Jobless claims hit seven-year low, inflation ticks up

Comments (54)
John1980 wrote:

There is no one left to file new claims. Companies cut to the bone during the last 5 years and have not hired back.

May 15, 2014 9:00am EDT  --  Report as abuse
klawrence wrote:

That’s because people are running out of benefits and dropping from the system or have found jobs, but are very underemployed.

May 15, 2014 9:15am EDT  --  Report as abuse
BlueOkie wrote:

Could the emergency extension be the cause. People forced back into the labor force because of loss of benefits? I think yes

May 15, 2014 9:31am EDT  --  Report as abuse
zigo wrote:

@ John1980
Obamacare comes just in time to give people unemployed through the after-shocks of the Bush-implosion health care!
(And it frees emergency rooms from people with no insurance, ensuring that those with *real* emergencies get the right treatment.)

May 15, 2014 9:40am EDT  --  Report as abuse
zigo wrote:

It’s climate change rather than the Fed that is causing inflation. How ironic.
Drought is causing food prices to rise.

May 15, 2014 9:41am EDT  --  Report as abuse
divinargant wrote:

I don’t think the emergency extension or lack of one has anything to do with new applicants filing for benefits BO. Just picture in your mind the process and I think you’ll get it.

May 15, 2014 9:49am EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

When you move so many people from the job market to the entitlement programs you are bound to push unemployment down in the long run. Fuzzy math that they use. Same logic as the police chief saying he got crime down to zero in his city after he incarcerated the whole city.

May 15, 2014 9:55am EDT  --  Report as abuse
gcf1965 wrote:

If the headline was all that mattered, this is good news, but remember, the workforce is almost 5% smaller than it was 7 years ago. Adjusted for the smaller workforce that would put claims around 311,000. Yes, it is necessary to think and analyze the numbers instead of simply cheerleading the shallowness of this kind of reporting. Simplisticly, John has it right, there simply aren’t as many people to lose jobs at this point. Also, according to BLS, average wages are down on an annual basis by 3.6%. In 2008 when I was laid off from a manufacturing electrical repair position, I was making 24.80/hr, today in this region 20-22/hr is tops you will find for similar work. My personal experience is wages have decreased far more than reported.

“the number of people still receiving benefits after an initial week of fell 9,000 to 2.67 million” – Would be nice to know if this is because people went back to work or if the people on the other end fell off the benefit roles after using all their benefits.

I want things to get better, but I think where we are now is like being thankful the fire is out only to realize it is because the house is already burned to the ground and totally consumed.

May 15, 2014 9:58am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bighammerman wrote:

The info is bogus and comes from the biggest liar in the world, Obama. Look around you and you will see it. So many are complacent now because of public assistance and are happy to live while the rest of us support them. The ones who do work will pay huge taxes and suffer from inflation. Obama wants everyone to be a pothead so he can have ultimate control. Liberals, wake up soon because it will soon be too late.

May 15, 2014 10:00am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bighammerman wrote:

Hey Zigo,
You need to wake up. Obama has been in office for a long time and can no longer blame anyone else. It stupids like you that need to get real. Obama is going to kill this country and needs to be removed from office by congress so we can get back on track.

May 15, 2014 10:03am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

zigo wrote:
“It’s climate change rather than the Fed that is causing inflation. How ironic.
Drought is causing food prices to rise.”

From the article: “Stripping out food and energy prices, the so-called core CPI rose 0.2 percent after advancing by the same margin in March.”

You are missing the point anyway. Despite all the nonsense from right-wing ignoramuses that QE would cause out of control inflation, what has happened in reality is that inflation in the USA has been worryingly low. An inflation increase, regardless of it’s cause, is good news.

May 15, 2014 10:09am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

zigo wrote:
John1980
Obamacare comes just in time to give people unemployed through the after-shocks of the Bush-implosion health care!
(And it frees emergency rooms from people with no insurance, ensuring that those with *real* emergencies get the right treatment.)

Lemming

May 15, 2014 10:12am EDT  --  Report as abuse

@Bighammer- You think most people on Unemployment are, “happy” to live on anywhere from $120 to $400 or so dollars a week? Could you be happy trying to live on such a pittance?

