More economic good news, unemployment rate drops to 8.6%

[8537]

"You and 8537 jumped in with the typical mantra of "BUT THEY'RE SEASONALLY ADJUSTED."

No, they're not. There were 381,000 first-time claims for unemployment insurance last week, it's rounded, but it's the actual number...


Rates are adjusted. The number of claims is what the number of claims were.

You're kidding, right?

right? Why can't people do the most cursory research before saying stupid shit?

What is the section header of the second section here: http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm

And which figures did Bloomberg report?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You're kidding, right?

right?

I'll bite, what is the non-adjusted weekly claim?

Now THINK, before you leap.

380,000 initial claims extrapolates to 19,760,000 initial claims annually. With a work force of 160 million, that supports a 9% (or 8.6%) unemployment rate.

EDIT:

Fair enough, the unadjusted claims were 523,642 - annualized this is 27,229,000 or 17% of the workforce filing NEW claims.

 

[pinqy]

I'm sorry, where in any of that did it mention Unemployment Insurance claims?

Is it your impression that the employed file new UI claims?

When I'm talking about the number of UI claims, switching the topic to hires is misleading.

You're talking about hiring for a broad time frame, I'm pointing out UI claims for a specific week. Go to Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Data, Employment & Training Administration (ETA) - U.S. Department of Labor pull a few years, look at the Not Seasonally Adjusted claims for the last week in November and the first week in Dec. You will see a large increase in the number of UI claims every year.

Week to week variations add very little to the dialogue.

When we're talking about the WEEKLY UI claims report, week to week variation IS the dialogue.

Bloomberg reported {There were 381,000 first-time claims for unemployment insurance last week, down 23,000 from the previous week and the fewest since late February}

Yes, and Bloomberg was reporting the seasonally adjusted numbers. If you read the ETA Press Release: Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Report you will see:

In the week ending December 3, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 381,000, a decrease of 23,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 404,000.

The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 523,642 in the week ending December 3, an increase of 151,002 from the previous week.

No, they're not. There were 381,000 first-time claims for unemployment insurance last week, it's rounded, but it's the actual number.

Hmmm funny how ETA disagrees with you. You should call and tell them.

One more time: Regardless of any hiring, the number of Initial Unemployment Insurance claims always goes up from the last week of November to the first week of December, most likely because of Thanksgiving. Therefore they are seasonally adjusted.

Rates are adjusted. The number of claims is what the number of claims were.

Almost all weekly and monthly series are seasonally adjusted, CES, CPS, CPI, PPI, UI claims etc.

The Employment and Training Administration is not a statistical agency and reports the number of claims, period. BLS plays games with the numbers to create trends.

When you say blatantly false and easily disproven things such as claiming that weekly UI claims are not seasonally adjusted, it really doesn't make you look knowledgable.

 

[pinqy]

You're kidding, right?

right?

I'll bite, what is the non-adjusted weekly claim?

Now THINK, before you leap.

380,000 initial claims extrapolates to 19,760,000 initial claims annually. With a work force of 160 million, that supports a 9% (or 8.6%) unemployment rate.

Nope, you even got your own math wrong. UI claims are GROSS numbers. You can't extrapolate Unemployment level or rate from it. And 19,760,000/160,000,000 = 12.4%
Actual unemployed (seasonally adjusted) is 13,303,000 with Labor Force of 153,883,000
so 13,303,000/153,883,000 = 8.6% And total claims from all programs, not just the state claims we've been discussing, for the week of Nov 7-12 (reference week for the Nov EE rate) were 7,006,144. So clearly extrapolating UI claims to get UE level or rate is kind of pointless.

Fair enough, the unadjusted claims were 523,642 - annualized this is 27,229,000 or 17% of the workforce filing NEW claims.

Of course, now we come to the part where you shouldn't use the Labor Force as a good chunk of the unemployed aren't eligible for UI benefits. Of the 13,303,000 Unemployed in November, 1,367,000 completed temp jobs, 1,000,000 quit, 3,248,000 were reentering the Labor Force, and 1,164,000 were looking for their first job. Table A-11. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment Oh, and about half a million (not seasonally adjusted) self-employed were out of work.

If you're looking at claims, you need to look at the "Insured Unemployment Rate" from the ETA press release. Seasonally adjusted 2.9% of those covered under UI benefits were receiving them.

 

[Sundial]

The data is seasonally adjusted to account for the increased hiring at this time of year.

You're mixing apples and elephant turds.

The BLS seasonally adjusts employment rates, Bloomberg was reporting raw numbers.

It's really hard to have an intelligent discussion with someone who is this ******* ignorant.

The Bloomberg figures are not raw numbers. Please do the most basic research before you make yourself look this stupid again. The data set is called "seasonally adjusted".

Unfortunately, you're talking to people who aren't interested in facts or numbers. They've already made up their minds. You're assuming you can change their minds. You can't. That's just how it is. :-(

 

[mascale]

People who file for unemployment do not necessarily complete the process, and people who get on unemployment to not stay there.

