Unemployment claims fall in new sign of gradual labor recovery

[dangolegators]

Every little bit of good news is a good thing. Jobless claims have been consistently lower for the last number of weeks. And the amount of people on unemployment is at its lowest since 2008.

The Labor Department said Thursday that first-time claims for jobless benefits fell to 341,000 in the week ended Feb. 9, from a revised 368,000 the prior week.

...

Thursday's report showed that continuing claims for unemployment benefits stood at 3.1 million in the week ended Feb. 2. That is lowest since July 2008, before the worst of the recession hit and the job market began to tumble.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mo-unemployment-claims-20130214,0,207052.story

[mastoidbone]

try again---the more reliable 4 week moving average rose by a hair---so the news was very little and it was for the worse.

The 4 week average of 352,500 shows we us employment is tepid---and terrible for a recovery...meaning seems like obama new normal is the new normal.

[PIMking]

how many of these less claims were people who ran out of unemployment and stopped looking?

[g8orbill]

until we have a real number and not some cooked up number there is no real recovery

[JerseyGator01]

This is the fifth recovery since election season started. I'm impressed.

[Swampmaster]

The recession must be over!! Yes!!!!

[dangolegators]

Yeah, I know everything is really, really bad. But I was hoping to bring a glimmer of hope to our miserable existences. I failed.

[LittleBlueLW]

Yeah, I know everything is really, really bad. But I was hoping to bring a glimmer of hope to our miserable existences. I failed.

I am as busy as a semi retired 42 yr old can be and my company had a record year in 2012.

We hired 5 more people last year averaging 60k+ in salary and benes in central fla.

But I dont give our president one ounce of credit for that.

[exiledgator]

until we have a real number and not some cooked up number there is no real recovery

So if we can't know for certain then things are certainly bad. Got it.

[JerseyGator01]

My area had a 20% office vacancy rate BEFORE the so-called recession hit. It's all media hype and government deception. As long as the liberal lawyers maintain multiple chins, all is good.

[surfn1080]

This is the fifth recovery since election season started. I'm impressed.

Wait once per 4 weeks the number is below 350k impresses you??? I guess this is the new normal for people. We cant even keep up with population growth!

[JerseyGator01]

Sarcasm on my part if you missed it.

[The_Graygator]

until we have a real number and not some cooked up number there is no real recovery


Agreed. So far, we've lost about 8 million jobs from the labor force under Obama.

This "recovery" BS is just that... BS.

[northgagator]

how many of these less claims were people who ran out of unemployment and stopped looking?

The average time Americans spent unemployed dropped a record 2.8 weeks in January ... but hold the applause.

The reason is likely because many people ran out of unemployment benefits so they stopped looking for work, experts said.

"People are getting frustrated and are giving up," said Adam Hersh, economist with the Center for American Progress.

The average duration of unemployment was 35.3 weeks in January, down from 38.1 weeks in December and 40.2 weeks a year earlier, according to the latest monthly jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The cause of the big drop likely stems from the fact that federal extended jobless benefits were curtailed in several states in January because their unemployment rates improved, said Claire McKenna, policy analyst at the National Employment Law Project. To receive unemployment checks, the jobless must look for work, which keeps them in the labor force. And since there was no notable uptick in employment, it's not likely that the majority of them got jobs


http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/04/news/economy/unemployment-weeks/index.html

[dangolegators]

Good news: This week's number is 344,000. New jobless claims have been consistently lower over the past couple of months. And the total number of people receiving unemployment benefits is at its lowest since June 2008. We'll see how the sequester affects all of this, but for now, things are getting better.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-us-jobless-claims-drop-22000-to-344000-2013-02-28?link=MW_latest_news

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The number of people who applied for regular state unemployment-insurance benefits dropped 22,000 to 344,000 in the week ended Feb. 23, the U.S. Department of Labor said Thursday. Even as large federal spending cuts are set to kick in soon through sequestration, the data signal continuing improvement in the labor market, though claims levels could jump going forward as workers are cut. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch had expected an initial-claims level of 362,000 for the most recent weekly data. The government revised claims for the week ended Feb. 16 to 366,000 from a prior estimate of 362,000. The average of new claims over the past month, which smoothes out weekly volatility, fell 6,750 to 355,000. The government also reported that continuing claims dropped 91,000 to 3.07 million in the week ended Feb. 16, hitting the lowest level since June 2008. The four-week average of these continuing claims fell 35,500 to 3.16 million, the lowest level since July 2008. Continuing claims reflect the number of people already receiving benefits.

