Posted on 03/28/2013 6:14:19 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
WASHINGTON--The number of Americans claiming first-time unemployment benefits rose for the second week in a row, a possible sign that the labor market lost a bit of momentum.
Initial jobless claims, an indication of layoffs, increased by 16,000 to a seasonally adjusted 357,000 in the week ended March 23, the Labor Department said Thursday. That was above economists' forecast of 340,000 new claims.
The latest week's gain came after claims rose 7,000 to a revised 341,000 in the week ended March 16.
The four-week moving average, which smoothes out week-to-week volatility in the data, rose by 2,250 to 343,000. Even with the slight rise, the level remains below the 400,000 that economists believe is the threshold indicating a strengthening labor market.
The labor market generally has picked up since the new year. Unemployment fell to 7.7% in February from 7.9% the prior month, with employers adding 236,000 jobs last month.
Still, unemployment remains historically high, and Federal Reserve officials expect only slight improvement in the labor market for the rest of the year. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke last week described the recent improvement in the labor market as modest. Fed officials signaled they don't plan to end the central bank's stimulus programs, including $85 billion a month in bond purchases, any time soon.
The labor market is also facing headwinds, including the roughly $85 billion in federal spending cuts, under the so- called sequester, that began this month.
Thursday's data showed the number of continuing unemployment benefit claims--those drawn by workers for more than a week--decreased by 27,000 to 3,050,000 in the week ended March 16. Continuing claims are reported with a one-week lag.
(Excerpt) Read more at nasdaq.com ...
How, exactly, do we do that?
In my industry - textiles - unions pushed the jobs overseas, along with government "safety" regulations.
While you might be able to set up a t-shirt manufacturer in the US (there are a few) the prices they have to charge keep them from being truly competitive. For instance, I can buy a made overseas (Honduras) white adult t-shirt for $1.30, blank. My print costs for a two sided print (like you might get at a 5K run) are about $2. I will sell that shirt for $6.
A shirt with EXACTLY the same specs, made in the USA, costs me $3. Print costs are the same - about $2 - so to make the same margin I would have to sell that shirt for $9.09.
So to bring manufacturing back to this country (in textiles anyway) we either have to be willing to pay much more, destroy the unions, and/or roll back "safety" regulations. Good luck with that.
What we are seeing is a natural migration of labor. It has happened throughout history. the thing is that the chart that I posted shows that manufacturing output as a percentage of GDP has remained relatively stable since the 1940’s. Manufacturing is not “going away”. It’s the same as it ever was (quoth The Talking Heads). I’m not sure what we need to “bring back” if manufacturing output has remained steady.
Removed from breaking. Guess the mod wants to keep Obama’s continuing failure below the radar.
Not this time. Unemployment for government workers is 3.1%. Private Sector is 8.1%
How exactly do you propose to bring them back?
I hear you, FRiend. Unfortunately, we have allowed into our House someone who has promised to Fundamentally Transform™ this great nation. I don't see unions or regs going away any time soon :(
You gotta do better than that.
Heck why don't you and I just "advocate" that all Americans be healthy and wealthy?
To "bring back American jobs" you are either going to have to start paying Americans about $5 for factory and other production work, or slap tariffs on every import, raising the price of work gloves, say, to $25, work jeans to $75 and a plain 2WD work pickup to $50 grand.
I don't know what the answer is either, although the oil industry (like portions of the info tech industry) seems to provide an example: make an essential product at a better price and the jobs and customers will take care of themselves.
“Unexpectedly”, I’m sure...
As I’m in manufacturing I often have the same discussion with folks - we actually produce more in the US now then we ever have but improvements in efficiencies and technology no longer require as much labor.
Your first chart I kinda laugh at because while claims may be tracking “normal”, because of they way they define unemployment terms what I really look at is workforce participation which is looking horrendous.
By the way which site(s) do you pull your charts from, I’ve seen yours posts often and keep forgetting to ask.
“The number of Americans claiming first-time unemployment benefits rose for the second week in a row, a possible sign that the labor market lost a bit of momentum. “
The writers sprained their backs coming up with that sentence.
I strongly support making all Americans healthy and wealthy.
I also believe strongly, we have for the last ten years been coasting and giving away American jobs, and doing nothing.
Nothing.
We must bring back US jobs, and start exporting again. That means buy American, and also means doing something with our trade laws to treat imports differently from imports.
I don’t know what exactly, but we need to change.
Now.
Oh sorry - once again forgot to proofread. :D
“That means buy American, and also means doing something with our trade laws to treat imports differently from (LOCALLY MADE PRODUCTS).”
So now the threshold has been risen to 400,000. Under Bush it was 250,000, then it was raised to 325,000 for Obama and now it is 400,000?
Are we really that stupid to believe 357,000 NEW claims is good for the economy?
Obama cannot meet the standards set before so let’s lower the standards and then say he is successful. Note the previous week was adjusted upward reducing the ‘increase’ to ONLY 16,000.
Pure BS.
“The labor market is also facing headwinds, including the roughly $85 billion in federal spending cuts, under the so- called sequester, that began this month.”
Jeesh, the sequester cut an increase in spending, not actual spending from the baseline budget. How is “spending slightly more than last year, but not as much as we wanted” going to cause federal job cuts?
The sheep are easy to fool.
Jobs to china didn’t start until the early 90s at the earliest. The chart clearly shows that factory jobs have been falling since the 30s due to improved efficiencies and technology. A robot welder produces more than a hand welder and multiple can be run with one person efficiently.
This is little different then the impact that technology and efficiency improvements of tractors, other equipment, fertilizer, and improved hybrid seeds caused to family farmers. In that case increased yields reduced prices for the commodities produced making it more difficult for small acreage to compete.
In the last 50+ years unemployment claims have never once dropped to 160,000 and were only under 200,000 for a period in the late 1960's. Since 1970 they have never been blow [sic] 200,000.
True. I get the same data as you from the Fed (St. Louis), but how does that refute what I stated? Have you seen GDP growth rates above 8% in a year for any length of time?
Plus, and "average" of 367,000 over that time period really isn't of much use.
5.56mm
Are we sending jobs overseas or are they just “buying” the jobs? The Chinese are using their money to buy our manufacturers and produce the items in their facilities in China. Looks like the Unions will have to step in and protect the American workers by buying the Companies before they are sold to China. If they can’t do that, then they are just worthless. No?
Sorry you are off by about a decade.
80’s.
We have been sending US jobs overseas for now 30 years.
Non-stop.
Hardly I was in Hong Kong when Tiananmen happened in ‘89 as I was supposed to be going to language school in Beijing that summer. Spent the next 6 years in the westpac. Tiananmen held things back until enough time had passed for most people to put it behind them.
Entered manufacturing in the early 90s when all the rage was Mexico and NAFTA - not China. China may have had minor touchs in the 80’s but nothing really started until around ‘94-’96. China wasn’t even in the WTO at that point.
The big players like GE didn’t start their move with China and India until the late 90’s. Some divisions not until early 2000’s. Mainly because the capability wasn’t there. In some cases it still isn’t cause I have to deal with it on a regular basis in quality.
I’ve lived this the last 30 years and I know when it kicked off - if you want I’ll even pull the books and literature to demonstrate when it started being discussed actively.
Now if you want to talk about Mexico, Latin America,etc (Japan doesn’t qualify as we didn’t ship the jobs, they just ate our lunch with quality, efficiency, and technology) I’ll be more than happy to give you the 30 years - but not China there it’s only 20.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.