Initial jobless claims fall to 466,000, lowest since September 2008

[DrToast]

The number of Americans filing claims for unemployment benefits fell last week to the lowest level since September 2008 as the economic recovery encourages companies to fire fewer workers.

Initial jobless claims declined to 466,000 in the week ended Nov. 21 from 501,000 a week earlier, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The number of people collecting unemployment insurance dropped in the prior week, while those getting extended payments also declined.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aDkGkxyKlDVk&pos=2

A lot of people are extremely pessimistic for the 2010 elections, but with job growth likely resuming within the next couple of months, I think people are too bearish.

[MercutioATC]

1. "job growth likely resuming within the next couple of months"?????

You DO realize that job growth would be a positive number, right?

How do you see us going from negative 460,000 jobs to any positive number in "a couple of months"??

[DCBob]

3. Anything below 300,000 is good.

That's about the break even point with job creation.

[MercutioATC]

9. We need to GAIN 100k-125k jobs per month just to break even (expanding work force).

Please explain why you think losing 300k jobs is a "break even point".

[Teaser]

11. admit it: you don't understand this number, do you?

there are always jobless claims, even in a growing economy.

[HughMoran]

20. There's a TON of ignorance and slanted number viewing from the doomhaters

I find it strange that people would distort reality or not spend the time to do a little research - all so they can cut down our Democratic President on a site that is dedicated to promoting the Democratic Party. :shrug:

[SKKY]

48. From my limited understanding on this particular number...

...we can safely say we're creating jobs when the jobless claims get below 250-300K. Does that sound reasonable to yo?

[DrToast]

12. You suck at understanding things. (nt)

[DCBob]

16. Actually break even is closer to 400,000 jobless claims

That's why anything around or below 300,000 jobless claims is considered good. That will provide a net gain of about 100,000+ jobs which is needed to maintain a healthy employment situation.

Here's a definition of the jobless claims report:

"A weekly report published by the U.S. Department of Labor that shows how many people have filed initial claims for unemployment insurance.... If initial filings move above the benchmark 400,000 level, the labor market is said to be contracting."

http://www.yourdictionary.com/finance/jobless-claims-report

[Kber]

38. This number is represents people filing for first time unemployment

it's a weekly number released every Thursday.

At the end of the month, the gov't releases a different report that details the net loss/gain number in which they tally up the # of jobs lost plus the number of new jobs created. The general wisdom is that if fewer than 300K people are filing for new benefits, that we probably gained more jobs than we lost for that week, and therefore have a net job creation.

There are two different reports, one weekly and one monthly, that we need to look at.

Kristin

[Garam_Masala]

49. Because other side of coin is new hires

which is no where seen in the initial claims by laid off workers.

[Clio the Leo]

22. TY, did not know that......

.... I have been waiting not so patiently for this job numbers to break the 500,000 mark since ....... oh ..... January .... so I was very happy to see the news this morning. I was thinking like Mercutio does that we need to start gaining numbers for the rate to improve.

Good to know.

[Zynx]

31. Actually, 380,000 seems to be the cut off for that.

Getting below 300,000 is very very rare indeed, particularly with a labor force that grows over time.

[DrToast]

4. You don't understand that series

Initial jobless claims is not a net job creation number. It only tells you one side of the story: layoffs.

Initial jobless claims of around 400,000 is consistent with net job growth.

[uponit7771]

6. Hours worked will tell us the true story, that has to increase otherwise we're still in a position

...of losing jobs and pressure on the GDP.

[Teaser]

8. WRONG

this is the weekly jobless claims.

Even when there is strong job growth in the economy, weakly jobless numbers are still going to run around 300,000-400,000 claims.


link

specifically, this graph:

However, many economists believe that claims must drop to around 425,000 to signal actual growth in employment. Economists expect 145,000 payroll job cuts for November, a slight improvement from the net job loss of 190,000 last month.

the number you are thinking of is the payroll cuts number.

There will always be jobless claims in any economy, good or bad.

[phleshdef]

14. You are missing the fact that even during our best times of employment, people still lose jobs.

[doc03]

18. There was a economic group that predicted

we would be adding around 200,000 jobs per month by the end of the 1Q of 2010. Of course they are more optimistic than even the government.

[twiceshy]

21. This number needs to be taken in context....

I don't believe it includes people whose unemployment benifits have expired - they just fall off the back of the truck. It also does not include people ineligible for unemployment. My eyes tell me things are not improving very fast if at all. Things like more shutttered stores, more mass layoffs in the news, slow to non-existant holiday retail hiring.

Small businesses are holding their breath wating for HCR and Cap and Trade to sort themselves out and to see what the impact on their bottom line will be. I know a couple business owners and they are not hiring at all. The administration needs to promote policies that encourage entrepreneurs.

[quiller4]

45. Because the same article that reported the unemployment numbers

also reported major employers plans to ramp up hiring in January and February.

[Craftsman]

2. When you slit a pig throat the bleeding eventually slows

It slows from lack of blood not healing.

[uponit7771]

5. Hours worked is the number to look at after lower claims,if it doesn't increase then this theory is

...right.

[DrToast]

7. There's 140,000,000 milllion people employed in this country

So how do you figure there aren't any jobs left to lose?

[Craftsman]

10. Besides many organizations ar loath to hire or fire between Thanksgiving and Christmas

[HughMoran]

41. Haw many balls can you juggle?

Your posts are not very well thought out.

[Aramchek]

42. this was a dumbass analogy the first 20 times you posted it

[ClarkUSA]

13. Excellent news. The lagging indicator seems to be slowly making up lost ground.

Kudos to President Obama and his economic team for turning the ship around.

Hey, that's a poem! ;)

[AllentownJake]

15. December will be a steady month

Businesses don't do much hiring or firing during December.

Christmas sales will determine what January means.

[Kber]

39. Except retail of course. Otherwise they are waiting for their budget cycle to renew in January

[karynnj]

17. I agree

Things are still tough and will continue to be so, but the fact is that there seems to be an almost unprecedented unwillingness to accept that things are 1) not getting worse and 2) things are very slowly beginning to improve.

The stock market turned in March and the market always rebounds faster than jobs and other real economy measures. The fact is that both the 2nd and 3rd quarter had positive growth in GDP. The fact is that a LOT of positive growth is needed to get back to where we were in late 2007 when this recession started - and even then we need a level of growth greater than that seen just to account for natural growth.

What I have seen is that the malls are no longer startlingly empty places. They are not as busy as in the 1990s or even in 2007, but there is a real difference. But, there are still strip malls here in NJ with only half the storefronts occupied.

The perspective that has to be considered is where we are relative to where we were last fall or winter. The danger of a complete financial market crisis was real and the economy was in free fall. At this point, just the fact that we have turned the corner is real and something worth praising. One legacy might be a new sense of frugality and less willingness to assume with certainty that assets will grow.

[Kdillard]

19. Thanks. Kick and rec

[Politics_Guy25]

23. This is STAGGERINGLY good news

Down to 466,000 this week is better than I possibly could have imagined a few weeks ago. We're getting there.

K and R and thanks President Obama!!

[PBS Poll-435]

25. For sure

Great news.

[livetohike]

24. The numbers are trending in the right direction and that's a major

change. Here's to companies starting to hire after the first of the year. The GOP will have nothing to gripe about.

[Igel]

26. Yes, they will.

Remember Clinton's election? "It's the economy, stupid?" Well, a lot of people were convinced that we were in a recession for the election in 1992. A lot thought we were in a recession until Clinton's stimulus package was implemented.

The recession ended a good ways before the 1992 elections. Unemployment had come down a bit before the 1992 elections and continued to fall after the elections.

It's not the absolute unemployment rate. It's not whether or not we're in recession. It's not about externally available facts. It's how wealthy and well off people perceive themselves.

Now look at 2005-2008. Dems ridiculed the economy greatly in 2005 and 2006. The unemployment rate usually cited--equivalent to the 10.2% that we so dislike now--was under 5% until 2008. So were people happy? Did you hear GOPers enthusiastically saying that surely the dems have nothing to gripe about? But people didn't *feel* better off.

It works the same in other areas. The $400 billion deficit--with $200 billion being "stimulus", passed with not insignificant dem support--in 2008 was deemed untenable, a horror to behold. Notice that we were already in the recession as NERB came to define it, so deficit spending should be retroactively dubbed "good". But it wasn't and isn't. In fact, we sit and complain about how GOPers are shortsighted, both not decrying a $400 billion deficit and saying nasty things about a $1.4 trillion deficit.

[livetohike]

29. You're right. The MSM is helping spread the deficit is bad horror

but where were they when Bush was running it up? Once the unemployment rate starts coming down, the Dems can point to the fact that this administration's economic plan is working. I shouldn't have said the GOP "won't have anything to gripe about" because we know they will pick at everything.

Have a nice Thanksgiving :-).

[AllentownJake]

27. Actually the number was 543,926

But they seasonally adjusted it and 68,000 more people filing claims than last week turned into less people filing claims this week.

The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 543,926 in the week ending Nov. 21, an increase of 68,080 from the previous week. There were 609,138 initial claims in the comparable week in 2008.

[Zynx]

33. I encourage you to look at this table before you embarass yourself like this:

http://www.ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp

Jobless claims on a non-seasonally adjusted basis in September had fallen 540,000 from the highest non-seasonally adjusted point of the year, but only 120,000 from the highest seasonally adjusted point of the year. I didn't exactly see you saying, "Hey guys, the jobless claims here are a lot lower than the government says. See! They are only 411,000 when the government says they are 550,000."

Now, seasonal adjustments do create some distortions when the seasonal patterns don't materialize and they are not a science to begin with. I have constructed seasonal adjustments at the Wisconsin State Budget Office for building permits and new home sales in our state to try to figure out whether we have hit bottom or not. Non-seasonally adjusted data is too noisy to interpret.

I encourage you to look at the entire history of that data set and look to see that the seasonal pattern has held over decades.

[ProSense]

28. More

good news

[avaistheone1]

30. Where's the beef?

Where are the new jobs?

[AllentownJake]

32. There aren't the negative number was a statistical adjustment

Jobless claims actually increased last week, and no I'm not making that up.

[Zynx]

34. You're not making it up, but you don't know what you're talking about.

The statistical adjustment is not some government conspiracy. They tell you what the seasonal adjustment will be at the beginning of the year for each week:

http://www.ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp

You can go back and look at the last forty years of this data set. I dare you to look at NSA data and draw any conclusions about business cycles without putting the data through a seasonal adjustment filter. I dare you.

[AllentownJake]

35. It may not be a government conspiracy

However, I'm guessing the conditions for the statistical adjustment and the reasoning doesn't exactly apply the same this year. Seeing the reason for the statistical adjustment crashed last month.

Here is another statistical adjustment they are going to make, they are going to revise the January numbers way downward because of seasonal hiring, despite the fact, not much seasonal hiring has occurred in comparison to previous years.

Now here is the deal, if there were suddenly more jobs because of some quirk in the current economic condition, do you think they would revise the number downward (in another report), or report less layoffs downward for a seasonal adjustment?


Like GDP these reports are meant to disguise the actual picture as much as possible and report the best possible news.

[Zynx]

36. Once again, the seasonal adjustments were calculated at the beginning fo the year and were published

To the extent you don't think they apply, you can adjust them yourself. They are right there for God and everybody. If you think you have a better handle on it, go ahead. However, historically there is a pattern of a spike in claims the week before Thanksgiving. They increased 80,000 on an NSA basis in 2006, but there was no crash in the labor market. The same thing has happened throughout the entire history of the series. Most of the seasonal adjustments this year seem to have been appropriate.

Also, during September and August when layoffs were at a lower rate, I didn't see you saying that the government was artificially inflating jobless claims through its adjustments. On an NSA basis, those numbers didn't look so bad, particularly since the beginning of the year. However, SA numbers would have told you that jobless claims were still quite high.

Quite frankly, spend some time looking at the historical data and the SA factors they have used. They have adjustments for every week of the year and you can see what they are. They change over time as labor patterns change and when put in the context of a four week moving average, prove to be a pretty accurate indicator of true labor market conditions. Sometimes the weeks are slightly different, but even in the case of severe economic crises, even the present, they hold pretty well. There is no doubt at all that jobless claims are on a downward trajectory. It's possible that this adjustment was too large, but on a 4-week MA basis you will see an accurate reflection.

Arguments against seasonal adjustments are common, but are generally ill-informed. This is a classic case.

[AllentownJake]

37. Thank you for the information

I'll consider it and do more research.

However, saying that the claims are due to the housing/construction industry typical cycle might not apply in 2009 and again, the seasonal hiring adjustment will not apply in January of 2010 either unless it is adjusted to reflect the reality of the seasonal hiring of November to December 2009.

[JVS]

40. "economic recovery encourages companies to fire fewer workers. "

:eyes:

[Aramchek]

43. so Obama's Recovery Plan is slowly but surely saving our Economy. Well I'll be...

;)

[CreekDog]

44. We have passed a threshold

almost no more jobs left to lose. :wtf:

[Honeycombe8]

46. That's great news. But I wonder if seasonal temp hires had anything to do with it?

Seems like it might.

[Cha]

47. Kick for

more jobs getting created and being found!

[Garam_Masala]

50. And Soverign state Dubai just went belly up due to

too much borrowing. They just defaulted on loan payments.

That is the canary in coal mine. Developed countries such as Japan,
US and European countries are loaded with even higher debt/GDP ratios.
Greece is about to go belly up, again due to too much borrowing.

The danger in US is much bigger due to borrowing by feds from China than lack of jobs.

[girl gone mad]

51. I agree that Greece could default..

I was in Greece a few months ago and spoke with friends about the country's economic picture. It is quite an interesting place, full of political and social turmoil but in a much more polite and reasoned manner than in the US, where the HC town halls turned to scream fests and the dopey Sarah Palin is considered a serious political contender.

Much trouble still looms, we are not out of this solvency crisis, by any means.

I would say that California poses a more immediate threat at the moment than the US as a whole and other states are not far behind. I am waiting for the dollar carry trade to unwind (yes, I'm a believer) and who knows what will come next. Default may be inevitable, but it is still years away.