Jobless Claims in U.S. Fall to 368,000, Lowest Since 2008

[Godhumor]

Source: Bloomberg

Initial jobless claims unexpectedly declined last week to the lowest level since May 2008, pointing to a strengthening labor market.

Applications for unemployment benefits decreased by 20,000 to 368,000 in the week ended Feb. 26, Labor Department figures showed today. Economists forecast claims would climb to 395,000, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey. The total number of people receiving unemployment insurance fell to the lowest level since October 2008.

Among the reasons for increased optimism about the labor market in coming months has been a recent drop in initial claims, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke told lawmakers this week. Companies added 200,000 jobs in February, while unemployment rose to 9.1 percent, economists project a Labor Department report to show tomorrow.

“Claims are moving in the right direction,” said Tom Porcelli, chief U.S. economist at RBC Capital Markets Corp. in New York. “The question is when this starts to translate into more meaningful job growth. It’s probably not that far away. In the second half you’ll see some acceleration” of job growth.


Read more: http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abBSn2xAtPcE&pos=2

---

Another week moving in the right direction.

[FreakinDJ]

1. Running out of benefits is all

[Godhumor]

2. Initial jobless claims, not continuing. Not nearly a that's all. n/t

[dotymed]

3. That shows only that "layoffs"

are slowing. It does not reflect the long term joblessness. Neither does it indicate if any of these "retained jobs" pay a living wage." Every spring, "initial jobless claims" decline. Construction and weather dependent jobs play the major role.
Do you think that Americans should "breathe a sigh of relief" over this?
Has there been any wage increases, aside from the already wealthy, in the last 30+ years?

[Godhumor]

4. Firts of all, the jobs are seasonally adjusted

Which smooths out your major role.

Secondly, initial claims generally move before long-term moves (in either direction). As stated in the article, continued and sustained long-term improvement in the initial claims measurement should forecast in actual job growth in the second half of the year.

Should Americans breath a sigh of relief? Not sure I'd agree with that particular phrasing, but, on balance, most economic news involving trends shows a hell of a lot of improvement versus when we were in the recession.

[dotymed]

61. "When we were in a recession?"

Wall street may not be in a recession, hell we gave them $70 billion after they stole trillions from us.
The vast majority of Americans are in (at least) a recession, still.
The modern "Robber Barons" have not been hurt at all. We need another (economic) FDR to redistribute some wealth, IMO.

[burf]

12. Good point.

The local paper was touting the "good news" on the unemployment numbers. As far as wages, maybe people want to look at the number who receive supplemental nutrition assistance (SNAP), former known as food stamps. You can look up the number of participants in your state at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/29snapcurrpp.htm Please note the statement at the bottom of the data sheet that the numbers may be subject to significant revision.

Here in MN, the number is up over 17% yoy. Also, the local food shelf is doing a booming business. If this a recovery, it's nothing to write home about.

[Hosnon]

28. This is good news, sorry. nt.

[Carolina]

60. exactly!

[Vinee]

5. lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Inflation is low too as long as you aren't purchasing food or energy.

[pinqy]

6. The CPI includes food and energy

Quit spreading misinformation and do some research.

[Vinee]

9. Not the core CPI

Core CPI does not include food and energy and this is the commonly quoted statistic.

[pinqy]

14. No it's not the most common, and it's always specified as core

The most commonly reported figure, is the all-items CPI-U. It's the headline number that the media reports. The core CPI-U is always referred to as core. And the all-items index for the CPI-W is what's used for social security calculations.

[Vinee]

27. CPI-W only counts people that live in a city, work in a clerical position, and

who have been employed for at least 37 weeks out of the last 12 months. That's so representative of reality. Oh, and the entire CPI data set excludes rural residents and, furthermore, it only counts food as 12% of the CPI-U which is equally unrealistic especially when food prices are climbing dramatically as they are now AND, most importantly of all, thanks to the Boskin/Greenspan changes, it corrupts that 12% in favor of deflation by assuming that consumers will just by cheaper goods when the goods they want become too expensive. They will of course but that doesn't really measure inflation, it hides it and measures the declining standard of living instead. If we calculated inflation today the same way we calculated it in 1980, the misery index would be closer to 18% than the 11.29% which is currently reported. then there's the hedonic adjustment issue which blatantly understates inflation by massaging numbers in favor of deflation because the consumer is "getting higher quality goods for the increased price". This is obviously bullshit. I have a washer down in my basement that is 40 years old. Are you going to tell me that a modern Chinese manufactured washer which costs way more than mine did when it was new is higher quality than my 40 year old machine? Hedonic adjustment is blatant bullshitting in favor of deflation.

