U.S. weekly jobless claims post largest drop in almost two years

[Faun]

S.J., I really don't know if you are a businessman or not, but I work for a large company, and have had a raise every year since 2010. An 8% raise this year. You see, we are about 6 million men short in craftsmen. Now we saw a crash in 2008 that nearly put us into the Second Great Republican Depression. And we have pulled out of that steadily every year that President Obama was President. Market went from 6500 to nearly 20,000 under President Obama. Unemployment from over 10% to less than 5%. By any measure, the economic situation made a remarkable recovery under President Obama.

Now the orange clown took office with everything going his way. We will see how the economy is by the end of 2019. That will tell how effective a President the clown is.

I don't know how honest you are being either, Old Rocks, so I won't comment on your claims of raises, etc. I will comment on your "Republican Depression". The catalyst for it was the collapse of the housing market, thanks to Barney Frank, Franklin Raines, and other Democrats who lied about the stability of the housing market while they were building a house of cards with their sub-prime loan programs. I know you like to blame Republicans for it but facts are facts and Republicans did not create the housing bubble.
Regarding the stock market, investors will invest in whatever companies they feel will do well under the policies of a given administration. It doesn't mean that administration is good for the economy. If that were the case, we would have had better than 3% annual growth under Obama.
And the unemployment numbers cited did not take into account the millions of people who dropped out of the work force because there was no longer any point in looking for a job.
If you want to discuss it any further you'll have to cease with the adolescent remarks like "orange clown". I'm not going to debate a child.

Too funny how you blame a member of the minority party, and not the majority party which controlled Congress for many years.

If you're talking about the housing crisis I suggest you do a little research.

Oh, this has been researched to death. The bottom line is... one member of the minority party in the House does not have the power to do what you're blaming him for. The party running the Congress for 12 years does.

Not by you, apparently.

You are mistaken as usual.

 

[S.J.]

I don't know how honest you are being either, Old Rocks, so I won't comment on your claims of raises, etc. I will comment on your "Republican Depression". The catalyst for it was the collapse of the housing market, thanks to Barney Frank, Franklin Raines, and other Democrats who lied about the stability of the housing market while they were building a house of cards with their sub-prime loan programs. I know you like to blame Republicans for it but facts are facts and Republicans did not create the housing bubble.
Regarding the stock market, investors will invest in whatever companies they feel will do well under the policies of a given administration. It doesn't mean that administration is good for the economy. If that were the case, we would have had better than 3% annual growth under Obama.
And the unemployment numbers cited did not take into account the millions of people who dropped out of the work force because there was no longer any point in looking for a job.
If you want to discuss it any further you'll have to cease with the adolescent remarks like "orange clown". I'm not going to debate a child.

Too funny how you blame a member of the minority party, and not the majority party which controlled Congress for many years.

If you're talking about the housing crisis I suggest you do a little research.

Oh, this has been researched to death. The bottom line is... one member of the minority party in the House does not have the power to do what you're blaming him for. The party running the Congress for 12 years does.

Not by you, apparently.

You are mistaken as usual.

No I'm not. The housing crisis was a result of liberal social engineering. Any honest person recognizes that. That's why you don't.

 

[Faun]

Too funny how you blame a member of the minority party, and not the majority party which controlled Congress for many years.

If you're talking about the housing crisis I suggest you do a little research.

Oh, this has been researched to death. The bottom line is... one member of the minority party in the House does not have the power to do what you're blaming him for. The party running the Congress for 12 years does.

Not by you, apparently.

You are mistaken as usual.

No I'm not. The housing crisis was a result of liberal social engineering. Any honest person recognizes that. That's why you don't.

LOL

You've already proven you're nuts. Again, blaming a member of the minority party in the House proves that. Somehow, you think the Republicans controlling the Congress for 12 years leading up to the crisis had nothing to do with it. That's how the rightard brain functions.

 

[pinqy]

And the unemployment numbers cited did not take into account the millions of people who dropped out of the work force because there was no longer any point in looking for a job.

Well, if we add in discouraged workers then the U-4 measurement has gone from over 11% to under 5%. Instead of over 10% to under 5%. Huh. So you want to make the improvement look better?

