Jobless claims drop more than expected

[ProSense]

Jobless claims drop more than expected

Third drop in the past four weeks for critical job market indicator

WASHINGTON — Fewer people requested unemployment benefits last week, pushing the four-week average of applications to its lowest level in more than two and a half years.

The Labor Department says the number of laid-off workers applying for unemployment benefits dropped by 22,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted 391,000. It was the third drop in the past four weeks.

<...>

Applications below 425,000 tend to signal modest job growth. But they would need to dip consistently to 375,000 or below to indicate a significant decline in the unemployment rate. Applications for benefits peaked during the recession at 651,000.

Three weeks ago, applications fell to 385,000, their lowest level in nearly three years. Much of that drop was due to harsh snowstorms in various parts of the country, which closed government offices and made it harder for recently laid-off workers to seek benefits.

more

DOL: UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT

In the week ending Feb. 19, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 391,000, a decrease of 22,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 413,000. The 4-week moving average was 402,000, a decrease of 16,500 from the previous week's revised average of 418,500.

The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 3.0 percent for the week ending Feb. 12, a decrease of 0.1 percentage point from the prior week's unrevised rate of 3.1 percent.

The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending Feb.12 was 3,790,000, a decrease of 145,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 3,935,000. The 4-week moving average was 3,892,750, a decrease of 54,750 from the preceding week's revised average of 3,947,500.

<...>

[Badfish]

1. good news.

[Dan]

2. It would be helpful

if they would provide information on the number of people each month that no longer qualify for unemployment compensation.

[Jmaxfie1]

3. That's why we never get a true picture of unemployement in this country.

It is always much higher than the stated "facts".

[vaberella]

4. Agreed. n/t

[ProSense]

5. The number

"of people each month that no longer qualify for unemployment compensation" has nothing to do with initial claims, which is what this report deals with.

[Jakes Progress]

10. Shhhh. We don't want to hear that crap. Just the happy side of the joblessness.

[ClarkUSA]

12. What's wrong with this OP noting the fact that jobless claims have dropped more than expected?

Despite memes to the contrary, the economy is improving. Just because all the millions of jobs lost under eight years of Bush haven't magically reappeared during two years of Obama doesn't mean we can't focus on the positive economic news coming out currently. It sure is better than hearing that jobless claims have been higher than expected.

[Jakes Progress]

27. If you want cherry pie,

then I guess you have to cherry pick. Enjoy your pie. Is it a big slice? Wish the people I know who are out of work could enjoy a piece of the pie. But you have a nice desert anyway.

[mkultra]

25. that number is called the Unemployment Rate

not the jobless claim rate

[Jokinomx]

6. It was two years ago that the downturn started in full force...

I was one of those casualties. Now that unemployment has ran out I am not counted anymore. Get the picture? It's not getting better... it's just that people are not eligible anymore so they drop off the list.

This is happening country wide now and will continue for the next year or so.

[ProSense]

7. "Now that unemployment has ran out I am not counted anymore."

Unless you're filing a first-time claim in the week covered by this report, you're not counted, and neither is anyone who is currently receiving benefits.

The report is for new claims.

There are other reports that measure long-term umemployment, underemployment, etc.

[Dan]

8. question

Do any of these reports provide information on those that no longer qualify? Just a question...

[Jokinomx]

9. I did read the article ...

Nowhere in the article does it call these "NEW" claims. I maybe interpreting it incorrectly, but the only place the article said anything about first time claims is referring to the snowstorm so those seeking new claims had a harder time doing so.

Now I am not saying I am correct...and your wrong...it is just I don't see that explained very well in the article.


--------------------



I see in the 2nd article the first sentence has "initial".... thanks for the correction.


Just missed that word... I guess I was looking for "new" claims and initial didn't register.

[pinqy]

13. Untrue, the report is NOT just new claims.

The News Release includes information on continuing claims and participants in Federal programs.

No, there is no information, and no realistic way to get information on those who no longer qualify. The states simply send in the number of claims and the number of people currently receiving...to try and sort out the reason for no longer recieving just isn't possible for a weekly report.

Monthly surveys on Employment, Unemployment, and Labor Turnover might give a better picture if you look at the number of new claims versus the number of continuing claims and looking at new hires and seperations, but because of different methodology and time frames, that would be maybe in the same city as the ballpark.

[ProSense]

15. Hmmmm?

"Untrue, the report is NOT just new claims...The News Release includes information on continuing claims and participants in Federal programs. "

First line of the news release:

In the week ending Feb. 19, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 391,000, a decrease of 22,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 413,000. The 4-week moving average was 402,000, a decrease of 16,500 from the previous week's revised average of 418,500.

<...>

"Initial claims" is in bold in the original. The report's primary purpose is reporting the change in first-time claims.

It's only "untrue" to those looking for an alternate reality.

[pinqy]

16. Read more than just the first line...

3rd paragraph:

The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending Feb.12 was 3,790,000, a decrease of 145,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 3,935,000. The 4-week moving average was 3,892,750, a decrease of 54,750 from the preceding week's revised average of 3,947,500.

Bolding is in the original.
And then further down with the data are the numbers for continuing claims and Federal programs. Neither are as current, they're for the week ending Feb 12th, but the report does cover them.

Did you just stop reading after the first line?????

[ProSense]

17. No one said the

report doesn't include other information. The purpose is to report initial claims.

Here is the OP title: "Jobless claims drop more than expected"

The 391,000, down 22,000, is about initial claims, not anything else in the report.

News:

Economy: Jobless Claims Fall, Consumer Confidence Climbs

Initial jobless claims fall below 400000

US jobless claims edge downward

Jobless claims fall to 391000

Jobless Claims Drop By 22000, To Lowest Level Since July 2008

Initial unemployment claims drop 22000 to 391000

Notice a trend?

"And then further down with the data are the numbers for continuing claims and Federal programs. Neither are as current, they're for the week ending Feb 12th, but the report does cover them."


Seriously, what are you arguing, that the report includes other stuff? Yeah, you're right.

The report's primary purpose is not the other stuff, it's the initial jobless claims.

[pinqy]

18. You said it didn't have any other information

Unless you're filing a first-time claim in the week covered by this report, you're not counted, and neither is anyone who is currently receiving benefits.

The report is for new claims.

There are other reports that measure long-term umemployment, underemployment, etc.

Are you not saying here that ONLY initial claims are counted? You specifically said those currently receiving benefits are NOT. You said OTHER reports measure things other than initial claims. Anyone reading your post could only come to the conclusion that you're saying the report covers initial claims and nothing else.

The purpose of the report is to report the UI situation. New claims are just the quickest information out... the title is UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT, not "Initial claims."

[ProSense]

19. No, I didn't say "it didn't have any other information"

I said

"Unless you're filing a first-time claim in the week covered by this report, you're not counted, and neither is anyone who is currently receiving benefits.

The report is for new claims.

There are other reports that measure long-term umemployment, underemployment, etc."

You: "Are you not saying here that ONLY initial claims are counted?"

Damn right that's what I'm saying. The 391,000 and the drop of 22,000 only relate to initial claims, nothing else.

If you have evidence that this is "untrue," please present it.


"The purpose of the report is to report the UI situation. New claims are just the quickest information out... the title is UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT, not 'Initial claims.'"

You can't be serious?

[pinqy]

20. Right there in the report is the count of continuing claims!!!!!!

The 391,000 is initial claims, but the 3,790,000 are CONTINUING CLAIMS. So obviously, they are counted. Evidence that other than initial claims are counted???? "The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending Feb.12 was 3,790,000, a decrease of 145,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 3,935,000. The 4-week moving average was 3,892,750, a decrease of 54,750 from the preceding week's revised average of 3,947,500. " Those are not initial claims, and it's clearly a count..

"PERSONS CLAIMING UI BENEFITS IN ALL PROGRAMS (UNADJUSTED)" NOT just initial claims.

So if ONLY initial claims are counted, then where do all the other numbers come from?????

[ProSense]

21. Hmmm?

"The 391,000 is initial claims, but..."

Isn't that what http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=617729&mesg_id=617843">I said:

Damn right that's what I'm saying. The 391,000 and the drop of 22,000 only relate to initial claims, nothing else.

If you have evidence that this is "untrue," please present it.

There is no "but."

Where is your evidence that my statement about the number of initial claims is "untrue"?

Where is your evidence that the 391,000 includes people who are already collecting benefits and those who are no longer doing so?

[ProSense]

24. Also,

when you go back to my original statement

"Unless you're filing a first-time claim in the week covered by this report, you're not counted, and neither is anyone who is currently receiving benefits.

The report is for new claims.

There are other reports that measure long-term umemployment, underemployment, etc."

....nothing in it is "untrue." The first-time claims do not include existing claims and people who are no longer collecting benefits.

The report does not measure long-term unemployment, underemployment, etc.

You seem to want to argue for the sake of arguing. The OP is about initial claims, and the primary purpose of it is initial claims.

[safeinOhio]

11. I've been retired for 10 years

and kind of wanted a job for something to do. I had put in a few applications over the years with never a call. A week ago I saw a sign for help wanted, applied and was hired. I'm thinking a lot of us that had gave up are now working.

[ClarkUSA]

23. That's right. A close friend of mine who was a 99er got a job in December just as his UI ran out.

Now he's working for a great company (it's better than the one he was laid off from 2.5 years ago) in his career field and supporting his small family again. That same company has been hiring 100 people in the past few months.

Another company in the same industry near his workplace just announced plans last week to build a $30M facility beginning in May that will house 1500 workers by 2014. That's in addition to a $1.6B manufacturing facility they're just finishing now that will employ another 1500 workers by 2012. The area businesses are ecstatic, to say the least. All this is happening in an heretofore economically depressed region, too, so the ripple effects from this influx of workers and their families will be rather significant, as you might imagine. All this activity can be attributed to the use of state stimulus funding to attract businesses to this particular region, so all this is another example of how the Obama administration has been instrumental in job creation.

Congratulations on the new job, BTW.

[mkultra]

26. Honestly, you are just flat out wrong

The household survey doesn't rely on UI claim information. You are counted in that.

[old mark]

14. K&R- I wonder if the suicide rate went up....nt

[golfguru]

22. Private sector must be hiring

Don't think public sector is hiring right now.