The famous 99er's, especially in Southern California on a sunny, wintry day: Head for the bus stops, kick-back, lossen the upper garment(s)--and fall asleep. Bus passengers screaming do not rouse these people.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(I dreamt I passed out in Los Angeles, without My MaidenForm Bra, On, even(?)!)

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You're mixing apples and elephant turds.

The BLS seasonally adjusts employment rates, Bloomberg was reporting raw numbers.

It's really hard to have an intelligent discussion with someone who is this ******* ignorant.

The Bloomberg figures are not raw numbers. Please do the most basic research before you make yourself look this stupid again. The data set is called "seasonally adjusted".

Unfortunately, you're talking to people who aren't interested in facts or numbers. They've already made up their minds. You're assuming you can change their minds. You can't. That's just how it is. :-(

only liberals and government trolls know how to figure out fuzzy math. I can figure out normal math but fuzzy math gives me a problem.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You're kidding, right?

right?

I'll bite, what is the non-adjusted weekly claim?

Now THINK, before you leap.

380,000 initial claims extrapolates to 19,760,000 initial claims annually. With a work force of 160 million, that supports a 9% (or 8.6%) unemployment rate.

Nope, you even got your own math wrong. UI claims are GROSS numbers. You can't extrapolate Unemployment level or rate from it. And 19,760,000/160,000,000 = 12.4%
Actual unemployed (seasonally adjusted) is 13,303,000 with Labor Force of 153,883,000
so 13,303,000/153,883,000 = 8.6% And total claims from all programs, not just the state claims we've been discussing, for the week of Nov 7-12 (reference week for the Nov EE rate) were 7,006,144. So clearly extrapolating UI claims to get UE level or rate is kind of pointless.

Fair enough, the unadjusted claims were 523,642 - annualized this is 27,229,000 or 17% of the workforce filing NEW claims.

Of course, now we come to the part where you shouldn't use the Labor Force as a good chunk of the unemployed aren't eligible for UI benefits. Of the 13,303,000 Unemployed in November, 1,367,000 completed temp jobs, 1,000,000 quit, 3,248,000 were reentering the Labor Force, and 1,164,000 were looking for their first job. Table A-11. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment Oh, and about half a million (not seasonally adjusted) self-employed were out of work.

If you're looking at claims, you need to look at the "Insured Unemployment Rate" from the ETA press release. Seasonally adjusted 2.9% of those covered under UI benefits were receiving them.

There's that fuzzy math again is the 13 million from the total population or from the work force?

 

[pinqy]

I'll bite, what is the non-adjusted weekly claim?

Now THINK, before you leap.

380,000 initial claims extrapolates to 19,760,000 initial claims annually. With a work force of 160 million, that supports a 9% (or 8.6%) unemployment rate.

Nope, you even got your own math wrong. UI claims are GROSS numbers. You can't extrapolate Unemployment level or rate from it. And 19,760,000/160,000,000 = 12.4%
Actual unemployed (seasonally adjusted) is 13,303,000 with Labor Force of 153,883,000
so 13,303,000/153,883,000 = 8.6% And total claims from all programs, not just the state claims we've been discussing, for the week of Nov 7-12 (reference week for the Nov EE rate) were 7,006,144. So clearly extrapolating UI claims to get UE level or rate is kind of pointless.

Fair enough, the unadjusted claims were 523,642 - annualized this is 27,229,000 or 17% of the workforce filing NEW claims.

Of course, now we come to the part where you shouldn't use the Labor Force as a good chunk of the unemployed aren't eligible for UI benefits. Of the 13,303,000 Unemployed in November, 1,367,000 completed temp jobs, 1,000,000 quit, 3,248,000 were reentering the Labor Force, and 1,164,000 were looking for their first job. Table A-11. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment Oh, and about half a million (not seasonally adjusted) self-employed were out of work.

If you're looking at claims, you need to look at the "Insured Unemployment Rate" from the ETA press release. Seasonally adjusted 2.9% of those covered under UI benefits were receiving them.

There's that fuzzy math again is the 13 million from the total population or from the work force?

The labor force is part of the total population. How could something be part of the labor force but not the population? Perhaps you're misusing terms.. "work force" is not a technical term so it's definion is fuzzy and I'm not sure what you mean by it.

 

[pinqy]

To be precise, the 13 million unemployed are those people 16 years and older not in prison or mental institute who did not work at all November 6-12 (other than ppl on temp absence from a job) and who actively looked for work between October 16 and November 12 (unless on temporary layoff). That's the definition of unemployed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nope, you even got your own math wrong. UI claims are GROSS numbers. You can't extrapolate Unemployment level or rate from it. And 19,760,000/160,000,000 = 12.4%
Actual unemployed (seasonally adjusted) is 13,303,000 with Labor Force of 153,883,000
so 13,303,000/153,883,000 = 8.6% And total claims from all programs, not just the state claims we've been discussing, for the week of Nov 7-12 (reference week for the Nov EE rate) were 7,006,144. So clearly extrapolating UI claims to get UE level or rate is kind of pointless.



