Jobless Hit Record, AP Calls It A ‘Drop’

[Miss America]

http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/555359332_Vpvv3-M.jpg

Unemployment rate. (Chart from the US Bureau Of Labor Statistics, not the Associated Press.)

New jobless claims drop to 601K; retail sales rise

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090611/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy


hmmm...these guys must have had the same math teacher as Obama...
from Sweetness & Light...

[VCaddy05]

yup, they can dress up a turd... but its still a turd
they try to point out that it the rate it is rising is slowing, but ignore some other stats in the economy that are just as gloomy as past weeks.

[pattyk]

over 6 million without jobs....

a few months ago the figure was over 4 million

yup, jobs are being saved all righty.:wall:

[Camp]

over 6 million without jobs....

a few months ago the figure was over 4 million

yup, jobs are being saved all righty.:wall:

Two million stimulusated rate out the front door with their belongings in a box.

[penner01]

It's amazing how the overall rate keeps climbing and they can call it good news just because the rate of new filings is slowing down. Seems to me when you get to a certain point of course it will slow down. You could cut new filings in half and the overall rate is still climbing........but people buy this stuff.

[chakazulu]

[QUOTE=Miss America;55964441]http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/555359332_Vpvv3-M.jpg

Unemployment rate. (Chart from the US Bureau Of Labor Statistics, not the Associated Press.)

New jobless claims drop to 601K; retail sales rise

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090611/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy


hmmm...these guys must have had the same math teacher as Obama...
from Sweetness & Light...[/QUO

The chart you use displays the total amount of unemployed, while the figure quoted by the AP is the number of NEW claims for unemployment benefits, therefore, new claims could drop, but the overall number of unemployed would still rise.

[asda1]

Hmm they made a good point about why unemployment jumped .6% last month even though less jobs were lost.

We have over 600,000 people entering the job market each summer.

Duh :wall:

[greatamerican48]

When unemployment was at historic lows during W's tenure, all we heard from the libs and the media was, "oh sure, people have jobs, but they aren't good jobs". How many people would love to have those "not so good jobs" now? It's just like the Dems though, never let facts get in the way of a good spin job!

[nunyadb]

So, does the unemployment numbers cover the people who have run out of unemployment insurance ? NO, it doesn't.
There's a vast number of people not even being counted any more.
If the government stats show 9%, then you can bet the real number is more like 13%.

[penner01]

So, does the unemployment numbers cover the people who have run out of unemployment insurance ? NO, it doesn't.
There's a vast number of people not even being counted any more.
If the government stats show 9%, then you can bet the real number is more like 13%.They do stay pretty quiet about those that have fallen off the rolls, don't they

[7426k]

http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/555359332_Vpvv3-M.jpg

Unemployment rate. (Chart from the US Bureau Of Labor Statistics, not the Associated Press.)

New jobless claims drop to 601K; retail sales rise

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090611/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy


hmmm...these guys must have had the same math teacher as Obama...
from Sweetness & Light...

You obviously don't understand the calculations. a declining four week average of jobless claims is a good sign for hte economy - and has almost nothing to do with the calculation of the unemployment rate.

[nunyadb]

They do stay pretty quiet about those that have fallen off the rolls, don't they

My father used to work for a government agency that got people job training
for a new career field when theirs became untenable.
He got figures that showed the numbers that had dropped off due to running
out of benefits.
Those numbers were ALWAYS at least half again higher than the published numbers
that the general public see.

I'm betting that the same system is still in place.

[7426k]

So, does the unemployment numbers cover the people who have run out of unemployment insurance ? NO, it doesn't.
There's a vast number of people not even being counted any more.
If the government stats show 9%, then you can bet the real number is more like 13%.

The government produces six separate figures that currently range from about 5 to about 16%.

[Miss America]

yup, they can dress up a turd... but its still a turd
they try to point out that it the rate it is rising is slowing, but ignore some other stats in the economy that are just as gloomy as past weeks.

yeah...great isn't it?...rather like saying I've been getting deeper and deeper into debt over the past 6 months...the good news is that I overspent less last month that the 5 prior months..

[oldandtired]

So, does the unemployment numbers cover the people who have run out of unemployment insurance ? NO, it doesn't.
There's a vast number of people not even being counted any more.
If the government stats show 9%, then you can bet the real number is more like 13%.

I believe you are wrong with that.

New unemployment filings is one thing....... amount unemployed is another.

Either way, I can comfortably say that The stimulus failed as expected. It did not do what Obama promised it would do....and yeah....sure, you can say..."wait and see".....but "wait and see" was what Obama said was NOT the thing to do.

Wait and see is what we normally do with a recession....and we come out of them. NO WAY ANYONE WILL BE ABLE TO CONVINCE A RATIONAL PERSON THAT when we come out of the recession it was due to the stimulus.

At this point, you could just as easily say we came out of the recession becuase Nancy Pelosi farted.

[fava]

These are the same guys who called 5.6% the great depression of unemployment.

[Miss America]

You obviously don't understand the calculations. a declining four week average of jobless claims is a good sign for hte economy - and has almost nothing to do with the calculation of the unemployment rate.

Is the general public supposed to understand the numbers?..I don't think so...I think that they are supposed to be sufficiently vague as to lend themselves to manipulation of their perceptions

[7426k]

Is the general public supposed to understand the numbers?..I don't think so...

Well, they are not exactly rocket science. The general public doesn't seem to have trouble understanding other phone polls.

[nunyadb]

You obviously don't understand the calculations. a declining four week average of jobless claims is a good sign for hte economy - and has almost nothing to do with the calculation of the unemployment rate.

Exactly, those numbers have almost nothing to do with the actual unemployment
rate. What they show is that for the moment corporations have stopped cutting
back. Also, that the first round of private companies going out of business is now
over for the most part.

The thing is, and I know this from experience, the "trickle down" unemployment
from people no longer buying things is going to continue to add to the job loss
numbers for some time to come. It can, and in this case almost certainly will,
lead to further large cutbacks by the remaining corporations in an effort to
survive the increasingly difficult times they are facing.
The next round will be even worse and much deeper in cuts.

This ain't the first time I've been through this, and this time is going to be
even worse than the Carter years.

[WildRose]

So, does the unemployment numbers cover the people who have run out of unemployment insurance ? NO, it doesn't.
There's a vast number of people not even being counted any more.
If the government stats show 9%, then you can bet the real number is more like 13%.Not to mention those who can't find full time employment who have been forced into low paying part time work.

[WildRose]

In each of the last three presidential elections the democrats pounded the mantra of "This is the worst economy of the last 50, 60 years" as they begged for votes.

Well they got the votes, and now we really DO have the worst econmy since the 1930's.

[7426k]

Exactly, those numbers have almost nothing to do with the actual unemployment
rate. What they show is that for the moment corporations have stopped cutting
back. Also, that the first round of private companies going out of business is now
over for the most part.

The thing is, and I know this from experience, the "trickle down" unemployment
from people no longer buying things is going to continue to add to the job loss
numbers for some time to come. It can, and in this case almost certainly will,
lead to further large cutbacks by the remaining corporations in an effort to
survive the increasingly difficult times they are facing.
The next round will be even worse and much deeper in cuts.

This ain't the first time I've been through this, and this time is going to be
even worse than the Carter years.

well there's no doubt that jobless claims and total jobs will continue to decline. The glimmer of hope is that the four week rolling average in those claims, which has proven to be a good barometer of where a recession is heading, has declined for several weeks now.

The obvious bad news is that we're still shedding 100's of thousands of jobs per month.

[toreyj01]

http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/555359332_Vpvv3-M.jpg

Unemployment rate. (Chart from the US Bureau Of Labor Statistics, not the Associated Press.)

New jobless claims drop to 601K; retail sales rise

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090611/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy


hmmm...these guys must have had the same math teacher as Obama...
from Sweetness & Light...If you look at that graph of yours it runs the course of Bush's Presidency, not Obama's, it ends at his innaugeration 1/09.

You telling me that everything was fine before he got here? Joblessness was skyrocketing and if the bleeding is even somewhat stemmed off thats a good thing just 5 months after he entered the office.

The stimulus funds have been slow to get out, but the good thing is that its still there and once it does, we should see a nice bounce, its a lot of money.

[toreyj01]

When unemployment was at historic lows during W's tenure, all we heard from the libs and the media was, "oh sure, people have jobs, but they aren't good jobs". How many people would love to have those "not so good jobs" now? It's just like the Dems though, never let facts get in the way of a good spin job!Look at the graph from the OP, it wasn't even lower than when Clinton was in office. What "historic low" are we talking about here?

[nunyadb]

If you look at that graph of yours it runs the course of Bush's Presidency, not Obama's, it ends at his innaugeration 1/09.

