Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

New jobless claims fall unexpectedly to 457K

Thu Dec 3, 2009 8:33 AM EST
business, politics, us, claims, jobless, jobless-claims
Christopher S. Rugaber, AP Economics Writer

Graphic shows change in weekly jobless claims

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — The tally of newly laid-off workers seeking unemployment benefits fell unexpectedly for the fifth straight week, a hopeful sign that the job market is slowly improving.

Still, claims remain above the levels that most analysts say would be consistent with an economy that is adding jobs. The unemployment rate is at 10.2 percent and expected to keep climbing into next year.

First-time claims for unemployment insurance dropped by 5,000 to a seasonally adjusted 457,000, the lowest total since the week of Sept. 6, 2008, the Labor Department said Thursday. Wall Street economists expected an increase, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters.

The ongoing decline in claims signals that employers could start adding jobs by as early as January or February, economists said. The nation's economy has shed jobs for 22 straight months, the longest stretch since World War II.

"The surprise further drop in jobless claims ... is a very encouraging sign that the U.S. economy may be closer to the point of net job creation than we had thought," John Ryding, an economist at RDQ Economics, wrote in a research note.

Many economists say that claims need to fall to about 425,000 for at least a month to indicate that employers are hiring more people than they are firing.

The department's employment report for November, to be released Friday, is expected to show that employers shed another 130,000 jobs after cutting 190,000 in October. Economists forecast the unemployment rate will remain at 10.2 percent.

A Labor Department analyst said the closing of state unemployment offices for last week's Thanksgiving holiday was responsible for some of the decline.

Economists closely watch initial claims, which are considered a gauge of layoffs and a sign of whether companies are willing to hire.

The four-week average of claims, which smooths out fluctuations, dropped for the 13th straight week to 481,250, about 180,000 below the peak for this recession, reached this spring.

But the Federal Reserve said in a report Wednesday that employers in most regions are reluctant to hire new workers, even as the economy stages a modest recovery.

Meanwhile, the number of people claiming unemployment benefits for more than a week rose by 28,000 to 5.5 million, the department said. Analysts had expected a decline.

That total doesn't include millions of unemployed Americans that are receiving benefits under extended programs paid for by the federal government.

About 4.5 million people were receiving extended benefits in the week ended Nov. 14, the latest data available. That's an increase of about 300,000 from the previous week. The jump is a result of Congress adding another 14 to 20 weeks of extra benefits last month, the fourth extension since the recession began and the longest total extension on record.

That boosted the total number of weeks a person could collect unemployment to as much as 99 in the hardest-hit states.

Layoffs continued this week. Gannett Co. said it was cutting 26 newsroom jobs at its flagship USA Today newspaper and eliminating 11 positions at USA Weekend magazine. Another media company, the Greenspun Media Group, which publishes the Las Vegas Sun, announced it was reorganizing its operations in a cost-cutting move and would lay off an unspecified number of workers.

Among the states, California had the largest increase in claims, with nearly 15,000, which it attributed to layoffs in the service industry. Illinois, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Texas had the next largest increases. The state data lag initial claims by one week.

The largest decrease in claims was in Michigan, with a drop of 1,242, which it attributed to fewer layoffs in the auto industry. Indiana, Hawaii, Oregon and the Virgin Islands also reported declines.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Christopher S. Rugaber's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (87)
GOP Rules

Here we go again with the MSM spin. If this had been a Bush headline it would have said:

HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE LOST THEIR JOBS!

  • 3 votes
#1 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 9:29 AM EST
rick-673281

Yes it is such a coincidence that some how this is good news unbelievable that they expect us to believe that it is. I guess they think it is time to party/party/party the recession is over but it has been for wall street etc since they got bailed out with trillions.

  • 2 votes
#1.1 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 9:50 AM EST
Nicey-1026620

Here we go again with the MSM spin. If this had been a Bush headline it would have said:

HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE LOST THEIR JOBS!

Read the article.

The fact that initial claims keep dropping indicates that people are not getting laid off in large numbers, some employers are starting to higher, and we could see job losses shrink to none soon or even get job growth.

Hundreds of thousands of people ALWAYS lose their jobs every month. We have a work force of 154 million people. People get fired, lose their jobs, quit, etc every month of every year regardless even if the economy is doing well.

  • 5 votes
#1.2 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 9:51 AM EST
Andy-827327

Hundreds of thousands of people ALWAYS lose their jobs every month. We have a work force of 154 million people. People get fired, lose their jobs, quit, etc every month of every year regardless even if the economy is doing well.

That's true, but in a healthy job market you need to have first time unemployment claims between 300-350K, in order to be creating and not losing jobs.

The number going down for 5 weeks and below 500K is a good sign, if this continues through January (once seasonal hiring is not a factor) then I believe we will be seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.

  • 5 votes
#1.3 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:01 AM EST
bigboyj

How is this supposed to be good news !!!

  • 2 votes
#1.4 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:04 AM EST
greck

Here we go again with the MSM spin. If this had been a Bush headline it would have said:

HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE LOST THEIR JOBS!

wow,

thank god someone found a way to make the GOP look like the victims in all this.

  • 6 votes
#1.5 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:05 AM EST
Nicey-1026620

That's true, but in a healthy job market you need to have first time unemployment claims between 300-350K, in order to be creating and not losing jobs.

300-350k is the normal range during an expansion. It doesn't necessarily mark the exact point at which you will be adding or losing jobs.

We could stop losing jobs before we hit 350k, it just depends on other factors. We could add 10,000 jobs and claims would probably be above 350k.

Found an interesting article the other day from Michael Brush at MSN Money (I don't necessarily take his advice often, I prefer Jim Jubak)

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/corporate-americas-huge-piles-of-cash.aspx

Corporate America cut and cut and cut and swelled their cash reserves. If they put this money to work, a recovery will take hold and be sustained even after the government money goes away.

I still think we will see a pull back in the Stock Market at one point or another.

  • 3 votes
#1.6 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:07 AM EST
hvymtl83

GOP Rules,

Stop with the MSM crap. Fox does the same thing. Check their web site. Here's a link-poo: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/03/new-jobless-claims-fell-unexpectedly-fifth-straight-week/.

I'm not sure why, but as I've noted previously all "journalists" seem addicted to the word "unexpectedly". They must think it adds punch. It's probably something they teach in journalism school. You see overly dramatic words in just about every article and headline - Unemployment plummets, Markets Crash, and so on.

  • 1 vote
#1.7 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:08 AM EST
JayBot

Doctor: Do you want the good news or bad news first?

Patient: Give me the good news.

