Slashdot Mirror
Jobless Claims In US Decline To Match Lowest Since 1973 (bloomberg.com)
Sho Chandra, reporting for Bloomberg: The number of Americans filing applications for unemployment benefits unexpectedly declined last week to match a more than 42-year low, indicating employers are upbeat about an economy that bogged down in the first quarter. Jobless claims dropped by 13,000 to 253,000 in the week ended April 9, equaling the level in March that was the lowest since November 1973, a report from the Labor Department showed Thursday. The median forecast in a Bloomberg survey called for 270,000. Continuing claims also declined, to the lowest since mid-October. "Jobless claims are running really low and all other labor market data are telling us that the economy is creating a lot of jobs," said Patrick Newport, an economist at IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Massachusetts. "This is further confirmation that the labor market is strong."
Or they just fell off the list due to time limitations. I know more than a few who have been unemployed for sooooooo long they are no longer eligible (or counted) as unemployed.
The number of Americans filing applications for unemployment benefits unexpectedly declined last week to match a more than 42-year low, indicating employers are upbeat about an economy that bogged down in the first quarter.
Non sequitur.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
The number of people employed doesn't really tell the whole story, since most people don't have a choice NOT to work and obviously people who have dropped out of the market don't get counted. Sure as many people employed as in 1973 but quality of employment means everything.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
And of course this can't happen when there are a larger number of people looking for jobs, amirite?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The unemployment number is really a farce. While the unemployment number showing the ratio of employed people to people seeking employment is important, it does not show the whole picture. We need to see what the labor force participation rate is. People that have given up looking for work are not counted in the unemployment number. Real unemployment is far higher than the official unemployment rate.
Yeah, it is fantastic! NO unemployment at all! WOOT
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
See http://data.bls.gov/timeseries...
And also, with the less people claiming unemployment, there's no indication if they're in decent full time, not minimum wage jobs that are going to stick around. More than likely they're some variation of part-time and/or zero hour contracts.
Since people have to work, number of people working really means very little. What matters is job quality.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Unemployment claims went down, that doesn't mean that unemployment went down. I believe all the extensions that people used to be able to get have since expired, so a lot of people won't even bother to file at all now and will use their savings instead. It's fun with numbers, it's not a measure of the state of the economy.
Jobless claims is a deceiving statistic because it doesn't count people whose unemployment insurance expired without them finding new jobs or people who have dropped out of the labor market altogether (e.g. underemployed recent grads who move back into their parents because they can't find a job).
The actual labor market participation rate is 63.0, which, outside of last year, is the lowest it's been since the late 70's. See Labor Force Participation Rate from Dept. of Labor. I couldn't save a URL that pointed to the full series, but just adjust the start date back to 1976 to see the graph.
What's really happening is that capital is doing great, but the recovery from the financial crisis of 2007/8 has been largely jobless.
If you count discouraged workers, then the unemployment numbers are still REALLY bad -
http://www.shadowstats.com/alt...
[Insert pithy quote here]
Do it with words.
If you want to lie big, do it with statistics...
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
There are far too many unemployed deliberately excluded from that count. Look at the civilian employment-population ratio. It's far more frightening. We lost thirty years of progress in the 2008 crash, and have been stagnant since.
My employment contracts over the last 10+ years has explicitly stated that I'm not allowed to work more than 40 hours per week. Fortune 500 companies just don't want to pay for overtime. If I want to work extra hours, I have to get a part-time job somewhere.
The number of jobless claims (per unit of time) is a measure of the apparent increase of new jobless people.
Maybe employment is very low and the job market is stuck. At the very least, it does not follow from this that the job market is strong.
Is there some problem with Reuters or CNBC that these government statistics 'news' stories need to be repeated here?
Not every nerd lives in his mother's basement. Some of us are out in the real world, read the business pages and like to discuss statistics.
I guess it hasn't occurred to you that more people can be not in employment, and that less people might claiming unemployment all at the same time.
1) An unemployment rate of 0% means full employment.
Uh, no. Full employment in a normal economy has a 5% unemployment rate, which is the current unemployment rate. Do we have full employment now? Maybe, maybe not.
From my perspective, the economy is firming up quite nicely. Then again, I work in government IT and the contract is paid out for the next three years. I'm planning to get another any time soon.
U-6 is the real unemployment rate. Nobody but you, apparently, is fooled by the fraudulent U-3. Obama has yet to match Bush's worst U-6.
Unemployment statistics are a contentious topic because there are many "in betweens" to "unemployed". For example, a retired person may take up a job if it pays well and is convenient in terms of work/home balance, but otherwise are not spending much effort seeking. Does that make them "unemployed"? A prototypical "housewife" (house-spouse=PC?) may be in the same boat.
