Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
Thanks Tree8Thanks

Thread: Americans receiving unemployment lowest since 1973

  1. #1
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    47,131
    Thanks
    29121

    From
    New Hampshire

    Americans receiving unemployment lowest since 1973

    Now if we could only keep inflation in check.

    New applications for U.S. jobless benefits increased less than expected last week and the number of Americans receiving unemployment aid fell to its lowest level since 1973, pointing to tightening labor market conditions.

    Initial claims for state unemployment benefits rose 2,000 to a seasonally adjusted 211,000 for the week ended April 28, the Labor Department said on Thursday. Claims dropped to 209,000 in the prior week, which was the lowest level since December 1969.

    Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims rising to 225,000 in the latest week. The labor market is considered to be near or at full employment. The unemployment rate is at a 17-year low of 4.1 percent, close to the Federal Reserve's forecast of 3.8 percent by the end of this year.

    Feds will leave rates unchanged for now.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/03/us-w...l-28-2018.html

  2. #2
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    28,143
    Thanks
    7159

    From
    midwest
    Thanks Trump!

  3. #3
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    66,400
    Thanks
    34056

    From
    Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    New applications for U.S. jobless benefits increased less than expected last week and the number of Americans receiving unemployment aid fell to its lowest level since 1973, pointing to tightening labor market conditions.
    Two things in this sentence:

    1) New applications for U.S. jobless benefits increased less than expected last week; and,

    2) The number of Americans receiving unemployment aid fell to its lowest level since 1973.

    These two things are different. One refers to new applications; the other refers to the total people on UI, and it is typically this number from which the unemployment rate is determined. The latter category, however, does not reflect unemployed persons who did not qualify for UI, and/or people whose benefits have run out even if they still could not find work. And none of it accounts for people employed for less than full-time without benefits (or even people employed full-time without benefits). Thus, it is illogical to conflate the two.
    Thanks from Arkady and DebateDrone

  4. #4
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    36,231
    Thanks
    31914

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Miller47 View Post
    Thanks Trump!
    The decline in unemployment has been going on for eight years now, stretching back to early 2010.

    Amusing that you are thanking Mr. Trump for that.

    Of course, just two years ago, in 2016, at about this time, Mr. Trump was gallivanting around the country, claiming that the 'real' unemployment rate was, like, 40%.

    Were you one of the millions of country bumpkins and rubes who believed him?

    That would have been worse than the highest unemployment rate we saw during the Great Depression of the 1930's, by the way.

    I suppose that there ARE people who really and actually think that Mr. Trump has reduced unemployment from 40% in 2016 to 4% today, and did all of that in just 16 months.

    If you are one of those, might I suggest seeking some mental health help, at your earliest possible convenience?
    Thanks from OldGaffer, NightSwimmer and labrea

  5. #5
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    47,131
    Thanks
    29121

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Two things in this sentence:

    1) New applications for U.S. jobless benefits increased less than expected last week; and,

    2) The number of Americans receiving unemployment aid fell to its lowest level since 1973.

    These two things are different. One refers to new applications; the other refers to the total people on UI, and it is typically this number from which the unemployment rate is determined. The latter category, however, does not reflect unemployed persons who did not qualify for UI, and/or people whose benefits have run out even if they still could not find work. And none of it accounts for people employed for less than full-time without benefits (or even people employed full-time without benefits). Thus, it is illogical to conflate the two.
    There does seem to be a lot of conflicting information out there, low unemployment but higher reporting, higher wages and few openings. Higher inflation and interest rates as well. All pretty confusing to me. I suppose its part of some cycle and makes sense.

  6. #6
    Member Arkady's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    2,334
    Thanks
    3279

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    Now if we could only keep inflation in check.

    New applications for U.S. jobless benefits increased less than expected last week and the number of Americans receiving unemployment aid fell to its lowest level since 1973, pointing to tightening labor market conditions.

    Initial claims for state unemployment benefits rose 2,000 to a seasonally adjusted 211,000 for the week ended April 28, the Labor Department said on Thursday. Claims dropped to 209,000 in the prior week, which was the lowest level since December 1969.

    Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims rising to 225,000 in the latest week. The labor market is considered to be near or at full employment. The unemployment rate is at a 17-year low of 4.1 percent, close to the Federal Reserve's forecast of 3.8 percent by the end of this year.

    Feds will leave rates unchanged for now.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/03/us-w...l-28-2018.html
    That's really interesting. I'm curious what changes in unemployment insurance could allow current levels of insured unemployment to be so lower than levels in periods that had A LOT fewer unemployed people. For example, as of March of this year, there are 6.585 million unemployed people in this country. Back in October of 2000, there were 5.534 million of them. So, the count of unemployed people is up 19%. Yet, somehow, the level of insured unemployment is down in that time.

    Presumably that has something to do with long-term unemployed -- that even though very few people are left unemployed for a short enough period, now, that they're still getting unemployment payments (just 1.756 million), there are nearly five million people who are unemployed and yet are not eligible for unemployment payments. It might also have to do with people who are looking for work but haven't had formal employment before that allows them to be eligible for unemployment payments (e.g., a new graduate).

    If someone has the details on that, I'd be really curious.
    Last edited by Arkady; 3rd May 2018 at 07:41 AM.

  7. #7
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    28,143
    Thanks
    7159

    From
    midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    The decline in unemployment has been going on for eight years now, stretching back to early 2010.

    Amusing that you are thanking Mr. Trump for that.

    Of course, just two years ago, in 2016, at about this time, Mr. Trump was gallivanting around the country, claiming that the 'real' unemployment rate was, like, 40%.

    Were you one of the millions of country bumpkins and rubes who believed him?

    That would have been worse than the highest unemployment rate we saw during the Great Depression of the 1930's, by the way.

    I suppose that there ARE people who really and actually think that Mr. Trump has reduced unemployment from 40% in 2016 to 4% today, and did all of that in just 16 months.

    If you are one of those, might I suggest seeking some mental health help, at your earliest possible convenience?
    Thanks Obama!

    Thanks Trump!

    Now with all the conflicting information, as mentioned in Post #5, all sides will cherry pick the sthuff that supports their agenda.

    Overall, generally speaking, the economy seems to be doing very well.

    Amazing that the economy did not collapse the day after Trumps election, as predicted by MSNBC/NYT genius Steve Rattner on election day:

    "If Trump wins you will see a market crash of historic proportions..."

    He could not have been more wrong if he had tried...
    Last edited by Miller47; 3rd May 2018 at 09:04 AM.

  8. #8
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    35,999
    Thanks
    28615

    From
    On a hill
    According to this, Trumps employment numbers are average.

    Labor Force Participation Rate in the United States decreased to 62.90 percent in March from 63 percent in February of 2018. Labor Force Participation Rate in the United States averaged 63 percent from 1950 until 2018, reaching an all time high of 67.30 percent in January of 2000 and a record low of 58.10 percent in December of 1954.

    https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...icipation-rate

  9. #9
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    35,999
    Thanks
    28615

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by Miller47 View Post
    Thanks Obama!

    Thanks Trump!

    Now with all the conflicting information, as mentioned in Post #5, all sides will cherry pick the sthuff that supports their agenda.

    Overall, generally speaking, the economy seems to be doing very well.

    Amazing that the economy did not collapse the day after Trumps election, as predicted by MSNBC/NYT genius Steve Rattner on election day:

    "If Trump wins you will see a market crash of historic proportions..."

    He could not have been more if he had tried...
    Has the fat lady sung?

  10. #10
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    36,231
    Thanks
    31914

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Miller47 View Post
    Thanks Obama!

    Thanks Trump!

    Now with all the conflicting information, as mentioned in Post #5, all sides will cherry pick the sthuff that supports their agenda.

    Overall, generally speaking, the economy seems to be doing very well.

    Amazing that the economy did not collapse the day after Trumps election, as predicted by MSNBC/NYT genius Steve Rattner on election day:

    "If Trump wins you will see a market crash of historic proportions..."

    He could not have been more if he had tried...
    Interesting. I did not hear Rattner's prediction. As for ME, on the morning after Trump's surprise victory, I was predicting that the markets would like it VERY MUCH, and that we would see a nice little BOOM, lasting a good long two years or so, before the party comes to a crashing halt. When has the market NOT loved talk of big tax cuts and big promises for infrastructure spending?

    I'm still thinking we're good to go until late 2019 or early 2020. That's when the shit will hit the fan.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Unemployment the lowest since Bush was president, 10 years.
    By TNVolunteer73 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 8th May 2017, 06:37 PM
  2. US abortion rates fall to lowest level since 1973
    By bajisima in forum Current Events
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 5th February 2014, 05:55 AM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12th July 2013, 03:40 PM
  4. Unemployment rate falls to lowest level since 2008
    By meridian5455 in forum Economics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 9th January 2013, 09:33 AM
  5. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 29th March 2012, 09:51 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed