Jobless Claims In US Decline To Match Lowest Since 1973 (bloomberg.com) 227
Sho Chandra, reporting for Bloomberg: The number of Americans filing applications for unemployment benefits unexpectedly declined last week to match a more than 42-year low, indicating employers are upbeat about an economy that bogged down in the first quarter. Jobless claims dropped by 13,000 to 253,000 in the week ended April 9, equaling the level in March that was the lowest since November 1973, a report from the Labor Department showed Thursday. The median forecast in a Bloomberg survey called for 270,000. Continuing claims also declined, to the lowest since mid-October. "Jobless claims are running really low and all other labor market data are telling us that the economy is creating a lot of jobs," said Patrick Newport, an economist at IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Massachusetts. "This is further confirmation that the labor market is strong."
OR (Score:5, Insightful)
Or they just fell off the list due to time limitations. I know more than a few who have been unemployed for sooooooo long they are no longer eligible (or counted) as unemployed.
This: || (Score:2)
And of course this can't happen when there are a larger number of people looking for jobs, amirite?
Re: (Score:2)
Not Likely [ycharts.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That shows that the labor force participation rate declined by one percent over five years during a period of time when we are retiring a historical population boom.
I assume that you, like me, are shocked that the decline is so small. Only 0.2% per year during exceptional retirement times? Wow! I join you in congratulating the people who run this economy so well that we can retire the Baby Boomers while at the same time having historically low unemployment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:OR (Score:5, Insightful)
and how exactly do they pay their rent or mortgage?
From their spouse's paycheck. Or their parent's. Or their SSDI check.
why are the trains in NYC packed with people going to work every morning?
NYC is not typical. The economy in NYC is booming. Same where I live, in San Jose CA. Everyone that wants a job has one, and many people get regular offers to jump to a new job. But there are many areas in middle America, or even California's central valley, that are economically depressed. One thing that has changed in recent years, is that people are less willing to pull up their roots and move to better opportunities. I am baffled why anyone would choose to stay in someplace like, say, Flint MI, with dysfunctional government, 30% unemployment, horrible weather, and poisoned water, when they can hop on a bus and improve their life in every way.
Re: (Score:3)
> and how exactly do they pay their rent or mortgage?
They're giving up their homes and packing 5 to 10 people into a 2 to 3 bedroom apartment or house.
Re:OR (Score:5, Insightful)
Among other things I haven't been able to move because I can't afford it. I own a house that is worth maybe 20 or 30k (the housing prices are very low here). Figuring I could sell it (and houses here regularly take multiple years to sell if ever), I certainly can't buy a new home somewhere else. Heck, without managing to sell it I can't even afford an apartment anywhere else.
I get offers for jobs from more than a dozen different states, but I don't know anyone that lives in those places I could bum a room from for a few months... Or have any other means in living in those places so I simply can't take them.
Re:OR (Score:5, Interesting)
I own a house that is worth maybe 20 or 30k
Years ago, I lived in a small 2bdrm house in the midwest, worth only $50k. Then I moved to California, and I lived in my van for six months. I worked hard, and saved. But it was worth it. Today, I live in a small 2bdrm house worth nearly $1M.
Re: OR (Score:2)
Wow, I had a close call with "woosh!" on that one!
Re: (Score:2)
Well lucky you owned a van and that you moved to Cali. Here it snows and even if I was to live in a camp ground somehow (even that can be expensive) that's only an option part of the year. Not to mention I need gas just to drive my aging car wherever the heck I'm going. I don't walk to the grocery store for my health, I do it because I can't afford to drive my car unless I have to.
Also I'm only a couple years from turning 40. As some recruiters have made pointedly clear lately, I should have 'changed career
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The labor participation rate actually increased in Q1 which combined with the flat/slightly falling unemployment rate means we're well above the hiring rate needed to absorb new entrants. We've still got a ways to go (we're at 63%, a number first hit in 1978), but we're not that far off the 65.8% bottom from the last recession.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
First, your assessment is spot on.