If the top 20% want to hog all the wealth, then yes, they will have to provide Bread and Circuses to the “mob”.

May 15, 2014 10:15am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

Sorry to rain your parade and touchdown dance….

The civilian labor force dropped by 806,000 in April, following an increase of 503,000 in March. The labor force participation rate fell by 0.4 percentage point to 62.8 percent in April. The participation rate has shown no clear trend in recent months and currently is the same as it was this past October. The employment-population ratio showed no change over the month (58.9 percent) and
has changed little over the year. (See table A-1.)

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

May 15, 2014 10:20am EDT  --  Report as abuse
209flyboy wrote:

I’m amazed that no one in the media talks about the millions of unemployed that have simply run out of benefits. The government interprets the lack of continued claims as being a rise in employment. I has been layed off a couple of years ago and trying to find a job to support my family is next to impossible at 56. I have high skills in what I did, but what company wants to pay me what I’m worth. Instead, they’d rather hire an inexperienced kid with no real skills and expect the same results for cheap. Company loyalty is a joke and HR departments are a waste of money as all they do is create walls for those who would be excellent producers. I’m confused as to where we are going with this.

Disgusted

May 15, 2014 10:21am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

zigo wrote:
“It’s climate change rather than the Fed that is causing inflation. How ironic.Drought is causing food prices to rise.”

In that statement you show your ideology and inability to comprehend reality.

May 15, 2014 10:23am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

… and here comes the monthly chorus of righties: “wah… wah… the numbers are wrong.”

Last month the righty response was “wah.. wah… the numbers are wrong”, this month it is that same, and next month it will be the same.

All those people added to the payroll? They are not real – the employers are all lying, pretending to have new employees when they don’t. All the new jobs? BLS is lying. Reduced numbers of new signings? The whole damn US population is lying. They want to sign up but don’t do it just to spite Republicans.

Group paranoia is alive and well in the FoxBot world, and it is hilarious..

May 15, 2014 10:26am EDT  --  Report as abuse
morbas wrote:

Tax is not just on Income,
Disposable income is required to spur the economy. However the city-county municipality are short the revenue, thus tending to increase low income burden. Property and fee based revenue are the only constitutionally available revenues and the fixed-low income people know it. This revenue base unfairly burdens sustenance side economics. This is favored by the Tea-GOP because they are funded by the 1%, while the DNC is supported by the 99% economics. North Carolina represents a precursor if Tea-GOP is allowed control of the Federal Government. North Carolina H998 Tax unburdens the top 1% by 35% income tax reduction, paid for by education furloughs and education voucher shell game unfavorable to the 99%. The North Carolina Tea-GOP copied out of state ALEC dictation into law then took a year leave attempting to avoid NAACP Clergy and constituent majority.
USA tax structure is the fault and an obstacle to worldly potential. Transaction tax code imposes disproportionate burden at the most fundamental rights of liberty, justice. Any encumbrance on sustenance is contrary to equality in the ’pursuit of happiness’. Debt and deficit is simply insufficient revenue. We can nationalize the tax code eliminating all other taxation, immediately balancing the budget(s), through a margin graduated income tax principle.

To: Office of Senator ____________________
United States Senate Washington,
D.C. 20510
To: Office of Representative_________________________
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
We the people of this United States do proclaim this federal government ‘of, by and for the people’. That, in order to fairly distribute revenue burden, to satisfy ‘net income’ progressive taxation, to balance all governments budgets, and to not tax poverty;
The people mandate:
Income National Tax code that shall use margin graduated income tax principle: Margin $30k 0% single, $60K 0% joint, income above this a linear increasing rate {Income-[$30k or $60k])*(Income/$800k)*90%; 90% limit} . Exemptions shall be prohibited. The Federal Reserve shall amend the (90%) rate, and control currency printing mandated to maintaining currency availability and value. The Federal Reserve shall set the Margin rate value well (>2x) above highest of all State Poverty Level(s). Revenue shall be proportioned 1/3rd Federal,1/3rd State proportioned per cast ballot and 1/3rd Local proportioned per cast ballot.
This National Tax is a peoples tax, no other citizen taxation shall be permitted. Business shall not be taxed. The Federal Reserve shall control taxation. The people will by simple majority approve or reject all margin and rate changes at every Congressional House Representative election year ballot.

morbas(i)
PS to action, priming the pump has only short term gains.

