Seeking Alpha

Initial Jobless Claims: -42K to 346K vs. 388K consensus, 385K prior (revised). Continuing claims...

Initial Jobless Claims: -42K to 346K vs. 388K consensus, 385K prior (revised). Continuing claims -12K to 3.08M.
Comments (49)
  • al roman
    , contributor
    Comments (10075) | Send Message
     
    Quick and precise,get to the grind wheel.
    11 Apr 2013, 08:34 AM Reply Like
  • 544
    , contributor
    Comments (29) | Send Message
     
    How many stopped looking for a job?
    11 Apr 2013, 08:41 AM Reply Like
  • OptionManiac
    , contributor
    Comments (3391) | Send Message
     
    Number does not count those already unemployed.
    11 Apr 2013, 08:53 AM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10700) | Send Message
     
    81,000 last week went on disability.
    11 Apr 2013, 09:16 AM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (13283) | Send Message
     
    States like disability because it becomes a FED problem to deal with!!
    12 Apr 2013, 02:44 AM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10700) | Send Message
     
    The EPOP (employment to population ratio) for prime-age (25-54) workers shows a drop from about 80 percent near the start of the recession to under 75 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009. It made virtually no progress for the next two years. By December 2012, it had improved to just 75.9 percent, slightly higher than its post-recession lows. Thus the vast majority of the improvement in the unemployment rate from its peak of 10.0 percent in October 2009 to 7.8 percent in December 2012 was due to people dropping out of (or not entering) the labor force—not to a larger share of workers finding employment.
    12 Apr 2013, 12:39 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3533) | Send Message
     
    Maybe we're seeing the end of working wives? LMAO!
    12 Apr 2013, 05:42 PM Reply Like
  • mrdirt
    , contributor
    Comments (635) | Send Message
     
    Layoffs continue, companies are still cost cutting, will be replaced by
    temp/seasonal workers.
    http://bit.ly/cBqSqC
    11 Apr 2013, 08:45 AM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (10403) | Send Message
     
    It is a good number....
    11 Apr 2013, 08:47 AM Reply Like
  • mrdirt
    , contributor
    Comments (635) | Send Message
     
    Only If your one of the lucky ones who didn't get laidoff.
    11 Apr 2013, 08:50 AM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (10403) | Send Message
     
    Do know how many hires there are a month??

     

    2013 02 4118. (that is 4.118 million)
    2013 01 4015.
    2012 12 3915.
    2012 11 4134.
    2012 10 4031.
    2012 09 3934.
    2012 08 4083.
    2012 07 3893.
    2012 06 4081.
    2012 05 4231.
    2012 04 3962.
    2012 03 4133.
    2012 02 4181.
    11 Apr 2013, 08:53 AM Reply Like
  • mrdirt
    , contributor
    Comments (635) | Send Message
     
    Not good for College Grads in last four yrs, and they can't even apply for claims.

     

    The unemployment rate for recent college grads between the ages of 21 to 24 has averaged 8.8% over the last year, according to Labor Department data.
    Once you also include young grads who are working part-time for economic reasons, and those who have stopped looking for a job in the last year, the so-called "underemployment rate" is a whopping 18.3%.
    http://cnnmon.ie/Zjbgoa
    11 Apr 2013, 08:53 AM Reply Like
  • OptionManiac
    , contributor
    Comments (3391) | Send Message
     
    And you can say that no matter what the number came in at, even 50K, still means someone got laid off.
    11 Apr 2013, 08:54 AM Reply Like
  • mrdirt
    , contributor
    Comments (635) | Send Message
     
    Initial Reaction

     

    The surge in employment fueled by part-time jobs and the Obamacare effect may finally be over. Although the establishment survey showed a gain of 88,000 jobs, the household survey, off which the unemployment rate is based, showed a loss of 206,000 jobs.

     

    The unemployment rate edged lower by .1% because a whopping 496,000 people dropped out of the labor force.

     

    Last month, voluntary part-time employment rose by a reported 446,000. It's plain to see that last month's numbers were a statistical aberration. This was a miserable jobs report from every angle.

     

    March BLS Jobs Report at a Glance

     

    Payrolls +88,000 - Establishment Survey
    US Employment -206,000 - Household Survey
    US Unemployment -290,000 - Household Survey
    Involuntary Part-Time Work -230,000 - Household Survey;
    Voluntary Part-Time Work -163,000 - Household Survey
    Baseline Unemployment Rate -.1 - Household Survey
    U-6 unemployment -.05 to 13.8% - Household Survey
    The Civilian Labor Force -496,000 - Household Survey
    Not in Labor Force +663,000 - Household Survey
    Participation Rate -.02 to 63.3 - Household Survey

     

    Recall that the unemployment rate varies in accordance with the Household Survey not the reported headline jobs number, and not in accordance with the weekly claims data.

     

    Quick Notes About the Unemployment Rate

     

    In the last year, those "not" in the labor force rose by 2,069,000
    Over the course of the last year, the number of people employed rose by 1,266,000
    In the last year the number of unemployed fell from 12,686,000 to 11,742,000 (a drop of 944,000)
    Long-Term unemployment (27 weeks and over) was 4,611,000 - a decline of 186,000 from last month's total of was 4,797,000
    Percentage of long-term unemployment is 39.6%. It has been hovering near 40% for at least a year. Once someone loses a job it is still very difficult to find another.

     

    Read more at http://bit.ly/ZbgmpO
    11 Apr 2013, 08:59 AM Reply Like
  • mrdirt
    , contributor
    Comments (635) | Send Message
     
    Over 4 million a month, then why are there 90 million people not in the work force and the Unemployment rate U3 7.6% U6 13.8%. Could it be?

     

    Over the 12 months ending in February 2013, hires totaled 52.0 million and separations totaled 50.1 million, yielding a net employment gain of 1.9 million. These figures include workers who may have been hired and separated more than once during the year.

     

    http://bit.ly/ZjcVKz
    11 Apr 2013, 09:07 AM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10700) | Send Message
     
    What's a hire? How does it compare to job creation? What's the counter to hire - is it layoff, or jobs lost or destroyed. Certainly a hire is not new employment as we have basically the same number of workers we had 4 years ago.... so kindly provide meaning to what appears to be a non-meaningful number.
    11 Apr 2013, 09:18 AM Reply Like
  • mrdirt
    , contributor
    Comments (635) | Send Message
     
    Differences in the timing of Easter and school spring breaks, which likely threw off the model used to smooth the data for seasonal fluctuations, had been blamed for the spike in claims during the week ended March 30.

     

    A Labor Department analyst said no states had been estimated and there was nothing unusual in the state-level data. He noted, however, that the floating Easter holiday and spring breaks continued to pose challenges for the so-called seasonal factor.

     

    The seasonal distortions in the data will probably remain over the next few weeks.

     

    The four-week moving average for new claims, a better measure of labor market trends, increased 3,000 to 358,000.

     

    Despite the rise, the four-week average stayed close to a level economists normally associate with payroll gains of about 150,000 per month.

     

    The job market suffered a setback in March, with employers hiring the fewest number of workers in nine months. However, economists say the 88,000 payrolls gain after a solid 268,000 increase in February overstates the labor market's weakness.

     

    The economy had experienced relatively strong job gains since October. The claims data is being monitored for signs of layoffs related to $85 billion in government budget cuts known as the "sequester."

     

    Economists say there is little evidence so far to suggest that the spending cuts which took hold on March 1 were hurting the labor market, noting the weakness in payroll growth last month had not been confined to sectors expected to be hard hit by the budget cuts.

     

    http://bit.ly/Zjdl3E
    11 Apr 2013, 09:19 AM Reply Like
  • mrdirt
    , contributor
    Comments (635) | Send Message
     
    IMHO a temp employee would be hired to fill a specific need, maybe a month or two, when the need no longer exists they are laidoff, then a couple months later are rehired for another specific need job, and the cycle goes on and on. Cheaper for comanies to hire from temp agency.
    11 Apr 2013, 09:33 AM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (10403) | Send Message
     
    start your research here...if you want...

     

    http://www.bls.gov/jlt
    11 Apr 2013, 09:56 AM Reply Like
  • mrdirt
    , contributor
    Comments (635) | Send Message
     
    Here are a few JOLTS for you.

     

    http://bit.ly/14eE7BT

     

    http://bit.ly/9lhdMB-

     

    http://bit.ly/14eE7Sn
    11 Apr 2013, 11:54 AM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (10403) | Send Message
     
    Zerohedge...confirms your own bias...good luck...
    11 Apr 2013, 12:04 PM Reply Like
  • mrdirt
    , contributor
    Comments (635) | Send Message
     
    Oh, I suppose Govt agencies are unbiased.

     

    An economist's guess is liable to be as good as anybody else's.
    Will Rogers
    11 Apr 2013, 12:08 PM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (10403) | Send Message
     
    Will Rogers...

     

    "There are three kinds of men:
    The ones that learn by reading.
    The few who learn by observation.
    The rest of them have to touch an electric fence."
    11 Apr 2013, 12:14 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10700) | Send Message
     
    So Bbro - JOLTS measures movement in the job market. And that relates to economic growth how? If it doesn't then what's the purpose of tossing the numbers out in connection with an Initial Jobless Claims report?

     

    And unemployment numbers relate to economic growth how? What difference does any of this make if we're growing at 1% GDP with a stagnant workforce?
    11 Apr 2013, 12:43 PM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (10403) | Send Message
     
    The JOLTS data is not very timely... 2 months old...but I do use 2 moving averages of the hire data..which does have predictive value for recessions...as far as tossing numbers out there you don't get charged for it so it can't be too painful....
    11 Apr 2013, 01:32 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10700) | Send Message
     
    Thanks for the non-reponse.....You still didn't answer the question. What's the relationship between hires and economy. If none - then why report it? If you are simply saying that hire's data is predictive or recession, then fine. But it's NOT a measure of economic growth.
    11 Apr 2013, 01:49 PM Reply Like
  • mrdirt
    , contributor
    Comments (635) | Send Message
     
    And the job numbers are the electric fence
    11 Apr 2013, 04:11 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (13283) | Send Message
     
    Daughter has a Teaching Degree and can't even get an interview. So many schools are closing where I live it is really a sad situation..
    12 Apr 2013, 02:44 AM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    We need to balance the budget and cut more spending. That way we will be able to open more schools and hire more teachers.
    12 Apr 2013, 09:55 AM Reply Like
  • youngman442002
    , contributor
    Comments (5131) | Send Message
     
    looking like the Japanese bond market with these kind of moves...not good for statisticians...
    11 Apr 2013, 08:52 AM Reply Like
  • Nolesince87
    , contributor
    Comments (262) | Send Message
     
    This is what $5 Trillion PLUS $85 billion a month buys?
    11 Apr 2013, 12:23 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10700) | Send Message
     
    Nolesince87. You are right. This is what we get, and the STORY that the "leadership" in DC isn't going to tell us. That is that no matter what they are doing, it isn't going to change 1-1.5% GDP growth. Things have changed. The workforce is changing. There are lots of people "leaving" the workforce. There are not enough jobs in the economy to make it grow, because we continue to improve productivity and find cheaper ways to do things and cheaper ways to buy things.
    11 Apr 2013, 12:46 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3533) | Send Message
     
    Economy can't be too bad. We're still attracting workers over the border who are finding work "off the clock".
    11 Apr 2013, 01:05 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10700) | Send Message
     
    Poor Texan - you are right. And the other side of the equation is that we are still losing workers out the back end to China and other Asian / Indian countries that can do it cheaper. Thanks to globalization, we are competing in a global economy where our labor market is over priced for many jobs.
    11 Apr 2013, 01:27 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10700) | Send Message
     
    So here's the Total Non-Farm Payroll numbers at 6 month intervals since Dec 1 of 2002. Notice the absence of growth from the peak of 138 million.Numbers are in (000)

     

    2002-12-01 130291
    2003-06-01 129943
    2003-12-01 130353
    2004-06-01 131519
    2004-12-01 132372
    2005-06-01 133653
    2005-12-01 134856
    2006-06-01 136008
    2006-12-01 136927
    2007-06-01 137734
    2007-12-01 138042
    2008-06-01 137322
    2008-12-01 134425
    2009-06-01 130578
    2009-12-01 129373
    2010-06-01 130094
    2010-12-01 130395
    2011-06-01 131493
    2011-12-01 132498
    2012-06-01 133609
    2012-12-01 134691
    2013-01-01 134839
    2013-02-01 135107
    2013-03-01 135195
    11 Apr 2013, 01:36 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10700) | Send Message
     
    Looking at it another way:

     

    Look at the DOL Databases and Tables for Labor Force Statistics and we find:

     

    Sep 2002 – civilian Non-Institutional Population = 218.107 mil
    Sep 2008 – civilian Non-Institutional Population = 234.360 mil
    Sep 2012 – civilian Non-Institutional Population = 243.772 mil
    Then:
    Sep 2002 – civilian Labor Force = 145.167 mil
    Sep 2008 – civilian Labor Force = 154.509 mil
    Sep 2012 – civilian Labor Force = 155.075 mil

     

    By my calculations we had:
    2002-2008 workers added 16.253 mil to the eligible working population and 9.342 mil to the job force.

     

    2008-2012 workers added 9.412 mil to the eligible working population and 0.566 mil to the job force. That translates into jobs for 6 of every 100 people entering the workforce !!!!

     

    Doesn’t seem like we are making much progress vs. 2002 - 2008
    http://1.usa.gov/AfU0JI
    11 Apr 2013, 01:43 PM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (10403) | Send Message
     
    GDP per employee...(4th qtr of each year)

     

    2003 01 82.55 thousand
    2004 01 86.58
    2005 01 90.47
    2006 01 93.29
    2007 01 97.44
    2008 01 97.72
    2009 01 102.14
    2010 01 105.90
    2011 01 108.92
    2012 01 110.70
    11 Apr 2013, 01:54 PM Reply Like
  • mickmars
    , contributor
    Comments (1323) | Send Message
     
    Yes, this is corporations preying on the fear of U.S. workers. They are so afraid of losing their jobs they'll work harder for little or no increase in wages. Sad.
    11 Apr 2013, 02:00 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10700) | Send Message
     
    Yes, that's my point. With productivity improving we can have flat GDP growth with a decline in the workforce, or with 1-2% GDP growth, we can have flat employment.

     

    Here's SS growth in Social Security Disability claims from 2002 to 2012 .

     

    Dec-02 5,543,981

     

    Dec-12 8,827,795
    11 Apr 2013, 02:06 PM Reply Like
  • mickmars
    , contributor
    Comments (1323) | Send Message
     
    My neck.... My neck AND my back.....
    11 Apr 2013, 04:00 PM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (10403) | Send Message
     
    http://bit.ly/120dn4B

     

    Social Security Disability Reform Act of 1984...Passed with 0 no votes...signed
    by Reagan...
    11 Apr 2013, 02:14 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    Why didn't Obama vote no on that? I hold Obama responsible.
    11 Apr 2013, 02:56 PM Reply Like
  • mickmars
    , contributor
    Comments (1323) | Send Message
     
    Not sure why Hannity and crew give Reagan so much credit for being a "fiscal conservative". Repubs and Dems both love to spend.... just on different stuff.
    11 Apr 2013, 03:59 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10700) | Send Message
     
    Cuz Obama was not a US senator in 1984.
    11 Apr 2013, 04:15 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    Just because he was not a Senator doesn't mean we can't blame him for disability laws. That's not how we conservatives roll. It's all his fault.
    11 Apr 2013, 06:47 PM Reply Like
  • al roman
    , contributor
    Comments (10075) | Send Message
     
    Alphaeans crunch #'s the best.
    11 Apr 2013, 04:13 PM Reply Like
  • EK1949
    , contributor
    Comments (1670) | Send Message
     
    More GDP from fewer workers makes sense. We can improve the situation more by raising SS payments, allowing more people to retire and providing more jobs for the young. For those who can't connect dots easily without help, the question WHO WILL PAY? has just been answered.
    12 Apr 2013, 12:26 AM Reply Like
  • al roman
    , contributor
    Comments (10075) | Send Message
     
    America is abundant with opportunity .
    12 Apr 2013, 06:54 AM Reply Like
  • OptionManiac
    , contributor
    Comments (3391) | Send Message
     
    Funny how it is now easier to move up the economic ladder in socialist Europe than the US. Companies have a strangle hold on employees.
    13 Apr 2013, 10:31 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs