Seeking Alpha

Jobless claims down 20K to 331K

  • Initial Jobless Claims:  -20K to 331K vs. 337K consensus, 351K prior revised (348K prior week).
  • Continuing claims +15K to 2.96M.
Comments (11)
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (9167) | Send Message
     
    Run for the hills....
    6 Feb, 08:31 AM Reply Like
  • Grant Dossetto
    , contributor
    Comments (135) | Send Message
     
    I'm not sure a week means anything. They jumped 22K last week and fell 20K (to be revised negatively I'm sure so we'll guess 15K to 17K). Looks like noise in the seasonal adjustments. Given that we've gotten layoff announcements from automakers to retail in pretty significant numbers the past couple of weeks I can't imagine that we aren't going to see some upward pressure in jobless claims in the near term.
    6 Feb, 08:41 AM Reply Like
  • Petrarch
    , contributor
    Comments (577) | Send Message
     
    ...save yourselves
    6 Feb, 08:52 AM Reply Like
  • Papaswamp
    , contributor
    Comments (2178) | Send Message
     
    I know 'there is no recession' as you claim since +300,000 new claims a week is the new positive. But if the Fed et al weren't sitting on interest rates, what do you think the economy would look like? If all was indeed well, why must so much intervention be needed?
    6 Feb, 08:54 AM Reply Like
  • Eudaimonia
    , contributor
    Comments (522) | Send Message
     
    This is interesting I have another, if the fed raised interest rates to 43% what would the economy look like?
    If instead of intervention you say "countercyclical policy" does it sound less bad?
    6 Feb, 10:07 AM Reply Like
  • Petrarch
    , contributor
    Comments (577) | Send Message
     
    because of the output gap which persists and the absence of a coherent fiscal policy in the US
    we need to close thw gap or the long run growth rate of the economy is impaired
    and Bernanke is the only game in town - all hail Bernanke saviour of the planet!
    the persisting output gap is bad for economic welfare and ultimately also inflationary
    so I don't understand the question
    if something is helping and if the cost is less than the benefit then why is that a problem? unless you are an idealog and don't care about reason.
    P
    6 Feb, 01:09 PM Reply Like
  • Steve Soden
    , contributor
    Comments (547) | Send Message
     
    It appears the whisper number is out and jobless claims are coming down.
    The jobless that hit the unemployment roles have run out of money that the claims brought in.
    Many of these folks are now taking lower paying jobs that used to pay far less than they were getting on unemployment.
    Consumer consumption will fall as these folks are just lucky to have enough money to by toilet paper and milk.
    This could lead to a second recession like the first one.
    I suggest the 1%ers save their asses buy hiring these people for work on their Estates or Corporations.
    The US could also build out more big projects like the bullet trains crossing our great country and colleges start training these folks for jobs rather than act as gate keepers by making talented people pass English and Algabra before the can take the classes they came to college to learn.
    Just some idea from a 59 year old college student.
    6 Feb, 02:57 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12442) | Send Message
     
    SS:

     

    Nope.

     

    Twenty percent of the populace controls 93% of the wealth. The other 80% controls only 7%. Of that 80%, the ones that lack jobs control a minuscule portion of the overall wealth and have very little aggregate impact on commerce. Commerce is almost exclusively controlled by the behavior of the folks with jobs and wealth, and we only enter recessions when their behavior changes, not in the least because of a percent or two change at the bottom rungs.

     

    This reality escapes many people because the media is always trumpeting the travails of the 'common man,' which for the media is anybody with a good hardship story. But, that's not the economy.
    6 Feb, 03:02 PM Reply Like
  • june1234
    , contributor
    Comments (2345) | Send Message
     
    We know in an economy they say is 70% dependent on consumer spending those 300K+ consumers will not be spending more next week than they were before they lost their jobs
    6 Feb, 09:37 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12442) | Send Message
     
    j:

     

    The reality is and remains, as un-politically-correct as it may seem, that 20% of the people control 93% of the wealth, or, conversely, 80% only affect 7% of the wealth. Therefore, the impact of hiring and firing at the margin is completely insignificant, as an economic driver. The irony is that it's not the actual hiring and firing stats that changes economic performance; it's the reaction to them, of either optimism or fear, by the 20% controlling the wealth that is determinative. If they spend, things remain fine; if they put their hands in their pockets, we have problems.
    6 Feb, 11:08 AM Reply Like
  • Philip Marlowe
    , contributor
    Comments (858) | Send Message
     
    Tack that is not the way things work. The rich may have more money but they do not spend proportionally to their higher income. Every once in a while I go to a bar and have a beer. If I was a billionaire, I might have a more expensive beer. I would not have a hundred beers a night.

     

    Thus, the middle class and lower middle class and the poor have an outsized effect on consumer spending.

     

    Nevertheless, I am not worried because the economy is still creating jobs overall at a decent pace, as can be seen by yesterday's ADP report.
    6 Feb, 12:20 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)