Jobless Claims Drop (5,000 to 326,000)

[papau]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=668&ncid=749&e=6&u=/ap/20041230/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy

Jobless Claims Drop in Hopeful Sign

By JEANNINE AVERSA, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The number of new people signing up for unemployment benefits dropped last week, a hopeful sign that the recovery in the jobs market is moving ahead. The Labor Department reported Thursday that new applications filed for jobless benefits declined by a seasonally adjusted 5,000 to 326,000 for the week ending Dec. 25. That left claims at their lowest level since the week ending Dec. 11.

The newest snapshot of the labor market was better than economists were anticipating. They were expecting claims to rise to around 335,000. <snip>

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

December 30, 2004 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT

SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA

In the week ending Dec. 25, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 326,000, a decrease of 5,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 331,000. The 4-week moving average was 333,500, a decrease of 6,000 from the previous week's revised average of 339,500.

The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.2 percent for the week ending Dec. 18, unchanged from the prior week's unrevised rate of 2.2 percent.

The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending Dec. 18 was 2,755,000, an increase of 29,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 2,726,000. The 4-week moving average was 2,751,000, an increase of 9,250 from the preceding week's revised average of 2,741,750.

UNADJUSTED DATA

The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 453,654 in the week ending Dec. 25, an increase of 79,058 from the previous week. There were 516,493 initial claims in the comparable week in 2003.

The advance unadjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.2 percent during the week ending Dec. 18, unchanged from the prior week. The advance unadjusted number for persons claiming UI benefits in state programs totaled 2,721,778, a decrease of 99,217 from the preceding week. A year earlier, the rate was 2.6 percent and the volume was 3,247,595.

[salin]

1. short term seasonal retail employment?

[durablend]

2. Which are gone in another 2 weeks...

If not sooner.

[tx_dem41]

5. According to the report, these are "seasonally-adjusted" numbers...

I would assume that takes this factor into account.

[salin]

8. given that a) it isn't much of a decline

(one would expect a much larger number per the retail sector) and b) sales were reportedly not what was expected... It would seem that you would be correct.

There are such mixed economic indicators right now - hard to discern the real picture.

Per the comment of the Clinton admin numbers... there have been some major tinkering in different calculations during this administration (eg reweighting the measures for inflation to lower the weight on the costs of energy and housing and increase the weight put on costs of entertainment...) that the numbers are even fuzzier than before. That isn't to say that if the economy hit such a long slump during Clinton's later years that they wouldn't have done some creative recalculations as well...

[zann725]

24. Depends on who's "adjusting" them. I TRULY trust the #'s will go back up

after Holiday Help is laid-off.

It would be ILLOGICAL to assume that 'regular' jobs increased during the Holiday Season...since most employers LAY OFF people at year-end, NOT HIRE new ones...in order to avoid paying year end bonuses, and Christmas "pay." Plus most businesses slow down near year end due to most people on vacation, partying or off holiday shopping. There's be NO logical reason for this year to be any different, with a sudden upsurge in "regular' hiring...especially in an already weak economy, with a seriously plunging Dollar.

These "numbers" sound as dependable as the Shrub's Election 'Mandate."

[ClintonTyree]

3. The numbers are bullshit..............

they're always bullshit. The "*" administration has lied since day one about them. I'm not going to start believing them now.

[tx_dem41]

7. Of course these numbers are calculated by the same career bureaucrats...

...that put out the employment numbers during Clinton's administration. I guess you didn't believe those either. :shrug:

[papau]

9. the change under Bush as to Seasonal adj may even be logical :-)

but it was a change

[cap]

12. they put out both seasonally and unseasonally adjusted numbers

so people can see the difference.

[cap]

11. those same bureaucrats are led by different people

who give them different direction. It happened during Reagan and its happening again during bush. Start reading the fine print in the economic statistic releases. I know this. Did statistical analysis under Reagan -- they were fooling around like mad. We had to ask privately for the raw data so we could recalculate.

[silvermachine]

14. Always...

...so quick to defend this administration. Perhaps you and Aliciakeyedup should find a more appropriate place to go.

[tx_dem41]

15. Where did I defend this administration?

I was defending the good career government workers in the Department of Labor. Can you please defend your (against-the-rules) personal attack with an actual post where I defended this Administration?

[silvermachine]

16. Your posts...

...speak for themselves. You are transparent.

[tx_dem41]

17. Very nice and cogent analysis.....

again, lets cite a fact that supports your claim. I spent yesterday in a thread about makeup in casinos. Before that I haven't posted in a week. Please, help me out here.

[liberal N proud]

4. More people loose their unemployment benefits

The regime will claim the economy is better and point to this number, but it does not tell the real story.
How many of those 5,000 were employed?

[AllegroRondo]

6. These numbers dont reflect unemployment benefits

Its a simple phone survey. To qualify as "unemployed" for this survey you must not have worked in the last week, but are able to work and tried to find a job.

It does not reflect people who have given up looking for work, or people who receive SS disability. (the last group actually counts as 'employed', due to a rule change in Oct 2003)

[Prisonerohio]

10. It also does not count the people who are off unemployment because there

are no more extensions.

[mhr]

13. Unemployed 55 Months - Over 2,500 Resumes Out The Door

No potential job in sight.

[ally_sc]

19. nobody can say you haven't tried...eom

[TexasChick]

20. That's it! Exactly. Been unemployed for two freckin' years now and even

though I have run out of benefits and am no longer on the unemployment rolls, doesn't mean that I have found a job and people are finding jobs. It's just that we are no longer "considered" in the job market looking for work by the government's terms and reasons.

[ally_sc]

22. statistics are just that...i am only working p/t it is not enough

unfortunately inflation is really hard in this area. may have to relocate just so ends will meet. i also know other people have it far worse than i do.

[KingChicken]

18. I'm still waiting for real numbers...

I'm always willing to come out of the bear cave and have a look around every now and then, still waiting for some real numbers...

[The Judged]

21. God forbid that unemployment statistics actually indicate # of unemployed

nationally and as a percentage of the adult population. Then we would have a better sense of employment in this country.

Now we have a "hide and seek" statistic that is mostly a prognostication enabler and a plausible basis for deniability of accountability.

I guess the goal is the "short term momentum of employment" rather than the actual "long term reality of employment."

[Yavin4]

23. Simple Answer: People Didn't Want To Spend The Holidays Applying for UE

And last week was a holiday week. The office wasn't open. When the weekly claims dip below 300K and stay there for a prolonged period of time (at least 8 weeks), then I'll believe in this "recovery", which has been going on since Nov. 2001. To still have 300K+ new claims every single week, means that this "recovery" is extremely shallow.

A real recovery would see explosive job growth, not this tepid temp hiring crap that we're seeing.

[Acryliccalico]

25. I want to see the numbers of new claims for welfare

:kick:

[frylock]

26. i've done my part by exhausting my ui benefits..

of course, I've only been looking for work 8 months now. My heart and sympathy goes out to the two posters who have been unemployed for years. I'm giving my apartment manager my notice, and either moving in with my folks, or moving out to VA and staying with my brother.

[cornermouse]

27. Jobless figures are irrelevant and without value.

They've changed to methods of tracking to the extent of making these figures meaningless.