Unemployment Claims fall

[JimH52]

Unemployment claims drop for 4th time in 5 weeks - Yahoo! News

 

[topspin]

sweet and oil is up!!

 

[Annie]

Glad you're all happy that initial claims are down, that is a good thing. Yet, the unemployment rate is expected to be higher. Since at least June, each adjustment in the rate of both unemployed and other measures have been coming out 'unexpectedly' worse. There are literally tens of thousands of people who've exhausted their benefits, even their 'extended benefits' while taking what work they can get, to offset their unemployed status. Real unemployment is much higher than the 'expected' 9.7.

Great for those speculating on the suffering of others, with oil, gold, etc. The climate must gain stability, not a Congress that leaves without even discussing a budget, so that people will once again be hired. Truth is, feels alot more like pre-Revolutionary France or Russia, than the US Revolution.

 

[boedicca]

A drop in claims is not an indication that jobs are being created. To regain the lost jobs and adjust for increases in the population, we need to add 300K jobs PER MONTH for years. We're not even keeping up with population growth.

Companies in the U.S. unexpectedly cut jobs in September, data from a private report based on payrolls showed today.

Employment decreased by 39,000, the biggest drop since January, after a revised 10,000 rise in August, according to figures from ADP Employer Services. The median estimate of 37 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News called for a 20,000 gain. Forecasts ranged from a decline of 44,000 to a 75,000 increase.

A loss of jobs raises the risk that consumer spending, the largest part of the economy, will retrench and halt the recovery. A Labor Department report in two days will show companies added 75,000 workers last month, economists project.

“It’s more evidence of a lousy labor market,” said Joshua Shapiro, chief U.S. economist at Maria Fiorini Ramirez Inc. in New York. “Here we are, 18 months into a recovery and we’re not doing much on the job front. Until we digest the excesses built up over decades, you’re not going to see sustained gains in jobs or the overall economy.”


Companies in U.S. Unexpectedly Cut Jobs, ADP Says - BusinessWeek

 

[pinqy]

Glad you're all happy that initial claims are down, that is a good thing. Yet, the unemployment rate is expected to be higher.

True, but the reason is important. The rate is expected to be higher due to people entering/re-entering the labor force...people unemployed not because they lost their jobs, but because they are just starting to look for work and haven't been sucessful yet. Counter-intuitively, an increase in the UE rate for this reason is a positive sign for recovery.

There are literally tens of thousands of people who've exhausted their benefits, even their 'extended benefits' while taking what work they can get, to offset their unemployed status.

Well, if they take work, then they're not unemployed, so looking at the UE rate, you do have to go past that and look at the change in level of part-time workers and reason for working part time...in increase in employment with an increase in people working part time for economic reasons (temporarily working part time due to cut hours or failure to find full time work) is not a really positive indicator. Reciept or eligibility of benefits has nothing to do with the UE rate, though...you are counted as unemployed regardless of ever having recieved benefits or even never having had a job at all. The only thing that matters is looking for work.

Real unemployment is much higher than the 'expected' 9.7.

People often talk about "real unemployment" but never state what makes it "real" except for a preference for a different definition. There's no absolute "real" definition of unemployed.

 

[boedicca]

Tell that to the people who don't have jobs and would like to be employed.

 

[Annie]

Glad you're all happy that initial claims are down, that is a good thing. Yet, the unemployment rate is expected to be higher.

True, but the reason is important. The rate is expected to be higher due to people entering/re-entering the labor force...people unemployed not because they lost their jobs, but because they are just starting to look for work and haven't been sucessful yet. Counter-intuitively, an increase in the UE rate for this reason is a positive sign for recovery.

There are literally tens of thousands of people who've exhausted their benefits, even their 'extended benefits' while taking what work they can get, to offset their unemployed status.

Well, if they take work, then they're not unemployed, so looking at the UE rate, you do have to go past that and look at the change in level of part-time workers and reason for working part time...in increase in employment with an increase in people working part time for economic reasons (temporarily working part time due to cut hours or failure to find full time work) is not a really positive indicator. Reciept or eligibility of benefits has nothing to do with the UE rate, though...you are counted as unemployed regardless of ever having recieved benefits or even never having had a job at all. The only thing that matters is looking for work.

Real unemployment is much higher than the 'expected' 9.7.

