Jobless Claims Plunge, Productivity Soars

[Missouri Mule]

Another big boost for Bush's chances in 2004.
==============

Jobless Claims Plunge, Productivity Soars
Thu November 06, 2003 09:30 AM ET


By Tim Ahmann
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of Americans filing first-time claims for jobless benefits took an unexpectedly sharp plunge last week, reaching a level not seen since before the economy tumbled into recession in 2001, a government report showed on Thursday.

A separate report showed U.S. business productivity soared in the third quarter, suggesting little risk inflation will flare despite signs the economic recovery is on firmer ground.

Initial claims for state unemployment aid fell 43,000 to 348,000 in the week to Nov. 1 from a revised 391,000 the prior week, the Labor Department said. It was the lowest level since late January 2001, two months before the recession began...

(snip)

http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=businessNews&storyID=3769468

[up2date]

You know me - always looking to beat the Bush. ;) Obviously that's good news, but I'm more interested in the number of jobs created. There was a modest gain last month, and if we could build on that, we just might have something.

[Missouri Mule]

I'm mainly looking at it from a purely political standpoint and the odds of unseating a relatively popular president. If Dean is the nominee and doesn't get treatment for his "mouth in foot" disease he won't have a chance. It'll be another McGovern debacle.

[up2date]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
I'm mainly looking at it from a purely political standpoint and the odds of unseating a relatively popular president. If Dean is the nominee and doesn't get treatment for his "mouth in foot" disease he won't have a chance. It'll be another McGovern debacle. I believe Bush's approval ratings took another slight dip, so I'm not sure the definition of "relatively" in this case, but you're absolutely right about Dean. The stronger the economy gets, the tougher it will be for Dean (or any of the other candidates). But unemployment will be the most important factor, IMO. If the economy is relatively booming next year but there is still high unemployment, particularly in the rust belt, Bush will be very beatable.

[Missouri Mule]

I was looking at today's WSJ and the interviews with Democratic operatives in the field. The "C" word kept coming up. That would be cultural issues, especially in the South. If you can grab a copy, you might find it interesting.

[marie]

Mule,
Did I not hear yesterday that the amount of job cuts in October were above what was expected and double what there were in September?? I will look it up, but I believe that was the case. :confused:

[Missouri Mule]

Offhand, I don't know but it is possible. But it would have to be weighed against new job creation to see the net result. The weekly new unemployment claims are quite significant. Two months from now we will know if this is for real. If it is then I would expect some significant new jobs coming on stream as corporations start to replace laid off workers.

[Catch 22]

heh well we know that probably 30k jobs were created but we are also hemorrhaging about another 100k. Thus I don’t see how we’re gaining jobs. Frankly I don't trust the labor department anymore, doctoring the numbers seems to be their forte. For all I know "jobless claims going down" is just a new accounting trick they learned from Enron government appointees.

[Missouri Mule]

Not likely. That measure has been around since Lassie was a pup.

[Catch 22]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
Not likely. That measure has been around since Lassie was a pup.

and has been mathematically altered probably as well. Remember how they say unemployment is going down? Then you look at the data and it's only because they are allowing less jobless claims to be accepted. Well that's the key here. The real measuring factor is the jobless rate. That includes everyone without a job not just unemployment claimers.

[NetxMan]

Well if they have always been altered then they are always still correctly show a up or down period just not the correct numbers.

[Catch 22]

Originally posted by NetxMan
Well if they have always been altered then they are always still correctly show a up or down period just not the correct numbers.

think of it this way. Which one is in reality better 30k on unemployment and 200k jobless without. or 210k jobless and 20k on unemployment? See my point?

[Missouri Mule]

I see your point but what we are looking for are trends. The trends are favorable. Two more months and we'll know if this is the real deal.