[OCCASparky]

Do you see an error in my logic?

Yes. Basically the weekly numbers are for INITIAL jobless claims. Some leave the workforce, some come back in, some find jobs. The monthly figures are a cumulative number; if there are, say, 400K NEW claims per week for a month, not all of those people are going to STAY out of work for an entire month, and some others may be offered jobs as well. Again, turnover is a normal part of those numbers. Even in a good job market, people change jobs, etc., and those are part of the weekly claim but may not show up in the monthly numbers.

[DoughtyOne]

I understand that during a healthy economy we see perhaps 300,000 new jobless claims each week. We also see 300,000+ new jobs added during those periods.

Right now we’re seeing 50,000 new jobs while seeing 1.6 million plus file new claims.

Where you’re losing me is when you reference part of this 1.6 million returning to work. During the month of November, wouldn’t those have been counted in the 50,000 new jobs created?

Not trying to be argumentative here, but it seems like you’re inferring more new or replacement jobs that aren’t revealed in the numbers.

If it is true that some of those 1.6 million new filers will have found new jobs by the end of the month, why are they not counted in the 50,000? If they are, then we’ve still got a net job loss of 1.55 million plus for the month. If they aren’t, why?