New Claims for Jobless Benefits Fall(but 17,000 increase in total on rolls

[papau]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=716&e=6&u=/ap/20040122/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/jobless_claims

New Claims for Jobless Benefits Fall

8 minutes ago
By JEANNINE AVERSA, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - For the second week in a row, fewer people filed new claims to collect unemployment benefits, a hopeful sign that America's businesses are feeling more confident that the economy's recovery will be lasting.

The Labor Department reported Thursday that for the work week ending Jan. 17, new applications filed for unemployment insurance dipped by a seasonally adjusted 1,000 to 341,000, the lowest level since the end of December. The week before claims fell by 14,000, a sharper decline than the government first estimated a week ago. <snip>

Thursday's report also showed that the number of unemployed people collecting jobless benefits for more than a week rose by 17,000 to 3.1 million for the week ending Jan. 10, the most recent period for which that information is available. This suggests that jobs are still hard to find for some workers. <snip>

AS YOU READ THE ACTUAL REPORT BELOW NOTE WHAT IS MISSING - NAMELY THE NUMBER DROPPED FROM THE ROLLS BECAUSE THE GOP REFUSED TO EXTEND THE 13 WEEK EMERGENCY EXTRA AID - THAT DROP BEGAN AT THE END OF LAST YEAR AND DOL IS NOT REPORTING AN ESTIMATED EFFECT OF THAT DROP.

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

January 22, 2004

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT
SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA
In the week ending Jan. 17, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 341,000, a decrease of 1,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 342,000. The 4-week moving average was 344,500, a decrease of 3,250 from the previous week's revised average of 347,750.
The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.5 percent for the week ending Jan. 10, unchanged from the prior week's unrevised rate of 2.5 percent.

[twilight]

1. big whoop!

Big deal - 1,000 jobs with 3-1/2 million unemployed. Hell, that isn't even significant on any level. Can we blame this on the weather too? What a joke this * admin. is!

OUT THE DOOR IN '04!!!!!!!!!!



:dem: :kick:

[loftycity]

2. Dropped from the rolls is right

They don't have any accurate way of knowing how many people are unemployed. They don't want or us to know. Same as health care.
Must use the same accounting as the Pentagon.

[Frodo]

3. Some charts and an indication of the current problems.

Note the second graph. Just about everything wrong with the current situation can be summarized by looking and the divergence between the red and blue lines starting some time late in 2001

[papau]

4. Excellent chart - and the problem begins with tax cut and Bush in 2001

wonder if the media can read a chart?

:-)

[Frodo]

5. I don't know. It seems to defy explanation.

I wish the chart went further back to other large tax cuts for comparison.

But I'm not sure what mechanism would link the cause you see to the efect?

I think we're seeing a progression of corporate "excellence" at managing the workforce. Each recession it seems to take longer and longer to get everyone rehired. I think they are just "managing" the employment business more "efficiently" and not hiring people in anticipation of future need... only when actually needed.

This increases net profits and decreases the speed at which jobs come online.

I think it's similar to "supply chain management". Days of inventory onsite has been dropping for decades now... they're just getting better at having goods delivered as they are needed for sale. Another thread on the Econ board said (and I don't know how true it is) that 75% of products sold at Walmart are purchased BEFORE WALMART EVEN PAYS FOR THE DELIVERY. If companies start managing positions THA efficiently it will take a LONG time into each recovery before many jobs show up.

Of course, they lay them off jsut as quickly.

[papau]

6. the 1980 to 1986 chart would be similiar as Reagan's tax cuts moved

jobs overseas.

Folks in management try to maximize any loophole - and both Bush and Reagan designed lousy tax laws.

[Frodo]

8. I honestly don't think that's it.

NAFTA sent tons of jobs overseas, but Clinton didn't have this kind of divergence.

It also should affect BOTH numbers. The numbers as they stand seem to indicate that companies are laying off (and/or people are quiting) in MUCH SMALLER numbers than three years ago. How can the average company be desperate to hold on to what they have yet not be hiring anyone? Today's number is more than 100,000 lower than earlier in shrub's term. That means there are literally 400,000 to 500,000 fewer people losing their jobs than in previous months... BUT no real increase in jobs (OK, no "substantial" increase).

I can only assume that companies are being incredibly efficient at maintaining exactly what they "need".


Also remember that raygun's cuts were followed by substantial improvement in the job markets. Almost all of his loses were in the first couple years of his term. This is not the same curve. Tax cuts SHOULD create jobs... they just come with a larger cost later on in the deficit, I can't see any economic "cause" in a tax cut that would cause job loses.

Edit - There's some weird dynamic going on where people who are unemployed for a short time are finding jobs, but people unemployed for months are having no luck - and many are giving up.

[54anickel]

7. Initial claims down. Maybe they are just plumb running out of people

to lay off. I mean, how lean can you go? :shrug:

[Yavin4]

9. My Humble Explanation for these Numbers

The reason why initial claims are down is not because the economy and the job markets are improving, rather it's because job seekers are being more realistic. They're taking the McJobs withouth filing for UE. Three years ago, a laid off ITer was more likely to file a UE claim and hold out for a position in IT. Today, that ITer is more willing to take the McJob immeadiately instead of holding out. The effect is that DOL reports that the number of UE is dropping, but that's misleading.

Our methodology for tracking the unemployed and the underemployed is seriously flawed. It's based on an old model where corporations would layoff when demand was slack and then re-hire as demand grew. However, corporations are no longer doing this. Information technology has enabled these corporations to more precisely gauge demand. Thus, they in turn know the precise number of workers to use to meet any heightened demand. This also explains why temp agencies are becoming the biggest employers in America.

Finally, a temp assignment has to last at least six months before someone can claim UE. So, the Best Buy cashier who worked the holidays would not qualify for UE.

[papau]

10. temp assignment has to last six months before someone can claim UE

Excellent point