Weekly Jobless Claims Fall

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: The Wall Street Journal.

July 8, 2010 9:36 a.m.
By SARAH N. LYNCH And JEFF BATER

The number of U.S. workers filing new claims for unemployment benefits fell last week by 21,000 to 454,000, more than analysts expected.

In its weekly report Thursday, the Labor Department said the number of U.S. workers filing initial claims for jobless benefits declined by 21,000 to 454,000 in the week ended July 3. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had expected claims would fall by 12,000. That last time claims dropped by so much was in mid-April.
....

Even with this latest decline in weekly claims, the numbers still aren't low enough to signal major improvement in job market conditions. Many people still remain out of work, and in recent weeks economists have grown increasingly worried that U.S. growth may start to slow down in the second half of the year.

Last week's monthly jobs report provided no sign of any near-term improvements. The Labor Department reported a decrease of 125,000 nonfarm payrolls in June as temporary government work for many Census employees came to an end. Although the unemployment rate fell slightly to 9.5%, it has been attributed to a drop in the work force and not a sign of better labor conditions.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111704575354662536016680.html

[denem]

1. NB: An improvement to 300,000 - 350,OOO is needed

to halt an overall falls in employment, Nonfarm payrolls fell by 125,000 in June.

[dmallind]

3. ...and climbed by 431,000 in May.... And no - an improvement to 425000 is the usual benchmark. NT

[denem]

4. There are two sides to the equation: losses and new hires

The temporary hires for the US census inflated the April - May figures.

[dmallind]

5. ..yes - and of course inflated the losses too (but nobody is supposed to remember that, right)

As predicted the same people who poo-pooed the 431K as false trumpet the -125K from the rooftop as gospel and a certain sign of doom, when both were sides of the same coin.

Private employers gained 83K in June.

[denem]

6. "Private employers gained 83K in June". Thanks for the info. nt

[dmallind]

7. Don't thank me - thank the BLS. Their data - just like the -125K is.

http://bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

[denem]

8. It would be useful if BLS news releases included tables

via an accompanying HTML version.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

14. Tables

This might help.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT

[denem]

18. Blush

Thanks again.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

20. You're welcome. There's a trick involved.

The trick is that the press release did not come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which I myself had not noticed when I started the thread. I had thought it was odd that BLS statistics were released on a Thursday, as their releases tend to be on Friday mornings at 8:30 a.m.

It wasn't until you expressed an interest in seeing tables that I went to the public Department of Labor website and looked around. What I found was that the information came not from the BLS, but from the DOL's Employment and Training Administration. ETA and BLS aren't even in the same building.

BLS is in what is now called the Postal Square Building, across the street from Union Station. The building was DC's old main post office. It has been recently refurbished, and it is really nice inside.

ETA is in the huge Frances Perkins Building, facing the Capitol. It is surely the largest Federal building to be opened in the Gerald Ford administration, and it is showing its age inside. The exterior almost makes the FBI's J. Edgar Hoover Building look attractive.

Thank you for posting and for inspiring me to find this additional information.

And now you know ... the rest of the story.

[denem]

2. ...

dupe.

[DesertDiamond]

9. Did they mention the millions who have dropped off the UI chart because they're past the 99 weeks?

Sorry, without that this article is total BS.

I can't subscribe to the WSJ online to read the rest of the article because I'm one of those 99ers (who finally found a job - actually three jobs, which I feel fortunate to have, even though none of them pay enough to live on by themselves).

[dmallind]

10. Once more with feeling....

initial claims numbers, like the UE rate itself and most other BLS numbers (with the exception of continuing claims - a number that gets little press or attention), have NOTHING ZIP NADA ZILCH to do with eligibility for or expiration of benefits.

You are still counted as unemployed if you run out of benefits. As long as you are looking for work of course. You can have been out of work for 10 years and not seen a UI check since Clinton was in office and you would still be counted as unemployed.

[still_one]

12. and that is the dirty little secret that is usually not mentioned /nt

[dmallind]

13. ..actually always mentioned, even though totally irrelevant to the datum under discussion. NT

[still_one]

21. They mention it only in passing /nt

[dmallind]

25. And why should they do more? It's an article on a topic barely related to that

Initial claims are a completely separate metric, designed to measure a completely separate trend, and even collected by a separate department of the government.

[still_one]

27. Because it reflects the true pain out there. That is the way I see it /nt

[dmallind]

28. So why does every story have to show pain? What's wrong with data separation?

[still_one]

29. I am just giving you my opinion. You just gave me your opinon. /nt

[No Elephants]

15. Glad you found 3 jobs. Sorry it takes 3. Best wishes.

[Coyote_Bandit]

11. But the real question is whether the labor force participation rate

has risen. I'd wager the answer to that question is no.

For decades the bought and paid for idiot bastards that run our government have maintained policies that have systematically been reducing that rate - and hiding the extent of unemployment and underemployment in this country.

[No Elephants]

17. Yep.

[denem]

19. No.

Payroll data has nothing to do with the participation rate.

[Coyote_Bandit]

22. Nobody suggested that payroll data

haed shit to do with the labor force participation rate.

The suggestion was that the labor force participation rate is a far better measure of how Main Street Americans are faring in the job market. That rate tells just how many Americans are actually working unlike various contrived measures of unemployment. And the labor force participation rate has been trending downward for years. The employment crisis ain't exactly new.

[No Elephants]

16. Good news.

After so many jobs have been lost, we would, I imagine, expect that new claims for unemployment would decline at some point. Still a decline is good news.

We will never know the total figure for people who want jobs, but cannot get one, or those who are underemployed, or how those figures, if available, would compare with prior periods.

[superconnected]

23. Yes, but since all those long term unemployed CAN'T file now - their benefits have not been extended

by congress, this means the claims fell because the people have no jobs and no benefits now - they aren't allowed to claim - my brother who lives with me with his wife and two children (his wife works at walmart - their only income since she and my brother were both laid off from real jobs) knows this first hand. He can't claim anything on unemployment now since it's not extended and he has no job and is looking desperately for anything.

[superconnected]

24. BTW, I think teh repukes who filibustered the unemployment extention should also take a family of 4

into their home, to prevent them from being in the street.

[dmallind]

26. No - these are INITIAL claims. Expiring benefits totally separate pool of people. NT