unemployment initial claims was 345,000, an increase of 12,000

[papau]

http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm

May 20, 2004
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT

SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA

In the week ending May 15, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 345,000, an increase of 12,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 333,000. The 4-week moving average was 333,500, a decrease of 2,750 from the previous week's revised average of 336,250.

The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.3 percent for the week ending May 8, a decrease of 0.1 percentage point from the prior week's unrevised rate of 2.4 percent.

The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending May 8 was 2,943,000, a decrease of 23,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 2,966,000. The 4-week moving average was 2,957,000, a decrease of 15,500 from the preceding week's revised average of 2,972,500.


UNADJUSTED DATA

The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 295,220 in the week ending May 15, an increase of 2,662 from the previous week. There were 362,276 initial claims in the comparable week in 2003.

The advance unadjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.2 percent during the week ending May 8, a decrease of 0.1 percentage point from the prior week. The advance unadjusted number for persons claiming UI benefits in state programs totaled 2,781,403, a decrease of 57,480 from the preceding week. A year earlier, the rate was 2.7 percent and the volume was 3,459,502.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/20/news/economy/jobless/index.htm
Jobless claims climb

Initial claims for unemployment insurance rise by 12,000, above forecasts for second straight week.
May 20, 2004: 8:53 AM EDT

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The number of Americans filing for unemployment assistance rose by 12,000 last week, the government reported, coming in above economists' estimates for the second consecutive week.

Initial claims for unemployment insurance rose to 345,000 in the week ended May 15 from a revised 333,000 the previous week. Economists had expected initial claims of 326,000, according to Briefing.com.

Following the report, equity futures pointed to a flat to lower opening and Treasurys gained in price, with the 10-year yield falling to 4.75 percent. <snip>
========================
Economists had expected the number of claims to fall to 328,000 from the 331,000 initially reported, according to the median forecast in a Bloomberg News survey

[Frodo]

1. A couple trend charts

The charts don't usually update with this week's data for a bit.

[papau]

2. We are better off than in 02 - but that is not saying much!

:-)

[daa]

3. Maybe you are nt

[Frodo]

4. Actually,

We're also at or better than we were for just about all of Clinton's first term. That IS saying something. Look at the previous "Bush hump" (for lack of a beter term). It didn't fall back to these levels until WELL after the election. At this point in the cycle it lookslike BushI's average was still over 400k.

As long as Iraq is playing a bigger role than I anticipated, we're ok. But if we have to fall back to employment numbers this will not be nerely as easy as '92 was.

[mhr]

6. Better Off For Whom - By Strict Numbers Maybe - By Income No

Peoples incomes are not growing and certainly not keeping up with the renewed inflation.

So who cares if you have a job when you are falling behind economically.

A slavish adherence to and narrow view of the stats is fraught with peril.

The question is what is the story behind the numbers.

Mr. or Mrs. white collar worker knows that working in his or her new manufacturing job, flipping burgers, puts them on a road straight to economic ruin.

[Frodo]

8. There's the new quote for the week

"who cares if you have a job"

Who would have thought we would see it here?

As for income. Perhas you haven't been following those numbers? Total income reported up at a 5.25% (annual) rate over the last five months? Disposable income up at almost 6.75% (annualized) over the same period? Wage and salary at about 4.1%?




Find January '01 on the chart above and compare the green line from then to today.

[mhr]

9. Unemployed Telecom Workers 60K Per Year To 20K Per Year, Yeah Right

Once again Frodo your voodoo with charts hides the reality for many High Tech workers.

For them, the economy is not better.

One suspects that your charts reflect all the ultra wealthy that have received a huge tax break from Bush and now have more to spend.

Mom and Pop on the street don't see it this way.

A slave to a chart will always miss the big picture.

[Frodo]

12. "A slave to a chart will always miss the big picture."

Perhaps.

But "the big picture" in your case is (understandably) just you. And we weren't going to lose your vote anyway.

I would suspect that the charts DO include the tax cuts under "disposable" income, but the other categories should just be work compensation. The ultra rich live of cap gains and dividends. That wouldn't show here.

A chart that reflects millions of data points would seem to be more "big picture" than you and the people you know.

[mhr]

5. Pretty Charts Frodo, But Unemployed Is Still Unemployed!

Unemployment may not play in your part of the country, but is is still a big issue here in Dallas.

Representative Pete Sessions had his head handed to him two weeks ago at a town hall meeting. The largely Telecom worker crowd was angry, surly, and mean.

By the end of the town hall, Sessions had this look of dejection on his face that clearly telegraphed - this has not gone well.

It is great for you that things are going well. Jobs and the jobless recovery are very much still in play in North Texas.

[Frodo]

7. Faster response than usual mhr

Glad to see you still on your game.

Unemployment may not play in your part of the country

Actually, I hope it plays pretty well. NC has been one of the hardest-hit states by this recession (textile & furniture industries going overseas) and we just got news that things had improved enoug that for the first time in YEARS our unemployment rate is a bit better than the national average (which itself has been improving).

Since we have a Democratic Governor running this Nov, it might be a good thing. And Bush wasn't going to lose NC in a close race anyway.

but is is still a big issue here in Dallas

"An issue"? Are we going to win TX in November? Are we going to lose fewer than 4-5 seats in the House there? Than the "issue" is irrelevant.

It is great for you that things are going well

I'm actually more nervous personally than I have been in years. Maybe ever. But I'm one guy - I don't show up as a rounding error on the chart.


But Unemployed Is Still Unemployed

And even at the bottom of that chart, the 250k who were laid off were "unemployed". It's relevant to the individual... but it was spectacular performance on Clinton's part.

[Skittles]

10. I hate post autopsies

can't you just summarize?

[mhr]

11. Bush Could Easily Lose Dallas, County - That Would Be A Big Embarrassment!

eom

[Frodo]

13. Let's hope that "embarrasing" Bush is not all we get.

Like Jed Bartlets response to "How will it feel if you win the Presidency but lose your home state?"

"Not as bas as if I win my home state but lose my home country"

What were the 2000 results?

[DaveSZ]

14. Jobless Claims Jump Last Week

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=KCNYQYZV2TI42CRBAEOCFEY?type=businessNews&storyID=5206130


Jobless Claims Jump Last Week

Thu May 20, 2004 08:59 AM ET


By Alister Bull
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of Americans filing initial claims for jobless aid grew more than expected last week, government data showed on Thursday, but analysts remained upbeat on the country's improving employment picture.

First-time claims for state unemployment benefits rose 12,000 to 345,000 in the week ended May 15, the Labor Department said.

Wall Street analysts had forecast a slight decline in claims to 326,000 from a revised 333,000 the previous week. This was initially reported at 331,000.

Initial market reaction was muted ahead of the Philadelphia Federal Reserve's May business activity survey, due out at 12:00 p.m. EDT. Forecasts are for a 32.0 reading compared with 32.5 in April in evidence that the economy is moderating from its red-hot pace.

-more

[papau]

15. As usual, the 14000 jump is made a 12000 jump by increasing "last week"

not that it is that important -

I just like sleaze that is consistant!

:-)

Seems half of the 288,000 new jobs were temp last month - which is better than the prior month's 280000 out of 308000 being temp jobs.

I am amused by how - each month - the DOL tries to make finding that fact out a bit more difficult.

But that "Birth Death" at home at work job guessing program is sure making the latest numbers look better - after making Jan 04 look terrible so as to have room to show a growing jobs number prior to the election.

I have a lot of confidence in the professionals that work for the Fed gov - - I wish I could trust the output released by their bosses (for example the 50% of an Actuary fellow named Gross is in charge of Soc Sec admin - he never bothered to get the remaining exams that would make him a FELLOW OF THE THE SOCIETY OF ACTUARIES - but what the hell - he believes in selling the GOP mantra of destroying SS amd Medicare in order to save them and is half qualified - so he must be competent and not a liar ?????)

[Frodo]

16. What's the spin on the "Leading Indicators" number then?

I love how tiny little revisions are spun as hiding the truth.

There will ALWAYS be revisions since some of the preliminary numbers are always estimates. When the "real" number comes in you have to report the correction.

But when it get's revised one way it's to make this week look "not as bad" as it otherwise would. When it gets revised the other way it's to distract from this week's number.

Take the leading indicator report this morning. This month's number came in a tad under expectations at .1%. But last month's respectable .3% was revised upwards to a very strong .8%

What are they covering up?

[papau]

17. 2000 is not a hide the truth spin - just a little sleaze that shows

character - if "revised" was unbiased positive and negative adjustments would occur at a similiar rate - but with bush ir is always a revision that makes this weeks number look better - or it seems that way!

On leading indicators the PR is just how many months they have been positive with few paying attention to the size of the positive (since the leading indicators have a record of not being correct a significant amount of the time).

But the revision upwards to 0.8 was something I had missed - thanks for the info - and no I don't offhand know what it means!

:-)

[Frodo]

18. :-)

I had wondered about that myself. I suspect it is in the nature of what type of revisions come in regularly. Perhaps the initial filings numbers are based off of "real" data from each state and the most common revisions are when a particular district/office/whatever did not get a report in on time. Perhaps they don't "estimate" those.

Most other economic reporting includes some estimate of numbers that have not come out (inventories in preliminary GDP for instance) and they may be more likely to swing both ways.

I loked back into the 90's and only found eight weekly reports. But all eight of them had slight upward revisions as well. It probably means nothing.