• 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 in U.S. Fall to Lowest Level in Four Decades

Tettsuo

Tettsuo

Compassion is Strength
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
3,804
Reaction score
2,867
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Things are really starting to look good.Jobless Claims in U.S. Fall to Lowest Level in Four Decades - Bloomberg Business

Four-Week AverageThe four-week moving average, a less volatile measure than the weekly numbers, decreased to 278,500 last week, from 282,500.
Since early March, claims have been below the 300,000 level that economists say is typically consistent with an improving job market.
Auto plants typically close around this time of the year as they retool operations for new models. The timing often differs from one year to the next, making it difficult for the Labor Department to adjust the claims figures for these seasonal swings.
Automakers, including General Motors Co. and Ford Motor Co., are benefiting from growing sales as Americans’ finances improve.
“We just wrapped up the U.S. auto industry’s best six months in a decade,” said Kurt McNeil, GM’s U.S. vice president of sales operations. “People feel good about their jobs and the direction the economy as a whole is taking, so the second half of the year should be strong, too.”
[h=2]Fed Outlook[/h]Federal Reserve policy makers, considering raising interest rates later this year for the first time since 2006, have noted the labor market is making strides while pointing out that some slack remains.
Hiring has been strong, Labor Department figures showed on July 2. Payrolls increased by 223,000 in June following a 254,000 gain the prior month. The U.S. jobless rate fell to a seven-year low of 5.3 percent, while wages stagnated and the size of the labor force receded.
Initial jobless claims reflect weekly firings, and a sustained low level of applications has typically coincided with faster job gains. In an environment of accelerating employment growth, many weekly layoffs may also reflect company- or industry-specific causes, such as cost cutting or business restructuring, rather than underlying labor-market trends.
Click to expand...
 
Tettsuo said:
Things are really starting to look good.Jobless Claims in U.S. Fall to Lowest Level in Four Decades - Bloomberg Business

[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

349,000 less Americans were employed full time last month.

There are less people employed now in the highest income bracket (45-54) then there was a year ago.

And the DOW is up only 27 points YTD.

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

And you say things are starting to look good because of weekly jobless claims (that ALWAYS fluctuate, usually mean little and will be revised upwards next week anyway)?

The jobless claims have steadily gone down for years and yet there are still over 5 MILLION LESS Americans employed in the two most important age groups (35-44 and 45-54) then there were before the Great Recession started. Plus, there are still over 17 million more Americans on food stamps in that time.

I do not call that good. I call that extremely bad considering this mediocre 'recovery' was bought with roughly $12 trillion in government debt/Fed spending PLUS ZIRP (zero interest rate policy). And all that have benefited are the rich as the stock markets have been 'artificially' propped up by the Fed.

IMO, the fundamentals in America's economy stink.
 
DA60 said:
349,000 less Americans were employed full time last month.

There are less people employed now in the highest income bracket (45-54) then there was a year ago.

And the DOW is up only 27 points YTD.

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

And you say things are starting to look good because of weekly jobless claims (that ALWAYS fluctuate, usually mean little and will be revised upwards next week anyway)?

The jobless claims have steadily gone down for years and yet there are still over 5 MILLION LESS Americans employed in the two most important age groups (35-44 and 45-54) then there were before the Great Recession started. Plus, there are still over 17 million more Americans on food stamps in that time.

I do not call that good. I call that extremely bad considering this mediocre 'recovery' was bought with roughly $12 trillion in government debt/Fed spending PLUS ZIRP (zero interest rate policy). And all that have benefited are the rich as the stock markets have been 'artificially' propped up by the Fed.

IMO, the fundamentals in America's economy stink.
Click to expand...

Though, I think very little of your capabilities in foreign policy, you are right on in the economic take. Maybe you would want to look back a little further than the Great Recession to start the analysis to understand why, but it is totally correct that we are doing way less well, than superficial stats would make it appear.
 
Does the OP realize that 300,000 baby boomers retire each month and will for the next 19 years?
 
pinqy said:
What on earth do you think that has to do with unemployment insurance claims?
Click to expand...

Well, if they are retired, most of them aren't looking for work.
 
DA60 said:
349,000 less Americans were employed full time last month.
Click to expand...
It goes up and down....349k is not statistically significant.

There are less people employed now in the highest income bracket (45-54) then there was a year ago.
Click to expand...
There are fewer people age 45-54 than there were a year ago. The same PERCENTAGE of people in that age group are employed.

Pop age 35-44
Pop age 45-54

The jobless claims have steadily gone down for years and yet there are still over 5 MILLION LESS Americans employed in the two most important age groups (35-44 and 45-54) then there were before the Great Recession started.
Click to expand...
And there are 3.6 million fewer Americans in that age group.

Check ALL the data.
 
Last edited:
pinqy said:
and that has an effect on employment and the labor force, but has nothing to do with UI claims.
Click to expand...
So if these 300,000 were not retired and got laid off, they wouldn't be looking for work?
 
PerfectStorm said:
So if these 300,000 were not retired and got laid off, they wouldn't be looking for work?
Click to expand...

If they were not retired they would be working, and therefore not eliegible for unemployment insurance benefits.

And the thread is about Unemployment Insurance...not all unemployed receive benefits.
 
One thing is clear, this is is not your father's Democrat party.

To defending PP depravity to trying to pass off unemployment data out of context, I think its fair to say that the modern day Democrat party has devolved down into a selfish group of ideologues that puts party over all.

The 93 million Americans of working age who are unemployed or underemployed are a statistical nuisance to these people.

A true and accurate assement of the economy would mean they would have to acknowledge the existence of millions of Americans who have been struggling to make ends meet since 2008.

But thats not Politically convenient, so they do their best, with propaganda like this OP, to convince as many low information voters as possible that those people simply don't exist.

They've really lost their sense of humanity, basic human decency and respect for human life
 
Fenton said:
The 93 million Americans of working age who are unemployed or underemployed are a statistical nuisance to these people.
Click to expand...
I know you got the number 93 million from the number of people classified as "Not in the Labor Force." But none of them are unmeployed (defined as available and actively seeking work) or Underemployed (defined as working but at fewer than desired hours)
Oh, and it's age 16 and older...not "working age."


You look foolish when you say things that are clearly not true.
 
pinqy said:
You look foolish when you say things that are clearly not true.
Click to expand...

That 93 million figure has been disproved and debunked here dozens of times. But still he and others throw it out there knowing it's a bogus figure.

That speaks volumes about today's Republican base and why they are so easily brainwashed by the AM radio talking heads.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
That 93 million figure has been disproved and debunked here dozens of times. But still he and others throw it out there knowing it's a bogus figure.

That speaks volumes about today's Republican base and why they are so easily brainwashed by the AM radio talking heads.
Click to expand...

There are 93 (close to 94) million people Not in the Labor Force....meaning neither working nor looking for work. It just doesn't mean waht he says it does.
 
pinqy said:
It goes up and down....349k is not statistically significant.
Click to expand...

Yer damn right. DA60 finds a stat he can use to misrepresent the strong recovery of the labor market and spreads it like the manure it is. Here's the net change year-to-year in full-time employment over the past ten years.

emp_ft_yearly_net_change_2005_2015.jpg

The president's policies immediately stopped the bleeding — more like hemorrhaging — and before the end of the year the number started to bounce back sharply. In the forty months since February of 2012, the figure has been above 1.5 million in 36, above two million in 26, and has averaged more than 2.5 million over the past 18.

>>Check ALL the data.

The intent is not to offer an unbiased perspective. I'd say he's concerned about gold dropping under $1100 yesterday morning.

The charts tell the story. So do the money flows: Professional and retail investors are fleeing the SPDR Gold Trust GLD like rats from a sinking ship. Its gold holdings have dropped to just above 22 million ounces, the lowest since 2008.

Many of you gold bulls are driven by your political beliefs, not a realistic assessment of what’s going on in today’s markets and economy.

And yet your intense belief in gold may be preventing this market from hitting bottom and eventually recovering ahead of the next long-term bull. But none of that will happen until you surrender. — "An open letter to investors who are bullish on gold," Market Watch, Jul 23, 2015​

Gold is at risk of falling into a coma

Gold prices folding like a cheap suit ... literally

But there's a rally so far today. Greece! Nah. Iran with the bomb! Nope. Murdering, raping Mexicans flooding across the border! Pfft, Rick Perry's shooting that one down. I know!! Planned Parenthood! Let's get the FBI after those ghouls! Obummer probably has baby body parts served as appetizers at WH functions. We'll git 'im this time!
 
pinqy said:
It goes up and down....349k is not statistically significant.

There are fewer people age 45-54 than there were a year ago. The same PERCENTAGE of people in that age group are employed.

Pop age 35-44
Pop age 45-54


And there are 3.6 million fewer Americans in that age group.

Check ALL the data.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the data...I always like to find new data sources.

Well, that means things are even worse then I thought in the whole 25-54 age range...especially in the 25-34 age range (which I had previously thought had done relatively well since Dec. 2007 - the start of the Great Recession).

First, the population statistics change nothing as far as the economy is concerned as there are still over 5 million less Americans employed in the two highest paying age groups (35-44 and 45-54). It just seemingly looks better for the measures taken by the gov't./Fed to stimulate things in that time (though not in reality). But I always assumed that the 25-34 age group (the last age group of the all-important 25-54 age group) had partially made up for the other two groups. But apparently, it hasn't...it is doing worse then any of them.

Since December 2007 (the start of the Great Recession):

45-54 age group has lost 2,193,000 people employed. Subtract the 1,157,000 less people in that age range leaves 1,036,000 less Americans employed in the 45-54 age range (including demographic considerations). So that age range has no where near recovered to pre-recession levels (in over 7 1/2 years + $12 trillion in gov't./Fed debt/spending + ZIRP).

35-44 age range has lost 2,089,000 people employed. Subtract the 2,490,000 less people in that age range leaves 401,000 more Americans employed in the 34-44 age range (including demographic considerations).

25-34 age range has gained 1,123,000 people employed. Add the 2,723,000 more people in that age range leaves 1,600,000 less Americans employed in the 25-34 age range (including demographic considerations). That is far, FAR worse then I thought it was as I (wrongly) assumed that since America was an aging country that the 25-34 age range was shrinking...but it is doing the opposite. It is growing fast.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_01042008.pdf page 17

So, in total, including demographic considerations, there are 2,235,000 fewer Americans employed in the all-important 25-54 age range now then just before the Great Recession DESPITE 7 1/2 years, roughly $12 trillion in gov't./Fed debt/spending AND ZIRP (zero interest rate policy).


And if we look at shorter terms:

Generally speaking (in 'net' terms), things look better over the last year but worse lately then I previously thought.

45-54 ages. Since March, 2015 - the number of 45-54 employed has dropped 129,000. But the 45-54 aged population over that time has dropped only 29,000 for a 'net' loss of 100,000 in the highest income bracket.

And the entire 25-54 age range since March 2015 has 117,000 less employed. The population for this age range has risen 136,000. So this leaves a 'net' loss of 253,000 people employed in the all important 25-54 age range over the last 3 months.

I would not call that good...at all.
 
Last edited:
pinqy said:
There are 93 (close to 94) million people Not in the Labor Force....meaning neither working nor looking for work. It just doesn't mean waht he says it does.
Click to expand...

I know. But the 93 million figure Cons use includes everyone over 16, students in HS, college, the disabled, retirees. There are 35 mil people over 65, and 14 mil 16-19 years old. That's 50 mil right there who are probably retired or in school, so obviously they shouldn't be counted in the labor force figures. Which makes the 93 million figure bogus, and they know that. Ted Cruz knew it too when he said it awhile back, he didn't care 93 mil number was bogus, nor do many other cons. They still use the figure for an obvious reason, their hatred of Obama.
 
pinqy said:
I know you got the number 93 million from the number of people classified as "Not in the Labor Force." But none of them are unmeployed (defined as available and actively seeking work) or Underemployed (defined as working but at fewer than desired hours)
Oh, and it's age 16 and older...not "working age."


You look foolish when you say things that are clearly not true.
Click to expand...

Technically not correct actually.

Your 'definition' is based on the BLS definition.

The actual definition of 'unemployed' is:

'unemployed

1.
not employed; without a job; out of work:'

Unemployed | Define Unemployed at Dictionary.com


A definition of a word is the real world definition, not how a word is defined according to a particular government department.

If the BLS came out and said a banana is defined as a rock. That does not make the definition of a banana 'a rock'...it just makes it a rock in the eyes of the BLS.


Fenton is technically correct as ALL of those 93 million ARE unemployed (assuming none of them are working 'under the table')...they are just not (conveniently) unemployed in the BLS world.
 
Last edited:
Anyone that believes that these numbers reflect the truth, well: .............
 
DA60 said:
Thanks for the data...I always like to find new data sources.

Well, that means things are even worse then I thought in the whole 25-54 age range...especially in the 25-34 age range (which I had previously thought had done relatively well since Dec. 2007 - the start of the Great Recession).
Click to expand...
ummm no, it mean things are better. The loss of employment is NOT due to a bad economy.

