Jobless claims fall to 49-year low for third straight week

The Hill ^ | 09/20/18 | Vicki Needham

[yesthatjallen]

Applications for unemployment benefits fell to a new 49-year low for the third straight week, reflecting a tight job market.

U.S. filings for jobless claims fell 3,000 to a seasonally adjusted 201,000 in the week ended Sept. 15, the lowest level since Nov. 15 1969, the Labor Department said Thursday.

The four-week moving average, which is a better gauge for the direction of job market, was 205,750, a decrease of 2,250 from the previous week's 208,000, the lowest level since Dec. 6, 1969 when it was 204,500.

The effects of Hurricane Florence, which hit North Carolina and South Carolina last weekend, on jobs is not yet known.

The storm, which has caused widespread flooding across the two states, may temporarily push up unemployment figures in the next few weeks like Hurricanes Harvey and Irma did last year.

The latest figures provide evidence that businesses are holding on to their existing staff while trying to find skilled workers to fill open positions.

Martha Gimbel, the research director at Indeed.com, cautioned that while the numbers look good it is nearly impossible to compare the economy of 2018 to 1969.

In a tweet she said that "policy changes over time mean that someone eligible to be counted as a receiver of UI benefits today is not the same as someone in 1969."

"UI claims are low! Like many other labor market indicators, they're doing great!" she wrote.

"But please don't compare them over decades — it's not an apples to apples comparison."

[dsrtsage]

Yup all that work Obama did and now all he did is finally clicking into place a mere two years after he retired

[Innovative]

Excellent.

[Del Rapier]

I am thinking that retail ought to make a come back at some point,along with other sectors where hiring is frozen at this point.

That also ought to help unemployment.

[Maine Mariner]

Retail may come back, but not necessarily large malls with big box stores or anchors. We were in Bangor today and most of the stores in the Maine Mall are gone. I understand the mall is going to be sold or closed.

[dowcaet]

This is why you don’t put Democrats back in control of anything. They’ll turn a mountain of success into a mole hill of excrement!

[preacher]

L8r

[adorno]

The storm, which has caused widespread flooding across the two states, may temporarily push up unemployment figures in the next few weeks like Hurricanes Harvey and Irma did last year.

That seems counter-intuitive.

Break a window, create a temporary job.

Break many windows and doors and walls and roofs and other major damage, and you end up with jobs galore for a very long time.

The loss of jobs due to a storm, should be minimal and short lasting.

[Repeal The 17th]

“... That seems counter-intuitive ...”
-
If your place of employment is closed due to storm damage,
you might apply for unemployment.
The window repairers and roof repairers were already employed,
so they do no factor into the equation.

[ClearCase_guy]

“Broken window fallacy” — Bastiat

[adorno]

The window repairers and roof repairers were already employed, so they do no factor into the equation.

You mean to tell me that, with all the new and extensive damage caused by a superstorm, that there would not be any new hiring, even if temporary or short-term?

The roof and window repairers only have to worry about fixing and replacing in non-storm-damage times, then, you would be correct; there is no need for new employees. But, the whatever was the current level of staff might not be enough to take care of all the work created by the storm.

[Repeal The 17th]

You seem to not understand what “jobless claims” means.
It certainly does not include new hires or overtime.

[adorno]

“Broken window fallacy” — Bastiat

Did Bastiat have an equivalent retort for a broken area or broken city or broken island (P.R. comes to mind)?

Broken windows can be taken care of by the current level of workers, but, broken cities or broken areas or broken islands, cannot be compared to "broken windows".

[Repeal The 17th]

Bastiat’s point was that after the repairs to the broken window were made,
and the dollars to repair it were spent,
all you had, was what you had to start out with,
and no additional value had been created by the repair.
The dollars that you spent for the repair
would otherwise have been spent on something else.

[adorno]

Bastiat’s point was that after the repairs to the broken window were made, and the dollars to repair it were spent, all you had, was what you had to start out with,

My point is that Bastiat did not have an equivalent retort to massive damage that comes from a devastating storm or some other kind of devastating event. It's not about a broken window or a broken door or a roof leak.

Get it???

[adorno]

You seem to not understand what “jobless claims” means. It certainly does not include new hires or overtime.

I do know that "jobless claims" means, and it's you that's lost in my line or argument.

My line of argument relates to a post that I responded to initially, which is kind of a tangent to the conversation.

Here's what I was responding to:

The storm, which has caused widespread flooding across the two states, may temporarily push up unemployment figures in the next few weeks like Hurricanes Harvey and Irma did last year.

So, in context, I stand by my comments earlier. My comments did not relate to the "jobless claims", which I understand quite well.

[Repeal The 17th]

“... Get it??? ...”
-
Yes, I get that you do not know what you are talking about.

[adorno]

Yes, I get that you do not know what you are talking about.

I get it that you don't get it. Get it???

Some people prefer to go into denial, rather than to admit they're wrong. Oh, that sounds like a liberal tactic to me. I'm not saying you're a liberal, but some tactics are not exclusive to liberals.

[aquila48]

Bookmark

[Repeal The 17th]

This article is about “new jobless claims”.
New hires, overtime, etc., just do not factor into that.
What about that is so hard for you to understand?
-
“... Some people prefer to go into denial, rather than to admit they’re wrong ...”