AP again sees jobless claims rise “unexpectedly”

posted at 10:55 am on December 17, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Maybe the Associated Press should pick up a Roget’s Thesaurus … or buy a clue.  They report this morning that jobless claims rose “unexpectedly”, which indicates that the AP may have been sipping a little too much of the Porkulus Kool-Aid of late.  Analysts predicted a drop, but the continuing decline in consumer confidence may be taking its toll:

The number of newly laid off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week as the recovery of the nation’s battered labor market proceeds in fits and starts.

The Labor Department said Thursday that the number of new jobless claims rose to 480,000 last week, up 7,000 from the previous week. That was a worse performance than the decline to 465,000 that economists had expected. …

Unemployment claims have been on a downward trend since this summer. That improvement is seen as a sign that jobs cuts are slowing and hiring could pick up as soon as early next year. But the rise in weekly claims of 7,000 last week, which had followed an increase of 19,000 the previous week, shows that the improvement has been halting.

Halting, as in stalled.  Jobless claims are lower than they were earlier in the year, but that’s a function related to the jobs already lost.  Businesses are still shedding jobs; they’re just shedding them at a lower rate.  That’s because the most expendable jobs have already been lost.  Now businesses are cutting back even further as they foresee no big recovery in the near future, no reason to expand staffs for a demand that does not appear to be on the horizon.

That isn’t an improvement in job creation; it’s a slightly lower rate of job loss.  The latter is also positive, but it’s hardly anything to brag about.  Job losses should have started declining months ago, not just in the last few weeks, if the stimulus programs of the Obama administration were at all effective.  That means that jobless claims will bounce up and down for a long while, which is not “unexpected” at all.

When jobless claims hit a floor number, then analysts believe that job creation has begun, or at least that the net number of jobs is not changing.  But that floor number appears to have gotten a little editing from the AP, too.  Earlier, analysts had used a number between 325,000 and 350,000 jobless claims as the break-even point.  The AP lifts that significantly:

Analysts believe that claims need to fall to about 425,000 for several weeks to signal the economy is actually beginning to add jobs.

Maybe by next month, that number will be 500,000, and the AP can claim that we’ve been adding jobs all along.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Maybe claims were low because states like MA fracked up so badly with unemployment that they have had to delay enrolling people and sending out checks. Right now MA has some sort of emergency plan that will handle this problem on Dec 15 and Jan 5. From what I understand from the radio RI is also closing their unemployment offices for a few days in order to catch up with the influx of unemployed.

RagTag on December 17, 2009 at 11:43 AM

AmericanUnderground on December 17, 2009 at 11:41 AM

A poll of those worthless afghan soldiers maybe

becki51758 on December 17, 2009 at 11:44 AM

It’s gallows humor.

mankai on December 17, 2009 at 11:21 AM

You need that picture of Obama laughing with this comment!

lovingmyUSA on December 17, 2009 at 11:44 AM

The trolls probably won’t venture too far into a thread like this.

mankai on December 17, 2009 at 11:36 AM

I expect a little more silence than usually from our trolls. They do not seem eager to admit faults in their preferred party. Silence seems to be their preference. Given that yesterday was a bad day and today is not shaping too well, expect less fiestiness.

WashJeff on December 17, 2009 at 11:44 AM

“Economic reports point to gradual recovery”

Wind Rider on December 17, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Hide the decline” just ain’t for climatologists, folks!

ya2daup on December 17, 2009 at 11:44 AM

That improvement is seen as a sign that jobs cuts are slowing and hiring could pick up as soon as early next year

Pigs could fly and man could be causing global warming too.

I love journalism!

mankai on December 17, 2009 at 11:45 AM

I just signed for another six a few months ago; I greatly appreciate the sentiment, however.

Doorgunner on December 17, 2009 at 11:26 AM

Hope you are stateside them…

lovingmyUSA on December 17, 2009 at 11:45 AM

I thought Oceania was always at war with Eastanglia?

Lanceman on December 17, 2009 at 11:23 AM

It was actually Eastasia, but thanks for pointing it out. =)

TheMightyMonarch on December 17, 2009 at 11:46 AM

In January 2010 I will have been unemployed for one year. It’s difficult for everyone looking for employment, but we “50 somethings” are really hard hit in this environment. I’m going back to school, using student loans (I’ve gone thru all our savings due to husband’s health issues).

zeebeach on December 17, 2009 at 11:46 AM

AP: Good News… very few, if any, “obscene profits” expected in 2010. Democrats rejoice.

mankai on December 17, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Weekly job losses in an expanding economy are around 300K. So how can job losses of 425K mean we are adding jobs?

Clark1 on December 17, 2009 at 11:52 AM

That improvement is seen as a sign that jobs cuts are slowing and hiring could pick up as soon as early next year

How can that be when all the seasonal help gets laid off?

Knucklehead on December 17, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Easy…you lay off all the full time workers and hire them back at 20 hours a week and no medical benefits.

Kinda like in pharmaceutical sales (where I’m losing my job in two weeks)…massive layoffs followed by anemic hire-backs at a severely reduced salary and a slashed bonus structure.

Under-reported job losses and over-reported hiring…the AP’s version of socializing losses and privatizing gains. If the banks can do it, why not the media?

TheMightyMonarch on December 17, 2009 at 11:52 AM

Merry Christmas to Ontonagon County, Michigan.

Ontonagon County, in the western Upper Peninsula of Michigan, is one of the largest counties in the state, but is sparsely settled. The county has two industries, a cardboard mill and a copper refinery. Here is the counties Christmas present:no industry remaining within the next six months.

“Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation today announced plans to permanently close its Ontonagon, MI, and Missoula, MT, mills, effective December 31.”

“The paper mill was the largest employer in Ontonagon County.”

“Employees have already been out of work for seven months this year after two temporary mill shutdowns.”

“Union officials, who represent the 147 union employees at the mill, said they weren’t surprised on Monday when company officials contacted them early in the day with the news. An additional 35 salaried employees also work at Smurfit Stone in Ontonagon.”

——————————–

“HudBay Minerals Inc expects to close its copper smelter in Flin Flon, Manitoba before July 1, 2010, and its copper refinery in White Pine, Michigan shortly thereafter.”

“This will cause the loss of 65 jobs at the White Pine Copper Refinery.”

Yoop on December 17, 2009 at 11:53 AM

I suppose about October next year when none of us have jobs the weekly new jobless rate will be 0 and Pinnochio and the Presstitutes will be singing wild praises of the Superkellafagilisticexpeelladocious recovery!

At least come Nov. we will be able to do something about the political perpetraitors the other traitors will have to come later!

dhunter on December 17, 2009 at 11:56 AM

I’m surprised the AP can even type, considering their collective heads are so far up The One’s rear end. AP? Another biased MSM, no more, no less.

bradley11 on December 17, 2009 at 11:58 AM

I expect it to rise again next month when the seasonal workers get laid off.

Unexpected clearly doesn’t mean what they think it does.

sonofdy on December 17, 2009 at 12:01 PM

What do you guys think Bush would have done differently if he were president…This is a general question for any side.

tomas on December 17, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Finally, somebody gets it right. O’Reilly has really been off the rails lately with his “the jobless picture is improving” routine.

I sent him this “picture”, hoping he’d figure it out:

Charlie owns a light manufacturing business with 350 employees: 3 manufacturing shifts—100 jobs each
Plus 50 office jobs (sales/customer svc/management).

When demand started dropping in December, Charlie eliminated the night shift (100 jobs) and 15 office positions. He’s now down to 235 employees.

As the recession deepened, he eliminated the evening shift…another 100 jobs. Also cut 5 more office jobs. Now down to 130 employees.

It’s now November. Things are worse still. Demand is down, his unemployment insurance rates have skyrocketed, and health insurance premiums went up 12%. He can’t cut the day shift. So Charlie combines several managers’ jobs and merges the sales/customer service staff…cuts 10 more jobs. Now he has 120 employees. He and his partner are working 16 hrs, 7 days just to keep up the workload.

The trend is:

First wave: 115 jobs lost
Second wave: 105
Third wave: 10

Would you call this an “improving” picture? No way.

The simple fact is, as the “universe” of remaining jobs gets smaller, the cuts get harder and harder. Businesses are now cutting into bone in their effort to ride this thing out.

Believe me, I know how this works. Our company had gotten down to where it was just me and the boss left. Now he’s closing the doors on Dec 31st. I’ll be one of those “new jobless claims” come January. It sucks.

jeanneb on December 17, 2009 at 12:03 PM

“Union officials, who represent the 147 union employees at the mill, said they weren’t surprised on Monday when company officials contacted them early in the day with the news. An additional 35 salaried employees also work at Smurfit Stone in Ontonagon.”

The union officials weren’t surprised, huh? I guess they were too busy counting their dues instead of looking out for their members and trying to, you know, save their jobs or something.

Gotta wonder if that mill would have been able to stay in business by hiring non-union workers.

Yep, probably.

TheMightyMonarch on December 17, 2009 at 12:04 PM

So the red haired lady w/cellphone must have either gotten a job or given up entirely, and is currently enjoying “funemployment”. And drawing in those extra mega-weeks’ worth of benefits.

Or she’s gone a bit mental and is now riding the subways in a storm trooper suit.

Intrepid on December 17, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Just imagine how bad it would be if they had “expected” it…….

JoeinTX on December 17, 2009 at 12:09 PM

Yoop on December 17, 2009 at 11:53 AM

And I bet that Jennifer Granholm is just blown away with the news coming out of Ontonagon County!

Seriously though, how do people get by in a place where employers have all left? What’s the state doing to get jobs to the region? Does the UP even register on the politicians’ scope or are they more concerned with Detroit and all those union jobs down there?

highhopes on December 17, 2009 at 12:12 PM

What do you guys think Bush would have done differently if he were president…This is a general question for any side.

tomas on December 17, 2009 at 12:01 PM

In general, I think he would have done more to help small businesses and individuals through tax cuts and other incentives. He would not have seized and held hostage the financial and automotive industries. Investors would not be skittish over the looming cap & tax and healthcare reform bills. In general, GWB would have dealt with the bad economy instead of using the bad economy as an excuse to further a radical socialist agenda.

highhopes on December 17, 2009 at 12:15 PM

The economy is going to get much worse I fear. We are country of consumers. We produce very little. Companies who do produce things are seeing very little future demand. Smart money is not in stocks, its in T-bills. Peoples homes are worth much less than they own, and they will start walking away from their mortgages. The policies of this administration are driving the economy into the depths of abyss. With business being regulated to death, many companies will head for exit door to more free lands. Our only hope is a massive turn around in 2010 with conservatives taking power. Then you will see an immediate up turn in Stock market as smart money people try and get in for expected rise. Obama can still do plenty of further damage as he has shown ability to go around congress. We are looking at getting much worse before it gets better. God Help US!!!

Ed Laskie on December 17, 2009 at 12:21 PM

What do you guys think Bush would have done differently if he were president…This is a general question for any side.

tomas on December 17, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Given Bush’s track record on spending and deficits; he wouldn’t have done much differently regarding the stimulus spending I suspect. Sad but true.

One difference is Bush likely wouldn’t be making economic damage policies in dribs and drabs and letting the confusion among business owners and employees discourage hiring or expansion.

So Bush probably would have done the overspending thing; but like him or hate him, you had a good clue what Bush was doing because he straight up told you. And you generally didn’t find out later that he spent 2 hours in primetime misrepresenting what would be in a bill that hadn’t been written yet.

So I think the debt, and the interest issues would have come under Bush; but the continuing rally of hits on the economy wouldn’t have happened.

gekkobear on December 17, 2009 at 12:25 PM

2001-2008: Good news was unexpected

2009 – 2013 Bad news is unexpected

angryed on December 17, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Analysts believe that claims need to fall to about 425,000 for several weeks to signal the economy is actually beginning to add jobs.

In 2004 the number was in the 300Ks. But then AP and Co were talking about how awful the economy was and how Americans were suffering the worst economy since 1577.

angryed on December 17, 2009 at 12:28 PM

But I’m still going to get my government issued unicorn, right?

Little Boomer on December 17, 2009 at 12:37 PM

What do you guys think Bush would have done differently if he were president…This is a general question for any side.

tomas on December 17, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Answer your own question, troll, instead of trying to get others to give you ammunition.

Your lame attempt to cover the incompetence and repeated failures of Obams is….lame

Janos Hunyadi on December 17, 2009 at 12:41 PM

What do you guys think Bush would have done differently if he were president…This is a general question for any side.

tomas on December 17, 2009 at 12:01 PM

1. No cap and trade bill
2. No socialized medicine bill
3. No pay czar/interference with industries
4. No EPA imposing their own CO2 plan
5. Tax cuts

Those five alone would shave at least two points off of the unemployment numbers.

Vashta.Nerada on December 17, 2009 at 12:42 PM

“The AP unexpectedly ran an unbiased news article”

Wine_N_Dine on December 17, 2009 at 12:43 PM

I like Bill O’Reilly, but he has been singing the praises of President Obama because the November jobless claims were down.

As all of us that have to make these decisions know, you do the layoffs BEFORE Thanksgiving and AFTER Christmas.

barnone on December 17, 2009 at 1:02 PM

Unexpected.

“You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means”.

SouthernRoots on December 17, 2009 at 1:06 PM

ya2daup on December 17, 2009 at 11:44 AM

What a great brain you have! Ha Ha Ha

I have it on good authority that the media have been calling statisticians for some “analysis” to make this look a little better. Three week upward/downward weighed moving averages might work.

IlikedAUH2O on December 17, 2009 at 1:19 PM

I like Bill O’Reilly, but he has been singing the praises of President Obama because the November jobless claims were down.

As all of us that have to make these decisions know, you do the layoffs BEFORE Thanksgiving and AFTER Christmas.

The problem with O’Reilly is that he has a VERY hard time admitting he was wrong. He will start throwing out strawmen as soon as the “revised” numbers come out. He did it to oil industry last fall, ignoring that they sell gas from oil purchased 3-5 months earlier, ignoring Cavuto’s input, etc. Until he finally, finally had to back down on his “give us a gas price break for Christmas since Oil is lower” schtick.

What do you guys think Bush would have done differently if he were president…This is a general question for any side.

1) Not submitted a budget that was 10% larger than the previous year in the middle of a recession.

2) Ordered his Treasury Secretary to return the repaid TARP money to the people to address the deficit.

3) Cut taxes and taken measures to give business of all sizes, but especially small business, a stable, predictable direction from Washington, not looming health care, cap and trade, and other taxes to destabilize.

4) Since the media hated him, we’d be getting negative news no matter how much it was improving, so he would have leverage with the congress to get these things through.

5) He would have given McChrystal 40,000 troops back when he asked for them and not told the terrorist how long they need to hide among the populace whispering “just wait until the yankees are gone next year, better choose carefully.”

PastorJon on December 17, 2009 at 1:23 PM

Merry Christmas to Ontonagon County, Michigan.

Yoop on December 17, 2009 at 11:53 AM

Ah, jeez… this sounds like the long-running flight of industry the U.P. is accelerating… kudos to Jennifer Granholm, one of The Unprecedented’s advisors on the economy in transition

ya2daup on December 17, 2009 at 1:24 PM

I can’t stand the enemy press. Traitors all.

SirGawain on December 17, 2009 at 1:39 PM

The four-week average for claims, which smooths out fluctuations, did fall, dipping to 467,500, the 15th straight decline, viewed as an encouraging sign that the labor market is gradually improving. The four-week average is now at its lowest point since late September 2008, the period when the financial crisis was hitting with full force.

If 18% of the US is underemployed, of course the weekly totals will fall. At some point, Unemployment will be back to 4%, in 5 years even if 20% of those looking for work are not employed because they wont be counted, they will have not unemployment insurance to tell us they are still looking.

The whole unemployment number is a joke.

WoosterOh on December 17, 2009 at 1:40 PM

The number of newly laid off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week as the recovery of the nation’s battered labor market proceeds in fits and starts sits and farts.

Sorry. Couldn’t resist. :-)

Tuning Spork on December 17, 2009 at 2:00 PM

Any of these super-brainy economic experts stop to think that maaaybe the slight downtick in job losses the past couple of month was maaaybe due to this little holiday coming up next Friday, and not wanting to let folks go until it became clearer what the sales numbers were going to be?

Naaah, They might have stopped to think, and forgot to get started again.

