U.S. jobless claims surge to 26-year high

[vinnie]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) ? The number of U.S. workers filing new claims for unemployment benefits jumped to a 26-year high last week, according to government data on Thursday that pointed to a rapid deterioration in the economy.

In addition, the number of people staying on the benefit rolls hit a record high in the week ended January 24, showing the weak labor market has yet to hit bottom. On Friday, the Labor Department will issue the employment report for January, and analysts are expecting a drop of 525,000 payroll jobs.

The department said initial claims for state unemployment insurance benefits rose 35,000 to a seasonally adjusted 626,000 in the week ended January 31, the highest since the week ending October 30, 1982. The prior week's number was revised up to 591,000 from 588,000.

Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast 585,000 new claims.

The number of people staying on the benefits roll after drawing an initial week of aid surged by 20,000 to a record 4.788 million in the week ended January 24, the latest week for which the data is available, from 4.768 million the previous week.

The four-week moving average for new claims, considered to be a better gauge of underlying trends as it irons out week-to-week volatility, rose to 582,250, the highest reading since the week ending December 4, 1982.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

While situation certainly is not good--one needs to aware of media's dilibertate distortion of #s to create sensationalism.

Beware False Claims about Jobless Numbers
http://seekingalpha.com/article/117...ut-jobless-numbers?source=article_lb_articles

The chart above shows average monthly initial claims as a percent of the labor force, from January 1980 to January 2009. (For January 2009, I have assumed that the labor force remained at the same level as December 2008, 154.447 million.) In previous posts (here and here), I have documented how the increasing size of the labor force over time distorts the frequent comparisons of today's jobless claims to the number of claims in previous years. For example, the labor force has increased +45% since 1980, from 106.78 million in 1980 to 154.5 million today, an increase of more than 48 million workers.

As bad as the average 526,625 jobless claims in January might seem, we're still nowhere near the jobless claim levels of 1982 or 1991, as a percent of the labor force. In 1991, jobless claims as a percent of the labor force peaked at .3915%, which would be the equivalent today of 604,660 jobless claims. And to be equivalent to the .6067% reached in 1982, we'd have to have 937,000 claims today, or almost double our current level.

a little on above media "Reuters"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WASHINGTON, Jan 29 (Reuters) - The number of people remaining on the unemployment benefits roll after drawing an initial week of aid, or continued claims, rose 159,000 to a higher-than-forecast 4.776 million in the week ended Jan 17, the most recent week for which data is available. The Labor Department said this was the highest reading since its records on this series began in 1967.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There's a little problem here. The size of the labor force has doubled since 1967, which distorts the comparison of today's continued claims to past years (the chart and post above illustrate this issue using the labor force vs. initial jobless claims). Consider 1982, when there were 4,713,000 continued claims (lower than today), but there was also a much smaller labor force (110.744 million) than today (154.447 million). As a percent of the labor force, the continued claims in 1982 represented 4.256% of the labor force. Given our labor force today, it would require 6.57 million continued claims to reach the same 4.256% level as 1982, or an additional 1.8 million people.

 

[rusty]

Lets be realistic .People are laying off everyday.Unless you have been in a bunker thats plain to see.Until that trend stops were in deep of a mess.

Vinny any more of Eve??

 

[StevieD]

While situation certainly is not good--one needs to aware of media's dilibertate distortion of #s to create sensationalism.

Beware False Claims about Jobless Numbers
http://seekingalpha.com/article/117...ut-jobless-numbers?source=article_lb_articles

The chart above shows average monthly initial claims as a percent of the labor force, from January 1980 to January 2009. (For January 2009, I have assumed that the labor force remained at the same level as December 2008, 154.447 million.) In previous posts (here and here), I have documented how the increasing size of the labor force over time distorts the frequent comparisons of today's jobless claims to the number of claims in previous years. For example, the labor force has increased +45% since 1980, from 106.78 million in 1980 to 154.5 million today, an increase of more than 48 million workers.

As bad as the average 526,625 jobless claims in January might seem, we're still nowhere near the jobless claim levels of 1982 or 1991, as a percent of the labor force. In 1991, jobless claims as a percent of the labor force peaked at .3915%, which would be the equivalent today of 604,660 jobless claims. And to be equivalent to the .6067% reached in 1982, we'd have to have 937,000 claims today, or almost double our current level.

a little on above media "Reuters"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WASHINGTON, Jan 29 (Reuters) - The number of people remaining on the unemployment benefits roll after drawing an initial week of aid, or continued claims, rose 159,000 to a higher-than-forecast 4.776 million in the week ended Jan 17, the most recent week for which data is available. The Labor Department said this was the highest reading since its records on this series began in 1967.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There's a little problem here. The size of the labor force has doubled since 1967, which distorts the comparison of today's continued claims to past years (the chart and post above illustrate this issue using the labor force vs. initial jobless claims). Consider 1982, when there were 4,713,000 continued claims (lower than today), but there was also a much smaller labor force (110.744 million) than today (154.447 million). As a percent of the labor force, the continued claims in 1982 represented 4.256% of the labor force. Given our labor force today, it would require 6.57 million continued claims to reach the same 4.256% level as 1982, or an additional 1.8 million people.

I guess things are pretty good! Thanks George!:142smilie

 

[vinnie]

WASHINGTON ? Recession-battered employers eliminated 598,000 jobs in January, the most since the end of 1974, and catapulted the unemployment rate to 7.6 percent. The grim figures were further proof that the nation's job climate is deteriorating at an alarming clip with no end in sight.

The Labor Department's report, released Friday, showed the terrible toll the drawn-out recession is having on workers and companies. It also puts even more pressure on Congress and President Barack Obama's administration to revive the economy through a stimulus package and a revamped financial bailout plan, both of which are nearing completion.

The latest net total of job losses was far worse than the 524,000 that economists expected. Job reductions in November and December also were deeper than previously reported.

With cost-cutting employers in no mood to hire, the unemployment rate bolted to 7.6 percent in January, the highest since September 1992. The increase in the jobless rate from 7.2 percent in December also was worse than the 7.5 percent rate economists expected.

All told, the economy has lost a staggering 3.6 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007. About half of this decline occurred in the past three months.

"Companies are in survival mode and are really cutting to the bone," said economist Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics. "They are cutting and cutting hard now out of fear of an uncertain future."

Factories slashed 207,000 jobs in January, the largest one-month drop since October 1982, partly reflecting heavy losses at plants making autos and related parts. Construction companies got rid of 111,000 jobs. Professional and business services chopped 121,000 positions. Retailers eliminated 45,000 jobs. Leisure and hospitality axed 28,000 slots.

Those reductions swamped employment gains in education and health services, as well as in the government.

Just in the 12 months ending January, an astonishing 3.5 million jobs have vanished, the most on record going back to 1939, although the total number of jobs has grown significantly since then.

Employers are slashing payrolls and turning to other ways to cut costs ? including trimming workers' hours, freezing wages or cutting pay ? to cope with shrinking appetites from customers in the U.S. and overseas, who are struggling with their own economic troubles.

The average work week in January stayed at 33.3 hours, matching the record low set in December.

With no place to go, the number of unemployed workers climbed to 11.6 million.

Over the past 12 months, the number of unemployed has increased by 4.1 million, and the unemployment rate has risen by 2.7 percentage points.

Job hunters also are facing longer searches for work.

The average time it took for an unemployed person to find any job ? full or part time ? rose to 19.8 weeks in January, compared with 17.5 weeks a year ago, underscoring the increasing difficulty the out-of-work are having in finding a new job.

Workers with jobs saw modest wage gains.

Average hourly earnings rose to $18.46 in January, up 0.3 percent from the previous month. Over the year, wages have risen 3.9 percent.

An avalanche of layoffs is slamming the nation from a wide swath of employers.

Caterpillar Inc., Pfizer Inc., Microsoft Corp., Estee Lauder Cos., Time Warner Cable Inc., and Sprint Nextel Corp. are among the companies slicing payrolls. Manufacturers ? especially car makers ? construction companies and retailers have been particularly hard hit by the recession. Talbots Inc., Liz Claiborne Inc., Macy's Inc. and Home Depot Inc. are all cutting jobs. So are Detroit's General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co.

Americans cut back sharply on spending at the end of last year, thrusting the economy into its worst backslide in a quarter-century. The tailspin could well accelerate in the current January-March quarter to a rate of 5 percent or more as the recession drags on into a second year, and consumers and businesses burrow deeper.

Vanishing jobs and evaporating wealth from tanking home values, 401(k)s and other investments have forced consumers to retrench, which has required companies to pull back. It's a vicious cycle where the economy's problems feed on each other, perpetuating a downward spiral.

Many economists predict the current quarter ? in terms of lost economic growth ? will be the worst of the recession.

With fallout from the housing, credit and financial crises ? the worst since the 1930s ? ripping through the economy, analysts predict 3 million or more jobs will vanish this year even if lawmakers quickly approve Obama's stimulus plan, which has ballooned to more than $900 billion in the Senate.

Obama has repeatedly pressed Congress to swiftly enact a package of increased government spending, including big public works projects and tax cuts, to revive the economy and create jobs. He says his plan will save or create more than 3 million jobs in the next two years.

But the recession has proven stubborn. Despite record low interest rates ordered by the Federal Reserve and a raft of radical programs, including a $700 billion financial bailout, consumers and businesses face high hurdles to borrow money. Foreclosures are skyrocketing, home prices are sinking and Wall Street remains on edge.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I guess things are pretty good! Thanks George!:142smilie

Just trying to educate you Stevie--so you can graduate from "the base".

P.S. George told me to tell you that Bill and O both had higher months of unemployment than he--and wanted to know if we could gewt a :142smilie from you on that. :

 

[MadJack]

WASHINGTON ? Recession-battered employers eliminated 598,000 jobs in January, the most since the end of 1974, and catapulted the unemployment rate to 7.6 percent. The grim figures were further proof that the nation's job climate is deteriorating at an alarming clip with no end in sight.

The Labor Department's report, released Friday, showed the terrible toll the drawn-out recession is having on workers and companies. It also puts even more pressure on Congress and President Barack Obama's administration to revive the economy through a stimulus package and a revamped financial bailout plan, both of which are nearing completion.

The latest net total of job losses was far worse than the 524,000 that economists expected. Job reductions in November and December also were deeper than previously reported.

With cost-cutting employers in no mood to hire, the unemployment rate bolted to 7.6 percent in January, the highest since September 1992. The increase in the jobless rate from 7.2 percent in December also was worse than the 7.5 percent rate economists expected.

All told, the economy has lost a staggering 3.6 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007. About half of this decline occurred in the past three months.

"Companies are in survival mode and are really cutting to the bone," said economist Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics. "They are cutting and cutting hard now out of fear of an uncertain future."

Factories slashed 207,000 jobs in January, the largest one-month drop since October 1982, partly reflecting heavy losses at plants making autos and related parts. Construction companies got rid of 111,000 jobs. Professional and business services chopped 121,000 positions. Retailers eliminated 45,000 jobs. Leisure and hospitality axed 28,000 slots.

Those reductions swamped employment gains in education and health services, as well as in the government.

Just in the 12 months ending January, an astonishing 3.5 million jobs have vanished, the most on record going back to 1939, although the total number of jobs has grown significantly since then.

Employers are slashing payrolls and turning to other ways to cut costs ? including trimming workers' hours, freezing wages or cutting pay ? to cope with shrinking appetites from customers in the U.S. and overseas, who are struggling with their own economic troubles.

The average work week in January stayed at 33.3 hours, matching the record low set in December.

With no place to go, the number of unemployed workers climbed to 11.6 million.

Over the past 12 months, the number of unemployed has increased by 4.1 million, and the unemployment rate has risen by 2.7 percentage points.

Job hunters also are facing longer searches for work.

The average time it took for an unemployed person to find any job ? full or part time ? rose to 19.8 weeks in January, compared with 17.5 weeks a year ago, underscoring the increasing difficulty the out-of-work are having in finding a new job.

Workers with jobs saw modest wage gains.

Average hourly earnings rose to $18.46 in January, up 0.3 percent from the previous month. Over the year, wages have risen 3.9 percent.

An avalanche of layoffs is slamming the nation from a wide swath of employers.

Caterpillar Inc., Pfizer Inc., Microsoft Corp., Estee Lauder Cos., Time Warner Cable Inc., and Sprint Nextel Corp. are among the companies slicing payrolls. Manufacturers ? especially car makers ? construction companies and retailers have been particularly hard hit by the recession. Talbots Inc., Liz Claiborne Inc., Macy's Inc. and Home Depot Inc. are all cutting jobs. So are Detroit's General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co.

