Jobless claims fall to 17-month low

Source: CNN

NEW YORK (CNN Money.com) -- The number of Americans filing first-time claims for unemployment insurance fell sharply last week to the lowest level in 17 months, the government said Thursday. Analysts had expected an increase.

There were 432,000 initial jobless claims filed in the week ended Dec. 26, down 22,000 from the previous week's revised 454,000, the Labor Department said. The figure is the lowest since July 19, 2008, when there were 413,000 claims filed.

A consensus estimate of economists surveyed by Briefing.com expected claims to jump to 460,000.

The 4-week moving average of initial claims totaled 460,250, down 5,500 from the previous week's revised average of 465,750.

Read more: http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/31/news/economy/initial_claims/

---

http://4.bp.blogspot.com

This is a very volatile period, with many too busy w/ family to file claims, lots of employers put off firings until after holidays and there is so much activity in general during this period that the seasonal adjustment figure is rendered much less useful than under normal circumstances.

While the decline in initial claims is good news, the 4-week average suggests continuing job losses.



I fear that we could see a double dip and once again the administration will have over-promised and under-delivered on jobs.

New budgets are in place. Money authorized to hire people. I'm optimistic for January.

I know so many people out of work or underemployed

unrec!!


j/k

when it's a buried number, rather than the new headline number.

Thursday, December 31, 2009
Initial Jobless Claims: 432,000
- by New Deal democrat


The BLS reported that for the week ending December 26, seasonally adjusted initial jobless claims decreased to 432,000, down 22,000 from last week's revised 454,000. The 4-week moving average is now 460,250, compared with 465,750 last week. The 4 week seasonally adjusted moving average is a little more than 31% lower than the peak of 658,750 on April 3 of this year. (The last two "jobless recoveries" coincided with new claims declining no more than 20% from peak).


Unadjusted, there were 557,155 new claims, a decrease of 8,088 from the week before, showing how much seasonal volatility exists in the weekly numbers at this time of year. Today's reading is well below the initial claims numbers for this time last year, and seasonally adjusted is the best number since August 2008.


We are getting close to the point where my research (that claims had to fall ~20% for at least two months) and also the "mental note" of Prof. DeLong et al that initial jobless claims had to fall to 400,000 before jobs would be added, are both going to be correct. The incoming data continues to suggest that more likely than not we are going to get a positive payroll number for December when that figure is released next Friday.


Editorial note: All of the above employers who pink-slipped employees during Christmas week are true grinches -- and that's being kind. One of my favorite lunch places closed last week. Those employees - none of whom were earning very much I'm sure - got a wonderful Christmas gift, didn't they? Why can't employers at least wait until the holiday season is over? Bastards!

From Bonddad



The overall trend continues to to look very promising.

Posted by New Deal democrat at 12/31/2009 08:04:00 AM

http://bonddad.blogspot.com/2009/12/initial-jobless-claims-438000.html

After a 9 month layoff and not getting paid a cent for my completed 10-month contract previous to that.

The job I'm taking is a direct result of an historic Obama/Holder decision from 6 months ago.

:toast:

about the "historic Obama/Holder decision from 6 months ago"?

from virtually every indicator.

The recovery is underway, IMO.

at a less faster rate than they were two months ago. They are still losing jobs. My dh hasn't worked since the second week of September. His friend who is lower on the list has but the jobs he took didn't last more than up to a week or two and then he was laid off again.

We checked the "where the hell did our county's stimulus money go" website and it seems most went to the private (already receiving stimulus via GSL's) university here (Syracuse U). The majority of the state money went to the state capital in Albany (shoring up the budget?). We thought it might go to ummm, improve the infrastructure in our city schools or maybe revamp/re-pipe the crappy aging water pipes running under the city... something tangibly useful to the many taxpayers here, not supporting another research grant at the uni. I am looking for ways to take advantage of this capitalistic system now. Because us Americans are all like Katrina survivors out there. I'm all done with "help is on the way." The state has basically ignored us and left my husband with no unemployment check but says "keep certifying" yah, right. I wonder if we have to claim the income on the non-existent unemployment checks for this year on our taxes or next (when we finally receive them?). Healthcare? Lord have mercy on all our budgets when they pass that "tax." (the tax that goes up the sicker you are, real compassionate).

I was watching TCM and they had a "retro-infomericial" on San Francisco. All about the Golden Gate Bridge. How it went up over two years as part of the New Deal's program to put Americans back to work. I think about that and the Hoover Dam. All those projects are living monuments to FDR. All I could think of is geez, some people just don't know how to dream big and other people do and put some muscle behind it. Hope is nothing without action.

But, then the grinch arrives, and I ask myself whether the fact that fewer jobs are being lost helps us forget the many people who lost their jobs at the very beginning of this recession and either have given up looking because they've been jobless so long or who just haven't been able to find jobs yet.

So, this looks like it might be good news, but then again, it might not be all that great. I hope it is good news.

As far as I know the actual number of unemployed people is still rising, just not as fast as it was.

Thank Mr. President

FU GOP

I listened to an interview on Minnesota Public Radio yesterday with an economist from the U of Chicago. He would agree with your assessment of how the stimulus opportunity was messed up (I agree as well). He said one issue is that the bill was written so that some money could only go to infrastructure projects which are "shovel ready" and what a short-sighted mistake that was. First of all, that excludes a lot of big projects that nobody bothers getting "shovel ready" because it is too expensive to get to that point and second, it eliminates dreaming big (like the Golden Gate Bridge or any number of other vital big government projects still in use decades later which improve our lives and businesses.

The stimulus was a great opportunity fucked up.

The unemployment stats are meaningless without a corresponding rise in jobs.

That will give a more realistic view of where we actually are. And, at the risk of sounding repetetive, banks will continue to hoard cash reserves until two things happen: 1. Savings rates increase, and 2. Long term projects, and/or business is stimulated. Something like a shit load of windmills versus cash for clunkers, and a never ending series of public roads projects.

Precisely, and hope is not a plan, as the saying goes.

Let's hope this, one of many, Bush Recessions (Bush I and II. Elect a Bush, get a Recession) goes into the sunset with Bush himself early in 2010.

Yippee.

O B A M A R E C O V E R Y

:D

:hi:

But I remember back around the turn of the millineum when they were agonizing over 150,000 new jobless claims and how bad that was, so what I see is that we still have three times that, and no real plan for how millions and millions of new jobs are going to be created. This may be "less bad", but it is still a long way from anything the is actually "good" in terms of jobs.

we saw it with Bush too and he rode it like crazy when it happened.

full time and part time at local stores,, this is after the holidays

the numbers only reflect jobless claims. How many unemployed just had their benefits run out and how many of those unemployed took low paying part time holiday positions. Even those part time holiday jobs were historically low. Since no one is hiring yet as I read about more layoffs coming every week from companies that are still moving and downsizing, I would say the new policies are the same as the old policies with just as much added propaganda. I hate spin, they are like lies that only serve to embellish a certain position.

:thumbsdown:

Tell this to the unemployed. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. The same old smoke and mirrors I have come to expect from the M$M.

For the first 8 months of my unemployment, I had two interviews and neither company filled the position. Over the past couple of months, I have had 3 and I see more jobs posted than before. I also have reason to believe companies are starting to fill vacancies rather than go without. Of course, my experience may not be indicative of the larger picture, but I do think things are getting a little better.

Engineering work is hard to come by these days in our area, especially petrochemical process work, which he's been doing for over 30 years now. Things are "better", there are more calls for it, but companies have their pick of the litter now, for less money. During one interview with a contract firm they asked if, when the economy gets better, would he "stiff" them and go for another job that paid more -- um, these were the same people that told him his other job was "6 months to direct" and then they admitted that they stiffed HIM by lying about the terms of the contract (it was 9 months, no direct).

And no, with aging parents on his and my side (dementia), we can't move right now. At least I'm still employed.

You can call it government propaganda if you like, but this is one instance where the media is merely the messenger (as they should be).

Uh huh. My point was to bring awareness to how it is trumpeted to the masses via the evil corporate sirens. Propaganda whether the source is public or private is unimportant. This report counts total initial unemployment claims. So yes, sing the praises of Geithner and Bernanke because we "only" lost 432,000 jobs.

:wow:

you see job creation in the plus's, the high plus's

No really, it's good that someone does it.

... and promote voting for someone else?

:sarcasm:

Just like when Bill Clinton had a balanced budget, and low unemployment on his watch, it was Reagan's economy that we were finally running on.

Cue for the Bill C haters in 3...2....1....

Of course, he had help from his successors.

But during his second term, job creation was 10% plus. Reagan did a good job of stimulating the economy job wise, it is just that his administration was more the harbinger of globalization and henceforth, a windfall of poorly paying jobs. By the way, I got the info. from a linked du article and graph I referenced yesterday. Job creation was 1.5% during Reagans first four years. It is ironic that the biggest deficit spenders were Bush, jr. sr. and Reagan. One thing that I think I remember from the Reagan years is a law that changed members of the Armed Forces as being counted in employment stats, previously they were not taken into account one way or the other(I think). I remember hearing something of that nature on KGO talk radio out of SF.

First of all, this is a piece of data that has absolutely nothing to do with Obama's corporate whoring, nor did anyone here claim otherwise.

And what the hell are you talking about when you say, "promote voting for someone else". Obama is only one year into his presidency, and nobody is running against him now, so there's no "someone else" to vote for.

And finally, be careful with the sarcasm tag. Usually it's best to just speak plainly and say what you think. If you had done that here, you probably would have deleted your comment before posting and saved yourself some embarrassment. Because there is no way to say your comment plainly in a way that sounds intelligent. Try it. It can't be done. I'll demonstrate:

"Some DUers believe that Obama is a corporate whore and promote voting for someone else."

See? If you had just said it plainly it would have been a real WTF moment and you wouldn't have posted it. It would have been obvious to you that it wasn't relevant to the thread, and that it was just a lame attempt to criticize DUers who believe that it's in the nation's best interests to hold politicians accountable for their actions - regardless of party affiliation. So I'd suggest you run your comments through that little test in the future. If it sounds dumb when you say it plainly, it's probably a good idea to just nix the post - even if you think it sounds cute with the sarcasm tag.

Some aren't.

I'm guessing you fall into the "aren't" group.

People here not only understand sarcasm, they generally see right through it and beyond it, so it's not typically viewed as clever or cute or smart. That's the whole point. Sarcasm is a rather immature and low-brow method of expressing one's views that doesn't require smarts to understand, and the fact that you think it does reveals something about you that will require me to treat you a little more gently. But back to sarcasm... When you feel the need to actually put a sign on your comment that says sarcasm, it's akin to telling a joke and then telling people what you just said was funny. If your words can't stand on their own, it's probably just best to just stay silent, especially when you're attacking the well-reasoned views of others. I'm just trying to save you some embarrassment here.

yes INDEED

:woohoo:

...that I really can't tell if someone is being facetious, or genuinely happy any more. x(

Just a year that sucks less

At this point, I will take what I can get

:hi:

Happy New Year to my beloved avian FReeper.

because they can't collect anymore?

its initial unemployment claims only.

However I don't like the mentality that some seem to have that any criticism of this fact is somehow wrong.

The reality is we need 100k jobs a month just to keep up. Plus the equivalent of about 3-4 million 'full time' jobs have been eliminated by cutting back hours to part time for millions of workers. On top of that about 7-8 million jobs have been lost in this recession. Add it all up and it is about 12 million net jobs that have been lost since the recession started (when you add in jobs cut, full timers cut to part time and lack of new job creation).

The point is that, stemming the bleeding is great. And I hope we stem it as fast as possible. However we have to start rebuilding afterwards.

So this is good news (I think we only lost 11k jobs in November 2009). However we need to follow it up with job creation.

Yes, it's regrettable that 400,000 more people lost their jobs. In a perfect world nobody would ever lose a job. But remember that there is always going to be turnover in the workforce. Even in the best of times when the economy is growing at a fast pace, some people will still lose their job. It always happens that way. What we really need to look at is net job growth, or in other words, were more jobs created than were lost in the same time period. We're not there yet, but as others in this thread have said, at least the bleeding has slowed down.

the latest financial reports say that 25% of employers still intend to cut their workforce in 2010, and 50% will stay the same. Where are these new jobs going to come from? the answer is only in the remaining 25%, and we don't know by how much. Even if they only intend to hire one person, that counts. And those numbers will be drastically outnumbered by the 25% intending to cut workforce. (news report I read recently, here at DU I think)

Don't misinterpret data. This report in the OP ONLY refers to NEW people on unemployment. It does not take into account several factors:

1. states are running out of unemployment funds, and are being more draconian in deciding who gets it. Do you know how many people are refused as a ratio? Its becoming more difficult to even get assigned as a recipient.
2. If you have 20% unemployment (keep in mind MIchigan is at 50% unemployment), and the newly jobless rate slows, it still means the percentage of unemployed is increasing and being accumulated to the existing total.
3. New workers entering the market who have never worked before are NOT eliglible for unemployment. A vast number of college graduates or high school graduates (or dropouts) cannot find gainful employment. Their numbers will not be counted in this statistic.

if you wish to label me a pessimist for being grown up enough to realize what color the sky is, that is your right, I suppose.

Where does the assumption that the layoffs will outstrip the new hires come from?

Anyway, I can't find that report, but I found this very recent report published Dec. 29, 2009:

"CHICAGO, Dec. 29 /PRNewswire/ --The encouraging news regarding the economy may be easing hiring fears, as employers signal an increase in their plans to hire in the new year, according to CareerBuilder's 2010 Job Forecast. While employers continue to closely monitor the progress of recovery for the U.S. economy, they are beginning to consider hiring strategies designed to preserve the health and growth of their businesses for the future. CareerBuilder surveyed more than 2,700 hiring managers and human resource professionals nationwide across industries.

"There have been many signs over the past few months that point to the healing of the U.S. economy, especially the continued decrease in the number of jobs lost per month, a trend that will hopefully carry over into the new year," said Matt Ferguson, CEO of CareerBuilder. "Although 20 percent of employers plan to add headcount in 2010, up from 14 percent last year, they still remain cautious in regards to their hiring. We're headed in the right direction but should not expect to see actual job growth until at least Q2 2010."

