U.S. Jobless Claims Drop to Lowest Level Since 2006

[oldfart]

and long term unemployed have increase .05% so far this quarter..in getting rehired, 2015 predictions are for a stronger economy and more people being employed.

Now let the naysayers harp their usual percentage of those not working being at an all time high..without acknowledging that the baby boomers are retiring, stocks are doing better and housing prices have stabilized and are inflating in some places which allows more people to go back into retirement even before they hit retirement age..
Where I live the plants are hiring and the housing market is strong. Skilled workers are being hired and they needmore. Wages have increased also..

Great. You just alluded to only about 4 of the dozens and dozens of other variables one must look at.

Exactly how many variables do you program into your macromodel? Which method do you use to adjust for multicolinearity? I used to teach econometrics. Folks that get their hands dirty in economic statistics usually come at methodological problems with more finesse than you are displaying. BTW the labor statistic economists use most often for labor force measurement in growth models is an age-normalized employment-to-population ratio. It's a lot more stable than U-1 through U-6 and doesn't have a problem regarding who is in the labor force.

 

[oldfart]

yeah ok
so rdeanie, how many people have dropped out of the work force?

hummm, you believe what you need

Define your terms. There are many reasons to leave the labor force.
Leaving the Labor Force and the Population:

• Dying
• Leaving the country
• Joining the military
• Going to jail
• Becoming a resident at an institution (old folks home, mental institute, whatever).

Leaving the Labor Force and being classified as Not in the Labor Force:

• Retiring
• Becoming a full time student.
• Staying home with the kids.
• Becoming disabled.
• Pregnant
• Long term injury/illness.
• Having to take care of family member
• No longer wanting/needing a job.
• Cannot accept a job for any other reason.
• Don't believe search would be successful.

Many people talking about "dropping out of the labor force" are really talking about all of the above. Only discouraged workers could really be considered "dropping out" in my opinion and that number is currently at 676,000

Thanks for the two preceding posts. Your knowledge of unemployment numbers is impressive, and valuable. So, let me ask, are the number of discouraged workers increasing or decreasing?
Seems to me that the discouraged worker number is highly telling, and worth watching. While i new it was kept, I have to admit I do not tend to get too deep in the numbers. What is common over time? Seems, off hand, that 676k is not all that many, so just interested in historical perspective if you have it.

I think that the big point most people are missing is that the level of people looking for a job is a function of a lot of variables, and some of the biggest are the level of compensation and the perception of success in a future job search. The number of job seekers is elastic, not a fixed number. For example, in 2009 the BLS estimated that the number of SSA disability claims would increase by 1.2 million more than previously projected because many disabled workers could both find a job and qualify for disability. They chose to work because they needed or wanted the higher income and the chance to get the job was high. When businesses started massive layoffs and freezing new hires, many of these people applied for their disability benefits. A similar analysis applies to the work vs graduate school decision. Also when the labor market is tight employers are willing to hire less qualified applicants and provide more training when there is not a generous supply of experienced fully-trained workers.

These are the reasons labor economists tend to use measures like the employment-to-population ratio as it is relatively stable and minimizes the problems of definition by make the reasoning behind the choices to work and to hire irrelevant. The alternative, of course, is the ridiculous argument that lemming-like behavior causes periodic waves of humans to decide to hurt themselves to qualify for disability, spikes of interest in advanced degrees, or that hiring agents magically become less interested in doing their jobs.

 

[pinqy]

U.S. Jobless Claims Drop to Lowest Level Since 2006 - WSJ

WASHINGTON—New applications for unemployment benefits plunged last week, reaching an 8½-year low and offering the latest signs of strength in the labor market.

Initial claims for jobless aid, a proxy for layoffs, fell by 19,000 to a seasonally adjusted 284,000 in the week ended July 19, the Labor Department said Thursday. That was the lowest level for first-time claims since February 2006 and below the 305,000 claims forecast by economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal. The prior week was revised up slightly.

------------------------

I would have thought all those Bush Tax Cuts would have created millions of new jobs lasting for the next 100 years. And deregulating Wall Street, don't forget that. Guess we were wrong

Here, let me teach you some econ 101. A lower jobless claim, while on the surface sounds good, is not the same as job creation. Our economy is still a mess. Don't you remember the NEGATIVE 3% growth in Quarter 1?????

Learn the difference between U-3 and U-6 numbers.

The U-3 numbers are misleading; you have to look at U-6.

Talking about U-3 numbers is like saying Businessman X made a ton of money, as in $40 THOUSAND in revenue without putting it into context that he incurred $20 MILLION in costs to run his company.

Your analogy doesn't work for me. Why do you think the U3 is misleading and how is the U6 better? Actually, first....misleading for what? The U3 is supposed to measure the labor market: basically how easy or hard it is to get a job....what percent of people trying to work are failing. The U6 is supposed to measure how much of those who are trying to work or might try soon are either not working or not working as much as they want to.

Basically, since they measure different things, what are YOU trying to measure that you think the U6 is better?

 

[SteadyMercury]

By what possible metric are you considering the U6 more accurate???

The ones that suits his political views.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

By what possible metric are you considering the U6 more accurate???

The ones that suits his political views.

U6 is the same number when viewed by libs and cons

it is most accurate since it takes into account those who have stopped looking because the economy is so bad or those marginally attached. U3 can include someone who has found employment for an hour a week. Even U6 does not tell whole story since it does not count millions BO has put on welfare and disability.

u6 is 50% higher now that Obama is ruining economy by shipping jobs to China and discouraging work with Obamacare, etc etc.

 

[SteadyMercury]

U6 is the same number when viewed by libs and cons

Obviously, my point flew seven miles over your head.

You choose the U6 instead of U3 because of your political ideology, nothing more. You can spin all you want but you know it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

U6 is the same number when viewed by libs and cons

Obviously, my point flew seven miles over your head.

You choose the U6 instead of U3 because of your political ideology, nothing more. You can spin all you want but you know it.

if u6 is not more accurate please say exactly why or admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to do so.

 

[rdean]

The nasty little secret Republicans won't discuss is their efforts to block job training. They think they can blame unemployment on Obama and keep blaming him. Two years ago, the number of unfilled jobs was 3 million, now it's four and growing. Republican "jobs bills" are all tax cuts for the rich and deregulation. Nothing that will help anyone except their masters.

Skills Shortage Means Many Jobs Go Unfilled - WSJ

He has advertised the managerial positions, which pay up to $75,000 a year and include retirement benefits, for Schill Grounds Management Inc. since October. So far, he hasn't found anyone with both managerial and landscaping experience. If these jobs weren't still vacant, "we could easily add 20% more business," he says.

In the latest WSJ/Vistage survey, 35% of 270 services businesses said they couldn't identify qualified candidates, versus 12% of the 135 manufacturing firms, and 8% of 85 wholesale trade businesses.

------------------------------------------------

Obama blasts GOP in election-year economic salvo | syracuse.com

"They don't do anything, except block me and call me names," an indignant Obama said against a backdrop of sailboats and a band shell shaped like a castle. He insisted that as the nation works to restore middle-class prosperity after the recession, congressional Republicans are the only holdout.

------------------------------

 

[SteadyMercury]

if u6 is not more accurate please say exactly why or admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to do so.

I'm not a liberal, but kind of funny to see you prove my point on only being able to see the world in shades of political ideology.

Pinqy already explained why, you are just ignoring it because it doesn't suit your political views. I'm quite sure if this was a republican administration you'd be favoring U-3.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The nasty little secret Republicans won't discuss is their efforts to block job training.

of course that's liberal and idiotic. There are 50 job training programs that, being govt run, do no good and train people for skills that vanished 25 years ago. If a corporation needs a skill it will need to do the job training itself or go bankrupt. Problem solved thanks to capitalism and solved very very efficiently because the corp knows exactly what skill it needs whereas the govt has no idea!!

 

[pinqy]

By what possible metric are you considering the U6 more accurate???

The ones that suits his political views.

U6 is the same number when viewed by libs and cons

it is most accurate since it takes into account those who have stopped looking because the economy is so bad or those marginally attached. U3 can include someone who has found employment for an hour a week. Even U6 does not tell whole story since it does not count millions BO has put on welfare and disability.

u6 is 50% higher now that Obama is ruining economy by shipping jobs to China and discouraging work with Obamacare, etc etc.

What exactly are you trying to measure? The U6 is obviously not a more accurate measure of unemployment because it includes people who have jobs.

Let's break it down....Unemployed is an objective measure: either you looked for work in the last 4 weeks or you didn't.
Marginally attached is subjective..."Do you want a job?" I can be pretty sure that a person trying to get a job wants a job. I can't be so sure that someone who says they want a job but isn't actually doing anything about it really wants a job.

And look at it this way....In May a person responds that she looked for a job 10 months ago, then found out she was pregnant so quit looking for work. She says she doesn't want a job and wants to stay with the baby. She would be classified as Not in the Labor Force (does not want a job) and would not appear in any alternative measure.

But by June, when she's interviewed again, she's changed her mind and thinks maybe she does want a job after all. So she says yes she wants a job and could start one, but that she hasn't started looking yet. She's now marginally attached and would appear in the U5 and U6 numerators.

But what about her situation has changed? Her chance of getting hired went from 0% to 0%. And you would say that the employment situation is worse because the U6 has gotten bigger. And if she changes her mind again in July?

Is that an accurate measure of the actual labor market?

And you didn't point out that the U6 includes Part Time for Economic Reasons, defined as those who worked less than 35 hours during the reference week who could have and wanted to work 35 or more hours but didn't due to slow business or couldn't find a full time job. Now, you do reference that 1 hour/week is considered employed, but PTFER doesn't change that. They're still employed. But if you want to claim the U6 is a measure of unemployment and that they are actually unemployed, you run into an interesting dilemma

Person A and Person B are both married, no kids, and work as waitresses at the same restaurant. A doesn't want to work full time and works 20 hours/week. B does want to work full time and normally works 36 hours/week. But during the second week of June, business was slow and the manager cut one of her shifts short so she only worked 34 hours that week. Now she's part time for economic reasons and you would call her a more accurate measure of Unemployment.