People often talk about "real unemployment" but never state what makes it "real" except for a preference for a different definition. There's no absolute "real" definition of unemployed.

If someone takes a 20 hour job at $12 per hour, that is not going to overtake their unemployment benefits generated from their $58k job they lost. So, they end up with partial benefits, while working. That's I guess 'part-time' unemployed.

Indeed everyone I've known has done just that, in order not to 'stay on' unemployment longer than necessary. Besides, after sending out hundreds of applications, there's only so much left to do.

One of the worst systems now set up is that most hiring seems now to start online, until one is able to get an interview. Indeed, there are some now that seem to hire directly from online, which makes one wonder how long these folks will last to begin with?

 

[boedicca]

The Lefties often decry "Globalization" which is driving down wages in certain sectors of the economy. If such wage deflation is bad, then why is it a temporary job at a far lower wage that someone takes for survival is not an indicator of under & unemployment?

 

[pinqy]

Tell that to the people who don't have jobs and would like to be employed.

Tell what to them? That they're not unemployed if they're not looking for a job? Sure, why not? Technical definitions are for a purpose, not to make people feel better

 

[Trajan]

heres the scoop, I am sooo tired of hearing this BS...did they use their favorite term- "unexpectedly "...?

the economy MUST have approx. 125-150K new jobs each month just to keep pace with population growth and new entries into the job market, we need a GDP of at least 1.5 to 2.0% as a sign of life, a heart beat.


wait till the Q3 GDP number comes out .......Goldman thinks it will be negative. Even a 2% would be a bollocks. If so bus. will go even deeper into discounting goods, , not hire as much for seasonal help and consumer confidence will take another hit. it feeds off itself.

 

[boedicca]

heres the scoop, I am sooo tired of hearing this BS...did they use their favorite term- "unexpectedly "...?

the economy MUST have approx. 125-150K new jobs each month just to keep pace with population growth and new entries into the job market, we need a GDP of at least 1.5 to 2.0% as a sign of life, a heat beat.


wait till the Q3 GDP number comes out .......Goldman thinks it will be negative. Even a 2% would be a bollocks. If so bus. will go even deeper into discounting goods, , not hire as much for seasonal help and consumer confidence will take another hit. it feeds off itself.

Indeed. GDP growth of less than 3% doesn't qualify as a real recovery by any stretch of the imagination.

Obamanomics has weighted down the natural recovery which should be cooking along at 5% plus GDP growth right now.

 

[Annie]

Tell that to the people who don't have jobs and would like to be employed.

Tell what to them? That they're not unemployed if they're not looking for a job? Sure, why not? Technical definitions are for a purpose, not to make people feel better

You are not getting the point, again tens of thousands of folks, that have always worked, now are working part-time. They continue to look for work, it is just not out there. If their part-time job was created only as a stop gap in hiring a 'regular employee', and the demand calls for getting rid of the job, that new employer will not be paying the unemployment, the part-timer is still certified to resume full benefits. So one uses their time to keep looking, networking, and working part-time.

Not enough to keep up with bills, mortgages, etc. But working some is better than not.

 

[Trajan]

Tell that to the people who don't have jobs and would like to be employed.

Tell what to them? That they're not unemployed if they're not looking for a job? Sure, why not? Technical definitions are for a purpose, not to make people feel better

You are not getting the point, again tens of thousands of folks, that have always worked, now are working part-time. They continue to look for work, it is just not out there. If their part-time job was created only as a stop gap in hiring a 'regular employee', and the demand calls for getting rid of the job, that new employer will not be paying the unemployment, the part-timer is still certified to resume full benefits. So one uses their time to keep looking, networking, and working part-time.

Not enough to keep up with bills, mortgages, etc. But working some is better than not.

yuppers...my daughter got laid off from here full time job nov. 08. She was always looking, had a number of interviews etc...she was oin unemployment for a year, it got extended, the extended again...she got a part some job 6 months ago so she could 'save' some benefits if she could not even find part time work in case they were exhausted and not renewed. Shes now has a 2nd part time job to equal 40 hours so she wouldn't even need 15 or 20 hours of unemployed,tn money per week....

I have a feeling this will go on for a while....and frankly they should not extend her benefits again, she agrees....if she had been taking them all per week or pay period they would have ran out in November....Truth be told those jobs as shitty as they are, (retail clothing) and many like them, were there all along. But early on, she kept holding out for something in her field.

 

[pinqy]

You are not getting the point, again tens of thousands of folks, that have always worked, now are working part-time.

I understand perfectly. The actual numbers for August 2010 are:
Total Part time (<35hrs/week) = 27,418
Part time for non-economic reasons (choice, child-care/family/transportation/medical issues) = 18,558,000
Part time due to slack business = 6,380,000
Part time due to inability to find full time work = 2,347,000
total part time for economic reasons = 8,860,000

Compare this to pre-recession (Aug 2007 as a random date):
Total Part time (<35hrs/week) = 24,266,000
Part time for non-economic reasons (choice, child-care/family/transportation/medical issues) = 19,665,000
Part time due to slack business = 2,991,000
Part time due to inability to find full time work = 1,186,000
total part time for economic reasons = 4,601,000

So clearly things have gotten worse, and it is being tracked. So I'm not sure what your complaint is. No they're not included as "unemployed" because they're not unemployed. But they are being tracked and the problem is known.

Calling them "unemployed" as part of the official numbers would only make it unclear how difficult it is or is not to find a job at all.

Source: Historical Data Table A-8 of the Employment Situation Report (seasonally adjusted all industries)

 

[AquaAthena]

Unemployment claims drop for 4th time in 5 weeks - Yahoo! News

Underemployment, at 18.8%, is up from 18.6% at the end of Augustby Dennis Jacobe, Chief EconomistPRINCETON, NJ -- Unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, increased to 10.1% in September -- up sharply from 9.3% in August and 8.9% in July. Much of this increase came during the second half of the month -- the unemployment rate was 9.4% in mid-September -- and therefore is unlikely to be picked up in the government's unemployment report on Friday.

Much more: Gallup Finds U.S. Unemployment at 10.1% in September

 

[Annie]

You are not getting the point, again tens of thousands of folks, that have always worked, now are working part-time.

I understand perfectly. The actual numbers for August 2010 are:
Total Part time (<35hrs/week) = 27,418
Part time for non-economic reasons (choice, child-care/family/transportation/medical issues) = 18,558,000
Part time due to slack business = 6,380,000
Part time due to inability to find full time work = 2,347,000
total part time for economic reasons = 8,860,000

Compare this to pre-recession (Aug 2007 as a random date):
Total Part time (<35hrs/week) = 24,266,000
Part time for non-economic reasons (choice, child-care/family/transportation/medical issues) = 19,665,000
Part time due to slack business = 2,991,000
Part time due to inability to find full time work = 1,186,000
total part time for economic reasons = 4,601,000

So clearly things have gotten worse, and it is being tracked. So I'm not sure what your complaint is. No they're not included as "unemployed" because they're not unemployed. But they are being tracked and the problem is known.

Calling them "unemployed" as part of the official numbers would only make it unclear how difficult it is or is not to find a job at all.

Source: Historical Data Table A-8 of the Employment Situation Report (seasonally adjusted all industries)

Go back and look at the original post and the one following. These numbers are not good for Obama and Co., to pretend they are is foolish. Reminds me of a thread started this morning I believe by Maggie Mae on why working class people would favor the GOP by 58% currently.

 

[pinqy]

Unemployment claims drop for 4th time in 5 weeks - Yahoo! News

Underemployment, at 18.8%, is up from 18.6% at the end of Augustby Dennis Jacobe, Chief EconomistPRINCETON, NJ -- Unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, increased to 10.1% in September -- up sharply from 9.3% in August and 8.9% in July. Much of this increase came during the second half of the month -- the unemployment rate was 9.4% in mid-September -- and therefore is unlikely to be picked up in the government's unemployment report on Friday.

Much more: Gallup Finds U.S. Unemployment at 10.1% in September

Now, what we're going to see here are some methodological differences. BLS interviews60,000 households once a month. Gallup interviews a few hundred everyday. So the Gallup sample size is a lot smaller overall, but works about as well since they're more spread out over time. The Gallup and BLS numbers are usually only about 0.1% off from each other.

I don't like Gallup's definition of "Underemployment," though. It simply asks people working part time if they want to work full time. That's including a lot of people whose reasons for part time have nothing to do with the economy, so it's only useful to a point.

The other main difference is time frame. The BLS survey is only for the week of the month that contains the 12th but I'm not sure if Sunday is considered the first or last day of the week (Sep 12th was a Sunday), so the reference week is either Sep 6- 12 or 12-18, but in either case if there was a significant shift in the second part of the month, that won't be reflected in the BLS data until the report for October.

And keep in mind seasonal adjustment...compensation for normal labor market fluctuations. The Gallup sample size is too small and is a moving average, so you can't adjust for normal fluctuations, so to compare, you'll have to look at the BLS Not-seasonally adjusted number instead of the official number.

 

[pinqy]

Go back and look at the original post and the one following. These numbers are not good for Obama and Co., to pretend they are is foolish.

I don't care if they're good or bad for the administration. Is a decline in the number of UI claims good? Yes. Does it mean the entire unemployment picture is good? Of course not. There are all kinds of aspects to look at...employed, and whether they're full time, part time, and why they're part time...unemployed and why they're unemployed (esp. layoffs vs entrants/re-entrants).

The Gallup numbers don't look promising for tomorrow's release, but overall the situation has gotten marginally better this year. Not good, but better. It's slow and difficult and ugly, but things are moving in the right direction.

 

[topspin]

Tomorrow's number is the one that matters, job adds. If he doesn't start getting 150,000 to 200,000 a month by mid next year he's a one termer for sure.

 

[Annie]

Go back and look at the original post and the one following. These numbers are not good for Obama and Co., to pretend they are is foolish.

I don't care if they're good or bad for the administration. Is a decline in the number of UI claims good? Yes. Does it mean the entire unemployment picture is good? Of course not. There are all kinds of aspects to look at...employed, and whether they're full time, part time, and why they're part time...unemployed and why they're unemployed (esp. layoffs vs entrants/re-entrants).

The Gallup numbers don't look promising for tomorrow's release, but overall the situation has gotten marginally better this year. Not good, but better. It's slow and difficult and ugly, but things are moving in the right direction.

Better? Don't know about that:

Gallup: Unemployment rate back over 10% Hot Air

Gallup: Unemployment rate back over 10%
Share
posted at 11:36 am on October 7, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
regular view

In yet another harbinger of tomorrow’s official jobless report, Gallup shows a sharp increase in unemployment for September, pushing their estimate of joblessness to 10.1%. The pollster also warns that tomorrow’s figure will miss some of the change, which will likely lull some into a sense that no action is needed:

Unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, increased to 10.1% in September — up sharply from 9.3% in August and 8.9% in July. Much of this increase came during the second half of the month — the unemployment rate was 9.4% in mid-September — and therefore is unlikely to be picked up in the government’s unemployment report on Friday. …

The government’s final unemployment report before the midterm elections is based on job market conditions around mid-September. Gallup’s modeling of the unemployment rate is consistent with Tuesday’s ADP report of a decline of 39,000 private-sector jobs, and indicates that the government’s national unemployment rate in September will be in the 9.6% to 9.8% range. This is based on Gallup’s mid-September measurements and the continuing decline Gallup is seeing in the U.S. workforce during 2010.​

The underemployment number should remain steady, Gallup predicts, but not because businesses are hiring. Gallup predicts that their equivalent to the U-6 number will hit between 18.6% and 18.8% because they see fewer people working part-time but looking for full-time employment. More part-timers had their positions converted to full time, but businesses aren’t hiring part-timers to add to their staffs now.

This has implications beyond employment or the elections, too. With unemployment rising again, the upcoming holiday season could be another disaster like 2008. Job insecurity will result in more savings and more frugality in a season that makes or breaks retail businesses. The pending tax hikes will also have some with cash less likely to part with it as well. With that in mind, retailers are going to hire fewer people this holiday season in anticipation of lower demand, and Gallup warns this will mean a brutal fourth quarter for the economy.

At the same time, the Department of Labor announced that initial jobless claims fell for the third straight week to a four-month low at 445,000. This hits at the lower end of the range seen for all of 2010, so it’s not exactly “unexpected.” It does, however, mean that either Gallup’s data doesn’t account entirely for the job swings, or that Gallup’s data is more recent on job losses and we can expect to see the jobless claims start to rise again in the next couple of weeks, as those who lost their jobs in the final two weeks become eligible to apply for benefits...