Americans cut back sharply on spending at the end of last year, thrusting the economy into its worst backslide in a quarter-century. The tailspin could well accelerate in the current January-March quarter to a rate of 5 percent or more as the recession drags on into a second year, and consumers and businesses burrow deeper.

Vanishing jobs and evaporating wealth from tanking home values, 401(k)s and other investments have forced consumers to retrench, which has required companies to pull back. It's a vicious cycle where the economy's problems feed on each other, perpetuating a downward spiral.

Many economists predict the current quarter ? in terms of lost economic growth ? will be the worst of the recession.

With fallout from the housing, credit and financial crises ? the worst since the 1930s ? ripping through the economy, analysts predict 3 million or more jobs will vanish this year even if lawmakers quickly approve Obama's stimulus plan, which has ballooned to more than $900 billion in the Senate.

Obama has repeatedly pressed Congress to swiftly enact a package of increased government spending, including big public works projects and tax cuts, to revive the economy and create jobs. He says his plan will save or create more than 3 million jobs in the next two years.

But the recession has proven stubborn. Despite record low interest rates ordered by the Federal Reserve and a raft of radical programs, including a $700 billion financial bailout, consumers and businesses face high hurdles to borrow money. Foreclosures are skyrocketing, home prices are sinking and Wall Street remains on edge.

it's all distorted. everything is great! :00hour

well, all great until Obama ruins everything that george built the last 8 years. :sadwave:

 

[kneifl]

While situation certainly is not good--one needs to aware of media's dilibertate distortion of #s to create sensationalism.

Beware False Claims about Jobless Numbers
http://seekingalpha.com/article/117...ut-jobless-numbers?source=article_lb_articles

The chart above shows average monthly initial claims as a percent of the labor force, from January 1980 to January 2009. (For January 2009, I have assumed that the labor force remained at the same level as December 2008, 154.447 million.) In previous posts (here and here), I have documented how the increasing size of the labor force over time distorts the frequent comparisons of today's jobless claims to the number of claims in previous years. For example, the labor force has increased +45% since 1980, from 106.78 million in 1980 to 154.5 million today, an increase of more than 48 million workers.

As bad as the average 526,625 jobless claims in January might seem, we're still nowhere near the jobless claim levels of 1982 or 1991, as a percent of the labor force. In 1991, jobless claims as a percent of the labor force peaked at .3915%, which would be the equivalent today of 604,660 jobless claims. And to be equivalent to the .6067% reached in 1982, we'd have to have 937,000 claims today, or almost double our current level.

a little on above media "Reuters"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WASHINGTON, Jan 29 (Reuters) - The number of people remaining on the unemployment benefits roll after drawing an initial week of aid, or continued claims, rose 159,000 to a higher-than-forecast 4.776 million in the week ended Jan 17, the most recent week for which data is available. The Labor Department said this was the highest reading since its records on this series began in 1967.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There's a little problem here. The size of the labor force has doubled since 1967, which distorts the comparison of today's continued claims to past years (the chart and post above illustrate this issue using the labor force vs. initial jobless claims). Consider 1982, when there were 4,713,000 continued claims (lower than today), but there was also a much smaller labor force (110.744 million) than today (154.447 million). As a percent of the labor force, the continued claims in 1982 represented 4.256% of the labor force. Given our labor force today, it would require 6.57 million continued claims to reach the same 4.256% level as 1982, or an additional 1.8 million people.

Disagree with this whole article, totally flawed. Everyday, I get a call from one of my newly laid off friends that is now looking for work.

kneifl

 

[kneifl]

well, all great until Obama ruins everything that george built the last 8 years. :sadwave:

That's the truth, this "stimulus" package won't show any results for at LEAST 5 years. He better get off his ass within the first 6 months and show some signs of economic improvement or we won't have to worry about him getting re-elected.

At least the Economy prospered under George for 7 of the 8 years he was in office.

kneifl

 

[StevieD]

Just trying to educate you Stevie--so you can graduate from "the base".

P.S. George told me to tell you that Bill and O both had higher months of unemployment than he--and wanted to know if we could gewt a :142smilie from you on that. :

Sorry Dogs but I will believe my eyes and ears more than your figures.:shrug: I am funny that way. But gee, thanks for the education. How did that WMD thing work out for ya?

And you are blaming O for the unemployment last month!!:142smilie :142smilie You are too much!

 

[MadJack]

That's the truth, this "stimulus" package won't show any results for at LEAST 5 years. He better get off his ass within the first 6 months and show some signs of economic improvement or we won't have to worry about him getting re-elected.

At least the Economy prospered under George for 7 of the 8 years he was in office.

kneifl

ummmmm.....i was joking :shrug:

:142smilie

 

[Chadman]

Just trying to educate you Stevie--so you can graduate from "the base".

P.S. George told me to tell you that Bill and O both had higher months of unemployment than he--and wanted to know if we could gewt a :142smilie from you on that. :

I see you're still practicing George's fuzzy math. Of course you credit Obama for January's unemployment figures, when Bush was actually the President for 19-1/2 days, compared to O's 11-1/2 days. What part of the "Show-Me State" did you grow up in? I think they showed you little more than how to blur the line of reality to try to make a point.

But, it is nice to know that apparently Obama is responsible for the economy now immediately upon taking office, and you will apparently now have to stop blaming Bill Clinton for Bush's recession after he took office. That would make the Bush regime responsible for the recession he caused on both ends of his administration, using your attempted assessment system.

:00x15

 

[Skulnik]

Obama is killing the Economy, 7.6 unemployment rate, Bring back Bush. TIA.

 

[Chadman]

Yeah, no doubt. Bush really had things headed in the right direction...:mj07: :mj07: :mj07:

I see you also subscribe to Obama being responsible for the January unemployment rate, despite being in office 8 fewer days than Bush, with no policies of his own in place.

Now we have two conservatives practicing Bush's fuzzy math in his absence. Way to go, :hah: Wayne and Skully!

 

[rusty]

That's the truth, this "stimulus" package won't show any results for at LEAST 5 years. He better get off his ass within the first 6 months and show some signs of economic improvement or we won't have to worry about him getting re-elected.

At least the Economy prospered under George for 7 of the 8 years he was in office.

kneifl

Your joking???
The economy systematicly collapsed under JW.
I work in construction and if anything it went from great (pre 911) to total collapse(right now).
To much money spent in the wrong areas.

Funny how this O stimulas package is like pulling teeth and nails,but Iraq money was spent like crazy.Would imagine close to 900Billion or more.
Thats whats wrong with this country.

 

[Skulnik]

Your joking???
The economy systematicly collapsed under JW.
I work in construction and if anything it went from great (pre 911) to total collapse(right now).
To much money spent in the wrong areas.

Funny how this O stimulas package is like pulling teeth and nails,but Iraq money was spent like crazy.Would imagine close to 900Billion or more.
Thats whats wrong with this country.

The Relentless attacks on GW Bush is what is wrong with our country, the Democrats have been Mad as Hell since the Republicans took congress in 1994.

 

[StevieD]

Your joking???
The economy systematicly collapsed under JW.
I work in construction and if anything it went from great (pre 911) to total collapse(right now).
To much money spent in the wrong areas.

Funny how this O stimulas package is like pulling teeth and nails,but Iraq money was spent like crazy.Would imagine close to 900Billion or more.
Thats whats wrong with this country.

Bingo! We have a winner!

 

[kneifl]

Your joking???
The economy systematicly collapsed under JW.
I work in construction and if anything it went from great (pre 911) to total collapse(right now).
To much money spent in the wrong areas.

Funny how this O stimulas package is like pulling teeth and nails,but Iraq money was spent like crazy.Would imagine close to 900Billion or more.
Thats whats wrong with this country.

Ridiculous, the dow was at an all time high at 14,000+ around October 2007. The economy had been booming since W took office. Lots of jobs, prosperity, etc, etc. You might want to check your history books.

What has Obama done since he took office? Or a better question might be what do you think he will accomplish in the next 6 months?

Facts speak the truth. Give me some facts instead of the regular left wing bs.

kneifl

 

[kosar]

Ridiculous, the dow was at an all time high at 14,000+ around October 2007. The economy had been booming since W took office. Lots of jobs, prosperity, etc, etc. You might want to check your history books.

What has Obama done since he took office? Or a better question might be what do you think he will accomplish in the next 6 months?

Facts speak the truth. Give me some facts instead of the regular left wing bs.

kneifl

1/1993 - 3200
1/2001 - 10887
1/2009- 7900

 

[smurphy]

ummmmm.....i was joking :shrug:

:142smilie

:mj07: :mj07: