[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kmann', 'O')ne explaination is that census workers are being laid off at a rate of about 30-40k per week so this number is inflated by about that much.

[copious.abundance]

Just a footnote . . .

When looking at something which measures numbers in absolute size (such as unemployment claims) and comparing it with historical numbers, it is always useful to take into account the relative size of those absolute numbers.

For example, 500K initial jobless claims sounds bad, but when you take into account the growth in the size of the labor force over the decades, it's not as bad as it looks.


Source

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'J')ust a footnote . . .

When looking at something which measures numbers in absolute size (such as unemployment claims) and comparing it with historical numbers, it is always useful to take into account the relative size of those absolute numbers.

For example, 500K initial jobless claims sounds bad, but when you take into account the growth in the size of the labor force over the decades, it's not as bad as it looks.

[copious.abundance]

^
It wasn't supposed to make anyone feel better, it was just supposed to provide some perspective.

[Sixstrings]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '[')b]It wasn't supposed to make anyone feel better, it was just supposed to provide some perspective.

[Pops]

Isn't it funny how you can find evidence of just about any pov?

This is a plot of the employment to total population ratio.


Bigger, Calculated Risk

This one is interesting too, don't know what it means - maybe I need a Sugar-Mamma?


Bigger, Calculated Risk

[Sixstrings]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'I')sn't it funny how you can find evidence of just about any pov?

This is a plot of the employment to total population ratio.

[copious.abundance]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', 'O')ilfinder, then what do you even mean by "cornucopia, abundance, and prosperity?" Perhaps you should add the caveat "for the top 5%." People are getting confused here, as you continue to ratchet down your standards for "cornucopia."

I always thought the cornies would at some point admit they're wrong. It didn't occur to me that they'd just keep lowering the bar.

[copious.abundance]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'I')sn't it funny how you can find evidence of just about any pov?

This is a plot of the employment to total population ratio. . . .

[Pops]

That's a cool site, OF!

A person could go through there and find all sorts of green shoots...
Look, the cost of housing has gone down since this last little economic speed bump, that's a good sign.

I can't figure out how to get charts out tho...

[copious.abundance]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'I') knew Sixstrings would bring this up.

I'm not going to explain it in detail because I doubt anyone here will believe it, but today's number - and the initial claims from the past few weeks in general - are an artifact of the seasonal adjustment process. Specifically, the fact that there were fewer than normal layoffs (and initial jobless claims) in July due to GM not furloughing so many workers during the model year changeovers, has resulted in a much-smaller-than-normal decline in not seasonally adjusted claims between the 2nd week of July and the current week. The smaller-than-normal decline in NSA numbers has resulted in a rising SA number.

I can show you the calculation if you want to see it, but as I said, I doubt anyone will believe it, or at least they will dismiss it all away. If I am right (and once you see the #'s it becomes pretty obvious), this will begin to correct itself in about a month, maybe less.

So, I will once again put my money where my mouth is: $50 says that by the last week of September, the seasonally-adjusted initial unemployment claims number will be back below 475,000. Bet goes to the first taker.

[TonyPrep]

In that same article:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he four-week average of initial claims -- a better gauge of employment trends than the volatile weekly number -- actually rose slightly, up 3,250 to 486,750.

[copious.abundance]

I absolutely, definitely could be wrong, but according to my calculation we could see a big drop in initial unemployment claims tomorrow morning (the seasonally adjusted "headline" number). I'm looking at somewhere around 450K (from last week's 472K, which will probably be adjusted up to around 475K), but it might even be as low as 420K. Anything more than about 465K, and something funny's going on that needs to be watched for a few more weeks.

EDIT: Hmm, I think I was looking at the wrong week. It could be closer to 460K. We'll see. Anyway I'm working on a model to predict initial unemployment claims for the rest of this year. But it needs tweaking with several more weeks of data.

[copious.abundance]

^
Told ya so! Damn I'm good.

>>> Jobless claims decline by 27,000 to 451,000 <<<

[gnm]

I wouldn't start cheering just yet Oily. Lets wait for the "revised" number shall we? Especially considering that 9 states (including CA) were "estimates" - apparently they didn't have real numbers. And 7 of those states were estimated by the Fed.

-G

edit - fixed typo

[efarmer]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 06717.html

Taxes seem to be set to either go down or GO DOWN.
We are doubling down on growth as a single source of cure.

[Pops]

That is a great chart ef,



That should be the entire democratic ad champaign.

I once worked for a chain of jewelry stores who had a real live warranty that they really stood behind, the only problem was they didn't advertise it, except by word of mouth of course. So the net effect (when I did the old market polling bit) was they incurred the cost but didn't reap all the benefits because their warranty was only seen as good as everyone else's.

Don't necessarily know why I thought of that...

[Ludi]

"Comparing Democratic and Republican tax plans
The Republicans' plan to extend the Bush administration tax cuts for the wealthy would cost $36.6 billion more than the Democrats' plan,"

I guess it's ok to cost if you're cutting taxes for the wealthy.

[Chuckmak]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'T')hat is a great chart ef,

[Quinny]

Trickle down LMFAO!