[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?

[garbanzo]

n the 50,000 new jobs created

The 50K is the net new jobs created. It includes the ~1.6 million new hires.

[CowboyJay]

"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?"

1.65 million hired - 1.60 million new net claims = 50K new net jobs.

The economy needs to generate somewhere north of 200K jobs per month to keep up with new entrants into the workforce due to demographics (legal immigration, et c.). So the UE numbers still go up even though there are a few more people working.

We lost 7 million jobs from '07 to '09, while the available labor pool grew by over 4 million people. Need to add 11 million jobs plus enough to cover new entrants to get back to where we were in 2007 (rough figures).