Second, why has "News for Nerds" become MSNBC w/ a green color scheme?
Re:OR (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, or we should look at the labor participation rate. Its the worst its been in 40 ish years. This is the percentage of population working. Some try to spin it as people are living longer - but not nearly this much longer for this problem. Also this ends up counting disaffected unemployed. The other issue is that when coming up with a "U" number part timers that want to be full time should count for 1/2 an unemployed person.
New regulations are causing small companies to hire only part timers to get around the regs. They also provide a small business incentive to keep the business under I believe 50 employees. Its a huge crunch and leads to further outsourcing and using contractors.
The reality is we have inflation (for all things required to live, rent, food, tuition, health care, medicine, etc) plus stagnant salaries / wages plus a ton of under-employed but a huge shift from knowledge worker job growth to service job growth which often does not produce a livable wage and is subject to automation and robotics.
We are in a horrific staglfationary crapstorm and its much worse than people thing. People with jobs think its normal. In reality they are very lucky until AI and robotics kicks in more and more over time.
Opening the borders (whether you think its right or wrong) will have consequences to make these numbers get worse over time especially with unfunded liabilities.
Re:OR (Score:5, Insightful)
Immigrants are awesome. They need places to live, stuffs to buy, and they are motivated hard workers. I think if you're worried about lazy do-nothings cluttering up the place we should kick out ignoramuses who were born here and claim to love it but have a super hopeless, fearful, self defeating attitude of failure and impossibility.
Seriously, look at the parts of the country that are thriving. All of them are packed full of immigrants! If shitholes like Kansas could figure out how to kickstart immigration they could get some of that boomtown prosperity going, but they are looking at it all wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
97% of workers now are doing jobs that didn't exist 100 years ago, and I am fully confident that 100 years from now 97% of people will be doing jobs that don't exist now. Who knows what crazy shit people will dream up to busy themselves with when robots and AI do all the menial things?
Funnily enough that sounds a lot like the old Soviet Union, where people found things to "busy themselves".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You had me until the last paragraph... mostly. What is important is median family income and average family income statistics compared to the cost of living. In roughly a 5-mile radius of my home the median income is about $60-65k, while the average is $95-100k, and 10% have incomes over $200k and 20% are below the poverty line. Not a perfect measure, but gives an idea of the imbalance. Labor participation rates is a huge problem, and there are many different kinds of disenfranchised in that regard.
As f
Re: (Score:3)
Several thing:
-the labor participation rate has been declining for more than a decade, almost entirely (more than 80%) because of baby boomers are aging out of the work force and retiring.
-The current rate is the lowest since March 1978. However, the rate for every month from 1948 to 1978 was even lower still.
-From the 1950s onward the participation rate of men was has been declining steadily, but this was almost entirely offset, and then some, by increasing numbers of women in the workforce
-Now a reverse t
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, it's stunning that they claim the job market is strong. It's anything but. In addition to the folks falling off the roles, there is also the "alternative" workforce jobs. A larger category of “alternative” work has exploded, with contractors and temp workers—like home health aides, truck drivers, and call center workers—who often face unpredictable schedules and lack benefits like health insurance or a retirement package. [theatlantic.com]
Perhaps an even worse development is the tech sweatshop
Re:OR (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been out of work since the end of December 2014. Where I live jobs have been scarce in IT in general. I've had tons of interviews, but so many people are applying that even a second interview means very little.
So I tried going to more 'general' labor jobs like I worked earlier on in my career. 'Restaurants' tell me I lack experience in their industry. Factory jobs tell me I'm to much a risk of quick turn around if I can find a job in my field. Retail wants younger people (or older people) and I'm to 'middle aged' for them with no experience. Everyone and their brother who has job openings is just to fucking picky and come up with a million excuses why I don't 'fit'.
I worked for the state and they didn't pay into unemployment for my type of employee. So I can't claim unemployment. I did claim 'food stamps' and medical. That can to an end recently because now you MUST be a part time employee of a state approved business (ie one that pays into the state) or be in a protected category (pregnant, a woman, have kids, etc) to get benefits. Since I've been doing odd jobs to have just enough to cover the cost of internet and my car, I don't qualify anymore... Even though I make less than 5k a year right now.
Oh more screwed up? I can't even get into most employment programs the state 'unemployment agency' handles because they require me to be on unemployment to be in them. So I can't even get into programs that could get me into fields I don't have experience in...
These numbers the government so wants to quote are a fucking illusion created by bumping up the base requirements to 'qualify' for their specific terms. In the real world the economy is shit.
Re: (Score:3)
It sounds like a fucked up state. I have a friend who ran into similar stuff in Utah. To qualify for food stamps you had to make less than around $3500/year. He made more than that, but not a lot more. Unemployment required you to have worked a 9 month stint to qualify and since the jobs tended to be short lived he couldn't qualify for anything. There were housing programs, but they only kick in once you're homeless and do nothing for someone about to go homeless. It seems totally fucked up. I would think i
Re:OR (Score:5, Informative)
Worse is that I own a house (it used to be my grandmothers), which means I'll be homeless when I can't pay for things like utilities (water, heating, and electricity)... Or my local taxes... Whichever comes first.
But yes, it make far more sense to help me before I become yet another homeless person filling the crowded facilities for them. Facilities that btw don't even exist where I live, but only in the nearest major city. Oh and did I mention the waiting lines to even get in?
It strains my mind about how fucked the system has become that they can't tell real need and when it's best to help, from when they don't need to. You hear about the abusers of the system all the time, and I've seen some, but the attempts to get rid of them seem to fail and the attempts to help people who really need it are a mess.
Re: (Score:2)
Or they just fell off the list due to time limitations. I know more than a few who have been unemployed for sooooooo long they are no longer eligible (or counted) as unemployed.
Three of my US friends are in that state, they've been unemployed since 2008 and haven't been able to find any work at all. Not even at fast food restaurants because they've been taken over by seniors running everything. Two friends were lucky and managed to get in on the ground floor in N.Dakota's oil boom and made some good money. The one guys wife never did fine a job there though until she went into patch work as well. Down in central florida where I have property, there are autoshops that I know wh
Re:OR (Score:5, Interesting)
I was unemployed for 10 months last year, and I didn't file for unemployment - because, as a private 'consultant' (with exactly one client - you do the math), I wasn't eligible. My 'employer' didn't pay unemployment or medical premiums for me - nor did they pay the employer's share of social security taxes. The future of employment in the U.S.
You libertarians out there may tout my wonderful 'free agent' status, but I'm a free agent in name only - and I never wanted to be. After 34 years of good work put in on this company's products (which I was happy to work on, and felt a certain pride of authorship for), they've been killed off because, while nicely profitable, they weren't enough of a 'growth opportunity' to be of interest to the private equity guys that now own them. Easier to take the hit now and then show 'stellar growth' from a lower starting level next year (or the year after that), when they're hyping the company for yet another resale.
None of which speaks well of the Obama recovery - which is good enough, given the headwinds and the refusal of Congress to ante up for real stimulus that would've done a better job than what the Fed has been pumping in. But such is the state of our governance and our media coverage, that this is being seen as the best of all possible worlds - and Hillary's going to attempt to run on it as 'Obama's record of success'. Which is not to say that anything Trump, Cruz or Romney is or was offering would not be a lot worse...
Re:OR (Score:4, Insightful)
My 'employer' didn't pay unemployment or medical premiums for me - nor did they pay the employer's share of social security taxes.
Translation: You're a sole proprietor, not a corporation. Sucker!
Re:OR (Score:5, Informative)
At first I was gonna say same thing, till I got to the part of your not paying Unemployment Insurance. Per another person answering you, it sounds like you need to incorporate.
I have an S-Corp...which is pretty sweet, I pay myself a "reasonable" salary out of my bill rate...and am only paying taxes (SS and medicare) out of that along with state/federal. At EOY, the rest of the money falls through onto my personal taxes, and I just pay state and fed on that, but I save on paying employment taxes on my whole bill rate.
That being said, I DO have to pay UI.
But awhile back I found the state of LA at least...has a catch 22.
In LA, I have to pay UI...however, as the sole employee of my company...by laws there, I could not collect unemployment insurance even though I paid into the system for quite some time?!?!?
If I ever won the lottery and had spare money for lawyers, I"d want to challenge something like that...doesn't seem right.
But yes, if you're working 1099, you REALLY need to incorporate yourself....helps with your liability and ability to save more of your hard earned money from the damned tax man....
Re: (Score:3)
I could not collect unemployment insurance even though I paid into the system for quite some time?!?!?
I think you need to be a C-corp to have your company lay you off to claim unemployment benefits as an individual. My old boss used to do that from time to time when constructor work slowed down.
MBAs and slimemolds (Score:5, Insightful)
"...they've been killed off because, while nicely profitable, they weren't enough of a 'growth opportunity' to be of interest to the private equity guys"
And this is what an MBA will get you: stupid, short-term thinking. I've seen too much of this. "What are your growth projections?". If you answer: "We're a stable, profitable business, we don't expect to grow" the MBA look at you like you just died. Weird. What it is about "stable" and "profitable" that they don't understand? It's not a quick buck. Instead of flipping houses, they want to flip companies. This adds nothing of value to the economy - in fact, it's counterproductive - but it's like gambling: an adrenaline rush and a chance at riches.
Or the marketing equivalent: "What is your USP? How are you build your brand?". If you answer: "We have a high quality product and loyal customers", they look at you like something unpleasant a dog might roll in. They don't want to hear about good products and satisfied customers. No, they want to hear about social media campaigns and rebranding initiatives.
The sad thing is that these people manage to move on to the next company, and escape the blame before the corpse of the previous victim hits the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm a free agent in name only"
I assume you're telling the truth, which means your employer is breaking the law and that quoted statement is literally the legal standard for making that determination. You should stop being a chump and get what you are legally entitled to.
I had an employer do that to me once. I wasn't savvy enough to know better but eventually the IRS asked me for some money that I didn't feel I owed and that led them to ask me and the employer some pointed questions: the essential question
Re: (Score:2)
Creative accounting (Score:3)
The number of Americans filing applications for unemployment benefits unexpectedly declined last week to match a more than 42-year low, indicating employers are upbeat about an economy that bogged down in the first quarter.
Non sequitur.
Re: (Score:2)
Iff the jobless claims went down because they're hiring more, then absolutely sequitur. You hire more when you expect business to increase.
Re:Creative accounting (Score:5, Insightful)
Iff the jobless claims went down because they're hiring more, then absolutely sequitur.
Yes, agreed. But since it's not proven that jobless claims went down because they're hiring more, it's non sequitur.
Perhaps jobless claims went down because people have been unemployed for longer than the unemployment benefit duration.
The stated conclusion does not follow from the stated premises. The implied premises (that is, the premises that would need to be stated for the conclusion to follow logically from them) are not stated, likely because stating them explicitly would highlight how likely they are to be false.
Re:Creative accounting (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps jobless claims went down because people have been unemployed for longer than the unemployment benefit duration.
The labor participation rate was also up in Q1 so overall that is most certainly not the case.
Re: (Score:3)
The labor participation rate was also up in Q1 so overall that is most certainly not the case.
uuhhh... what?
The only way its actually "the case" is if the labor participation rate went up more than the decrease in unemployment.
For instance if the decrease in people collecting unemployment was 1000 people, but labor participation only went up 300 people... then 700 people are now officially fucked and your "almost certainly" crap proves how bad you are at combining math and logic to for a conclusion.
Hm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hm [gray areas] (Score:5, Informative)
Unemployment statistics are a contentious topic because there are many "in betweens" to "unemployed". For example, a retired person may take up a job if it pays well and is convenient in terms of work/home balance, but otherwise are not spending much effort seeking. Does that make them "unemployed"? A prototypical "housewife" (house-spouse=PC?) may be in the same boat.
Because of these gray areas, it's been generally agreed as a de facto standard to ONLY count those "actively seeking" unemployment. This is usually measured by a combination of random surveys, and unemployment applications, which typically ask one to list companies contacted. (Since they don't need to fill out such forms when benefits run out, the random surveys are used to fill in the gaps.)
Sometimes political trolls will say, "unemployment is actually [really high percent] instead of the 5% official number; you are being lied to!". When probed, it will usually be found that they are using a statistic that includes one of gray area categories, like those mentioned above.
The same trolls will then often switch metrics again when their favorite politician or party is in power to make them look better.
Because what's usually used is merely a de facto standard, the trolls are not technically lying; just being manipulative. Most political "lies" are actually manipulation of words and misleading statistical games rather than being outright wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But what is the labor force participation rate? (Score:2, Informative)
The unemployment number is really a farce. While the unemployment number showing the ratio of employed people to people seeking employment is important, it does not show the whole picture. We need to see what the labor force participation rate is. People that have given up looking for work are not counted in the unemployment number. Real unemployment is far higher than the official unemployment rate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Recall that a lot of baby boomers are retiring and exiting the workforce.
Re: (Score:2)
Recall that a lot of baby boomers are retiring and exiting the workforce.
The baby boomers borrowed their socials security trust and spent it on pork, wrecked the economy, and now fewer and fewer people have to support more and more people.
George Carlin had it right. We should kill all the baby boomers and loot their pensions and estates.
More people are also not in work (Score:5, Informative)
See http://data.bls.gov/timeseries... [bls.gov]
And also, with the less people claiming unemployment, there's no indication if they're in decent full time, not minimum wage jobs that are going to stick around. More than likely they're some variation of part-time and/or zero hour contracts.
Hm (Score:3)
"Jobless claims" is not the same as unemployed (Score:5, Informative)
Jobless claims is a deceiving statistic because it doesn't count people whose unemployment insurance expired without them finding new jobs or people who have dropped out of the labor market altogether (e.g. underemployed recent grads who move back into their parents because they can't find a job).
The actual labor market participation rate is 63.0, which, outside of last year, is the lowest it's been since the late 70's. See Labor Force Participation Rate [bls.gov] from Dept. of Labor. I couldn't save a URL that pointed to the full series, but just adjust the start date back to 1976 to see the graph.
What's really happening is that capital is doing great, but the recovery from the financial crisis of 2007/8 has been largely jobless.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that the population is aging fast right? Something like 30% of our population will be retired by 2025. That number should be closer to 10%. Otherwise you have to many people doing nothing but getting something from the government.
When you calculate out work percentages just remember we have 90 million retired people draining resources out of the system. In the old days most people retired and died within 10 years. Now people retire and live for 20+ years.
Re: (Score:2)
Retirement doesn't mean you don't need a job. My dad was old enough to retire, and did, but he still works for the regional government agency he'd worked for before he retired... Just for fewer hours. And really after the first year or two were he is forced to work very low numbers of hours he can then work as much as he wants.
My mom is seven years younger than he is, but she is legally disabled and gets SSI. Together they last year they barely pulled in 25k, so him going back to work is a certainty in his
Re: (Score:2)
My father just retired two weeks ago to the day. He's into his 70s. While still working and pulling in a very nice salary he had to take social security whether he wanted it or not. He was also forced to take money out of his 401K which he didn't need or want to do. I doubt he'll sit at home idle for too long, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Jobless claims is a deceiving statistic
There's no job statistic that isn't deceiving. That includes labor force participation rate, which doesn't take into consideration people who stop working because they want to retire, and stay-at-home moms/dads.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder why they made the series data through age 54 instead of 62 to line up with SS eligibility, that seems a more common sense approach IMHO as the number of people retired at 54 is vanishingly small.
Re: (Score:2)
Methodology (Score:4, Insightful)
If you count discouraged workers, then the unemployment numbers are still REALLY bad -
http://www.shadowstats.com/alt... [shadowstats.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If that 25% unemployment stat you're quoting is at all true (which I doubt) then the people still without jobs EIGHT years after this whole thing began, either need to move to a more prosperous location, or learn a new trade, since those jobs aren't coming back, especially to rural areas. There are plenty of jobs in the cities, everyone I know is looking for warm bodies right now. If you can't find a job after 2 years in this economy, either you have no relevant skill set in the modern world, or you're trul
Re: (Score:2)
The stat is true, it's just calculate the same way it was always calculated prior to 1994. Anytime government tries to tell you good news about unemployment with pre-1994 comparisons, your bullshit detector should go off as that's not a straight comparison. Current unemployment for March 2016 is 22.9% if you include long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994.
Asking the long term unemployed, who are almost certainly deeply financially distressed, to move to another stat
Re: (Score:3)
I've been unemployed since the end of December in 2014, since over a year now and I'm unemployed for a combination of reasons: Low actual demand for my skills in the region I live and absolutely no way to move somewhere I could actually get a job in short order. I've worked IT as a network admin for a decade and my skills are still up to date. However there are only a handful of jobs per month with several months where even entry level IT jobs aren't available. I interview for lots of them, but they don't w
Re: (Score:3)
I get offers for IT jobs in other states, but I own a house here that I'm almost guaranteed I can't sell for the rate they use to figure my taxes on it.
You usually can get a property value reassessed by the county for tax purposes due to a decline in market value.
Re: (Score:2)
I live just outside Erie PA, so I'm about a hundred miles from you (though our weather is equally bad). Unlike Buffalo, Erie wants to be a 'vacation' city now and is failing pretty badly at it. Half of the major companies do their IT out of Buffalo or Pittsburgh and so don't hire at all locally. Others like GE have been 90% H1B Indian workers for as long as I've been working.
I actually have a former coworker (we worked for the same university) who moved out your way because his wife wanted to move closer to
Re: (Score:2)
You know the area then. I really dunno what to say, I'm not in IT (just a penguin guy since 1996) I'm in manufacturing. Steel and welding and machining. So you know how that goes around here. I'm lookin real hard at Wisc. and Minnesota tho. Also upper Iowa. Iinterviewed out there in 2005 and it was a whole other world. 20+ acres with a fixer upper was less than 30k and taxes were only 500/yr. They offered the same pay back then, that I make now. I should have done it, kicking myself in the arse for not gro
Re: (Score:2)
If I didn't have an ex fiance that was not yet an ex, I would have moved out of this area at the height of my career ~4-5 years ago. Not sure where I would have gone, but I really wish I had. I did have a plan to move down to Pittsburgh at one point, but as my now ex didn't want to move... Well... It never happened.
Re: (Score:2)
If you count discouraged workers, then the unemployment numbers are still REALLY bad -
That site looks a LOT more realistic than the Government propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to lie (Score:4, Funny)
Do it with words.
If you want to lie big, do it with statistics...
Unemployment rate is deceptive (Score:2)
Re: Unemployment rate is deceptive (Score:4, Informative)
Doesn't address job quality (Score:5, Informative)
The official unemployment numbers are based off a small random sample and don't capture a lot, so there's that issue.
The other issue is that the raw unemployment number doesn't address underemployment, such as
- Displaced workers who have to work crappy jobs but want better ones
- People who have to work part time but want more hours
- Long-term unemployed that stop getting counted when their benefits run out
If these factors were thrown in the mix, that raw percentage would go way up. I remember reading a statistic a little while back that showed that every net job gain since (I think) 2005 has been due to "gig economy" types of arrangements like Uber driver, etc. That's great for Uber and Taskrabbit and the like, but lousy for someone who needs stable full time work to support a family.
I'm one of those crazy people that thinks full employment for anyone who wants it in well paying jobs should be the macroeconomic goal. Unfortunately, it seems that most people don't agree anymore and are perfectly willing to throw the middle class away.
Re: (Score:2)
If these factors were thrown in the mix, that raw percentage would go way up. I remember reading a statistic a little while back that showed that every net job gain since (I think) 2005 has been due to "gig economy" types of arrangements like Uber driver, etc. That's great for Uber and Taskrabbit and the like, but lousy for someone who needs stable full time work to support a family.
Not even close to reality, the government rates line up pretty well with what ADP reports and since ADP is not going to be awa
No it isn't (Score:2)
Not in and of itself. People who've exhausted their benefits or haven't yet entered the workforce can't file. The labor force participation rate is still very low, and it's not because baby boomers are retiring (they aren't). This is really more an indication that people who are out of the work force have been out of the work force for a long time, i.e. entire industries have moved offshore leaving large numbers of people with skills no longer
Could be because (Score:2)
>"The number of Americans filing applications for unemployment benefits unexpectedly declined last week to match a more than 42-year low"
And could that be because so many are "disabled" now and collecting that or some other government money instead? I really don't know, but it seems plausible.
Skeptical (Score:5, Interesting)
What kinds of jobs? I'm curious how this breaks down into service sector, manufacturing, or salaried. I suspect this is more of a regional thing because our area seems to suck. And we're located near a large metropolitan area. Most of the positions I've been seeing around here are in warehousing and they're building lots of warehouses lately.
What we're seeing in our area are "temp" jobs paying around $10 or $12 per hour and no benefits. A person is hired for some short period of time (typically 6 months) with the possibility of getting hired full time. This appears to be a way to string people along in these low-paying, no-benefit positions. Several people we've heard from have been extended 2 or 3 times and then finally their contract is not renewed. The reason is always that the budget just doesn't allow for a new hire. Several firms in our area seem to be doing this a lot. I have to admit some of this is anecdotal evidence, but this anecdotal evidence seems to be proliferating the area.
Having been a manager, I get why they're doing this. Cut costs. Operate "lean 'n mean." One of my previous employers became aware of the potential of temp positions and switched a large part of their manufacturing over to temp positions. That was back in the early eighties.
One of our family members has graduated from the state university with a bachelor's in two majors. Graduated magna cum laude in MIS and high honors in Business Admin and received several awards. Also won a regional competition in marketing strategy. Nobody is hiring. And this relative is looking in the surrounding communities. Consequently they've taken a temp to hire position only this time they've been hired. At $12 per hour. And they have a sizable student loan debt.
So I'm a bit skeptical re the whole jobs recovery scene.
Absolute value vs Delta. (Score:2)
It is like the pressure altitude used by aircraft. Pressure altitude is a fictional table of pressure vs altitude created at the dawn of aviation. It does not tell you the true
Lowest since 1973 when the US Pop. was 200million? (Score:2)
I seem to remember the total population was somewhere around 200 million.
If the jobless claims back then were equivalent to what they are now, wouldn't that mean that the number is essentially lower?
Perhaps they have adjusted for population.
If you actually believe this... (Score:2)
Me, too. (Score:3)
I just lost my job of ten years on the 15th of March. I also have two sons who are recent college graduates living with me who cannot get a job. None of us three are counted in the cited statistic because I was a new claim three weeks ago, and new college graduates aren't considered unemployed. If you read the linked article you'll see that continuing claims also went down. I'm a continuing claim, but my sons are not. So even though three of us are looking for jobs, none of us are considered unemployed, and only one-third of us is considered a continued unemployed. Needless to say, I'm not too impressed with the Obama recovery. At least my wife has a part-time job, enabling use to (barely) put a third son through college so he'll be able to take his turn being unable to find a job.
Unfortunately, my wife is working as a receptionist at a tax preparation office, and that's likely to end...tomorrow. As a part time worker, she's going to be ineligible for unemployment. That means that next week, with none of us five having a job, the new claims statistic won't reflect that. At least the statistics will look good.
~Loyal
If this were happening in Trump era (Score:2)
Conservatives will claim that the reduced labor force participation rate means the economy is so awesome that women are getting to be stay at home moms again.doesnt matter if it's false the will cite a couple of anecdotal examples and have one or two such couples paraded around like its the norm.
Thanks Obama (Score:2)
No, really.
Correction: 253,001 (Score:2)
Correction: 253,001.
https://developers.slashdot.or... [slashdot.org]
Another interpretation... (Score:3)
Someone else already commented on the number of the "unemployed" being artificially lower due to the number of unemployed no longer being eligible for unemployment compensation. Another reason just could be a large number of Boomers who just decided to retire rather than face the uncertainty of ever finding another job due to ageism, ludicrous skill set "requirements", etc. I have several good friends who loved their work and wanted to keep working but, after being laid off and looking for work for a year or more, just threw up their hands and declared "Screw this... I'll just retire".
There is some positive in this sea of negative (Score:3)
While yes, the number doesn't mean what it used to, there's a reason to be optimistic that opportunities could open up in the US. The stability of the US is a major factor that draws people right now, because a lot of them bet big on emerging markets and are losing their asses. There really isn't anywhere else you can put your money right now to get big returns with reasonable risk - Brazil is in a crisis, the Euro is in danger of breaking apart, Russia is Russia, the Middle East turmoil is turning that part of the world upside down, all the oil producing countries' economies are struggling, and China/Asia is looking riskier by the day. What's left? Stable returns on stable investments in the US.
Stable markets are very valuable right now because we live in a very unstable world.
"Jobless Claims In US Decline" (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it is fantastic! NO unemployment at all! WOOT
Re: (Score:2)
Woosh
Re:Don't let facts get in your way... (Score:4, Insightful)
Unemployment claims went down, that doesn't mean that unemployment went down. I believe all the extensions that people used to be able to get have since expired, so a lot of people won't even bother to file at all now and will use their savings instead. It's fun with numbers, it's not a measure of the state of the economy.
Re:Don't let facts get in your way... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
They are based on a random survey of 60,000 households that can still afford a phone
Fixed that or you so that the selection bias was obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
Facts (Score:3, Informative)
U-6 [bls.gov] is the real unemployment rate. Nobody but you, apparently, is fooled by the fraudulent U-3. Obama has yet to match Bush's worst U-6.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is there some problem with Reuters or CNBC that these government statistics 'news' stories need to be repeated here?
Not every nerd lives in his mother's basement. Some of us are out in the real world, read the business pages and like to discuss statistics.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it hasn't occurred to you that more people can be not in employment, and that less people might claiming unemployment all at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) An unemployment rate of 0% means full employment.
Uh, no. Full employment in a normal economy has a 5% unemployment rate, which is the current unemployment rate. Do we have full employment now? Maybe, maybe not.
From my perspective, the economy is firming up quite nicely. Then again, I work in government IT and the contract is paid out for the next three years. I'm planning to get another any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I guess if "unemployment rate" does not mean unemployment rate, then "full employment" might as well not mean full employment.
You need to be an economist to understand.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also a lot of baby boomers retiring, hence a lower participation rate. The number of illegals has been dropping in recent years. Some industries are also hit hard and unlikely to recover (i.e. coal) and others show no signs of recovery (oil). For example, if you're in West Virginia and you can't find work in the coal mines, it'd be stupid to look for work in West Virginia or continue that line of work.