U.S. jobless claims fall, revisit 1973 level

www.youtube.com...

This is not gooood....
despite the blue pill I keep waking up with cold chills down my spine...

a reply to: reddragon2015

Disclaimer: As ridiculous (and useless) as I find the unemployment number to be, the criteria hasn't changed under President Obama.

My two cents...

As others have said, the "unemployment number" is tied to unemployment claims and is not an accurate number of people of working age that have gainful employment. Beyond those that have run out of benefits (stopped looking) I would point out that there is also a record high number of people whom have shifted from traditional unemployment (considered as part of the unemployment number) disability benefits (not considered as part of the unemployment number). While in some instances it can take some time to start receiving disability benefits, the burden of proof is relatively low.

For example, I have a knee that has bothered me ever since a high school sports injury and in passing conversation with my doctor some time ago, I had asked that since I work in construction, would this qualify me? Although clearly I can work, because I do, the answer was a definitive yes. While I can't prove that there are millions of people that have made "questionable" claims, I can't help but see a correlation between a lackluster job market and the historically large rise of sustained disability claims.

For your comment about the stock market, I don't really have anything to say. If you look at the history of the stock market, it rises. Always. Yes, there are some tough times but if you look at the big picture and drew a line with the first point being a hundred years ago and the end point being current time, that line always moves from low to high. I can't really give Obama any credit for that. I'm also glad that the market, historically, always rises. In part because I'm glad that those who invest directly (myself included in a VERY small way), if careful, can increase their net worth. I'm also glad because I want the millions of people who invest in what I consider to be indirectly (401k plans, etc) to increase their net worth as well. But I digress...

Back to the unemployment number. Another reason that it means very little to me is because the simple number itself doesn't give any indication as to what kinds of jobs are out there and what the associated salaries are. To shift momentarily to another relatively useless number I'd point out that often we hear, "There were X-hundred thousand jobs created," yet many times a huge number of those jobs are in the service or hospitality fields. To use a hypothetical, a middle-management type person that loses his job, collects unemployment for a short period then, in order to take care of himself and his family takes a job as an overnight manager at a hotel, at half the salary he used to make, to me a success story does not make.

Then there is the issue of underemployment. These people are employed and therefore not counted in the unemployment number (even though they are making considerably less than they want/need to). This is an issue that that I know has been exacerbated by President Obama. This (alleged) Affordable Healthcare Act did a number on millions of American workers. There is a HUGE issue with people having their hours cut to below the minimum by their employers to avoid having to provide a benefit they never had to in the past. I know some people say, "Good! Screw those greedy employers" which is something that we can all argue about on a different thread. However, in terms of the unemployment number there are simply millions of people who have lost income as a direct result of the new law(s).

So, basically, the aforementioned, in part describes "where the complaints are coming from."


Final thought...... Unless.... this is just an Obama is the best thing since sliced bread.... in which case the actual reasons BEHIND the numbers means nothing.

a reply to: eluryh22

The unemployement number isn't tied to unemployement claims do any of you know what your talking about?

I put the info earlier in the thread.

now the math the govvnt has been using forever is a joke. once Ohmama leaves office the numbers will make sense again under possibly trump or Shillary...

a reply to: odzeandennz

Why is that?

Is that just a totally random stab at Obama irregardless of facts?

a reply to: onequestion

However the labor force participation rate has actually been increasing be last few months and Obama has nothing to do with it.

How has the participation rate been doing since 2008? The duration of the period being brought up can paint very different pictures.

a reply to: eluryh22

It's only been increasing for a few months but it's a dramatic change from 2006 until now.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: eluryh22

The unemployement number isn't tied to unemployement claims do any of you know what your talking about?

I put the info earlier in the thread.

Thank you for the earlier thread. Definitely something I find worth looking into/learning about.

For the moment, I'll assume you are correct. Even in that case, when it comes to the overall "lay of the land" when it comes to jobs in United States, I still maintain that all the points I brought up are relevant to (what I perceive to be) the point of the OP's question of "Where are the complaints coming from."

I also think that many of the points I raised filter into the survey.

Lastly, I agree with you that the "survey" and the sample size makes me think that a number I found to be basically useless I think of now even more so.

Thanks again.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: eluryh22

It's only been increasing for a few months but it's a dramatic change from 2006 until now.

Yep. Looking at the BLS chart now.

a reply to: eluryh22

Crazy when you really look into it.

The real question I have now is what's causing it and where are the jobs coming from and in what sector?

a reply to: eluryh22

Yeah I totally agree with you when I learned how they did it I had even less confidence.

I base my perspective on wages and labor force participation.

Appreciate it.

a reply to: onequestion

If I ain't learnin', I ain't livin'.


Be well.

originally posted by: reddragon2015
So... jobless is lowest for 30++ years... How are you gonna keep crying about the economy. Between this and the high stock market... world economy's growth...

I just don't get where are the complaints are coming from!?

It *may* have something to do with the fact that the official unemployment metrics tell such a tiny fraction of the real story (intentionally). The labor participation rate has dropped continuously year over year since Obama took office... those are workers who are no longer counted as "unemployed" and are just long term jobless.
www.tradingeconomics.com...

That's a 3% drop under Obama with no trend indicating it will slow down while he's in office.
www.tradingeconomics.com...

I played this schtick in 2008 when I was saying "The economy isn't that bad, it's just people hating on Bush." I was wrong then, as you are wrong now.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: odzeandennz

Why is that?

Is that just a totally random stab at Obama irregardless of facts?

well it certainlyseems so.
im merely pointing that out based on the responses here. its always the same metrics governmenthas always used to post jobless numbers. it seems like any positives from this administration is immediately dismissed as a fluke or poor statistics.

the hokey math the Govt. uses to come up with their "unemployment numbers" It's a farce

It's irrelevant as long as they are counting it the same way the have with other Presidents. Did Obama change it to make himself look better? No? Then your argument is worthless.

Lets put it this way.....
If I loose my job as a computer programmer at 65K per year.....
Then get another job after some time at minimum wage flipping burgers because the high tech sector is largely Kaputski.....
The government takes me off the unemployment roles but the net gain for the economy is so much less.....
That the rise in employment does not cover the net loss to the economy...get it....
The ist q projected increase over all is now at 0.1 for 2016
With the rest of q 1 data its projected into the MINUS category......
wheres the benefit of all those new jobs now....

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: reddragon2015

Here you go. Visit this site and it will explain to you the hokey math the Govt. uses to come up with their "unemployment numbers" It's a farce.

ShadowStats

Uhhhh, thanks Obama.

0_o

People seem confused about the unemployment rate and unemployment applications and what it all means so lets break it down.

So what does record low Unemployment applications mean? It does not measure the number of unemployed, it measures the number of new people being forced out of the job market applying for employment. This means employers are keeping more people longer. So yes this is a very impressive number.

The unemployment rate is done by statistical sampling. The same way they measure polling on anything. In that polling you have break downs of people who can not find a job, only work part time, are under employed etc. That number seems to be between 5% as the Gov measures and 6% according to Wall street. Either number is good and much better than it was.

Job creation this is done by counting new people added to payroll taxes so you can see the new number of people hired. Farm related employment and temp or seasonal jobs are not counted.

And the last thing you should look at is to look at tax revenue. If tax revenue is going up and taxes have not been raised it means people and companies have more money coming so more tax revenue is created.

So since Obama took office we have seen a huge improvement in the economy, over 14 million private sector jobs created and the longest streak of private job growth ever. Tax revenue is up, the GDP is up, industrial production is up, stocks are up, consumer confidence is up. All in all extremely impressive.

Objectively the economic turn around since Obama came into office is incredible. Trying to deny that is a fools errand. The question is how much did Obama have to do with it? Some. Presidents have some influence on the economy but, not much, nor directly. The best they can do is just not get in the way. So while Presidents tend to get all the credit or blame based on the economy the truth is they only play a small roll in it. Not to say Obama has not played that small role well but, many many other factors play into it as well. Whomever takes over will get a healthy economy growing at a good rate. Not much a new President can do with that other than just let it keep rolling and stay out of the way.

a reply to: MrSpad

A single policy can change the credit landscape putting small businesses well, out of business or stop small businesses from forming.

Think banking regulations.

What the president should be doing is using his position to inform the public of what is going on so we can vote more intelligently.

The unemployed numbers might be down but the quality of jobs are crap. I watched our entire manufacturing base disappear. I know what jobs are gone because I saw it with my own eyes. I live in an area where there are empty factories everywhere. I watched entire industrial complexes full of companies vanish. They never came back and there are for sale signs everywhere.

Sure there are plenty of jobs if you want to work at starbucks.