Of course, now we come to the part where you shouldn't use the Labor Force as a good chunk of the unemployed aren't eligible for UI benefits. Of the 13,303,000 Unemployed in November, 1,367,000 completed temp jobs, 1,000,000 quit, 3,248,000 were reentering the Labor Force, and 1,164,000 were looking for their first job. Table A-11. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment Oh, and about half a million (not seasonally adjusted) self-employed were out of work.

If you're looking at claims, you need to look at the "Insured Unemployment Rate" from the ETA press release. Seasonally adjusted 2.9% of those covered under UI benefits were receiving them.

There's that fuzzy math again is the 13 million from the total population or from the work force?

The labor force is part of the total population. How could something be part of the labor force but not the population? Perhaps you're misusing terms.. "work force" is not a technical term so it's definion is fuzzy and I'm not sure what you mean by it.

but are they taking the number the total pop or just the workable age group?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

To be precise, the 13 million unemployed are those people 16 years and older not in prison or mental institute who did not work at all November 6-12 (other than ppl on temp absence from a job) and who actively looked for work between October 16 and November 12 (unless on temporary layoff). That's the definition of unemployed.

OH so striking workers returning to work would not be unemployed?

 

[The T]

To be precise, the 13 million unemployed are those people 16 years and older not in prison or mental institute who did not work at all November 6-12 (other than ppl on temp absence from a job) and who actively looked for work between October 16 and November 12 (unless on temporary layoff). That's the definition of unemployed.

OH so striking workers returning to work would not be unemployed?

Striking workers should be outright FIRED. I'd fire ALL of them.

 

[pinqy]

There's that fuzzy math again is the 13 million from the total population or from the work force?

The labor force is part of the total population. How could something be part of the labor force but not the population? Perhaps you're misusing terms.. "work force" is not a technical term so it's definion is fuzzy and I'm not sure what you mean by it.

but are they taking the number the total pop or just the workable age group?

You think they're counting kindergarteners as unemployed? All labor force stats are from the adult civilian non institutional population.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The labor force is part of the total population. How could something be part of the labor force but not the population? Perhaps you're misusing terms.. "work force" is not a technical term so it's definion is fuzzy and I'm not sure what you mean by it.

but are they taking the number the total pop or just the workable age group?

You think they're counting kindergarteners as unemployed? All labor force stats are from the adult civilian non institutional population.

As I've told you go ahead and believe those numbers it doesn't mean a thing to me but when it get much worse don't blame bush. Blame yourself for believing a lie.

 

[pinqy]

To be precise, the 13 million unemployed are those people 16 years and older not in prison or mental institute who did not work at all November 6-12 (other than ppl on temp absence from a job) and who actively looked for work between October 16 and November 12 (unless on temporary layoff). That's the definition of unemployed.

OH so striking workers returning to work would not be unemployed?

If they were back at work, of course they would be classified as employed. Why would you count them as unemploed? If they weren't at work they would be unemployed.

Your question makes no sense. Maybe you were confused by "temp layoff?" those on temp layoff are classified as unemployed whether or not they're looking for work. Strikes are not temp layoffs.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

To be precise, the 13 million unemployed are those people 16 years and older not in prison or mental institute who did not work at all November 6-12 (other than ppl on temp absence from a job) and who actively looked for work between October 16 and November 12 (unless on temporary layoff). That's the definition of unemployed.

OH so striking workers returning to work would not be unemployed?

If they were back at work, of course they would be classified as employed. Why would you count them as unemploed? If they weren't at work they would be unemployed.

Your question makes no sense. Maybe you were confused by "temp layoff?" those on temp layoff are classified as unemployed whether or not they're looking for work. Strikes are not temp layoffs.

striking workers returning to work were shown to be new jobs by the government.

 

[pinqy]

OH so striking workers returning to work would not be unemployed?

If they were back at work, of course they would be classified as employed. Why would you count them as unemploed? If they weren't at work they would be unemployed.

Your question makes no sense. Maybe you were confused by "temp layoff?" those on temp layoff are classified as unemployed whether or not they're looking for work. Strikes are not temp layoffs.

striking workers returning to work were shown to be new jobs by the government.

Yes, and they were counted as lost jobs when they went on strike. So, went on strike, jobs lost, return from strike, jobs gained (back). How is that a problem?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If they were back at work, of course they would be classified as employed. Why would you count them as unemploed? If they weren't at work they would be unemployed.

Your question makes no sense. Maybe you were confused by "temp layoff?" those on temp layoff are classified as unemployed whether or not they're looking for work. Strikes are not temp layoffs.

striking workers returning to work were shown to be new jobs by the government.

Yes, and they were counted as lost jobs when they went on strike. So, went on strike, jobs lost, return from strike, jobs gained (back). How is that a problem?

Striking workers do not get UI so how can they be counted as new jobs ?