Because of these gray areas, it's been generally agreed as a de facto standard to ONLY count those "actively seeking" unemployment. This is usually measured by a combination of random surveys, and unemployment applications, which typically ask one to list companies contacted. (Since they don't need to fill out such forms when benefits run out, the random surveys are used to fill in the gaps.)
Sometimes political trolls will say, "unemployment is actually [really high percent] instead of the 5% official number; you are being lied to!". When probed, it will usually be found that they are using a statistic that includes one of gray area categories, like those mentioned above.
The same trolls will then often switch metrics again when their favorite politician or party is in power to make them look better.
Because what's usually used is merely a de facto standard, the trolls are not technically lying; just being manipulative. Most political "lies" are actually manipulation of words and misleading statistical games rather than being outright wrong.
Table-ized A.I.
The official unemployment numbers are based off a small random sample and don't capture a lot, so there's that issue.
The other issue is that the raw unemployment number doesn't address underemployment, such as
- Displaced workers who have to work crappy jobs but want better ones
- People who have to work part time but want more hours
- Long-term unemployed that stop getting counted when their benefits run out
If these factors were thrown in the mix, that raw percentage would go way up. I remember reading a statistic a little while back that showed that every net job gain since (I think) 2005 has been due to "gig economy" types of arrangements like Uber driver, etc. That's great for Uber and Taskrabbit and the like, but lousy for someone who needs stable full time work to support a family.
I'm one of those crazy people that thinks full employment for anyone who wants it in well paying jobs should be the macroeconomic goal. Unfortunately, it seems that most people don't agree anymore and are perfectly willing to throw the middle class away.
Then we'd see the exact same arguments for and against these jobless numbers amongst the exact same people - with the major caveat that the exact same people would be a the polar opposite ends of the argument spectrum.
That's how stupid factional political identification has become.
Number of participation is lower, level of participation before and after the crash is lower, median income is lower, expecially for the lower 99 percent.
The article and link are propaganda for folks who say there was no recession.
The measure is a noise/junk metric, not an actual one. It is informative only about the rate of high-end loss, not about actual retention or value.
Tell me again why Temps and WalMart are the two biggest employers in the US? Answer: because we aren't creating value like we used to.
Not in and of itself. People who've exhausted their benefits or haven't yet entered the workforce can't file. The labor force participation rate is still very low, and it's not because baby boomers are retiring (they aren't). This is really more an indication that people who are out of the work force have been out of the work force for a long time, i.e. entire industries have moved offshore leaving large numbers of people with skills no longer in demand.
Don't worry, I'm sure that Fox News has already called for an emergency meeting.
Ezekiel 23:20
January 2009 U-6 was 14%. Right now "unadjusted" U-6 is 9.9, and 9.8 after "seasonal adjustment".
Woosh
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
So, what if everyone who lost their jobs are now employed at jobs paying a fraction of what they had before with less/no benefits.
Hey, that still counts, right?
And it's easier to count numbers when they restrict people who are even eligible to apply.
Key words of every labor statistic PR bull-crap article ever put out always include the phrase "number of Americans filing applications for unemployment benefits". Can't apply if they won't let you any more.
>"The number of Americans filing applications for unemployment benefits unexpectedly declined last week to match a more than 42-year low"
And could that be because so many are "disabled" now and collecting that or some other government money instead? I really don't know, but it seems plausible.
What kinds of jobs? I'm curious how this breaks down into service sector, manufacturing, or salaried. I suspect this is more of a regional thing because our area seems to suck. And we're located near a large metropolitan area. Most of the positions I've been seeing around here are in warehousing and they're building lots of warehouses lately.
What we're seeing in our area are "temp" jobs paying around $10 or $12 per hour and no benefits. A person is hired for some short period of time (typically 6 months) with the possibility of getting hired full time. This appears to be a way to string people along in these low-paying, no-benefit positions. Several people we've heard from have been extended 2 or 3 times and then finally their contract is not renewed. The reason is always that the budget just doesn't allow for a new hire. Several firms in our area seem to be doing this a lot. I have to admit some of this is anecdotal evidence, but this anecdotal evidence seems to be proliferating the area.
Having been a manager, I get why they're doing this. Cut costs. Operate "lean 'n mean." One of my previous employers became aware of the potential of temp positions and switched a large part of their manufacturing over to temp positions. That was back in the early eighties.
One of our family members has graduated from the state university with a bachelor's in two majors. Graduated magna cum laude in MIS and high honors in Business Admin and received several awards. Also won a regional competition in marketing strategy. Nobody is hiring. And this relative is looking in the surrounding communities. Consequently they've taken a temp to hire position only this time they've been hired. At $12 per hour. And they have a sizable student loan debt.
So I'm a bit skeptical re the whole jobs recovery scene.
An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
It is like the pressure altitude used by aircraft. Pressure altitude is a fictional table of pressure vs altitude created at the dawn of aviation. It does not tell you the true height above sea level. But the airport reports a pressure altitude based on that table, the aircraft altimeter uses the same table and when the delta is good enough to make safe landing. And two aircraft using the same table is enough to maintain safe vertical separation.
The delta is quite an accurate measure of the difference, even if the absolute values could have large errors. So we should not be so quick to dismiss this a stupid statistic. Don't have to accept it as the Gospel, but it is not Goebbels either.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I'm just pointing out that the number doesn't really tell us anything, but thanks for putting so much thought into it.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Unemployment rates are not based on unemployment claims. They are based on a random survey of 60,000 households. Here's some information on how the various employment rates are calculated.
I seem to remember the total population was somewhere around 200 million.
If the jobless claims back then were equivalent to what they are now, wouldn't that mean that the number is essentially lower?
Perhaps they have adjusted for population.
You're a gigantic tool.
"UNIX is very simple, it just needs a genius to understand its simplicity." -Dennis Ritchie
There's also a lot of baby boomers retiring, hence a lower participation rate. The number of illegals has been dropping in recent years. Some industries are also hit hard and unlikely to recover (i.e. coal) and others show no signs of recovery (oil). For example, if you're in West Virginia and you can't find work in the coal mines, it'd be stupid to look for work in West Virginia or continue that line of work.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Well I guess if "unemployment rate" does not mean unemployment rate, then "full employment" might as well not mean full employment.
You need to be an economist to understand.
I just lost my job of ten years on the 15th of March. I also have two sons who are recent college graduates living with me who cannot get a job. None of us three are counted in the cited statistic because I was a new claim three weeks ago, and new college graduates aren't considered unemployed. If you read the linked article you'll see that continuing claims also went down. I'm a continuing claim, but my sons are not. So even though three of us are looking for jobs, none of us are considered unemployed, and only one-third of us is considered a continued unemployed. Needless to say, I'm not too impressed with the Obama recovery. At least my wife has a part-time job, enabling use to (barely) put a third son through college so he'll be able to take his turn being unable to find a job.
Unfortunately, my wife is working as a receptionist at a tax preparation office, and that's likely to end...tomorrow. As a part time worker, she's going to be ineligible for unemployment. That means that next week, with none of us five having a job, the new claims statistic won't reflect that. At least the statistics will look good.
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
They are based on a random survey of 60,000 households that can still afford a phone
Fixed that or you so that the selection bias was obvious.
"His name was James Damore."
No, that doesnt occur to democrats.
"His name was James Damore."
Conservatives will claim that the reduced labor force participation rate means the economy is so awesome that women are getting to be stay at home moms again.doesnt matter if it's false the will cite a couple of anecdotal examples and have one or two such couples paraded around like its the norm.
No, really.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Correction: 253,001.
https://developers.slashdot.or...
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Well, if you want a fuller picture, you need more metrics. There are a bunch of published "Ux" metrics where x is an integer, that measure different aspects of employment.
It's kind of like sports stats. For example, points per game in basketball is a commonly-used metric to gauge offensive players, but shooting percentage and assists also matter, along with myriads of other metrics. But, they get less attention than points per game.
The press likes simpler metrics because viewers/readers have short attention spans. Those damned humans.
Table-ized A.I.
I would like to see a new metric for joblessness introduced.
One where you are only counted as having a job if you are working a non-temp position and making a living wage.
One where if you are making below a living annual wage, or are a temp worker you are counted as unemployed or given a quantifier as underemployed and such. And all those whom are of working age, non-disabled, and and not in college whom are not working are considered unemployed whether they are looking for work or not unless they are registered as married to another person and living with them and who's pay is recorded as high enough to adequately support both of them.
I would love to see this as it would be the most true representation of the job market we could hope for.
It would have the truly employed whom are working a permanent job at a living wage.
It would have the underemployed whom are working temp jobs or at below livable wages regardless of if the job is full time or part time as it would be based on annual income.
And it would have the truly unemployed which basically includes anyone still looking for work or gave up on it. The only people not included in this metric whom aren't working and of age would be those too disabled to work and those married to someone well off enough that they don't have to.
This would be the single most accurate metric they could have at this day and age and honestly the only one worth paying attention to if it was ever implemented.
Someone else already commented on the number of the "unemployed" being artificially lower due to the number of unemployed no longer being eligible for unemployment compensation. Another reason just could be a large number of Boomers who just decided to retire rather than face the uncertainty of ever finding another job due to ageism, ludicrous skill set "requirements", etc. I have several good friends who loved their work and wanted to keep working but, after being laid off and looking for work for a year or more, just threw up their hands and declared "Screw this... I'll just retire".
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Half the people I know and consider friends have "unconventional" jobs, and are on nobodys payroll, nor do they collect unemployment. Freelance photographer, an artist, a guy who shoots and edits movies, a woman who drives an ice cream truck - and these are not millenials, we're all GenX.
People are dropping out of the labor market and going on disability or cash-based business; as you squeeze the labor market and tax rate, fewer and fewer people will play by your rules.
"...they've been killed off because, while nicely profitable, they weren't enough of a 'growth opportunity' to be of interest to the private equity guys"
And this is what an MBA will get you: stupid, short-term thinking. I've seen too much of this. "What are your growth projections?". If you answer: "We're a stable, profitable business, we don't expect to grow" the MBA look at you like you just died. Weird. What it is about "stable" and "profitable" that they don't understand? It's not a quick buck. Instead of flipping houses, they want to flip companies. This adds nothing of value to the economy - in fact, it's counterproductive - but it's like gambling: an adrenaline rush and a chance at riches.
Or the marketing equivalent: "What is your USP? How are you build your brand?". If you answer: "We have a high quality product and loyal customers", they look at you like something unpleasant a dog might roll in. They don't want to hear about good products and satisfied customers. No, they want to hear about social media campaigns and rebranding initiatives.
The sad thing is that these people manage to move on to the next company, and escape the blame before the corpse of the previous victim hits the ground.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
While yes, the number doesn't mean what it used to, there's a reason to be optimistic that opportunities could open up in the US. The stability of the US is a major factor that draws people right now, because a lot of them bet big on emerging markets and are losing their asses. There really isn't anywhere else you can put your money right now to get big returns with reasonable risk - Brazil is in a crisis, the Euro is in danger of breaking apart, Russia is Russia, the Middle East turmoil is turning that part of the world upside down, all the oil producing countries' economies are struggling, and China/Asia is looking riskier by the day. What's left? Stable returns on stable investments in the US.
Stable markets are very valuable right now because we live in a very unstable world.
Or, the government has found some clever way to cherry pick the statistics in order for it to appear that way.
As many people have noted, the two problems with the reported rate are a) the number of people that have effectively given up looking, or are working low-end jobs off the books. This makes any job growth look better since it's against a smaller pool of active workers b) underemployment; the laid-off tech working at a call center, or the call-center worker flipping burgers, is employed but at a steep hit to their former income. The impact of this to the overall economy does not seem to be getting reported to any extent, but the wage stagnation is a downward spiral as people have less income for anything but basic requirements. My brother-in-law has been laid off from Alcatel for months, has no prospects and is now looking at selling his home.
After I get dressed and ready for school this morning timberland Homme . Mama got up earlier than usual. She marched to the kitchen and made breakfast. I fussed with my school bag and told to mother:" mummy, please help me put puma shoes wet with rain dry in the sun, can you hear me? Fast!" ok, I will do that, you can continue about your business, my mother said in an impatient tone. After that, I have breakfast. NG!!! The phone rang, and the mother picked it up with one slice of bread and said. At sight of my puma shoes, my mother forgot to flat dry my puma shoes, I told to my mother anxiously:" mummy, you forgot to flat dry my puma shoes, Please hurry. I am late! My mother was angry and said you have feet and hands, why did not you put it in the sun, if you want me do that, you could wait ten minutes. What Ten minutes I have been on the way to my school, Damn mother! Well, I resigned myself to wait ten minutes. So you will ask me it is all the same whether my mother put it in the sun or myself. Why are you flinging away your time on such useless things Do you know.
If you want any picture you need more metrics. The only use of these statistics is that it is a simple way for politicians to claim that the economy is doing well when it really isn't. To use your analogy, it's like they are giving us the player stats without giving us the points. Everyone wants to know whether we are winning the game, and you can't tell that with player stats alone. What we really need is the score, which is told by the actual quality of jobs as opposed to the number of jobs.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
It may be possible to create a composite metric that combines lots of factors, but the press and public usually don't take to these because they are too hard to verify and/or understand.
Average humans prefer imperfect but easy-to-understand/verify statistics over complicated ones that may be more useful.
The Gini coefficient for measuring wealth inequality, for example is a pretty good metric for inequality, but the public rejects it for "the 1%" metrics, such as the top 1% have % share of all US wealth.
Forcing humans to be logical is mostly a lost cause, or incremental project at best.
Table-ized A.I.
That isn't true. 46-64 - heck , even wikipedia, not the most accurate source, has it right.