Jobless Claims Rise Again !!

[smirkymonkey]

Surprise, surprise!

New claims for unemployment benefits up a second straight week, exceeding analyst estimates.

December 11, 2003: 8:56 AM EST

http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/11/news/economy/jobless/

The Labor Department said 378,000 people filed new claims for unemployment benefits in the week ended Dec. 6, compared with a revised reading of 365,000 in the prior week. Economists, on average, expected 359,000 new claims, according to Briefing.com.

U.S. stock market futures gave up some earlier gains after the report, pointing to a flat start to the major indexes. Treasury bond prices moved lower.

While claims have risen for two straight weeks, they have remained below 400,000 level that most economists consider a sign to be an indicator of an improving labor market.

The four-week moving average of new claims, which irons out the volatility of the weekly data, rose to 364,750 last week from a revised 362,500 in the prior week.

I can't believe it - what is happening to our BOOMING economy?? (sarcasm off)

[La_Serpiente]

1. Oh yeah

Let's not give them unemployment benefits because it is a disincentive :eyes:

[papau]

14. "Funny" CNN cut and paste - claims WERE NOT REVISED for last week

CNN says - as reported above "The Labor Department said 378,000 people filed new claims for unemployment benefits in the week ended Dec. 6, compared with a revised reading of 365,000 in the prior week. Economists, on average, expected 359,000 new claims, according to Briefing.com"
but the report at the DOL states they were not revised for the prior week!

Dark humor no doubt - but a smile :-)

Meanwhile ugly unadjusted data:
The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 490,406 in the week ending Dec. 6, an increase of 133,566 from the previous week. There were 547,430 initial claims in the comparable week in 2002.
The advance unadjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.7 percent during the week ending Nov. 29, an increase of 0.4 percentage point from the prior week. The advance unadjusted number for persons claiming UI benefits in state programs totaled 3,429,500, an increase of 488,281 from the preceding week. A year earlier, the rate was 2.8 percent and the volume was 3,618,507.

Thank God for Bush's new seasonal adjustments!

[grannylib]

2. This is no recovery; it's a jobLOSS sucker of an economy, with trade

deficits that are gonna get us whalloped...
what a fucking lying stupid moron we have for a pResident...

[cspiguy]

3. YES!

n/t

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Frodo]

9. Calm down.

Nobody WANTS to see lots of people out of work and nobody is happy that it is happening. We're merely having a "political planning" discussion ongoing on DU. And it is a "politically good" thing.

Am I "happy" when an opposing football team's QB breaks a leg? No, of course not. BUT if we're playing them next week I'll still say "and the good news is Joe Montanna won't be leading them down the field."

There's no need to use vulgarity for it. We'd all love the economy to be booming... but it would make shrub look good and destroy our chances politically.

[fishnfla]

12. playing politics with people's suffering stinks

this isnt a game, and spare me your lame analogies.

[Frodo]

22. It isn't "playnig politics with people's suffering"

to talk about campaign issues that we hope will ease that suffering.

It isn't "a game" to use your opponents failures as an issue against him. And recognizing that you HAVE that issue isn't the same thing as wishing people will suffer so that you can have an issue.

Nobody want a single soldier to die in Iraq, but it's perfectly appropriate (as long as you aren't cheering the stats) to point out that combat deaths are still ugly and will be an issue in the election.

[Occulus]

33. Are you trying to say that

if everything that Bush has done added together doesn't make a person not vote for Bush, but a bad economy would turn them against him, then that's a bad thing we shouldn't try to use?

Oh, wait, that's a Rethug tactic, and we can't stoop to that level. /sarcasm

Look, if the only thing that will get Bush out of office is a bad economy, and the Dem nominee uses that as well as a comprehensive and workable economic plan as a weapon, then hooray for Bush being unable to make the economy better. Horray for him digging himself in a hole by making it worse.

I can't imagine that people who voted Gore in 2000 are likely to have changed their vote to Bush for 2004. Along the same lines, many a Republican will look to their investments and personal/family finances when the time come to cast their ballot, and if the economy is tanking, they don't have a job or could soon lose theirs, and they see a Dem candidate who could stave that off- they're that much more likely to vote Bush out of office.

