US jobless claims tumble to lowest level in nearly a decade (284,000)

CNBC ^ | 07/24/2014

[SeekAndFind]

The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits fell to the lowest level in nearly 8-1/2 years last week, suggesting the labor market recovery was gaining traction.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits declined 19,000 to a seasonally adjusted 284,000 for the week ended July 19, the Labor Department said on Thursday.

That was the lowest level since February 2006, and confounded economists' expectations for a rise to 308,000.

The prior week's claims were revised to show 1,000 more applications received than previously reported.

[John W]

Well, there have always been those certain windmills that need tilted at.

[CodeToad]

We all know you are an Obama butt-boy, but your lies are easily refuted with public facts.

Show the weeks that were NOT adjusted updwards “unexpectedly”.

I claim every single week has been adjusted upwards. Every single week.

[Wyatt's Torch]

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/04/weekly-initial-unemployment-claims.html

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/01/weekly-initial-unemployment-claims-at_23.html

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/01/weekly-initial-unemployment-claims_16.html

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/02/weekly-initial-unemployment-claims_27.html

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2013/10/weekly-initial-unemployment-claims_17.html

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2013/01/weekly-initial-unemployment-claims-at.html

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2013/07/weekly-initial-unemployment-claims_18.html

[Wyatt's Torch]

Very true. But too many people on this site just don’t want to admit that the economy has been in a recovery. I understand why they don’t want to. And the economy has been recovering IN SPITE OF Obama. But to deny it (and claim as many do that we are still in recession) is just foolish. Claim that it could be better. That’s provable.

[Wyatt's Torch]

As an FYI the revisions for the last 10 weeks have been as follows:

+1000
+1000
0
+2000
+1000
+1000
+4000
+1000
+2000
+1000

For an average revision of 1,400. The average weekly claims were 309,700 during that span. That’s a margin of error of 0.45%. As someone who deals with forecasting as a profession. That’s pretty unbelievable accuracy.

[CodeToad]

So, like about 10 weeks went down out of 300? You are making my point.

[John W]

How about the 260+ weeks of Obama’s presidency before that?

[Justa]

"But too many people on this site just don’t want to admit that the economy has been in a recovery. I understand why they don’t want to. And the economy has been recovering IN SPITE OF Obama."

Recovery? Improving? Seriously, are you on drugs?

We're talking about the national economy, not your economy.

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over

How about a graph for Real Earnings? By any measure they're below the 1964 level:

Put down the MSM kool-aide and step away from the keyboard.

Self-centered -smells like liberalism.

[Wyatt's Torch]

I don't ever listen to the MSM. I work in finance and see this stuff every day.

Here's the longer term chart for your first one:

Been trending down since 1999. A lot is structural (but not all). Here are the rates by gender and you can see the male participation rate has been declining for 50 years:

I have never disagreed with the wage rates. Again, I have said countless times that Obama has done a tremendous amount of damage. I said in this thread that the recovery is IN SPITE OF HIM. Ignore those comments if you wish...

Now, some info on recovery:

Record high corporate profits:

Record high industrial production:

Record high Manufacturing IP:

record high output of oil and natural gas:

You can ignore all of this if you want. But you missed a hell of a return in the markets over the past few years.

[Wyatt's Torch]

LMFAO! Exactly the response I expected from you. You said to prove that it wasn’t revised up “every single week”. I did that.

[Wyatt's Torch]

I did what he asked me to do which was to “Show the weeks that were NOT adjusted updwards “unexpectedly”.’ I did exactly that. You are welcome to go look at the other 200 weeks. Doesn’t change anything as far as the trends and the implications go.

[Praxeologue]

The spread between U6 and the official unemployment rate has traditionally been about 3-1/2 points. In 2009, it briefly touched 7 points. Since then, and currently, it is still 6 points.

Why is that? Is this not symptomatic of a fairy permanent deterioration of the labor market that is unique to the economic period beginning in 2009?

[Praxeologue]

yes, and fairy as well

[Wyatt's Torch]

Agree on U6. I always discuss U6 as U3 is pretty worthless. I do believe the continued slack in the labor market is cyclical. Still a ways to go. The White House (yeah...I know) put out a report last week on the reasons behind the labor force participation rate. It’s pretty decent and somewhat in line with other reports I’ve seen from GS, DB, and UBS. They break it into three reasons: Demographics (aging), Cyclical (economy) and Residual. Here’s the BI write up from last week:

http://www.businessinsider.com/labor-force-participation-report-july-17-2014-7

[Kackikat]

Fake number statistics may look good on paper but as Miller says “It’s crap!”. Too much is not included.

[musicman]

Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

[Wyatt's Torch]

It’s easy to come here and claim it. Now prove it and present some data and analysis. Then we can have a discussion. I’m not going to deal with red herrings.

[Kackikat]

http://olduvai.ca/?p=10985

Go ahead and live in la la land, but reality is staring us all in the face....I don’t debate reality and truth, it will stand on it’s own.

Exert from the article link above:

““Experts” in the Federal government assure us the unemployment rate is 7%. But if we include the 91.5 million people of working age who could be working (and would be working in a work-fare economy), then the real unemployment rate is double the official rate: 14% or even higher.

Is the unemployment rate real or fake? It is obviously fake, but we want to believe the fake is real for a variety of reasons.

The 1974 Orson Welles documentary (recommended by correspondent K.K.) F For Fake helps elucidate this peculiar dynamic of human nature.”

You can continue to ‘tipto thru the tulips’ but argue about it is not my style, look at the whole picture and not the lies and deception.

[Wyatt's Torch]

Did you not read my post about U6 vs U3? I’ve posted the same thing on dozens of thread for multiple years. Good grief...... I see dozens of economic data points every day. I see more of the “big picture” than the vast majority of people. The one common trait for people here on FR is that they bring absolutely nothing to the table except opinion and conspiracy theory all driven by politics. Zero actual facts and analysis. The problem is when you deal with the rest of the world who happen to know a thing or two they look like uninformed idiots. Your choice though.

[Kackikat]

I’ll trust God’s wisdom any day. But thanks.