensation claims.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS
SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA

In the week ending August 1, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 1,186,000, a decrease of 249,000 from the previous week's revised level. The previous week's level was revised up by 1,000 from 1,434,000 to 1,435,000. The 4-week moving average was 1,337,750, a decrease of 31,000 from the previous week's revised average. The previous week's average was revised up by 250 from 1,368,500 to 1,368,750.

The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 11.0 percent for the week ending July 25, a decrease of 0.6 percentage point from the previous week's unrevised rate. The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending July 25 was 16,107,000, a decrease of 844,000 from the previous week's revised level. The previous week's level was revised down by 67,000 from 17,018,000 to 16,951,000. The 4-week moving average was 16,628,250, a decrease of 413,250 from the previous week's revised average. The previous week's average was revised down by 16,750 from 17,058,250 to 17,041,500.

{snip}

UNADJUSTED DATA

{snip}

The total number of people claiming benefits in all programs for the week ending July 18 was 32,118,678, an increase of 1,302,816 from the previous week. There were 1,707,267 persons claiming benefits in all programs in the comparable week in 2019.

{snip the rest of the eleven-page news release, until the end}

Weekly Claims Archives
https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims_arch.asp
Weekly Claims Data
https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp

U.S. Department of Labor news materials are accessible at http://www.dol.gov. The Department's Reasonable Accommodation Resource Center converts Departmental information and documents into alternative formats, which include Braille and large print. For alternative format requests, please contact the Department at [phone] (voice) or [phone] (federal relay).

http://www.dol.gov/
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/civil-rights-center/internal/reasonable-accomodations-resource-center

U.S. Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
Washington, D.C. 20210

Release Number: USDL 20-1532-NAT

Program Contacts:
Thomas Stengle: [phone]
Media Contact: [phone]

[NoMoreRepugs]

1. Still 4 to 5 times what's considered normal aren't they??

RUMP gonna be tootin’ his horn over this.

[progree]

2. It's 32.1 million claiming benefits under all programs, not 16.1 million. All unemployed people

matter.

https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf

The total number of people claiming benefits in all programs for the week ending July 18 was 32,118,678, an increase of 1,302,816 from the previous week. There were 1,707,267 persons claiming benefits in all programs in the comparable week in 2019.

One can see the breakdown of all 32.1 million by scrolling down to the table at the above link. Except it has 31.3 million, also for the week ending July 18, sigh. I don't know why the difference.

The above is the latest. I don't know why they have a 2 week lag in this number, but they do. This includes people collecting benefits under the federal programs including the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) program. And no, that's not the $600/week check thing. No, there isn't double-counting. The PUA program is for gig and contract workers who are not eligible for the state unemployment insurance programs.

So people, please please, I beg of you all, please. It's not 16.1 million, please get that number out of your heads. Its 32.1 million. ALL unemployed people matter. Not just half of them. ALL of them.

From two Thursdays ago (14 days ago):
https://www.democraticunderground.com/111688903

Media Continues to Misreport Unemployment: 31.8 Million People on State & Federal Unemployment Insurance. Week 18 of U.S. Labor Market Collapse
by Wolf Richter • Jul 23, 2020 •

I get tired of reporters or bots who don’t read beyond the 2nd paragraph of Labor Department press releases. 2.35 million initial state and federal unemployment claims. PUA claims (gig workers) now 41% of total unemployment. 20% of labor force on unemployment insurance.
By Wolf Richter for WOLF STREET.

It just doesn’t let up. An astounding number of newly laid-off workers keeps filing for unemployment benefits week after week and pile on top of the people already unemployed. And the number of people who started working again isn’t big enough to make a visible dent in the curve.

If you read this morning or heard on the radio that 16.2 million people were claiming unemployment insurance – the “continued claims” – and you thought that there were only 16.2 million people who claimed unemployment benefits, you fell victim to lazy misreporting in the media, by reporters or bots that didn’t read the Labor Department’s press release beyond the second paragraph.

Those 16.2 million were only the claims under state programs, and do not include the claims under federal programs. All combined, there were 31.8 million people on the unemployment rolls. That’s what the Labor Department reported further down in the press release.

There is a huge difference between 16.2 million and 31.8 million unemployed people! ...............(more)

https://wolfstreet.com/2020/07/23/media-continues-to-misreport-unemployment-claims-31-8-million-people-on-state-federal-unemployment-insurance-week-18-of-u-s-labor-market-collapse/

[mahatmakanejeeves]

3. I'll edit the 0P to include that. Thanks. NT

[progree]

4. 😂😂😂 n/t

[George II]

5. Don't get fooled by the rosy headline - these are NEW jobless claims, meaning....

....yet another 1.186 million people are now out of work.

We'll be seeing more rosy headlines talking about roughly 250,000 jobs "created", which means the net is a loss of 900,000+ jobs. The truth is months after this all hit people are STILL losing their jobs at a higher rate than people are being rehired.

New jobless claims have been over 1 million for twenty consecutive weeks.

[progree]

8. If you mean tomorrow's BLS monthly job report, those are net job gains (or losses)

from the Establishment Survey that are reported in the headlines.

You can see a count of total nonfarm employment in thousands -- http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001

So for example in June 2020, the table displayed at the above link shows there were 137,802 thousand (i.e. 137.802 million) nonfarm employees, and in May 2020 there were 133,002 thousand (i.e. 133.002 million). The media and the BLS reports the difference (137,802 thousand - 133,002 thousand) = 4,800 thousand as the total jobs created in June. So this is a net number.

At the same link, you can see the monthly differences by clicking on the "More Formatting Options" big blue link near the upper right of the page, and in the box in the upper left side of the page that appears, you will see the "Original Data Value" checkbox checked. Additionally, check the "1-month Net Change" checkbox. Then click the "Retrieve Data" button below it.

On the page that appears, you will see the table described in the paragraph above (the total number of nonfarm employees in thousands) followed by a table of the monthly changes in these numbers. For example, it will show the June 2020 employee count change as being 4,800 thousand-- that is 4,800 thousand employees higher than in May.

(Or click this link just to see the monthly changes: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth)

The last 5 months of NET job gains, February thru June have been: 251(C) -1373(C) -20787 2699(P) 4800(P)

where (C) means corrected and (P) means preliminary -- the last 2 months are always preliminary.

and of course a negative number is a net job loss, not a gain

[TygrBright]

6. Yeah, and when everybody's lost their jobs and already claimed, it'll go down to zero.

Will that be "good" news?

wearily,
Bright

[RussBLib]

7. still horrible; only marginally better, or marginally less horrible

so, naturally, Trump will claim victory in employment.

[progree]

9. Another key: "not as bad as expected". So whoopee, Dow up however many points

and we're all going to the moon, and we're all going to the stars. A fantastic future where P/E ratios don't matter anymore.

Q1 S&P 500 Earnings per share:
2017 Q1: 27.46,
2018 Q1: 33.02,
2019 Q1: 35.02,
2020 Q1: 11.88 👀 😲
https://ycharts.com/indicators/sp_500_eps

We don't have the full Q2 earnings yet. But likely to be a lot worse, given that Q1 GDP declined by 5%, and Q2 GDP declined by 32.9% (both on an annualized rate basis. The actual GDP drops were Q1: 1.3%, Q2: 9.5%). So it would be pretty much impossible for Q2 earnings to be anything but a lot worse than Q1 earnings.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

11. "... and Q2 GDP declined by 32.9% (both on an annualized rate basis...)."

Which got right by me when I posted that last week, or whenever that was. I hadn't noticed that my original source, Yahoo! Finance, did not make the distinction that the number was the annualized rate. It took me several hours to notice my error. I replaced Yahoo! Finance with a source that did make the distinction.

[progree]

15. Yes, so I see. Unfortunately I often see "rate" or "pace", let alone "annualized" missing in the

article title, but then they stick that in the first sentence or two, as in the Yahoo Finance article you originally posted a week ago:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142549435

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/q2-gdp-us-economy-coronavirus-pandemic-consumer-171558880.html

Q2 GDP: US economy contracted by worst-ever 32.9% in Q2, crushed by coronavirus lockdowns

The US economy contracted at the sharpest rate on record in the second quarter this year, affirming fears that the coronavirus pandemic and measures to contain it drove a historic plunge in consumer and business activity.

Here were the main metrics from the Bureau of Economic Analysis’ (BEA) advance Q2 GDP report, compared to consensus estimates compiled by Bloomberg:

Q2 GDP annualized, quarter over quarter: -32.9% vs. -34.5% expected vs. -5.0% in Q1

So the reporter was aware it was an annualized rate thing, but still sucks that the title has no indication of that, and the first lines are, well unclear. For example the first line "The US economy contracted at the sharpest rate on record in the second quarter this year,"

doesn't really say that the 32.9% is an annualized rate -- we just now know that it fell at the sharpest rate on record.

So finally we get to "Q2 GDP annualized, quarter over quarter" -- sheesh, what a way to put it.

Moving right along, a few paragraphs down:

At 32.9%, the second-quarter annualized contraction marked by far the worst plunge ever recorded, based on Bureau of Economic Analysis data spanning back to 1947. Before the pandemic, the worst GDP print on record was in the first quarter of 1958, when GDP fell 10.0% on an annualized basis.

US economic activity contracted by 5.0% in the first quarter of 2020, which captured only the start of the coronavirus pandemic and business shutdowns in March.

The first paragraph of the above gets it right, but the 2nd paragraph is wrong -- that 5.0% is an annualized rate, the actual drop was 1.3%. Sigh.

======

and I suffered mightily from this kind of reporting as in this mighty and very time-consuming subthread beginning at https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142551327#post6

In #24 he presents a video clip that includes a few seconds of CNN and a few seconds of FOX, leaving out the "rate" or "pace" thing entirely.

I found a text version of CNN, and they got it right (#28). They didn't put anything numeric in the title at all.

I found a text version from Fox, and they left it out of the title "Second-quarter GDP plunges 32.9%, worst decline on record"
but say it right in the first line of the article (#29).

To be sure what's what, the Bureau of Economic Analysis is the producer of the GDP report and this is their news release, https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product

Not looking forward to tomorrow where I probably will be doing this kind of thing the whole dang day, even the whole weekend as happened a couple months ago.

Edited to add: I'm not talking about this post in the last sentence above, it was fun and therapeutic to write. I'm talking about the thread described in the last few sentences above.

[onetexan]

10. Just 1.186M?

more reason to celebrate under this derelic administration.

[vishnura]

12. There is a reason for this......

........nobody have jobs anymore.

[DallasNE]

13. They Need Some Footnotes

What kind of adjustments are they making that the unadjusted for 07/18 was 32,118,678 and the adjusted for 07/25 was 16,197,000. My guess is that they are two different sets of numbers.

A decrease of 249,000 claims means the 07/18 number was 1,435,000 or a decrease for the week of 17.4%. This sudden plunge makes no sense because in this period the reopening process was slowing down, not speeding up. My guess is that the seasonal adjustments must include things like an allowance for the automakers closing down to retool for the next years car models because otherwise they just defy logic. Perhaps the actual report has some narrative to explain this.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

16. There's a discussion of this discrepancy in the thread Friday about the payroll employment report.

Nonfarm payroll employment rises by 1.8 million in July; unemployment rate falls to 10.2%

[ProfessorGAC]

14. So Much Winning!

Per this Reuters article, in November of 2019, the four week average was 234,000. The week prior it was 252,000.
This "great news" means that thing are 5 times worse than 8 months ago.
And, somehow this is considered success.

Oops! Forgot the link.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-unemployment/us-weekly-jobless-claims-fall-from-more-than-two-year-high-idUSKBN1YN1QJ