May 15, 2014 10:40am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

Bakhtin

… and here comes the monthly chorus of LEMMINGS: “wah… wah… the numbers are GOOD.”

Last month the LEMMING response was “wah.. wah… the numbers are GOOD”, this month it is that same, and next month it will be the same.

All those people STILL OUT OF WORK? They are not real – the UNEMPLOYED are all lying, pretending to UNEMPLOYED when they AREN’T. All THOSE WITHOUT jobs? BLS is lying. CHRONICALLY UMEMPLOYED? The whole damn US population is lying. They DON’T want to WORK AND STAY UNEMPLOYED it just to spite DEMOCRATS AND BECAUSE THEY ARE RACIST.

Group paranoia is alive and well in the LEMMING world, and it is hilarious..

Crash866 wrote:

Sorry to rain your parade and touchdown dance….

The civilian labor force dropped by 806,000 in April, following an increase of 503,000 in March. The labor force participation rate fell by 0.4 percentage point to 62.8 percent in April. The participation rate has shown no clear trend in recent months and currently is the same as it was this past October. The employment-population ratio showed no change over the month (58.9 percent) and
has changed little over the year. (See table A-1.)

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

May 15, 2014 11:10am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Cavacava wrote:

The total unemployment numbers are skewed by the Feds drop of 1.2 million people off the unemployment rolls in January. These people did not vanish. I think it makes more sense to talk about nominal unemployment and real unemployment, which I think is around 9%.

May 15, 2014 11:27am EDT  --  Report as abuse
gcf1965 wrote:

Bakhtin, you seem to be putting words in people’s mouths that they have not said in an effort, again, to discredit through outright lies. It seems to me those here demonstrating skepticism are simply asking that people THINK (hard for you and the other lefties) about the big picture and reality. You cherry pick the information you want and ignore the context of the numbers.

“All those people added to the payroll?” Maybe you should do a little more thinking and reading and a little less gloating. According to the numbers, there are 73,000 less people on the payroll in April than March. Less applications has nothing to do with adding to payrolls, but with your lack of understanding of anything related to economics, your confusion is to be expected.

Those not in labor force, up again in April from March, and those who want a job but cant get one, unchanged from March but up from Feb

“They want to sign up but don’t do it just to spite Republicans.” – Another demonstration of your complete lack of undersatanding on the issue. They can only sign up if they have a job to begin with, but as the numbers you love so much show, there are simply not as many people with jobs to lose them, that is why they don’t sign up.

Sad that so many like Bakhtin are so adamantly opposed to putting two seconds of critical thinking and analysis into the numbers because tehy have no desire for real understanding and are terrified of having to confront the truth that obama and the DNC are utter falures. They applaud minimal improvements after 6 years as though it was spectacular, when anyone halfway competent could have had us here 5 years ago.

Group blindness is alive and well in the MSM world and it is sad.

May 15, 2014 11:39am EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

More good news. Onward!

May 15, 2014 11:56am EDT  --  Report as abuse
gcf1965 wrote:

Alkaline, I will grant you that it is not bad news, but more accurately, should be labeled incomplete and irrelevant news without a true analysis of the context.

May 15, 2014 1:04pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
LoveJoyOne wrote:

The Republicants are whining again.

How predictable.

Hey guys, you know as well as I that if Obama were white and Republicant, you’d be jumping up and down and screaming with joy.

Get a life.

May 15, 2014 1:16pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

@gcf, fair enough.

Incomplete and Irrelevant news. Onward!

The last part is most important :)

May 15, 2014 1:16pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

More of the same, good economic news and the Obama haters try and find a way to make it meet their ‘conclusion’ that ‘Obama is bad’. Like we should expect anything different. They have shown, the Obama haters, that the only thing they care about is saying ‘Obama is bad’ no matter how detached from reality it makes them look.

May 15, 2014 1:27pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

What gcf1965 says:
“According to the numbers, there are 73,000 less people on the payroll in April than March.”

What BLS says:
“Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 288,000 in April. Job growth had averaged 190,000 per month over the prior 12 months.” – http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Don’t tell me. Those 288,000 people added to the payroll are all lying, and jobs don’t really exist. The 190,000 jobs per month average too is all lies. BLS, the employers, the lying individuals pretending to do those fake jobs are all members huge, secret, anti-Republican conspiracy.

Yep. That must be it. And lets not forget that the economy isn’t really growing – that is more lies by another huge secret anti-Republican conspiracy.

You have to laugh at these GOP clowns and all their paranoid conspiracy theories.

May 15, 2014 1:45pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gcf1965 wrote:

Bakhtin, go here, Table A-1, seasonally adjusted, line 4. Crash has already provided the link once, but for those like you who only read headlines and have difficulty finding information you are afraid of…..

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

May 15, 2014 2:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
DbPolk wrote:

How can Obama’s policies succeed when so many in congress try so hard to prevent them? And what will happen when he gets democrat majorities in November? BTW: Ben Gaz, an actor, TV show Doctor. Now go heal thyself.

May 15, 2014 3:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

This article is nonsense. Only a journalist or an “expert” working for the PR department of a large bank despite never studying economics at the professional level would believe such irrelevant nonsense.

The economy is an a serious and slowly worsening malaise. Pushing down the unemployment rate by discouraging workers is not an indication of success just as joblessness claims in a given month are also totally irrelevant. The authors of this article should have consulted real macroeconomists with real world experience, not the PR boys who repeat common knowledge to appeal to those they hope to separate from their money.

May 15, 2014 3:16pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

This article is nonsense. Only a journalist or an “expert” working for the PR department of a large bank despite never studying economics at the professional level would believe such irrelevant nonsense.

The economy is an a serious and slowly worsening malaise. Pushing down the unemployment rate by discouraging workers is not an indication of success just as joblessness claims in a given month are also totally irrelevant. The authors of this article should have consulted real macroeconomists with real world experience, not the PR boys who repeat common knowledge to appeal to those they hope to separate from their money.

May 15, 2014 3:16pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gcf1965 wrote:

“How can Obama’s policies succeed when so many in congress try so hard to prevent them?” Its called being a leader. Finding common ground and compromise and getting things done. But with the real stonewallers in congress, the DNC, failing to yield any ground, refusing any ideas or input from the GOP because all the left wants is to “win” at any cost every time, there is nothing or little getting done.

I know the left is big on taking credit for what they do not accomplish and refusing to accept blame when they screw up, but obama and the left cannot run from there years’ long path of destruction and failure.

May 15, 2014 3:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gcf1965 wrote:

Robert, thank you, I have been trying to hammer home the word irrelevant for months. These numbers, while calculated the same, ARE no longer relevant in this new economic wasteland. Are the numbers wrong? Not necessarily. Are they massaged to look better? No doubt. Does it matter at this point? Not even slightly.

May 15, 2014 3:40pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@Bakhtin

Did you read this part of the article? “The civilian labor force dropped by 806,000 in April, following an increase of 503,000 in March. The labor force participation rate fell by 0.4 percentage point to 62.8 percent in April.” You glossed right over that shiny stat showing the major problem with these reports. That participation rate is much lower than it ever was since Jimmy Carter.

May 15, 2014 3:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
111Dave111 wrote:

More good news!

And the Republicants are whining again.

How predictable.

Greeed, Obstruction & Paranoia; Today’s GOP.

May 15, 2014 3:55pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gcf1965 wrote:

Well Dave, if the eonomy ran on headlines, this would be good news, but for thinkers who realize that teh economy is far more complex and complicated, unfortunately, this story is of little significance.

May 15, 2014 4:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
carlmartel wrote:

Inflation will rise higher. The southwest US from Texas and Oklahoma to California is in drought, so fruit, vegetable, and beef prices rise. The northern plains can’t ship enough grain because oil companies ship tanker cars by rail. Dairy cows, chickens, and pigs will suffer for higher milk, butter, cheese, chicken, eggs, ham, bacon, pork, bread, and cereals.

