Initial UE claims drop to 303,000 - much better than expected

[papau]

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

February 10, 2005 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT

SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA

In the week ending Feb. 5, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 303,000, a decrease of 13,000 from the previous week's unrevised figure of 316,000. The 4-week moving average was 315,500, a decrease of 16,000 from the previous week's unrevised average of 331,500.

The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.2 percent for the week ending Jan. 29, an increase of 0.1 percentage point from the prior week's unrevised rate of 2.1 percent.

The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending Jan. 29 was 2,737,000, an increase of 47,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 2,690,000. The 4-week moving average was 2,734,000, an increase of 22,500 from the preceding week's revised average of 2,711,500.


UNADJUSTED DATA

The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 346,075 in the week ending Feb. 5, a decrease of 18,438 from the previous week. There were 433,234 initial claims in the comparable week in 2004.

The advance unadjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.6 percent during the week ending Jan. 29, unchanged from the prior week. The advance unadjusted number for persons claiming UI benefits in state programs totaled 3,303,635, an increase of 40,656 from the preceding week. A year earlier, the rate was 3.1 percent and the volume was 3,850,990.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000016&sid=aQs6y0X_2.eY&refer=home

S&P 500 Futures Rise as Weekly Jobless Claims Unexpectedly Fall

Feb. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Standard & Poor's 500 Index futures rose after a government report showed the number of Americans filing first-time claims for unemployment insurance unexpectedly fell last week to the lowest level in more than four years. <snip>

Jobless claims declined to 303,000, the lowest since Oct. 28, 2000, from an unrevised 316,000 the week before, the Labor Department said. Claims were forecast to rise to 325,000, the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey of economists.

The Commerce Department said in a separate report that the U.S. trade gap narrowed 4.9 percent in December from a record as the price of foreign oil sank and exports jumped. The deficit for all of 2004 grew 24 percent to the widest ever.

[notadmblnd]

1. Well as of this week, I'm off the rolls

don't let the numbers fool you. The bush regime would have you believe that there are approx 7 million people unemployed. But if you count the under employed or the people who have fallen off the rolls the real number is closer to 18,000,000.

[Robert Oak]

17. this would make a good blog story

I still don't have all of the statistical facts, but doing a study
on how these statistics are manipulated plus how Europe and other countries calculate in comparison to the US is probably in order.

Anybody want to do it I'll post it or know of one that gives a big overview?

[notadmblnd]

18. Xavier Becerra D-California was on C-span this morning

talking about SS. Says the system is not in crisis. There is an expected 116 billion surplus that will be taken in this year above what is scheduled to be paid out. He would ask the president if SS is in crisis, then why does the government plan on spending that 116 billion surplus on things other than SS?

I posted this on the social Security Group forum this earlier today. He seemed to have his numbers down. Maybe someone who does this could contact him and see what he has to say?

[whistle]

2. That's great, war is good for jobs and economic figures...

...as are $2.5 trillion in deficit spending. When the bills start coming in, who pays then?

[papau]

3. true - :-(

:-(

[Skittles]

4. what was the jobs figure for January

I must have missed it?

[robcon]

8. 5.2% unemployment; 4, 982,000 unemployed; 140 mil employed

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

[Skittles]

9. do you know how many jobs they claim were created last month?

thx

[robcon]

12. 146,000 on nonfarm payrolls

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t14.htm

To use BLS data, find the following link
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.toc.htm

Choose charts with a prefix "A" for the survey of consumers/individuals (unemployment rate, total labor force, demographic results, etc.)

Choose charts with a prefix "B" for the data from employers/withholding/payrolls (Total payrolls, industry detail, average wage/salary, etc.)

[Skittles]

15. got it; thanks robcon

gee - I guess the "jobless recovery" continues

[Maeve]

5. Putting this into perspective

That means fewer folks were laid off than we've seen in one week since the Chimp took office (Initial Claims are first-time filers).
A certain amount of "churn", job turnover, is expected in even the best of economies, but we're just getting back to 2000 numbers. And the total number of jobs in the US is still below what we need to keep up with the population...


And the trade gap is just not as bad as the month before, but still a record for last year.

[dandrhesse]

6. I may be wrong but doesn't that figure just reflect that fact that there

are less "new applications" for unemployment. That only means that the job loss rate slowed somewhat, at some point there will be no one left to fire so the new application rate would be 0% that doesn't mean that anyone is working.

[papau]

7. It may reflect weather - but in general this is "good news"- unless hiring

went through the floor.

[dandrhesse]

10. I don't think the number who have dropped off the rolls is reported

either. Those who have been looking so long that they are no longer eligible.

that is one of the most important indicators.

[papau]

19. The U-6 Unemployment rate of 9.3% says it measures this - but it misses

the folks who have totally given up.

[Yavin4]

11. What's Really Happening Is This

People are taking whatever job they can get. After four years of a horrible job market, people are settling on temp jobs, retail jobs, and taking multiple jobs. Also, when you get laid off from one of these "McJobs", you don't qualify for UE.

[robcon]

13. I think that is a common misconception, Yavin4

Being unemployed, by the BLS definition, has nothing at all to do with whether one is eligible for unemployment insurance. Among those who are counted among the unemployed (but who are ineligible for Unemployment Insurance) are those who haven't applied for unemployment insurance, those who have been unemployed for a longer period than unemployment insurance runs, those who haven't qualified for insurance because either they are looking for their first job or haven't held a job long enough.

For example, the age group 16-19 has 16% unemployment, although many (most?) of those people do not qualify for unemployment insurance.

It is important to dissociate unemployment insurance from unemployment. Usually only about half of the unemployed are receiving insurance. The fact that Unemployment Insurance claims are a "leading indicator" of the state of the employment market, I think, leads to the erroneous conclusion that unemployment=insured. It never has been.

[Yavin4]

16. I think that Most of the Labor Metrics Are Out of Date

Temp work is becoming the norm. You work for a day, a week, a month, or in some cases ten years as a temp. Your "employment" status is in a constant state of flux.

It never ceases to amaze me how the media is so quick to hype any positive news about jobs. The UE claims are still over 300K and they have been that way for four years solid. This drop in UE claims is more due to the fact that the jobs from which people are getting laid off from don't qualify these people for UE insurance. For instance, if you got a retail job at Best Buy for the holidays and were laid off in January, you probably won't go through the trouble of applying for UE. You'll probably just wait it out until another McJob comes along, or you'll probably two or three other jobs.

[ixion]

14. that's interesting, because all I see are layoffs

I don't read about any company deciding to hire 1,000 or 10,000 employees, however I do see (almost daily) reports of more layoffs.

Interesting math these Bushistas use. :eyes: