posted on July 8, 2004 06:24:45 AM new
Jobless Claims Lowest in Nearly 4 Years
47 minutes ago Add Business - Reuters to My Yahoo!
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. jobless claims staged an unexpectedly steep fall to the lowest level in nearly four years with 39,000 fewer workers applying for initial aid, the government said on Thursday, but seasonal adjustment factors skewed the report.
First-time claims for state unemployment insurance benefits plunged to 310,000 in the week ended July 3, down from a revised 349,000 the prior week, the Labor Department (news - web sites) said.
It was the lowest level since 302,000 in the week ended October 8, 2000.
A department official said the seasonal adjustment method used to calculate the data had anticipated a surge in claims in the latest week for automakers' annual summer maintenance shutdowns. However, that rise did not occur in the week it was expected.
The official added that July tends to be a volatile month for claims overall.
Wall Street economists had forecast a fall to 345,000 from the originally reported 351,000 claims in the prior week.
The slide nudged the closely watched four-week moving average down to 336,000 from 346,250 the prior week, the department said. The average, which irons out weekly fluctuations in the more-volatile weekly figures, was well below the 420,000 recorded in the same period a year ago.
The report showed signs that those laid off are able to find new work. The number of people who remained on state rolls after collecting a week of benefits fell by 85,000 to 2.87 million in the week ended June 26, the latest week for which data are available.
posted on July 8, 2004 07:58:22 AM new
Typical negative response from you... can expect no more... waiting for the other negative nellies to jump in now...
Considering that many now have jobs... your repsonse is unfounded...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
posted on July 8, 2004 11:03:36 AM new
Are you claiming that those that have expended their benefits are no longer counted as unemployed is my opinion ?
Being a business owner yourself, you probably know how complex the rules are for a company having to pay into the unemployment insurance fund. There are many ways for small businesses and non-profits to not pay into the fund. One way is to limit the number of full time employees working at the same time in any given 24 hour period. It gets very complex. Ever wonder why some companies only hire part-timers? That's part of the reason. Employees of those companies will not be eligible for unemployment compensation. Neither will be independent contractors, waitresses and the like. When those people lose their jobs, they are not counted. The people who have lost their unemployment benefits are not counted. Until each and every unemployed person in this country is counted, the government figures mean very little. At least to me.
Right now there are three people living in my house: me, my boyfriend and my son. As of 6:00 last night only one person is now employed and that's me. The other two have been laid off. Since they are both independent contractors, they are not eligible for unemployment compensation and therefore will not be included in any unemployment figures.
posted on July 8, 2004 02:09:51 PM new
Yes, there will be! My boyfriend, who originally thought Bush was great, has seen the light. Lordy, lordy, he has seen the light. Seriously, he cannot stand the man. He likes the way he handled 911, but says his ego (and that of his buddies) has sent him reeling into the garbage pits of hell.
posted on July 8, 2004 02:22:25 PM new
This didn't make it into twelve's original post:
Compared with a year ago, the labor market is clearly in better shape. But job growth slowed in June as the economy added only about 112,000 jobs, less than half the number that economists had forecast. That report, released by the government last week, raised new questions about how vigorous the labor market recovery will turn out to be. Payrolls for April and May — while still solid — were revised to show smaller gains.
And, in all the reports I've been reading, the figure is "3 years", not "4 years".
We see just how reliable these reports really are.
