WOW! Look at how the jobless claims have fallen

[underpants]

The number of Americans filing for unemployment pay fell to pre-recession lows last week, the government reported on March 18, 2004, but there were signs prices might be facing pressure from high energy costs. The Labor Department (news - web sites) said first-time claims for state unemployment insurance benefits dropped by 6,000 from the prior week to 336,000 in the week ended March 13. It was well below Wall Street analysts' forecasts and the lowest for any week since 316,000 reported on Jan. 13, 2001, which was a couple of months before the onset of recession. (Reuters Graphic)


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/040318/photos_ts/jobless_claims031804_graphic&e=13&ncid=705

[RobertSeattle]

1. Note Graph "Y" Axis starts at 330K - not Zero

Classic "Graphoganda".

[bryant69]

2. Good catch

DOes put it in a bit of a different context.

It turns out numbers do lie on occasion.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Frodo]

5. Here's the real chart.

The REAL "bottom" for the Y-axis belongs in the 250k range (about as low as it can possibly go)

[Deb-Ter]

11. Frodo,

Am I reading this right, does it stop at Jan of 2002? Don't we have any more current data than that?

[Frodo]

12. No, it's just a really big scale.

It includes the current month's data... it just has X-axis key dates only every four years.

[Bucky]

19. I think this is a more honest graph of the jobless claims rate

The bottom is zero. Just because a free economy tends to always have some unemployed (normal turn over in a job market will always leave some people between jobs) doesn't mean we can discount those who are actually out of work. They should still show up if you want the graph to be an accurate reflection of the market.





What you're seeing is a small spot of statistical clustering in a job market that is still weak. I think it's also worth noting that, while new jobless claims are marginally down, continuing claims still seem to outpace them (as indexed in the chart--obviously existing claims will always outnumber new claims). The pace right now is for existing claims to continue at a stronger rate even if new claims are dropping off.

This is not always the case. In your chart (reposted below) notice how in a growing or recovering job market the blue line outstrips the red line of long term unemployed. The gap between long term out-of-workers and brand new out-of-workers is higher than it's ever been over the past 14 years.

That's a picture of a stalled out new-hiring economy. It's consistant with increased worker productivity, which is a nice way of saying those who are employed are working harder, but not getting more money.



.

[underpants]

20. That top graph is much more accurate

Little if no change.

[Frodo]

22. I don't agree.

There actually IS a "correct" way to graphically display data. The challenge in graphing is to capture the reality of the situation. It really DOES matter what the lowest "possible" number is.

Think of graphing the height of all adult males. You don't pick up the correct picture of the distribution if you show the Y-Axis starting at "0". Same thing here.

The graph I posted does a good job of laying out the late 90's as the truly outstanding performance that it was AND shows the early 90's and '01-'02 as the terrible performances that THEY were.

The graph you showed (if it were drawn out over the last 15 years) would not show adequate variation to identify reality.

I agree, however, with your assesment of the continued claims data.

[Bucky]

23. Sure the "lowest possible number" is important. But is it arbitrary?

I don't know the basis for you picking the 250,000 "floor" for unemployment claims. I certainly don't see the value of ignoring everyone before we reach that floor. Since the population of the workforce is continuing to grow, why shouldn't the floor keep growing too? Yet your graph presented it as a constant over a 14 year period.

If anything, I would think the most accurate and enlightening statistic would be to show a percentage of those employed (maybe segmented by full time, part time, and parttime-wishing-for-full-time) as a proportion of the total eligible workforce. I'm seeing a comparison of multiple pie graphs here.



Mmmmm... Pie!

[underpants]

10. Right any change looks HUGE

I knew you people would see that. :thumbsup:

[papau]

3. Indeed only 20,000 higher than Clintons last week - 1/13/2001

The lowest report under Bush!

At least until they are revised up next week!

:-)

[DemNoir]

4. WOW!

More distorted figures given in isolation and without context cheerfully trumpeted on DU!

[underpants]

7. My point was really about the graph

I know I didn't actually state it I just wanted to see if anyone saw this the way I did.

It starts at 330 and goes to 400. Any change will look dramatic. From the highest point of the last 3 months the 336,000 number is only a .086956 decrease. It looks huge but really isn't.

[DemNoir]

13. Oh

Well..nevermind..:)

[Bandit]

6. I believe them........ really they never "mislead" us.

Isn't it a shame when absolutely every single thing from this Administration is suspect. Nothing can be trusted.

[Virginian]

8. The federal supplement is running out about now.

This doesn't have anything to do with new claims, but there was a federal extention of benefits for those who had exhausted their 26 week state benefits. The Republicans chose not to renew it. Those who filed for it before the deadline in December are probably running out of benefits about now.
It's sad to see 56 year old MBAs waiting tables.

[underpants]

9. At 336K it is only a .0869 % less than the 368K high this quarter

The graph makes it look like a huge change.

Right you are filing for unemployment if you benefits have run out...and you aren't on a payroll so you must be "self-employed".

[texastoast]

14. So you are saying . . .

That the jobless claims fell because it wouldn't do any good to claim unemployment because someone exhausted their benefits, right?

Would that mean that it is just the "claims" that fell, not the number of unemployed?

[Virginian]

16. When they cite Unemployment claims,

they usually measure new claims rather than continuing claims.

The interest seems to be how many new people became unemployed, not how many remain jobless. There are more jobless Americans or underemployed Americans who are no longer eligible for unemployment compensation.

[M0rpheus]

26. Sigh...

Just got my last check Wednesday.

My benefits are officially exhausted.
Off to McDonald's I go. :puke:

[fob]

15. Seasonally Adjusted Numbers???

Wait til bush*co discovers the Election Season(ally) Adjusted Numbers!!

I believe they come out in late October.

[justsam]

17. wake up folks

the numbers fell because that many people used up all there benefits and extensions, therefore went off unemployment

[Kitsune]

18. exactly

The unemployment numbers are as cooked as Enron's books, and always have been.

[SiobhanClancy]

29. Exactly...I get my last check next week...

after which I'll fall off the unemployment rolls..but still no job. There are a lot of us out there,unfortunately.

[redqueen]

21. Lying liars

I love how infrequently this detail is disclosed:

"Just 21,000 new jobs were created in February, as reflected by the Labuor Department's survey of payrolls, as the country's job machine continued to fall badly below expectations.

The unemployment rate remained at 5.6 per cent last month. The overall rate remained stable only because 392,000 Americans gave up looking for work and were no longer counted in the labor market."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/cpress/20040318/ca_pr_on_bu/us_economy_1

[stewert]

25. WTF !!!!!!!!!!!

Have you guys forgot what this number means ?

It means 336,000 new people filed for unemployment in one week, I said one week.

For the whole month of february the economy only created 21,000 jobs, and those
were government jobs.

I never did understand how Bush and the media say that when 336,000 new people
filed for unemployment in one week it was a good thing.

Thank about it for a minute.......................Now try to remember that 336,000 new people
lost their jobs in one week.

The Bush economy only created 290,000 jobs in the last YEAR !

Think about that...................Now try to remember that close to 400,000 people stopped
looking for work last month alone after their unemployment numbers ran out.

Someone has this number of 400,000 new unemployment claims as the measure of the jobs
picture. It's ridiculous, I am telling you that when 336,000 new people file for unemployment
in one week the economy is not doing good. Especially when the economy only created 21,000
jobs in february and only 290,000 in the last YEAR.

Think about that...............

[Bucky]

27. I thought the 21,000 jobs meant 21,000 more than were lost

Isn't the 21,000 a net gain in total jobs? For a workforce of over 150 million, 21,000 new jobs gross seems unrealistically small even for a full blown depression.

[stewert]

28. Yes.........

The 21,000 jobs for february was a net gain, but they were government jobs. We
actually lost jobs in the private sector, when the Bush economic team predicted the
economy would create 300,000 jobs a month, after june of 2003 they were not talking
about government jobs.

They were talking about private sector jobs, and we lost 3000 more manufacturing jobs
in february. That is the 43rd month in a row the economy lost manufacturing jobs.

I was comparing the net job gain in the last year to the new unemployment claims in one
week. More people filed for new unemployment claims in one week than jobs than the Bush
economy created in the last year.

That was my main point, and the fact that Bush and the media make it look like 336,000 new
unemployment claims in one week is a good thing.

[scarface2004]

24. how many folks need a job.....

that s the number that matters, not 'new' claims, not the 'official' unemployment rate. if i put an ad in today's paper announcing a new factory was going to hire 1,000 workers for $25/hr plus benefits and overtime, what kind of mob scene would i have??

well??