US unemployment aid applications fall to 304,000

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP-EXCITE

By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER

WASHINGTON (AP) — Fewer people sought U.S. unemployment benefits last week, driving down the level of applications to nearly the lowest in seven years.

The Labor Department says weekly applications for unemployment aid dropped 11,000 to a seasonally adjusted 304,000. That's not far from a reading of 298,000 two months ago, which was the lowest since 2007, before the Great Recession began.

The four-week average, a less volatile measure, dipped 3,500 to 311,500, the second-lowest level since August 2007. Applications are a proxy for layoffs, so the low readings indicate that employers are letting go of fewer workers.

The figures are the latest sign that the job market is steadily improving. Employers are adding jobs at a healthy clip and the unemployment rate is at a 5 1/2-year low.




FILE - This April 22, 2014, file photo shows an employment application form on a table during a job fair at Columbia-Greene Community College in Hudson, N.Y. The Labor Department reports the number of people who applied for unemployment benefits last week on Thursday, July 10, 2014. (AP Photo/Mike Groll, File)

Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20140710/us-unemployment-benefits-98725fe1f6.html

[winstars]

1. Thanks Obama!!!

[lexx21]

2. I absolutely hate reports like this...

because they don't take into account those that have run out of benefits but still cannot find work. Giving numbers like that and not taking into account the actual number of unemployed is highly inaccurate.

I know people who have sent out resume after resume and never hear anything back, their benefits run out (thanks on that one McCrory you douche bag), so MAGICALLY they must be employed because they are taken off the rolls as being "unemployed".

Yes, Obama has done more for creating jobs than the repubs and I certainly appreciate that fact. However, we need to do something like Australia is doing where if you are unemployed the government will find work for you until you can get a job in your field. At least then you will be earning money even if your state benefits run out.

[IronLionZion]

3. Wage subsidies would be worth exploring

where the government encourages employers to hire the long-term unemployed by paying a portion of their wages to start. This offsets some of the risk for the employer, and puts money into the hands of workers. It also helps those folks get their foot in the door and cease being "long term unemployed" as they get some experience and skills to put on their resume. It would work in some types of skilled jobs like manufacturing.

I hope that would be politically more popular and effective.

[lexx21]

6. +1000 I couldn't agree with you more. n/t

[davekriss]

4. I hate posts like this..

..that misstate how the unemployment rate is calculated. It has nothing to do with whether or not someone is receiving or has exhausted unemployment benefits.

It is driven instead essentially by polling: households are surveyed and count as unemployed anyone who is not working, wishes to work, and has been actively looking within the previous 4 weeks. (I admit I may not have it exactly right, but I know with certainty that the unemployment rate has nothing to do with unemployment benefits.)

[lexx21]

5. At least here in NC....

When you hear about a drop in unemployment rates, it's garnered by the number of people on the rolls and those that apply as new applicants. If your benefits run out, you are no longer on the rolls and you cannot reapply for many months. Thus... the crux of my argument.

If it's an "official" government release then it's not done by polling households, it's done by looking at what the numbers are for those still on benefits. By polling individual households, you would never really get an accurate number.

[hugo_from_TN]

7. No it is not. Unemployment rates are never tied to who is getting benefits.

[whatthehey]

8. No. Absolutely the reverse

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

The people who measure it telling you how it's done.


And it's worth mentioning that initial claims are even more separated from losing benefits eligibility as by defintion they measure who applied last week to START receiving benefits. Not even connected to the UE rate surveys at all.

[davekriss]

9. Respectfully, you are incorrect

The unemployment rate that is published by our federal government every month is solely based in the CPS survey conducted by the Census Bureau (not the BLS, interestingly).

Every month 60,000 households are interviewed, mostly in person by a Census employee, about the labor status of people 16 or older. If you have a job, you're counted as employed; if you're not employed, you're counted as unemployed if you actively looked for employment in the previous 4 weeks. The number of employed and unemployed, and thus the rate, is based solely in this.

Sophisticated selection of sample households is involved, but still it is a little more inaccurate for smaller states, but over all the statistically likely error rate is plus or minus about 300,000 unemployed. Out of 8 to 15 million unemployed, that amounts to background noise.

Note unemployment insurance has absolutely nothing to do with how the unemployment rate is calculated. Absolutely nothing, but it's a false meme that just won't die!

Now, if you want go argue the relative merits of U1 vs U6, or similar disputes, that is another matter.

I'm on my phone, which makes jumping around to get a link difficult. I'll come back later and post a link so you can read this for yourself. Again, I don't mean to embarrass you by calling you out, but this happens to be a pet peeve of mine, the continued life of this erroneous meme.

[lexx21]

11. Why would I be embarrassed? My ego is really not that fragile. n/t

[davekriss]

10. Oops, sorry, I see others amply responded...

...including links. I should have checked first.