Jobless claims rise

[54anickel]

http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/04/news/economy/jobless/index.htm

I'm in that count for last week! I was wondering if I would end up in an up or down count.

The Labor Department said 365,000 people filed new claims for unemployment benefits in the week ended Nov. 29, compared with a revised reading of 354,000 in the prior week. Economists, on average, expected 354,000 new claims, according to Briefing.com

snip>
They bury the more distrubing/questionable info at the end:

Most economists consider new claims below the 400,000 threshold as a sign of an improving labor market, and last week was the eighth consecutive week of jobless claims below 400,000.

The four-week moving average of new claims, which irons out the volatility of the weekly data, rose to 362,500 last week from a revised 359,500 in the prior week.

Continued claims, the number of people out of work for a week or more, rose to 3.38 million for the week ended Nov. 22, the latest data available, from a revised 3.34 million the prior week

[NNN0LHI]

1. Shit. We should not be losing jobs before the holidays. What is up here?nt

[54anickel]

3. From my experience, mass layoffs covered by the WARN Act.

For a mass layoff (over 50?), a company must give a 60 day warning. You either continue to work for 60 days or you get paid for 60 days, either way, you cannot file your initial claim right away. (Well,you can open it early, but that would effect your benefit year.)

[NNN0LHI]

6. Thanks for the info. Never had heard of that before n/t

[54anickel]

18. Here's a link to a simple fact sheet. There's much more info out there

http://www.doleta.gov/programs/factsht/warn.htm

In a healthy economy, it avoids a huge uptick in unemployment claims, as you could probably find a job within the 60 days.

IMHO, the big layoff announcements that we read about tend to co-incide with corpations quarterly reports. Gives them an advantage in being able to project increased profit because they know how much they will save in payroll expense at the end of the WARN
period. I know my company tied it into their year end forecast.
There was a slight increase in projected orders for the final quarter, so they projected only the saving on the layoffs. So their final numbers will show them as "outperforming" their initial expectations.

Again, this is just my opinion based on what I've followed locally.

[La_Serpiente]

2. What the hell is going on?

The unemployment rate went down, GDP is up, but jobless claims went up?

Some other things I would like to know. Are incomes rising?

[54anickel]

4. No, I read they are falling.

Let me try to find the link.

(on edit to add following & link)
This is from an article in todays Stock Market Watch thread. I know I read it in some other news reports earlier this week as well.

From Today's WrapUp by Mike Hartman 12.03.2003
http://www.financialsense.com/Market/wrapup.htm

"The increased productivity drove unit labor costs down 5.8%, which is the fastest rate of decline in the last twenty years."

[Frodo]

16. Actually it makes sense.

First time jobless claims don't equate to reduction in the workforce. If I get fired today and they replace me tomorrow I show up as "1st time jobless claim (actually, I don't think "fired" counts - but whatever) report, but not increase the unemployment rate at all.

If I quit one job and go to another a month later a similar effect occurs.

The "400,000" number is a guestimate that could be way off, but gets used alot. We'll find out tomorrow what the unemployment number is. The ISM report implied that it would be a big improvement. Today's number looks kinda neutral by expectations but the last four weeks have been a lot better than the previous four and we saw a slight dip in unemployment last month. We'll see.

Incidently, it can work the other way too. You could have a real low 1st time number and an increase in the unemployment rate. If a bunch of people enter the workforce at the same time (school graduations are "seasoned" out, but you could see a bunch of people returning to work at the same time) the unemployemnt rate can go up without anyne being fired.

[West Coast Democrat]

20. Frodo, have you ever distrusted Bush Admin numbers?

I'm just wondering.

[Frodo]

22. We all seemed pretty happy with them the last three years.

Didn't we?


I can only work with the numbers that come out (from dozens of sources ni and out of the administration).

Yelling "It's a lie I tell you! Lies! All Lies!" for every good number and "see how bad his policy is" for every bad one makes us look silly.

[West Coast Democrat]

23. The unemployment rate has always been artificially low

Even Bush supporters know that, don't you?

[Frodo]

33. You are CORRECT!

There are lots of people who would LIKE to have a job but don't, and they still don't get counted. And it's been that way for years (though the numbers imply it's worse today - but it's a marginal thing).

But that doesn't matter. it's true that when we say unemployment is at 6% it's really at 7.5% (just for intstance). but that doesn't mean that it's a "lie" if you are comparing it the 6% that Clinton averaged for his first two years that was ALSO lower than reality by comparable amounts.

You can't say you'll score one guy with the "real" numbers and give the other guy credit for what you now call a lie. That's not "apples to apples". So it's perfectly ok to say "6%" without "cooking the books". AND it's ok to say "there are actually millions more that we need to help than that number implies".

[West Coast Democrat]

43. Are things "getting better" for you personally

on the economic front, or is it just that you have a firm belief that a long-term economic downturn is impossible in this country?

(edited for typo)

[Frodo]

46. Well, yes. But not because of Bush.

Things have been getting substantially better for me and my family. But I don't give credit or blame to any particular administration.

I'm reletivly young and still (I hope) moving up in my career. More importantly, my company was recently acquired by another well-regarded financial institution and I was able to move from an area where 350k buys you a nice townhouse to one where 250k gets you a lovely house on some land.

I guess I have to give some credit to that home-sale tax exemption we got a few years ago.


Sure, long-term ecnomic downturn is possible. But the numbers we've been arguing over are all on the fringe. We had three quarters of mild GDP contraction and now we are in sub-standard growth. That really isn't the same thing. We're in a hyper-political season since 2000, so one side wants to believe "this is as bad as it gets" while the other wants to spin things the other way, but it's really rather "boring" right now (which is not intended to insult the millions of fine people out of work through no fault of their own... but we've also had millions laid off in "Boom" times as well)

The idea that we would argue about fiscal policy based on a few thousand person change in a highly volitile number is embarasing. Unemployment Going from 5% to 6% or 6% to 5% is important... but it isn't the end-all-be-all of the economy. 6% used to be considered a pretty good number. Reagan was re-elected in a landslide with MUCH higher numbers. We can't pretend that 6% is going to spearhead our asault next year. it isn't BAD ENOUGH.

