Jobless claims surge in the latest week

[Arraya]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/jobless-claims-surge-in-the-latest-week-2010-01-21
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) – First-time claims for state unemployment benefits jumped unexpectedly by the largest amount in eight months, the Labor Department reported Thursday. The number of initial claims in the week ending Jan. 16 rose 36,000 to 482,000. The consensus forecast of Wall Street economists was for claims to inch lower to 438,000. This is the highest level of claims since November. The four-week average rose 7,000 to 448,250. This is the first increase after 19 straight declines. Claims in the previous week were revised to an increase of 13,000 to 446,000 compared with the initial estimate of an increase of 11,000 to 444,000. A Labor Department official said that there were more estimates this week because of the holiday on Monday. In addition, some of the increase may be due to administrative delays in reporting claims since the Christmas and New Year holidays. Overall, a record 12 million Americans received federal and state unemployment benefits on an unadjusted basis in the week ended Jan. 2, the latest period for which the data is available. This is up from 10.9 million in the prior week.

[Zeitgeist]

Blame George Bush or global warning.

“The fact is the economy has lost more jobs, and the unemployment rate is significantly higher, than the administration originally predicted would be the case if Washington did nothing. In fact, the original projections of Obama’s economic aides have turned out to be off by a very wide margin. The administration counters by saying the economy was worse than it realized at the time it was making its projections, and that the present jobs picture would be darker yet without the stimulus spending.”

Making Sense of Stimulus Spending

[Zeitgeist]

Blame George Bush or global warning.

“The fact is the economy has lost more jobs, and the unemployment rate is significantly higher, than the administration originally predicted would be the case if Washington did nothing. In fact, the original projections of Obama’s economic aides have turned out to be off by a very wide margin. The administration counters by saying the economy was worse than it realized at the time it was making its projections, and that the present jobs picture would be darker yet without the stimulus spending.”

Making Sense of Stimulus Spending

[Zeitgeist]

Blame George Bush or global warning.

“The fact is the economy has lost more jobs, and the unemployment rate is significantly higher, than the administration originally predicted would be the case if Washington did nothing. In fact, the original projections of Obama’s economic aides have turned out to be off by a very wide margin. The administration counters by saying the economy was worse than it realized at the time it was making its projections, and that the present jobs picture would be darker yet without the stimulus spending.”

Making Sense of Stimulus Spending

[Zeitgeist]

Blame George Bush or global warning.

“The fact is the economy has lost more jobs, and the unemployment rate is significantly higher, than the administration originally predicted would be the case if Washington did nothing. In fact, the original projections of Obama’s economic aides have turned out to be off by a very wide margin. The administration counters by saying the economy was worse than it realized at the time it was making its projections, and that the present jobs picture would be darker yet without the stimulus spending.”

Making Sense of Stimulus Spending

[Zeitgeist]

Blame George Bush or global warning.

“The fact is the economy has lost more jobs, and the unemployment rate is significantly higher, than the administration originally predicted would be the case if Washington did nothing. In fact, the original projections of Obama’s economic aides have turned out to be off by a very wide margin. The administration counters by saying the economy was worse than it realized at the time it was making its projections, and that the present jobs picture would be darker yet without the stimulus spending.”

Making Sense of Stimulus Spending

[scaredyclassic]

sometimes i feel like most of modern life is basically taking credit for things that are somewhat random and not the result of one’s activity, and deflecting blame for one’s perceived screw-ups. there’s not much room for productive activity when im done doing that!

[scaredyclassic]

sometimes i feel like most of modern life is basically taking credit for things that are somewhat random and not the result of one’s activity, and deflecting blame for one’s perceived screw-ups. there’s not much room for productive activity when im done doing that!

[scaredyclassic]

sometimes i feel like most of modern life is basically taking credit for things that are somewhat random and not the result of one’s activity, and deflecting blame for one’s perceived screw-ups. there’s not much room for productive activity when im done doing that!

[scaredyclassic]

sometimes i feel like most of modern life is basically taking credit for things that are somewhat random and not the result of one’s activity, and deflecting blame for one’s perceived screw-ups. there’s not much room for productive activity when im done doing that!

[scaredyclassic]

sometimes i feel like most of modern life is basically taking credit for things that are somewhat random and not the result of one’s activity, and deflecting blame for one’s perceived screw-ups. there’s not much room for productive activity when im done doing that!

[DWCAP]

[quote=Arraya] Claims in the previous week were revised to an increase of 13,000 to 446,000 compared with the initial estimate of an increase of 11,000 to 444,000. A Labor Department official said that there were more estimates this week because of the holiday on Monday. In addition, some of the increase may be due to administrative delays in reporting claims since the Christmas and New Year holidays.[/quote]

Did they release that little fact back durring the Holidays? Cause I remember alot of talk about how things were all getting better and using the ‘falling’ unemployment numbers to support that argument. Not counting claims doesnt count as ‘falling’ unemployment in my book, and the data sets should have been discarded or highly suspect with large bold letters saying “processing delays make this analysis troublesome and will lead to revision.”

Otherwise, it is just a start of the year stastical fluke, or political cover. It could be either, but explaining away ‘bad’ data cause of ‘errors outside of our control’ after the fact just rubs me the wrong way.

[DWCAP]

[quote=Arraya] Claims in the previous week were revised to an increase of 13,000 to 446,000 compared with the initial estimate of an increase of 11,000 to 444,000. A Labor Department official said that there were more estimates this week because of the holiday on Monday. In addition, some of the increase may be due to administrative delays in reporting claims since the Christmas and New Year holidays.[/quote]

Did they release that little fact back durring the Holidays? Cause I remember alot of talk about how things were all getting better and using the ‘falling’ unemployment numbers to support that argument. Not counting claims doesnt count as ‘falling’ unemployment in my book, and the data sets should have been discarded or highly suspect with large bold letters saying “processing delays make this analysis troublesome and will lead to revision.”

Otherwise, it is just a start of the year stastical fluke, or political cover. It could be either, but explaining away ‘bad’ data cause of ‘errors outside of our control’ after the fact just rubs me the wrong way.

[DWCAP]

[quote=Arraya] Claims in the previous week were revised to an increase of 13,000 to 446,000 compared with the initial estimate of an increase of 11,000 to 444,000. A Labor Department official said that there were more estimates this week because of the holiday on Monday. In addition, some of the increase may be due to administrative delays in reporting claims since the Christmas and New Year holidays.[/quote]

Did they release that little fact back durring the Holidays? Cause I remember alot of talk about how things were all getting better and using the ‘falling’ unemployment numbers to support that argument. Not counting claims doesnt count as ‘falling’ unemployment in my book, and the data sets should have been discarded or highly suspect with large bold letters saying “processing delays make this analysis troublesome and will lead to revision.”

Otherwise, it is just a start of the year stastical fluke, or political cover. It could be either, but explaining away ‘bad’ data cause of ‘errors outside of our control’ after the fact just rubs me the wrong way.

[DWCAP]

[quote=Arraya] Claims in the previous week were revised to an increase of 13,000 to 446,000 compared with the initial estimate of an increase of 11,000 to 444,000. A Labor Department official said that there were more estimates this week because of the holiday on Monday. In addition, some of the increase may be due to administrative delays in reporting claims since the Christmas and New Year holidays.[/quote]

Did they release that little fact back durring the Holidays? Cause I remember alot of talk about how things were all getting better and using the ‘falling’ unemployment numbers to support that argument. Not counting claims doesnt count as ‘falling’ unemployment in my book, and the data sets should have been discarded or highly suspect with large bold letters saying “processing delays make this analysis troublesome and will lead to revision.”

Otherwise, it is just a start of the year stastical fluke, or political cover. It could be either, but explaining away ‘bad’ data cause of ‘errors outside of our control’ after the fact just rubs me the wrong way.

[Author]

Posts