HIRING IN 2010

Full time

Twenty percent of employers plan to increase their number of full-time, permanent employees in 2010, up from 14 percent in 2009. Nine percent say they plan to decrease headcount in 2010, down sharply from 16 percent in 2009. Sixty-one percent don't plan to change staff levels, while 10 percent say they are unsure.

..."



1. Agreed - stresses on states are the biggest worry IMO.

2. Michigan unemployment is 50%?
Notice that in my state of NH that the unemployment rate topped at just 7% in this recession, where it topped at 8.2% in the '92 recession.

3. True, but this was true in previous recession too, so I'm not sure why this would be a bigger factor now than previously?

Anyway, I've bookmarked this - will hopefully remember to pull up this bookmark next December 31st to see how accurate you were ;)

employers still intend to cut their workforce in 2010, and 50% will stay the same." I haven't heard that before and when I tried to Google it I came up empty.

sorry that I cannot find it now, myself , after searching.

it?

Sure, we are still in economic trouble of many kinds, and the U.S. desperately needs more jobs in general--and has for years--but this is still good news; and we can use every bit of improvement we can get.

So, I'll take it.

The unemployment rate isn't going to magically jump to 5 percent overnight, it first has to reverse direction (which appears to be happening), and then gradually improve to a "normal" level. There is a definite improvement happening, despite what any freepers want to say.

Yes, I realize there are still people out of work, I know a couple. But I also know people who were out of work and are now working, and a couple of others who were in danger of being laid off but no longer fear for their jobs. The fact is that the economy is improving, and no freeper troll can deny that.

an optimistic cheery person about this news which is not necessarily good news, just less bad than it was before. You don't need to call people names, particularly people the economy has forgotten. Way to kick people who are already down. I hocked my pompons to pay the mortgage.

and then cry like a baby when somebody calls you a name.

Boo hoo hoo!

Don't put words in my mouth. Perhaps you can add something of value to this thread rather than responding to a post that was not directed at you.

I've been looking since April, with the exception of two months I had a temp job.

Remember when Republicans didn't blame THEIR President for high unemployment?


"1983 January 1: The official unemployment rate reaches 11.5 million. Hardest hit is "rustbelt." In Milwaukee, 20,000 wait in 20 degree weather to apply for 200 jobs at auto-frame factory.

January: Reagan's approval rating plummets to 35%.

January 31: Reagan submits his fiscal 1984 budget to Congress; $189billion deficit. A combination of the recession, tax cuts, and an increase in defense spending are to blame. Advisors urge Reagan to either raise taxes or cut defense, Reagan rejects the advice and vows to "stay the course.'" (Easy for him to talk, all his friends were employed!)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/timeline/index_4.html

people may now be newly unemployed has shrunk... no? How is this accounted for in this new number?

... is bleeding out, eventually the rate of flow stops because there is less blood left.

Anyone that thinks this is indicative of a "recovery" will be very disappointed as the years progress. There is no recovery happening, not in the sense that is usually meant. And none of the debt problems of the economy have been solved, just kicked down the road a ways.

They eliminated my school bus driver job from the budget...

No problem

But then, they claimed that I "quit" the job.

I did not quit.. I was told to stay home until they made a ruling.... The school board was going to re-work the BUS Routes.

So what does this mean? It means that I am screwed as a hard-working employee. It means that the end justifys the means... and that they are hypocrits. It means that Big Corp Souless Assholes get their way at all times, no matter what.

Its not hard and you have a right to take it to court. Very very often an employer will automatically try to deny unemployment as they are charged a higher rate if you file a legitimate claim. But very seldom do they want to see that taken to a court, where they have to pay a lawyer whether they win or lose.

Write up a good contest to it and see what happens. Good luck!

It ain't over until you finish your appeal. Do not settle for "no" on the first filing. It has become standard operating procedure to deny claims on the first filing, just like those good ole insurance companies.

...and that the better answer would have been to rely exclusively on tax cuts to the rich.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091231/D9CUGAHG2.html

Fewer people are losing their jobs, but people who are already unemployed continue to have trouble finding another job and economists expect it to stay that way for much of this new year. We are far from out of the woods yet.

Funny, that. Because, you know Obama's such a FAILURE.

:rofl:

That period immediately followed the lowest dip of the Dow Jones average and the other stock indexes, which was early March.

The graph line also clearly runs counter to the graph line for the stock market over the period.

I hope those who have been displaying anger every time we discuss the stock market gains will see that the correlation really does exist, but it isn't a process that gets fixed over a few months. It's the trends that are important, because they help all of us see a way back to more prosperity.

The graph and the stock market resurgence do show that President Obama has started a recovery that we can build on.