You telling me that everything was fine before he got here? Joblessness was skyrocketing and if the bleeding is even somewhat stemmed off thats a good thing just 5 months after he entered the office.

The stimulus funds have been slow to get out, but the good thing is that its still there and once it does, we should see a nice bounce, its a lot of money.

You're missing the point of that graph.
What it shows it that most companies and corporations did just exactly
what we told you they would once Obama was officially able to start
implementing his policies.
He announced his policy and his plans, and you can see the effect on people's
lives for yourself. And it hasn't gotten any better, it's gotten worse since then.

[toreyj01]

You're missing the point of that graph.
What it shows it that most companies and corporations did just exactly
what we told you they would once Obama was officially able to start
implementing his policies.
He announced his policy and his plans, and you can see the effect on people's
lives for yourself. And it hasn't gotten any better, it's gotten worse since then.He couldnt implement a policy before he became President, you are losing me here. This graph runs to 1/09.

The economy went off the cliff before he became President, friend.

[oldandtired]

If you look at that graph of yours it runs the course of Bush's Presidency, not Obama's, it ends at his innaugeration 1/09.

You telling me that everything was fine before he got here? Joblessness was skyrocketing and if the bleeding is even somewhat stemmed off thats a good thing just 5 months after he entered the office.

The stimulus funds have been slow to get out, but the good thing is that its still there and once it does, we should see a nice bounce, its a lot of money.

Curious.....Your personal theroy as to why the stimulus should work?

[deportalllibs]

He couldnt implement a policy before he became President, you are losing me here. This graph runs to 1/09. The economy went off the cliff before he became President, friend.

What you are proposing is that business leaders stepped back and said you know lets just ignore all this doom and gloom and tax increases Obama is flapping his lips about until he is actually sworn in on Jan 20th. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[WildRose]

He couldnt implement a policy before he became President, you are losing me here. This graph runs to 1/09.

The economy went off the cliff before he became President, friend.Count the number of jobs lost since november and compare it to the same number of months prior.

Businesses started preparing as soon as it was clear who was going to dominate the legistative and executive brances and the policies they were endorsing.

When you own a business you don't wait until both shoes have dropped to react or you won't be in business very long.

[nunyadb]

He couldnt implement a policy before he became President, you are losing me here. This graph runs to 1/09.

The economy went off the cliff before he became President, friend.

No, he'd been elected to office and people started dropping off the employment
rolls like flies between the election and inauguration.
Just exactly what we said would happen, did indeed happen.

Now, he's made things even worse.

[oldandtired]

Count the number of jobs lost since november and compare it to the same number of months prior.

Businesses started preparing as soon as it was clear who was going to dominate the legistative and executive brances and the policies they were endorsing.

When you own a business you don't wait until both shoes have dropped to react or you won't be in business very long.

This is quite accurate. Ironically, if you did not start to make moves and changes back in October when the results of the election were obvious, and you suffered for it, the followers of Obama would say you are a bad business person....but when you say you DID make moves and changes, and therefore did not suffer.....the obama supporters say you are paranoid and Obama and his doom and gloom higher taxes buiness is bad and evil rhetoric was a non issue.

I made some MAJOR business decisions late third early fourth quarter last year. No, I di dnot lay off...but my distribution to me is 60% what it was and the rest is being held in my patroll account so I do not need to rely on my revolving credit for payroll.

[rational]

They did the same thing with Clinton's so called budget cuts, or maybe it was taxes, when he was president. The rate of increase was reduced, so they called it a cut.

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/555359332_Vpvv3-M.jpg

Unemployment rate. (Chart from the US Bureau Of Labor Statistics, not the Associated Press.)

New jobless claims drop to 601K; retail sales rise

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090611/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy


hmmm...these guys must have had the same math teacher as Obama...
from Sweetness & Light...
Perhaps, but it would appear some need to learn how to comprehend what they're reading:

Retail sales did rise 0.5 percent in May, the government said, the first increase in three months. But excluding autos, gas and other volatile categories, so-called "core" retail sales were flat compared with April.

Higher gas prices likely will restrain consumer spending in the next few months, said Paul Dales, U.S. economist at Capital Economics in Toronto. He estimates gas prices rose 10 percent in May and have jumped another 15 percent so far this month.

Still, Wall Street welcomed the drop in new jobless claims and growth in retail sales. The Dow Jones industrial average added nearly 32 points to 8,770.92, and broader indices also rose.

More encouraging was a drop in initial jobless claims to a seasonally-adjusted 601,000 last week, which was below analysts' expectations and the lowest level since January.

What is the last date listed on your graph there, sparky?

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

The chart you use displays the total amount of unemployed, while the figure quoted by the AP is the number of NEW claims for unemployment benefits, therefore, new claims could drop, but the overall number of unemployed would still rise.
Sad that has to be explained.

[toreyj01]

Curious.....Your personal theroy as to why the stimulus should work?I think personally that the stimulus needs to be something we need but couldn't afford in ordinary times, something you have put off.

The new grid is going to be a great thing. Our current grid loses a ton of energy in the transmission of power and is ill equipped to handle the newer technologies, so this is going to be a nice job generator and is the backbone of the green economy. Without the grid, everything else is moot.

The infrastructure investments not only create and sustain jobs they are crucially needed in many parts of the country.

Lots of money allocated for education, thats investment in the future, no problem with that you get back more than you put in there.

So you have to stop the bleeding, sure, but to insulate yourself from the boom bust cycles we have seen for decades we need some structural shoring up, and this bill does address that, although it could certainly have been more agressive in that approach.

Thanks for inquiring so politely. :)

[7426k]

No, he'd been elected to office and people started dropping off the employment
rolls like flies between the election and inauguration.
Just exactly what we said would happen, did indeed happen.

Now, he's made things even worse.

Call me crazy, but I'm thinking the credit crisis had a bit more to do with it.

often, companies that can't access credit can't make payrolls.

That chart spikes when the recession started - December, 2007.

[7426k]

What you are proposing is that business leaders stepped back and said you know lets just ignore all this doom and gloom and tax increases Obama is flapping his lips about until he is actually sworn in on Jan 20th. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

They started laying off people in december of 2007 in anticipation of his January 09 inauguration?

really?

Wow.

[ISYairio]

ShadowStats sure is just depressing, if more accurate.

ShadowStats Unemployment (Official [U-3], Broadest [U-6], SGS Alternative) - last updated June 5, 2009
http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/sgs-emp.gif

[deportalllibs]

They started laying off people in december of 2007 in anticipation of his January 09 inauguration?

really?

Wow.

Links lib?

[jwil59]

Today the company I work for announced major job cuts comming for one of our major defense programs due to Obama's cuts.

What I wanna know from someone that supports Obama is this: Why is Obama not worried about all those good jobs he is axeing here?

[JQR]

http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/555359332_Vpvv3-M.jpg

Unemployment rate. (Chart from the US Bureau Of Labor Statistics, not the Associated Press.)

New jobless claims drop to 601K; retail sales rise

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090611/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy


hmmm...these guys must have had the same math teacher as Obama...
from Sweetness & Light...

I am confused by your post.
This is from the article you posted.
The number of people continuing to claim benefits exceeded 6.8 million in the week ending May 30, the Labor Department said Thursday. That was the 19th straight weekly record, after a drop last week was revised to an increase.
????
Is this the article you say is misleading or are you referencing another one?

[Billy_Bob]

So, does the unemployment numbers cover the people who have run out of unemployment insurance ? NO, it doesn't.
There's a vast number of people not even being counted any more.
If the government stats show 9%, then you can bet the real number is more like 13%.

Or HIGHER.... Some estimates are at 14.1%

Hey DC's jobless rate has lowered to 5.4%

[Billy_Bob]

I am confused by your post.
This is from the article you posted.

????
Is this the article you say is misleading or are you referencing another one?

The confusion is that the weekly losses are slightly smaller but the overall jobless rate is going through the roof...

[JQR]

The confusion is that the weekly losses are slightly smaller but the overall jobless rate is going through the roof...

Hmmm I am still confused, the post claims the AP is misleading people. I didn't find the article that was posted misleading.

[nunyadb]

Today the company I work for announced major job cuts comming for one of our major defense programs due to Obama's cuts.

What I wanna know from someone that supports Obama is this: Why is Obama not worried about all those good jobs he is axeing here?

Because he's "saving" money from being used by a wasteful DoD.
That means there's more money for other more worthy projects
such as welfare and ditch digging projects for summer youth employment.

[Billy_Bob]

Hmmm I am still confused, the post claims the AP is misleading people. I didn't find the article that was posted misleading.

