Job market improvement may be slowing, data show

Source: AP

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Layoffs aren't slowing as fast as some analysts had expected.

That was the message Thursday in a government report that the number of people filing first-time claims for unemployment benefits rose unexpectedly last week. Jobless claims rose by 31,000 to a seasonally adjusted 473,000.

The increase followed a drop of 41,000 in the previous week. The earlier figure had raised hopes that the job market was improving steadily.

The four-week average for claims dipped 1,500 to 467,500, near the lows at the end of last year. The average smooths out week-to-week volatility. But many economists say the four-week average would need to fall consistently below 425,000 to signal that the economy is close to generating net job gains. The economy has lost 8.4 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007.

Read more: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Job-market-improvement-may-be-apf-2019761162.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=9&asset=&ccode=

Very, hey? :applause:

denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

Nothing "Great" about it - but I digress

Dr Andrew Sum (et al) just published a paper splitting U.S. income into 10 levels, starting with <12K and up to 150K/yr or more.
http://www.clms.neu.edu/publication/documents/Labor_Underutilization_Problems_of_U.pdf

Unemployment at the lower levels, unadjusted, is approx 30%. Top level income is about 3%.

Great Depression levels were around 25-30%, though I haven't been able to break it out by income.

We need 10 million jobs just to get back to 5% unemployment. We have never seen the levels of job creation that would take, and it isn't going to happen with what we are doing. We need at least 5-6 times the size of the last jobs package being proposed, with real tax increases on the wealthiest and that money plowed back into colleges, support for small entrepreneurial business, research for new technologies, and targeted at lower income earners.

Or the headlines in Twixvoy's post are just going to go on and on, interrupted only by big declines from future problems such as housing, oil increases, etc.

Make them pay for the services they demand.

This will correct their priority list very quickly.

Or I may be mistaken about what you consider middle class. Since about 10% of the people hold 85% of the wealth, the middle class, and the poor, would hold only 15%. If you want money, why wouldn't you go after those with the most to tap? Especially when they have profited from other's labor so much more than anyone else?