The general trend on initial unemployment claims over the last few months has been largely encouraging, despite occasional setbacks, and most analysts expected this morning's report to show a modest uptick in filings.
The good news is, that didn't happen. In fact, initial jobless claims reached a four-year low last week, and the new totals were unchanged this week.
Jobless claims in the U.S. were unchanged last week at a seasonally adjusted 351,000, the Labor Department said Thursday. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch estimated claims would total 353,000. Claims from two weeks ago were revised up to 351,000 from 348,000. The four-week average of claims, meanwhile, fell by 7,000 to 359,000, the lowest level since March 2008. The monthly average smoothes out seasonal quirks and provides a more accurate view of labor-market trends.
In terms of metrics, keep in mind, when these jobless claims fall below the 400,000 threshold, it's considered evidence of an improving jobs landscape. When the number drops below 370,000, it suggests jobs are actually being created rather quickly.
We've now dropped below 370,000 for three consecutive weeks, and four of the last six weeks.
And with that, here's the chart, showing weekly, initial unemployment claims going back to the beginning of 2007. (Remember, unlike the monthly jobs chart, a lower number is good news.) For context, I've added an arrow to show the point at which President Obama's Recovery Act began spending money.
Leave a Comment:
We must now wait for the foxian spin and the limbaugh denials.
Well, it should be obvious that this recovery is due to the Bush Tax Cuts...we just needed to give them time to work...Great Job "W".
You do not need to look at official jobless figures to determine that the economy is rebounding and hope is in the air again. You don't need to look at the falling unemployment rate. Son't need to watch the Dow hit 13,000, or home sales rebound to levels not seen in years. No, all you need to do to understand the recovery is to observe a Republican presidential debate, four men all running to depose Barack Obama, and half of the time is spent arguing about the "dangers" of birth control. Game over... http://www.sunstateactivist.org
This is a crisis.
These recent unemployment application reports only suggest less people are losing their jobs. The US needs more new jobs than unemployment applications, and that is frankly not the case at this point.
3.4 million yearly college graduates
200k new jobs added monthly
There are more college graduates alone than available jobs. Moreover, there are 23million total unemployed.
Furthermore,The US economy hasn't recovered one job from the 9 million lost during '08-'09 recession.
This is an employment crisis
What do you suggest?
Needs Vacation. Can't you at least accept that we have moved in the right direction. Of course progress is slow but from where we started we're doing better. So you're not satisfied and want more right now, well that's not going to happen so who are you ready to blame for that,Obama or the obstructionist Republicans?
Hmm, didn't I hear something about a jobs plan... seems I remember something like that, I think the president's name was attached to it... strangely enough, nothing happened with that. Strange! I mean, the GOP was elected to their majority in the House based on this idea that they'd spur job creation, I can't imagine they would skip an opportunity to do what they were elected for!
Whoops! Left my sarcasm dial turned to 11.
Great news for the McCain campaign.
Would someone please oh please ask rick santorum how he feels about birth control for men? vasectomies? condoms?
Would someone please oh please ask rick santorum how he feels about birth control for men? vasectomies? condoms?
Putting something in "context" means looking at the whole picture.
Steve says,
"For context, I've added an arrow to show the point at which President Obama's Recovery Act began spending money."
The implication is that there is a singular cause and effect relationship between the Recovery Act and declining unemployment.
But is this the whole picture?
What about TARP?
In 2008 the Toxic Asset Relief Act was intended to give relief to homeowners by purchasing mortgage-backed securities from lenders.
But this intent was not faithfully executed (the function of the "Executive" branch) for that end.
Obama's Secretary of Treasury, Geither, hijacked the program and gave taxpayer money to a few big banks--ergo: the big bank bailout for those too-big-to-fail, no relief for homeowners, no reform of the banking system, continued big bonuses for those who caused the financial crisis, and the protests of the "Occupy" Wall Street movement.
Did this help unemployment to trend downward since 2009?
Can't it be equally argued that fiscal policy actually inhibited the decline in unemployment?
I don't know.
But come on Steve, try to put the whole situation in "context."
Post Falls, Idaho
Talk about the job market??? In Virginia, the Richmond newspaper (Feb 23-Business section) talks about "Focus on Entrepreneurship". This is great if you are a big business decedent with plenty of capital and lots of contracts...however if you are a small business -Women-owned or Minority-owned-your chances lessen for success in the state of Virginia with the proposed Senate Bill No.250. This bill totally discounts all the efforts of Senate Bill No. 651 which came about after a disparity study was done for the Commonwealth of Virginia. The study clearly showed that Minority and Women Owned Businesses captured only 1.5% of government contracts for fiscal year 2005-2009. State procurement contracts were estimated at $18.9 Billion and only $286.2 million or 1.5% spent with Minority and Women Owned Businesses. In a 2004 Disparity Study 1.26% was the ratio. Senate Bill 651 will give greater opportunity to the small business entrepreneurs in Virginia however, to make matters more difficult and add extra roadblocks, Senate Bill No. 250 has been introduced.
Virginia is turning back the hands of time and this matter needs press review.