Look at it from the word "DROPPED" if we lost 600,000 last week and we lost 601,000 this week how is that a DROP? The AP is glossing over the fact that Unemployment is 9.4%+ and touting a drop in weekly claims...Neither statement is true..

[jimmyc123]

Links lib?

Just look at the chart in the OP.

[deportalllibs]

Just look at the chart in the OP.

I thought so, make believe nonsense you can't support with facts. Libs will never learn.

[deportalllibs]

Today the company I work for announced major job cuts comming for one of our major defense programs due to Obama's cuts.

What I wanna know from someone that supports Obama is this: Why is Obama not worried about all those good jobs he is axeing here?

This is just another example of liberal hypocrisy. They talk jobs jobs jobs yet their actions again and again throw people out of work. That's because its really not about jobs, its about the liberal agenda and if that costs jobs too bad.

Meanwhile the supposed journalist in this country are too busy masterbating over Obama to hold these liberal politicians accountable. Honestly speaking from the heart now, I am very disapointed in journalists. I expect lies and dishonestly from politicians but I always had respect for journalists who dug for the truth. Now they are little more than propaganda rags for the democratic party. Journalism is dead, RIP.

[Patriotgames]

When unemployment was at historic lows during W's tenure, all we heard from the libs and the media was, "oh sure, people have jobs, but they aren't good jobs". How many people would love to have those "not so good jobs" now? It's just like the Dems though, never let facts get in the way of a good spin job!

Look at the chart again. Unemployment was lower under Clinton than Bush.. don't know where you are getting this "historic lows" thing from. Confused

[tobybear]

yeah...great isn't it?...rather like saying I've been getting deeper and deeper into debt over the past 6 months...the good news is that I overspent less last month that the 5 prior months..

Nahh....

Its like complaining about W's "Budget Cuts", only to complain 2 years later that Boooosssshhhh was "Overspending"! ;)

[pinqy]

So, does the unemployment numbers cover the people who have run out of unemployment insurance ? NO, it doesn't.
Yes, it does. The monthly unemployment rate is based on a household survey of approx 60,000 households. If you worked during the reference week, you're employed, if you didn't work but looked for a job in the previous 4 weeks, you're unemployed. If you can't work or aren't looking for work, you're not in the labor force. Whether or not you are or have ever received or applied for UI doesn't matter and has never mattered. How long you've been unemployed doesn't matter (except for the U1 and U2 which measure unemployed longer than 15 weeks and those who just lost their jobs).

There are 3 basic surveys for jobs (and about 4 others that don't get reported much):

UI claims: a weekly report on the number of new UI claims and a 4 week moving average. Released by the Dept of Labor it only includes those receiving unemployment.
The Non-farm payroll survey: the number cited for Employment and "jobs lost." A monthly survey of approx 160,000 business by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Does not include agriculture, the self-employed, family workers, or people who work in other people's houses.
The Current Population Survey: Conducted by the Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it's a monthly survey of 60,000 households. Counts everyone 16 and over not in jail, a mental institute or other long-term care, or the military. This is the unemployment level and the unemployment rate: unemployed/(employed + unemployed).
They each measure different things for different reasons and have different uses. They can all move in the same or different directions (yes, employment and unemployment can both go up or both go down)

[BigBear]

Sad that has to be explained.
Our education system is producing handicapped adults.

[opsyscw]

Well, they are not exactly rocket science. The general public doesn't seem to have trouble understanding other phone polls.
Maybe the numbers should be put into more meaningful terms .. like cell phone minutes, size of a crack ball, number of abortions. For example,

"Your over your cell phone minutes by 2200 minutes, but the good news is, you didn't go over as much as you did last month"

[ISYairio]

ShadowStats sure is just depressing, if more accurate.

ShadowStats Unemployment (Official [U-3], Broadest [U-6], SGS Alternative) - last updated June 5, 2009
http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/sgs-emp.gif10000Pennies on YouTube has an awesome unemployment video. Really awesome. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJu0DgpiK8c&feature=channel_page) "Stimulus"! :lol:

[ISYairio]

Unemployment rate: All US vs the Top 5 State Economies (http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&q=unemployment+rate#met=unemployment_rate&idim=state:ST480000:ST120000:ST060000:ST360000:ST1 70000&tdim=true)

:think:

Go Texas?

:razz:

[nunyadb]

Check Louisiana.
Just a touch over 5% unemployment.
Not bad for such a hick place.