Initial unemployment claims at 316,000/GDP revised down to 2.6% for 2nd qt

[papau]

September 28, 2006 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT

SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA

In the week ending Sept. 23, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 316,000, a decrease of 6,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 322,000. The 4-week moving average was 315,500, a decrease of 500 from the previous week's revised average of 316,000.

The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 1.9 percent for the week ending Sept. 16, unchanged from the prior week's unrevised rate of 1.9 percent.

The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending Sept. 16 was 2,444,000, a decrease of 8,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 2,452,000. The 4-week moving average was 2,466,750, a decrease of 8,250 from the preceding week's revised average of 2,475,000.

UNADJUSTED DATA

The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 259,232 in the week ending Sept. 23, a decrease of 7,758 from the previous week. There were 292,435 initial claims in the comparable week in 2005.

The advance unadjusted insured unemployment rate was 1.6 percent during the week ending Sept. 16, a decrease of 0.1 percentage point from the prior week. The advance unadjusted number for persons claiming UI benefits in state programs totaled 2,072,639, a decrease of 80,324 from the preceding week. A year earlier, the rate was 1.8 percent and the volume was 2,349,781.


Extended benefits were not available in any state during the week ending Sept. 9.

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

GDP revised down to 2.6% rate in the second quarter...

http://www.marketwatch.com/default.aspx?siteid=mktw&avatar=seen&dist=ctmw

[bluestateguy]

1. It must be nice to control the federal government

I'll have those cooked books well done with a side order of clam chowder please.

[Lost4words]

2. A judge will instruct jurors, something like the following...

If you find that someone has lied giving testimony you are justified in believing any or all of their testimony may also be untrue.

I am not a lawyer and although I have sat on many a jury, I cant remember the exact wording but to the best of my recollection it was something like the above.

At any rate, I know this junta has lied through their teeth to the face of the our people as a matter of routine from the very beginning.

What a surprise the unemployment numbers look better than the usual unrealistically low numbers just weeks away from the election.

I know what I am going through looking for work.

8643 :banghead:

[mrdmk]

3. Actually, there is a very big problem here

The problem is you have a inflation rate of 3.82% and a unemployment rate climbing above 4.6% (it very normal for the unemployment to drop this time of year), and the GDP at 2.6%. The target rates are, the inflation rate needs to be between 2 - 3%, the unemployment rate is to be between 4 -6%, and the GDP needs to expand at 2% +/- 0.1%. Having a high inflation rate and high unemployment at the same time is very bad news. No wonder consumer confidence is down.


Unadjusted unemployment rate


The inflation rate is as follows:

<(new -old)/old> x 100 = %

{<203.9 (index from Aug. 2006) - 196.4 (index from Aug. 2005)>/196.4} x 100 = 3.82% inflation

link to table ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt

edit: clarity

[papau]

4. Interesting data -I also like to see constant dollars data -and that shows

hourly wages have not moved up since late 2001

Only the increase in the income of the rich being included makes GDP increase at any positive rate - if it were only hourly income were the basis for the national income component of GDP, GDP WOULD NOT HAVE INCREASED BEYOND THE INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED IN A WEEK BY HOURLY WORKERS! (I know I am ignoring a lot of other items - but my statement is "more or less" true.)

I love this economy! - not -

[mrdmk]

5. Is this what you are looking for?

link http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income05/statemhi2.html

My apologies because the graph that was suppose to be on my post did not stay. I need to figure to a permanent web site.

[papau]

6. Yes - thanks for posting- the hourly wage per DOL table B-4 Constant $ is

$8.15 last month in constant 1982 dollars which is below Novenmber 2001's $8.16. Five years of a boming economy (the recession did not exist per revised numbers, and if you use the NBER committee declaration approach for "recession" -the committee declared it over in Nov 2001 http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html)and the only increase in the earnings comes from more two person's working families, and people working longer hours in order to get a few dollars extra.

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

Data Type: AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS, 1982 DOLLARS

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1996 7.55 7.54 7.53 7.54 7.54 7.56 7.56 7.58 7.58 7.57 7.58 7.58
1997 7.59 7.60 7.63 7.64 7.67 7.67 7.68 7.71 7.70 7.74 7.76 7.78
1998 7.79 7.83 7.86 7.88 7.88 7.88 7.88 7.92 7.93 7.93 7.94 7.94
1999 7.95 7.98 8.00 7.98 8.00 8.02 8.01 8.01 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00
2000 8.02 8.01 7.98 8.03 8.03 8.01 8.02 8.04 8.03 8.05 8.07 8.07
2001 8.04 8.07 8.09 8.09 8.06 8.08 8.10 8.13 8.11 8.16 8.20 8.23
2002 8.23 8.23 8.21 8.19 8.22 8.23 8.23 8.23 8.24 8.26 8.26 8.28
2003 8.26 8.25 8.21 8.24 8.29 8.30 8.30 8.28 8.25 8.27 8.31 8.29
2004 8.27 8.26 8.23 8.24 8.22 8.21 8.22 8.25 8.25 8.21 8.20 8.22
2005 8.23 8.21 8.19 8.17 8.20 8.22 8.20 8.15 8.05 8.09 8.15 8.20
2006 8.17 8.20 8.19 8.18 8.15 8.17 8.17(p) 8.15(p)
p : preliminary