Jobless claims drop to almost a four-year low

[ProSense]

Jobless claims drop to almost a four-year low

The U.S. labor market got another jolt of good news Thursday when the government reported new claims for jobless benefits dropped to almost the lowest they have been in four years.

The Labor Department said seasonally adjusted claims dropped by 15,000 to 358,000 in the week ended Feb. 4. That's the second lowest level since April 2008, before the financial crisis that sent the U.S. economy into its worst recession since the Great Depression.

The four-week moving average, considered a more accurate reading of the health of the job market, dropped 11,000 to 366,250, also the lowest since April 2008.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims rising to 370,000. The claims data pointed to building strength in the labor market. The economy has had two straight months of job gains above 200,000 and the unemployment rate dropped to a three-year low of 8.3 percent in January.

- more -

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/09/10361337-jobless-claims-drop-to-almost-a-four-year-low

[Kingofalldems]

1. Uh oh---Bad news for the teabag/freeper set

They hate America and want it to fail.

[Tarheel_Dem]

14. Not just the "teabag/freeper set". As Bill Press said last night, there are some who claim to be...

"liberals" who seem to be hoping for the same thing. It's the weirdest phenomenon I think I've ever witnessed, but he's right.

[demgrrrll]

55. He is right.

[Censor-Ready]

51. Fact Check

The unemployment figures are fraudulent because we don't count everyone. Forget about baggertards and Randroids, to accept these new figures is foolish for a few reasons. The other is that to even keep pace with population growth (nevermind the bipartisan damage that's been done over the last 30 years), job growth would have to quadruple and hold at that pace for many months.

Obama has been expert at tossing history down the memory hole. Be wary of liberals who want to re-define unchecked economic implosion as the new normal. (see also Russia, 1989)

[Kingofalldems]

52. Interesting that you responded to me and not the OP

[WI_DEM]

2. this must be killing the GOP that the job picture appears to be getting better

at a stronger rate than expected (so far).

[Ikonoklast]

5. It's one reason the Republicans are all saber rattling over Iran.

Hoping to keep the oil traders nervous, bidding up prices, making gasoline more expensive, taking disposable income out of the hands of regular people, slowing the economy, then blame it all on Obama.

[jpak]

3. Doomer Fail

yup

[CAPHAVOC]

4. Unemployment claims 0%.

I don't understand these rates. If there are 200,000 jobs taken and 358,000 jobs lost how does that equal good news? Seems to me they are arguing about which end of the Titanic to stand on when it goes down.

[ProSense]

6. They

"I don't understand these rates."

...have been used for decades. Maybe it's time to try to understand them if you're interested.


A wealth of information: http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/eta20120227.htm

[bahrbearian]

7. -358,000 - 200,000 = -158,000 ,explain the good news

[karynnj]

10. Your arithematic is right, your equation is wrong

The two numbers are from different sources. The 200,000 is an estimate of the NET change in jobs - ie the jobs gained - the jobs lost. It is not correct to subtract the new claims from that number.

[GeorgeGist]

18. Actually the arithmetic AND the equation are wrong.

-358,000 - 200,000 = -558,000

[ProSense]

11. Well

-358,000 - 200,000 = -158,000 ,explain the good news

...if you insist on being simplistic, it's a lot better than, Feb 2009:

-667000 - (- 651000)

[bahrbearian]

12. Your still dodging the question

[mac56]

15. No one is dodging the question.

A very clear answer has been provided.

[bahrbearian]

16. How is it good news?

[CAPHAVOC]

20. Total jobs available is going down by 158,000?

[Yavin4]

43. Not all of the 358000 Jobs Lost Mean Actual People Were Let Go

and neither does the 200000 jobs gained mean that 200000 jobs were filled.

Often, companies eliminate jobs that someone retired or resigned from, and the company chose not to re-fill the position. Thus a lost job, but no actual person was fired.

A new job could have been created, but no one was actually hired for the job. Eventually though, someone will. Thus, a new job was created. Maybe the person that resigned is going to take the new job.

[Confusious]

56. And unemployment numbers don't really say jack

People dropped off the rolls, people underemployed, etc

[karynnj]

9. 200,000 was a NET gain

These two numbers come from different sources. Both sources are showing that things are getting better - though things are still not healthy.

[ProSense]

13. I doubt

anyone reading this data is that obtuse. This doesn't require an explanation. Still, thanks.

[bahrbearian]

17. Obtuse "though things are still not healthy."

[karynnj]

40. Not obtuse at all - Things are clearly getting better and that is good news

obligatory comment added to note that things still are tough.

[SunsetDreams]

8. K&R

[wilt the stilt]

19. To prosense and Bahbearian

This is how it is calculated. Anytime the new unemployment number is less than 400,000 means the economy is growing. Please take the time to study how this is calculated and why it has been done this way for decades.

[CAPHAVOC]

22. I think there were 358,000 people laid off. They filed unemployment.

So 358,000 jobs lost. Then there were 200,000 people hired in new jobs. This means there are now 158,000 jobs that no longer exist here. So where did the 158,000 jobs go? My bet is they packed up and headed to the 3rd world. If that is good news I sure hope never to see any bad news.

[treestar]

26. A lot of assumption there

The 200000 is net gain, so the numbers aren't the same thing - apples and oranges

Also not everyone who files unemployment represents a job lost. Some people who have been fired can file for unemployment.

[ProSense]

27. Think

I think there were 358,000 people laid off. They filed unemployment.

So 358,000 jobs lost. Then there were 200,000 people hired in new jobs. This means there are now 158,000 jobs that no longer exist here. So where did the 158,000 jobs go? My bet is they packed up and headed to the 3rd world. If that is good news I sure hope never to see any bad news.

...about what you are comparing: weekly job losses to monthly job creation. I mean, a person can file an unemployment claim this week and have a job by next week. They don't compare.

From the most recent Job Openings and Labor Turnover Summary:

<...>

Net Change in Employment

Large numbers of hires and separations occur every month throughout the business cycle. Net employment change results from the
relationship between hires and separations. When the number of hires exceeds the number of separations, employment rises, even if the hires level is steady or declining. Conversely, when the number of hires is less than the number of separations, employment declines, even if the hires level is steady or rising. Over the 12 months ending in December 2011, hires totaled 48.4 million and separations totaled 47.0 million, yielding a net employment gain of 1.4 million. These figures include workers who may have been hired and separated more than once during the year.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm

Via Calculated Risk:

[CAPHAVOC]

28. Really confused now.

400,000 hired...to 350,000 job openings? 200,000 quit their job and 200,000 laid off and fired. How did more people get hired than there were job openings?
The quits do not get unemployment.
A lot of people are going up in smoke in this chart. The lost people who were "separated" in the past and are not counted anywhere.
What is the definition of a Job opening?
Do the quits include small companies that go out of business?
Are those on welfare counted in this report?
What if someone is on welfare but looking for work.

Smoke and Mirrors...Hocus Pocus...Mumbo Jumbo. Phooey! I do not buy it.

[ProSense]

31. You're

Really confused now.

400,000 hired...to 350,000 job openings? 200,000 quit their job and 200,000 laid off and fired. How did more people get hired than there were job openings?

...confused because you're reading it wrong.

[quaker bill]

49. Actually the math for the 200,000 gain is net

As a gross simplification, +558,000 - 358,000 = +200,000.

It actually does not quite work like that. First, more people lose their jobs than the number that can file unemployment insurance claims. As an example, people fired for cause cannot apply for unemployment.

The jobs gained is simple, they count the number of people working. If the total number of people working this month is 200,000 more than last month, then the number is +200,000.

[RBInMaine]

50. This is FIRST TIME unemployment claims for a week. But then you have to consider people who FOUND

jobs as well which this number doesn't tell you; the number of people who CAME OFF unemployment. People are constantly filing for unemployment while others are getting re-hired. At the end of the month, you get the net job gains. They are two different ideas; two different sets of numbers. They are apples and oranges. You need to differentiate the concepts.

[ProSense]

23. Actually

358,000 is a sign of rapid growth. Here's last week's http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002256690

[liberal N proud]

21. Que the nay-sayers

The same ones denying climate change, can deny economic recovery.

[CAPHAVOC]

29. My Sunday Paper.

Has an employment section. It lists job openings. It used to be 20 pages. Now it is 4 pages. Please explain how that can indicate "recovery".

[ProSense]

32. Interesting

My Sunday Paper.

Has an employment section. It lists job openings. It used to be 20 pages. Now it is 4 pages. Please explain how that can indicate "recovery".

Have you considered that most of those jobs on the 20 pages were bogus or that more employers are now advertising online, and via some of the larger jobs board? It could be that your local paper isn't doing that well.

Still, the size of your local paper's employment section as a measure of the recovery is ludicrous.

[CAPHAVOC]

35. Online

I did think about that. I hope i am wrong about this economy. A lot of people who have lower income jobs are not "online". I am not buying in to this recovery spin. I think it is just to try to get elected. Obama got elected when the so called numbers were a lot better. He said then it was the worst economy in 50 years. Now the economy is even worse. The GOP is trying to get elected by saying the bad economy...True...is Obamas fault...False. This mess has been building since before Obama was elected. Do you honestly think we are in an economic recovery?

[ProSense]

36. Are

I did think about that. I hope i am wrong about this economy. A lot of people who have lower income jobs are not "online". I am not buying in to this recovery spin. I think it is just to try to get elected. Obama got elected when the so called numbers were a lot better. He said then it was the worst economy in 50 years. Now the economy is even worse. The GOP is trying to get elected by saying the bad economy...True...is Obamas fault...False. This mess has been building since before Obama was elected. Do you honestly think we are in an economic recovery?

...you related to Mitt Romney?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002262434

Yes, I "honestly think we are in an economic recovery" and I don't believe you "hope" you're "wrong about this economy."

In fact, your point is nonsensical.

[CAPHAVOC]

39. I am trying to create my own job. Around here the job prospects are awful.

A report does not make me feel better about it. How is it where you are? Here in Tampa is slow as molasses. Maybe this Summer.

[Yavin4]

44. Florida's Economy, Like Nevada, Ariz, and CA, became Highly Dependent on Residential Real Estate...

otherwise known as the housing bubble. Speculative Real Estate was like heroin to these states. The housing bubble brought in huge state revenues, and they created a lot of jobs in construction, finance, law, insurance, the mortgage industry, Home Depot, Lowes, etc.

It was unsustainable, and it's going to take a decade or more to get those economies back into shape.

If you cannot wait that long, my suggestion is that you move.

[lovelyrita]

47. I live in Central Florida.

Moving is nearly impossible here if you own because lots of people are underwater here and by a lot. I owe over a $100,000 more than my house is worth.

[CAPHAVOC]

54. I am central florida too. I rent thank god.

But everyone here is getting foreclosed or owe more than the place is worth. My neighbor is a handyman and is scraping by with little jobs. I am a Marine Construction Tug Captain and our company is down to a skeleton maintenance crew with 80% laid off including me. I hope it gets better by the Summer. The value of the place where I rent went fro 1 million down to 300,000 and they can not sell it. What a disaster. It is not helping when people tell me the economy is improving. I do not see it.

[mac56]

37. A couple of posters here are trying to clarify for you.

I found their posts to be very clear and understandable.

Sometimes people see only what they want to see, and don't see what they disagree with.

[NoGOPZone]

33. Because no one uses the paper to advertise anymore? nt

[mac56]

38. Newspapers are scaling back on the number of column inches

they provide for any one section, including classified ads.

Also, it's possible advertisers are buying smaller, simpler ads rather than large display ads.

These may be factors as well.

[karynnj]

42. Did you notice that classified ads shrunk in the same interval?

This is one of many reasons the newspapers are failing. At one point you would use the local paper to sell a used couch, bike etc - not so now.

[CAPHAVOC]

45. Now it is Craigs list.

[karynnj]

46. Exactly - you answered you own question

Years ago people looked at the employment ads in the paper, where do you think they look now? Why do you think that would remain the same and that people would look in their local papers?

[Puzzledtraveller]

24. Applications for assistance

at my office have seemed to be less than this time last year.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

25. Read it and weep Boehner

Obama's stimulus worked

[Johnny2X2X]

30. Great News

I don't understand the Liberals who seem to be sulking over good jobs reports. Perhaps they are upset because they wish Obama would have been more liberal in his policies to help the country. The stimulus should have been bigger.

I think Obama wanted more liberal policies and a bigger stimulus as well, but he got the best deal he could get at the time. He is extremely pragmatic on important issues and I think that's the only reason we've gotten any help at all.

Great news for America and for many suffering people out there.

[BumRushDaShow]

34. And because of news like this

the media has coughed up the 3rd of the triumverate of distraction in their beloved "Guns, God, Gays" wedge issues reporting by heralding the premier of a new feature reporter who brings us the obligatory "Guns" story:

Today marks the debut of Rossen Reports, a new unit led by national investigative correspondent Jeff Rossen. First out of the gate: A hidden camera investigation exposing how easy it is for anyone – even criminals – to buy dangerous weapons.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46316454/ns/today-today_rossen_reports/

Anything to paper over the recovery-in-progress.

[FSogol]

41. Good news. K & R. n/t

[DCBob]

48. Wow.. lowest rate since April 2008.

Thats prior to the worst of the recession. I think we can safely call this a recovery now.

[Bed and Nun]

53. Imagine how much better things would be

if the stimulus had not been watered down with all the republican tax credits and giveaways.

[emulatorloo]

57. But Obama wants to behead Christians and force me to take birth control!