[pinqy]

41. So much wrong...

First, the CPI has nothing to do with employment status and doesn't count people at all. The WEIGHTS are based on the spending habits of "clerical workers," yes, but there's no count of people. The CPI does only measure urban prices, but that's a practical measure...it's too damn hard to collect rural prices.

No, it's not true that it "that consumers will just by cheaper goods when the goods they want become too expensive." The main premise is that the index maintains a CONSTANT standard of living.

As for weights, the CPI-W has food as 15.315% of the index, and food and beverages as 16.401 SOURCE
The CPI-U has food at 13.742% and food and beverages at 14.792% SOURCE

then there's the hedonic adjustment issue which blatantly understates inflation by massaging numbers in favor of deflation because the consumer is "getting higher quality goods for the increased price".

It does no such thing. As a matter of fact, apparrel, which has used hedonic adjustment for decades, showed greater inflation with hedonic adjustment than without. It works both ways...lower quality at same price shows higher price increase. All items are subject to quality adjustment...for example if a bag of chips is 3.5oz and costs $1, but then the next month it drops to 3oz and stays $1, the CPI would record a price increase of 17% because you're getting less for your money. You're arguing that no price change should be shown. Hedonics is used when quality adjustment is not so straightforward...what's the quality adjustment if the new washer model adds a bleach dispenser? It's a statistical technique to account for that kind of quality change.

I have a washer down in my basement that is 40 years old. Are you going to tell me that a modern Chinese manufactured washer which costs way more than mine did when it was new is higher quality than my 40 year old machine?

No, I'm going to tell you no such thing. What would be done is look at the gross price difference between your model and a new one, and adjust up or down based on features that the new model has or doesn't have, and the result will be the effective price increase between the two models. Features looked at would be size, front loading or top loading, type of washing mechanism, number of cycles, number of temperature combinations, steam cycle, bleach dispenser, delay start, etc. You can't factor in longevity, as you seem to want to, because you can't predict it.

Look at it this way...compare a computer that cost $1,000 in 1986 versus a $1,000 computer today. Do you really want to ignore the difference in memory and processing speed and graphics and treat them as if there's no difference? Or cars...Cars today are a lot more expensive than cars from the 1960's, but if you were to buy a new car today that only had the features of a car from the 60's, how much less would you pay now than current models? No fm radio or cd player or bluetooth or gps or ABS or traction control or climate control etc. A straight price comparison would ignore that you're getting more for your money.

[Vinee]

54. dude

if you want to buy into this bullshit, go right ahead. I don't believe any of the feds/govs stats but I'm not gonna fight with you about it. peace.

[pinqy]

56. Translated:

You have never studied economics or statistics, and have certainly done no specific research into economic statistics or price indexes, you can't be bothered and refuse to actually educate yourself.

What a shame.

[Vinee]

58. translated:

you're a dick that doesn't know when to quit. The economics data is scewed to favor deflation. now fuck off.

[pinqy]

59. Thank you

For proving my point. I presented clear, cogent explanations and arguments about how you were in error (for example your claims that quality adjustment only worked towards lower change in prices), and you've made absolutely no effort to demonstrate or argue otherwise, just repeating your false claim. If you actually knew anything about stats or econ, you could have made some argument...and there are legitimate arguments against hedonic regression, or at least specific applications of it...but you don't seem to be aware of them.

So my point is proven and you've demonstrated you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

[dotymed]

63. Translated: you do not have to be an economist

to observe and experience the financial realities that we and others have to endure.
Reality is the indicator, to me.
Realistically, through experience (and history) I KNOW that unless the wealthy are taxed progressively, money is removed from politics, people are paid a living wage and benefits, that no "recovery" for the majority of Americans, can be sustained.

[Javaman]

7. Okay "jobless claims" aka unemployment claims are down, but is the unemployment rate down?

and has their been enough job creation to cover the gap?

[pinqy]

16. we find out tomorrow, BUT...

The reference period for the Unemployment level and rate that is released tomorrow is for the week of Feb 6-12, so much of the layoffs from latest intial claims won't factor in.

The Unemployed Insurance rate (the % of ppl covered by UI receiving UI) did drop to 3%

[Bardley]

21. bingo nt

[Godhumor]

40. Analysts' prediction is going from 9.0% to 9.1%

But analysts have been way off on a lot of factors this year. We'll see reality tomorrow.

[bossy22]

8. good news

before we can start moving foward we have to stop going backwards. I'm surprised so many DUers don't understand this

[plumbob]

15. I'm surprised you don't know that 10,000 Texas state employees and 100,000

teachers are about to be unemployed on June 30.

Reckon that $1.7 billion in wages gone will affect any more jobs?

[bossy22]

17. and that has nothing to do with the news at hand

what you say is bad news and reflects the situation this country is in. This jobless news posted by the OP does not mean that "happy times are here again". I understand that the job situation is still extremely poor- but this news indicates that its moving in a better direction. Would you have preferrered 600,000 initial claims?

also, these reports need to be understood in a larger context- even in boom times the initial jobless claims reports were about 200,000 (cyclical unemployment)- so you are never going to see a big ZERO when it comes to reports. Remember, at one point jobless claims were at 600,000 so when the number is closer to 350,000 now- i call that an improvement.

this is equivical in a way to Ms. Giffords being shot- this recession was so harsh that it will take time to recover and we are startin to see signs of that recovery

I have stated this many times on this forum and i will state it again- my mother was laid off from her job in the late 90's when the economy was "booming".

[plumbob]

18. So looking 90 days down the road is not allowed?

These 110,000 job losses will occur. How does that work into "improving" for the indefinite future?

Surely you will not equate one anecdotal layoff with a mass firing of 110,000 professionals?

What is the better direction for these 110,000 people after June 30, please?

I'm thinking you didn't read this very carefully, so please look again.

Or just tell me that all we can take is the NOW moment and nothing else; and also remind me that it is never the worst, so that we can always we're doing better than some other time.

Or perhaps you're of a mind that teachers are just useless eaters, anyway....

[bossy22]

19. You still fail to understand what I AM SAYING

the situation is still sh*t- but that doesnt mean that these unemployment numbers can't be good news. Good news can still be present even if the situation is still bad.

so what would you call this news?

[plumbob]

33. This news? Temporary good news with sure knowledge of coming

worse. By putting on our Pollyanna panties today, we rule out doing anything proactive about next week, month or quarter. Just let the tsunami hit, then all the usual idiots who claim to be economic experts will be "surprised" "taken off guard" or otherwise irresponsible when perfectly predictable shit happens.

[dotymed]

62. bossy20, let us believe, for a minute,

that these stats indicate that we are headed for recovery.
The corporations still pay little or no taxes.
Deregulation is stronger than at any time since the 1940's.
Taxes for the wealthy (in adjusted $$) are the lowest since the 30's.
"Citizens United" has allowed for wholesale purchasing of politicians.
Unions are at an all-time low.
Just to start with...
Do you believe that with these conditions, a recovery can be sustained?
By recovery, I mean one where people earn a living wage, are not destroyed by the corporate profit model, etc...?

[Hosnon]

29. I agree. To get better, we have to stop getting worse - which this indicates is happening. nt.

[jschurchin]

10. This is great news.

Now if we could only do something about the 15 MILLION Americans who want a job but can't find one, THEN we would really have something to celebrate.

[Bardley]

23. i think the improvement is real, the technology industry says there is a shortage of skilled workers

so that sector must have a lot of opportunity

[TheEuclideanOne]

11. No wonder it is so easy to spin the truth.

I was reading this thread thinking I would find out that this is good news. I think I read 10 comments, which covered about 15 different opinions. Not sure if I should be happy, angry or apathetic.

[Godhumor]

13. Frankly, it depends on whether you buy if we're in a recovery or not

JObs are legitamitely lagging, and, for a lot of people, they are not seeing any upside to the positive economic news that has been coming out for the past 6 months.

As a result, there are challenges to news that show improving (or not as bad) employment figures. All have a rationale for how or why things are cooked.

Boiled down to its essence, though, is the following: initial jobless claims, adjusted for seasonal discrepencies, are at the lowest point since October of 2008. Statistically, it is good news.

[Vinee]

31. Figures for continuing claims do not include the number of workers receiving extended benefits

under federal programs. that would be 57,000 unemployed people that didn't get counted as part of this unemployment data which proudly asserts that the number of unemployed people decreased by....drum roll please....59,000 people! wow, that is great news.

[Godhumor]

34. Right, but "initial claims" is the leader of the lagging employment indicators

It changes before long term changes in either direction. It is why when the initial claims comes out, it tends to be the focus.

[pinqy]

45. But extended benefits are included in ther press release

But they're a week behind the continuing claims, which are a week behind initial claims.
So today's release showed initial claims for the week of Feb 20-26, Continuing claims for Feb 13-19, and extended benefits and other Fed programs for Feb 6-12.

[Bardley]

20. exhausted benefits and discouraged workers are the explanation nt

[Godhumor]

25. initial claims not continuing n/t

[Bardley]

26. 'Doctor, do you have any news' 'Yes, the patient stopped dying'

'but the bad news is.......'

[Godhumor]

35. As someone else so well put in this thread, "it has to stop getting worse before..."

It starts getting better.

Again, initial claims precedes changes in long-term unemployment. The trend for initial claims has been positive and moving in the right direction. This is why analysts are saying with a lot more confidence that hiring will pick up in the last 2 quarters of the year.

[Bardley]

43. that would explain why geithner said we need more h-1bs

to prevent a shortage of workers

yup

the administration is doing everything it can for the average citizen

[Godhumor]

44. Absolutely nothing to do with the OP and reporting on initial claims

Initial claims, as a trend, are moving in the right direction.

[Bardley]

46. a pause and nothing more

because nothing has been done about the underlying causes, or the mentality that causes it

and that has everything to do with interpretation of the OP

you're nuts if you think things are going to get better with skyrocketing gasoline hyperinflating at 2 percent per day, and that $3.50 gasoline will not hurt the economy

[Godhumor]

47. ...all you're doing is adding issues and concerns that do nothing to negate this week's claims

Again, the trend continues to move in the right direction...the trend, not one individual week.

Saying that what you perceive to be underlying issues hasn't been address does not change this fact. If next week shows a higher number, it does not change this fact.

Oil increasing now and its possible future impact does not change the report that is here and now.

Any point you have made, while they may be included in a general discussion on the current economic health of the country, does not negate what is currently happening.

[Bardley]

48. ok, ok, you got your little data point - whoop T do

enjoy it while it lasts, which wont be long at 3.5 dollar gas

[Godhumor]

49. We'll see. It is nice to know you can refute quantifiable numbers with future uncertain events

If oil manages to plunge us into a second recession, we have a lot worse things to worry about than arguing on DU.

[Bardley]

50. same way you can ignore skyrocketing gas

which, by the way TORPEDOED the economy in the 1970s

[Godhumor]

51. Um, that was an embargo and one we weren't prepared for

Absolutely not the same situation. Not even remotely.

And 538 just did a nice analysis on how oil has almost no effect on presidential approval ratings. Might be worth your time to mosey on over there and check it out.

[Bardley]

52. high gasoline prices affect the economy regardless of what caused it to rise

so your point is moot

[Godhumor]

53. Interesting, since none of your points have had ANYTHING to do with this week's initial jobless

claims falling.

You're arguing that the report for what is actually happening right now in employment is moot because of a hypothetical future where oil stays above XX dollars and hypothetically destroys the rebuilding economy.

My point, which is that the historical trend for initial unemployment is positive, is based on the actual data which shows the historical trend is positive. Your response has been to say fine, but x, y and z will happen which will make this number suck. It hasn't happened! If, at some point, the actual trend has turned negative for a solid period of time, I will be on here posting about it.

[Bardley]

55. little chihuahua, let go of the sock nt

[dotymed]

64. OPEC has NOT raised the price of oil.

The tremendous rise in gas prices is due to SPECULATORS. Unregulated Banksters, ya know, the ones we gave 70 billion to so they could (can) pay themselves obscene profits and fuck the citizens.

[amandabeech]

57. High gas prices are high gas prices.

Whether the problem is Libya, Iran or Saudi Arabia, it doesn't matter.

The Libyan matter may not last as long as the '70s problems.

I drove through the '70s, and people sure were grousing about any and all politicians, particularly the Presidents, when fuel prices rose.

I don't care who has what analysis now, I just remember what everyone said all the time back then.

Do you?

[New Earth]

22. yeah thanks to us 99'ers

:/

[Godhumor]

24. Initial claims--not continuing n/t

[Hosnon]

30. Haha. You are certainly a trooper. But keep it up! nt.

[Godhumor]

36. Self-delete

n/t

[Hosnon]

37. I think you misinterpreted my post as sarcastic. See my other posts in this thread. nt.

[Godhumor]

38. Whoops! Big apologies.

Was just going down the list of replies and didn't notice the name.

[Hosnon]

39. No worries. I re-read my post and its tone is extremely ambiguous. nt.

[JNelson6563]

42. Ever feel like you're typing to blind people here?

I can't believe how many think this news on initial claims is low because of people's benefits expiring. :banghead:

Julie

[valerief]

32. Fewer jobs left to lose. nt