But please explain why you think that some people not trying to find work should be classified as unemployed, but not all. I've never understood the argument.

 

[S.J.]

If you're talking about the housing crisis I suggest you do a little research.

Oh, this has been researched to death. The bottom line is... one member of the minority party in the House does not have the power to do what you're blaming him for. The party running the Congress for 12 years does.

Not by you, apparently.

You are mistaken as usual.

No I'm not. The housing crisis was a result of liberal social engineering. Any honest person recognizes that. That's why you don't.

LOL

You've already proven you're nuts. Again, blaming a member of the minority party in the House proves that. Somehow, you think the Republicans controlling the Congress for 12 years leading up to the crisis had nothing to do with it. That's how the rightard brain functions.

You can repeat that same line as many times as you want but it doesn't make your argument any more legitimate.

 

[S.J.]

Well, if we add in discouraged workers then the U-4 measurement has gone from over 11% to under 5%. Instead of over 10% to under 5%.

It didn't go to under 5%. Are you having trouble understanding that? They stopped counting the unemployed who had stopped looking.

 

[Faun]

Oh, this has been researched to death. The bottom line is... one member of the minority party in the House does not have the power to do what you're blaming him for. The party running the Congress for 12 years does.

Not by you, apparently.

You are mistaken as usual.

No I'm not. The housing crisis was a result of liberal social engineering. Any honest person recognizes that. That's why you don't.

LOL

You've already proven you're nuts. Again, blaming a member of the minority party in the House proves that. Somehow, you think the Republicans controlling the Congress for 12 years leading up to the crisis had nothing to do with it. That's how the rightard brain functions.

You can repeat that same line as many times as you want but it doesn't make your argument any more legitimate.

My words expose what an idiot you are for promoting the nonsense you post. Again, you think a member of the minority party in the House is to blame for that mess; and not the majority party in control of the Congress for the 12 years leading up to said mess.

Watch as I stump you again....

Cite the bill(s) Barney Frank either passed or blocked which you contend allowed lenders to dole out the toxic loans which led to the financial collapse......

 

[pinqy]

Well, if we add in discouraged workers then the U-4 measurement has gone from over 11% to under 5%. Instead of over 10% to under 5%.

It didn't go to under 5%.

The U-4, which includes discouraged workers (stopped looking for work because they believed there were none for them) is currently at 4.8% Table A-15

Are you having trouble understanding that? They stopped counting the unemployed who had stopped looking.

no, they're still counted, they're just not classified as unemployed. Looking for work has always been part of the definition of unemployed...people not looking for work have never been part of the definition.
Why would you want to classify them as unemployed? If someone is not trying to work, he won't get hired EVEN IF THERE ARE PLENTY OF JOBS AVAILABLE. What part of that is unclear?

 

[danielpalos]

U6 is the "truer" unemployment rate.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Trump's economy.

 

[S.J.]

My words expose what an idiot you are for promoting the nonsense you post.

Your words expose that you are a liar. When you feel you can stop assigning statements to me that I have not made, we can talk, but I know you are not capable of an honest discussion.

 

[Rocko]

PRESIDENTS DON'T CREATE JOBS! THE BEST THEY CAN DO IS GET OUT OF THE WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Which is what Trump is doing by decreasing regulations.

 

[S.J.]

Well, if we add in discouraged workers then the U-4 measurement has gone from over 11% to under 5%. Instead of over 10% to under 5%.

It didn't go to under 5%.

The U-4, which includes discouraged workers (stopped looking for work because they believed there were none for them) is currently at 4.8% Table A-15

Are you having trouble understanding that? They stopped counting the unemployed who had stopped looking.

no, they're still counted, they're just not classified as unemployed. Looking for work has always been part of the definition of unemployed...people not looking for work have never been part of the definition.
Why would you want to classify them as unemployed? If someone is not trying to work, he won't get hired EVEN IF THERE ARE PLENTY OF JOBS AVAILABLE. What part of that is unclear?

U-6 is the more accurate number. And you should read the note at the bottom of the chart. Also, note that the numbers started moving downward AFTER the election.

 

[ClosedCaption]

This, even before the tax break to businesses, the border tariff AND the renegotiation of NAFTA has been concluded.

It's the economy stupid! Get 'er done Trump! Bring back jobs, punish those nations who abuse American free markets (there are many) and let's Libertarian economic values return to the U.S

U.S. weekly jobless claims post largest drop in almost two years


New applications for U.S. unemployment benefits recorded their biggest drop in nearly two years last week, pointing to a further tightening in the labor market.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits declined 25,000 to a seasonally adjusted 234,000 for the week ended April 1, the Labor Department said on Thursday. The drop was the largest since the week ending April 25, 2015, and unwound recent increases that had lifted claims to a three-month high.

"The lower jobless claims filings show the economy continues to show improvement which is important news with the long expansion expected to eventually tire somewhere down the line given its longevity," said Chris Rupkey, chief economist at MUFG Union Bank in New York.

94.2 million people out of the workforce. Trump's just hiding behind phony numbers.

"I heard the real number is 25% maybe even 30% Unemployment. Some people have even told me its as high as 35 or 40%"

- Trump 2016

 

[pinqy]

Well, if we add in discouraged workers then the U-4 measurement has gone from over 11% to under 5%. Instead of over 10% to under 5%.

It didn't go to under 5%.

The U-4, which includes discouraged workers (stopped looking for work because they believed there were none for them) is currently at 4.8% Table A-15

Are you having trouble understanding that? They stopped counting the unemployed who had stopped looking.

no, they're still counted, they're just not classified as unemployed. Looking for work has always been part of the definition of unemployed...people not looking for work have never been part of the definition.
Why would you want to classify them as unemployed? If someone is not trying to work, he won't get hired EVEN IF THERE ARE PLENTY OF JOBS AVAILABLE. What part of that is unclear?

U-6 is the more accurate number.

In what way do you figure? The U-3 and U-6 don't measure the same thing and the definitions used in the U-6 are more subjective. I've never understood how anyone could think that someone working 34 hours a week should really be considered unemployed.

And you should read the note at the bottom of the chart.

I've read it many many times. What about it?

Also, note that the numbers started moving downward AFTER the election.

No they didn't:

 

[S.J.]

Well, if we add in discouraged workers then the U-4 measurement has gone from over 11% to under 5%. Instead of over 10% to under 5%.

It didn't go to under 5%.

The U-4, which includes discouraged workers (stopped looking for work because they believed there were none for them) is currently at 4.8% Table A-15

Are you having trouble understanding that? They stopped counting the unemployed who had stopped looking.

no, they're still counted, they're just not classified as unemployed. Looking for work has always been part of the definition of unemployed...people not looking for work have never been part of the definition.
Why would you want to classify them as unemployed? If someone is not trying to work, he won't get hired EVEN IF THERE ARE PLENTY OF JOBS AVAILABLE. What part of that is unclear?

U-6 is the more accurate number.

In what way do you figure? The U-3 and U-6 don't measure the same thing and the definitions used in the U-6 are more subjective. I've never understood how anyone could think that someone working 34 hours a week should really be considered unemployed.

And you should read the note at the bottom of the chart.

I've read it many many times. What about it?

Also, note that the numbers started moving downward AFTER the election.

No they didn't:

2016 looks pretty flat to me, even goes up a little in Jul. Now it's dropping.

 

[S.J.]

I've read it many many times. What about it?

It's not saying the same thing you're saying about those who have given up. It says they have looked for work within the past 12 months and that they've made themselves available. This is what you said:

Why would you want to classify them as unemployed? If someone is not trying to work, he won't get hired EVEN IF THERE ARE PLENTY OF JOBS AVAILABLE. What part of that is unclear?

You're trying to make them look uninterested in working, no matter what and that they would not take a job even if one was available. That's misleading.

 

[pinqy]

I've read it many many times. What about it?

It's not saying the same thing you're saying about those who have given up. It says they have looked for work within the past 12 months and that they've made themselves available.

First off, the U=6 includes all marginally attached, not just "those who have given up."
And yes, they are could take a job if offered, but they are not currently looking.

This is what you said:

Why would you want to classify them as unemployed? If someone is not trying to work, he won't get hired EVEN IF THERE ARE PLENTY OF JOBS AVAILABLE. What part of that is unclear?

You're trying to make them look uninterested in working, no matter what and that they would not take a job even if one was available. That's misleading.

No, I didn't say or imply that they wouldn't TAKE a jog if one was available...that's part of the definition of marginally attached ... that they want a job and could accept one if offered. But since they're not looking for a job, how do you think they would be offered one?

If someone isn't looking for work, and the perfect job for him opens up, how do you suppose he would know about it or get offered it?
Someone not trying to work will not get hired. You don't agree?

 

[Old Rocks]

S.J., I really don't know if you are a businessman or not, but I work for a large company, and have had a raise every year since 2010. An 8% raise this year. You see, we are about 6 million men short in craftsmen. Now we saw a crash in 2008 that nearly put us into the Second Great Republican Depression. And we have pulled out of that steadily every year that President Obama was President. Market went from 6500 to nearly 20,000 under President Obama. Unemployment from over 10% to less than 5%. By any measure, the economic situation made a remarkable recovery under President Obama.

Now the orange clown took office with everything going his way. We will see how the economy is by the end of 2019. That will tell how effective a President the clown is.

I don't know how honest you are being either, Old Rocks, so I won't comment on your claims of raises, etc. I will comment on your "Republican Depression". The catalyst for it was the collapse of the housing market, thanks to Barney Frank, Franklin Raines, and other Democrats who lied about the stability of the housing market while they were building a house of cards with their sub-prime loan programs. I know you like to blame Republicans for it but facts are facts and Republicans did not create the housing bubble.
Regarding the stock market, investors will invest in whatever companies they feel will do well under the policies of a given administration. It doesn't mean that administration is good for the economy. If that were the case, we would have had better than 3% annual growth under Obama.
And the unemployment numbers cited did not take into account the millions of people who dropped out of the work force because there was no longer any point in looking for a job.
If you want to discuss it any further you'll have to cease with the adolescent remarks like "orange clown". I'm not going to debate a child.

Fact Sheet: America's Ownership Society: Expanding Opportunities

• Expanding Homeownership. The President believes that homeownership is the cornerstone of America's vibrant communities and benefits individual families by building stability and long-term financial security. In June 2002, President Bush issued America's Homeownership Challenge to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to encourage them to join the effort to close the gap that exists between the homeownership rates of minorities and non-minorities. The President also announced the goal of increasing the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families before the end of the decade. Under his leadership, the overall U.S. homeownership rate in the second quarter of 2004 was at an all time high of 69.2 percent. Minority homeownership set a new record of 51 percent in the second quarter, up 0.2 percentage point from the first quarter and up 2.1 percentage points from a year ago. President Bush's initiative to dismantle the barriers to homeownership includes:
  • American Dream Downpayment Initiative, which provides down payment assistance to approximately 40,000 low-income families;
  • Affordable Housing. The President has proposed the Single-Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit, which would increase the supply of affordable homes;
  • Helping Families Help Themselves. The President has proposed increasing support for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunities Program; and
  • Simplifying Homebuying and Increasing Education. The President and HUD want to empower homebuyers by simplifying the home buying process so consumers can better understand and benefit from cost savings. The President also wants to expand financial education efforts so that families can understand what they need to do to become homeowners.

Until the orange clown stops telling lies in every other sentence, he will remain the orange clown. Above is from President Bush's own website. Remember, at the oval office is where the buck stops on that kind of policy.

As for those millions that dropped out of the work force, there are 5.8 million good paying jobs going begging right now. Millwrights, electricians, and automation people are in demand, and these jobs pay as much as 100K a year. The problem is not the lack of jobs, the problem is lack of education and training in the workforce of this nation.

Well now, President Obama inherited a very destabalized economy, and left with a very strong one. President Bush Jr. inherited a strong economy and left it in shambles. The orange clown has inherited a strong economy, so we will see what he makes of it by the end of 2019.

 

[Old Rocks]

People are starting to see light at the end of the tunnel.

We can thank Trump for this.

Really? Let us hope that light is not an oncoming train. LOL