Sekhmet on December 17, 2009 at 2:01 PM

That improvement is seen as a sign that jobs cuts are slowing and hiring could pick up as soon as early next year.

AP needs some NEW EXPERTS.

GarandFan on December 17, 2009 at 2:25 PM

Unexpectedly, yet again, huh?

Inconceivable!

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

aic4ever on December 17, 2009 at 2:37 PM

I expect a little more silence than usually from our trolls.
WashJeff on December 17, 2009 at 11:44 AM

But but but failed Vice Presidential nominee Palin used a black marker to cover up MacCains name on a visor she chose to wear at a beach in President Barack Obama’s birth state!!

How can you talk about jobs when a MAJOR!!! crisis like this is going on!!!

s/off

DSchoen on December 17, 2009 at 2:37 PM

And yet republicans in the house and senate keep voting against extending unemployment benefits.

rjl1999 on December 17, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Obama is dead on target to fulfill his campaign promise of 3 million jobs saved or created!

If come Nov. 2012 and there are STILL 3 million people with jobs in the USA, Obama can claim success!

DSchoen on December 17, 2009 at 2:50 PM

The whole unemployment number is a joke.

WoosterOh on December 17, 2009 at 1:40 PM

To be quite honest, we have 1/5 of the nation unemployed if you count the latest U6 numbers.

Kind of reminds me of this video.

1. No cap and trade bill
2. No socialized medicine bill
3. No pay czar/interference with industries
4. No EPA imposing their own CO2 plan
5. Tax cuts

Those five alone would shave at least two points off of the unemployment numbers.

Vashta.Nerada on December 17, 2009 at 12:42 PM

I think the first four combined would shave off a point on their own. The fifth would shave two points now and 1 point later on. Now the above on their own would be one hell of a stimulus plan but my additions would be:

6. A permanent repeal of the estate tax
7. A capital gains tax holiday for two years.
8. A freeze on all forms of government spending outside of the Department of Defense.
9. A boost of funding for the Department of Defense (as such spending normally creates jobs, unlike other forms of government spending) contingent that it can show such spending can improve the job numbers for a significant length of time. A good example of this would’ve been to approve funding for additional F22 fighters.
10. A cut of all salaries for all government employees (excluding military personnel) to bring them in parity with private sector wages.
11. The Congress/Senate gets a 30% a pay cut until the U6 number goes below 7 percent.
12. ACORN gets cut off completely and is investigated for criminal activities. We simply don’t have enough money to spend for the things that are actually important… let alone potentially criminal enterprises.

Chaz706 on December 17, 2009 at 3:38 PM

What do you guys think Bush would have done differently if he were president…This is a general question for any side.

tomas on December 17, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Given Bush’s track record on spending and deficits; he wouldn’t have done much differently regarding the stimulus spending I suspect. Sad but true.

One difference is Bush likely wouldn’t be making economic damage policies in dribs and drabs and letting the confusion among business owners and employees discourage hiring or expansion.

So Bush probably would have done the overspending thing; but like him or hate him, you had a good clue what Bush was doing because he straight up told you. And you generally didn’t find out later that he spent 2 hours in primetime misrepresenting what would be in a bill that hadn’t been written yet.

So I think the debt, and the interest issues would have come under Bush; but the continuing rally of hits on the economy wouldn’t have happened.

gekkobear on December 17, 2009 at 12:25 PM

Bush couldn’t be president now, served his 2 terms….shouldn’t he be asking what McCain would’ve done differently? Just sayin’…..

atlgal on December 17, 2009 at 4:17 PM

Bill O’Reilly will cut that number down to 10%, say 48,000 because some “economist” (or fire fighter) told him so.

Why do I still watch this guy again?

Oh, I remember now…to irritate my Obama-voting liberal wife!

;-)

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 17, 2009 at 4:51 PM

I heard that the reduced numbers of those applying for unemployment in November was more because the offices were closed for Thanksgiving than a real reduction.

davod on December 17, 2009 at 5:47 PM

I’m really beginning to understand the jokes that liberals would do something like touch a hot stove and be surprised at getting burned.

Dark-Star on December 17, 2009 at 5:48 PM

Comment pages: 1 2