Mass Layoff Events Continue Accelerating

It was only three months ago when people assumed that the turnaround in BLS' metric for mass layoff events meant an end to something or another. Nope. For the third straight month both mass layoff events and initial claimants for insurance picked up. There is nothing even remotely optimistic about this data... Which probably explains why unlike March when CNBC filled an entire day discussing this brand new datapoint that none of the anchors had heard before, today one would not hear a peep out of them on it. Next month: the 6 month MA gets surpassed on both indications.

Here are my last month's observations.

(P.S. is continue accelerating redundant? acceleration is a second derivative of speed (or whatever, semantics), so if you "continue" does that make it a third? Are third derivatives more potent in their greenshootery/astroturfery than second derivs?)





Source: BLS

Comments

[Moon Kil Woong:]

It's no fun to poke fun at CNBC. They are too often wrong and way too easy to make fun of on just about every point. Anyway, thanks for providing us with endless supplies of proof countering the green shoot fantasy. Apparently, such talk will never die no matter what statistical proof you have until the market drops a good 20% because by then they'll be too busy arguing about oversold and undervalued everything is.

If you want to invest your best bet is to turn off the boob tube and stop reading brokerages meaningless drivel.

Jun 24 03:57 AM

[doubleguns:]

Dont know if it has any correlation but the largest spike in initial claims was very early in the cycle last time. If it holds true this time it means we have only just begun.

Doesn't bode well for the green shoots professed.

Moon Kil Woong I have to disagree---It is fun poking fun at CNBC, like shooting fish in a barrel.

Jun 24 06:01 AM

[H. T. Love:]

Ah, he probably meant to say "no challenge". :-)

HardToLove


On Jun 24 06:01 AM doubleguns wrote:

> Dont know if it has any correlation but the largest spike in initial
> claims was very early in the cycle last time. If it holds true this
> time it means we have only just begun.
>
> Doesn't bode well for the green shoots professed.
>
> Moon Kil Woong I have to disagree---It is fun poking fun at CNBC,
> like shooting fish in a barrel.

Jun 24 08:50 AM

[TeresaE:]

Funny, I haven't heard or read ONE report telling the sheep that the unemployment numbers are anything BUT positive.

Not ONE story.

And the sheep say "baa" as led to the slaughter.

Jun 24 09:01 AM

[ur2smrt4me:]

If you continue accelerating, your speed (velocity) increases. If you stop accelerating, your speed remains constant. If your acceleration increases, your speed increases faster. (And if your acceleration decreases, your speed increases more slowly.)

Acceleration is the first derivative of velocity. Change in acceleration would be the second derivative.

Jun 24 09:30 AM

[ur2smrt4me:]

I should add that if your acceleration becomes negative your speed will decrease (it's not accurate to say that if acceleration decreases, speed increases more slowly - this is only true if acceleration remains greater than zero).

Jun 24 09:34 AM

[Craig W:]

fun yes, but not good sport.


On Jun 24 06:01 AM doubleguns wrote:

> Dont know if it has any correlation but the largest spike in initial
> claims was very early in the cycle last time. If it holds true this
> time it means we have only just begun.
>
> Doesn't bode well for the green shoots professed.
>
> Moon Kil Woong I have to disagree---It is fun poking fun at CNBC,
> like shooting fish in a barrel.

Jun 24 10:01 AM

[Loucleve:]

glad to see Tyler is still bearish. As Ned Davis postulated, you can be "right", or you can make money.

Jun 24 12:09 PM

[Donald Ingram:]

I agree with what the macro economic picture tells me - "You ain't seen nothin yet!" We have just barely started into this economic saga (18 months) that will take years to play out. How long? Your guess is just as good as anyone else's. I would surmise that the new reality won't completely reveal itself until sometime after 2016.

Jun 24 03:17 PM

[TinyTim:]

2smart-
not disagreeing, but:
the conventional physics definitions are-
velocity is the first derivative of position/displacement wrt time; rate of change of position. negative would be backing up
accel is the second deriv of position/displacement wrt time; rate of change of velocity. negative would be slowing down (deceleration)
"jerk" (actual engr term) is the third deriv of position/displacement wrt time; rate of change of acceleration. neg jerk would cause one to be pitched forward.

Tyler- "continue accelerating" is not redundant. In this context, it just means the number of layoff events per month (rate or velocity) is STILL increasing ("picked up"). If the layoff events per month were constant for 2 or more months, then picked up, you could say "started accelerating" or just "accererated".

Jun 24 03:56 PM

[ur2smrt4me:]

thanks Tiny -- it's been at least 12 years since I took physics -- and I am unconventional :-)


On Jun 24 03:56 PM TinyTim wrote:

> 2smart-
> not disagreeing, but:
> the conventional physics definitions are-
> velocity is the first derivative of position/displacement wrt time;
> rate of change of position. negative would be backing up
> accel is the second deriv of position/displacement wrt time; rate
> of change of velocity. negative would be slowing down (deceleration)
>
> "jerk" (actual engr term) is the third deriv of position/displacement
> wrt time; rate of change of acceleration. neg jerk would cause one
> to be pitched forward.
>
> Tyler- "continue accelerating" is not redundant. In this context,
> it just means the number of layoff events per month (rate or velocity)
> is STILL increasing ("picked up"). If the layoff events per month
> were constant for 2 or more months, then picked up, you could say
> "started accelerating" or just "accererated".

Jun 24 06:04 PM

[conceptwizard:]

Some analysts tried to find a silver lining in the latest spate of dismal economic data, latching on to a Labor Department report that found that the total number of unemployed workers collecting benefits fell last week for the first time since January, by 148,000. Now, a total of 6.69 million workers are receiving unemployment benefits. However, as Forbes pointed out, the drop came after 21 consecutive weeks of increases, and about “half of the unemployed have been reaching the end of their 26 weeks of unemployment payments without finding jobs—so they disappear from that unemployment statistic without actually being employed.” The number of US workers filing for new jobless benefits claims also rose last week by 3,000 to 608,000.

Obama's economic advisers predicted in January that with passage of the economic stimulus package, the US unemployment rate this year would not exceed 8 percent in 2009. It has already hit 9.4 percent, rendering meaningless the stimulus package's modest promises of job creation. Most economists now believe that the US unemployment rate will top 10 percent by year’s end, and that it could rise to 11 percent at some point in 2011.

Jun 24 10:14 PM

[Shalom Hamou:]

There are real dangers of a Great depression and Jobs disparition:

Greenspan Conundrum and Income/Wealth Disparities:

blog.yield-curve.net/2...

Jun 25 08:02 AM

[dcb:]

anyone note a change in the S&P trading pattern. moving the markets up you wanted to take profits early and go long at about 10:30, now peak of market is 10:30 and long 2:30. I really noticed the change yesterday because normal traders would have taken their profits at the open on the gap up. yet the "boyz" gunned early and then the collapse. this appears to be a bit different. today we opened lower, so no surprise, but no initial sell off at all. I wonder is this tends to move things "down".

Jun 25 11:21 AM

[dcb:]

Nobody talked about yesterdays consumer confidence being one point below the all time low. I'm telling you the boyz do what they want and then spin to explain. they need to keep up the illusion that markets are rational for the public. You have movement and then justify with the tag of the day.

Jun 25 11:24 AM