Continuing Jobless Claims Collapse To Lowest Since Right Before DotCom Crash Began

Tyler Durden's picture

The last time continuing jobless claims was this low, the Nasdaq peaked at the end of the dotcom boom and collapsed over 80% in the next 2 years. So be careful what you crow about...

The 'best' continuing jobless claims print since April 2000... tumbling to 1.979 million (well below the 2.024 million expectations)

 

Despite a slump in industrial production...

Which just happens to coincide with the peak of the Nasdaq...

So this is hardly a leading indicator of awesome times ahead?!

Comment viewing options

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

Lets see that top chart indexed to account for a change in population.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/POP

 

SilverRoofer's picture

It's all Smoke and Mirrors

The Greatest Magical Illusion in History

jcdenton's picture

It's -- theater ..

 

ALL ..

 

THEATER!

 

https://youtu.be/_hKptcsRWl0

 

More colorful and enhanced version .. (for Michael Bay fans)

 

https://youtu.be/R1LhQ48L-Ls?list=PL1yWdjkeR-5JpXPL92NHlupE2E3xz6hIu

meditate_vigorously's picture

Population is the number they always leave out of jobs related stats.

BigRye2015's picture

That would make it look even better, the same absolute number of jobless claims while population has gone up.  Most likely reflects the ongoing drop of workers in the workforce as benefits dry up.

Bill of Rights's picture

Laughable...Pretty colors tho.

taketheredpill's picture

 

 

This far from the trough the Jobless numbers mean less.  Are claims falling because lots and lots of people are working or because lots and lots of people have reached the term limit of the claims?

And please don't compare anything post-2008 to anything pre-2008.  Not in Kansas etc. etc.

 

rejected's picture

Part timers, which today most Americans are, don't qualify for Unemployment.

canisdirus's picture

And businesses are running such skeleton crews in their full time groups that losing/replacing someone is painful because they can't readily replace them. Hence they really can't even lay people off short of dropping the function of entire departments. Everyone with a full-time job is doing the work of at least 4-5 distinct job titles these days.

A. Boaty's picture

Correct me if I get this wrong, but don't people have to have jobs before claiming to have lost them?

LawsofPhysics's picture

Mo jobs, mo problems?

WinstonSmith1984's picture

Why can't ZH understand that jobless claims are down because Donnie is running the country?

dscott8186's picture

Well, duh!  Continuing Jobless Claims will continue to drop until the economy reverses direction and a recession presents itself.  Is water wet or the sky blue?  Hardly a revelation. 

Though an interesting thought from another poster here is that you have to lose a job in order to be jobless in the first place.  Perversely, does this mean less people are being employed for them to become jobless?  

Or does this mean that we are working through the backlog of people using up their limit on Unemployment Insurance?  Are more people who are on Unemployment Insurance cutting short their period of unemployment to go back to work or on long term government assistance? 

Falling Down's picture

Great point. I think part of it is not enough were hired back full-time to begin with, we're living in a part-time world, really. I'm 42, and a great number of people I know within my peer group and strictly part-time employees, working 2-3 jobs.

Falling Down's picture

My take is employers figured out around the time of the downturn, and shortly thereafter, they could do one of a few things to prevent themselves from having to pay unemployment, which varies by state but please bear with me. They could:

A) Just not hire as many people. I've seen numerous manufacturing co's do this, both OEM's and contract shops do this. So they end up forcing their employees to work longer hours when orders increase, w/o increasing the number of workers. Helps with insurance costs, too. Not that this is anything new, but I've seen it more in recent years than, say, 15 years ago.

Don't like it? There's the door.

B) Hire just temps and part-timers. This also helps to keep turnover high, that way it keeps the unions out.

Don't like it? There's the door.

C) Just fire people they don't like, that way they don't have to pay unemployment on that worker. Very common these days, much more so than 10 years ago.

Any which way you cut it. and it appears that a lot of Americans have figured all of this out by now, many simply refuse to be included in the jobs and jobless numbers to begin with.

canisdirus's picture

There are a lot of employers that go to great lengths to ensure they have no full-time employees, too. It avoids Obamacare requirements because their full-time staff is small enough and avoids paying unemployment insurance. If they are small enough that they can do this with a small enough number of managers full-time to avoid Obamacare, it's a huge boost to the bottom line.

theBBD's picture

Yet another correlation that does not necessarily have anything to do with causation. This time it's different because about a zillion other things are different. There is no dot.com-like boom now and there was then.

canisdirus's picture

Are you missing the headlines? There are like 10k 1B+ unicorns losing money across the country claiming they have a product with value greater than their losses.

When the free money tap gets cut off a little more (they're already getting nervous as funding is drying up), we're going to have the Web 3.0 Beta crash.

Sick Monkey's picture

This reminds of China growth numbers in the last 20 years.

6% to 7% after 2010 for 5 years but 6% to 7% drop in trade year after year with it's Asian neighbors. 

Numbers for rail, copper and shipping year after year dropping but the 6% to 7% growth number was permanetly tattoed to China's stats.  Massive unsecured lines of credit funding ghost cities and businesses using slave migrant workers now getting bailed out. 

It was Jimmy Cramers excuse for investor confidence for all of QE.

Don't woawy, we gwoawing! Look at mountain of iron orr. As twall as Everwest.

ThankUGartman's picture

So a crash is imminent eh? Thanks for the heads up. I've lost 60k over 8 years believing headlines like that.

Silver Savior's picture

Jobs don't pay enough to live on so what good are they?