Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jobless claims fall to 346,000 in latest week
Reuters.com ^ | 6/27/2013 | Reuters

Posted on 06/27/2013 5:49:13 AM PDT by mykroar

The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits fell slightly last week in line with the recent moderate pace of jobs growth.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits dropped 9,000 to a seasonally adjusted 346,000, the Labor Department said on Thursday. Claims for the previous week were revised to show 1,000 more applications than previously reported.

Economists polled by Reuters had expected first-time applications to fall to 345,000 last week.

The four-week moving average for new claims, which irons out week-to-week volatility, fell 2,750 to 345,750.

A Labor Department analyst said no states had been estimated and there were no special factors in the state data.

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; business; deathpanels; jobless; layoffs; obamacare; unemployment; zerocare
Fun with numbers Thursday everyone.
1 posted on 06/27/2013 5:49:13 AM PDT by mykroar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mykroar

Just more statistical noise around a bad mean. It’s up, it’s down, it’s up, it’s down.


2 posted on 06/27/2013 6:03:43 AM PDT by BlueStateRightist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mykroar

The headline should have the word “New” at the beginning. There’s a BIG difference between “Jobless Claims” and NEW Jobless Claims. I know the story says New,but the headline should too.


3 posted on 06/27/2013 6:07:35 AM PDT by JaguarXKE (1973: Reporters investigate All the President's Men. 2013: Reporters ARE all the President's men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlueStateRightist

False numbers since they never take in to account those that have decided to quit looking. Never show any correlation to the increase in the number of folks on assistance programs. And they are always “surprised” at the “unexpected” increase or decrease whichever it happens to be for that particular period.


4 posted on 06/27/2013 6:08:28 AM PDT by rktman (Inergalactic background checks? King hussein you're first up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mykroar

translation: 346,000 new recipients just went on the SSI rolls...


5 posted on 06/27/2013 6:09:10 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman
False numbers since they never take in to account those that have decided to quit looking.

There isn't a single number reported in this article that is affected by those who have decided to quit looking for work.

6 posted on 06/27/2013 6:16:22 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mykroar

This is news until the “Revised Upward” news comes out next week.


7 posted on 06/27/2013 6:20:42 AM PDT by Durbin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mykroar

Fewer people employed. Obama cooked the books.
Highest number of people drawing food stamps and disability payments.

It’s a shell game.


8 posted on 06/27/2013 6:28:47 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

“Quit looking” means “have not gotten a job in their field and have been kicked off unemployment rolls”.


9 posted on 06/27/2013 6:29:31 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rktman

And the kicking begins far before 52 weeks. Some may get “99 weeks” but that is hardly the norm.

At least if you aren’t in Obama’s demographic.


10 posted on 06/27/2013 6:30:09 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
There isn't a single number reported in this article that is affected by those who have decided to quit looking for work.

Thank you for pointing that out. It is getting embarrassing to see so many on this site that get that wrong every week.

11 posted on 06/27/2013 7:01:24 AM PDT by T. P. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; rktman

Nor do they factor in people like me who would like to work a few hours a week to supplement the family income, but don’t, because of taxes. The money I would clear would be a pittance. Why go to work just to have one’s earnings confiscated by the millionaires in government?


12 posted on 06/27/2013 7:07:51 AM PDT by Pining_4_TX (All those who were appointed to eternal life believed. Acts 13:48)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pining_4_TX
Even if you did work a few hours a week, why would you expect to be included in the initial jobless claims number if you stopped? You wouldn't be eligible for unemployment compensation, anyway.
13 posted on 06/27/2013 7:25:32 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Not saying I would expect to be included in any “official” numbers, just stating that there are many people who would like to work, but taxes and regulations are discouraging people from working and creating wealth. We are all growing poorer as government hamstrings the economy.


14 posted on 06/27/2013 7:39:24 AM PDT by Pining_4_TX (All those who were appointed to eternal life believed. Acts 13:48)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JaguarXKE

The headline should have the word “New” at the beginning. There’s a BIG difference between “Jobless Claims” and NEW Jobless Claims. I know the story says New,but the headline should too.

__________________________________________________________________________

Good point.

Lets do the basic math of this number of ‘new’ claims.

350,000 NEW claims a week translates into over 18M new claims on annual basis.

This 350,000 represents a low water mark over the last five years so at times it has been much higher. But even using this low water mark for 5 running years the number of newly employed would be 91M people. That is around half the entire workforce. Half!

The real number of initial claims over the4 last 5 years IS much higher than 91M. So of these are ‘double layoffs’. My wife is the pipeline to become a ‘double layoff’ during this time period after losing one job, retraining for a new (less lucrative) career going from high paying IT to lower paying medical. So people are not only not finding jobs in their fields at similar pay, when they start new careers they are the ‘low person on the totum pole’. So when that segments cuts it cuts these newly retrained people.

Nothing is working right now, Nothing.

Any take a close look at company revenues in 1Q? Anyone? On a broad look? Down, down hard. Covered up by profits. But job generating TOP LINES were DOWN for many, many big companies. Missing estimates by over a billion dollars were names like Walmart, IBM, HP, Intel.

Recovery? It shows in the top line revenue. And revenues are down. 2Q will be telling.


15 posted on 06/28/2013 8:41:05 PM PDT by bluecat6 ("All non-denial denials. They doubt our ancestry, but they don't say the story isn't accurate. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson