Jobless claims at 281,000 week ending April 4, 2015. Better than expected

Washington Examiner ^ | 04/09/2015 | BY JOSEPH LAWLER

[SeekAndFind]

There were 281,000 first-time claims for unemployment for the week ending April 4, the Department of Labor reported Thursday.

That was an increase from the previous week's revised 268,000 jobless claims, adjusted for seasonal fluctuations, but better than investors expected.

The four-week moving average of claims, meanwhile, fell by 3,000 to 282,250. That average was the lowest since June of 2000, reflecting the ongoing improvement in the U.S. labor market.

Low first-time claims for unemployment insurance benefits are viewed as a positive sign for the economy, as fewer layoffs generally indicate greater net hiring.

Thursday's good news comes after Friday's disappointing jobs report. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday that the U.S. added just 126,000 payroll jobs for the month of March, and that the previous two months saw 69,000 fewer jobs created than previously thought.

That weak report was enough to raise questions about the overall strength of the jobs recovery and economy in the beginning of 2015.

Claims for unemployment insurance have been among the more positive signs of the economy in the winter months. First-time claims for unemployment have been under the 300,000 for five straight weeks.

[wny]

I think the proper term is “sucked less than expected”

[nascarnation]

Is it just my poor memory, or did these “unexpected” adjectives never get reported until early 2009?

[babble-on]

The youth labor force—16- to 24-year-olds working or actively looking for work—grows sharply between April and July each year. During these months, large numbers of high school and college students search for or take summer jobs, and many graduates enter the labor market to look for or begin permanent employment.

In 2014, the youth labor force grew by 3.0 million, or 14.5 percent, to a total of 23.4 million in July. It shrinks again when most of these people go back to school in the fall.

But again, you are welcome to consider only the unadjusted data if you choose. What you’ll see are the same spikes and valleys every year, and you’ll immediately start smoothing them out in order to try to tell what is actually happening.

[jjsheridan5]

What you’ll see are the same spikes and valleys every year, and you’ll immediately start smoothing them out in order to try to tell what is actually happening.

Not if you have an ounce of common sense. If you did, you would simply compare year-to-year, which would be an apples-to-apples comparison. "Smoothing", to create the appearance of month-to-month stability (where there is none), would only be done by those who don't recognize the inherent futility of such an attempt.

[babble-on]

So, you are in the “seasonal adjustments are a Communist conspiracy like flouridated water” camp. Good to know.

[babble-on]

So, you are in the “seasonal adjustments are a Communist conspiracy like flouridated water” camp. Good to know.

[jjsheridan5]

So, you are in the “seasonal adjustments are a Communist conspiracy like flouridated water” camp. Good to know.

So, you are in the completely illiterate camp. Good to know. I merely pointed out that seasonal adjustments are inherently flawed, because they are trying to convey the illusion of month-to-month stability, where there is none. Comparing this, to a conspiracy revolving around fluoride, requires a level of comprehension so minute as to be theoretically undetectable.

There is no way to do seasonal adjustments, such that the resulting number conveys information better than merely the raw numbers compared year-to-year. The fact that you are incapable of hearing this, without launching into a rant about "conspiracies", speaks volumes. Next time you go into a rant, you may want to look in a mirror, and bemoan your lack of reading comprehension.

[babble-on]

Your entire point is so stupid as to be farcical.

Every person on this website seems to think that the entire staff of the Bureau of Labor Statistics is part of some sort of Orwellian Lie Machine that exists to fabricate data to make Obama look good. One halfwit didn’t even know that seasonal adjustments net out to zero over the course of the year.

Every economist I know, and that is hundreds of them based on my profession, understands how seasonal adjustments work, and every one of them uses the seasonally adjusted data more often in the course of macroeconomic data than the non-adjusted numbers, in spite of the imperfections of the adjustment procedures.

Those of us in the actual business of forecasting and discussing economic statistics professionally do not have the leisure to wait 12 months to see whether the economy is strengthening or weakening, so we smooth out the data, because while inherently flawed it makes more sense than looking at unadjusted data for month to month comparisons.