[mastoidbone]

4 wk average is still over 350,000---which is NOT a good number or a number associated with a recovery.

What it is is the new Obama normal---low Econ activity, high unemployment, high deficits....did I leave anything out?

Only thing really cooking now is housing and tech and energy---none of which he has done much to create.

[gatordowneast]

We shall see the February "cooked" job #s next week. And then we will have to wait two more months for the revisions.

[gatorman_07732]

I'm sorry but there is no good news in terms of this economy improving. The unemployment number is not even close to the actual number with all the people that have went from unemployment to disability. There is just no growth at all.

[PSGator66]

I would imagine that as the full monty of Obamacare kicks in it will have a huge negative effect on the economy.

[gator421]

I would imagine that as the full monty of Obamacare kicks in it will have a huge negative effect on the economy.

We can only remain hopeful.

[dangolegators]

More good news. Today's new jobless claims are down to 340k.

WASHINGTON -- New jobless claims dropped again last week to 340,000, near a post-Great Recession low, and the less volatile four-week average fell to its lowest level in five years, the Labor Department said Thursday.

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-weekly-jobless-claims-20130307,0,6738824.story

New jobless claims have been consistently lower in the last couple of months than they were last fall and summer. Hopefully well get a good jobs number tomorrow.

[SydneySLee]

More good news. Today's new jobless claims are down to 340k.



http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-weekly-jobless-claims-20130307,0,6738824.story

New jobless claims have been consistently lower in the last couple of months than they were last fall and summer. Hopefully well get a good jobs number tomorrow.

240K? My guess

[surfn1080]

besides this week and last week, how has it looked that past month? If many people entered into the job market to look for a job, the unemployment number will go up.

[mdgator05]

This week's numbers will show up in the next report. The monthly numbers were fully collected before this week.

ADP reported an increase of 198K private sector jobs. I would imagine you will see a smaller overall number in BLS, as it includes public employees, which have been getting cut for months now.

[rajinGator]

Who said the Sequestration would have drastic, negative effects? Good news indeed!

[ThePlayer]

Who said the Sequestration would have drastic, negative effects? Good news indeed!

Just wait...the impact of those will take place over the next several months.
They will likely hit Virginia, Texas and California with the most impact but other states will affected too.

[Gatorrick22]

Every little bit of good news is a good thing. Jobless claims have been consistently lower for the last number of weeks. And the amount of people on unemployment is at its lowest since 2008.



http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mo-unemployment-claims-20130214,0,207052.story

If this were a long term trend, then you'd really be on to something big.

[GatorAvatar]

236000 new jobs, unemployment rate down to 7.7%. Imagine if Romney had win...he would be getting all the accolades.

[surfn1080]

236000 new jobs, unemployment rate down to 7.7%. Imagine if Romney had win...he would be getting all the accolades.

Participation rate remains at all time lows though. So the question is, are we actually keeping up with population growth?

Can anyone answer me why we don't use the real unemployment number??

[108]

4 wk average is still over 350,000---which is NOT a good number or a number associated with a recovery.

What it is is the new Obama normal---low Econ activity, high unemployment, high deficits....did I leave anything out?

Only thing really cooking now is housing and tech and energy---none of which he has done much to create.

Stop comparing with previous recoveries...the variables are not the same

[malligator]

236000 new jobs, unemployment rate down to 7.7%. Imagine if Romney had win...he would be getting all the accolades.

And imagine if the number had been reversed. The Pubs would be getting the blame because of the sequester.

[108]

It is funny to think of how the responses would be different had Romney won

[Gator_Tom66]

It is funny to think of how the responses would be different had Romney won

sure is, you and Dango would be complaining, instead of cheerleading.

The numbers are a small, good sign. I wouldn't get too worked up about such a small amount of good news.

But hey, thats what cheerleader do, i guess.

[gatorchris]

240K? My guess

Good guess...

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Good news. Hopefully a sign of things to come.

[gatorman_07732]

Can anyone explain why the labor participation rate went down?

[gator10010]

Can anyone explain why the labor participation rate went down?

Record 89,304,000 Americans 'Not in Labor Force' -- 296,000 Fewer Employed Since January

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/record-89304000-americans-not-labor-force-296000-fewer-employed-january

[mdgator05]

Participation rate remains at all time lows though. So the question is, are we actually keeping up with population growth?

Can anyone answer me why we don't use the real unemployment number??

First, a minor point, but participation rates are not at an all time low. They are at a recent time low. They were lower as recently as the early 1980s.

Second, what is this mythical "real unemployment rate?" The BLS reports 6 different unemployment rates consisting of a variety of different definitions. The metrics have thus far tracked change pretty consistently, although by definition the levels differ.

[wgbgator]

Can anyone explain why the labor participation rate went down?

Well, its been trending downward for decades. Are we talking about from one-month to another or for the last few decades?

The basic answer is: a) employers don't need as many people to do work and b) people can find other ways to get by without being formally in the work force.

[The_Graygator]

try again---the more reliable 4 week moving average rose by a hair---so the news was very little and it was for the worse.

The 4 week average of 352,500 shows we us employment is tepid---and terrible for a recovery...meaning seems like obama new normal is the new normal.

This is what libs accept.

Under Bush, it was below 5% before the Dems took over congress in 2007.

The libs can come here and post the OA's propaganda of spin-doctored and cooked employment books all they want, but it doesn't change the fact that we had 149 million people working when Obama took office and we now have less than 138 million working, with a total of 8.3 less jobs available in the work force, which means an even more shrunken economy.

There is NO recovery or "economic improvemnt".

It is a lie, BS, a farce, pure fiction, and there is ZERO to support that claim. They can repeat it to the heavens all they want until they believe it (which is what I did when I was a lib), but it's still pure leftist, politically-driven propaganda.

[fredsanford]

This is what libs accept.

Under Bush, it was below 5% before the Dems took over congress in 2007.

The libs can come here and post the OA's propaganda of spin-doctored and cooked employment books all they want, but it doesn't change the fact that we had 149 million people working when Obama took office and we now have less than 138 million working, with a total of 8.3 less jobs available in the work force, which means an even more shrunken economy.

There is NO recovery or "economic improvemnt".

It is a lie, BS, a farce, pure fiction, and there is ZERO to support that claim. They can repeat it to the heavens all they want until they believe it (which is what I did when I was a lib), but it's still pure leftist, politically-driven propaganda.

Quality fact-free post right from Limbaugh.com or similar.

[mdgator05]

Well, its been trending downward for decades. Are we talking about from one-month to another or for the last few decades?

The basic answer is: a) employers don't need as many people to do work and b) people can find other ways to get by without being formally in the work force.

In addition, demographics and health care improvements have increased the number of people who have voluntarily exited the labor force due to retirement.

[wgbgator]

In addition, demographics and health care improvements have increased the number of people who have voluntarily exited the labor force due to retirement.

I think that was implied in b), but that is certainly correct.

[gatorman_07732]

Well, its been trending downward for decades. Are we talking about from one-month to another or for the last few decades?

The basic answer is: a) employers don't need as many people to do work and b) people can find other ways to get by without being formally in the work force.

I would say it's been trending down for about a decade maybe a little more. To say decades would be an exaggeration. Right now it's the lowest since the first term of the Reagan administration.

[wgbgator]

I would say it's been trending down for about a decade maybe a little more. To say decades would be an exaggeration. Right now it's the lowest since the first term of the Reagan administration.

Its been going downward since the 90s, spiking in the recessions. Thats "decades." Though it doesnt seem that long, and I could see where it could be seen as an exageration. I'll be more specific in the future. :)

[gatorman_07732]

Its been going downward since the 90s, spiking in the recessions. Thats "decades." Though it doesnt seem that long, and I could see where it could be seen as an exageration. I'll be more specific in the future. :)

What your saying is not accurate

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--_HSroA9zRA/UHMH_F93FQI/AAAAAAAAScA/foOcL8NHa_E/s1600/PR1.jpg

[wgbgator]

What your saying is not accurate

bp.blogspot.com/--_HSroA9zRA/UHMH_F93FQI/AAAAAAAAScA/foOcL8NHa_E/s1600/PR1.jpg

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Here's the BLS graph.

[gatorman_07732]

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Here's the BLS graph.

OK, but again it's not decades

http://bill4dogcatcher.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/BLS-1980-2012-Labor-Participation-Rate-500w.png

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Sort of a semantics argument.

It's been falling for more than a decade. As was mentioned, demographics is playing a big role in that, too.

[wgbgator]

OK, but again it's not decades

http://bill4dogcatcher.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/BLS-1980-2012-Labor-Participation-Rate-500w.png

Maybe we're defining trending differently (I see a big spike down in 90, and not much upward trajectory after that), but I'll happilly concede the point. We'll say decade then. There's been a steady drop since the late 90s.

[dangolegators]

There are 2 things going on here with regards to the labor force participation rate. Obviously the recession has been a factor. But demographics are a factor too. Between 2000 and 2010, the percentage of people in the 55-64 age group grew by about 50%. That's a far higher growth rate than any other 10-year age group, and that is the group that is currently retiring. So the baby boomers are playing a big role in the reduced labor force participation rate.

[gatorman_07732]

There are 2 things going on here with regards to the labor force participation rate. Obviously the recession has been a factor. But demographics are a factor too. Between 2000 and 2010, the percentage of people in the 55-64 age group grew by about 50%. That's a far higher growth rate than any other 10-year age group, and that is the group that is currently retiring. So the baby boomers are playing a big role in the reduced labor force participation rate.

That is exactly correct

[108]

we will see how the sequester effects job numbers

[gatorman_07732]

we will see how the sequester effects job numbers

Well we know, no matter what that will get the blame. The President has already served up that softball, so the narrative has been set for state sponsored media.

[108]

Well we know, no matter what that will get the blame. The President has already served up that softball, so the narrative has been set for state sponsored media.

it doesn't take an economist to know that a decrease in spending will directly affect jobs

that isn't to say we shouldn't decrease spending, but people should understand the consequences

[gatorman_07732]

it doesn't take an economist to know that a decrease in spending will directly affect jobs

that isn't to say we shouldn't decrease spending, but people should understand the consequences

Sure some gov jobs but lets really take a look at what the sequester is and that is a 2% cut in the increase in spending. Many of these cuts a military based so you should be happy about that.

[108]

Sure some gov jobs but lets really take a look at what the sequester is and that is a 2% cut in the increase in spending. Many of these cuts a military based so you should be happy about that.

everyday military folks or the MIC?

[gatorman_07732]

everyday military folks or the MIC?

I would imagine both

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequester_(2013)

[edit] Defense spending

CBO projected in February 2013 that under the sequester and Budget Control Act caps:
Defense spending outlays (including "overseas contingency operations" for Iraq and Afghanistan) will be reduced from $670.3 billion in 2012 to approximately $627.6 billion in 2013, a decrease of $42.7 billion or 6.4%. Defense spending will fall again to $593.4 billion in 2014, a decrease of $34.2 billion or 5.5%.
Defense spending will rise gradually from $593 billion in 2014 to $714 billion by 2023, an annual growth rate of 2.1% during the 2014 to 2023 period and 0.6% for the 2012-2023 period. The 2.1% growth rate approximates CBO's projected rate of inflation and is well below the annual spending growth rate of 7.1% from 2000-2012.
Defense spending will fall steadily from 4.3% GDP in 2012 to 2.8% GDP by 2023. Defense spending averaged 4.0% GDP from 1990 to 2012, ranging from 3.0% GDP to 5.2% GDP.[1]

[rivergator]

Times-Union had a brief about building permits for new homes is at the highest level since 2008.

[108]

I would imagine both

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequester_(2013)

good that the defense budget is lowered, bad that no doubt it will mostly effect people at the bottom

the average everyday military personal who is consumer whose majority of income goes right back into the economy

[g8orbill]

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/record-89304000-americans-not-labor-force-296000-fewer-employed-january

From the article:

he number of Americans designated as "not in the labor force" in February was 89,304,000, a record high, up from 89,008,000 in January, according to the Department of Labor. This means that the number of Americans not in the labor force increased 296,000 between January and February.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) labels people who are unemployed and no longer looking for work as “not in the labor force,” including people who have retired on schedule, taken early retirement, or simply given up looking for work.

The increase marks the second month in a row, after rising in January from 88.8 million in December. Those not in the labor force had declined in December from 88.9 million in November.

[mastoidbone]

good report overall.

[surfn1080]

First, a minor point, but participation rates are not at an all time low. They are at a recent time low. They were lower as recently as the early 1980s.

Second, what is this mythical "real unemployment rate?" The BLS reports 6 different unemployment rates consisting of a variety of different definitions. The metrics have thus far tracked change pretty consistently, although by definition the levels differ.

If you take those on unemployment benefits plus the those not participating in the work force and no longer receiving unemployment benefits, wouldn't that be a more real number? Obviously we will need to research if those on ssdi or va vets that are disabled a part of that participation rate.

[Burke]

Why should the Dems want the economy to recover?

The more hungry, desperate people there are the more people in need of handouts, the more voters they will have.