I don't think Bush will have much of an economic plan beyond further tax cuts. The Dem candidate needs to stress that that short-term gain will result in a continued long-term loss that could easily affect everyone in our society, including the well-heeled. If the economy becomes a campaign issue (as it currently should be), we should use it to its fullest extent.

Period.

[smirkymonkey]

10. No - and the exclaimation points

were not to indicate excitement, but alarm. We continue to hear about how wonderful the economy is doing and how new jobs are being added every day, but the reality of the situation is not quite so optimistic.

The point is, that this will CONTINUE to happen, until we get this Chimp and his ilk out of office - Their greed is becoming our nighmare!!

[fishnfla]

47. Ok, but #3 is over the line

blatantly cheerleading bad news, there is no text in that message, is wrong.
sorry folks, my brother was laid off 2 weeks ago, he has 2 young boys, twin infant girls and its Christmas.
I'll make sure and tell him how much some folks revel in their misery just for partisan political gain.
These are real people suffering behind these numbers.Thats a fact of life.

[smirkymonkey]

50. I am very sorry to hear about your

brother and his family - and believe me I am angry about this as well! I only want to raise awareness about the fact that the Corporate Government is screwing us all up the butt and that the toll is human, and very close to home for most of us.

It really sickens me that these bastards ruin people's lives and give themselves undeserved perks and bonuses for "maximizing shareholder value". What a crock!

Again, I am sorry for how this has hit you and your family.

[0007]

21. Huh!

?

[underpants]

4. Wow that is one heckuva sentence

While claims have risen for two straight weeks, they have remained below 400,000 level that most economists consider a sign to be an indicator of an improving labor market.

DOes that mean that as long as claims are under 400K that that is the sign of an IMPROVING labor market?

I have to say that the fact that 378 THOUSAND people filed for unemployment last week is a shocking number to me.

[Maeve]

6. I wonder how accurate that 400K figure is anymore

We've lost over 2.5 million jobs--that's flat-out LOST from the market--since Dubya took office. The "play" has been squeezed out of the system. While some "churn" is normal, the longterm rolls of unemployed are growing and the number of "discouraged" workers (no longer counted as looking for employment) is uncomfortably high.

[underpants]

7. Good point

As an indicater that would have to have been established in a "normal model" which this isn't.

[Frodo]

8. Well, yes.

It is supposed to be a sign of an "improving market" because it's assumed that somewhere around that 400k number FOUND new jobs last week as well. So, at least in theory, voerall unemployment should have dropped last week (on the margins). That four-week moving average is a pretty attractive number.

The problem ISN'T that things aren't "getting better" (obviously, a drop from 6.4% to 5.9% unemployment is a "good" thing). The PROBLEM is how LITTLE it's getting better...

...AND, more importantly, how MUCH we've had to PAY for such little improvement. Such massive deficit spending SHOULD produce more jobs than this (At a BIG cost to the future economy... but who cares about that?).

[smirkymonkey]

11. And another issue is that those jobs

that are being created, are recycled from well paying jobs with good benefits to lower paying jobs with weak or no benefits. This is not good news for the workers of this country.

We are being downsized in more ways than we think.

[Frodo]

16. Yes.

Those are the issues we should be concentrating on. The "high level" numbers will gain us less traction.

[Maeve]

17. A story from October on this

Found this earlier in the week while searching for something else...
The Truth About Job Growth
October 7, 2003: 2:55 PM EDT
By Les Christie, CNN/Money Contributing Writer
New York (CNN/Money) - Though many cheered last week's news of jobs creation in September, John Challenger, CEO of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, a job placement company, notes a number of disturbing trends in the Labor Department report.
The report showed payrolls expanding by 57,000 workers, the first increase in eight months. But Challenger gave several reasons to not get too excited:

Less pay "While many celebrated, the numbers indicate that things have not improved for most workers; in some cases, workers are earning 43 percent less," said Challenger.
Instead of working in manufacturing, where Challenger says the average job pays $650 per week, many of the displaced workers have taken retail positions, which pay an average of $373 a week, or jobs in business services, which pay $579 per week.
<more>

[mhr]

13. Frodo, Once Again You Are Touting Bad Stats!

How many times do I have to correct your inflated views.

Quoting You Now

"The problem ISN'T that things aren't "getting better" (obviously, a drop from 6.4% to 5.9% unemployment is a "good" thing). The PROBLEM is how LITTLE it's getting better..."

U3 is the commonly cited stat that covers only those currently recieving unemployment benefits. What about all the people that fall off the rolls that are counted in U6, which is never discussed by the press or you.

The fact is that the total number of unemployed is growing, wheter they are counted under U3 or U6. Stop citing all this propaganda that the economy is getting better.

Still unemployed here for 40 Months. NO JOB OPPORTUNITIES IN SIGHT. NO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR YEARS NOW. TWO COLLEGE DEGREES. MUCHO WORK EXPERIENCE. AND I AM NOT ALONE!

Frodo, when will you get it through your thought porcess that the economy is not improving despite all the good news you like to parrot here at DU!

To Sum Up, I Guess You Missed This Article About All The Folks That Will Find Themselves Counted Under U6 Next Week. Ohh, I forgot, To You They Don't Matter Becasue They Are Not Counted Under U3.

------
http://gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031210/EDITORIALS/212100302

December 10. 2003 6:01AM
Selling the illusion

It seems to be very important for the Bush adminstration to sell the notion that the U.S. economy is on the rebound.

embers of the U.S. House passed out an $820 billion "catchall" spending bill and then headed home for the holidays. Citizens Against Government Waste said the bill "set a new record for pork spending."

One thing the bill did not do, however, is hold out the hope for a decent holiday to tens of thousands of out-of-work Americans who will begin losing their unemployment benefits just before Christmas.

It is estimated that as many as 80,000 people a week will see their benefits expire beginning Dec. 21. In past years, Congress has granted extension of those benefits in order to help the unemployed and their families get through very tough times.

Snip ......

[Frodo]

20. You seem to only read your own posts - and don't understand the issue

What about all the people that fall off the rolls that are counted in U6, which is never discussed by the press or you.

Actually, I "discuss it" consistently. I'm well aware of what those numbers are saying. I merely debunk those who continue to parrot "the economy is not improving" as if wishing made it so. Here's an example from just minutes before your post. See my post #14

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=876313


You see, you're making a huge strategic blunder. Everyone and his brother can see things are getting better (BUT not BETTER ENOUGH!). If the party sings YOUR song that things continue to get worse, the public will dismiss us entirely because the numbers show we are lying. No previous administration or political debate has used anyting OTHER than U3. To show up now and say "don't look at THAT nmumber, look at THIS number" won't get enough attention.

If INSTEAD we made a big deal out of HOW MUCH WE'RE PAYING for this measly little increase and HOW TINY it is by comparison to what it should be this far after a recession... THEN we would be credible.

You continue to misstake and misstate my position. it's intellectually dishonest.


And to "SUM UP" my response to your link. YOU STILL DON'T GET IT, despite citation after citation. NONE of those 80,000 people will drop from U3 to U6 when they stop receiving benefits. They will drop (to U4 actually, not down to only U6) when they give up and stop looking for work for more than four weeks.

If you don't understand the facts... why should I pay attention to your theory?



edit - bad tags

[Frodo]

23. If they calculated things the way you seem to think they do...

... (which is only counting people receving benefits)

The unemployment rate would have gone up from 2.6% to 2.7% last month. Looks like they count a few people in U3 that you didn't think they do.

[Lisa0825]

15. And the majority of people I place in jobs are taking pay cuts or

jobs with no benefits, or temp jobs just to make ends meet while they still hope to find something in their chosen field.

I am an employment counselor at a state workforce office. I see people come in expecting to ask for 5% or more above their last salary, then 3 months later, they lower it.... then lower it again.... and the majority of people I know who have been professionals making $40K and up, will take $10 an hour if they are still out of work after 8 months.

[smirkymonkey]

24. And meanwhile, the CEO's of those

corporations who ARE hiring for lower pay and fewer benefits are rewarding themselves with big fat bonuses in the millions for "trimming the fat" and "boosting" shareholder value.

What a travesty!

[Hubert Flottz]

44. The same thing happens EVERY time a Repub is in the WH!

All the way back to US GRANT!

[ozone_man]

18. Recovery is slipping.

But, look at the spin. I guess they don't look at seasonal hiring with the same viewpoint.

(snip)
"This rise in claims, which we expected, has everything to do with severe seasonals and nothing to do with the underlying pace of layoffs, which is continuing to fall," said Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S. economist for High Frequency Economics.
(snip)

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B5680184F%2D8B8F%2D49ED%2D8AEF%2D4276DBE0755F%7D&siteid=mktw

[underpants]

19. So people are already being fired from the Christmas season?

I would think that some of the explanation for things IMPROVING would be that some people are getting jobs just through the shopping season.

Did I read that wrong or is it so spun that it makes no sense?

[ozone_man]

27. It could mean that.

I think most is from general business sector end of year layoffs. Don't retail sector lays off come in January?

Anyway, the economists don't often talk about the sustainability of this "recovery" or the fact that it may be a one time event, since tax break money and refinance money has about dried up. Claims start running out in December (21st?).

[Tansy_Gold]

25. Questions -- Who is and who isn't filing claims?

And what response do their claims generate?

I'm not an expert on this at all, so I'm asking in sincerity, not sarcasm.

Many people over the past few years who have lost their usual jobs have moved into the lower tiers of the job market. If they lose their jobs, they may have already exhausted previous unemployment benefits and not yet requalified. They may not even be filing claims.

There are also those who are under-employed -- working part-time, temping, etc. -- who are not eligible for unemployment benefits and therefore do not file claims. Do they fit into the stats anywhere?

I guess i've just grown very suspicious about these labor stats over the past few years (like, since Jan 2001???? :puke:), but I just feel they really don't tell the whole story.

Maybe we need an economic misery index???

Peace from,

the economically miserable

Tansy Gold

[Guaranteed]

26. This is during the holiday season, folks

Employment should be at it's highest for the year right now because of the temporary retail work.

[Frodo]

29. The numbers are "seasonally adjusted"

to take those sorts of things into account. This discounts the effect of holiday employment swings and common October layoffs.

[Yavin4]

28. These Layoffs Make Sense

Retailers hired up a bunch of people in October and November to stock the shelves and get ready for the holiday season. Now that the holidays are here, they're starting to layoff. Watch for the layoff pace to quicken in the first 3 months of next year.

[Fovea]

30. It is probably too late for a highly progressive tax rate

to stave off a serious crash. But that is what is primed to happen.
Something has to --
1. wrest control from the hyper rich.
2. get that cash back into the hands of the economy that the other
90% uses, the domestic economy.

[jayfish]

37. But It's Never Too Late For A...

regressive tax cut for our wealthy friends. Anyone else staring to taste the sweet elixir of trickle down economics?

Jay

[Zech Marquis]

31. there goes that economic "boom"

it just blew up in the BFEE gang's faces big time! All the media whores were rejoicing over this 'economic recovery", and now THIS1

Somebody better tell these assholes real quick, karma's a real BITCH...especially after all the evil they've done recently.

[Frodo]

32. ????

And again: ????

What's the connection between the thread and your post?

[Code_Name_D]

34. Soon comes the spin. "This is good news," they will say.

Becase it means that so many uenmployed workers, who had all lost hope, are not returning to the work force, and looking for the jobs being created.

When jobless numbers go down, the economey is improving.
When jobless numbers go up, the economey is improving.

The first rule of supply side economics is that it is ALWAYS in recovery.

[Frodo]

35. Ummm.... no.

Let's simplify it:

Say 400k people start new jobs each week (the assumtion many make in this case). Any "first time" number below that figure implies a net improvement in the overall employment picture. If one week shows 330k new filers and the next week shows 370k new filers then, even though the "newly unemployed" number is RISING, it IS stil "good news" in the sense that there is still a NET rise in employment. It just isn't AS GOOD as the week before.

Look at the reverse situation for a better example. Say the number fell DRAMATICALLY from 600k to 475k new filers week-to-week. Is the economy "improving" in that case???, heck NO! It's getting worse (since more people are losing jobs than gaining them). It would be true to say that it isn't getting worse QUITE AS FAST as the week before, but it's still getting worse.

Now that breaks it down to it's simplist components (without discussing job growth, people entering the market for the first time, and a ton of other factors - like 400k is probably the wrong number to look at) but it shows why that initial filing number can go up and down significantly each week and people can truthfully say "the economy is improving" as long as that four-week moving average stays comfortably below 400k.

Now to say "the economy is doing WELL"? THAT's a different story altogether.

[KayLaw]

39. Frodo

In post 29 you said the numbers are seasonally adjusted. Is that correct? When they say X amount of people filed for benefits this week, that's not the actual number?

[Frodo]

40. Yes

Doesn't mean there aren't "real" people losing jobs. It just means that the figure is balanced to make it comparable from one week to the next and one month to the next.

For instance... the REAL figure for last week was over 490,000 initial fillers, but that's actually down from almost 550,000 initial filers the same week last year.

[KayLaw]

49. Thanks

It seems like a funny thing to do but thanks for answering me.

[Code_Name_D]

43. I rest my case.

:P

[tom_paine]

36. But...but...the Imperial Ministry of Information said we are in recovery

And they would NEVER lie, right?

Right...?

[Yavin4]

38. The Economy Is Improving and Not Improving At The Same Time

The arguments between Frodo and others is a classic example of arguing macro data against micro data. If you look at employment on a macro scale, things are indeed improving because a macro-analysis does not discriminate between a job paying $5.15 an hour and a job making $500K a year. Both are counted as job gains on a macro level. On a micro level, a $5.15 an hour job is akin to being unemployed because it does not cover life's basic needs like housing, medical care, and food.

What's really happening is that low interest rates are making the macro data look better than it is. If you lower borrowing costs to 4%, hell, anyone could buy anything regardless of whether they can afford it or not.

[arlib]

41. Actually

The arguments between Frodo and others also always amount to Frodo defending *'s record while claiming not to (usually something along the lines of "he's so great and powerful, how can we possibly beat him with all of the wonderful things he's done? Now remember, don't point out his weaknesses, we don't want to get too negative and turn the electorate off". Look for more to follow....

[Frodo]

46. Actually

It break down to:

Person with little to no economic sense: "Bush is going DOWN because the moon is made of Bleu Cheese!!!!!"

Frodo: "The moon is not, in fact, made of Bleu Cheese"

CoolaidDrinker: "I always knew Frodo was a Bush loving freeper wannabe. See how he defends Bush??"



Be negative all you want. But let's use verifiable facts, shall we? Assuming the electorate is stupid isn't going to get us anywhere. "It's a worse unemployment rate than during the Black Death of the 1300s!!!" sells great until anyone decides to actually look at the numbers. Stick with "are you better off than four eyars ago?" or "are we getting out money's worth?" and we've got a game. Pretend the moon is made of Bleu Cheese? Not going to work.

[arlib]

48. case closed

N/T

[joeunderdog]

42. You're wrong. Layoffs stimulate job growth

in the Bush language. If you can focus for a moment away from the unemployed, you will see that we are winning the war on joblessness.

We cut down trees in our Healthy Forest initiative. Soon we will cure Cancer with Euthanasia.

[Hubert Flottz]

45. RE: "Soon we will cure Cancer with Euthanasia."

That's what the GOPers plan for the baby boomers who won't have Social Security or Medicare because the money will all be gone! The Final Solution to the Baby Boom!