- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Today's First Time Unemployment Claims at 330,000
Posted on 1/9/14 at 12:44 pm
Posted on 1/9/14 at 12:44 pm
Today's Headlines:
"Weekly claims tumble, fanning hopes for labor market thaw" - CNBC
LINK
"Jobless Claims Decrease
Fewest Claims in a Month Show U.S. Labor Market Mending: Economy" - Bloomberg
LINK
"Labor market data suggest economy strengthening" - Reuters
LINK
So, my question to those headline writers is this:
When first time claims were BELOW 330,000 no less than TEN TIMES between July 27, 2013, and November 30, 2013. did those numbers indicate a "labor market thaw", the "labor market mending" or the "economy strengthening"?
If so, why did the new claims number range from 339,000 to 380,000 in the four weeks following Nov. 30th?
----------
Also, think about this statement: "The claims report showed the number of people still receiving benefits under regular state programs after an initial week of aid rose 50,000 to 2.87 million in the week ended Dec. 28. " Do the math. Think about it again ...
"Weekly claims tumble, fanning hopes for labor market thaw" - CNBC
LINK
"Jobless Claims Decrease
Fewest Claims in a Month Show U.S. Labor Market Mending: Economy" - Bloomberg
LINK
"Labor market data suggest economy strengthening" - Reuters
LINK
So, my question to those headline writers is this:
When first time claims were BELOW 330,000 no less than TEN TIMES between July 27, 2013, and November 30, 2013. did those numbers indicate a "labor market thaw", the "labor market mending" or the "economy strengthening"?
If so, why did the new claims number range from 339,000 to 380,000 in the four weeks following Nov. 30th?
----------
Also, think about this statement: "The claims report showed the number of people still receiving benefits under regular state programs after an initial week of aid rose 50,000 to 2.87 million in the week ended Dec. 28. " Do the math. Think about it again ...
Posted on 1/9/14 at 12:49 pm to NHTIGER
The labor market has been improving for 4 years according to the media.
If it has been improving for 4 years, shouldn't it be fine by now?
If it has been improving for 4 years, shouldn't it be fine by now?
Posted on 1/9/14 at 12:51 pm to NHTIGER
Cool, I guess we don't need to extend unemployment benefits.
Posted on 1/9/14 at 1:14 pm to NHTIGER
I would imagine the media has to be sore as shite from carrying all that water for Barry.
Posted on 1/9/14 at 1:15 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
Cool, I guess we don't need to extend unemployment benefits.
STOP MAKING SENSE!!!
Posted on 1/9/14 at 1:16 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
Cool, I guess we don't need to extend unemployment benefits.
Posted on 1/9/14 at 1:19 pm to goldennugget
quote:
If it has been improving for 4 years, shouldn't it be fine by now?
2008 was an epic contraction. Employment took well over a decade to get back from the crash of 1929. This wasn't quite as epic but still will take a long time to completely recover.
Both businesses I am involved in (my small business I co own but don't manage, and my corporate gig) are hiring. In fact, we are having a hard time finding qualified employees.
Posted on 1/9/14 at 1:30 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
Both businesses I am involved in (my small business I co own but don't manage, and my corporate gig) are hiring. In fact, we are having a hard time finding qualified employees.
Let me guess. Some type of construction inspection service?
Posted on 1/9/14 at 1:35 pm to Hawkeye95
Why did the country survive the depression of the early twenties without any effort at all from the government? Why did it take a World War to rise up from the Great Depression with all of the efforts of govt. in the 30's that could be produced to improve the situation?
This post was edited on 1/9/14 at 2:34 pm
Posted on 1/9/14 at 2:06 pm to udtiger
They won't stop until the agenda of the progressives is done.
Posted on 1/9/14 at 2:19 pm to goldennugget
quote:
If it has been improving for 4 years, shouldn't it be fine by now?
no because the improvement is against all those other jobs that would have been lost had Obama not stepped in and put out the fire that was the Bush recession/depression. Now 5 years in we are just getting back to normal thanks to Obama.
In other news, Global warming is now thought to be
affecting natural evolution in the most adverse of ways. Scientist are saying GW is responsible for cancer amongst the cutest of baby pups ...
Posted on 1/9/14 at 2:44 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
Today's First Time Unemployment Claims at 330,000
quote:
initial week of aid rose 50,000 to 2.87 million in the week
2,870,000 people continuing after first week on unemployment
330,000 New on
sounds like the wrong way to go
Posted on 1/9/14 at 3:17 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Let me guess. Some type of construction inspection service?
Food distribution. We are hiring like crazy, at least for us. We are talking about increasing our staffing by about 30% this year, and was about that level last year. But its small potatoes.
Posted on 1/9/14 at 3:44 pm to Mr.Perfect
quote:
quote:
initial week of aid rose 50,000 to 2.87 million in the week
2,870,000 people continuing after first week on unemployment
Here's what I was getting at in that last sentence of my post.
Most (but not all) states provide 26 weeks of state funded unemployment benefits. So lets say (generously) that the national average is 24 weeks after allowing for the size of each non-state's adjustment to the total.
The 2,870,000 figure omits this past week's total, leaving 25 weeks worth of claimants available to still be getting benefits.Reduce that to 23 weeks to accommodate the previous adjustment I just described.
The number of first time claimants that would still be available to receive state benefits if they are still unemployed should be about 7,705,000 based upon the weekly average over the past six months of 335,000 new filings per week.
7,705,000 minus the number of new jobs created in those six months , according to the BLS, approximately 1,200,000 = 6,505,000 if all of the new jobs were taken by those collecting unemployment (which of course they were not).
6,505,000 - 2,870,000 = 3,635,000
Theoretically, having already adjusted for those states granting fewer than 26 weeks, as well as the new jobs created in the past 26 weeks by the BLS, I'm wondering what happened to the 3,635,000 original claimants who should have at least one week remaining on their state eligibility. Did they get a job? Can't be that, as I have already "given" every new job created in that time span to another unemployment recipient.
???
Posted on 1/9/14 at 4:58 pm to NHTIGER
Bumped to see if anyone can offer an explanation for the question posed in my previous post regarding the "missing" 3,635,000 state-funded unemployment claimants ...
Posted on 1/9/14 at 11:11 pm to NHTIGER
Bumped one last time to see if any nighthawks wish to offer any comments or opinions regarding the disparity in continuing state claims numbers I described two posts up ...
Posted on 1/10/14 at 12:20 am to Hawkeye95
quote:
we are having a hard time finding qualified employees
what field.......
Posted on 1/10/14 at 12:25 am to WinnPtiger
Question...If they do extend unemployment benefits, what will those numbers be when its enacted? Do people ran out of benefits get to apply for the extension?
Posted on 1/10/14 at 12:32 am to North Texas Tiger
quote:
Question...If they do extend unemployment benefits, what will those numbers be when its enacted? Do people ran out of benefits get to apply for the extension?
All reports say it will be retroactive back to December 28th.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 5:32 am to NHTIGER
quote:
6,505,000 - 2,870,000 = 3,635,000
Theoretically, having already adjusted for those states granting fewer than 26 weeks, as well as the new jobs created in the past 26 weeks by the BLS, I'm wondering what happened to the 3,635,000 original claimants
I didn't see the people who just plain give-up looking for a job, in the synopsis?
LINK
This post was edited on 1/10/14 at 5:58 am
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News