In addition, US support for Ukraine causes Russia to send oil to refineries in Russia and China, a military, political, and economic ally in the SCO, to compete against US refined oil products. The US imports greater volumes of oil and exports greater dollar amounts of refined oil products for a $100 billion per year trade surplus. Russia starts with its crude ($100 per barrel savings) and has shorter tanker distances (and costa) from Siberia to the Far East and India and to Africa via the Black Sea port of Novorossiysk. Russia will greatly undercut US prices and gain $100 billion per year for Russia while the US trade deficit rises $100 billion from a loss of $500 billion per year to $600 billion per year.

Finally, China will use some of its $3.726 trillion in foreign currency reserves to outbid the US for Ukraine’s grain, so we won’t get any help for US food prices. Ukraine will need as much Chinese cash as possible to pay for EU austerity. Fortunately, volatile food and energy prices (We’re fighting the world’s biggest oil and gas station in Russian Siberia!) do not count toward calculation of the Consumer Price Index, so we can make all Americans on Social Security pay for US foreign policy blunders and for domestic oil company and railroad greed.

May 15, 2014 4:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

“Pointing to a firming economy??” That is economic nonsense. So is using “inflation stirring” to describe an inconsequential small change in the CPI. Every trained macroeconomist knows that piddly monthly changes in the CPI and jobless claims indicate absolutely nothing about the state and direction of the economy.

There are indicators that trained macroeconomists use when they analyze an economy and its policies. These are not among them and those who suggest they are should be ashamed of themselves.

If you are an investor (or journalist or Federal Reserve governor) you can find them in an Amazon e-book “Inflation, Unemployment, and Government Deficits.”

May 15, 2014 5:29pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

@gcf1965

I see. So you are ignoring the raw data that shows that 288,000 more people are working in April than in March, go to the processed data that is seasonally adjusted, and then pretend that it is raw data – or more likely you just don’t know the difference.

You haven’t proved that 73,000 less people are working because you are some awesome intellect that can analyse the data. You have proved that you don’t know how to read the data and don’t know what ‘seasonally adjusted’ means, or what it is used for.

Very basic economics: the seasonally adjusted figure is not a true figure and is used *only* to clarify underlying trends in a time sequence by removing the seasonal effects,

In simple terms, only someone who has no clue about economics would say “the seasonally adjusted figure shows that this month 73,000 less people are working”.

May 15, 2014 11:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

TheNewWorld wrote:
“@Bakhtin

Did you read this part of the article? “The civilian labor force dropped by 806,000 in April, following an increase of 503,000 in March. The labor force participation rate fell by 0.4 percentage point to 62.8 percent in April.” You glossed right over that shiny stat showing the major problem with these reports. That participation rate is much lower than it ever was since Jimmy Carter.”

Yeah.. I read it and thought “so what?” That is because, in contrast to you FoxBots I know that participation rate:

* has been falling since 2001
* is a demographic measure for context
* is not a measure of unemployment except to people who don’t have a clue what ‘unemployed’ even means

You right-wingers are so desperate to deny that the USA is improving, so ideologically opposed to admitting that Obama’s policies worked, that you will grasp any straw no matter how irrelevant.

Bottom line – people who choose to leave the workforce are not unemployed. People who retire are not unemployed. Women who marry and stop work are not unemployed. Women who stay at home with their children are not unemployed. Graduates who take a gap year are not unemployed. People who join the military or go back to school are not unemployed.

Yet you righties, so desperate to make Obama look bad, pretend that they are and try to spin that they are all sat at home crying and on the verge of suicide – because Fox told you to.

May 15, 2014 11:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

@TheNewWorld

Fact: the Social Security fund in the USA is funded for at least the next 20 years. You should really stop watching Fox to get information. It is nearly always wrong.

As for the ‘crisis’ (and you righties are always trying to manufacture one…) of less people in the workforce supporting more retired people, that is rooted in a lack of understanding of basic economics.

Let me try to educate you. Welfare is not funded by people. It is funded by dollars. Tax is not levied on human beings. It is levied on income. If the 10% of the population (A ridiculous number you just invented. Not a fact.) can generate enough income, there is no problem.

In other words, it is not so much a population issue as a productivity issue. As the working population shrinks, it needs to increase productivity. They do not need ‘more people working’ as you say, they need more productive people.

The other thing that you and the rest of the GOP fail to understand is that workforce participation is a demographic issue. You all obediently whine about it as if it is an economic issue that started in 2008, but I see no proposal being offered to increase it. What do you righties want Obama to do – tell retirees that they can’t retire? Tell married women that they must work even if their husband can support them? Make stay-at-home mothers go to work? Tell young people that they can’t go to university and have to get a job instead?

You Republican have no answer because their is not much you can do about demographics and there isn’t really any impending crisis. A pity that it doesn’t stop you all whining and screaming that the sky is falling. Again…

May 15, 2014 12:52am EDT  --  Report as abuse
gcf1965 wrote:

Bakhtin is wrong again, as usual. If you want to compare numbers, you have to use the seasonally adjusted numbers, to use raw data and argue as you did that raw data should be used only emphasizes your lack of education and understanding of economics and associated data.

From BLS site:

“Seasonal adjustment is a statistical technique that attempts to measure and remove the influences of predictable seasonal patterns to reveal how employment and unemployment change from month to month.”

This information can also be found from any number of other sources.

As for participation rate, I showed you a couple of days ago with sources, that you are wrong. There was little change(less than 1% fluctuation) from 2000 – 2006. The rate bounced around the 66% level for many years, never falling below 65.9. At the end of 2006, the rate was the highest it had been in 5 years and less than 1% off from the all time high in 1997. The only significant and sustained drop in the participation rate is 2006 and on. Going to BLS and looking at the chart gives a great picture of how the LFPR really changed for the worse after 2006, but I know you really dont care about facts or truth, but maybe someone else reading does.

May 16, 2014 10:47am EDT  --  Report as abuse
LoveJoyOne wrote:

gcf1965 wrote:

“But with the real stonewallers in congress, the DNC, failing to yield any ground, refusing any ideas or input from the GOP because all the left wants is to “win” at any cost every time, there is nothing or little getting done.”

Up until now, the GOP has been using a scorch and burn approach to every debate of any importance that has taken place. The only “idea or input” the GOP has given regarding anything has been to say no, to refuse to negotiate, try to get programs such Obamacare repealed and to try to close down the government.

These “ideas and input” are non starters.

What else could any other party do but stonewall in the face of such tactics?

May 16, 2014 10:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

@gcf1965…

BLS is saying exactly the same as I said. The only difference is that they use simple words aimed at people who know nothing about economics, while I forgot to do that.

To prove that you don’t understand the figures enough to read them, let me try to explain seasonal adjustment in the simplest way possible.

People spend money on presents at Christmas. That means they spend more money. From past Christmases we can estimate that they spend 20% more. Seasonal adjustment is taking 20% off.

Example. The population spends $100 million. That is the real-world amount they spent. The seasonally adjusted figure is $80 million. The seasonally adjusted figure is not what they spent in the real world. You think it is because you don’t know what seasonally adjusted means. You don’t understand that the real-world amount that they spent is $100 million. You mistakenly think they spent $80 million.

The only purpose of the $80 million is in tracking trends, exactly as I said in my post, exactly as BLS says in your quote, and you fail to understand.

May 16, 2014 11:45am EDT  --  Report as abuse
gcf1965 wrote:

You are floundering and looking for something to cling to. In comparing month to month, it is SOP to use seasonally adjusted figures, for the very reason you are attempting to explain. Yes, the raw number is higher, as would be expected, however, just to break even with expectations jobs would need to increase by the raw figure plus the amount of seasonal adjustment, in this case it seems the raw figure should have been 361K. We needed this many jobs just to break even with normal cyclical trends, but we only got 288K, which means that after discounting seasonal hirings (likely temporary positions at nurseries and home improvement stores, etc.) there are 73K less people with meaningful full time employment.

May 16, 2014 12:49pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

gcf1965

Enough of your waffling.

Did those 288,000 people in the raw figures get jobs or not?

A simple yes or no is all we need.

May 16, 2014 1:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Trained macroeconomists know that the official rates of unemployment are hopelessly inaccurate and thus useless as indicators of where the economy is and where it is headed.

A description of the indicators that are useful and those that are not, and why, can be found in e-book form on Amazon in “Inflation, Unemployment, and Government Deficits” or something similar.

It puts paid to the inaccurate common knowledge being purveyed to attract investors by the “analysts” and “economists” working for the PR departments of the large financial firms despite never studying economics.

May 16, 2014 1:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gcf1965 wrote:

“Did those 288,000 people in the raw figures get jobs or not?” – Yes

My turn:

Are we worse off in April than we were in March according to accepted methods of comparison?

May 16, 2014 2:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

@gcf1965

Then, by your own admission, your statement that: “According to the numbers, there are 73,000 less people on the payroll in April than March.” was flat out, factually wrong, or a deliberate lie.

May 16, 2014 3:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@Bakhtin

“Fact: the Social Security fund in the USA is funded for at least the next 20 years. You should really stop watching Fox to get information. It is nearly always wrong.”

That is bad news for everyone. If you are set to retire 20 years from now, you need a back up plan. If you are just 30, you can forget about retiring in your 60s.

“CBO now projects the Social Security Trust Fund to become insolvent by 2031 (previously 2034 in the 2012 outlook), at which point benefits will be automatically cut by nearly 25 percent. It’s a concerning development; over the past few years, CBO has consistently moved up the date of insolvency. The actuarial balance has also deteriorated from 2.1 percent of payroll deficit in CBO’s 2012 outlook to a 3.4 percent of payroll deficit this year. By comparison, the Social Security Trustees recently projected insolvency in 2033 and an actuarial deficit of 2.7 percent of payroll.”

I am 37. In 20 years I still wont be retired. In 30 years it doesn’t look like the Social Security is going to be there for me, or the only fix is going to be to make me work an extra 5 years. You find this acceptable? You don’t think it is worrisome to have to cut people’s Social Security payments by 25%? I thought you were a populist.

May 16, 2014 4:00pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gcf1965 wrote:

No, at most it is semantics. However, as you refuse to answer my question as I did yours, It seems to be useless to expect much else.

When discussing numbers and COMPARING (as we are doing), the numbers used are the seasonally adjusted as I have explained as simply and clearly as possible. The number [of people] used for adjustment are already considered to be working as this is the expected result. If I asked “How many people are working today?” you could use the raw data, if I asked, how many are working today in comparison to last month and/or expected norms, then the adjusted figures is all you should consider, nothing else. I know (you want to change the rules in the middle of the game (kind of like Harry Reid did in the senate) to fit your agenda and help you make a point, but that doesn’t fly in my book.

Have a great weekend!

May 16, 2014 4:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Just like real inflation if it were calculated in a more meaningful way (to include energy figures), the unemployment “drop” and the number of actual fully-employed would reflect the true economy is in dire straits. Keep those lies coming, Washington. Everything’s apparently rosy.

May 16, 2014 4:40pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

gcf1965 wrote:
“No, at most it is semantics.”

Saying it is 73,000 less when it is really 288,000 more is not semantics. It is wrong if done in ignorance and a lie if done knowingly. Which was it, gcf1965 – ignorance or a lie?

gcf1965 wrote:
“When discussing numbers and COMPARING (as we are doing), the numbers used are the seasonally adjusted as I have explained as simply and clearly as possible.”

That statement is proof that what we have here is an individual who has read something on a blog about using SA figures for comparison, and then applies it indiscriminately and without any understanding of the purpose of SA figures, to reach pointless, irrelevant, and meaningless conclusions – such as declaring 73,000 job losses where there are really 288,000 gains.

gcf1965 wrote:
“I know (you want to change the rules in the middle of the game (kind of like Harry Reid did in the senate) to fit your agenda and help you make a point, but that doesn’t fly in my book.”

Says the guy who is trying to pretend that 288,000 more jobs is somehow ‘really’ 73,000 job losses just so he can whine about Obama…

Priceless!

May 17, 2014 2:39am EDT  --  Report as abuse
LoveJoyOne wrote:

Thenewworld wrote:
“I am 37. In 20 years I still wont be retired. In 30 years it doesn’t look like the Social Security is going to be there for me, or the only fix is going to be to make me work an extra 5 years. You find this acceptable? You don’t think it is worrisome to have to cut people’s Social Security payments by 25%? I thought you were a populist.”

Well, it’s time to get off your butt and fight to save Social Security. If I were 37 years old, I’d be worried too.

May 18, 2014 12:43am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.