Factory, jobless data point to firming economy
INITIAL unemployment claims averaging over 300,000 and job gains averaging under 200,000 does NOT indicate the job market is expanding. What kind of propaganda is this?
Typical head in the sand lib speak is what the kind of propaganda.
Unexpectedly.
This number of new unemployment claims computes out to 1,402,000 per month. Hardly a reason to cheer about the economy rebounding.
@tmc Sigh, I seem to have to explain this to someone every week…
This report, as you state, is just INITIAL jobless claims, in other words number of people that lost a job in last week.
The monthly report, coming out tomorrow, is NET jobs gained/loss.
As an example, let’s, for simplicity sake, assume 4 weeks in a month. And the average initial jobless claims per week is 300,000. so that would be 1.2 million jobs lost that much. If the monthly report shows a NET 200,000 jobs gained, that would mean 1.4 million people got jobs that month.
Yes this is simplified example, but hopefully you understand now.
@dualcitizen, after reading my explanation, do you now realize you need to get your head out of the sand?
@MikeyLikesIt, what is wrong with unexpectedly? Don’t you like surprises?
Now that I have brought a little reality into thread, This is good news, let us hope for another ‘unexpected’ rise in job gains tomorrow. Well unless of course you are one of those that wants to see the country fail just so they can say ‘Obama sucks’.
@Zeeman, even in an economy at full employement this number can be high each week. It does not give you any indication of how many jobs created.
most people after 5 years of looking for a job have given up – you don’t really think the government has meaningful unemployment benefits for people collecting them 5 years later do you?!? most unemployment benefits have been eliminated long ago
Seems to me that the main reason for the unexpectedly-good numbers is that the automakers did not shut down their lines for retooling this summer as much as they normally would, but the government still “seasonally-adjusted” the numbers anyway.
Fed needs to stop printing easy money, which is causing huge asset bubbles. Long term outlook looks bleak. Acoording to bloomberg survey, Fed is seen QE tapering in September.
@Randy549, good point. The more important figure is tomorrow’s monthly report.
@USAPragmatist2
I was merely pointing out that it’s always “unexpectedly”. Meaning that our experts or news agencies can’t seem to figure out what is going on with this economy. No where did I say that I was upset with the news.
I realize that you have to view everything through your narrow Republican vs. Democrat ideology, but the real world doesn’t work that way.
@MikeyLikesIt, I was making more of a joke then anything else, I should stop trying to do that on here. But you make a valid point with ‘Meaning that our experts or news agencies can’t seem to figure out what is going on with this economy.’ There is so much un-precedented issues(e.g. HUGE income in-equalities) with this economy it is hard to figure out, seems like for every 2 steps forward we take, we take a step back.
My sense is that the unemployment rate data are rather meaningless, the victim of excess manipulation and inaccurate data collection methods. Just as the measure failed to measure true unemployment during the depths of a shallow depression, so too is the gauge missing the mark as the US economy bounced back. One senses that the unemploymnt rate of 7.5% of today is in fact inaccurate.
@USAPragmatist2, thanks for the explanation. I must have missed your previous ones. Perhaps the government should label these reports a bit more descriptively.
4. What is the length of the “debt issuance suspension period”?
Under the statute that governs the CSRDF, the term “debt issuance suspension period” means the period of time that the Secretary of the Treasury determines that Treasury securities cannot be issued without exceeding the debt limit. The determination of the length of the period is based on the facts as they exist at the time of the determination. The Secretary has determined that a debt issuance suspension period exists starting on May 20, 2013, and ending on August 2, 2013.
For those that do not understand what the above statement means the sun will still rise tomorrow morning.
@USAPragmatist2
Yeah this is a Reuters comment board. No jokes or fun allowed.
In all seriousness I agree with you about the un-precedented issues that we are facing today. Even so it would be nice to have more confidence in our economic experts if they weren’t wrong about their predictions almost every damn time…
@SanPa
As it has been noted, numbers can be worked to show whatever you want. I’ll feel a lot better about our “growth” once it is done without the $85/month Fed pumping.
And I’ll feel better about our unemployment when the % drops the same time that the participation rate rises.
employment statistics like these are almost meaningless if you don’t consider the participation rate (which the liberal press doesn’t seem to like to do).
From:
Treasury Secretary Jack Lew
To:
The Honorable John A. Boehner
Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Speaker:
WASHINGTON, D.C.
May 20, 2013
I am writing to notify you, as required under 5 U.S.C. § 8348(1)(2), of my determination that, by reason of the statutory debt limit, I will be unable to fully invest the portion of the Civil Service
Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF) not immediately required to pay beneficiaries and that a “debt issuance suspension period” will begin on Monday, May 20,2013, and last until August 2,2013, the last day that Congress is expected to be in session before Labor Day. With
these determinations, the Treasury Department will suspend additional investments of amounts credited to, and redeem a portion of the investments held by, the CSRDF, as authorized by law.
In addition, because the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 provides that investments in the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund (pSRHBF) shall be made in the same manner as investments for the CSRDF, the Treasury Department will suspend additional
investments of amounts credited to the PSRHBF.
What does Congress do?
Go on 5 weeks vacation.
@MikeyLikeIt, To quote you, ‘And I’ll feel better about our unemployment when the % drops the same time that the participation rate rises.’ Yes this will be one of first things I will look for in report tomorrow. Lately though, I beleive since Feb., the labor participation rate has been going up slowly.
@USA4, this specfic report, initial jobless claims, really has nothing to do with participation rate. It is simply the number of people who lost jobs and applied for un-employment in the last week. Where you need to look at particiaption rates is in the monthly employment report.
326000 lowest since 5.5 years?
Doesn’t add-up.
There are 12 weeks in this year alone where, the initial weekly claims were lower than 326000. This doens’t make last weeks initial claims to be the lowest since 5.5 years.
Refer to actual data at – workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/wkclaims/report.asp
There are some data quality issues in the first place as well, at this site.
Perfect timing for Fed QE tapering. Septemeber FOMC meeting will be very interesting.
@USAPragmatist2
It’s been fluctuating. Here are the monthly numbers for 2013:
63.6 63.5 63.3 63.3 63.4 63.5
An increase for July will be a potential sign that we are moving in the right direction, though I would prefer 6 months of positive movement. We peaked at 63.8% last year before it dropped again.
USAPragmatist2 Your math is faulty. 200,000 jobs gained in a week does not add up to 1,400,000 jobs gained that month, it equals 800,000 jobs. The typical jobs report relates to jobs gained in ONE month, not a week. Also, there are 4.3 weeks per month when using stats, 52 weeks per year divided by 12 months equals 4.3 weeks per month. So, new jobless claims in this example would total 1.4 million against a mere 200,000 jobs gained. Like I said, not a very good picture.
@Zeeman, the MONTHLY employment report covers the whole month of NET jobs gained. This report is weekly and it simply new jobless claims, has no new jobs component.
Yes I know there are 4.3 weeks in a month (on average), I was simplifing the example. And I think you need to re-read it, I do not think I can simplify it anymore for you.
“USAPragmatist2 wrote:
@Zeeman, the MONTHLY employment report covers the whole month of NET jobs gained”
Yet when the monthly report is discussed by sector it only adds up to what the monthly job report figure is.
For example: If 1.2 million people filed a new claim in June and the monthly jobs report claims 200,000 jobs added shouldn’t the sector breakdown reflect the other 1.2 million jobs needed to get to the gain of 200,000 jobs?
@Harry079, is not the sector breakdown NET jobs gained/loss by sector too?


