Jobless Claims Plunge to Five-Year Low

WASHINGTON - The number of newly laid-off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits fell to the lowest level in more than five years last week, providing strong evidence that the labor market is shaking off the effects of a string of devastating hurricanes.

The Labor Department reported Thursday that applications for unemployment benefits dropped by 35,000 to 291,000, the smallest number since Sept. 23, 2000, when the economy was in the concluding months of the longest economic expansion in history.

The decline of 35,000 claims was much better than Wall Street had been expecting and bolstered the belief that the labor market is on the mend after a rough period in the fall when Gulf Coast hurricanes caused the loss of more than 600,000 jobs over a period of four months.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060105/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/jobless_claims

he/she quit, and the company creates two 20 hrs/wk jobs, wouldn't
the gov't figures show that as 2 new jobs? or at least a net gain of one job?

Now that everyone's unemployment benefits have expired, they're no longer "unemployed." When we're all jobless, Bush will have achieved his employment utopia!

or drag around the poorest neighborhoods outside DC, and given a citizen beatery.

about? Does anyone think dimson will be spewing about that today?:sarcasm:

claiming that the economy is strong and booming, for the rich. Middle class and poor aren't feeling the effects yet.

...I would also be interested in knowing how many people have recently dropped off the rolls after exhausting their unemployment benefits.

After all, they are professional statisticians. This is seasonally adjusted data:

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT

SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA

In the week ending Dec. 31, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 291,000, a decrease of 35,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 326,000. The 4-week moving average was 316,750, a decrease of 9,250 from the previous week's revised average of 326,000.

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

and this statistic is for *initial* claims, so that people dropping off the unemployment rolls is not a factor here.

And it is inconceivable that this data is being manipulated for political reasons. Some posters here seem to think that Dick Cheney is standing over the shoulder of the DOL statistician crunching the numbers in Excel. Lying about these numbers would be a huge risk, involving very many DOL employees, and it would be almost impossible to get away with it. And why take the risk? It's not like there is an election two weeks from now.

The main caveat with this number is that the even though it is seasonally adjusted, the seasonal adjustment calculation is quite volatile at this time of year. Because of this I would not read too much into it.

You'd want to look at trends and try to apply them to past patterns- though that's not usually how the numbers are reported in the "mainstream" media.

number? I'd be very interested to know what sector of the job market improved so greatly that it could back up these numbers, wouldn't you?
When they tell me where all of these fabulous jobs came from then, and ONLY then, will I believe these numbers! So tell me, Labor Department, which sector is booming at the moment? :shrug:
We're all well aware where these numbers came from. People's benefits have run out or they've just stopped looking, there's nothing magic going on here, no huge economic recovery.
I guess they think we're all as stupid as the freepers. :eyes:

What about the jobs where you don't make a livable wage. You never hear that. There may be more jobs but we should be talking about jobs that pay livable wages. Employment statistics are very skewed, imho.

it is not getting better.

They count on us being stupid as their enablers spoon feed us.

Wait a month or so and there will be issued - in tiny tiny type a correction to this figure.

at a job to qualify for benefits, you don't bother to go file. Mine ran out while I was waiting to qualify for 'retraining" 4 1/2 years ago. Then Workforce told me that they had run out of money in their budget and I had to wait 3 months more and start over-but if I found a job in that time I wwas disqualified from the retraining. Nice Catch-22 there.

they will either come back and 'revise' the number upward when fewer people will take note, OR, as mentioned people are getting dropped off the unemployment roles. It is not in their best interest to have accurate stats on this one. I also hear that many employment agencies report less job availability/hires too. wonder why that isn't widely reported.

I am 63 years old and this is the worst I have ever seen it in Wichita Kansas. Most people cannot even find a minimum wage job around here.

If the government would only raise the minimum wage to a livable wage would sure help.

If this was the 90s, jobseekers would hold out for the perfect job and stay on UE. Today, jobseekers are willing to take any job that's out there, including part-time temp work.

I clearly recall posting on Monster.com in the early days of the Bush admin, and I remember telling unemployed ITers that they need to take any job out there. They mocked and laughed at my suggestion. Not any more. Now, they are taking the crappy temp job.

Wal-Mart posted it lowest earnings since 2000. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said sales in the U.S. last month rose 2.2 percent, the smallest December gain in five years.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aUV4s638HzXw&refer=home

WalMart. They now shop at Macy! :sarcasm:

http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2006-01-05T130836Z_01_N05285555_RTRIDST_0_ECONOMY-LAYOFFS-CHALLENGER-UPDATE-1.XML

NEW YORK, Jan 5 (Reuters) - Planned U.S. layoffs rose by 8.6 percent in December, pushing the 2005 annual total of job cuts 3.1 percent higher than in 2004, according to a report released on Thursday.

The increases were due in large part to big jumps in job cuts in the government, non-profit and automotive sectors, Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc., an employment
consulting firm, said.

Total announced layoffs in the month were 107,822 jobs, compared with 99,279 planned cuts in November, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc.

"Unfortunately for workers in these sectors, there does not appear to be any relief in the near term," John A. Challenger, chief executive officer of Challenger, said in a
statement.

"Budget deficits exist at all levels of government. At the federal level, military base closures will lead to continued job cutting in 2006," Challenger said.

In all of 2005, U.S. employers announced 1,072,054 job cuts, compared with 1,039,735 in all of 2004, marking the first time since 2001 that annual job cuts increased,
Challenger said.


:think:

:beer:

okay, got it...i think...
dp

...remember those daze?

You could count on everytime an Employment number was released he would be here with his happy-talk drivel. No matter WHAT logical counter argument was posted, he would break out his bullshit charts and graphs and try to dazzle everyone with the same horseshit the government tries to every month. Sometimes it was entertaining, but mostly, he was an annoying shill. a Professional one I suspect.

I wonder whatever happened to him

Fro-ho came here to diss the unemployed, that POS.

dear fellow liberal pukes,.....plenty of jobs for you welfare, government cheese eating socialists.