Jobless claims tumble, service sector slows

Comments (32)
Harry079 wrote:

Good news.

Unless the revision next week is 385,000.

May 03, 2012 8:51am EDT  --  Report as abuse
2tired2care wrote:

Is there anyone out there that still believes these unemployment numbers are droppping because people are actually finding jobs?

May 03, 2012 8:55am EDT  --  Report as abuse
lj68 wrote:

“The number of Americans filing new claims for jobless aid fell more than expected last week”

This really tells you very little about where the country is at so I’d hardly call it good news.

May 03, 2012 9:32am EDT  --  Report as abuse
scythe wrote:

there are caps on jobless claims that your stats don’t reveal

May 03, 2012 9:42am EDT  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

This can’t be right because it’s good news for Obama. Only bad news can be trusted. Get the real story from FOX News.

May 03, 2012 9:58am EDT  --  Report as abuse
webstarCT wrote:

Interesting Statistics. Especially after reading on CNN the 86 million invisible unemployed. Making the current Labor Force the smallest size since 1980. That alone is enough for great concern.

Keep in Mind: A person is counted as part of the Labor Force if they have a job or have looked for one in the last four weeks(How do they account for that?).

May 03, 2012 10:01am EDT  --  Report as abuse
webstarCT wrote:

Interesting Statistics. Especially, After reading a story earlier today on CNN about the 86 million invisible unemployed. Making the current US Labor Force the size it was in the early 1980’s. That is very troublesome, when we need to add 400,000 jobs a month for the next 3 years to get where we were before the collapse.

May 03, 2012 10:32am EDT  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

More mixed news from the job market, which IMO is not bad, but not great either.

About productivity, yes better productivity is in general better, but like anything cant too much of a good thing be bad? For example if productivity reaches a VERY high level that means less people are going to be able to get a job? Yes increased productivity is ALWAYS going to be good for a companies bottom line, but at what cost to the rest of society? Now before you righties start saying I am a socialist or something, I am a firm believer in free-markets (health care one major exemption), just a thought I had after reading this article.

May 03, 2012 10:41am EDT  --  Report as abuse
mick68 wrote:

388k to 365k is a “tumble?”
No, 388k to 200k is a tumble. And of course, we can expect to see this revised upwards like the last 14 or so.

May 03, 2012 11:04am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

Yes increased productivity is ALWAYS going to be good for a companies bottom line, but at what cost to the rest of society?

It’s a shame but most companies are not in business as Social Service. They do it to make make money. Unless they are non-profit. If they were in business to serve the greater good… they would just give it all away…and wouldn’t you love to see that????

May 03, 2012 11:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

Yes increased productivity is ALWAYS going to be good for a companies bottom line, but at what cost to the rest of society?

It’s a shame but most companies are not in business as Social Service. They do it to make make money. Unless they are non-profit. If they were in business to serve the greater good… they would just give it all away…and wouldn’t you love to see that????

May 03, 2012 11:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

And oh…all better now after these numbers…until tomorrows jobs added report…

May 03, 2012 11:55am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Twang wrote:

No impartiality at this site…Please move along

May 03, 2012 1:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

Crash866, I do not know why I am even bothering responding to you, as you are obviously not really reading ( or maybe thinking about) what I am saying. Anyhow, I never said companies should look out for common good(although some actually do), it was just a hypothetical on the possibility that too much productivity gain might not be the best thing.

May 03, 2012 1:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jambrytay wrote:

productivity is where raises come from.

May 03, 2012 1:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

USAPragmatist
I copied and pasted what you wrote:
“Yes increased productivity is ALWAYS going to be good for a companies bottom line, but at what cost to the rest of society?”

May 03, 2012 2:10pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
NewsDebbie wrote:

Slowly the recession recovers. This will continue to be news until Nov elections. For me, GWBush stimulus and jobs bills didn’t work. Obama’s seems to be ever so slow. The GOP 2010 promise of jobs also didn’t work. Romney can make deals in uber big business but lacks any ability for middle or poor classes. So far he’s only touted GWBush economic policies or venture capital deals. So ever so slowly the recession recovers and politics remains the same…

May 03, 2012 2:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

jambrytay…Very True, but if one person getting paid 100K a year does the same job that 3 people do getting paid 50K a year, isn’t society doing better with 2nd scenario because those 3 people have more money to spend then the 1 person? Of course that does not take into account the greater profits for the company and how they spend those profits.

May 03, 2012 2:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

God forbod anyone work hard excel and succeed cause it might hurt others.
According to Wikipedia:

Productivity is a measure of the efficiency of production. Productivity is a ratio of production output to what is required to produce it (inputs). The measure of productivity is defined as a total output per one unit of a total input.

The benefits of high productivity are manifold. At the national level, productivity growth raises living standards because more real income improves people’s ability to purchase goods and services, enjoy leisure, improve housing and education and contribute to social and environmental programs. Productivity growth is important to the firm because it means that the firm can meet its (perhaps growing) obligations to customers, suppliers, workers, shareholders, and governments (taxes and regulation), and still remain competitive or even improve its competitiveness in the market place.

So it’s a good thing!!! No it hurts Society!!

May 03, 2012 2:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

jambrytay: “productivity is where raises come from”
Not necessarily. Productivity is more likely a result of laying people off and forcing the rest of the employees to do more work, which doesn’t always result in a raise. This also includes more automation, getting machines to do more of the work, but that depends on the type of business and doesn’t always apply.

This is especially true in an employer market like we currently have. People feel lucky just to have a job so they tolerate an increased workload without an increase in pay.

I agree with you that that’s the way it should work–and still is in a few businesses, especially some smaller businesses–but with profits being the bottom line, raises don’t always come with more productivity. Employees can threaten to leave and go somewhere else, but they know that things will probably be the same where ever they go.

May 03, 2012 2:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

USAPragmatist
How do you keep up with yourself? So pay 1 person 100K or pay 3 50K?
If you ran a company what do you think you would choose. Do you pay more taxes than you really owe to help the greater good? Would pay 50K for a car you could get for 20K? You silly!!!

May 03, 2012 2:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jambrytay wrote:

people are funny….as employees, increased productivity tends to be bad, but the same employee wants a raise. as shareholders, we like better productivity.

May 03, 2012 2:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jambrytay wrote:

people are funny….as employees, increased productivity tends to be bad, but the same employee wants a raise. as shareholders, we like better productivity.

May 03, 2012 2:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

@Crash866, well of course if my sole goal at my business is the bottom line, but many companies, mostly small business(and my current company), realize that the bottom line, while VERY important, is not the be all to end all. E.G. in a recent slowdown we had, instead of laying off half of production they increased training for a little while, keeping a lot of people in a job and off unemployment, even though it did hurt bottom line for a few mos. ‘

With reference to that and what jambrytay said ‘as employees, increased productivity tends to be bad, but the same employee wants a raise. as shareholders, we like better productivity.’ Seems to me, like most everything in the world, productivity has a ‘sweet spot’ that is not necessarily the highest level of productivity.

May 03, 2012 3:16pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jambrytay wrote:

usapragmatist – we’ll have to agree to disagree. economies grow in 2 basic ways, population increases (which is pretty low in western countries) or through productivity increases. if you want your standard of living and income to grow, you need productivity growth.

May 03, 2012 4:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

jambrytray, I agree we need productivity growth overall with respect to long time periods, I am just trying to ‘figure out’ if the ‘best’ level of productivity is not necessarily max productivity. Just a discussion, not trying to figure out who is right or wrong.

May 03, 2012 4:27pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jambrytay wrote:

the best ‘level’ is 2-3% higher than it was last year.

May 03, 2012 4:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jambrytay wrote:

i should say that a little differently; the best level for a given year is 2-3% higher than it was in the prior year

May 03, 2012 4:55pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

jambrytay, out of curiosity, why 2-3%? related to inflation?

May 03, 2012 5:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jambrytay wrote:

not related to inflation, 2-3% real rate. i’m not an economist, but i did stay at a holiday inn express last night.

May 03, 2012 6:09pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jambrytay wrote:

not related to inflation, 2-3% real rate. i’m not an economist, but i did stay at a holiday inn express last night.

May 03, 2012 6:09pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BurnerJack wrote:

Mick68 is right on target, this is not a tumble, an improvement(at face value, anyway), reuters, I think your bias is showing. Again.
@ Jambrytay, raises come from labor market forces and the likelyhood of losing valued workers. productivity yields profits. Those profits do not and will not filter down to the workers without labor market forces as evidenced by the growing disparity between average pay and upper management pay. With the labor pool scared half to death, there is no need for upper management to “share and play nice”.

May 03, 2012 6:55pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.