• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jobless claims fall to lowest level since early 2006

Visbek said:
This is an inaccurate characterization.

The LFPR did drop due to the recession, and isn't going up. However, the peak was actually in 2001.

PR1.jpg



We should also note that men have been steadily leaving the workforce since 1950:

01ecoact-1.gif


The reason why LFPR has been increasing since the 1950s is basically because women were joining the workforce.

There are some short-term influences; e.g. people are retiring early or spending more time in school because of the recession. But there really aren't a lot of policy changes that are affecting LFPR.
Click to expand...

Bull..

For ages 25-29 the Labor participation rate has increased nearly 14 percent since 2008.
 
'Weekly Jobless Claims fell a whopping level to a “seasonal adjusted” 284,000. That is an extremely low level and a level we see in a normal growth period. It’s good to see, but we need to clearly understand what it does mean and what it doesn’t mean.

First, a drop in weekly claims does NOT mean job creation. Some will certainly try to imply that it does, but that is just conjecture and there is no math to indicate as such. It just means fewer people are applying for jobless claims, we can’t automatically assume that 100s of thousands all of a sudden found a job.

Second, it doesn’t mean a drop in FULL unemployment. Again, some will certainly say a drop in claims means a drop in unemployment. That’s true IF we are particular of WHOM we count as unemployed and not unemployed. There is some circumstantial evidence that it will impact the U3 unemployment rate, but not necessarily the U6 rate.

Third, what about those that have run out of benefits and can no longer apply? If you had been unemployed, you can’t remain unemployed indefinitely, you eventually run out of government benefits and that means you no longer file for claims. This is seen in the “participation rate”, which is currently at a low not seen since the 1970s. This will be interesting to watch come the Labor Report at the end of the month, if the participation rate continues to drop, then it tells us the drop in claims means more people are just running out of benefits and not employed.

Lastly, with the “seasonal adjustments”, there are some rather large adjustments in the model. If we look at the NON seasonal adjustments for the previous week, it was 370,000 vs. the “seasonal adjusted” 303,000. That’s over 70,000 removed from the July 12th ACTUAL claims number, because the government felt they needed to ADJUST the number for SEASONAL effects. Reality is 370,000 applied for the week of July 12th for claims, not the 303,000 reported. But no one pays attention to the math.'

Earnings: GM and Ford | Silexx Financial Systems: Market Preview
 
danarhea said:
2) What kind of jobs are people getting, and what is the pay? Although there are a number of manufacturing job being created, they are far outpaced by low-wage service industry jobs. IMHO, a fry cook McJob is not the kind of job we need to be bragging about.

All in all, it is going to be a generation before the economy improves to a point that is comparable to what we had before the Great Recession began. Yes, they say that we are out of recession, but the economy is weak, and will remain weak for some time to come. This is nothing that Obama or anybody else has a fast fix for. If the GOP says they can end this quickly, then they are lying to you.
Click to expand...

The problem resides within how wealth was impacted, and to whom wealth recovery continues to evade. The U.S. has only just recovered from wealth lost on both an aggregate and per capita basis, yet the recovery has not been equal as real estate prices have not experienced the same reversal that has occurred in financial markets. As a result millions of Americans are less wealthy than they were 6 years ago, which limits their desire to both spend and take risks.

You are absolutely correct, there is no fast fix. There is only softening the blow.
 
Kushinator said:
You are still ignoring price dynamics:
Click to expand...
I'm not "ignoring" it, since the topic still is your claim that since the recession the quality of jobs has not declined.

It has, by your own reference. Wages, in real terms, have declined since 2009.

It is up to you to show how the "GDP IPD" (spending) has "skewed" the very BLS wage data you cited
 
Jobless claims mean squat if new home construction falters.

Oh lookee...

New-Home Sales Slid 8.1% in June, Stirring Up a Growth Headwind

'The market for newly built homes weakened in the first half of the year, a development that's likely to impede economic growth and could hold back job creation in 2014.

Sales of new single-family homes are down 4.9% through the first six months of the year compared to the same period of 2013, according to Commerce Department data released Thursday.

June sales fell 8.1% from May to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 406,000. The reading was well below expectations. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had predicted a June sales pace of 475,000. Meanwhile, May sales were revised down to a rate of 442,000 from a previously estimated 504,000. The initial May reading would have been the strongest pace since the recovery began, but the revised figure isn't even the best of the year.'

New-Home Sales Tumbled in June - WSJ
 
Kushinator said:
It looks as though labor markets are beginning to pick up a considerable amount of momentum. Persistent employment growth coupled with this sudden drop in new claims figures to set the stage for a reversal in real output growth. U.S. real GDP declined by 2.9 % in the first quarter of 2014, initially stoking fears of an impending recession. Yet that figure seems to be an outlier which can be attributable to a weakness in private inventory investment. Second quarter output data will be released this Wednesday (the 30th) and should shed a considerable amount of light on the U.S. economy.

The rest of the article can be found here.
Click to expand...

This might have already been noted, but what part of this drop can be attributed to the fact that the extension on unemployment insurance wasn't renewed as of January 1, 2014 and significant numbers of unemployed no longer qualify for jobless benefits?
 
CanadaJohn said:
This might have already been noted, but what part of this drop can be attributed to the fact that the extension on unemployment insurance wasn't renewed as of January 1, 2014 and significant numbers of unemployed no longer qualify for jobless benefits?
Click to expand...
It has already been shown that UI has caused little to no effect on length of unemployment. This attempt to blame UI for unemployment is a failure before it began.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
It has already been shown that UI has caused little to no effect on length of unemployment. This attempt to blame UI for unemployment is a failure before it began.
Click to expand...

Good thing you posted this - now I don't have to ask for messy stuff like proof.
 
Kushinator said:
Here are some figures regarding U.S. population demographics:

  • The average prime working age LFPR since 2007 is 82.0%, and the average 55-and-over LFPR since 2007 is 40.1%
  • The size of the 55-and-over population has increased by 15.619 million relative to that of the prime working age population since 2007
  • 15.619 million multiplied by the difference between the two participation rates (82.0% - 40.1%) implies that this simple demographic shift alone has left only 6.544 million workers at the end of 2013 where there were 15.619 million at the end of 2007
  • Subtract that 6.544 million still in the labor force from the 15.619 million who made the shift from the first bucket to the second bucket and you get 9.075 million people 55 years of age or over who have left the labor force over the past six years

left-labor-force-1.png


Source
Click to expand...

Based on this there is a lot less slack in the labor market than the federal reserve has said out loud. I will guess they have at least as much information as you do. BTW, I think you are directionally correct. There may be a distortion in that you are looking (I think) at the current rate of employment for the over 55 group versus what that number was in 2006.

That being said, the reason why the fed is keeping rates at an exceptionally low rate ( as well as other central banks in the developed world) may be due to something other than trying to increase our employment numbers.
 
washunut said:
That being said, the reason why the fed is keeping rates at an exceptionally low rate ( as well as other central banks in the developed world) may be due to something other than trying to increase our employment numbers.
Click to expand...
That is a long winded way of saying absolutely nothing.
 
CanadaJohn said:
This might have already been noted, but what part of this drop can be attributed to the fact that the extension on unemployment insurance wasn't renewed as of January 1, 2014 and significant numbers of unemployed no longer qualify for jobless benefits?
Click to expand...
None.

These figures are for NEW (initial) unemployment claims. It is not a measure of the total number of people currently collecting unemployment.

Please note that this is only one measure of unemployment. The primary measure is a monthly survey run by the BLS, which is completely separate from initial unemployment insurance claims.
 
washunut said:
The error in the article (in my humble view) is that the fed will not err on the side of higher inflation. Rather they are hoping for higher inflation as it will erode debt as a % of GDP. Yellen has no sympathy for retired on fixed income, as they are "wealthy" in her thinking anyway.
Click to expand...

She supports QE and it was sold on the premise that it would counter the dreaded deflation that was surely on its way
 
clownboy said:
No we wouldn't necessarily. Folks who once had one full time job now have two or more part time jobs.
Click to expand...

Except the percent of employed who have more than one job is lower even than before the recession.
 
clownboy said:
No we wouldn't necessarily. Folks who once had one full time job now have two or more part time jobs.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of something...

“You work three jobs? Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that." - George W. Bush

To a divorced mother of three, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005”​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom