Jobless Claims Fall Sharply Last Week - AND this week too

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: leeboy
Hey CAD, when are you going to get around to cashing that check I sent you last week for the space I rent in your head. Muhahaha. Pft. Yawn. I suposed I could be witty like you and tell you to run along as well but I don't want you hurting yourself bumping in to stuff with your head up your a$$ and all.

:roll:

No, you aren't anywhere near getting to me. I've dealt with people like you before, it's fun to see you flail and try to say you are "getting to me" or "getting in my head" but nothing could be further from the truth. I laugh every time I see you've replied because I know it'll just be another attempt to try to smear me. People like you remind me of my younger brother years ago. He used to try to attack me but could easily be repelled by holding his head with my hand.(you know - like the cartoons) He'd get all mad and call me names(you know, like saying "head up your a$$") and flail his arms trying to hit me.
My brother eventually learned...will you?

Well, if you have learned then lets get back to the topic, otherwise I suggest you run along...

CkG

 

[leeboy]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: leeboy
Hey CAD, when are you going to get around to cashing that check I sent you last week for the space I rent in your head. Muhahaha. Pft. Yawn. I suposed I could be witty like you and tell you to run along as well but I don't want you hurting yourself bumping in to stuff with your head up your a$$ and all.

:roll:

No, you aren't anywhere near getting to me. I've dealt with people like you before, it's fun to see you flail and try to say you are "getting to me" or "getting in my head" but nothing could be further from the truth. I laugh every time I see you've replied because I know it'll just be another attempt to try to smear me. People like you remind me of my younger brother years ago. He used to try to attack me but could easily be repelled by holding his head with my hand.(you know - like the cartoons) He'd get all mad and call me names(you know, like saying "head up your a$$") and flail his arms trying to hit me.
My brother eventually learned...will you?

Well, if you have learned then lets get back to the topic, otherwise I suggest you run along...

CkG

Now see you have forced me to cut another check. Hey, I can afford it You are always the first to name call CAD, I just beat you to it this thread. You know you laughed at it

Back on topic, the FTC number is sh!t and ins't helping your boys cause any. Clear enough? You think the FTC numbers are going to get GWB re-elected in November? Please. Move along and stick with your GDP post. Now that at least has some merit. Though I think people have pretty much made up their minds for the most part, would you disagree? People are more interested in ribbons and cocaine use, haven't you noticed?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: leeboy

Back on topic, the FTC number is sh!t and ins't helping your boys cause any. Clear enough? You think the FTC numbers are going to get GWB re-elected in November? Please. Move along and stick with your GDP post. Now that at least has some merit. Though I think people have pretty much made up their minds for the most part, would you disagree? People are more interested in ribbons and cocaine use, haven't you noticed?

Ah, finally wised up a tad and decided to get back to the topic. Congrats
/me takes hand off leeboy's head

The numbers aren't "BAD" for Bush like you tried to claim. I showed the numbers from 1996 which are strikingly similar to todays so unless you think the "roaring 90s" numbers were "BAD" for Clinton - politically - then I don't see how you could possibly think today's numbers are "BAD" for Bush. Anyway, yes the GDP number is far better news politically for Bush(something for him to trumpet), but I wasn't claiming the initial claims numbers were great news for Bush - it was you who said they were "BAD" for him though and I refuted that with data. I also never claimed these numbers would get Bush re-elected, but these numbers continue to erode what's left of the left's "bad economy" rhetoric.
Yes, people seem to be addressing issues other than the economy - which as I just stated is further proof the left's argument, on the economy, is fading fast.

Oh, and don't forget - this is a good sign for the economy which is what my OP stated:
"More good news about the Economy. News that everyone should be happy to see, especially coupled with the GDP and other numbers."

CkG

 

[leeboy]

Here is how I see them as bad, CAD:

Since September 2003, 750,000 jobs have been created, or about 100,000 per month. That's not really impressive, though, by historical standards (the 1991 to 2001 expansion generated 200,000 jobs per month), and it represents 40,000 to 50,000 fewer jobs per month than we need to absorb a growing workforce. That said, his record is especially weak given that, in April 2003, the president promised 306,000 new jobs each month starting in July 2003 if his tax cuts were passed. The economy has met this standard in only one of the nine months since then and, so far, is 2 million jobs short of the president's promise. (By the way, the Council of Economic Advisers projected again this past February that the economy would create 300,000 per month, so the administration's expectations have clearly been greater than its achievements.)

But what separates you and I is I won't be here next week or the week after if/when your FTC numbers come in less than impressive posting about it, like Dave There are so many other numbers to focus on that I still hold my opinion that FTC is a sh!te figure.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: leeboy
Here is how I see them as bad, CAD:

Since September 2003, 750,000 jobs have been created, or about 100,000 per month. That's not really impressive, though, by historical standards (the 1991 to 2001 expansion generated 200,000 jobs per month), and it represents 40,000 to 50,000 fewer jobs per month than we need to absorb a growing workforce. That said, his record is especially weak given that, in April 2003, the president promised 306,000 new jobs each month starting in July 2003 if his tax cuts were passed. The economy has met this standard in only one of the nine months since then and, so far, is 2 million jobs short of the president's promise. (By the way, the Council of Economic Advisers projected again this past February that the economy would create 300,000 per month, so the administration's expectations have clearly been greater than its achievements.)

But what separates you and I is I won't be here next week or the week after if/when your FTC numbers come in less than impressive posting about it, like Dave There are so many other numbers to focus on that I still hold my opinion that FTC is a sh!te figure.

Sure, it's supposedly not enough to cover the growing workforce but one must also take into account the fact that more people than ever are self-employed/contract employees. So the jobs issue really isn't as big an issue as some are trying to make it - especially when one factors in 9/11 and the recession.
As I have pointed out - the initial claims have been at these levels in the past and weren't considered "BAD" - they are just part of the flow of the economy.

Do I want to see more jobs(statistically counted) created? Sure, and I am optimistic that we are well on our way to seeing them. Maybe I shouldn't be so "glass half full" and become "glass half empty" to make myself feel better.

You can believe the number is "sh!te" all you want - you are entitled to your opinion, but economists seem to still think it is a valid indicator.

CkG

 

[KevinH]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: leeboy
:roll:

Yippee, only 338,000 Moms or Dads had to go home and tell their family the place they have been working for for 10+ years just either went out of business or laid them off. This is a BAD number for your boy until more jobs are created than lost. And pay close attention to the last paragraph in your linked article, not good news at all.

But keep plugging away, the First Time Claim number is a nonsense stat that means little to the blips that have already fallen off the radar.

:roll: Yippie, another pile of plop from a clueless lefty. The First-time claims number does mean something and despite your rhetoric - it is not a BAD number. Look back at the data and you'll see that these current numbers are quite similar to ones seen in 1996
From dol.gov:
3/23/96 - 426,000
3/30/96 - 393,000
4/06/96 - 369,000
4/13/96 - 357,000
4/20/96 - 368,000
4/27/96 - 343,000

Now lets look at the current trend:
3/20/04 - 344,000
3/27/04 - 343,000
4/03/04 - 330,000
4/10/04 - 360,000
4/17/04 - 356,000
4/24/04 - 338,000


Well, looks to me like your little sob story was just a (ir)relivant back in 1996 as it is today

Now I understand layoffs aren't easy for those who are laid-off but you don't seem to understand that this is part of the flow of economics. So anyway - you can save the emotional rhetoric leeboy - it doesn't play...unless you think the "booming 90s" weren't as booming as people claim they were.

The initial claims going down is good news no matter how much you want to paint it as "BAD" leeboy.

CkG

I don't know CkG. I see a in 96, the jobless claims dropped by nearly 75K or 25% whereas now it's 6K...practically neglible. I suppose any positive signs are good but I find it hard to parallel this year's numbers with those of 96 that you show. I appreciate the sentiment though.

That said, I definitely sympathize with alot of the IT fellas who're out of work as I have a few buddies that're struggling. I know it's rough for a lot of folks out there, especially those with families etc. to care for. For what it's worth, I was in software coming out of college (as an Econ major no less) but did a 180 about 2 years ago and am in finance...can't complain. It's not so bad here in So Cal but I can definitely see it from the perspective of certain people who are in regions or fields that are hit particularly bad that at least for "them", the sky IS falling.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: KevinH
I don't know CkG. I see a in 96, the jobless claims dropped by nearly 75K or 25% whereas now it's 6K...practically neglible. I suppose any positive signs are good but I find it hard to parallel this year's numbers with those of 96 that you show.

That said, I definitely sympathize with alot of the IT fellas who're out of work as I have a few buddies that're struggling. I know it's rough for a lot of folks out there, especially those with families etc. to care for. For what it's worth, I was in software coming out of college (as an Econ major no less) but did a 180 about 2 years ago and am in finance...can't complain.

Well, I suppose when you look at that six week window and consider the numbers started out 25% higher - yeah they aren't comparable But if you looked and the data I pulled them from you'll see the similarity. Anyway -the comparison of the numbers was to show that the current numbers aren't "BAD" like leeboy was trying to say(unless ofcourse you think the roaring 90s were "BAD" )
Yeah, the IT sector got hit hard by the dot-bomb bust, but I also think the IT sector over corrected because investment got hit by the 9/11 tradgedy. We are starting to see a rebound in that sector and I believe it will grown and become a stable sector of our economy. I don't think anyone can deny the fact that it was overheated before the crash, but like I said - it definately over-corrected.

CkG

 

[drewshin]

more than two million jobs lost since bush took office.

he pushed for tax cuts at the beginning of his term and during his campaign because of the good economy that he inherited from clinton.

however, as soon as the bad numbers started coming in, he immediately claimed he inherited a bad economy. hmmmm.......

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: drewshin
more than two million jobs lost since bush took office.

he pushed for tax cuts at the beginning of his term and during his campaign because of the good economy that he inherited from clinton.

however, as soon as the bad numbers started coming in, he immediately claimed he inherited a bad economy. hmmmm.......

Actually he was getting slammed for saying there were signs of weakness in the economy....

 

[chrisms]

Glad I have a job. suckers

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: KevinH

I don't know CkG. I see a in 96, the jobless claims dropped by nearly 75K or 25% whereas now it's 6K...practically neglible.

Will there be a day when the claims are in the negative numbers?

E q u i l l i b r i u m

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: drewshin


he pushed for tax cuts at the beginning of his term and during his campaign because of the good economy that he inherited from clinton.

Yea, that depression was godsend. Thanks, Willy.

 

[KevinH]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: KevinH

I don't know CkG. I see a in 96, the jobless claims dropped by nearly 75K or 25% whereas now it's 6K...practically neglible.

Will there be a day when the claims are in the negative numbers?

E q u i l l i b r i u m

That's not the point I was trying to make. I was just suggesting that accourding to the data provided, a parallel can't be drawn as CkG pointed out. However, he clarified his position and it makes more sense. Did you actually read my entire post?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Jobless claims lowest since 2000 - Americans filing for unemployment insurance fall by 25,000 to 315,000, lowest since Oct., 2000.

but...but...but...but...


CkG

PS - thanks for the link alchemize.

 

[tnitsuj]

Cool.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Jobless claims lowest since 2000 - Americans filing for unemployment insurance fall by 25,000 to 315,000, lowest since Oct., 2000.

but...but...but...but...


CkG

PS - thanks for the link alchemize.

Oh yeah sure, time to strike up the band with "Happy Days are here again". :roll: