Initial jobless benefit claims fall 37k to 404k for the week

[BzaDem]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-20/initial-jobless-claims-in-u-s-fell-37-000-last-week-to-404-000.html

Looks like last week was a fluke increase due to the holiday shopping season ending. (They do seasonally adjust, though apparently they didn't do enough of a correction this year). This is pretty good news, as we are hovering around a low point since late 2008. Though still not enough for significant sustained hiring (which many think would require 375k or lower).

[zbdent]

1. Cue the M$M's recognition, after a nearly 8-year hiatus, of the talking point of

"well, you really need a job growth of X to offset the blah blah blah ..."

[Statistical]

2. Chart of 4 week moving average is telling

[Statistical]

3. Noticing a trend.

Any good economic news goes down like the titanic.

[NNN0LHI]

4. Recommended

[ipaint]

5. No mention of how many have exhausted all benefits and are jobless.

"Those who’ve used up their traditional benefits and are now collecting emergency and extended payments increased by about 29,000 to 4.68 million in the week ended Jan. 1."

Nobody counting 99er's. A rather large and politically uncomfortable number to acknowledge.

Some perspective on recovery

"If one accepts a jobless rate slightly below 6% as the new standrd, that means the U.S. economy would need to create about 9.4 million jobs to reach full employment, according to BLS data, The New York Times reported.

So: With 9.4 million jobs as the goal, what does the recovery timetable look like?

First, a little background: The U.S. economy must create about 125,000 new jobs per month just to keep up with population growth and prevent the unemployment rate from rising. That's a constant in the full-employment equation. The biggest variable is GDP growth, which roughly parallels job growth. For example:

If U.S. GDP growth is strong, and the economy creates 300,000 jobs per month, the nation will reach full employment in about 3½ years, or in mid-2014.
If U.S. GDP growth is moderate, and the economy creates 250,000 jobs per month -- roughly the monthly job growth during the Roaring '90s -- full employment won't arrive until early 2016.
If U.S. GDP growth is weak and leads to a subpar 200,000 new jobs per month, full employment won't arrive until 2020 -- a staggering nine years from today."

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/how-long-is-amercias-road-back-to-full-employment/19796265/

[Statistical]

8. The "US must created 125K jobs to keep up with population growth" is false.

It is an average but socio-economic changes affect that and it is continually changing.

The current youth generation is entering the workforce at a rate of ~150K per month.
Immigration adds about another ~60K persons per month.
Deaths, retirements, disabilities, and incarcerations remove about ~80K per month.

That is where the mythical 125K jobs to keep up with population comes from.

What this fails to explain is the fact that the +125K isn't static. Immigration is relatively static (but could be cut in half for example to reduce workforce growth by 30K per month). The birthrate for last 30 years has been relatively static so people entering workforce over next couple decades (turning 16) will be relatively static.

The major element subject to change is retirement. The boomers will begin retiring in huge numbers. By 2018 it will be about ~200K per month. That will bring the net workforce population growth to roughly 0. The peak will be about ~380K retirements pushing workforce population growth negative. This trend will continue until roughly 2050.

[ipaint]

9. It's not false. Not by your statistics.

"The current youth generation is entering the workforce at a rate of ~150K per month." That's not changing drastically in 7 years. Neither is immigration.

As far as baby boomers, they may be reaching retirement age but actual retirement not for the majority. Especially when we will still be in a recession for the foreseeable future and housing still hasn't finished collapsing.


"Today, many Boomers are feeling far from invincible. The drop in the housing market has removed three trillion dollars in home equity from the pockets of Americans. On average, that is nearly $40,000 in lost equity for each U.S. homeowner. Since Boomers have the highest rates of home ownership as well as the highest home values, they have lost much more than the average. Likewise, the current economic downturn has taken $11 trillion dollars in stock market wealth away. That’s nearly $100,000 in lost assets for every household in the country. And since Boomers are much more likely to have their money tied up in stocks, they have suffered a disproportionately large share of the losses—for many, at the worst possible time.

Unemployment, traditionally the bane of younger and more downscale workers and not something that strongly impacts those at the peak of their careers, has over the second half of 2008 and into 2009 begun to hit the Baby Boom hard. The rate of increase of unemployment nearly doubled for those aged 45-54 in the second half of 2008 versus the first, and increased far faster for those over 55. In past years, most older and longer tenured workers who lost jobs from downsizing could rely on early retirement packages and other benefits from their former employers. Today, those packages are going away as companies seek to cut headcount without incurring substantial severance charges.

Time is not on their side
Assuming a retirement age of 66, the oldest Boomers have only three years left to recoup lost money they took decades to save. The collapsing stock and real estate markets of 2008 alone wiped out four years of gains in the net worth of Americans, and 2009 has taken more. The youngest cohorts of the Baby Boom may still have time to recover, assuming a substantial long-term upswing in the economy, which is by no means guaranteed, but for the oldest Boomers, time may have run out.

Can the Baby Boom afford to retire?

While some can, the majority will struggle and have to make substantial compromises to the plans they once had. Some smaller, but still significant share, will simply have to continue to work in whatever jobs they can find for as long as they can, or else take very large cuts to their standard of living. Those fortunate enough to have sufficient insurance coverage will be able to weather most of the healthcare issues they may face, while those without coverage will see their nest eggs quickly diminish. Many will end up relying on Medicaid and other government programs."

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/featured-insights/can-the-baby-boomers-retire/

I don't know what rainbows and sunshine world those retirement stats in your post come from but it's definitely not the real world. Perhaps when the majority of boomers begin to die off, maybe.

This recession/working class depression will certainly speed that up.

Still no stats on the culling of the 99ers.

[leftstreet]

10. Not to mention 99ers, etc who've been working under the table. Can't file

LOTS of people out there doing what they can to get by, but not falling within the bean-counting of our great When Unicorns Shit Skittles From Their Asses Employment Statistics

[PBS Poll-435]

6. Good news.

:thumbsup:

[tammywammy]

7. k&r n/t