Initial Jobless Claims Unexpectedly Surge, Continuing Claims Lowest In 45 Years

2016 ended with a 13% YoY decline in initial jobless claims. However, thanks to a late-year surge (which we are sure will be excused away with 'weather' of some sort), 2017 saw initial claims rise 6.5% YoY.

Initial claims rose 11k to 260k (against expectations of a decline to 245k)...

However, continuing claims continue to fall, breaking down this week to the lowest level since 1973...

Continuing claims fell 35k to 1.867mm (beating expectations of 1.92mm)...

As good as it gets?


Endgame Napoleon gmak Thu, 01/11/2018 - 11:28 Permalink

I wonder how many of the companies offering higher wages will cut hours. That is one of the problems for employees who lack unearned income from spouses or welfare and tax welfare to supplement their earned income. When people have unearned income that covers rent and groceries, with a $6,444 refundable child tax credit on top, they can (must) work part time, staying below the earned-income limit for welfare. 

In reply to by gmak

Davidduke2000 Thu, 01/11/2018 - 09:01 Permalink

where the 95 million people outside the labor force fit in all this?? only children would believe that unemployment is at 45 years low, a serious  lie like this discredit all data coming from all government agencies. 

how can they cover this up when the world finances and economies collapse??? from 45 years low to all time high, that's a huge difference. 

chubbar Thu, 01/11/2018 - 09:07 Permalink

This is just BLS bullshit. No one knows what it really indicates because no one knows whether these initial jobless claims are from people who didn't have jobs and re-entered the workforce, only to lose their jobs again. OR, this is from people who have been working the whole time and are just now losing their jobs. It makes a big difference because people who lose their jobs eventually fall off the "unemployment" rolls and are no longer counted as being unemployed even though they most definitely ARE unemployed. This is all bullshit and smokescreen nonsense dreamed up to confuse the population to what is going on.

Using this methodology, we should hit ZERO unemployment the very second that the very last employed person in the US is fired and then drops off UE 4 months later (or whatever that timeline is). Think of that. ZERO unemployment is registered by BLS if everyone in the US is unemployed for a certain length of time, that's how much bullshit these asshats are flinging at us.

Endgame Napoleon chubbar Thu, 01/11/2018 - 11:45 Permalink

Most people never get UC. Despite the fact that we have to pay into the system, scenarios like this often govern UC.

Right before you would be eligible for UC, you are systematically bullied out of a mom-gang job, where you met / exceeded the sales generation and account-retention quotas every month, coming to work every day, staying all day and helping to bump up the frequently absentee mom manager’s bonus up.

You cannot get UC unless you are fired, even though about half of the retained mom-gang employees were dramatically absentee, taking mornings, afternoons, days and weeks off beyond PTO and pregnancy leaves.

Not to mention the fact that the retained 98% childbearing-aged mom-gang employees did not meet the quotas, while you and a handful of (also fired) employees did.

There is a TON of crony corruption and absenteeism-gang collusion in workplaces, along with a massive amount of unprofessional bullying out of employees who are not “culture fits,” none of which has anything to do with sexual harassment.

There are different types of workplace gangs, all based on social characteristics, rather than the work. It is not just bully-mom gangs, although they are the ones I have encountered so much in workplaces. 

In reply to by chubbar

rrrr Thu, 01/11/2018 - 09:19 Permalink

"Unexpected" means "without expectation", but we can be sure that someone expected it, therefore the headline is untrue.

Bay of Pigs Thu, 01/11/2018 - 09:28 Permalink

Tyler, come on. Two of these US government lies and propaganda threads in a row?

Show us the chart with 95M Americans out of the workforce please. Context means everything.

Endgame Napoleon yellowsub Thu, 01/11/2018 - 11:58 Permalink

They should change UC, making everyone eligible so that people are not scared to get a lease agreement and a churn job they may soon lose, when rent absorbs more than half of monthly, earned-only income. But while everyone should automatically get UC, it should only be for one month — two months at the most — because you can find another low-wage churn job. The problem is covering major expenses between churn jobs, especially since with every new employer, you have to wait 3 weeks (at least) to get your first low paycheck. You have to wait all that time, incurring expenses traveling back and forth to work, etc. Most citizens never get a drop of means-tested welfare and tax welfare for sex and reproduction. Most citizens do not get UC to help with rent between low-wage, temp and high-turnover jobs. And 1099-gig employers who pay twice-as-high SS tax as the employees who get UC — 15.3% SS tax instead of 7.65% — never get an once of UC to help with rent between gigs. Meanwhile, some people are staying on UC for extended periods. It is an unfair system, and gauging unemployment by UC is no more instructive than ignoring the issue of underemployment or uncounted, sidelined working-aged citizens. UC—like the layers of unearned income for citizen and immigrant parents, available through the welfare and tax-welfare systems—is an unfair cushion that enables some citizens to navigate an economy with an insufficient number of rent-covering jobs. Most of the people I have met who got UC had other income streams: spousal and other income. Whereas most of the people who do not get it have ZERO unearned income. 

In reply to by yellowsub

MuffDiver69 Thu, 01/11/2018 - 09:59 Permalink

Continuing claims fall and the overall “number is at fourty year lows, but we have a “surge” of 10,000 which is statistically meaningless in this case of mumbo jumbo