Initial Claims Print At 409K, Down From Upward Revised 438K, Below Expectations Of 420K

Tyler Durden's picture

Another week, another 400+ jobless print, another prior upward revision: the DOL does it like clockwork. In the week ended May 14, initial jobless claims were filed by 409,000 people (to be revised to at least 412,000 next week), which while is a drop from last week's upward revised 438,000 (originally 434,000), better than consensus, yet with the number being well above 400,000, it means that the economy continues to be a net loser of jobs. Lastly, while irrelevant, the 4 week moving average printed at 439,000, highest since November, due to that outsized print from two weeks ago. This number will rise over the next week as well. Continuing claims dropped slightly from an upward (of course) revised 3,792K (first 3,756K) to 3,711K, beating expectations of 3,278K. Looking at the 99 week cliff, it appears an equilibrium has been reached as 49K lost Extended Benefits in the week ended April 30, offset by 53K people added to EUCs.

Looking at individual states with big moves, New York posted a decrease of 23,445 in layoffs as a result of "Fewer layoffs in the service and construction industries." Other states were relatively in line with expectations.

Full report.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
oh_bama's picture

Is it fun to mention upward revisions every Thursday?

There are errors in statistics and it is ALL PRICED IN!!


Clueless Economist's picture

Why does no one on CNBS mention that each and every week the previous number is revised higher, which is statisticly IMPOSSIBLE?  Does this not throw doubt on ALL the numbers?  Yet all we get is Liesman's smug, fat face telling us how wonderful everything is.

Clueless Economist's picture

Well at least in addition to that punk Lieman, we get to watch such great commercials on CNBS over and over...

-- I may be in my pajamas, but I'm studying for a MBA...

--Bill Schaeffer made a profit with his invention which is not typical...

--Parents and grandparents with Gerber's life insurance for your newborn..

--GET MAGICJET!!! or MAGICJACK or what ever...ARGHHH

blindfaith's picture

Why on earth would you watch CNBC?

Clueless Economist's picture

Because I am the great KRUGMAN!

TruthInSunshine's picture

Paul Krugman, I don't mean to pester you, but when is your next dissertation going to be published?

The Nobel Committee is anxiously awaiting it.

Wasn't it to be titled 'Printing The Amount of Currency Equal to The National Debt In Order to Pay Off Said National Debt,' or something similar?

Pegasus Muse's picture

Why on earth would you watch CNBC?

To know what the dirty rotten scoundrels are up to you must be aware of their disinformation campaign.  Gotta maintain Situational Awareness.

Pegasus Muse's picture

We get mostly "Buy Gold" on CNBS in my neck of the woods.  lol.  seriously.  no bankster commercials.  no broakerage commercials.  mostly "buy gold" and MAJICJACK!!

smlbizman's picture

they obviously are using the new T.M.I method discussed on south park

Libertarian777's picture

there's a statistical term for that...


Initial Claims are a biased estimator.

Racer's picture

Once upon a time that sort of number would have been shocking to the market, now... oh it beats that's okay then

6 String's picture

Yup. Good enough to send the Russell 2000 up at least another 1% today. Rock on.

TruthInSunshine's picture

These guys would be funny if they were just ignorant and believed the horse shit they peddled. As it is, they're simply dangerous:

05-19 09:06: Fed's Dudley says monetary policy doing its part to spur job growth
Id fight Gandhi's picture

last summer when the market had to rely and react on news, without hope that every bad report means more fed money any print over 400k like this would sell off and people would worry. Now it's eh.

mayhem_korner's picture

The thought that this could be good news is symptomatic of a DEEP and EXPANDING SICKNESS.

snowball777's picture

Couldn't just hire enough people each cycle to make the numbers 'right'?

We need more crunchers of fictional numbers, stat!

lizzy36's picture


Two years after the recession ended, and one year after that failing up dope Geithner "welcomed the US to the recovery" claims still above 400,000.

Anyone remember in the spring of 2010 when VP Biden said US would soon be creating 250,000 to 500,000 jobs a month. The VP is about as accurate as WS strategists.


mayhem_korner's picture

He didn't say we'd be creating them in the U.S.

blindfaith's picture

Yes, and the next time some damn politician claims they "can create" jobs, call them on it.  And if the person next to you buys it, shake some sense into them.

These SOBs rely on the birth/death model in each and every state to make such false claims.

The 'barely not in prison' Gov. Rick Scott in Florida, (thank you Republicans and Tea Party folks for all you have done for the Sunshine State)  claimed he WAS going to create 250,000 jobs.  Instead he has killed 20,000+ jobs, and families, and towns, and the heart and souls of Floridians BE DAMNED.

NO POLITICIAN can create jobs,PERIOD, unless they are talking about expanding government. 

Remember that!

Remember that this time!

SendMeYourWorthlessMoney's picture

VP not honest?

Don't forget - "there's no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession."

Vice President Joe Biden, 06-35-2010, in a rare moment before the language handlers got to him, at a fundraiser with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) in Milwaukee, while 150 people ate $500 a plate dinners.

So far he has been right on in his assessment of their ability to do this.

Seasmoke's picture

whats the TOTAL of unemployed people in USA ....thats the only number that matters

Quinvarius's picture

Where are all these jobs we keep losing coming from?  Surely this well must run dry?

cowpieflapjack's picture

When everyone is out of work, the well will be dry.

dick cheneys ghost's picture

job losses are just getting started at the state and city level....teachers, cops, firefighters, court employees etc etc........

FreeNewEnergy's picture

Laying off cops, teachers, firemen and government clerical workers (paper pushing bureaucrats) would be five stars in my book, especially cops. Fewer cops = more freedom.

MachoMan's picture

Fewer cops = more freedom to a point...  and then you start to go the other way...  where it leads to the freedom for others to ensure you have nothing...  difficult thing to balance...  not sure if humanity is up to the task, even on a local level.

FreeNewEnergy's picture

MM, fewer cops means less hassling of minorities, meaning they won't have to go on looting sprees in order to survive. Cops hassle minorities because that's what they've been trained to do and it's all a part of their macho mentality.

Even here in the 'burbs where I live, a town cop sits in his $40,000 cruiser looking directly at the front door of the liquor store every Thursday and Friday afternoon (why I buy on Tuesdays, BTW). If I owned that liqour store, I'd ask him to vacate as he drives business to other stores that are not being "watched."

Cops are a scourge on the public in general. Fewer of them would constitute a better standard of living for the rest of us. If there are miscreants about, the general public will surely find ways in which to deal with them. Cops and courts only make the process of keeping the streets crime-free more expensive and time-consuming.

MachoMan's picture

Right...  we're talking in circles.  Here's the issue, the novelty of police decreases directly proportionately to increases in the size and scope of supreme court decisions and laws limiting freedom of the individual...  seems strange, but the more onerous the laws, the more onerous the police...  simple as that...

In other words, the concept of police is sound and necessary...  however, in our particular case, given our legal system and social norms, our police often serve higher powers and are ridiculously inefficient (e.g. 20 cops to go bust a convenience store selling synthetic marijuana).  They don't have to be a scourge on the public, but often times are simply due to the rudimentary act of following the law... 

If you are advocating mob rule, then I hope you have a personal military backing you and are capable of genocide...  and I realize that democracy is often times a distinction without a difference, but it's at least a more polite way of going about it.  In the end, everyone hates the police until they need them...

Peter_Griffin's picture

Reduction of .gov compensation and jobs will be the end to our bubble.  We have gov debt and exports driving our economy, with exports not brining in nearly enough $ to keep the economy rolling.

The only way we make it through this is other countries funding our debt long enough for us to steal their exporters.  IMO, not very likely.

cowpieflapjack's picture

Why do they bother with messy revisions? Just make up the numbers. Then they will always be right.

Fantasy Planet's picture

IMF legal costs were also revised upward.  

Josh Randall's picture

These numbers are like glitter on Gingrich's head -- nice attempt to jazz up the situation, but still an ugly piece of sheeet underneath

RobotTrader's picture

Another day of waterboarding for the perma-gloomers:

- ES futures up, shucking off bad news again.

- Gold getting sold off.

- Linkedin going public with great applause.


lizzy36's picture


$4.5B valuation on $50m of revenue. HAHAHAHAHAHA.

SheepDog-One's picture

Well thats just the 'new normal' Im sure, cant have a stock on Wall St with under 50 P/E at least!

Hedge Jobs's picture

if a site for retards like linked-in is worth 4.5 bill then an IPO of Zero hedge must be worth a gazillion.

FreeNewEnergy's picture

If that worthless LinkedIn website is worth $4.5 billion, then I am a super hot woman with big bazombas who will lay any fat guy on the planet, including Steve Liesman while he's eating his 17th donut of the morning.

Fantasy Planet's picture

I actually make contacts on LinkedIn that result in business.  But I would agree it's worth is closer to "worthless' than $4.5B.  And it offers something more useful than Farcebook or Titter.  And no, I'm not buying into the IPO. 

Alex Kintner's picture

Linkedin goes to Wall $t. Ain't that just great. Next up, expect an immediate modification to Terms Of Service Agreement (ie. "Linkedin has the right to sell all your personal information to the highest bidder.")  Aren't you glad you shared all that info?

Got Identity Theft? You will, Bwhahahaha...

writingsonthewall's picture

I heard some hillarious LinkedIn PR this morning.

1) "Well LinkedIn isn't a Microsoft, Apple or Facebook yet - but those who get in early have a chance of bagging a real gem"

(How refreshing to hear that a new tech IPO isn't the next Microsoft - how humble LinkedIn.)

2) The revenue streams are rising

(although premium revenue has hardly budged - it's all from 'hiring revenue' - which is simply selling personal details to recruitment agents. Something which is already pissing off existing users)

3) The IPO is good for the company, it will raise cash and the company can do a lot with that.

(I immediately pictured a young CEO buying a Ferrari and some RayBans)


The bubblising of LinkedIn is actually worse than the Bubblising of OCADO by the two ex-Goldman 'bubblers' - and now that stock is only 25% over the initial (revised down) IPO price - and falling.....

When will investors learn - you cannot base a valuation on an internet company based on a discounted cash income for the 20 - 30 years as MOST internet startup barely last a decade.

We're all hyping Facebook right now - but I will be very very surprised if it's even still around in 2021. People who invest in tech bubbles show their lack of understanding of how fast IT progresses.

The dinosaurs are investing in tech coms. like their old industrial giants.

Alex Kintner's picture

Yeah, Linkedin needs to pay-off a pundit to preach "It's different for Internet IPOs. They should be valued on Price-Sales, not Price-Earnings. New paradigm, blah blah...". Is Abby Joesph Cohen available? She was a master at that during the internet bubble.

SheepDog-One's picture

Im glad Tyler pulled your ability to post your stupid charts, next he should ban you from posting at all here troll.

pazmaker's picture

Gold opened the week at 1495 it's now at 1489.  That's less then 1% drop and that's a sell off???  Is my math wrong??  what am I missing Robo??

TruthInSunshine's picture

If the 'market' (aka Ponzi) closes flat to red today, RoboTrader's Mom has to grant DSK a conjugal visit.

SheepDog-One's picture

Robo is sad to hear that, he was hoping he'd get 1st dibs on a DSK conjugal visit himself! He even had a new 'I (heart) The FED' t shirt all cleaned and pressed.

TruthInSunshine's picture

Robo's Mom insisted. She needs to make some fast money given the losses in retail and the momo stocks she's incurred, based on her retarded son's recommendations, as of late.

Robo is trying to get her to take a reverse mortgage out on her modest home and invest the proceeds into Linkedin.

SheepDog-One's picture

LNKD bookmarked for the next time Robo puts up another supposed gloat post.