Seeking Alpha

More on the big drop in jobless claims: At 324K, it's the lowest level since January 2008. The...

More on the big drop in jobless claims: At 324K, it's the lowest level since January 2008. The 4-week moving average fell 16K to 342,250. S&P 500 futures remain +0.5%. Treasury prices slip, TLT -0.6%, TBT +1.2% premarket.
Comments (18)
  • this...this is news.
    very good number


    2 May 2013, 09:34 AM Reply Like
  • Agree with you,see also:
    2 May 2013, 11:03 AM Reply Like
  • MW is your support for an improving labor market? Why not just eliminate the middleman and ask the White House?
    2 May 2013, 06:05 PM Reply Like
  • "Sequester?? Don't talk to me about your stinkin' Sequester"

    2 May 2013, 09:47 AM Reply Like
  • LiberlMedia • 3 minutes ago−
    Finally, companies have cut to the core. There are no more people to fire.


    Now wonder if CNN will mention the fact that job creation is also at a low?


    No jobs available and no people to fire! Can't fire them if you don't hire them! Now I understand Obama's economic philosophy.

    2 May 2013, 09:59 AM Reply Like
  • Quite a few have not re-qualified yet to collect unemployment.Perpetual students are not being counted either.Smoke and mirrors will eventually run it's course and the real story will emerge.
    2 May 2013, 10:37 AM Reply Like
  • hold that thought
    2 May 2013, 01:43 PM Reply Like
  • Not disagreeing with you, but i hope you're not still in cash. Auto sales and home sales are up despite the true unemployment picture. Corporate profits don't lie. Neither does inflation!
    2 May 2013, 02:29 PM Reply Like
  • Home ownership at an 18 year low. Don't be misled about the housing market by the short term 'surge' generated by bottom feeding speculative investors. Also, evaluate your sources, the National Association of Realtors do a good job of putting lipstick on the pig.
    2 May 2013, 06:07 PM Reply Like
  • Excellent news. This could be an inflection point for the economy to finally start growing
    2 May 2013, 10:49 AM Reply Like
  • I wonder how much of this low number has to do with the discontinuation of the jobless benefits. On January 2013 the maximum period went from 99 weeks to now 26 weeks. I bet a lot of long-term unemployed dropped off and can't count in the claims number anymore. Yet again the market is misinterpreting the statistics. The jobs number tomorrow will follow the ADP lead and still be bad.
    2 May 2013, 12:25 PM Reply Like
  • I wonder what's more important - Jobless claims or Jobs created?
    2 May 2013, 01:21 PM Reply Like
  • That would be a great article!
    2 May 2013, 03:49 PM Reply Like
  • Here's the reason I ask - using some back of envelope numbers.


    Initial Jobless Claims = ~325,000 or 1.3 mil/mo vs. non-farm payroll of 135 mil ~ turnover of 12% per year.


    Initial Jobless Claims of 1.3 mil/mo vs. job creation of <1.8 mil per year using ~150,000 new jobs/month.


    And on top of that, as one commenter said above in so many words, can we reach a steady state situation where we don't produce ANY new jobs, but we still have turnover and initial jobless claims?
    2 May 2013, 04:27 PM Reply Like
  • You probably need to analyze this data...



    Jobless claims while related is a derivative of the labor market data
    2 May 2013, 04:52 PM Reply Like
  • bbro - thanks. I have looked somewhat at the JOLTS data. To some degree it says that there is turnover in the market place and that job openings, if they grow faster than displacements, lead to net job additions. Of course that makes sense.


    However, there is a lot of focus on initial jobless claims without any focus (in the media) on job openings. We typically only see the monthly job creation data, which as I indicated above, is a small fraction of the annual result for jobless claims.


    The essence of my question is simple. Would one rather have a new job created or lower jobless claims.


    If jobless claims are a measure or turnover within the 9 inch labor pie, wouldn't we rather make a 10 inch labor pie, even if we still had the same amount of jobless claims or even 10% more jobless clamis because there were more people employed in a 10 inch pie than a 9 inch pie.


    Now that question doesn't address the issue of the "cost" of jobless claims vs. the benefit of new job creation.
    2 May 2013, 05:49 PM Reply Like
  • Isn't it apparent that increasing job opportunities is preferable to diminishing job losses? The tremendous social costs and personal pain that are wantonly incurred on the most desirable segment of our population - those that desire to work - is incalculable. Yet, we wonder whether job losses are more significant than job gains? Seems to me like the academic discussions of the 19th century when they discussed 'how many angels fit on the head of a pin'. The choice is apparent - at least to me. The discussion? In the words of our recent Secretary of State; "What does it matter?"
    2 May 2013, 06:17 PM Reply Like
  • CaladesiKid2 - I agree with you that job creation is more important. That's why my question. And why my question about the fact that the "jobless claims" data gets plenty of headlines in the media but not so much for the "job creation" data. My question was rhetorical - i.e. trying to get people to reflect as you did on the importance of the measure. Not to say that there won't always be some involuntary turnover with the dynamics in the job market.


    BTW - I don't know that I would want to be quoting Clinton on that particular quote. It may certainly come back to bite her in the future.
    2 May 2013, 06:56 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)