Doctor: You've stopped bleeding.

Patient: Great! What's the bad news?

Doctor: You're out of blood.

Regardless of what the major media is trying to sell us these days, this economy is far from recovering. Less job loss is still job loss. Those 457,000 people probably take little comfort in knowing that the number is a little below forecast.

  • 4 votes
#1.8 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:15 AM EST
GOP Rules

hvymtl83 - "Stop with the MSM crap. Fox does the same thing. Check their web site. Here's a link-poo:"

Your point?

    #1.9 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:18 AM EST
    Nicey-1026620

    Doctor: You've stopped bleeding.

    Patient: Great! What's the bad news?

    Doctor: You're out of blood.

    That's hardly an accurate comparison.

    We've bled off around 8 million or so jobs, total non-farm employment is 131 million people. Out of blood would be if there were no jobs at all anywhere.

    • 4 votes
    #1.10 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:20 AM EST
    GOP Rules

    Nicey - "Hundreds of thousands of people ALWAYS lose their jobs every month. We have a work force of 154 million people."

    Bet the additional hundred plus thousand people more than normal who lost their jobs couldn't give a rat's rear end about your liberal spin on the crappy situation we are in.

      #1.11 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:23 AM EST
      hvymtl83

      My point is you GOP boys love holding up Fox as the paragon of "fair and balanced" news, the anti-MSM. Other than bashing the president, I see virtually the same news presented in the same manner with the same content as MSNBC, CNN, etc. You can't have it both ways. So, aside from the bashing articles, Fox is no different than any other news outlet and Fox supporters are merely cherry-picking stuff to support their view that Fox is different and "telling the truth".

      • 5 votes
      #1.12 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:25 AM EST
      OBAMA-FAN

      Jaybot,

      Regardless of what the major media is trying to sell us these days, this economy is far from recovering. Less job loss is still job loss. Those 457,000 people probably take little comfort in knowing that the number is a little below forecast.

      Again, you like many are confusing Economic Recovery with Employment recovery. They are not the same thing. The amount of job loss is analyzed because it shows the stages of Employment Recovery. Many companies have already entered the second stage of Employment recovery (Hiring Freezes). Before that is layoffs, then comes hiring. In cases of recession employers want to see $50 coming in steadily before they spend $1 steadily (an elementary income to employee ratio for arguments sake). This was a terrible recession, almost depression, no one expected this to turnaround quickly, except those who voted against, and do not support Obama.

      • 5 votes
      #1.13 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:31 AM EST
      GOP Rules

      hvymtl - "My point is you GOP boys love holding up Fox as the paragon of "fair and balanced" news, the anti-MSM."

      I tend to watch/read info from several sources. Not because I believe any of them but because I get a kick over seeing how each side spins the story towards their own political views. I am not a follower of any news organization. I make an attempt to find the deeply-buried truth and go from there.

      We have to face the fact that the MSM does spin stuff towards their views the vast majority of the time. Denying that is denying the truth.

        #1.14 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:43 AM EST
        Old VC

        Total unemployment is up 2/10 of a %!!

        457K on the books is a loss not a win!

        • 1 vote
        #1.15 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:48 AM EST
        OBAMA-FAN

        old vc,

        457K on the books is a loss not a win!

        1 on the books is a lost! No one is celebrating only 457k ppl filing new claims. The fact that new claims are steadily declining is what is encouraging about the Employment recovery!

        457,000, the lowest total since the week of Sept. 6, 2008

        • 1 vote
        #1.16 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:55 AM EST
        GOP Rules

        OF - "The fact that new claims are steadily declining is what is encouraging about the Employment recovery!"

        Or... there just aren't any positions that can be cut since most companies are running at skeleton crew levels already... It could be good news but it is likely just that there are no more positions that can be cut.

        • 2 votes
        #1.17 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 11:04 AM EST
        OBAMA-FAN

        It could be good news but it is likely just that there are no more positions that can be cut.

        I'm not sure there's a difference if those people are still employed.

        • 1 vote
        #1.18 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 11:13 AM EST
        jumpshotjarrod

        It could be good news but it is likely just that there are no more positions that can be cut

        I think saying that this is 'likely' the case is somewhat baseless because there are still over one hundred and 30 million people at work. You may be right though.

        However, as I mentioned below, what is happening right now is EXACTLY what has happened during recovery from the last two recessions and what historically happens during economic recovery in general.

        Of course one can always maintain a gloom and doom attitude. But to deny that this information is a good thing is a little tough to do, based on historical data of recessions and subsequent recoveries.

        I know for some, it's not feasible to actually give credit to the current administration and/or the past administration. But, if one were to drop the partisan rage, it may actually become a possibility :)

        • 1 vote
        #1.19 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 11:14 AM EST
        Nicey-1026620

        Bet the additional hundred plus thousand people more than normal who lost their jobs couldn't give a rat's rear end about your liberal spin on the crappy situation we are in.

        I have my issues with the media who always seem to have a slant.

        This is an article from the AP, it doesn't look to have much slant to me. It's simply reporting what is and what it likely indicates.

        The only people looking to politicize it are those who can't have a conversation without injecting partison politics.

          #1.20 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 11:22 AM EST
          Nicey-1026620

          It could be good news but it is likely just that there are no more positions that can be cut

          There's absolutely no limit to the amount of jobs employers can cut. It's all about economic circumstance.

          In the depression, they cut way more than what we are seeing now. The facts are that the Fed managed to stabilize the financial sector which in turn took a lot of fear and risk out of equity markets. That reinforced the financial ability of a lot of companies to remain viable, do business, secure credit, ect.

          The recovery (jobs) isn't doing much (and likely won't for sometime) largely because while credit is flowing certainly better than this time last year, it's not getting to small businesses who create most of the new jobs.

          The SBA loan market is still very impaired. Banks want the "secondary" loan market to improve there before lending (which is a contributor to the problem, creating money on top of money by reselling initial loans, banks want that revenue stream back)

            #1.21 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 11:27 AM EST
            GOP Rules

            Jarrod - "However, as I mentioned below, what is happening right now is EXACTLY what has happened during recovery from the last two recessions and what historically happens during economic recovery in general."

            I keep hope alive but don't see anything really pushing us towards a sustainable recovery. I see us looking good for a year or so then nose-diving. Hopefully I am dead wrong on that.

            Nicey - "There's absolutely no limit to the amount of jobs employers can cut. It's all about economic circumstance."

            Did you really think about what you were typing before you typed it. So you are telling me that, say, a restaurant could cut all their cooks and stay in business? Um... not going to happen.

            I do love the optimism and hopefully my pessimistic(realistic) outlook is wrong.

              #1.22 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 11:45 AM EST
              Nicey-1026620

              Nicey - "There's absolutely no limit to the amount of jobs employers can cut. It's all about economic circumstance."

              Did you really think about what you were typing before you typed it. So you are telling me that, say, a restaurant could cut all their cooks and stay in business? Um... not going to happen.

              I do love the optimism and hopefully my pessimistic(realistic) outlook is wrong.

              I'm not talking about optimism.

              If a company decides to shutter their business with the idea that economic circumstances may improve down the road, there's no limit to the employees they can cut.

              Just go back to the depression. Companies can choose to cut everyone.

              Depends on the business of course and what their fixed costs are. But if they make the decision that the business costs more to operate than it would if they simply stopped operations and restarted later, they can let everyone go.

              I also didn't say anything about "staying in business" in the terms you are thinking. I simply stated, there is no limit to how many employees a business can cut depending on economic circumstances.

              Filing a bankrupcty and letting everyone go counts the exact same as a company letting people go and still continuing their business operations in terms of layoffs.

              And further, a lot of companies can completely stop operations all together and keep the company in tact without normal business operations.

                #1.23 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 12:02 PM EST
                GOP Rules

                Nicey - But none of those actions would be a very good way of pulling a profit. Since most companies are trying to pull a profit or at least bring in enough revenue to stay in business, letting go of more people just isn't an option for most who do need a minimum number of employees to survive.

                  #1.24 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 12:31 PM EST
                  Chief901

                  The reported numbers reflect that people were hired for the Christmas season. Retailers add these temporary employees and lay them off during the first part of January.

                  In February you will see the real high unemployment numbers, less than expected retail sales, and rock-bottom consumer confidence numbers.

                  Then our congress will want to spend more money and increase the debt.

                  You can also refer to the CoH as selective rules for those you agree with.

                  • 3 votes
                  #1.25 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 1:12 PM EST
                  Nicey-1026620

                  The reported numbers reflect that people were hired for the Christmas season.

                  I believe these are adjusted seasonally, which would already account for increased hiring.

                    #1.26 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 1:29 PM EST
                    Checkmate-983933

                    What it doesn't mention is how many people are still unemployed and can no longer collect benefits. THAT's the real number of unemployment and I know quite a few people in that situation.

                    Also, wasn't there a big thing last month of businesses that were making up numbers to inflate how many people they hired? Like, one place said they hired 3,000 people, but in reality, they hired less than a 1,000.

                    • 1 vote
                    #1.27 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 2:39 PM EST
                    Nicey-1026620

                    What it doesn't mention is how many people are still unemployed and can no longer collect benefits. THAT's the real number of unemployment and I know quite a few people in that situation.

                    These people are actually accounted for by the BLS. They have a survey for inside and outside the workforce.

                    If you are looking for a job you're going to be counted as unemployed even if you have no benefits left.

                    And yes, there are many people in this circumstance because finding a job is hard. Some people are permenantly leaving the workforce due to this problem.

                      #1.28 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 2:50 PM EST
                      Checkmate-983933

                      What is the BLS and how does this survey work? Because one of my friends (who ran out of benefits) was told by the unemployment office that when you run out of benefits, you are no longer counted on the system as unemployed.

                      • 1 vote
                      #1.29 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 3:44 PM EST
                      Nicey-1026620

                      The US Berua of Labor Statistics.

                      The Survey is done by using a sample of 50,000 people each month who answer a variety of questions. Unemployment is then extrapolated from these numbers.

                      The official definition of U3 is that you don't have a job and are looking. In the survey, they ask questions to determine what you are doing. Something like "Are you currently employed?" "Have you looked for a job in the last 4 weeks?"

                      They do not use unemployment benefits to calculate unemployment because around 50% of all people who lose jobs never get unemployment benefits. How would they track them if they only used the benefits data?

                      Those people include ones who have been fired. Which always happens in every economy. And you can't collect if you've been fired in most cases. You have to have lost your job due to economic circumstances QED laid off.

                      If you've been fired, and you are currently looking for a job (within the last 4 weeks I believe it is) you are counted under U3 (reported unemployment). The survey of the 50,000 people will reveal 10% of these fit under U3, including people who have been fired and are now looking for a new job but collect no unemployment benefits.

                      The same is true if you are actively looking for a new job coming off unemployment benefits. You fit the U3 definition.

                        #1.30 - Fri Dec 4, 2009 9:58 AM EST
                        Checkmate-983933

                        So, they pick 50,000 in the US to represent those that unemployed, randomly? I can see a big flaw with that idea.

                        For one thing, what about the person who filled out the form while he has a job, gets and then is fired a month later?

                        What about people who have been looking for a job over more than 4 weeks? Or what about people who haven't been looking for a job at all because of the way the market is or they just decide to take a month off from looking?

                          #1.31 - Fri Dec 4, 2009 11:56 AM EST
                          Nicey-1026620

                          So, they pick 50,000 in the US to represent those that unemployed, randomly? I can see a big flaw with that idea.

                          Not randomly.

                          The survey is representative of every race, gender, business sector, etc.

                          And no, that's basic statistics that uses sampling to determine all kinds of things we use on a daily basis. Every time someone flashes a poll they didn't survey everyone in the country, there's a +/- accuracy, depending on the sample size, diversity, etc.

                          But the BLS has been doing this a long, long time. They are very accurate if you've read the math.

                          For one thing, what about the person who filled out the form while he has a job, gets and then is fired a month later?

                          The survey is fairly sophisticated. It's designed to reveal exactly what type of job you are working, how long, etc.

                          It's also updated monthly. So if you worked in the previous 4-weeks, you are considered employed, and then in the next 4, if you report you currently are not working, but looking, you are unemployed.

                          You can also read the report, it includes temp workers, off-week workers, and all kinds of specialized examples.

                          What about people who have been looking for a job over more than 4 weeks?

                          It's if you've looked for a job at anytime in the last month (4 weeks). It doesn't matter how long you have been looking.

                          If I've been looking for 20 weeks...I've looked in the previous 4 weeks to filling out this survey. I will be counted as unemployed.

                          Or what about people who haven't been looking for a job at all because of the way the market is or they just decide to take a month off from looking?

                          http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

                          U4. Discouraged workers.

                          U3 is the official reported number. Discouraged workers are those who have given up looking for market related reasons. Marginally attached are those who have looked sometime in the past year. That's U5.

                          In total, they are 1.3% if you want to add them to the 10%. But they are not actively looking for jobs, so they are not in the official reported figure.

                            #1.32 - Fri Dec 4, 2009 12:38 PM EST
                            jmonarchy

                            Wow. WOW. I don't even want to get into this one or I'll be deleted for sure. I'll let you pin heads that are such economic experts forecast, but leave you with this; look at the trend graph under the last 4 years of the Bush reign. He was driving the bus when the economy was in a cyclonic tailspin. Not saying he did anything to cause the economic and employment collapse, but I never saw him do anything to stop it. he did send out bribe checks from the IRS and asked for TARP, but what in the hell did he do to soften the blow to employment? Now all we can do folks, other than to make wise ass cracks and repeat spun facts one way or another, is to sit back and let time and consistency tell the truth. 10 months won't do. July of 2011 will be the real test date.

                            • 1 vote
                            #1.33 - Fri Dec 4, 2009 4:32 PM EST
                            Reply
                            s.heraclitus

                            It could be that 5000 more people ran out of Unemployment insurance and thus are no longer counted. What is the percentage of Jobs Lost this past month to existing Jobs. If that number is higher then the trend is not reversing as this article is so desperately trying to convince us that it is.

                            Many economists say that claims need to fall to about 425,000 for at least a month to signal that employers are adding jobs.

                            How the hell does losing 425,000 Jobs in a 4 week period equate to "Employers are adding Jobs. It means Employers Just SUBTRACTED 425,000 Job. Many Economist are Shills for the Administration...

                            • 4 votes
                            Reply#2 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 9:58 AM EST
                            greck

                            It could be that 5000 more people ran out of Unemployment insurance and thus are no longer counted.

                            this is a measure of new claims, a measure of people newly laid-off.

                            The part where they analyze what you're talking about is a little further down in the article.

                            • 3 votes
                            #2.1 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:04 AM EST
                            Nicey-1026620

                            How the hell does losing 425,000 Jobs in a 4 week period equate to "Employers are adding Jobs. It means Employers Just SUBTRACTED 425,000 Job. Many Economist are Shills for the Administration...

                            No, that's not what initial unemployment claims tell you.

                            It doesn't tell you "net" jobs added or lost. That is under the BLS employment situation report.

                            http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

                            Page 21 of 29 shows the "net" job loss. It was 190,000 in October even though we had around 500k+ in initial unemployment claims.

                            • 3 votes
                            #2.2 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:16 AM EST
                            Reply
                            Sherry-523975

                            And when will this figure be adjusted?

                            .

                            • 2 votes
                            Reply#3 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:03 AM EST
                            Nicey-1026620

                            The previous weeks are adjusted each week I believe for up to 4 weeks after initially reported.

                            The four-week average of claims, which smooths out fluctuations, dropped for the 13th straight week to 481,250

                            Most analysts use the 4-week moving average because claims can be volatile week to week. But even the 4-week moving average has been consistently moving lower for 3 months now.

                            • 1 vote
                            #3.1 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:18 AM EST
                            Reply
                            flyfishva

                            Yet another weekly BS media spin-what this article DOES NOT reference is that there are millions-yes millions NOT currently receiving UI benefits as the recent jobless extension Bill just signed by the President last month is not being distributed yet at the State levels. Wait till reporting on December when all these unemployed people are back on the rolls. I realize this story is only referencing first time claims when the reality is the media andthe WH are NOT talking about all the people who are jobless and the lack of jobs in this economy. Gee, why is that? Something needs to done to get these people back to work and soon!!

                            • 2 votes
                            Reply#4 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:22 AM EST
                            hvymtl83

                            Oh, so then you admit that Fox is not the "fair-and-balanced anti-MSM" news company they and others claim them to be since they published exactly the same story. They thus must be in league with the Whitehouse and only bash the President to drum up support in their targeted demographic. In sum, they are even more disengenous than other news outlets since they bash the Pres and Dems on one hand while spouting the party line on the economy, etc on the other.

                            • 3 votes
                            #4.1 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:31 AM EST
                            OBAMA-FAN

                            Yet another weekly BS media spin-what this article DOES NOT reference is that there are millions-yes millions NOT currently receiving UI benefits as the recent jobless extension Bill just signed by the President last month is not being distributed yet at the State levels.

                            Not sure if you actually read the article, but it clearly says that these numbers do not include extended benefits, so those "Millions NOT receiving UI benefits" would not have been counted, especially since this is regarding "NEW JOBLESS CLAIMS".

                            That total doesn't include millions of unemployed Americans that are receiving benefits under extended programs paid for by the federal government.

                            • 1 vote
                            #4.2 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:39 AM EST
                            flyfishva

                            I believe I referenced that in my post: "I realize this story is only referencing first time claims". As for Faux News and all the other media outlets-none of them are reporting anything concerning this jobless recovery-or about the unemployed or about anything to do with this horrible economy. And they all are guilty of the non coverage and BS media spin!

                            • 1 vote
                            #4.3 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 11:45 AM EST
                            OBAMA-FAN

                            And they all are guilty of the non coverage and BS media spin!

                            Not sure I know what you're talking about! There are stories regarding this by every major media outlet, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ABC ect....

                            • 1 vote
                            #4.4 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 12:59 PM EST
                            jumpshotjarrod

                            OBAMA FAN

                            It's funny; I remember several months ago when the media (every outlet) was bludgeoning us with gloom and doom economic stories. The rally cry then was that the media was being to 'doomsday'. At the time, the rate of growth of unemployment was increasing steadily. Now that it's decreasing, how can people be upset?

                            I guess it all goes back to the tried and true method of letting partisan rage be thy guide :)

                            • 2 votes
                            #4.5 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 2:59 PM EST
                            OBAMA-FAN

                            Jarrod,

                            You know what they say in the News, "If it Bleeds, it leads!" Positivity is not sexy! LOL

                            • 2 votes
                            #4.6 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 4:51 PM EST
                            jumpshotjarrod

                            Sad but true.

                            I don't contend that a steadily decreasing rate of growth of unemployment somehow guarantees future prosperity. However, i would much, much rather see a steadily DECREASING rate of growth of unemployment than a steadily INCREASING one.

                            I'm not sure why people are so upset at the media for reporting that a key indicator is now going in the opposite direction of what it was. Seems pretty fundamental to me.

                              #4.7 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 5:00 PM EST
                              Reply
                              jumpshotjarrod

                              This is exactly whas is suppose to happen during economic recovery. This is exactly what has happened historically during economic recovery.

                              Rate of growth of unemployment has always been the key indicator as opposed to the total unemployment rate.

                              The fact that the growth rate of the unemployment rate begins to change direction at the end of every recession does not necessarily mean that the unemployment rate itself is beginning to fall. For example, in the 1990 and 2001 recessions the unemployment rate continued to climb for a year or more after the NBER called an end to the recession. The direction of the rate of growth of the unemployment rate is a better indicator of the end of a recession than the unemployment rate itself.

                              In both of the 1990 and 2001 recessions, the unemployment rate continued to rise a year after the recession was declared to be over by the NBER. In the current recession, as of October of 2009, the unemployment rate is still climbing. But its rate of growth turned around in March. The economic indicators that have always turned before unemployment are turning right now. http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/4057

                              This isn't an example of the 'dreaded MSM' spinning anything. If the rate of growth of unemployment is steadily decreasing, a rudimentary understanding of historical recessions tells us that's a very good thing; Plain and simple.

                              • 3 votes
                              Reply#5 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:31 AM EST
                              hvymtl83

                              Good analysis. You and a few others get it. However, this does not lessen the fact that the admin and Congress are doing a very poor job of addressing unemployment. They did a pretty good job of stabilizing the financial system but get at best a D on unemployment. Rather than some of the utterly silly crap Congress choose for the first stimulus package, they should have devoted virtually the whole enchilada to fixing our crumbling infrastructure. That will put people back to work. My area was fortunate to have a lot of "shovel-ready" projects and while I wouldn't call our local economy booming, it is doing pretty good. We're down to about 7.5% UE in this area.

                                #5.1 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:39 AM EST
                                OBAMA-FAN

                                Jarrod,

                                Very well said, and great sources!!!

                                • 1 vote
                                #5.2 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:44 AM EST
                                OBAMA-FAN

                                hvym,

                                They did a pretty good job of stabilizing the financial system but get at best a D on unemployment.

                                You can't do both at the same time. The market stabilization was paramount in order to assure that the recession didn't get worse than it already was. Not sure you can grade the administration on their handling of unemployment until they begin to focus on it solely. Trying to address unemployment during a recession while every economic market is extremly volitile is like trying to empty a sink with a slotted spoon.

                                • 1 vote
                                #5.3 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:49 AM EST
                                jumpshotjarrod

                                hymtl83

                                I agree to a certain extent. I think the original stimulus added too much appeasing fluff and was too small.

                                the CBO's recent report pointed to how many jobs were saved or created due to the stimulus. Obviously, jobs are still going to be lost during recessions but anything that helps curb the impact is greatly needed. The focus should have been there and not the mythical unicorn of tax cuts and other no nothing projects.

                                • 1 vote
                                #5.4 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 11:02 AM EST
                                Nicey-1026620

                                However, this does not lessen the fact that the admin and Congress are doing a very poor job of addressing unemployment.

                                I agree with that.

                                The Fed pulled out all the stops and the government stopped the financial system from toppling over. However, they didn't have a very good plan (and still are struggling) to get loans/credit/money to the small business sector.

                                Or institute many policies that would encourage hiring.

                                Instead, we did the old tax cut consumer spending incentive method. Which is not working and is part of the problem. Unfunded tax cuts for the consumer have to be paid down the road at one point. And incentive cuts artificially inflate prices (like the housing tax credit) which contribute to some of these bubble situations.

                                We should be making incentives to start businesses, to invest in R&D, to build things. Not tax incentives to go buy new appliances, cash for clunkers, or buy new homes.

                                If you put people to work, buying new homes, vehicles, appliances will come naturally.

                                  #5.5 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 11:32 AM EST
                                  flyfishva

                                  And months from now-when we still have people losing their jobs due to outsourcing to other Countries -what say you? I agree less people lost jobs last month-yet there has been zero jobs created and or any job recovery. The fact is, this administration and the media have not accurately reported the jobs lost and the number of unemployed in this Country. Every month they correct the reported first time unemployment numbers-at this point I find it hard to believe anything but the U6 reporting as I believe it is the most consistent and factual and yet we will never hear the media or the WH reference those numbers. I voted for Obama and I realize he inherited this mess and yet at some point, he has to assume some responsibility for what is done or not in regards to this issue.

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #5.6 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 11:55 AM EST
                                  Nicey-1026620

                                  U6 reporting as I believe it is the most consistent and factual and yet we will never hear the media or the WH reference those numbers

                                  U6 is reported every single month. Along with U5, U4, U3, U2, and U1. No one is preventing anyone from looking this up. You're free to use your Internet connection (as are almost all Americans) to find it out.

                                  The survey uses the exact same methodology to find U3 (the monthly reported figure) and U6. There's no reason one would be more consistent than the other.

                                    #5.7 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 12:05 PM EST
                                    OBAMA-FAN

                                    The U6 is not an accurate reporting of unemployment and you are correct, the WH would never reference their numbers since their numbers actually factor in "Under-Employed" people as well. Their numbers are always higher because they consider part-time unemployed!

                                    the U6 figure includes "discouraged workers" and those who are employed part time only because they can’t find full-time jobs.

                                    • 1 vote
                                    #5.8 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 12:23 PM EST
                                    Andy-827327

                                    Don't forget about Obama's "saved or created" BS numbers they continue to promote...Obama is like a snake oil salesman when it comes to talking about jobs.

                                    • 2 votes
                                    #5.9 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 1:09 PM EST
                                    jumpshotjarrod

                                    And months from now-when we still have people losing their jobs due to outsourcing to other Countries -what say you?

                                    If the rate at which people are losing their jobs is consistently less than the last month, then all signs point to us being on the right track.

                                    Again, this isn't rocket science. We have over a dozen recessions and recoveries to compare to. Many of those recoveries were jobless, in that unemployment continued to increase while the economy recovered. This isn't a hypothetical or something espoused on a whim, it's fact. The rate of growth of unemployment generally runs parallel with recovery. As the economy improves, less and less people lose their jobs until we reach a point where the overall unemployment rate starts to improve.

                                    In the last two recessions, unemployment has risen for over a year after the recession ended. However, during that same time span, the rate of growth of unemployment began slowly and steadily improving until overall unemployment itself began to improve.

                                      #5.10 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 2:36 PM EST
                                      Reply
                                      Al 616

                                      Jobless claims are down. There are still a LOT of people out there who have run out of unemployment benefits and who have simply given up.

                                        Reply#6 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:41 AM EST
                                        OBAMA-FAN

                                        Understood, but the way to gage where the employment recovery is, is by how many new unemployment insurance claims are filed.

                                        • 1 vote
                                        #6.1 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:59 AM EST
                                        Reply
                                        Phil-1006700

                                        Of course there are jobs , Christmas is comming and stores are hiring. What an administration!!!! Gotta go my low paying part time job is calling me.

                                        • 1 vote
                                        Reply#7 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 11:43 AM EST
                                        EAS-E Auto Services

                                        From the small business owner now unemployed seeking work at a 7 to 1 ratio (applicants to actual jobs available) new claims may be a turning point but, it is still just slowing the bleed out. I'm a little behind on how big the stimulus package was but, for every billion given to banks, insurance carrier, or auto maker they could have actively persued small businesses that strengthen our local economies. I don't mean persue the way they destroy businesses but, to strengthen them. Tax records reflect who and how well any business has been doing. If the government would have looked at last years tax returns and given yes given a match up to 100,000 dollars what would it do? For my 1.2 persons business it would have secured equipment from going to losses this year. My doors would be open. By paying off equipment it would have secured in NY sales tax 3600 even at reduced sales this year. The sales tax the state would make back on the paid for equipment would be 5200. Totals over 12% immediate return. Finance companies would be able to lend by the difference. As I was just getting to the point of expansion and employing my limited partner would now have income as well. This versus unemployment for 2 of which can't be claimed. 2 families now in dire straights. The compounded effect is property taxes paid, purchases for other businesses including auto makers, and the sales tax generated. The return on this type of stimulus would be 100% ROI within 5 years, the impact immediate. Where is the impact of the big business stimulus-457K new jobs lost claims. Small business owners can't outsource overseas when they are based locally and sales happen locally. The money's stay here producing jobs. Producing all sorts of tax revenues locally. A business like mine expanding is to nearby a nearby city. The outward impacts are all positive locally, maybe as far as some neighboring states. This is how you stimulate an economy, not giving it to few corporations that pay CEO's large salaries to lose money and ship jobs overseas. Grants are a joke, only good for internet marketers to sell you some package with no results. I do not care which party it is but, someone needs to save small businesses, they are our backbone. For every billion it could've saved around 15,000 small businesses. If each created or saved just one job how fast would unemployment be dropping recovering our economy? Drive around any city, how many vacant commercial locations could still be open? An open business generates all kinds of taxes, a closed one decreases property values, taxes lost. To ignore this is ignorance.

                                          Reply#8 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 11:45 AM EST
                                          EAS-E Auto Services

                                          Adding to the small business and job creations: For 15M people to be out of work there is 15M homes now in jeopardy of going into foreclosure. If each had one major credit card there are 15M accounts going or already in default. 15M people that are potentially going to have to find a way to file bankruptcy, and adding 457K in a month is not a good outlook at all. Companies use credit as a way to disallow employment. Even if 50% make it through for the most part it is now 7.5M people who are looking at long term unemployment and severely damaged credit therefore no longer able to function within our economic system. 7.5M people that won't be able to buy cars, home appliances, or any number of other things that can keep the employed working. If there are 250 major cities the numbers equate to 300K people for each of these will be non productive. In my county around Rochester, NY that's 30% of the population. If each small business was supplied with a grant of up to 100,000 matching 08 sales 10,000 small businesses locally would be much stronger and the local economy would recover itself through job creation. Each companies cash flow would be increased, and tax revenues would provide high returns. Within a few years 100% return and the local governments would function. Small business being any with 1- 50 employees including the owner(s). Monies would strengthen banks, auto makers, jobs, and financial institutions if a requirement would be to justify where the monies were spent. Wasn't this part of the Obama speech about Joe The Plumber talk, what happened? I voted for the change he preached even though I typically vote the R. So far monies were given directly to many that had a big part in the recession/depression. Monies given to where they impact the largest part of society would help solidify the country, not the few that are the minority.

                                            Reply#9 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 12:22 PM EST
                                            OBAMA-FAN

                                            EAS,

                                            For 15M people to be out of work there is 15M homes now in jeopardy of going into foreclosure.

                                            You are assuming that each of these 15m people have a mortgage. That's simply not the case. What about those who own their homes outright? I do agree that most have at least 1 credit card, but no bankruptcies court in this country will let you file bankruptcy for 1 credit card. The only reason this report says that 457 is a "good outlook" is because this number is at it's lowest in over a year. That's huge!

                                            If each small business was supplied with a grant of up to 100,000 matching 08 sales 10,000 small businesses locally would be much stronger and the local economy would recover itself through job creation.

                                            this is the same as giving a tax break in that there is no guarantee that the money would cause hiring. All businesses look at incoming revenue in order to gage if that warrants the hiring of new employees. Just because you have a couple of extra bucks in one shot doesn't mean to take on a perpetual expense like salary.

                                            Monies would strengthen banks, auto makers, jobs, and financial institutions if a requirement would be to justify where the monies were spent.

                                            Again, this is all speculative. No one lucky enough to find a job in this recession it going to go out an buy a car or take out a loan. Anyone who gets a job in the next 6mos will be playing catch up for at least 8-10mos, and they if they're smart they will start saving.

                                            So far monies were given directly to many that had a big part in the recession/depression.

                                            And that was a necessary evil. Most of those companies employ for more than the 1-50ppl you are referring to. AIG employs well over 100k ppl. Banks that were bailed out offer credit to small businesses so they can keep their employees or at lease retain most of their staff. The amount of people who are supported by the American auto industry is another example.

                                            Monies given to where they impact the largest part of society would help solidify the country, not the few that are the minority.

                                            I agree, and that's what was done.

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #9.1 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 12:51 PM EST
                                            Nicey-1026620

                                            I agree, and that's what was done.

                                            A tax rebate does not have the *best* economic impact. It just reinforces bad old habits. That is spend more money.

                                            Not invest, not purchase goods to start a small business, not put it into R&D, not building things.

                                              #9.2 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 2:07 PM EST
                                              Reply
                                              greg-709692

                                              The tally of newly laid-off workers seeking unemployment benefits fell unexpectedly for the fifth straight week, a hopeful sign that the job market is slowly improving.

                                              Just a question, but a simple one!

                                              How is it good that 457 thousand are still lost, and they make it sound like yippy, because its not what they expected?

                                                #10 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 1:58 PM EST
                                                jumpshotjarrod

                                                See comment #5. The reason that this is good news is because historically, this is what happens during recovery.

                                                Recovery is a process. We aren't going to go from mass amounts of red numbers to whopping black numbers in one month. Comparing our current recovery to the track of recent recession recoveries, these numbers indicate that we are on the right track. Decreases in the growth of unemployment historically inevitably leads to decreases in overall unemployment. It's a pretty simple concept.

                                                  #10.1 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 2:26 PM EST
                                                  greck

                                                  and they make it sound like yippy,

                                                  no they don't.

                                                  here's what they make it sound like:

                                                  a hopeful sign that the job market is slowly improving.

                                                  what part of that makes you say "yippy" or think that anyone else is saying it?

                                                    #10.2 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 2:27 PM EST
                                                    greg-709692

                                                    The fact that the growth rate of the unemployment rate begins to change direction at the end of every recession does not necessarily mean that the unemployment rate itself is beginning to fall.

                                                    OK!

                                                    So, it's not good news for many Americans and could cause a fall in 2010 for those that need re-election.

                                                    The theory is great, but the minds of people don't think that way. They just look at the decline.

                                                    When the President says "The recession is over" and all people see is decline in jobs, it's just not going to work to tell them, it's not as bad as we thought. They still see it as bad, even if it's not as much.

                                                      #10.3 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 2:31 PM EST
                                                      jumpshotjarrod

                                                      So, it's not good news for many Americans and could cause a fall in 2010 for those that need re-election.

                                                      The theory is great, but the minds of people don't think that way. They just look at the decline.

                                                      That's the thing Greg, it's not theory. It's historical fact. Check the link. Check the BLS archives. This is how recovery has historically taken place; economy first, jobs second.

                                                      The report doesn't sound a trumpet of triumph; it simply gleans some optimism based on how our current numbers compare to that of recent recessions/recoveries.

                                                      As I said above, recovery is not an overnight event; it's a process. The rate of growth of unemployment was, for several months, increasing. Logically, it must start decreasing before we actually begin to see positive numbers in regard to the overall unemployment rate. To expect it to just magically flip is simply illogical.

                                                        #10.4 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 2:43 PM EST
                                                        greg-709692

                                                        Just the beginning of this speach makes me skeptical:

                                                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6DRc5IaKhg

                                                        It's all a game of numbers not actual accomplishments!

                                                        Pelosi now says, the bailout money needs to go to saving jobs and building roads and bridges.

                                                        Sound familiar on what we got to get the Stimulus Package passed.

                                                        We can't wait another 2 years for things to change! He should have worked on the job part more than Health care and Cap and Trade part.

                                                        People only look at the paycheck they get to keep on living. Foreclosures are growing and the bull@!$%# on housing going up, is crap. It's people buying forclosed homes and not newly constructed homes.

                                                          #10.5 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 3:08 PM EST
                                                          jumpshotjarrod

                                                          Greg

                                                          The speech you posted was 10 months ago and is generally irrelevant to what has happened since then. The report in the seed is about the numbers, not the intentions of 10 months ago.

                                                          Anyhow, in the speech, the President says "over the next two years". That doesn't mean his intention was to wait two years before doing anything. That's why he wanted the stimulus ready as soon as he was inaugurated. He simply said that the stimulus would take two years to fully reognize it's impact. That's a pretty mundane, common sense statement given the situation. Based on the continued decrease in the rate of growth of unemployment, Obama's '2 year' pledge looks to be right on pace.

                                                          I'm not sure what the President could have possibly done to impact jobs anymore than he has in 10 months time (especially given the rabid opposition he faced). As I have said before, a literal Messiah wouldn't have been able to positively impact the unemployment rate in just 10 months with the startiing hand that Obama got.

                                                          Had the stimulus not passed (as Republicans wanted), several economists (including conservative ones) have stated that the unemployment would be even higher and we still would not have GDP growth, signifying continued increases in unemployment rate growth.

                                                          I can understand the logic behind the argument that not passing the stimulus would be better over the long haul (say 20 or 30 years). However, to act as if things would be better NOW if the stimulus wasn't passed is laughable.

                                                          If people want to criticize the President about unemployment, that's fine; but it better not be the same people who insisted that the stimulus be composed of tax cuts and not the job creating projects that they ridiculed and hyperbolized.

                                                            #10.6 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 4:45 PM EST
                                                            greg-709692

                                                            Trust me, I know how old it is. It was his preacher moment to get us on board. The board is broken now.

                                                            Only 1/4 of the Stimulus package has been spent so far, not including the TARP money that hasn't been spent.

                                                            They were quick on giving out the money to the bank's and AIG, why are they being slow on recovery money for the little guy. Is it they have no intention on giving any money to the little guy and it's all lip service?

                                                            Geitner is now saying the Stimulus money project is winding down soon. They haven't spent it. Are they going to give us a refund if it's not all spent, or send it somewhere else to be spent at their beck and call.

                                                            • 1 vote
                                                            #10.7 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 4:57 PM EST
                                                            Andy-827327

                                                            Had the stimulus not passed (as Republicans wanted), several economists (including conservative ones) have stated that the unemployment would be even higher and we still would not have GDP growth, signifying continued increases in unemployment rate growth.

                                                            Do you mean even higher than the 8% that Obama's economic team said the unemployment rate would not go above if the stimulus was passed? Oh, that's right it's at 10.2%...never mind.

                                                            • 2 votes
                                                            #10.8 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 4:57 PM EST
                                                            jumpshotjarrod

                                                            Andy

                                                            Yes, that is what I mean. Several economists have stated publically that the unemployment rate would most likely be at 12% and the rate of growth of unemployment would still be increasing had the stimulus not been passed.

                                                              #10.9 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 5:03 PM EST
                                                              Andy-827327

                                                              Please cite the Conservative eeconomists who "stated publically that the unemployment rate would most likely be at 12% and the rate of growth of unemployment would still be increasing had the stimulus not been passed".

                                                              • 2 votes
                                                              #10.10 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 5:14 PM EST
                                                              jumpshotjarrod

                                                              Geitner is now saying the Stimulus money project is winding down soon. They haven't spent it. Are they going to give us a refund if it's not all spent, or send it somewhere else to be spent at their beck and call.

                                                              Greg, a large sum of stimulus money was dispersed to organizations who proposed various economic recovery projects. Thus, the money has been distributed from the federal level and is now being applied at a direct level.

                                                              The money was dispersed about as fast as it could be in order to ensure quality. Think about it: the application process for stimulus moneys must be thorough in order to weed out bad projects or potential frauders. Applications must be reviewed and graded on merit. A good application can not be constructed over night. Thus, it took lower level organizations some time to develop and submit solid proposals, it took the federal government some time to review, grade, and determine solid proposals, and it takes each organization some time to begin, implement, and complete proposed projects.

                                                              My project is on the exact same 2 year timeline that obama laid out. It took us about 12 weeks to develop a solid project, recruit project partners, develop a feasible project plan, and submit a project proposal. It then took the federal government about 8 weeks to review all of those proposals and grade based on merit. As an organization, we really can't move on the proposal until we know for sure that the proposal has been awarded. Thus, upon receiving notification of the stimulus award, it took us about 8 weeks to hire and train project staff, recruit project sites, and so on.

                                                                #10.11 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 5:23 PM EST
                                                                greg-709692

                                                                Think about it: the application process for stimulus moneys must be thorough in order to weed out bad projects or potential frauders.

                                                                That would be nice if they really do it.

                                                                Billions funneled to the banks, AIG and the like, and you think they were thorough in the process?

                                                                Remember the fake outrage when the CEO compensation limit was taken out of the bill, CEO's got a ton, then Obama fained disgust. He new it was taken out, he just needed to save face after Dodd orchestrated that little diddy!

                                                                  #10.12 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 5:29 PM EST
                                                                  jumpshotjarrod

                                                                  Andy

                                                                  Actually, I didn't say what you said I said. You combined two seperate statements into one.

                                                                  But anyhow:

                                                                  The New York Times recently quoted Mark Zandi, who was one of candidate John McCain's economic advisers, on this point: "The stimulus is doing what it was supposed to do—it is contributing to ending the recession," he said. "In my view, without the stimulus, G.D.P would still be negative and unemployment would be firmly over 11 percent." http://www.slate.com/id/2236708/

                                                                  “Most conservative economists are all for it,” said Mark Zandi, a founder of Moody’s Economy.com who advised GOP presidential candidate John McCain.
                                                                  http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/jan/18/nation/chi-stimulus_bdjan18

                                                                  Martin Feldstein, a professor of economics at Harvard University who served as chief economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan and is considered the dean of conservative economists, has expressed support for a stimulus plan. http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/jan/18/nation/chi-stimulus_bdjan18

                                                                  Economists say the money out the door -- combined with the expectation of additional funds flowing soon -- is fueling growth above where it would have been without any government action.

                                                                  Many forecasters say stimulus spending is adding two to three percentage points to economic growth in the second and third quarters, when measured at an annual rate

                                                                  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125185379218478087.html#mod=article-outset-box

                                                                  Some economists say the 1% contraction in the second quarter would have been far worse, possibly as much as 3.2%, if not for the stimulus.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125185379218478087.html#mod=article-outset-box

                                                                  There's a few for starters. Some are from before the stimulus was passed, some are from after.

                                                                    #10.13 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 5:40 PM EST
                                                                    jumpshotjarrod

                                                                    That would be nice if they really do it.

                                                                    I manage a stimulus project and they most certainly did that. I just outlined the process for you. If you don't believe me, so be it.

                                                                      #10.14 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 5:44 PM EST
                                                                      Andy-827327

                                                                      So I see you have one conservative economist saying it could go above 11% , we are at 10.2% now and could get to 11% before its over...it would figure that he worked for McCain.

                                                                      I will go back to Obama's economic team stating that it wouldn't go over 8% if the stimulus passed. Not one job has been created (in-spite of their constant "saved or created" bull $hit they keep promoting) we have shed over 3 million jobs since he took office.

                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                      #10.15 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 6:29 PM EST
                                                                      jumpshotjarrod

                                                                      Actually Andy,

                                                                      that particular economist said unemployment would CURRENTLY be firmly above 11% and that the GDP would still be negative. If the GDP were still negative, it stands to reason that the growth rate of unemployment is continuing to get worse....instead of better.

                                                                        #10.16 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 11:07 PM EST
                                                                        Reply
                                                                        prone2xs

                                                                        One unexpected fall in jobless claims is nothing to get too excited about. My company just laid off more workers. I expect we'll be back to the 500K jobless claim number next month.

                                                                          Reply#11 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 4:53 PM EST
                                                                          John-614398

                                                                          So with this kind of brilliance I suppose when everyone is out of a job and there are no more new jobless claims we will be doing so good we will all have a big party.

                                                                          I think that if you are any one of those 457,000 men and women who lost their job you would not be able to find any silver lining in this mess.

                                                                          Here is the reason we have this non-recovery going on.

                                                                          Barack Obama and the worthless Democrats in Washington have put the most productive people in the country on notice that they are public enemy #1 and that business and the middle class are about to be robbed by the federal government.

                                                                          So guess what. If they have money they are not going to spend it.

                                                                          If their business is doing well they are not going to invest in it to expand, they will not risk any capital and will continue to mark time until they get confidence back in our government.

                                                                          Now folks those are the facts and nothing but the facts.

                                                                            Reply#12 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 6:44 PM EST
                                                                            Nicey-1026620

                                                                            Wow. Unemployment report this morning.

                                                                            Economy only shed 11,000 jobs in November. Well below the 130,000 forecast. And the previous two months of October and September were both revised way lower.

                                                                            September originally reported 219,000 lost, was revised down to 139,000. October reported 190,000 lost was revised down to 111,000.

                                                                            We may hit adding jobs in December. Q1 2010 for sure.

                                                                              Reply#13 - Fri Dec 4, 2009 10:01 AM EST
                                                                              John-614398

                                                                              At this rate how many years will it take to get all of the folks that out of work back working?

                                                                              Hmm 20 years?

                                                                                Reply#14 - Fri Dec 4, 2009 11:21 AM EST
                                                                                Deb-1083545

                                                                                If you are laid off, beware. There is a good chance the ex-employer will tell the unemployment bureau you were fired for wrongful misconduct so you will not be able to collect benefits, or COBRA either, for that matter. It happened to me. Keep notes and I mean document everything. You will have your day in court, but benefits will cease until you plead your case. You will receiving very threatening letters from the State in the meantime, but fight for your rights. Justice will prevail.

                                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                                Reply#15 - Fri Dec 4, 2009 1:53 PM EST
                                                                                Leave a Comment:
                                                                                You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                                                You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                                                                (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                                                                Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                                                                As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                                                                FUN STUFF:
                                                                                • Leaderboard |
                                                                                • E-Mail Alerts |
                                                                                • Top of the Vine |
                                                                                • Newsvine Live |
                                                                                • Newsvine Archives |
                                                                                • The Greenhouse
                                                                                COMPANY STUFF:
                                                                                • Code of Honor |
                                                                                • Company Info |
                                                                                • Contact Us |
                                                                                • Jobs |
                                                                                • User Agreement |
                                                                                • Privacy Policy |
                                                                                • About our ads
                                                                                LEGAL STUFF:
                                                                                • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                                • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                                • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com