New jobless claims jump to 8-month high

[steve2470]

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - New U.S. claims for unemployment aid unexpectedly rose last week to touch their highest level in eight months, pushed up by factors ranging from spring break layoffs to the introduction of an emergency benefits program, a government report showed on Thursday.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits rose 43,000 to a seasonally adjusted 474,000, the highest since mid-August, the Labor Department said

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims dropping to 410,000. The prior week's figure was revised up to 431,000 from the previously reported 429,000.

The four-week moving average of unemployment claims, a better measure of underlying trends, increased 22,250 to 431,250, the highest since November.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/05/us-usa-economy-idUSTRE73D8GJ20110505

[robcon]

1. The word "unexpectedly" comes up too much in these unemployment figures.

We've all 'expected' unemployment to decline. It is very stubbornly not doing so.

edit:spell

[Fuddnik]

2. Unexpected is to be expected, anymore.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[still_one]

3. These figures are not reliable. The ones to look at are tomorrows /nt

[Fuddnik]

4. These are official Labor Department weekly stats.

The reports tomorrow are a different subject.

[still_one]

5. I know, but they are extremely variable, that is what I meant /nt

[pinqy]

6. That's not the same as "not reliable."

They are reliable (pending revisions based mostly on late reporting from the states), but they don't tell us much about the employment situation.

Two things to remember...First, tomorrow's report is based on the week of April 10 - 16, so the last two weeks of increased UI claims won't be reflected. And at the same time, some people delay weeks or months before making their claims. Second, UI claims are GROSS additions to unemployed (and incomplete at that because quits, new entrants and re-entrants are obviously missed) and does not account for new hires.

[stockholmer]

10. +1

[still_one]

11. absolutely correct, thanks for pointing that out /nt

[OhioChick]

7. "unexpectedly" is getting rather old already n/t

[zbdent]

8. so, wait ... all those "warm fuzzies" that came from the Republicans winning the House

in 2010 ... that's not adding up to all those "businesses wondering about their taxes" creating jobs, like the Repugs claimed?

Odd, seems to me that the gasoline prices started their climb immediately after the Repugs won the 2010 midterms ... within two weeks of the 2010 midterms, gas had jumped 30 cents in my area ...

[stockholmer]

9. a nasty chart and a link to the US Department of Labor stats

http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/eta20110624.htm

[defendandprotect]

13. Any report on unemployment which doesn't reflect LONG TERM unemployed isn't reliable ...

What are the numbers there -- still over 15% or more!!

To suggest that we have an 8% unemployment rate is to be pulling the public's leg!!

What is it in Michigan -- 40% unemployment?

What is it among African Americans -- ???

And let's also talk about what's required to get American back on track --

Is it more trade agreements with Korea and Colombia?

[pinqy]

14. There's a difference between claims and unemployment rate

You were responding to a chart of Unemployment Insurance claims. Those obviously only cover people receiving benefits.

The unemployment rate is from a household survey and includes long term unemployed...there's no max time.

[defendandprotect]

15. ... and who isn't aware of that? But ANY report which doesn't discuss the overall

situation with unemployment is being less than honest --

especially with Obama's new trade agreements with Korea and Colombia coming in !!

Reuters -- or any other news organization -- discussing the subject should cover the

full scope of unemployment problems in America.

The article also seems to have changed somewhat from the other day -- as I recalled it

it mentioned that many unemployed are waiting weeks or longer before applying for

unemployment benefits --

HOWEVER, if you're familiar with what's going on with unemployment services, the offices

are understaffed and underequipped, with too few phone lines and againg computers.

Therefore, it is causing the unemployed to spend fruitless time on the telphone trying to

reach someone to help. Needless to say, with the huge numbers of unemployed, this seems

a purposeful effort to keep the numbers down --

It's also very difficult for those already receiving benefits when they have questions --

or problems -- almost impossible to get thru to unemployment offices for weeks!!

Again -- the info in the article is "unreliable" because it doesn't tell the full story.

And, it is allegedly the job of our "free press" to do that, as I recall.

[defendandprotect]

12. Obama's stimulus for economy was only 20% of what was needed ... but for Wall Street 1000% ... !!!