[West Coast Democrat]

51. Then we'll see a star by your name soon then?

As someone who frequents this site so often, I'm sure you value it and wish to support it financially.

[Frodo]

53. Sure. What's a star?

Does it just mean a contribution? Does it go away after the quarter is over?

[West Coast Democrat]

55. Thanks for paying attention

unbelievable!!

[dfong63]

90. but the numbers aren't computed the same way

the BLS changed the assumptions they use to calculate the unemployment rate, after Bush came into office.

[Frodo]

93. The big change was actually in '93 according to their site

and some minor tweaking every couple years since then.

The problem is that nobody ever explains exactly WHAT the change WAS and how it changes the end results (or even whether it is more or less accurate)...

I usually see someon go on about how the change now drops from the number anyone whose unemployment benefits have run out (which would have a MAJOR effect), but that just isn't so.

Then I've seen that they simply cook the books. Not manipulate date, but flat-out lie. It's certainly possible, though I think it would be stupid - hmmmm, that actually fits - and politically risky to try (especially when they've been reporting increasing unemployment the whole time until the last couple months). I just don't get how I'm supposed to read it from there? If true, then I have NOTHING to go on to setermine what's happening except annecdotal evidence that "my cousin was just laid off, things still suck".

Can you describe what the change was and give me a link?

[tom_paine]

30. You are correct, however in a nation halfway between freedom and tyranny

many strange amalgams of truth/lies will exist while information systems are "brought into line" (gleitschlaung, in the original German).

You see, as we transition away from a Democratic-Republic with a Free and Independent Press to an Orwellian-Totalitarian Oligarchic Empire, it cannot happen all at once.

(now I am NOT syaing that the Old American Republic was 100% truthful, but making relative comparisons of trustworhtiness, tweaking numbers, and outright fabrications)

So we will get curious mixes of truth and lies, as the Busheviks continue their purges of mostly non-political governmetal agencies and turning them into Imperial Footstools. Eventually the truth/half-truth/fabrication will tilt drastically to the Right until there is nothing but a Soviet-style Matrix of Deception.

A clear indication of the beginnings of this was when Treasury changed a 40-year-old method of calculating relative tax benefits for various income groups. Coincidentally enough, these changes all benefitted the Bushevik assertions regarding the top 1%, how much tax they paid and how much of the ax cut they were receiving.

(see old Paul Krugman columns, among otherw ho chronicles these early deceptions in 2001)

And of course there were the more obvious Soviet style deceptions emanating directly from the Imperial Palace, such as lumping multimillionaires and billionaires in with the dirt poor in order to come with that fictitious "$1,000" average tax rebate.

Hey, if I put Bill Gates in a romm with 64 Tree Frogs, did you know the average life-from net worth is $1,000,000,000?

So, while I appreciate your skepticism, Frodo, I understand what people are going through and why they doubt Emperor Bunnypants* so much.

Consider what I've said.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

47. Just put Frodo on "ignore"...he's a complete waste of time.

[Frodo]

54. Awww. "Lies", I've missed you too.

[xJlM]

79. Way ahead of you on that one

One of the first to join that club, which only has four members.

[tom_paine]

26. Welcome to the Sovietizing Imperial Amerika, La Serpiente

THAT is what's happening. After 3 years of bullying and purges, the Busheviks are ever-closer towards creating the Perfect Lie Machine out of governmenet agencies previously meant to serve the people rather than fool and placate them with lies.

Until the transition is complete (and I pray it won't become complete...that the Bunnypants* Gang will be stopped), we will get a strange amalgm of Bushevik Lies, carrying the Government Stamp of Approval that at least was semi-trustworthy during the Days of the Old Republic.

Then one day we will wake up, like Winston in "1984" and all the lies will "agree". The Interent will be scrubbed and revised (it's already going on) so that all lies agree. My guess would probably be by 2020 or 2030, during the reign of Emperor Ahnold (I'm-a-Bushevik-but-my-name-aint-Bush-so-stop-saying-we-are-a-hereditary-Empire) or Emperor George P. Caligula.

[zanana]

96. News reports are contradicting each other.

I can't present any proof of this by using a link or even a quotation because this is just something I've noticed about our new economic "prosperity". Sometimes I think I'm "seeing things" in print or "hearing things" on TV. Is anybody else having the same experience with economic news lately?

[grannylib]

5. Numbers revised upwards every week...and they say the economy is

'roaring back...'
Productivity is up only because of the increased OT being demanded of those who have not been laid off; hiring has not been kick-started by this 'boom'
The well paid, fully-employed 'experts' need to quit looking at numbers on paper and get their asses out into the streets to see what is really happening -
People running out of benefits and thus not being counted
Underemployed folks - not counted
People working 3 shit jobs to make up for the salary of the one decent job they lost - not counted
And on and on.

[denverbill]

7. No, there's more to it.

Most people don't work OT.

Take a computer programming staff at a bank. If you've got 10 employees and you fire 5, how do you measure their productivity? If the bank continues to make the same amount of money, then the productivity of the 5 remaining programmers has increased even if they don't do any more work. Their work backlog just increases.

Same with many other jobs. In many cases, the work just piles up and goes undone, but 'productivity' has increased because the only way o measure productivity is to divide corporate income by total employees.

[Bandit]

8. Just remember after six months they drop from the roll

Unemployment only last six months. After that they are dropped from the roll and it appears that those people are no longer un-employed. I'm sure an accurate figure is more likely three times what they are braying about.

[54anickel]

9. This is only Initial claims. Total is 3.38 million (that's counted)

This is from the end of the article:

Continued claims, the number of people out of work for a week or more, rose to 3.38 million for the week ended Nov. 22, the latest data available, from a revised 3.34 million the prior week

[Frodo]

17. No. No. No.

Sorry. Don't mean to take it out on you, but I seem to be making this post every day or so.

You DO NOT drop off of the "unemployment" number when you stop receiving benefits. The two numbers don't even talk to each other. Number of people on the benefit rolls doesn't even enter into the calculation.

The people who drop off the report are the people who say "screw it, I'm not looking anymore, you can't FIND a job in this economy". Once you stop looking for four weeks... THEN you drop off.

