Initial Jobless Rates - at Historic LOWS

[trottigy]

 

Jobless claims climbed by 9,000 to 269,000 in the period ended Nov. 28, matching the median estimate in a Bloomberg survey, a Labor Department report showed Thursday. Filings are hovering just above the 255,000 level reached in July, the lowest since the 1970s.

 

Companies are reluctant to dismiss workers as the labor market tightens, a development Federal Reserve policy makers are monitoring as they consider raising their benchmark interest rate. A greater sense of job security may help Americans feel more comfortable spending during the holidays, which would provide a much-needed boost to growth.

 

“Claims are low and people’s expectations of the labor market are improving,” Joe Carson, director of global economic research at Alliance Bernstein LP in New York, said before the report. “Everything says that labor markets are tightening.”

 

In that same period, the unemployment rate among people eligible for benefits held at 1.6 percent, where it’s been since mid-September, the report showed.

 

Jobless claims have been bouncing around historically low levels that economists say are consistent with robust job growth. The employment report, scheduled for release Friday, may show that companies added 200,000 workers in November after a gain of 271,000 the prior month.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-03/initial-jobless-claims-in-u-s-rose-to-269-000-last-week

 

Edited December 3, 2015 by trottigy

[Qapla]

When I saw the title I wondered what made Lowes any more historic than Home Depot ......

[vern]

"eligible for benefits"

you don't see the marketing?

 

[trottigy]

No. What am I missing?

[adamcu78]

prob is they dont count the ones who have dropped out of the search for work. if you cant find work for so many months you they stop counting you. when you figure those into the mix unemployment is really bad.

[trottigy]

prob is they dont count the ones who have dropped out of the search for work. if you cant find work for so many months you they stop counting you. when you figure those into the mix unemployment is really bad.

Since that particular statistic is about people who are employed, why would it include people who aren't?

Note: the statistic that tracks those unemployed and who are no longer seeking work is tracked as well. It too is on is way down. This is good news, right?

[Nobody]

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 94,446,000 people (ages 16 and over) in the U.S. were neither employed nor had made an effort to find work in the prior four weeks during the month of October.

That's a lot.

[vern]

wow. 94 million....thats crazy.

shouldn't be counting the young though... 18 to 20 somewhere.... but 16 and 17?

[trottigy]

Out of 320 million = 30%. This # also includes those who are retired, disabled, etc.

It is not just the #, but the trend. What was the # last October and the October before that? Is it going up, down or staying the same? Why - more retirees? Or more being fired? Well, its not more being fired as out of those working only 1.6% were let go (see where knowing that # is important). How many of these are between 16-18? More kids are staying home and waiting longer to find work?

Edit: in 2010 there were 10 million people in US between 16-18 and 40 million over the age of 65. How many of these 50 million are part of that 94? How many disabled or cant work? And again, what is the trend?

Edited December 5, 2015 by trottigy

[Nobody]

44 million, that's a lot  , they may become terrorists according to Obama.

 

 

Just having a little fun Jerry, stay calm   

Edited December 5, 2015 by Your Brother

[kejedo]

Out of 320 million = 30%. This # also includes those who are retired, disabled, etc.

It is not just the #, but the trend. What was the # last October and the October before that? Is it going up, down or staying the same? Why - more retirees? Or more being fired? Well, its not more being fired as out of those working only 1.6% were let go (see where knowing that # is important). How many of these are between 16-18? More kids are staying home and waiting longer to find work?

Edit: in 2010 there were 10 million people in US between 16-18 and 40 million over the age of 65. How many of these 50 million are part of that 94? How many disabled or cant work? And again, what is the trend?

When I worked on those stats for Dept of Labor, as I recall, retired and disabled were not in the same category as those no longer actively looking for work.  What does one make of the trends in employment and joblessness? 

[trottigy]

When you are looking at trends you have to use the same source. So, lets see:

If you add the current number of Americans without a job (9.75 million) to the number of US citizens not in the labor force (92.02), you come up with 101.77 million working age Americans who do not have work, according to data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

https://www.rt.com/usa/156800-americans-economy-unemployed-work/

From 101 in 2014 to 94 in 2015. I would take that as going in a good direction.

Also, note included in this stat is ALL not working, as mentioned already, but also stay at home parents.

Edited December 5, 2015 by trottigy