Watching initial unemployment claims lately is not for the faint of heart. Two weeks ago showed extraordinary improvements, which was followed a week later by a sharp increase. The new figures from the Department of Labor have bounced back in an encouraging direction
Applications for U.S. unemployment benefits fell by 23,000 to a seasonally adjusted 369,000 in the week of Oct. 14-20, the Labor Department said Thursday, in line with market expectations. Initial claims from two weeks ago were revised up to 392,000 from an original reading of 388,000, based on more complete data collected at the state level. New claims have jumped up and down over the past three weeks because of seasonal quirks and other technical problems with the government's weekly data, mainly involving the state of California. The four-week moving average, which smoothes out volatility in the weekly reports, was little changed, rising 1,500 to 368,000.
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 been below the 370,000 threshold 11 of the last 16 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:
Then comes the revision and they are all over the place. The point is that politicians, even the ones we support, have little to do with employment or lack thereof; there are macro economic factors that do. Right now, and for the next few years, these will be a drag worldwide. Get used to it.
Only if you use Reagan economics is that true, but that is the GOP economic plan they trade unemployment with inflation, which lead to the problems we saw during Carters presidency. Here is a clue, people build stuff get paid for building stuff then go out and buy stuff which increases demand that leads to more jobs to fulfill those demands. It is rather amusing that you Mitt wits ignore that in order to make Reagan economics work you have to support credit buying because when credit dries up the economy crashes as it is designed to do, yet Mitt wits whine that people use credit to much.
I am as Keynesian as anyone; the problem we are facing is that trillions in assets just aren't anymore but the debts built on them remain, especially for workers.
De-leveraging takes time and demand suffers. Public works would be some offset and that is our current choice; GOP and military spending, Dems and transportation and higher taxes either way to pay for the choices made.
Whom
So what your saying is in order for the.economy to.grow, you need credit and NO TAX REDUCTION.
No that is what you said. Funny how we get the usual Mitt wit spins to stick with a failed system of economics. Here is a fact the economy was working fine until the GOP decided to fix it starting in the 1970's.
There are jobs in SD. See today's Argus Leader article http://www.argusleader.com/article/20121024/BJNEWS07/310240025/Some-employers-struggle-to-find-workers?source=nletter-business&nclick_check=1
We need employees out here. If you are looking for work, come to South Dakota.
Anybody who watches this number closely is either named Benen or is an idiot. The numbers bounce constantly. That said I respect Steve for following it every week.