Jobless Claims Fall to the Lowest Level in 34 Weeks

Unemployment claims were reported today by the Department of Labor, showing that the 4-week moving average fell 11,000 to 553,500, the lowest level since late January, 34 weeks ago (see graph above). Weekly claims (4-week average) have fallen in 10 of the last 13 weeks.

Comments

[Homer II:]

Ohh YAY! We have falling unemployment claims. laaa-la-la laaa-la-la

When in reality, it just means about 11000 poor souls who have used up all their time on unemployment benefits must go away and stop getting assistance.

"They don't have jobs yet! Or do they? We dunno. They just go away so we don't get to track them anymore. And, so we don't care anymore, whether they have a job or not. The only thing that matters around here is what the numbers say."

( HEY OBAMA: Where are all those 5 Millions jobs you were gonna create? You know.. those you boasted about a year ago when you were campaigning?)

Sep 24 11:53 AM

[Al Fin:]

Right. Jobless claims are more famous for what they don't tell you, than what they do tell you. Much better to report actual employment figures plus the numbers for those who have dropped out of the employment picture altogether -- alongside the jobless claims.

Even that approach leaves a lot of crucial information unreported, but at least it fills in a few empty spaces.

Sep 24 11:58 AM

[User 353732:]

If a company reported large negative cash flow for months and then announced that its latest monthly cash flow was slightly less negative than the previous month(subject to revision by management later ,of course, when no was paying attention) but much worse than a year ago, would you rush to buy stock in that company? or raise its credit rating? or even better lend it almost free money with no collateral at all .............based on Management's confident predictions of positive and accelerating cash flow any day now?
If you would not, then perhaps the same test should be applied to jobs and economic growth in the US .
Compare the latest 4 week moving average with the 4 week moving average from any period in 2008 and the conclusion is obvious...... huge bonuses and trading profits for Wall St and boom for Wash DC is not the same as a recovery for Main St. Indeed, as the jobless numbers indicate, the good times in Wash Dc and on Wall St are being bought by bad times on Main St.
Soon the new defintion of recovery will exclude Main St altogether since "discouraged" workers do not exist ,according to the Govt and do not matter according to Wall St.......

Sep 24 12:19 PM

[kebu77:]

Claims have fallen for 18 of the 24 weeks since the peak and are now running at 16% below their peak, about a third the way down from the pre-recession level...

Sep 24 12:26 PM

[John Galt:]

If you don't pass my stimulus bill RIGHT NOW ( without reading it), then Unemployment might go as high as 8%!!!!

Sep 24 12:42 PM

[TeresaE:]

Funny how when you read the actual report that ACTUAL jobless claim numbers from the states INCREASED.

Funny.

And, once again, upwardly revise last week's lie then show improvement with this week's lie.

No accounting of number of people without employment or UI payments, no accounting of people that are independent contractors or self-employed and absolutely no accounting for the numbers taking part-time work to feed themselves.

Improvement! Yeah! Party on kool-aid drinkers.

Sep 24 01:04 PM

[TeresaE:]

He IS trying, after all the new health care mandate has FIFTY-THREE new government departments.

Prosperity here we come!


On Sep 24 11:53 AM Homer II wrote:

> Ohh YAY! We have falling unemployment claims. laaa-la-la laaa-la-la
>
>
> When in reality, it just means about 11000 poor souls who have used
> up all their time on unemployment benefits must go away and stop
> getting assistance.
>
> "They don't have jobs yet! Or do they? We dunno. They just go
> away so we don't get to track them anymore. And, so we don't care
> anymore, whether they have a job or not. The only thing that matters
> around here is what the numbers say."
>
> ( HEY OBAMA: Where are all those 5 Millions jobs you were gonna
> create? You know.. those you boasted about a year ago when you were
> campaigning?)

Sep 24 01:07 PM

[enigmaman:]

Mark- Jobless Claims Fall to the Lowest Level in 34 Weeks

What does that mean, really, was there a point to your pointing out this stat?

What about the numbers behind the published numbers, the devil is in the details, without the details the numbers are meaningless!

Sep 24 01:08 PM

[Russ Wetherill:]

Well, there are optimists and there are OPTIMISTS. This author has proven time and again that negative facts will never affect his rosy view of the economy. Back in May 2008 he called a bottom for housing! That's May 2008 not May 2009!

By the way Mark, now that unemployment is under control and housing has recovered, I have some Florida condos for sale at 2006 prices. Interested?

Sep 24 03:15 PM

[OilFinder:]

Initial jobless claims do not represent people who are already receiving unemployment insurance, they are NEW - that is, INITIAL - unemployment claims. One cannot "use up" their initial application for unemployment.


On Sep 24 11:53 AM Homer II wrote:

> Ohh YAY! We have falling unemployment claims. laaa-la-la laaa-la-la
>
>
> When in reality, it just means about 11000 poor souls who have used
> up all their time on unemployment benefits must go away and stop
> getting assistance.
>
> "They don't have jobs yet! Or do they? We dunno. They just go
> away so we don't get to track them anymore. And, so we don't care
> anymore, whether they have a job or not. The only thing that matters
> around here is what the numbers say."
>
> ( HEY OBAMA: Where are all those 5 Millions jobs you were gonna
> create? You know.. those you boasted about a year ago when you were
> campaigning?)

Sep 24 04:50 PM

[437339:]

Re

Hey look-the entire economy , financial system IS going to collapse by year end . If it even lasts that long . The government will say " we did the best we could ". Best prepare now !

Sep 24 05:05 PM

[thiazole:]

But jobless claims are always negative. Have you ever seen a month without jobless claims? Even during the best of times, we still see 300,000 a week.

Besides, it isn't like this is uncharted territory. We had the same kind of event occur after the 1982 recession ended as well: tinyurl.com/mugyjj


On Sep 24 12:19 PM User 353732 wrote:

> If a company reported large negative cash flow for months and then
> announced that its latest monthly cash flow was slightly less negative
> than the previous month(subject to revision by management later ,of
> course, when no was paying attention) but much worse than a year
> ago, would you rush to buy stock in that company? or raise its credit
> rating? or even better lend it almost free money with no collateral
> at all .............based on Management's confident predictions of
> positive and accelerating cash flow any day now?
> If you would not, then perhaps the same test should be applied to
> jobs and economic growth in the US .
> Compare the latest 4 week moving average with the 4 week moving average
> from any period in 2008 and the conclusion is obvious...... huge
> bonuses and trading profits for Wall St and boom for Wash DC is not
> the same as a recovery for Main St. Indeed, as the jobless numbers
> indicate, the good times in Wash Dc and on Wall St are being bought
> by bad times on Main St.
> Soon the new defintion of recovery will exclude Main St altogether
> since "discouraged" workers do not exist ,according to the Govt and
> do not matter according to Wall St.......

Sep 24 05:21 PM

[tripleblack:]

Ab-so-lutely! JG has nailed the soundbite.

"Oh no, mother, look, Porkzilla destroy Tokyo, er, Detroit!"


On Sep 24 12:42 PM John Galt wrote:

> If you don't pass my stimulus bill RIGHT NOW ( without reading it),
> then Unemployment might go as high as 8%!!!!

Sep 24 07:47 PM

[Denis Gould:]

There seems to be some jiggery pokery with these numbers. The "advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 434,358 in the week ending Sept. 19, an increase of 21,966 from the previous week. There were 398,070 initial claims in the comparable week in 2008." So 434,358 actual people claimed benefit for the first time, up from a week ago. Why would you make a seasonal adjustment to that? Those are real people in real distress. Economic policy needs to be completely refocused to emphasise job creation as THE objective.

Sep 24 08:47 PM

[OilFinder:]

If you don't seasonally adjust something like unemployment claims, you get something that looks like this:
www.economagic.com/em-...

Seasonally adjusting something takes into account that in certain times of the year - even during boom times - unemployment claims normally jump and fall. This gives you a misleading picture of what's actually happening during these times of year. For example, unemployment claims normally spike during July when car makers temporarily lay off workers to re-tool their plants for the new model year, and also after Christmas when seasonal workers are let go. They also rise gradually during the fall when construction workers, landscapers, amusement park workers and other summer-concentrated workers are gradually laid off. By looking at these non-seasonally adjusted figures, one might think that things are getting worse in the fall, during July and after Christmas just based on the absolute, unadjusted numbers of initial unemployment claims. But that's not necessarily the case. These seasonal layoffs are "normal" and are not necessarily indicative of worsening conditions.

Here is the same chart above, but with those seasonal adjustments:
www.economagic.com/em-...

Sep 24 10:31 PM

[thiazole:]

Looks like an EKG :)

To the guy above who said that "creating jobs should be the number 1 priority", there is a problem with that. It is EASY to create jobs. The example I like to use it farm equipment. Make the use of farm equipment illegal and you will create hundreds of thousands, if not millions of new jobs. But at what cost? That is the problem. The economy has its own natural way of creating new jobs and it creates the most efficient/most needed jobs for a country where the country is lacking most (like energy) or where the country is the best (like computers/software/pha... But if we let the politicians decide where the new jobs will be, their decisions will be tainted with their own bias (ie, democrats in congress are hellbent on destroying the pharmaceutical industry because it hasn't been a political ally, while they are so easily influenced by companies that lobby the most - coal has been lobbying very hard for "clean coal" power plants; meanwhile we have an excess of natural gas which is at historical lows in cost and is the cleanest burning fossil fuel out there, but they haven't been lining anyone's pockets, so they are being ignored). If we stop obsessing about creating jobs, the market will do a much better job than any politian could ever hope to do.


On Sep 24 10:31 PM OilFinder wrote:

> If you don't seasonally adjust something like unemployment claims,
> you get something that looks like this:
> www.economagic.com/em-...
>
> Seasonally adjusting something takes into account that in certain
> times of the year - even during boom times - unemployment claims
> normally jump and fall. This gives you a misleading picture of what's
> actually happening during these times of year. For example, unemployment
> claims normally spike during July when car makers temporarily lay
> off workers to re-tool their plants for the new model year, and also
> after Christmas when seasonal workers are let go. They also rise
> gradually during the fall when construction workers, landscapers,
> amusement park workers and other summer-concentrated workers are
> gradually laid off. By looking at these non-seasonally adjusted figures,
> one might think that things are getting worse in the fall, during
> July and after Christmas just based on the absolute, unadjusted numbers
> of initial unemployment claims. But that's not necessarily the case.
> These seasonal layoffs are "normal" and are not necessarily indicative
> of worsening conditions.
>
> Here is the same chart above, but with those seasonal adjustments:
>
> www.economagic.com/em-...

Sep 25 10:29 AM