U.S. jobless claims near 42-year low as labor market tightens

[Northern Light]

Most people I'm in contact with from back home and around the U.S. are struggling right now, and these aren't people who tend to be low income. Many had great jobs just a few years ago.

I think the government numbers are skewed in order to influence faith in the economy, since that's all the economy is ultimately built upon: faith. People need to stop fighting over the numbers and start looking at what's happening in their local communities for the truth. The Fed is always going to have a vested interest in posting confidence-inspiring numbers.

The same failed policies that allowed the 2008 crash to happen are still relevant. You know, the ones that allowed corporations to syphon trillions in public funds into their private coffers. We're still operating under "too big to fail" and it's in the vested interest of corporations and government to make it look like it's somehow working even though it never has.

 

[Visbek]

Whew. Much is no fault of Obama. But a stimulus package some 6 plus years ago gets credit for the lower jobless claims today, which have largely been people giving up looking for work plus growth in lower paying service sector jobs.

Is that the essence of your argument?

Close, but not quite.

My point is that Presidents (and governments in general, really) have few tools they can apply to spark growth. If a President could increase GDP by 3% per year, every President would pursue such a policy as often as possible.

Given the constraints, Obama did most of what he could on the positive side.

What Presidents can do is completely screw things up. Refusing to bail out the auto industry would have done immense damage to US manufacturing; spending more on foreign wars impedes growth; putting cronies in charge of departments can cause lots of damage. In that respect, Obama does not seem to have screwed up very much. He messed up a bit, but not much.

Also, what happened when we gave Obama the White House and both chambers in Congress, plus a super majority in the Senate to boot?. What's the excuse there?

Having the House doesn't help if you don't have 60+ votes in the Senate. And that period of time did not last long.

It took months for Franken to join the Senate (bringing the count to 60). By that time, Ted Kennedy was incapacitated due to illness. When he died, his replacement brought the count up to 60 again, and Congress was in session for 14 weeks.

Now, it might have been possible during that time to ram a bigger stimulus through Congress, but that seems unlikely. The majority was so thin, that any defecting Democrat could have demanded anything they wanted, and any objecting Democrat could have killed the deal. And 14 weeks is not a lot of time to get anything big done.

Even if he had a stronger majority in the Senate for more time, our system is designed to limit the power of Presidents in myriad ways.

 

[Visbek]

Btw, poverty has increased as a percentage.

It's hovered around 15% since the recession. Since 1965, the poverty rate has bounced between 11% and 15%. So it's a little high, but it is not getting worse.

And here is something that should be rather obvious: the shrinking middle class is not moving into the upper classes.

Incorrect. According to Pew, both the lower and upper income ranges have grown since 1970, and the upper has grown more than the lower. This was big news just a few weeks ago. Note that this is not based on government definitions of poverty, it's based on a percentage relative to the median income.

More Americans are living on less income, each and every day. And zip has been done to mitigate declining wages in Real Dollars. But the Bush Tax Cut were extended for two additional years, when Obama still had House and Senate majorities.

Not quite.

Since the 1970s, wages for most Americans have been flat, when adjusted for inflation; they only declined a little bit recently, and wages seem to be going up a bit again. During this time, the standard of living has certainly increased. It may not feel that way, and there is no question that poverty is still a very bad state even in an affluent society. But part of that is that we get accustomed to material improvements very easily, and are keenly aware of our relative status and possessions.

Anyway. It's true that the upper earners have taken most of the gains; and as I said, the best fix for that is raising taxes on the wealthy. I seriously doubt Obama had the option to whack the wealthy with huge tax increases during that brief 14-week period; all it would have taken is for one Democratic Senator to get enough phone calls from Wall Street, and that bill would be DOA.

The division between what he says and what he does are near polar opposites. In short, he's a shameless liar and I feel hoodwinked for ever supporting, contributing and voting for the Rep in Dem drag Obama is proven to be.

*shrug*

He's a politician, he's just like any other politician. He's working in an era of deep political polarization. He's also President in a system designed from the ground up to restrain the powers of the executive.

We should also note that, ironically, both sides of the political debate feel like they're losing. (In politics, most Americans feel they?re on the losing side | Pew Research Center) Obviously, that can't be the case.

The reality is that Obama has achieved quite a bit during his time, especially given the constraints of the system. Maybe someone else could have done more, but no one comes to mind.

 

[JC Callender]

My plan during the recession was to hunker down and outlast my local competitors. None of them went out of business, so apparently they had the same plan.

What did Obama do to bring us out of the "Great Bush Recession"? It's interesting btw, that a recession or depression that happens for a year or two under a Republican all of the sudden becomes "Great" with full blame on the Republican when a Democrat, once elected, fails for several years to bring it back to normal.

 

[truthatallcost]

The government has also said there's no inflation and no cost of living increase, which is a steaming pile of you know what.

 

[Visbek]

Most people I'm in contact with from back home and around the U.S. are struggling right now, and these aren't people who tend to be low income. Many had great jobs just a few years ago.

I'm sorry, but you're talking about an extremely small and concentrated group. All it would take is for one factory in your home town to close, and the local economy is in trouble.

For example, in my current town, everything seems like it's going great. Property values are shooting up; people have good jobs; there's construction all over the place. The industry I work in can't hire people fast enough. The thing is: This is not a valid proxy for the economy of the country, the region, not even my entire city, perhaps not even my own neighborhood.

One person's social circle is nowhere near complete enough to provide a reasonable picture of the state of the economy.

Plus, people don't react rationally to economic conditions. The value of your 401(k) could drop in half, and even though that's unrealized gains, and you have not lost a single real cent, you will still feel poorer. And of course, most people want to get back not to "normal," but to the bubble-inflated peak.

I think the government numbers are skewed in order to influence faith in the economy, since that's all the economy is ultimately built upon: faith.

If that was the case, then why would they ever admit that unemployment rates rose?

The reality is that there are huge pressures on the BLS to be accurate. Too many private entities rely on accurate data, and if the government couldn't provide it, then the private sector would be up in arms over it, perhaps even do its own research.

People need to stop fighting over the numbers and start looking at what's happening in their local communities for the truth. The Fed is always going to have a vested interest in posting confidence-inspiring numbers.

The Fed does some research, but is not producing these numbers.

The BLS produces unemployment figures and wage data; BEA produces GDP figures.

And there is no more of an incentive today to fudge the numbers than in 2010, or 2008. So why would they release bad numbers during those times?

The same failed policies that allowed the 2008 crash to happen are still relevant. You know, the ones that allowed corporations to syphon trillions in public funds into their private coffers. We're still operating under "too big to fail" and it's in the vested interest of corporations and government to make it look like it's somehow working even though it never has.

Some of them are, some of them are slightly tamed.

It certainly is not easy to permanently bust up the largest banks in the US, though at least they are now responsible for bailing themselves out. Lending, especially in real estate, is nowhere near as loose as it was 10-15 years ago. No one has any excuse to think that derivatives are safe, or that real estate will only go up.

We should note that many real strengths remain. Manufacturing output is near record highs; we have a reasonably well-educated workforce; millions of people still clamor to live in the US; we have a very strong entrepreneurial culture, which is knocking out new ideas and new companies all the time.

Again, it's easy to indulge in negativity. That doesn't mean it's the truth.

 

[Captain Adverse]

CA, what you are posting is textbook "flailing". Lets review, your first point was proven to be false by subsequent posts. But lets pretend seasonal jobs did indeed affect the number. Your post requires you to pretend that this affect was not counted or didn't exist the last 42 years. And your second point requires one to believe the way UE is counted has changed recently.

And what proves your post is textbook "flailing" , the thread isn't about UE. Its about "initial jobless claims". And initial jobless claims are near a 42 year low.

Actually, I am not "flailing." All of my posts throughout my tenure in this Forum regarding government unemployment statistics have been based on the proposition they are just propaganda.

In direct response, how did you ever get the idea that I was advocating a proposition that unemployment figures have only recently been using the seasonal employment figures? I never said that this was "new" information, I merely stated I don't consider it "full-time" employment" which is what most citizens are seeking. Yes, seasonal, temporary, and part-time ARE forms of employment, but they are not the kinds of employment WE in the labor force think of when such statistics come out.

No, people want the kinds of jobs their parents had; full-time work at 8+ hours a day, five days a week, 20 - 25 years and then retirement! People aren't fooled when they see these ups-and-downs in employment figures, because they know figures reflect ups-and-downs primarily in the service sector, or "contract" (temporary) positions, or seasonal farm labor. Most of those service jobs are what we use to do as teenagers and college students for spending money and school expenses.

For some reason, people seem to think this new "nomadic worker" business model is good for the economy. Equating the increase in corporate profits as somehow worth the instability faced by the common employee. Perhaps you haven't heard of the mass layoffs by companies like Mitsubishi and Caterpillar recently?

The figures are modified, that is my point.

 

[Captain Adverse]

No, what they do is use different measures to keep track of that. When we add marginally attached workers, that is U5 unemployment. When we add involuntary part-time to U5, that is U6.

No one is pulling shenanigans here. All this is tracked and in the public record.

Thanks for admitting it is all based on the methodology created by the system, which IMO is both inaccurate and designed to make things (however bad) look better than they really are.

The numbers do reflect true employment. If you have a job, you have a job. If people are only getting hired for 3-month stints, then that's going to be reflected when they can't get another job.

If you have a job, you have a job? No duh!

But did you read the definition I provided? That came from the BLS, and it means what it says! They do not count them as unemployed for purposes of the statistic quoted, thus the 30 day figures posted do not reflect that number. Trying to divert attention from this fact by stating "well they are reflected elsewhere" is ridiculous because we are talking about the figures touting an increase in employment while ignoring people who are not employed.

So let me reverse your statement: If you DON"T have a job, then you don't have a JOB! You are un-employed and should be counted in the 30 day statistic!

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Lots of people have lost their ability to collect because they never got back to work full time long enough to accumulate benefits. A lot of people have gone through lots of part time and poor paying jobs in attempt to find a job that pays as well as the ones lost in the recession. The rules for unemployment have changed as states ran out of money and people lost their benefits whether they found work or not. I also know lots of construction workers who were laid off and collected unemployment up in the northern climates when housing slowed in the winter. Thanks to new rules these people can no longer collect. I knew people who had jobs that worked most of the year then were laid off and collected. H&R block was one that did this every year. These people can no longer collect now do to rule changes. A lot of people took early retirement when their benefits run out instead of collecting grocery carts at Walmart. There are a lot of reasons to explain the numbers that have nothing to do with people being back to work better than anytime in the last 42 years. The fact is anyone with half a brain knows that simply isn't true.

Just a bunch of twisted numbers and half truths being used to try and deceive the people. A lot of us can easily see through the smoke and mirrors and see the truth.

The fact is lots of people who collected in the past can no longer collect due to rule changes. Plus the fact that a lot more people are working part time jobs and cannot collect. Plus a lot of people whose benefits have run out and have yet to find full time work can no longer collect.

 

[Vern]

More partisan garbage. Strangely, I didn't ask you to support your nonsense. Why do you expect me do support mine? You are so used to being rude you don't know how to control it. Best of luck to you.

fmw, that's funny, I wasn’t rude. Read this slowly, this is a debate forum. Asking you to back up your point is not rude. And fmw you didn’t have to ask me, I showed you examples of the president affecting the economy. Yes, I gave you examples. You called it “very partisan” , reiterated your point and then went on some pointless diatribe (post 46). Since you seemed energetic enough to post that pointless diatribe I thought you could put some effort into backing up your point. Which seems to have greatly upset you.

Conservatives also find my posts upsetting. They lash out emotionally when their views are challenged, refuse to back up their points and then insult me. Why did you do that?

Don’t forget, I also pointed out that every single conservative on the planet predicted President Obama would destroy the economy. Can we discuss they too think the president affects the economy and were completely wrong in their predictions? Or will that be too upsetting also?

 

[Astrodome]

fmw, that's funny, I wasn’t rude. Read this slowly, this is a debate forum. Asking you to back up your point is not rude. And fmw you didn’t have to ask me, I showed you examples of the president affecting the economy. Yes, I gave you examples. You called it “very partisan” , reiterated your point and then went on some pointless diatribe (post 46). Since you seemed energetic enough to post that pointless diatribe I thought you could put some effort into backing up your point. Which seems to have greatly upset you.

Conservatives also find my posts upsetting. They lash out emotionally when their views are challenged, refuse to back up their points and then insult me. Why did you do that?

Don’t forget, I also pointed out that every single conservative on the planet predicted President Obama would destroy the economy. Can we discuss they too think the president affects the economy and were completely wrong in their predictions? Or will that be too upsetting also?

How rude of you to intelligently provide supporting information to prove your point, while at the same time breaking down his pointless argument step by step.........Should be ashamed of yourself...
Where are the moderators when you need them.....

 

[Vern]

Actually, I am not "flailing." All of my posts throughout my tenure in this Forum regarding government unemployment statistics have been based on the proposition they are just propaganda.

So, you don't like the way UE is measured. Since it hasn't changed, it can used as a relative measure. It helps for comparison purposes. But this thread is about "intial jobless claims" and they are approaching a 42 year low. Can we discuss that.

 

[fmw]

Don’t forget, I also pointed out that every single conservative on the planet predicted President Obama would destroy the economy. Can we discuss they too think the president affects the economy and were completely wrong in their predictions? Or will that be too upsetting also?

Unfortunately, they too are wrong. Those things that the Obama did that were bad for the economy weren't enough to affect the natural cyclical nature of the economy. That is true of all presidents.

 

[joG]

In other words, many of the jobs created are due to govt desire, not citizen or economy. Federal jobs, or some jobs that are subsidized. Solar industry for example. Not jobs that are needed.

It is not that simple. The "Invisible Hand" is less transparent and anecdotal.

 

[Astrodome]

Unfortunately, they too are wrong. Those things that the Obama did that were bad for the economy weren't enough to affect the natural cyclical nature of the economy. That is true of all presidents.

Rightfully or not, U.S. Presidents are usually judged based upon how our economy does during their tenure.......So, President Obama has done an outstanding job of getting our economy onto the right track, after the disaster that Bush left for him to fix...

 

[joG]

Please explain what the Labor Force Participation Rate is and why that is germane to this discussion....

It seems very much related to this topic and you know it. Or do you think that it is irrelevant, what proportion of people actually work? I know that the unemployment rate is the easier and more often watched index on trading floors and in the media. True, you might want to alter the definition of LFP a little, but it is one of the more important indices for a quick understanding of underlying health of the economy and, when it shows negative correlation to employment, it is very important to question the facile tongue wagging political people.

 

[fmw]

Rightfully or not, U.S. Presidents are usually judged based upon how our economy does during their tenure.......So, President Obama has done an outstanding job of getting our economy onto the right track, after the disaster that Bush left for him to fix...

And that is a meaningless way to judge a president. The cyclical nature of the economy favors some presidents and does the opposite to others depending on when peaks and valleys occur. It is no different that rolling dice. The recession that started in 2007 resulted from the economy coming down from the overheated internet bubble that favored Clinton. Obama benefitted from 8 years of the economy finally beginning to improve. It was the longest recession since the great depression. I'm not even sure it is really fixed. But Obama didn't do anything to fix it or even to make it better. He happened to be in office when things improved. I think the economic cycle of the last 8 years owes its length and depth to the issues I outlined before. You and the rest of the political world can believe what you like but none of it is as compelling as the natural cyclical nature of the economy.

 

[Astrodome]

And that is a meaningless way to judge a president. The cyclical nature of the economy favors some presidents and does the opposite to others depending on when peaks and valleys occur. It is no different that rolling dice. The recession that started in 2007 resulted from the economy coming down from the overheated internet bubble that favored Clinton. Obama benefitted from 8 years of the economy finally beginning to improve. It was the longest recession since the great depression. I'm not even sure it is really fixed. But Obama didn't do anything to fix it or even to make it better. He happened to be in office when things improved. I think the economic cycle of the last 8 years owes its length and depth to the issues I outlined before. You and the rest of the political world can believe what you like but none of it is as compelling as the natural cyclical nature of the economy.

Yea, you're right. It's just a coincidence that our economy has faired better during the last two Democrat Presidential tenures and worsened under the last two Republican Presidents.......just plain luck...

 

[Visbek]

Thanks for admitting it is all based on the methodology created by the system, which IMO is both inaccurate and designed to make things (however bad) look better than they really are.

So they are what, hiding things by... openly tracking and reporting what you claim they are trying to hide? :shock:

But did you read the definition I provided? That came from the BLS, and it means what it says! They do not count them as unemployed for purposes of the statistic quoted, thus the 30 day figures posted do not reflect that number.

Which group, exactly?

The BLS does keep track of, and publish, labor force participation rates. As noted, this is not always a guide for employment statistics, because there are numerous reasons not to be employed, and demographics also have an impact.

The BLS does track people who are marginally attached to the workforce -- which is people who have looked for work in the past year, but not the past 4 weeks. That number is only about 1% higher than the U3 unemployment rate AND is published monthly.

The BLS does track people who are involuntarily working part-time. If you want to focus on that statistic, that's fine -- but you should do so across all available time scales. They've tracked that since 1994, and as I said, it was much higher after the recession, but is getting back to normal.

There are lots of other stats they track, which give us a fuller picture of employment -- quits rate, long-term unemployed, layoff rate, job openings rate, and so forth. In fact, Janet Yellen tracks many stats, in what is colloquially called "Yellen's Jobs Dashboard" -- Yellen's Dashboard

You are not providing a trenchant criticism here. You're ignoring that the BLS does track and publish exactly what you ask for -- and more. It is no one's fault but your own if you fail to recognize that even when we're looking at U6, things are in fact substantially improving.

 

[fmw]

Yea, you're right. It's just a coincidence that our economy has faired better during the last two Democrat Presidential tenures and worsened under the last two Republican Presidents.......just plain luck...

I didn't say it was luck. I said it was cyclical. You could have changed the political parties of the last several presidents and had the same result.

 

[Visbek]

Lots of people have lost their ability to collect because they never got back to work full time long enough to accumulate benefits.

Unemployment statistics are not based on the numbers of people collecting unemployment.

It's based off of surveys. It has been for years.

Claiming that unemployment rates have dropped because fewer people are eligible for unemployment is a distortion, a half-truth. It's incorrect.

Thanks for playing.

 

[joG]

Like what type of jobs?

Do you think that major corporations would hire more CEOs or that hospitals would need more doctors or that we would need more lawyers?

What kind of jobs? That all depends on the policies and rules chosen. And yes, the jobs created can be high level or low level ones. But there is a certain cap on the low wage ones as the international competition for capital is relatively great and the labor looking for it is trying to get out of destitution and not for a third car.

 

[Vern]

Unfortunately, they too are wrong. Those things that the Obama did that were bad for the economy weren't enough to affect the natural cyclical nature of the economy. That is true of all presidents.

the good news is you figured out it was a debate forum. the bad news is you're debating yourself. If what President Obama did has no effect, how is it bad? Sorry fmw, I'll just agree with economists instead of posters at a debate forum posting "partisan garbage". Case in point, President Obama saved 2 million jobs not letting GM and C go out of business preventing a double dip recession if not a depression. that's him affecting the economy in a major and positive way. No need asking me to back up my point, I understand the concept of a debate forum. Here's Bush telling you it would lead to a loss of 1.1 million jobs. You'll notice he implies it could be more

The direct costs of American automakers failing and laying off their workers in the near term would result in a more than one-percent reduction in real GDP growth and about 1.1 million workers losing their jobs, including workers from auto suppliers and dealers. Many workers would apply for unemployment benefits, and to the extent that retirees and other workers lost health insurance, apply for Medicaid. These new unemployment claims could cost about $13 billion and would likely add sizeable costs to State Medicaid programs. Additionally, suppliers may not be able to absorb losses from writing off the accounts payable owed by auto manufacturers and may not be able to downsize quickly, resulting in remaining auto companies having supply chains disrupted. These effects on our economy could multiply as a result of the failure of these companies.

Fact Sheet: Financing Assistance to Facilitate the Restructuring of Auto Manufacturers to Attain Financial Viability

 

[fmw]

the good news is you figured out it was a debate forum. the bad news is you're debating yourself. If what President Obama did has no effect, how is it bad?

It is bad because the growth rate is anemic enough that we can view it as a blip rather than the beginning of a long tern period of prosperity.

Sorry fmw, I'll just agree with economists instead of posters at a debate forum posting "partisan garbage".

Sorry, Vern but I view the opinions of economists as nothing more than opinions, no better or no worse than mine.

Case in point, President Obama saved 2 million jobs not letting GM and C go out of business preventing a double dip recession if not a depression. that's him affecting the economy in a major and positive way. No need asking me to back up my point, I understand the concept of a debate forum. Here's Bush telling you it would lead to a loss of 1.1 million jobs. You'll notice he implies it could be more

I understand. I hate the concept of the federal government meddling with the private sector. It can regulate but I don't think financial involvement is a good idea. If GM had gone bankrupt, some but not all of the lost jobs would be moved to other manufacturers to handle their increase in market share. All the jobs in allied industries wouldn't have likely been lost. The suppliers would simply move their production elsewhere. So I think the 2 million job number is way, way overstated for political reasons

The direct costs of American automakers failing and laying off their workers in the near term would result in a more than one-percent reduction in real GDP growth and about 1.1 million workers losing their jobs, including workers from auto suppliers and dealers. Many workers would apply for unemployment benefits, and to the extent that retirees and other workers lost health insurance, apply for Medicaid. These new unemployment claims could cost about $13 billion and would likely add sizeable costs to State Medicaid programs. Additionally, suppliers may not be able to absorb losses from writing off the accounts payable owed by auto manufacturers and may not be able to downsize quickly, resulting in remaining auto companies having supply chains disrupted. These effects on our economy could multiply as a result of the failure of these companies.

I would say your crystal ball is as foggy as mine is. You seem to have more faith in government than the private sector. I view thing in the opposite way.

Fact Sheet: Financing Assistance to Facilitate the Restructuring of Auto Manufacturers to Attain Financial Viability

Oh, it was Bush's concept. I thought you said it was Obama's. Apparently Obama simply executed it.

 

[imagep]

I didn't say it was luck. I said it was cyclical. You could have changed the political parties of the last several presidents and had the same result.

So it doesn't matter which party we elect our potus from?