After the wild rides of June and July, initial unemployment claims seem to have settled down a bit. The new report from the Department of Labor showed the total inching higher, but only a little.
First-time claims for state unemployment benefits rose in the latest week, the Labor Department reported Thursday. The number of initial claims in the week ending Aug. 11 rose 2,000 to 366,000. The consensus forecast of Wall Street economists was for claims to rise to 365,000. Claims have been at the low end of the recent range. As a result, the four-week average fell 5,500 to 363,750. This is the lowest level since the week ended March 31.
To reiterate the point I make every Thursday morning, it's worth remembering that week-to-week results can vary widely, and it's best not to read too much significance into any one report.
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 being created rather quickly. We've only managed to dip below the 370,000 threshold six times in the last 19 weeks, but here's the good news: we've been below 370,000 in five 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:
Jobless claims like this just doesn't help President Obama's case for another 4 yrs. But he still has 90 days to turn the economy around and I still believe anything can happen.
The steps that we have taken in response to previous recessions that were shown to be successful include infrastructure spending.
Ask yourself why we haven't been able to do the same thing with the Great Recession. Hint: - President Obama's Jobs bill that is stuck in Congress.
One reason we are not in the Second Great Depression was the success of the ARRA (stimulus).
I believe PBO hurt himself with the first stimulus and his shovel ready claim. He then had to back track on that. All it did was make people skeptical of infrastructure spending. We need it, but be realistic how soon jobs can be created.
Sorry maphi, but we are in the second great depression. That alone makes this different than other recessions, and is also why conventional measure aren't going to work. Would you think that the EU crisis would be solved by building a couple of bridges? I hope not.
When Govt's promise more than they can deliver, and break the trust people have in their ability to navigate crisis, you get what we have now... fear and hoarding. that's the real reason for our current predicament. As you may have seen me say, the quality of an economy is dependent on expectations for the future. Right now those are all negative.
Maphi,
President Obama had 2 yrs. of Democratic controlled House and Senate and got most of his programs passed. Additionaly, Republican Congress cut him a $6T blank check. With this kind of money with should have full employment, fully funded Medicare/Medicaid & Social Security. I'm always wondering where all that money went?
President Obama had 2 yrs. of Democratic controlled House and Senate and got most of his programs passed.
And those programs were enormously successful in taking the country from a 9% contraction to solid, if not spectacular, growth.
I'm always wondering where all that money went?
The reason you are having trouble finding it is because it is imaginary. Setting aside that a blank check cannot also be a 6 Trillion dollar check, no such transaction ever took place.
Brent it was not successful, because if it was we wouldn't be at 8.3% unemployment for 40 straight months, gas prices over $3.00 for 40 straight months, more people of food stamps and welfare, more home foreclosures, $6T in added debt.. The Stimulus, Obamacare, Green Jobs etc. just did not produce the kind of results that would get us back to the path of prosperity, as a matter of fact it was the wrong prescription for our country.
because if it was we wouldn't be at 8.3% unemployment for 40 straight months
We have of course, not been at 8.3% unemployment for 40 straight months. In reality, we went from 10.6% unemployment to 8.3% unemployment in that time.
gas prices over $3.00 for 40 straight months
Bringing up gas prices in this context makes you look absurd. Higher gas prices are more closely correlated with higher economic activity, not lower. Of course this is complicated by the fact that gas is actually priced by the international market not the American one but the point is that pointing out the price of gas as some sort of indicator of a poor economy demonstrates in stark fashion that someone doesn't know what they are talking about and doesn't care to find out.
But these are asides really. They are just the most obviously wrong of all the incorrect things you said. I actually just wanted to point out that you rather deliberately ignored what I said in order to spew your nonsense talking points as some sort of "rebuttal." Again, this economy was contracting at 8.9% when Obama took office. That is a rate of contraction not seen since the Great Depression. It has now been consistently growing for two years. I won't bother quoting all the independent sources that point out that this growth is directly attributable to the stimulus. If you had any interest in these facts, you would, of course, be aware of this already. I just think it is important to highlight that you need to deliberately ignore this growth in order to sustain your very weak argument.
Great story, jobs are not being created, but just getting worse. The GDP is getting worse. The RICH RICH manufacturing Corps so called from LIBERALS. are just scared to hire due to the questionable tactic of this loose cannon administration. With the lack of latitude nor vision, with the dereliction of responsibility to the middle class. I have come to the conclusion that, the author of this article has a loose screw somewhere in his head. What this moron failed to look at is the Federal Dependency Ratio, which means (food stamps, welfare social security and illegal alien assistance etc.) is a whopping 37% WOW. That’s a RECORD BREAKER. Any of you Knuckle Head Liberals care to challenge this, feel free.
I usually avoid responding to such lame attempts at trolling but I think its important to point out that even by the normally very low standards of conservative rhetoric, you demonstrate an extraordinarily poor understanding of the Dependency Ratio which has much more to do with the demographics of age in the population than with the business cycle. I won't bother address your idiotic canard about businesses leaving money on the table because of "uncertainty." Even the paid party hacks have given up on that bit of nonsense.
You missed the good news. Interest rates on the 10 year Treasury have finally gotten back above 1.8. You can't have a good economy and interest rates below 2, so they are heading in the right direction.
The fact is there are fewer people working today than when obummer took office in Jan 2009.
Over 41 million people on food stamps, over 50% of house holds receiving government assistance.
And the liberals think this is all good and we need 4 more years of this none sense.
The key problem is a lack of consumer demand. Savers getting nil returns make up for it by saving more. Fewer dollars available for demand means fewer goods and services bought. Why expand production if you can't sell the goods you have in stock? Why hire more workers to make more of what isn't selling?
The Fed's suppresion of rates of return is now hurting the economy. Monetary policy has shot its load.
Catering tax policy to the very well off will not create more demand as these folks are already able to consume to their optimal desire to do so. The wealth will not eat more meals or buy more stuff if they pay less in taxes but the rest of us tend to do so when blessed with a few extra dollars (baby's new pair of shoes!). Adding to the burden of the middle class will only result in less consumer demand and that is not to be found in "Atlas Shrugged" which makes it hard for me to imagine a Romney/Ryan plan will emerge that makes the least bit of sense.
When "uncertainty" is given as the reason for not hiring, think uncertain demand because if there were stacks of unfilled orders for big ticket items, no manager would care a whit what future health benefits might cost. If the available labor pool doesn't have the skills needed, enterprises would happily train them.
QED
A new set of rules is needed for the distribution of wealth. The 'job' based economy as it is has failed and will not recover. An unemployment rate lower than 8% is no where in sight because there is no work to be done. Yes, infrastructure renewal that is long coming will employ some but nothing like the nunber now out of work.
The tipping point towards full employment came with WW2. From it came the technological marvels that, like waves hitting the beach has opened both business and employment opportunities in waves. Television was the first becinning right after the war employing millions. Then came the arms and space races with the 'godless' communists. That played out during the 1970s and the unemployment rate soared to double digits. Then came the PC to take up the slack. About the time the PC vein was playing out the Internet and cell phone came along. Their hay day as employment boosters is over. There is no great 'everybody will need one' product like the PC and Internet on the horizon. A new rule to put people in the main stream of earning a living needs to be invented.
Down throgh history new innovations have been the by products war. We now have two or more wars and nothing new worth while is coming from them unless one considers an IED as advancement. Even though the IED creates a market the artificial limb industry is too small to take up the slack.
Of course the government needs to be the leader of any such effort. Try selling that idea to a Republican.
I'll interject with the observation that the Labor Statistics we're talking about are a sham - they don't account for permanently disaffected labor - people who have given up looking for a job. I won't try to present the argument here based on the current labor statistics, but you can read my argument from earlier this year based on January's data - nothing has really changed since then anyway: http://randompoliticalmusings.blogspot.com/2012/02/real-unemployment-statistics-or-what.html
Or my update from a few months later: http://randompoliticalmusings.blogspot.com/2012/05/update-real-unemployment-statistics-or.html
Point being - the situation is really a LOT worse than we're being told. I'm sure you're surprised by that conclusions.
Further point - why is it that the media outlets don't take the time to understand this and report on how the government is twisting the statistics to make the situation look rosier? Is it that they think we're stupid and won't understand the issue? Is it that they're lazy and don't want to go the extra mile for the real story?
What a croc of ****.
spin the data any way you want. But when a president says things like no new taxes (bush the 1st) and then there are new taxes guess what...Your not re-elected. When a president says give me 800billion of your taxpayer dollars and unemployment wont go over 8% and it then sits above 8% for nearly 4 years. Guess what - You failed.
Yes, its better. But thats not what was promised. A whole bunch of stimulus to companies that took that money and ran (who are also obama donors) a whole bunch of unsustainable public jobs that now have to be paid for by the taxpayer (again). Yea, job situation is better.
But eating bugs is better than eating **** but I don't see many Americans catching flies for dinner.