But A would be employed because she's voluntarily part time. So you would call A employed at 20 hrs for the week, and B unemployed at 34 hours/week.

This seems more accurate to you? That in my first scenario a person changes nothing but her mind and becomes unemployed and in the second the person who worked longer hours and got more pay is really unemployed while the person who worked shorter hours was employed. You'll really have to explain the accuracy part.

The U6 is broader and is useful for giving a bigger picture of what's going on and how much more labor could reasonably be gained. But that's not accuracy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The U6 is obviously not a more accurate measure of unemployment because it includes people who have jobs.

dear unemloyment numbers show those who don't have jobs, actually. U6 includes also those who have jobs for one hour a week which obviously is not real employment so it is more accurate in describing state of job market.

If everyone got a 10 hour a week job at Walmart u3 would show 0% unemployment. Got it now?

 

[Rshermr]

The U6 is obviously not a more accurate measure of unemployment because it includes people who have jobs.

dear unemloyment numbers show those who don't have jobs, actually. U6 includes also those who have jobs for one hour a week which obviously is not real employment so it is more accurate in describing state of job market.

If everyone got a 10 hour a week job at Walmart u3 would show 0% unemployment. Got it now?

funny thing is ed is about to get crushed again, but he does not recognize it. Poor ed.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The U6 is obviously not a more accurate measure of unemployment because it includes people who have jobs.

dear unemloyment numbers show those who don't have jobs, actually. U6 includes also those who have jobs for one hour a week which obviously is not real employment so it is more accurate in describing state of job market.

If everyone got a 10 hour a week job at Walmart u3 would show 0% unemployment. Got it now?

funny thing is ed is about to get crushed again, but he does not recognize it. Poor ed.

of course if true you would have been happy to do it, but instead you ran away with your liberal tail between your legs again.

 

[SteadyMercury]

of course that's liberal and idiotic.

Proving my point again.

Brainless ideological autobot. I bet you couldn't show one from your thousands of posts that didn't just tow the partly line.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

of course that's liberal and idiotic.

Proving my point again.

Brainless ideological autobot. I bet you couldn't show one from your thousands of posts that didn't just tow the partly line.

if you disagree with the reason I gave for it being idiotic please state your reason or admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to do so.

 

[pinqy]

The U6 is obviously not a more accurate measure of unemployment because it includes people who have jobs.

dear unemloyment numbers show those who don't have jobs, actually.

Can you try that again in English? Not sure what you mean. Not everyone who does not have a job is unemployed. But, by definition, anyone with a job is employed.

U6 includes also those who have jobs for one hour a week which obviously is not real employment so it is more accurate in describing state of job market.

No, the U6 doesn't change any definitions...one hour a week would still be employed. Part time for economic reasons is still employed, but is in the numerator of the U6 to show underutilization.

And someone working 1 hour/week by choice or inability to take a full time job would NOT be part time for economic reasons.

When I was in high school, I had a job working 2-3 hours a week. That was all I wanted/needed. Are you telling me I was in fact unemployed????

In college I had a job working 3-4 hours a week. Again by choice. In neither case would I be Part time for economic reasons and part of the U6 numerator.

Go back to my waitress example. Do you really think it is more accurate to say the waitress working 20 hours by choice is employed and the waitress who normally works full time had a slow week and only worked 34 is really unemployed? That's what you're saying if you call part time for economic reasons "unemployed."

If everyone got a 10 hour a week job at Walmart u3 would show 0% unemployment. Got it now?

Well, sure. Everyone has a job, so no one is unemployed. Basically you're saying the U3 is inaccurate at measuring quality of jobs. Which it's not meant to measure. You're basically saying a screwdriver is a lousy hammer.

Let's put it this way....if a person is unemployed and is offered a 10hr/week job at Walmart, then it doesn't matter if he takes it or not...the situations are identical.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

dear unemloyment numbers show those who don't have jobs, actually.

Can you try that again in English? [/QUOTE]

unemployment numbers show those who are unemployed (those who don't have jobs). It that good enough english for you to understand?

 

[edthecynic]

By what possible metric are you considering the U6 more accurate???

The ones that suits his political views.

Exactly! If you look at this FOX Gossip Channel graphic, they use the 7.8% U-3 rate for Bush and the 14.7% U-6 rate for Obama.

 

[pinqy]

dear unemloyment numbers show those who don't have jobs, actually.

Can you try that again in English?

unemployment numbers show those who are unemployed (those who don't have jobs). It that good enough english for you to understand?[/QUOTE]

That's not the definition of Unemployed. Unemployed are those who did not work in the previous week, want a job, and actively looked for work in the previous 4 weeks.

Why you want to change that definition to include people working up to 34 hours/week is beyond me.