Initial jobless claims yet again show "very solid improvement" in the labor market

http://mam.econoday.com/byshoweventfull.asp?fid=460708&cust=mam&year=2014&lid=0&prev=/byweek.asp#top

How many stopped looking for work period ?

PACEDOG#1 wrote:How many stopped looking for work period ?

Is there even one GOP supporter on this forum that can wrap their head around "new jobless claims"?  I don't think that is too much to ask.  Isn't there at least one person here who identifies as an Obama-hating GOPer, but that can also grasp what the following means?  

Definition
New unemployment claims are compiled weekly to show the number of individuals who filed for unemployment insurance for the first time. An increasing (decreasing) trend suggests a deteriorating (improving) labor market. The four-week moving average of new claims smoothes out weekly volatility.  Why Investors Care

What do you think that means, PACEDOG?   Can you inteperet the above passage - which is written in english - and tell me what you think it says?  Also, can you tell me how it has anything to do with unemployed people who stop looking for work?


How is this not alarming to everyone?  Here we have a forum which is a mix of liberals, conservatives, and even a few libertarians.  And within this mix, there is not one - NOT ONE! - GOP supporter that I have seen that appears to understand what "new jobless claims" mean.  How can you vote if you're not even smart enough to read something like "new jobless claims" and actually wrap your head around that concept?

Hell, how do you even dress or feed yourself?  Drive a car?  Remember not to swallow broken glass?  Seriously.

New Jobless Claims statistics can represent a couple of things:

1. Just what it says...first time jobless claiming the loss for compensation with unemployment insurance

2. The report numbers higher...more loss

3. The report numbers lower...less jobs being lost


However, these reports only cover what is reported/applied for. It does not cover unemployment due to firing...in most cases.

Also this is just the add-ons to the already unemployed which is another chart.

One also must realize that "jobs" is not the only indicator of the rise or decline in work or in the overall economy.

I've said it many times...a thorough understanding of micro and macro economics is needed to be an informed voter. I'm far from knowing all I should know and I'd venture to say this includes the majority of Americans.

One graph does not show the entire picture of our economy.

SheWrites wrote:However, these reports only cover what is reported/applied for.  It does not cover unemployment due to firing...in most cases.

That would depend on why someone was fired.  If they were fired due to misconduct, then, no, they cannot file for unemployment.  If they were fired due to being laid off, company downsizing, or something along those lines, then, yes, they can file for unemployment

Which type of firing would you guess occurs more often?  Broad scale layoffs of groups of people or individual firings for personal misconduct?  Which tells us more about the health of the labor market?  Layoffs or individual firings for personal misconduct?

Scenario A:  Company A lays off 1,500 people

Scenario B:  Person A is fired for being habitually late

Which of those gives us any insight into the health of the labor market?

SheWrites wrote:Also this is just the add-ons to the already unemployed which is another chart.

It is information.  Data.  It can be used to gauge the health of the labor market.  Yes, there are other charts that show other data.  This has nothing to do with that.

SheWrites wrote:One also must realize that "jobs" is not the only indicator of the rise or decline in work or in the overall economy.

SheWrites wrote:I've said it many times...a thorough understanding of micro and macro economics is needed to be an informed voter.

SheWrites wrote:One graph does not show the entire picture of our economy.

All stating the obvious. All zero to do with initial jobless claims.

Boards, not disputing just saying this particular report is not an "end all" to the discussion of the economy.

Dissect my statements if you like but that seems to make this about debate rather than an overall discussion...which I was trying to engage.

  


"Very solid improvement" cannot be a total summation from one graph.

More data is needed.

SheWrites wrote:Boards, not disputing just saying this particular report is not an "end all" to the discussion of the economy.

Dissect my statements if you like but that seems to make this about debate rather than an overall discussion...which I was trying to engage.

Stating obvious, unrelated facts to the underlying subject at hand is your idea of trying to engage in discussion?

The "very solid improvement" comment isn't mine. I placed that in quotes because it was taken from the actual article that I linked.

Initial jobless claims may be having seasonal adjustment issues tied to Easter, but unemployment claims nevertheless are signaling very solid improvement in the jobs market. Initial claims came in at a better-than-expected 304,000 in the April 12 week, just under Econoday's low estimate. The prior week, which saw a major break lower, was revised only 2,000 higher to 302,000. The April 12 week is the sample week for the monthly employment report and the comparison with the March 15 sample week shows a sizable 19,000 improvement.

Now if you will excuse me, I need to go post in 2seaots NBA thread.

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t14074-this-is-one-of-the-reasons-i-am-all-fired-up-about-the-nba-again#172902

Not trying to be a goob but I'm seeing it dropped by 60 thousand folks over three years. Not really a win win but at least it hasn't risen.

You see folks, we really don't care how many people are unemployed or under employed. All we care about is how many are filing for unemployment LOL