Please explain US initial jobless claims report

[Gump42]

I'm confused with the weekly initial JC report. Each week the figure is in the high 400K to low 500K ranges. Obviously, this isn't the total number of newly jobless filing each week. That would mean we're losing close to two million jobs a month. Seems like I've read that the figure is a four-week moving average. However, the monthly ADP / Non-farm payroll reports aren't showing that we're losing half a million jobs each month.

Then there's the continuing jobless claims that's running about four and a half million (as I read it anyway). How long does it take for an initial JC to become a continuing JC?

If someone can tell me how to drill down in the numbers, I'd really appreciate it. I'd like to know how many new people are filing each week / each month. I'd also like to know how many continuing claims there are, as well as how many "99ers" are dropping off the back end each month.

Please post links or reply, as I'm lost.

[Rand Al'Thor]

It's not just newly jobless, but those who were jobless, didn't claim, then decide to claim. Many people were discouraged by the job market, and when the numbers look better, they start looking again. There are also those new to the job market, high school graduates, college graduates, divorcees..

When I was laid off, I took about a 3 month break before even thinking about looking for a new one.

[Gump42]

Perhaps I'm having trouble with semantics then. I thought the jobless claims report was tied to those filing for unemployment. A high school / college graduate, divorcee, etc., can't file for unemployment.

[greymouse]

Gump42:

Your look is familiar but only part of your "name". I hope "42" isn't your birth year as that would make you even older than I am and that can't be good.

Unemployment statistics are complicated and subject to intense pushing and pulling by political people trying to manipulate an advantage for their gang. Here is a link to a brief discussion of the latest Unemployment Claims report by Mark Thoma, a very good economist at the University of Oregon:
http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-...to-500000/775/

There is a difference between "Insured unemployment", "Initial Claims for unemployment" and overall unemployment. The latter is determined by a continuing US Dept of Labor survey of households which asks how many "adults" 15-65 there are, whether they are working and if they are seeking a job if they are not working. Anyone seeking work who is not working is recorded as unemployed regardless of whether they have previously worked or for how long. "Insured unemployment" on the other hand is limited to people who have worked long enough before losing their job "due to no fault of their own" to qualify under the laws of the state in which they live. Such laws vary considerably. Initial claims are just how many people walked into an employment security agency office like the Texas Workforce Commission (or called the 1-800 line) to file an initial claim, which may or may not be approved, depending on whether they have sufficient wages in the statutorily
defined base period and what the reason for separation from their last employment was. If it is approved they join the ranks of the "insured unemployed", who constitute about a third of the total unemployed.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the "participation rate" is continually fluctuating as the percentage of adults who are working or seeking work changes. This doesn't get much publicity but it is profoundly important. The average American family income remained the same or increased slightly in real, inflation-adjusted terms, btween Nixon and Bush II largely because more and more married women joined the work force to provide a second household income despite the average working man's income remaining flat or actually declining in terms of purchasing power. Since the Boy Geniuses of Wall Street blew up the world economy in the last quarter of 2008 the percentage of Americans working and seeking work has fallen considerably. Some people describe these drop-outs as "discouraged workers" and add them back in to the unemployed to get a figure well over 10%. What is actually happening is not perfectly clear. It is possible the gray or underground economy is growing as the official economy shrinks. Probably most sex workers do not show up on official statistics, even as workforce participants.

At the high point of the Clinton prosperity that preceded the first Bush Recession the overall national unemployment rate was 3.9% and the insured unemployment rate about half of that. The good old days - they are gone now.

If you want more explanation you will have to be a little more specific about what it is you want explained.

Greymouse, longtime employment security professional, now retired

[Dagny D.E.W.]

I don't know how to help you but over the last year what I have noticed is that they post a number one month (and they are ALWAYS surprised at how bad it is- no wait....... it is Unexpected! that's it.)

Then the next month they will "adjust" that number even worse. But who pays attention to last months number now that it is worse than when reported? And this happens every month. Seems to me that the number cruncher should be fired if he is so bad at his job to have to correct each time.

Good luck with your search, please explain it to us when you figure it out. thanks.

[Budman]

This bunch has come up with a new catch phrase to go along with "jobs created or saved". You'll love this one. It's "lives touched". The numbers could be huge if they take into account how many lives were touched in a negative way. What a bunch of fucking cocksuckers.

[Gump42]

Greymouse,

I'm formerly Eccie42, but changed my handle. Eccie was easy to remember when I first joined. I have too many handles, passwords and phone numbers to remember. I decided to go with handle that was a little less lame than "Eccie".

No, I'm not 42 but I'm between the ages of 18 and 100.

Perhaps I got off on too many tangents in my original post. I'll try to be more direct, and stay on topic with my questions.

http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm

The above report states that there were 473K initial jobless claims for the week ending 8/21. Does this mean that 473K newly jobless filed for unemployment in one week? If not, please explain what constitutes this figure.

Once I grasp this concept, I'll follow up with additional questions. Thanks.

[Rand Al'Thor]

Ahh, I misunderstood your initial post.

Initial jobless claims are balanced by no longer jobless (or no longer looking or no longer eligible or no longer alive)

[greymouse]

Originally Posted by Gump42

http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm

The above report states that there were 473K initial jobless claims for the week ending 8/21. Does this mean that 473K newly jobless filed for unemployment in one week? If not, please explain what constitutes this figure.

Once I grasp this concept, I'll follow up with additional questions. Thanks.

Yes, that is exactly what it means. The people filing may or may not have been just separated or they may have been unemployed for a while without having successfully filed an approved claim. Because state unemployment insurance laws base eligibility on the wages earned during a "base period" in the past it is possible to have worked, in Texas, for nearly nine months and not qualify for benefits. Try again after a quarter change and that may have changed as one's past earnings "move" into the new base period defined by a new claim date.

Remember that the US labor force is more than 150 million people. Even during periods of crisis people are being hired and simultaneously laid off in different industries, regions and companies. Technically the Second Bush Recession has ended in that the overall Gross Domestic Product stopped falling and began rising slowly however, like several recent post-recession recoveries this has been a "jobless recovery" where the unemployment rate remains high or actually increases despite output going up. Evidently business is managing to ring more production out of the workers they have left, over all, and see no advantage to hiring more, over all.

[Gump42]

Thanks for the succinct response. While it makes sense, I fail to see how it's a useful gauge of the economy. As you said, people are being hired and simultaneously laid off in different industries, regions and companies. The report provides a gross number of newly jobless, but neglects to provide a net figure, after those same positions are filled with new hires. It seems to be an incomplete picture.

Perhaps you can provide an example, or explanation, of how/why this information is pertinent. I'd think the monthly non-farm payroll report provides more useful information.

While we're on the subject, I'd also like to know the differences between the ADP payroll report and the BLS payroll report.

[Rand Al'Thor]

I don't think it's meant to provide a complete picture on its own. It's an indicator that has to be taken into account with other factors.

If the initial jobless claims are high but overall unemployment number remains steady, there is a lot of movement - hiring, firing, quitting, moving to better positions. Where as, if new claims are high and unemployment number is rising, then we are likely losing more jobs than creating. No single factor will mean anything unless you keep your perspective broad and interpret each indicator within the context of everything else going on.

[Gump42]

Ahhh, it's the old can't see the forrest for the trees. Hence my avatar and handle - thanks Rand!

Are there any metrics that show how many people exhaust their EUC benefits each month (99ers)? The department of labor report shows net change, but not how many people have exhausted their benefits.

[greymouse]

Initial claims are one of vast number of economic indicators the main virtue of which, collectively, is that the give the business press something to report on which is surely better than if they just sat there looking as stupid as they were proven to be when the national and world economies blew up and they had not a clue as to what was happening or why it happened.

Intuitively you would expect that Initial Claims provide a hint about the short term direction of the job market but I don't know of good studies that confirm that they are a reliable indicator. The Labor Dept household survey is main source of information about the extent of unemployment and that has problems in that it 1) omits "discouraged workers" who have stopped looking for work but would take work if it was available and 2) probably doesn't capture the underground economy where all the people who are engaged in illegal economic activity, like sex work, some illegal immigrants and people not reporting their self employment income to the IRS are active.

Then there are problems with the employer surveys of people hired and working. Sometimes the household surveys have reported more people working than the employer surveys can account for, possibly due to self employment and the underground economy. What there is a considerable consensus on, among rational economists, is that unemployment will remain very high, by the standards of the vanished Clinton Prosperity, for years.

Probably long enough to cost the present Administration a second term as angry and confused voters punish the Democrats the way they punished the Republicans in 2008. The trouble with that is that the Palin-Limbaugh or Limbaugh-Palin Administration's policies will almost certainly make things worse. Personally, I think if we have only a lost decade of low growth and high unemployment we will be lucky. If not it may be a Lost Generation (30 years).

[Gump42]

Originally Posted by greymouse

Probably long enough to cost the present Administration a second term as angry and confused voters punish the Democrats the way they punished the Republicans in 2008. The trouble with that is that the Palin-Limbaugh or Limbaugh-Palin Administration's policies will almost certainly make things worse. Personally, I think if we have only a lost decade of low growth and high unemployment we will be lucky. If not it may be a Lost Generation (30 years).

Lost decade or lost generation will be fine with me. I'm more concerned with civil unrest and fiat currencies in a race to the bottom. Hence my interest in how many 99ers have exhausted their benefits. The stories I'm reading don't reflect mature people making tough decisions, like cutting bait and relocating to where jobs are more plentiful. What I'm reading says people are unwilling to make those tough choices (ex. Michigan), breezing through their meager savings, and winding up homeless and destitute once they've exhausted emergency unemployment.

Of course we haven't even touched on the rhetoric that Beck/Palin/Limbaugh and their ilk are spewing. They're making fortunes off of whipping J6P type crowds into angry mobs. I'm guessing that things may get terribly nasty in the next couple of years.

Keep an eye on Greece for things coming our way. Obviously, their situation is apples and oranges to ours, since they can't fire up a printing press to create more Euros. However, I think they reflect the general decline of Western civilizations. Speaking of the EU, yeah, they're fucked too.

Everywhere you look, we're fucked. Every social program is bursting at the seams. Local, state and federal budget deficits are out of control. We're polluting the environment at an incredible pace (GOM). Unemployment. Medicare, Social Security. Wars we can't win, but can't leave either. Commercial/residential foreclosures and a dead real estate market. Banks that are insolvent except for FED intervention and mark to fantasy accounting. Markets that are front run and manipulated by HFT algos. General hate, selfishness and discontent of the American populace. Just seems to me like everything is falling apart.

[Guest031411-2]

Honestly, y'all are making mountains out of molehills

Texas Unemployment Trens

And, even the great Depression didn't last 30-years (thanks WW II). Cry wolf all your want...the economy in Texas isn't that bad off. Yes, things are a little tighter than normal but its not as a "depression" or "depressed economy". Yes, it is worse in the midwest and other places, but still not Depression economy. Sadly, the masses will read these posts and the news media reports without doing research and start throwing themselves out of building windows with the threat of impending economic doom.

Do any of you watch the indicators and realize that housing starts are up? That trade of goods leaving Texas is up? That there is a general rise in every economic indicator since April? Nah, I didn't think so...go watch Fox some more and watch Rush and blah blah blah blah.... lemmings! I tell you the world is made of lemmings!