For much of April, initial unemployment claims were getting a little ugly, reaching heights unseen in months, and raising concerns anew about the relative health of the job market. Today's report from the Department of Labor, following last week's good news, is more encouraging.
Though last week's figures were revised up a bit, the new numbers are still much lower than what we saw a month ago, and back to the level we saw in mid-March, which is near a four-year low.
The number of Americans who filed requests for jobless benefits fell by a scant 1,000 last week to 367,000, the U.S. Labor Department said Thursday. Claims from two weeks ago were revised up to 368,000 from 365,000. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch had projected claims would total 365,000 on seasonally adjusted basis in the week ended May 5. The average of new claims over the past four weeks, meanwhile, dropped by 5,250 to 379,000.
It's worth emphasizing that week-to-week results can vary widely, and it's best not to read too much significance into any one report. Still, it's generally heartening when the numbers are at least pointing in the right direction.
In terms of metrics, when jobless claims fall below the 400,000 threshold, it's considered evidence of an improving jobs landscape, and when the number drops below 370,000, it suggests jobs are actually being created rather quickly. After three consecutive weeks around 390,000 in April, we've now seen totals below 370,000 for two consecutive weeks.
And with that, here's the chart -- which reflects the revised, seasonably-adjusted data -- 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:
Still no signs of a double dip recession. Just slower growth than we need. Maybe if the American people started putting pressure on Republicans to do something about public sector jobs the economy might improve a little more rapidly.
So, the answer is public service jobs? Who pays for these jobs? Taxpayers! The only way to get the economy growing is through the private sector. And that won't happen until businesses have a more clear idea on taxes, healthcare and regulations
Public sector jobs are only part of the answer. The spending those who provide public services (like educating children, etc) winds up as profit to whom? Those who own the productive assets! Who are they? In the face of increased demand, they would happily hire more no matter how cloudy the outlook is on taxes or health care costs.
Public sector jobs are not inherently bad. There are a lot of societal needs that are not being met by the private sector. The situation only worsens in a bad economy. It's better someone to fill a need through the public sector and help employ people who want to work than to pay them welfare or unemployment.
Ron the Republicans do not want any signs of improvement before the elections. They do not care about the cost of their actions on this country. Their ONLY objective is to make President Obama a one term President!
In January of 2008 the labor force participation rate was at 66.2%. January of 2012 it sunk to 63.7% - the sharpest decline in this statistic since WWII; when every able bodied male was drafted into military service.
It stands to reason if you shrink the labor force you will decrease the initial unemployment claims. What are you trying to prove with this graph?
I have a hard time believing that any of this decrease is due to a higher than expected increase in the Civilian noninstitutional population, rather an exclusion of people from the labor force and their inclusion in the Civilian noninstitutional population.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp9RsO84TXc
A change of 1000 claimants is a nano-statistic at best. Let's not bet any money on this.
helpful graph. thinking longterm about job numbers is what POTUS needs to hammer on. People seeing weekly numbers up slightly or down slightly, etc, don't give them an accurate idea of what's been accomplished in the past couple years...
The number of new claims does have an impact. However, the number of people currently out of work is the real kicker here... as are the new entries into the workforce (read new grads or returning military). Point being, there are many pieces to this puzzle, and placing too much importance on a change in any one of them is just playing with statistics for the benefit of whichever...group...it benefits to do so.