Since December 2007 (the start of the Great Recession):

45-54 age group has lost 2,193,000 people employed. Subtract the 1,157,000 less people in that age range leaves 1,036,000 less Americans employed in the 45-54 age range (including demographic considerations). So that age range has no where near recovered to pre-recession levels (in over 7 1/2 years + $12 trillion in gov't./Fed debt/spending + ZIRP).[./quote] Ok, that is stupid math. It makes no sense. Proper comparison to take into account a changing populaton is looking at the Percent employed....the Employment-Population Ratio. For Age 45-54 in Dec 2007 it was 34,818,000/43,803,000 = 76.5% For June 2015 it was 32,629,000/42,646,000 = 76.5% So nothing has gotten worse, the percent of 45-54 year olds working has stayed the same.

35-44 age range has lost 2,089,000 people employed. Subtract the 2,490,000 less people in that age range leaves 401,000 more Americans employed in the 34-44 age range (including demographic considerations).

25-34 age range has gained 1,123,000 people employed. Add the 2,723,000 more people in that age range leaves 1,600,000 less Americans employed in the 25-34 age range (including demographic considerations).
Click to expand...

Again....invalid operations. Look at the emp-pop ratio. It has gone down, but that's the proper way to measure. Level changes are meaningless over longer time.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
That 93 million figure has been disproved and debunked here dozens of times. But still he and others throw it out there knowing it's a bogus figure.

That speaks volumes about today's Republican base and why they are so easily brainwashed by the AM radio talking heads.
Click to expand...

We're brainwashed ? Oh the irony !!

Americans Not In Labor Force Hits New Record High: 93,194,000 - Breitbart

You're pretty much proving my point.

The left is going to great lengths to marginalize the Millions of Americans who continue to struggle financially.

Like I said, its party and or ideology over all and any statistic that counters your shallow parroted talking points is summarily dismissed.

Not because its not true or relevant, its dismissed because it exposes the failures of this President and his party
 
Last edited:
BTW, I wrongly assumed that the population numbers were seasonally adjusted (which makes no sense). Of course, they are not. So my 'net' calculations above are erroneous. My bad.

pinqy said:
45-54 age group has lost 2,193,000 people employed. Subtract the 1,157,000 less people in that age range leaves 1,036,000 less Americans employed in the 45-54 age range (including demographic considerations). So that age range has no where near recovered to pre-recession levels (in over 7 1/2 years + $12 trillion in gov't./Fed debt/spending + ZIRP).[./quote] Ok, that is stupid math. It makes no sense. Proper comparison to take into account a changing populaton is looking at the Percent employed....the Employment-Population Ratio. For Age 45-54 in Dec 2007 it was 34,818,000/43,803,000 = 76.5% For June 2015 it was 32,629,000/42,646,000 = 76.5% So nothing has gotten worse, the percent of 45-54 year olds working has stayed the same.
Click to expand...

WRONG.

I have NO idea how you arrived at that number, but...

34,818,000/43,803,000 = 79.4%

So, according to your ALL KNOWING ratio...the employment-population ratio IS WORSE now then before the Great Recession.

Correct?
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
the population statistics change nothing as far as the economy is concerned

in total, including demographic considerations, there are 2,235,000 fewer Americans employed in the all-important 25-54 age range now then just before the Great Recession
Click to expand...

I can't say at first glance if there's anything to yer figurings there. I'll leave that to pinqy. I'm somewhat limited in my statistical acumen, especially as my brain ages. But consider the following graph:

emp_pop_rato_25_to_54_1985_2015.jpg

You see the same surge starting in late 2009, things flattened out after a year or so, and it's been positive albeit choppy since then, with only one month (Oct 2013) negative. There's been consistent growth for more than a year and a half — at least a .5% increase every month, more than 1.2% in six months, and an average of 1% over that period.
 
mmi said:
I can't say at first glance if there's anything to yer figurings there. I'll leave that to pinqy. I'm somewhat limited in my statistical acumen, especially as my brain ages. But consider the following graph:

View attachment 67187672

You see the same surge starting in late 2009, things flattened out after a year or so, and it's been positive albeit choppy since then, with only one month (Oct 2013) negative. There's been consistent growth for more than a year and a half — at least a .5% increase every month, more than 1.2% in six months, and an average of 1% over that period.
Click to expand...

Forget my number please...I was assuming the population stats were seasonally adjusted..of course they weren't. So my 'net' figures are erroneous (though my earlier numbers are factual).

Sorry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom