Spin: 403,000 new unemployed people is "good news"

[asterism]

The Labor Department said Thursday that the number of people applying for unemployment benefits dropped 13,000 to a seasonally adjusted 403,000 in the week ending April 16. The decline comes after applications rose 31,000 a week earlier.
Applications near 375,000 are consistent with sustainable job growth. Applications peaked during the recession at 659,000.

New claims for unemployment benefits fall - USATODAY.com

See that?

Getting worse at a slower rate is not and will not ever be "recovery."

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I believe a lot of folks are now seeing this. Of course you're still going to have naivete and spin lovers but it is what it is.

 

[asterism]

The irony of Obama criticizing Bush's 6% unemployment rate is juicy, as is the results of his crack team of economic experts.

 

[boedicca]

And as always, the incredibly predictable negative stats are "Unexpected".

 

[Mad Scientist]

See that? Getting worse at a slower rate is not and will not ever be "recovery."

Now those people will have more time to spend with their families!

 

[pinqy]

The Labor Department said Thursday that the number of people applying for unemployment benefits dropped 13,000 to a seasonally adjusted 403,000 in the week ending April 16. The decline comes after applications rose 31,000 a week earlier.
Applications near 375,000 are consistent with sustainable job growth. Applications peaked during the recession at 659,000.

New claims for unemployment benefits fall - USATODAY.com

See that?

Getting worse at a slower rate is not and will not ever be "recovery."

A decline in initial UI claims is not getting worse at a slower rate. Initial UI claims is gross, not net.

 

[The Infidel]

The Labor Department said Thursday that the number of people applying for unemployment benefits dropped 13,000 to a seasonally adjusted 403,000 in the week ending April 16. The decline comes after applications rose 31,000 a week earlier.
Applications near 375,000 are consistent with sustainable job growth. Applications peaked during the recession at 659,000.

New claims for unemployment benefits fall - USATODAY.com

See that?

Getting worse at a slower rate is not and will not ever be "recovery."

A decline in initial UI claims is not getting worse at a slower rate. Initial UI claims is gross, not net.

Does'nt matter... its still not good news.

 

[pinqy]

New claims for unemployment benefits fall - USATODAY.com

See that?

Getting worse at a slower rate is not and will not ever be "recovery."

A decline in initial UI claims is not getting worse at a slower rate. Initial UI claims is gross, not net.

Does'nt matter... its still not good news.

But it's not bad news either. Claims were much higher every week last year. They've been lower earlier this year, but they're not back up to last year's numbers. So overall...meh.

 

[asterism]

The Labor Department said Thursday that the number of people applying for unemployment benefits dropped 13,000 to a seasonally adjusted 403,000 in the week ending April 16. The decline comes after applications rose 31,000 a week earlier.
Applications near 375,000 are consistent with sustainable job growth. Applications peaked during the recession at 659,000.

New claims for unemployment benefits fall - USATODAY.com

See that?

Getting worse at a slower rate is not and will not ever be "recovery."

A decline in initial UI claims is not getting worse at a slower rate. Initial UI claims is gross, not net.

Which means over 400,000 people are newly unemployed. Without a compensating 400,000 new hires it absolutely is getting worse. That fewer initial UI claims were filed last week than the week before means the rate of how much worse it is slowed down.

 

[asterism]

A decline in initial UI claims is not getting worse at a slower rate. Initial UI claims is gross, not net.

Does'nt matter... its still not good news.

But it's not bad news either. Claims were much higher every week last year. They've been lower earlier this year, but they're not back up to last year's numbers. So overall...meh.

Nice spin. See? I was right.

 

[boedicca]

The Labor Department said Thursday that the number of people applying for unemployment benefits dropped 13,000 to a seasonally adjusted 403,000 in the week ending April 16. The decline comes after applications rose 31,000 a week earlier.
Applications near 375,000 are consistent with sustainable job growth. Applications peaked during the recession at 659,000.

New claims for unemployment benefits fall - USATODAY.com

See that?

Getting worse at a slower rate is not and will not ever be "recovery."

A decline in initial UI claims is not getting worse at a slower rate. Initial UI claims is gross, not net.

Oh, puh-leeeeze.

Spare us your ignorance of how UI is calculated and its meaning as an economic indicator. We recently endured That Horror in a thread not too long ago.


Thank You In Advance For Your Cooperation!

 

[pinqy]

New claims for unemployment benefits fall - USATODAY.com

See that?

Getting worse at a slower rate is not and will not ever be "recovery."

A decline in initial UI claims is not getting worse at a slower rate. Initial UI claims is gross, not net.

Oh, puh-leeeeze.

Spare us your ignorance of how UI is calculated and its meaning as an economic indicator. We recently endured That Horror in a thread not too long ago.


Thank You In Advance For Your Cooperation!

I have corrected your ignorance on the topic time and again. You then disappear.

I note you don't even have a point here, just insults.

Fine, I'll give you another chance. Please explain how a decrease in Initial claims is making things worse, especially when we don't know how many people were hired in the previous week.

 

[pinqy]

New claims for unemployment benefits fall - USATODAY.com

See that?

Getting worse at a slower rate is not and will not ever be "recovery."

A decline in initial UI claims is not getting worse at a slower rate. Initial UI claims is gross, not net.

Which means over 400,000 people are newly unemployed. Without a compensating 400,000 new hires it absolutely is getting worse.

And how many new hires were there last week? Oh, you don't know. So how can you say it's worse?


Here, take a look at what happened in February (latest full figures): UI claims Hires and Seperations

That fewer initial UI claims were filed last week than the week before means the rate of how much worse it is slowed down.

No, getting worses at a slower rate would be if either the increase in claims was lower (and there was a decrease) or if the Net unemployment went up at a lower rate. But claims went down and total unemployment has been going down as well.

 

[asterism]

A decline in initial UI claims is not getting worse at a slower rate. Initial UI claims is gross, not net.

Which means over 400,000 people are newly unemployed. Without a compensating 400,000 new hires it absolutely is getting worse.

And how many new hires were there last week?

Virtually none. Just wait around, you'll find it in the data when your antiquated methods provide us some hindsight.

Oh, you don't know.

Nobody knows definitely right now, by design. Can't muck with the numbers if all the information is timely and accurate. Government statistics are like the tax code, a tool to be used to manipulate the voters.

So how can you say it's worse?

Because 400,000 new people are now unemployed and there isn't any major press on new hiring, new plants, new factories, some new trend or pickup in hiring that adds up to 400,000.

That fewer initial UI claims were filed last week than the week before means the rate of how much worse it is slowed down.

No, getting worses at a slower rate would be if either the increase in claims was lower (and there was a decrease) or if the Net unemployment went up at a lower rate.

No indications of massive new hires (to the tune of 400,000 of them) and a big fat figure showing new fires. You have no idea if net unemployment is up and the way the rate is calculated is also flawed.

But claims went down and total unemployment has been going down as well.

Total unemployment has not been going down, people are being administratively dropped out of the labor force due to a political need to show some improvement.

I said the same thing when the official unemployment rate went from 10.1% to 9.9% in 2009 while the new UI filings were still not met with any indications of a massive hiring binge. I was told by people like you (experts in the government's methods but not really all that good at realizing how flawed the methods are in reality) that we'd see how quickly this recover was gaining steam.

So how's that going? Does this recovery have any steam at all?

 

[boedicca]

The Obamanoids got all excited about the March BLS report which shows less than 300K new jobs for the entire month (most of them temp jobs at that).

Compare that with 400K more people filing for unemployment in One Week.

 

[B. Kidd]

The Obamanoids got all excited about the March BLS report which shows less than 300K new jobs for the entire month (most of them temp jobs at that).

Compare that with 400K more people filing for unemployment in One Week.

I think they expected less than 370,000 new claims. 400,000 + is obviously not good news.

 

[Avorysuds]

A decline in initial UI claims is not getting worse at a slower rate. Initial UI claims is gross, not net.

Does'nt matter... its still not good news.

But it's not bad news either. Claims were much higher every week last year. They've been lower earlier this year, but they're not back up to last year's numbers. So overall...meh.

It is very bad news... The Government wasted near a trillion while the FED wasted I believe near 4 trillion and things are only getting worse at a slower pace.

 

[boedicca]

It's THE WORST RECOVERY EVER.

GDP forecasts are ranging between 1.5%-2.5%. We should be growing at 4%-5% right now.

 

[pinqy]

And how many new hires were there last week?

Virtually none. Just wait around, you'll find it in the data when your antiquated methods provide us some hindsight.

Well, in January there were approx 3,769,000 hires and in Feb there were approx 3,907,000 hires, it seems very unlikely that March or April will show so much less.
Source: Job Openings Labor Turnover Survey

Nobody knows definitely right now, by design. Can't muck with the numbers if all the information is timely and accurate.

UI benefits are weekly:collected and processed in 3 working days, continuing claims in 8. Payroll employment, total employment, and unemployment are monthly, and are collected and processed in 15 working days. That's pretty timely by my book. What are your suggestions for improvement?

Because 400,000 new people are now unemployed and there isn't any major press on new hiring, new plants, new factories, some new trend or pickup in hiring that adds up to 400,000.

Show me all the press you saw for the almost 4 million hires in February.

You have no idea if net unemployment is up and the way the rate is calculated is also flawed.

OH, what are these flaws?

Total unemployment has not been going down, people are being administratively dropped out of the labor force due to a political need to show some improvement.

You can only administratively drop out people from administrative numbers. Since there are no admin numbers for total employment, you can't have admin drops. And if you look at the last few months, you'll see that the Labor Force has been increasing, not decreasing. Source: BLS

 

[asterism]

And how many new hires were there last week?

Virtually none. Just wait around, you'll find it in the data when your antiquated methods provide us some hindsight.

Well, in January there were approx 3,769,000 hires and in Feb there were approx 3,907,000 hires, it seems very unlikely that March or April will show so much less.
Source: Job Openings Labor Turnover Survey

Nice trick. I said "new hires." I guess we can debate about what that means also. Go ahead.

UI benefits are weekly:collected and processed in 3 working days, continuing claims in 8. Payroll employment, total employment, and unemployment are monthly, and are collected and processed in 15 working days. That's pretty timely by my book. What are your suggestions for improvement?

Monthly?

The government could try some automation and a data system that can handle it. We do have to pay these people we hire. Those paychecks have to be recorded. My bank can do a payroll check for a new hire today with ease. If only the government had any incentive to not be stuck in 1985.

Show me all the press you saw for the almost 4 million hires in February.

I'm not sure what you're asking. Please clarify.

You have no idea if net unemployment is up and the way the rate is calculated is also flawed.

OH, what are these flaws?

Where do I start? Ok, it's done by SURVEY. What is the margin of error for these surveys?

Total unemployment has not been going down, people are being administratively dropped out of the labor force due to a political need to show some improvement.

You can only administratively drop out people from administrative numbers. Since there are no admin numbers for total employment, you can't have admin drops. And if you look at the last few months, you'll see that the Labor Force has been increasing, not decreasing. Source: BLS

March 2010 - 153,660
March 2011 - 153,022

Where's the increase?