[robcon]

24. They are not dropped from the "roll."

The unemploymnet rate, and the number of unemployed, has NOTHING TO DO WITH QUALIFYING FOR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE. Unemployment is based on a survey of 60,000 households. Whether a person is on unemployment insurance, or has exhausted his/her unemployment insurance, or does not qualify for unemployment (e.g. recent graduates, teenagers without much work experience, etc.) if they are out of work, and are looking for a job, they are counted as unemployed.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

41. Do you have a link for that particular explanation?

[robcon]

77. The following link explains the process...

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics...

Where do the statistics come from?

"...Early each month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department of Labor announces the total number of employed and unemployed persons in the United States for the previous month, along with many characteristics of such persons. These figures, particularly the unemployment rate--which tells you the percent of the labor force that is unemployed--receive wide coverage in the press, on radio, and on television.
Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed..."

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

[Media_Lies_Daily]

95. I notice that you didn't mention any of the information toward the...

...bottom of that page, such as:

"Because these interviews are the basic source of data for total unemployment, information must be factual and correct. Respondents are never asked specifically if they are unemployed, nor are they given an opportunity to decide their own labor force status."

...SNIP...

"The basic concepts involved in identifying the employed and unemployed are quite simple:

*People with jobs are employed.

*People who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work are unemployed.

*People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force."

...SNIP...

"Who is counted as employed?

Not all of the wide range of job situations in the American economy fit neatly into a given category. For example, people are considered employed if they did any work at all for pay or profit during the survey week. This includes all part-time and temporary work, as well as regular full-time year-round employment."

...SNIP...

"Who is counted as unemployed?

Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities:

*Contacting:
--An employer directly or having a job interview;
--A public or private employment agency;
--Friends or relatives;
--A school or university employment center;
*Sending out resumes or filling out applications;
*Placing or answering advertisements;
*Checking union or professional registers; or
*Some other means of active job search.

Passive methods of jobsearch do not result in jobseekers actually contacting potential employers, and therefore are not acceptable for classifying persons as unemployed. These would include such things as attending a job training program or course or merely reading the want ads."

...SNIP...

"The questions used in the interviews are carefully designed to elicit the most accurate picture of each person's labor force activities. Some of the major questions that determine employment status are: (The capitalized words are emphasized when read by the interviewers.) 1. Does anyone in this household have a business or farm? 2. LAST WEEK,"

...SNIP...

"Who is not in the labor force?

"...'Discouraged workers' are a subset of the marginally attached. 'Discouraged workers' report they are not currently looking for work for at least one of 4 reasons: 1) they believe no job is available to them in their line of work or area, 2) they had previously been unable to find work, 3) they lack the necessary schooling, training, skills or experience, or 4) employers think they are too young or too old, or they face some other type of discrimination."

[NNN0LHI]

42. How do they call someone who is unemployed and can't afford a phone?

I have been laid off before. The phone was the first convenience I gave up. Food was more important. So how are all those unemployed people polled by phone if they have done the same as I did? Any ideas?

Don

[Frodo]

83. How does the US Census do it?

How did you survive without a phone? I mean, without all those telemarketers to keep you company at night how could you survive??? :-)

Actually, that sounds appealing. Do I have to lose my job or can I just trash the phone?


The short answer to the question is "they don't"

This is not a "for-profit" polling firm that has to watch every penny. This is the US government doing one of it's more important functions. They have 1500 people interview 60,000 families every month. That's forty households per surveyor per month or about two per day.

I don't think they are making phone calls (the survey id pretty long and involves the whole family). I think they are going to the house.

It still isn't counting every single individual's situation, but if we're happy with sampling for the census, it should be OK for this. It's certainly statistically accurate enough that the numbers are usable (I don't know what they margin of error is for a 60,000 person survey, but it's got to be pretty small.

[NNN0LHI]

87. "but if we're happy with sampling for the census" I was not happy with it

2% of the population was missed during the last census, and they were not doing it by phone.

Don

http://www.gnocdc.org/articles/censustrust.html

Are Census numbers accurate?

The Census undercounts low-income people, children and minorities. But the Census is still one of the most important sources for data when you want to convince a funder about the need for your nonprofit's services.



by Allison Plyer E-mail a friend

Nov. 26, 2001 | The U.S. Census counted 281,000,000 people in 2000. To accomplish this huge task, the Census hired some 860,000 temporary workers and spent more than $6 billion in total.

Despite their best efforts, the Census Bureau estimates that the 2000 Census missed 6.4 million people (1). Although this is a relatively small number of people (only 2% of the population), most of those not counted are minorities, children, and low-income people. There are many reasons why people might not get counted in the Census, including: privacy concerns, homelessness, low literacy levels and not enough time to fill out the forms.

The Census also estimates that they counted 3.1 million people twice (1). Most of these people were white and affluent. One reason for them being counted twice is that they may have received two Census forms to fill out because they own two homes.

Here's how estimates of the undercounts and overcounts look compared to the official count:

more

[Frodo]

88. That was my point.

The census DIDN'T use sampling and comes up short just as you described. We argued that to use a thorough scientific sampling of a smaller subset of the population would recover large numbers of those uncounted people (largely minority). But the constitution appears not to have properly anticipated this option and we got denied (on most of the issue - with a partial win elsewhere).

So our position IS that an appropriate sampling, if done correctly, should provide MORE acurate numbers than the census.

I would think that 60,000 personal visits every month is a pretty solid methodology for this purpose. Check out the BLS' site some time... it's an interesting process.

[rumguy]

89. Frodo's confused, he doesn't know how to break out of

logical crap that circles back on itself...I've seen him disproved brutally once before on this point...so I looked it up and yes frodo was SO wrong...notice how he can never reach the crux of the issue without show-boating?

[Frodo]

94. Could you steer me there?

I'd love to see what was such solid proof "on this point".

Is the point that you drop off the role when your insurance runs out?

Or is it our position on the census?

Or is it whether they make phone calls or go in person? (I admitted I didn't know that one - just assuming based on numbers).

[stevedeshazer]

40. Well, they must not be counting me then

51 weeks and counting. My claim runs out after 52 weeks, and I'm no closer to a decent job.

Pretty soo, you'll be able to find me down at the local Mega-Low Mart stocking the dog food aisle for the elderly.

[Racenut20]

10. Had a "pre-Christmas" job loss last year

Sorry to hear of your misfortune.

[Beetwasher]

11. Didn't Snow Say that the Economy Would be Adding Like 200,000

jobs a month from here on out? Anyone got a link to that moron's quote?

[Tempest]

13. No link to quote, but...

A year ago Snow said the economy would gain 320,000 jobs a month.

6 months ago Snow said the economy would gain 200,000 jobs a month.

Last month Snow said the economy would gain 100,000 jobs a month.

Soon he'll finally admit that the economy is still losing jobs.

[Frodo]

19. First time jobless claims

Are NEVER a negative number.

The economy adding jobs doesn't really show up here. You would expect the number to go down, sure... but lots of people can be laid off while other companies are adding more positions - for a net increase.

The last coupe months' numbers were a fair bit higher than this and unemployment went down slightly.

[West Coast Democrat]

21. Oh, please!

Don't you ever get tired of being the Bush administration's economic cheerleader?

[arlib]

27. I believe

The answer to that is "no".
Also look for Frodo to always tell you what is wrong with Dems and why we shouldn't point out negatives in the Bush record, why we shouldn't raise any tough questions, why we shouldn't, well, be much of anything but an echo of this administration's lies.
Frodo seems unable to understand why we wouldn't trust the word of systematic, inveterate, compulsive liars.
In some areas of concern, I suppose such naivete would be quaint, childlike, even touching, but not when it's regarding the future of this nation.
Frodo's role here is so obvious that I'm surprised it's taken people this long to figure it out. Get 1000 posts quickly, half through vanity posts of no substance, and the rest through subverting and nay saying any ideas that are effective in thrwarting Repug strategy.
It's always: "we can't do that, it's too negative, it makes us look bad, etc." But I never hear any solutions or ideas of coming from poor widdle Frodo.

Somethings happening here,
and what it is, is exactly clear
There's a Frodo looking glum over there
Telling us we've got to beware
It's time to stop, hey what's that sound?
Sounds like Frodo goin down.
(On W that is)

[West Coast Democrat]

29. I've noticed his Bush cheerleading for ages now

I was expecting him to be tombstoned ages ago.

[Frodo]

32. Boy have you got it wrong.

You're like watching a football game with a fan who doesn't accept the score. "We was robbed!" "The ref is crooked" "They're using a differnet ball when they're on offense than the one we've got".

I'm sitting here rooting for the same team... trying to debate what we need to do to win and you're calling me a mole because I won't buy into the fantasy that the scoreboard says what it doesn't. It was the same way before the 2002 elections. I called it like I saw it and people couldn't believe I was still here. The day after the election EVERYONE sounded like me 'cause I was spot on (OK, I missed GA, but I did say it was closer than expected)... wait a year and I'm a secret freeper again.

I just need to keep repeating the mantra "we really are winning... we don't need to chaneg our strategy...the people have got to see the truth... the polls are lying, the universities are lying, the stock market is lying."


On this topic, the numbers are what they are. I won't go around pretending that you drop off the unemployment report when your benefits run out when YOU DON'T.

Why does this have to be spun this way? OF COURSE things will eventually turn around - regardless of who is President. They don't ahve to lie about it. You've got MASSIVE deficit spending (tax cuts and HUGE spending increases) which HAS to have a short term effect. The fact that we are THIS far into a recovery without job growth coming back DESPITE such massive stimulus is DAMNING for BUSH. BUT he's going to get away with it because of you "head in the sand" types chanting "nothing is getting better - the reports are all lies"instead of "is this the best you can do"?

[Beetwasher]

28. I guess my comment was lost on you

Woosh! Right over your head...

[Frodo]

34. Nope. You made an invalid comparison.

There's no problem cutting Snowe for his changing expectations to meet reality.

But you responded to a "1st time filing" number as if it spoke to the truth or falsity of that expectation. We COULD (I don't think we DO, mind you) grow a million jobs this month and STILL have a 350k "1st time" number.

A 365k number over a 355k expectation for one week (that number is EXTREMELY variable) just doesn't speak (one way or the other) to the number you're commenting on.


Your post is correct, just misplaced.



And if you want to go over my head you're going to need to bring your "A" game next time. :-)

[Beetwasher]

37. Ummm, no, I wasn't making a comparison

I was merely making a comment and asking if anyone had a link to Snowe's quote.

I'm well aware of what the numbers mean. The numbers do relate in that if first time filers for UE is below the number of jobs created, then you're actually creating jobs. That's not the case as it now stands. But you already knew that didn't you? You're just being obnoxious.

My post is correct and it's NOT misplaced in the context of actual job creation.

Again, Whoosh! Right over your head.

[Frodo]

38. Bzzzz. And at the buzzer? Airball.

But hey, don't feel bad... you get this kepie doll.

I'm well aware of what the numbers mean. The numbers do relate in that if first time filers for UE is below the number of jobs created, then you're actually creating jobs. That's not the case as it now stands. But you already knew that didn't you? You're just being obnoxious.

If first time filers is WAY ABOVE jobs created you're still "creating jobs" My point is still that you do not, in fact, "get it". "Job creation" deals with total number of employment positions, NOT how many people are holding them. If I create a million new jobs and the 1st time number is 500K I don't have a "net" "good" figure of 500k. There's a third figure you are ignoring... the number of people HIRED TO EXISTING JOBS during the month. That's why they keep saying that anything sustainably under 400k is good (though they are wrong that it is always 400k), they presume that about that number start new jobs each period, so a 350k number means a net increase of 50k employed even WITHOUT CREATING ANY NEW JOBS. Your disconect is the term "job". You're connecting it to the person instead of the position. 355k 1st time filers does not mean 350k fewer jobs in the market.

As for being obnoxious? It wasn't my intent (perhaps a happy side affect?). Your "over your head" comment seemed playfull so I was shooting back (I put a smiley, what do you want?). If it wasn't then you can eat your own "obnoxious" :-)

You want to play on my court you got to have game, baby.


My post is correct and it's NOT misplaced in the context of actual job creation.

But the context WASN'T "job creation". That's what you missed.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[West Coast Democrat]

45. He's just a firm believer in imaginary economic cycles

and it's beyond his comprehension that the Bush* administration could possibly do anything that might do longterm damage to the economy and the jobs picture.

[Frodo]

50. No, it's beyond my comprehension that people...

... wouldn't take the time to read an Econ 101 text book before speaking out on the value of economic numbers.

And then stick to their guns in the face of overwhelming evidence.

And then get insulting/vulgar about it. (especially after I took the time to put in all those friendly smileys) :-)

[Frodo]

49. I can't believe you can put those two posts in a row.

Show me where I made an invalid comparison. You can't can you because I did no such thing.

That's what I just posted. You said: "if first time filers for UE is below the number of jobs created, then you're actually creating jobs"
That just plain isn't true. It isn't "close" It isn't "kinda like what happens" it's just plain "wrong". You get no partial credit for showing your work or trying hard.

You also said just now: "The amount of first time filers is still an indicator that jobs are being lost even if it's not directly correlated to the actual jobs themselves. Many of those people ARE laid off from jobs that no longer exist. Or do you deny that?"

Your last sentence is correct. And irrelevant. The first one is just wrong. The number of first time filers is NOT correlated to jobs being lost (except to the extent that it exceeds the number of people going back to work and that number is not in the report).

Look. All during the growth period of the Clinton years we created MILLIONS of NEW JOBS. It was a GREAT job-creation period. Yet there were still hundreds of thousands of people filing first time claims every week .

Here's a clip from the similar report from November 1997 (http://money.cnn.com/1997/11/06/economy/jobless/)

NEW YORK (CNNfn) - The number of Americans applying for first-time jobless benefits arched up sharply last week, the U.S. Department of Labor said Thursday.
Initial jobless claims rose 16,000 to 315,000 during the week ended November 1, Labor said, up from 299,000 the previous week.
The figure was twice as high as the 8,000 increase forecast by economists.
The bond market reacted mildly to the figures with the 30-year Treasury bond up 2/32, pushing the yield back down to 6.24.
The four-week moving average increased 2,750 to 308,250 for the week. The average is the more closely watched figure by economists since it gives a clearer picture of employment trends.

Notice how even while we were creating record number of Jobs in Clinton's second term you still saw 315,000 new filers per week???
There were probably 550,000 people finding new jobs that week and 50,000 people re-joining the workforce.

315,000 just isn't a BAD number. it doesn't mean what you keep saying it means. 355,000 is not nearly as good, but it IS considered good, while the 450,000 Bush was getting earlier was considered BAD.



Believe me, if I'm "telling you stuff you already know" you're hiding it really well.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Frodo]

58. Sigh... Keep digging that hole "Beet". You're embarrassing yourself.

"Less than precise" doesn't cover it my friend. You were wrong, adamant about it and a bit juvenille too. You don't "get the relationship" between 1st time filers and job creation because there isn't one the way you're using it.

Your post #11 WAS an invalid comparison. post:" X first time filers last week" your reply: "I thought they promised us job creation"

Post and reply bear no relationship to one another. We are very likely to learn tomorrow that the economy (not Bush) created 150,000 new jobs last month (perhaps more, these numbers really don't give you enough of an idea - because there isn't that level of relationship - get it?) and your post is just going to look silly. They "created" 125,000 jobs last month (a miniscule number that could be responded to with your reply) even though all four week's initial number were HIGHER than what we're looking at today (382,384,386,386 I think).

So any way you slice it there is an invalid comparison being made between the number posted and your reply implying that it means there ISN'T job growth.


Let's agree to check back here tomorrow and see what the numbers say, ok?


edit - embarrassing misspelling of "embarrassing" in title

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Frodo]

60. Yeah? And?

It was in direct reply to the initial post on the rise in jobless claims.

There is no connection between the two. How am I making things up? Post 11 makes no sense ni relation to the intial post. The number does not support or lend the lie to what Snow said. A paraphrase is not a lie.

And keep a civil tongue in your head ok? This is an adult forum for adult discussions. You're looking for "adult entertainment". It's a different use of the word.

[Beetwasher]

62. Jobs Jobs Jobs

Understand? There is a connection. We're talking about jobs. Get it? This story about JOBless claims spurred a memory about Snow promising the creation of 200,000 JOBS a month. I asked if anyone remembered and had a link. That's how it's related as far as I'm concerned. You nitpicked and claimed I made an invalid comparison. I did no such thing, I merely asked for a link to Snow's claim because I wanted to start another thread about jobs and job creation and use that quote.

Don't tell me to have a fucking civil tongue in my head mom. I'll talk any fucking way I fucking want to fucking talk. If you don't like it, too fucking bad.

[Frodo]

64. Oh!!! I see. "Jobs"

Both talk about "jobs" so there must be a correlation. I get it now. < /sarcasm>

So with your obvious bent Gingritch talking about Clinton & Lewinski is also about "jobs". When will you ask that question?
Or how about the connection with Apple computer and Steve Jobs?
Or maybe it's a "bank job" that comes to mind? Robbed any good ones lately?

So you admit the "conection" was in your head? Ok, that was my point.

Cause it sure aint in economics.

[Beetwasher]

66. People losing jobs, people getting jobs

and jobs being created. It's all connected economically speaking.

I guess in your warped world view there's no connection and everything exists in a vacuum (Hmm, speaking of vacuum's maybe we should consider what's in YOUR head?)...

[Frodo]

67. Nope. You're right back in your hole.

People losing jobs people getting jobs and jobs being created ARE "related" (though not when you drop one of the three from the equation like you did).. But you can't draw a conclusion from one of the three to one other of the three.

If
"A" can exist in situations where EITHER "B" OR "C" is "True"
AND
"B" and "C" are mutually exclusive
THEN

when someone says "A" and you jump in with a comment about "B" being true (by calling into question those who had previously stated "C" was true) you are making an irrelevant and unfounded statement. "A" Does not IMPLY "B".

A quick comeback that "both are letters... so there... nanny nanny boo boo" is equally ridiculous.

Later posts that "A" DOES imply "B", in fact it FORCES "B".... added to refutations of that fact by posted figures... added to "well I didn't amke that mistake on my ORIGINAL post"... added to "well I still know what I'm talking about"...

Well, it just looks silly.

[Beetwasher]

68. If only that's what I was doing

but I'm not. I'm not drawing any conclusions.

I did make a mistake in my explanation of the relationship originally, and I admitted that. However, that was NOT the intent of my original post as much as you would like it to be, and that's what my problem with you is about.

You still have not shown where I made an invalid comparison in my original post. Which was merely a question and a request for a link. So as much as you would like this to be about my LATER mistake, you still have not owned up to your own bullshit and your own mistake and your lying and dishonesty and you are therefore full of shit. Put up or shut up. Why is it so hard for you to admit you are wrong? You merely make yourself look like petty fool.

[Frodo]

70. Right.

"Didn't Snow Say that the Economy Would be Adding Like 200,000 jobs a month from here on out? Anyone got a link to that moron's quote?"

I just realized I missed the small print at the end of your post - sorry:

"It isn't that I think he was wrong, you understand... or that I have any reason for this post at all ("moron" isn't to be taken as implying he was wrong... that's just the way I play with my friends... you should see me when I'm REALLY rolling) . I just saw the word "jobs", you see, and had a "pavlovian" resonse needing to ask a completely seperate (and I know unrelated) question also about jobs. I'll later go on to defend that there IS such a relationship, but don't hold me to it 'cause you and I both know there IS no such relationship."


Next time, please use a larger font on the disclaimer. Some of us have poor vision and cheap monitors (Now there IS a relationship to be drawn there!)


I did make a mistake in my explanation of the relationship originally, and I admitted that.

Really? I thought you said you were "less precise" in "explaining the correlation"? Not that you were wrong that there WAS such a relationship? But you know how I never look back more than the previous reply.


Now the "petty" comment does sting a tad. I should know I was wasting my time trying to educate you. That's a LITTLE like being "petty". There's at least more of a correlation than in your average post.

[Beetwasher]

71. You See, You Might Not Understand This

But there's thing thing called a human mind that makes what are called connections. Sometimes one thing can make you think of another thing that's related.

For example, this talk of people losing their jobs made me think that this admin. promised to create a whole lot of them already and I asked for a link to one such promise. Pretty simple really, but then again, I could see how someone could be a real asshole and try to find problems with someone making a spontaneous connection and request for more information and then make up a whole bunch of stupid shit that was never said but they thought was implied. Yeah, some people are real dishonest assholes like that, go figure.

[Frodo]

72. You see? you keep dodging to find SOMETHING you can defend.

And keep running right into a wall of your own making. I changed my mind... correcting you is getting to be fun (and you keep coming back for more!)

"I guess my comment was lost on you. Woosh! Right over your head..."

"Right over your head" implies you had SOME POINT. And that I didn't get it. Your current claim that there was no point and that it's ridiculous to assume you were trying to make a point that you were just asking a tangential question (despite the fact that you went on to defent what you now claim was NOT your point) is indefensible.

I'm well aware of what the numbers mean. The numbers do relate in that if first time filers for UE is below the number of jobs created, then you're actually creating jobs. That's not the case as it now stands.

See how you make the direct connection between the filing number and job creation? If that was never your intention why would you defend against my post with it?


My post is correct and it's NOT misplaced in the context of actual job creation.

See also how you tie your original post to being correct "in the context of job creation?" You obviously THOUGHT that you were making a connection even though you don't THINK that now (I refer you to your post about the "human mind" - it's terrible thing to waste).

And again.. It ISN'T "in the context of job creation". First time filing does not force negative job growth or impede positive growth. Certainly not at the level reported.


As for "being an @sshole". I wouldn't know... but it HAS been my experience that a good indicator is the public use of the word @sshole.


Have a good evening.

And I'll look for you here after tomorrow's jobs report. After four weeks of 350k new jobless claims I guess we should expect an increase from 6.0 to 6.2% unemployment, right? And a pretty substantial negative job growth figure too? (but surely not the whole 1.4Million, right?)

[Beetwasher]

75. Uhh Wrong Again

My comment (or question rather) was over your head because I was asking a rhetorical question and asking for a link. You obviously read more into it that wasn't there. Duh.

"See how you make the direct connection between the filing number and job creation? If that was never your intention why would you defend against my post with it?"

I only started discussing this because you brought it up. YOU brought up the idea that there was NO connection, which IS bullshit anyway. There is a connection, though NOT the way I explained it. Yes, I made a mistake, but it's irrelevant to my original post and only posted because YOU brought it up.

"See also how you tie your original post to being correct "in the context of job creation?" You obviously THOUGHT that you were making a connection even though you don't THINK that now..."

Again, this was in response to something YOU wrote. NOT in defense of my original post.

"Your post is correct, just misplaced."

I was responding to that comment. My post WAS about Snowe's comments about job creation. I was looking for a link to those comments.

Yeesh. You're being intentionally obtuse. I can go on all night exposing your dishonest bullshit though.

[Frodo]

99. Hmmm.

I said I'd check in again today.

Unemployment dropped from 6.0% to 5.9% and 50k (or so) "new jobs".

THAT doesn't seem to fit what you were expecting.

And now the market is down because they expected MORE new jobs? I thought there weren't ANY new jobs? I thought we lost 365k last week alone? Surely 50k new jobs would be MORE than anyone expected right?

Boy, I guess I just don't get it. This stuff is really confusing.


:-)

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[West Coast Democrat]

100. Job Market Still Sucks

Sorry, big deal if unemployment dropped from 6.0% to 5.9% based on a poll of households. GDP supposedly rose 8-9% in the last quarter. I would have expected a huge uptick in hiring.

[Frodo]

101. YES, I KNOW! It's ISN'T a big deal if THAT is what we are saying.

Everyone - ok, that's an exageration - three or four of you (but you guys mean EVERYTHING to me - sob,sob :-)) Keeps thinking that my not drinking the coolaid means that I think Bush is just doing a great job.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. I just realized a few months ago that the economy is unlikely to be as biting an issue next year as we thought it would be. That amount of deficit spending has GOT to have a short term (1-2 years?) affect on the economy and the downside doesn't come for awhile (WAY beyond the election). So I started on a campaign to try to turn the message slightly so that it would still be sellable come the conventions IF things looked better at that time. I ran into a brick wall of people who looked at every piece of "improving news" (YES, only MARGINALLY improving... NOT "good") as obviously a lie or ignoring that it exists at all.

Well, we can't discuss how to sell our message in a particular environment if everyone keeps insisting that the environment doesn't exist. It would be EASIER to beat Bush with 7% unemployent so everyone assumes that's where we're heading. It's like watching a football game where you're eleven points down with two minutes to play and thinking "OK, after we get this touchdown we're going to go for two points so a field goal will tie it after the onside kick" and ignoring that you just got sacked a couple times (let alone scored that touchdown or got the onside kick).

OK, that's not as good an example as I thought it would be.. let's just say "wishing doesn't make it so"?

So what does this report show? We're not losing jobs anymore (we SHOULD be building LOTS more at this point in a recovery, but that isn't spinnable as the same thing as massive job loses). Yes, 6.0% to 5.9% is not a real big move (though 6% is likely to be a psychological jump in excess of the actual number) BUT look at what's happened over the last few months. We were at 6.4% unemployment just four months ago. I don't know the precise numbers, but that could be close to 700,000 people working who would be unemployed at 6.4%. We've dropped .1% consistently for four or five periods now. IF the economy has turned around, just continuing the same rate may not give shrub the millions of new jobs that Clinton ran under, but it puts us at 5.3%-5.5% by the time the campaigning is really under way. Well I hate to point out the obvious, but that's PRECISELY where Clinton was when he was easily re-elected, Right at where Reagan was when BushI took over and almost two points BETTER than when Reagan crushed us in 84. Clinton beat Bush one with a rate in the 7-7.5% range (going from memory).

Just four more months of "big deal" and we're going to be looking at a lost issue.


SO, yeah, don't misjudge me. You're going to see alot of disagreement from me on other threads too. I was scared last year and I was right. I'm scared of 2004 right now. In 2002 everyone told me I was obviously rooting for the other side and drank the coolaid that we were going to take back the House and consolidate the Senate.

I won't sit by and just watch it again because I'm sitting in the "home crowd" cheering section and everyone wants to believe this will be a walk. underestimating this "man" cost every democrat who has run against him and he's holding almost all the cards.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

63. Half Credit Each...

Initial jobless claims could actually rise even while though economy is creating new jobs. It happens all the time, in fact. The figure for initial claims is, as has been noted already, quite volatile and could experience a temporary upturn from a regionalized natural disaster (think of the 1993 floods on the Mississipi River) even though the economy itself is creating more jobs.

On the other hand, after two years of ruinous tax cuts, it's altogether reasonable to point at the Initial Claims figure as another indication that the Bush Recession is far from over and that it's still not creating the new jobs. I personally wouldn't lend it too much credence, however, as you end up changing your story every other week as that figure fluctuates.

[Frodo]

65. See? He gets it.

Good post. But watch yourself if you have tender ears. He takes it personally when you point out an error.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

31. Not a link to the quite, per se...

But this site is tracking their prediction of 306,000 created per month. They don't have the November figures posted yet.

[Noordam]

12. Tampa Tribune ---yesterday ONE page of want ads

I was amazed when I saw the low number of ads in all catagories.

[malachi]

15. Check out the MAIN FRONT PAGE story from the once proud

Phila Inquirer. This paper has become nothing more then a conduit for RNC talking points. Nazi propaganda methodology at its finest.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/7407885.htm

[54anickel]

25. He-he! That's rich! Nice cheerleading section there.

Productivity, reported yesterday by the Labor Department, advanced by a blistering 9.4 percent in the July-to-September quarter, the fastest rate since 1983, during Ronald Reagan's first presidential term.

The U.S. economy posted its fastest productivity gains in 20 years, and companies generated a record $1 trillion in profits in the third quarter

The third quarter was the first time U.S. corporations earned more than $1 trillion in profits, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis


Question for economics gurus out there.
We have evolved from manufacturing to more of a service economy. Are the measurements used for GDP still able to give an accurate picture of our economy? I mean how would you measure outputs for service?

[Frodo]

35. By what someone pays for it.

The service sector is part of the GDP.

It's now a BIG part of it.

[54anickel]

44. Thanks. And Productivity? How's that figured on Service?

[Frodo]

52. I'm not Sure it is (I've never looked at it), but bet ti is and

if it is it's change in dollars of sales per hour of pay.

Really no different a figure than manufacturing.

[dai]

85. I think you have it right...

...but it still sounds odd. "Productivity increases"...but nothing is produced.

"Servic-a-err-bility increases"?

[papau]

14. As usual - the 14000 increase decreased to 11000 by increasing prior

week -

And media touts a 6000 or 3000 increase via moving average games.

Amazing

[Frodo]

36. Point one: on target - Point two: clean miss

The moving average IS the more important figure, the weekly is far too volatile. Four weeks still isn't such a huge indicator. This not really THAT critical a report. Tomorrow is the next big number.

Here's a good link for information:
http://biz.yahoo.com/c/terms/claims.html

"It typically takes a sustained move of at least 30K in claims to signal a meaningful change in job growth.
"

[wetbandit2003]

48. Lets look at this angle...

The christmas shopping season is the time when coorperations want to make up for their losses for that fiscal year and we have had a rough one. A lot of coorperations will tend to cut back on the hours that their employees may work during the week, and if they need or just want to,,God forbid...Lay off workers. Folks, it boils down to 3 things here. 1 Marginal product of Labor, Marginal Revenue and Marginal costs. The Marginal product of labor describes how much each unit of labor will produce at the margin,,,or each unit produced by each unit of labor. Marginal revenue means each dollar produced by each unit sold, and marginal cost means the costs incured by producing one more unit. If the MPL, and MR are less than MPL, then you have to cut back on some sort of input. Obviousely If MPL is low, you would cut back on labor to increase MR due to the inverse relationship between the two. Each firm's primary goal is to Maximise profit. Lately, Firms found that they can keep up with demand while they cut back on labor units and increasing the demands of the remaining labor units to maximize profits. I think that the christmas season is the perfect opportunity to do this....reanining Employees really have no choice in the matter if they are worked harder and longer to keep up with demand if they dont want to become a statistic on the BLS unemployment claims survey. The question is,,,,What kind of policy would you propose to correct this kind of corperate behavior???????? This was an actual question asked in my Intermediate Microeconomics class when I was persuing my BA in economics.
Im interested in what my Fellow DU'ers think.

[mbperrin]

80. I'd advise doing what Adam Smith recommended....

not allowing the stock corporation to exist! When corporations sever the personal responsibility link of risking all to make a profit (corporate officers risk nothing; stockholders risk nothing; corporations have NO LIABILITY for their actions beyond the value of their assets), then we have a situation where paid officers can make money while the company loses (too many examples to give here).

Entrepreneurs should be at risk of being turned out on the street with all their possessions stripped from them to satisfy claims made against them.

That's how you get good work done.

[jiacinto]

57. Watch the numbers in the month of January and the first of Feb

That will give you a clearer idea of where things are going. I think that many of these positions are "seasonal" holiday jobs that will vanish at the start of the new year or soon after. Or they are low wage jobs.

[Frodo]

61. I agree.

Though the numbers are seasonally adjusted, so the end-of-season layoffs should affect things in themselves. I'd stil like to see four or five months of growth before I'm certain things are getting better.

Mind you, it stil won't keep me from throwing cold water on those who want to beleive it MUST still be getting worse "cause he's EVIL I tell you".

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

69. More numbers to chew on

For the members of the Wonk-American Community, here's an article from the Economic Policy Network (love those guys). It's a month old, but still pretty good.

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp146

[54anickel]

81. So, no matter how you slice it, it comes out sh*t. Must read - Thanks for

posting. Too much good info to attempt to snip out highlights.

IMHO, it seems that basically Shrub has managed to take us where no president, (at least since 1939 when they start collecting this data) has gone before. Record trade and account deficits, huge tax cuts and military spending, while at "war" in multiple theaters, etc, etc, etc.
It's no wonder the economic data is so difficult to decode these days, and why there are so many cheerleaders out there, they don't want the public to be scared sh*tless! Or mad as hell to demand Shrubs impeachment for incompetency.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Speaking of cheerleaders, here's one for you. Does anyone remember the 80's as roaring? I thought they sucked, but I may be mistaking.

"Productivity report raises more shades of the roaring '80s"
http://www.news-leader.com/today/1204-Productivi-233290.html

From end of article:
There are some similarities between the current economy and the economy of the 1980s:

• The Federal Reserve has slashed interest rates.

• Tax cuts and higher military spending are providing boosts.

• President Bush is eager for the economy to improve before an election year, as Ronald Reagan was in 1983.

But that's where the similarities end. And economists say that unlike in 1983 and 1984, when the economy raced ahead for more than a year, the current period will see a much more modest period of growth.

[dai]

86. The 80s...

...had a huge proportional shift of wealth to the ultra-wealthy elite. I suppose, from the proper (i.e. very rich) perspective - the 80s were indeed "roaring".

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

91. From a jobs perspective...

I think this was the important point:

"The 1.4 percentage-point difference reflects the people pushed to the sidelines of the labor market who can be expected to seek work again once job prospects improve. As a result, the official unemployment rate should not be expected to fall very much when the employment picture actually begins to improve."

Employment is always a lagging indicator, but this suggests that even if the economy improves and jobs start appearing, it will be quite a while before we see any significant movement in unemployment.

[54anickel]

97. Yes, your link up in post 69 explains that part much better.

It was a great article, I recommend reading it to anyone that hasn't yet. Again, thanks for posting it.

A snippet from the conclusion:

Jobs have not fallen for so long since the monthly payroll data series began in 1939. In each of the 10 recessions since 1945, the job total hit bottom within six to 17 months and had fully recovered within 10 to 31 months. In contrast, the lowest point thus far in the current slump came 28 months after the recession began and jobs remained down 1.8% in October 2003, 31 months after the start of the recession.

.......to keep the jobs gap from widening further over the next year, employment in the household survey must expand by 1.85 million and payroll jobs by 1.78 million. While far better than further jobs loss, a gain of 2.0 million would only slightly exceed the number of jobs needed to employ the expanding working age population at the current rate and is not enough to make a serious dent in the shortfall that has developed. Consequently, the creation of two million jobs would narrow the 4.7 million gap in the CPS employment by only 0.15 million and lower the 6.9 million gap in payroll jobs by just 0.22 million. At that rate, it would take more than three decades to close either jobs gap.

[Rex]

73. After watching Frodo and a few other go at it...

I had no idea economic debates could be so heated! Maybe you guys could duel it out or something! Pistols at 20 paces.

The only thing I really understand about the whole UE debate is that when Clinton was in office there were IT jobs galore, I could basically pick & choose who to work for. With Bush in office I've watched the IT field vanish, currently it seems to be making a small comeback, and I mean small.

[Frodo]

74. You've got it exactly right.

But so many people here interpret "small comeback" to mean "Bush must not have done such a bad job". As if we can't hammer him at all if six people find a job next month... it has to be constantly downhill... AND you have to drink that coolaid to avoid being called a freeper.


As for pistols... I've been watching a lot of "Hornblower" lately and re-reading the Patrick O'brien series... a duel does not appeal to me. Besides, Beet strikes me as the "take-no-prisoners, kink-him-in-the-crotch, bite and scratch" type with a temper. He also sounds younger and cockier than me.

Not sure I could take him. :-)

[windansea]

78. not sure you could take him?

you are one smart cookie...resistance is futile

thanks for the education!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

76. With most of the IT jobs being created in Canada and India, not here.

[alcuno]

82. Larry Kudlow predicted 375,000 jobs tomorrow.

I want whatever he's smoking. If they're predicting 150,000, that'll only cover new workers entering the workforce. I'm waiting to see when we have 1 net job for this presidency.

[seasat]

84. Larry Kudlow is great on his predictions.

He predicted that the Dow would head to 50,000 back in the late '90s. You take his predictions and go the exact opposite and he is perfect. It must have been the coke habit he had during the early nineties that wired his brain that way.:evilgrin:

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

92. Rush's leftovers...

Maybe Kudlow got into Rush's stash. 375,000?! That would be triple October's figure!