Talk Elections

General Politics => Economics => Topic started by: Tender Branson on March 23, 2012, 02:45:46 AM



Title: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Tender Branson on March 23, 2012, 02:45:46 AM
post good news about the US economy here.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Tender Branson on March 23, 2012, 02:50:35 AM
U.S. jobless claims fall 5,000 to 348,000

Applications for benefits at lowest level since February 2008

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Applications for weekly unemployment benefits set a new four-year low, the government reported Thursday, in another sign that the U.S. labor market continues to gradually improve.

Initial claims fell by 5,000 to a seasonally adjusted 348,000, the lowest level since February 2008, the Labor Department said.

Claims from the prior week were revised up to 353,000 from an original reading of 351,000.

The level of claims is an indicator of whether layoffs are rising or falling. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch had estimated claims would rise to 353,000 in the week ended March 17.

The four-week average of claims, meanwhile, dipped 1,250 to 355,000, just slightly above a four-year low. The monthly average provides a more accurate view of labor-market trends by reducing week-to-week volatility caused by seasonal quirks.

Claims usually range between 300,000 and 400,000 when the economy is growing. New applications for benefits fell below the key 400,000 threshold in the first week of January and have remained there since. Lately claims have settled in the 350,000 range.

Improvement in the labor market is reflected by the monthly employment figures. The U.S. economy has created an average of 245,000 jobs in each of the past three months, the fastest burst of hiring since the recession officially ended in mid-2009.

“The key point here is that the underlying trend in claims is downward, and the current level is already low enough to be consistent with payroll gains around the 250,000 mark,” said chief U.S. economist Ian Shepherdson of High Frequency Economics.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-jobless-claims-fall-5000-to-348000-2012-03-22


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Oakvale on March 29, 2012, 11:23:15 AM
Good news today - GDP stayed flat at a 'meh' 3%... but GDI (measures gross domestic income rather than production) hit a pretty impressive 4.4%!

Link at the Wall Street Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/03/29/gdi-an-alternate-measure-showing-stronger-u-s-growth).

Also, initial claims hit another (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-initial-longterm-jobless-rolls-decline-in-latest-week-20120329,0,5243019.story) four year low - they're now at their lowest level since April '08.

e: To clarify, in theory the GDP & GDI numbers should be equal, but since this isn't an exact science, they're usually revised until they are. The good news here is that GDP's generally revised toward GDI.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on April 06, 2012, 11:13:27 AM
Quote
The Labor Department reported Friday that the economy generated 120,000 jobs last March, well below the 203,000 expected and breaking a streak of robust job reports since the beginning of the year. The unemployment rate fell to 8.2 percent from 8.3 percent in February.

But not everybody's satisfied... (http://economywatch.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/06/11053225-us-unemployment-rate-slips-but-job-creation-slows?ocid=todmsnbc11)

Quote
Obama's most likely Republican opponent now, Mitt Romney, had a slightly different take on the data “This is a weak and very troubling jobs report that shows the employment market remains stagnant," he said in a statement on his campaign's website.

::)


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on April 06, 2012, 12:25:10 PM
Quote
The Labor Department reported Friday that the economy generated 120,000 jobs last March, well below the 203,000 expected and breaking a streak of robust job reports since the beginning of the year. The unemployment rate fell to 8.2 percent from 8.3 percent in February.

But not everybody's satisfied... (http://economywatch.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/06/11053225-us-unemployment-rate-slips-but-job-creation-slows?ocid=todmsnbc11)

Quote
Obama's most likely Republican opponent now, Mitt Romney, had a slightly different take on the data “This is a weak and very troubling jobs report that shows the employment market remains stagnant," he said in a statement on his campaign's website.

::)

This is meh-economic news rather than good-economic news.  120K new jobs per month is not going to put a dent in long term unemployment and the decline in the unemployment rate was because people stopped looking for work.  While it is not the bad economic news Romney needs to get elected, it is not the good economic news America needs either.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Oakvale on April 06, 2012, 01:31:14 PM
Yeah, we should have a "meh economic news" thread for the jobs report. :P

Not bad, but hardly good numbers. Still, it doesn't change the overall forecast - accounting for the unseasonably warm winter etc., just unfortunately means that the recovery didn't accelerate in March.

Meh.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: King on April 06, 2012, 03:59:30 PM
Americans' Spending Up Sharply in March (http://www.gallup.com/poll/153782/Americans-Spending-Sharply-March.aspx?ref=image)

Quote
Americans' self-reported daily spending in stores, restaurants, gas stations, and online averaged $74 per day in March, up from $63 in February, and up 16% compared with the same month a year ago ($64). The best economic confidence in four years, strong job creation, higher gas prices, warmer weather than usual, and a relatively early Easter are likely responsible for sending self-reported consumer spending up in March.



Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on April 06, 2012, 04:55:20 PM
Disappointing job numbers but Governor 47th of 50 wouldn't be any better. But 2001-2009 when it came to job creation wasn't great. Just as well it was very low when Clinton left office


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Politico on April 06, 2012, 04:57:29 PM
Disappointing job numbers but Governor 47th of 50 wouldn't be any better. But 2001-2009 when it came to job creation wasn't great. Just as well it was very low when Clinton left office

Mediocrity is generally not rewarded with re-election in America.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on April 06, 2012, 05:00:58 PM
Disappointing job numbers but Governor 47th of 50 wouldn't be any better. But 2001-2009 when it came to job creation wasn't great. Just as well it was very low when Clinton left office

Mediocrity is generally not rewarded with re-election in America.

Is that why Governor Romney got out of Massachuetts in 2006 ;)?


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Politico on April 06, 2012, 05:34:18 PM
Disappointing job numbers but Governor 47th of 50 wouldn't be any better. But 2001-2009 when it came to job creation wasn't great. Just as well it was very low when Clinton left office

Mediocrity is generally not rewarded with re-election in America.

Is that why Governor Romney got out of Massachuetts in 2006 ;)?

No, Santorum and his ilk made the Republican brand toxic in 2005/2006 with their emphasis upon Big Government social conservatism. While Romney still could have won re-election, it would have been an exhausting experience because of the barriers erected by Santorum and Co.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 06, 2012, 08:59:54 PM
Disappointing job numbers but Governor 47th of 50 wouldn't be any better. But 2001-2009 when it came to job creation wasn't great. Just as well it was very low when Clinton left office

Mediocrity is generally not rewarded with re-election in America.

Is that why Governor Romney got out of Massachuetts in 2006 ;)?

No, Santorum and his ilk made the Republican brand toxic in 2005/2006 with their emphasis upon Big Government social conservatism. While Romney still could have won re-election, it would have been an exhausting experience because of the barriers erected by Santorum and Co.

Let's not forget, he had a presidential campaign to lose!


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Politico on April 06, 2012, 09:26:33 PM
Disappointing job numbers but Governor 47th of 50 wouldn't be any better. But 2001-2009 when it came to job creation wasn't great. Just as well it was very low when Clinton left office

Mediocrity is generally not rewarded with re-election in America.

Is that why Governor Romney got out of Massachuetts in 2006 ;)?

No, Santorum and his ilk made the Republican brand toxic in 2005/2006 with their emphasis upon Big Government social conservatism. While Romney still could have won re-election, it would have been an exhausting experience because of the barriers erected by Santorum and Co.

Let's not forget, he had a presidential campaign to lose!

Reagan and Nixon lost their first presidential bids, so don't be so sure that the past is an indicator of the future with regards to Romney and the presidency. I am not as confident as I was six months ago, but I still feel like Romney is going to win this thing.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on April 06, 2012, 11:31:04 PM
Disappointing job numbers but Governor 47th of 50 wouldn't be any better. But 2001-2009 when it came to job creation wasn't great. Just as well it was very low when Clinton left office

Mediocrity is generally not rewarded with re-election in America.

Is that why Governor Romney got out of Massachuetts in 2006 ;)?

No, Santorum and his ilk made the Republican brand toxic in 2005/2006 with their emphasis upon Big Government social conservatism. While Romney still could have won re-election, it would have been an exhausting experience because of the barriers erected by Santorum and Co.

Wouldn't mandating everyone in the commonwealth buy health insurance be considered "Big Government social conservatism"?


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Beet on April 06, 2012, 11:51:12 PM
In the 1990s, it was small government conservatism. In the mid to late 2000s, it was big government conservatism. In the early 2010s, it is Marxism-Leninism, the end goal that Bill Ayers had for America. :)


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: opebo on April 07, 2012, 11:53:20 AM
Mediocrity is generally not rewarded with re-election in America.

Are you joking?  Reagan, Clinton, and Bush Junior were all re-elected, and Clinton was the only which even rose to the level of mediocrity.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on April 08, 2012, 05:26:13 AM
Quote
The Labor Department reported Friday that the economy generated 120,000 jobs last March, well below the 203,000 expected and breaking a streak of robust job reports since the beginning of the year. The unemployment rate fell to 8.2 percent from 8.3 percent in February.

But not everybody's satisfied... (http://economywatch.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/06/11053225-us-unemployment-rate-slips-but-job-creation-slows?ocid=todmsnbc11)

Quote
Obama's most likely Republican opponent now, Mitt Romney, had a slightly different take on the data “This is a weak and very troubling jobs report that shows the employment market remains stagnant," he said in a statement on his campaign's website.

::)

This is meh-economic news rather than good-economic news.  120K new jobs per month is not going to put a dent in long term unemployment and the decline in the unemployment rate was because people stopped looking for work.  While it is not the bad economic news Romney needs to get elected, it is not the good economic news America needs either.

Perhaps you should wait about the inevitable revision. I read that sometimes as much as 100 thousand jobs get added in revised jobs reports.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on April 08, 2012, 01:40:26 PM
Quote
The Labor Department reported Friday that the economy generated 120,000 jobs last March, well below the 203,000 expected and breaking a streak of robust job reports since the beginning of the year. The unemployment rate fell to 8.2 percent from 8.3 percent in February.

But not everybody's satisfied... (http://economywatch.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/06/11053225-us-unemployment-rate-slips-but-job-creation-slows?ocid=todmsnbc11)

Quote
Obama's most likely Republican opponent now, Mitt Romney, had a slightly different take on the data “This is a weak and very troubling jobs report that shows the employment market remains stagnant," he said in a statement on his campaign's website.

::)

This is meh-economic news rather than good-economic news.  120K new jobs per month is not going to put a dent in long term unemployment and the decline in the unemployment rate was because people stopped looking for work.  While it is not the bad economic news Romney needs to get elected, it is not the good economic news America needs either.

Perhaps you should wait about the inevitable revision. I read that sometimes as much as 100 thousand jobs get added in revised jobs reports.

Or they can get taken away, and if they be this would transform this from meh to bad.  However, there's no way to know whether when revised if this stays meh, or becomes good or bad.  Right now, it's meh, so it's meh.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on April 08, 2012, 06:13:37 PM
Quote
The Labor Department reported Friday that the economy generated 120,000 jobs last March, well below the 203,000 expected and breaking a streak of robust job reports since the beginning of the year. The unemployment rate fell to 8.2 percent from 8.3 percent in February.

But not everybody's satisfied... (http://economywatch.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/06/11053225-us-unemployment-rate-slips-but-job-creation-slows?ocid=todmsnbc11)

Quote
Obama's most likely Republican opponent now, Mitt Romney, had a slightly different take on the data “This is a weak and very troubling jobs report that shows the employment market remains stagnant," he said in a statement on his campaign's website.

::)

This is meh-economic news rather than good-economic news.  120K new jobs per month is not going to put a dent in long term unemployment and the decline in the unemployment rate was because people stopped looking for work.  While it is not the bad economic news Romney needs to get elected, it is not the good economic news America needs either.

Perhaps you should wait about the inevitable revision. I read that sometimes as much as 100 thousand jobs get added in revised jobs reports.

Or they can get taken away, and if they be this would transform this from meh to bad.  However, there's no way to know whether when revised if this stays meh, or becomes good or bad.  Right now, it's meh, so it's meh.

Again from what I've read the norm is to add jobs after revisions.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: King on April 11, 2012, 04:25:09 PM
According to Gallup, Democrats are winning perception of the economy (http://www.gallup.com/poll/153851/Economic-Indicators-Signal-Positive-Momentum.aspx) and that's important by Naso standards.

Gallup's key U.S. economic indicators tell a consistent story of improving economic and behavioral conditions. Americans' self-reported employment status, personal spending, and workplace hiring trends were all better in March than in February, and were improved over March 2011, although still below pre-recession levels. In addition, Americans' ratings of the U.S. economy were at a four-year high. However, that was prior to last week's disappointing Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs report and Wall Street's latest downturn. Those events could spark another reversal like so many others that have occurred since 2009, but thus far, Gallup indicators suggest otherwise.


Title: Gas prices could head lower for summer
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on April 13, 2012, 03:46:51 PM
http://economywatch.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/13/11182024-gas-prices-could-head-lower-for-summer?lite


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: memphis on April 13, 2012, 06:55:24 PM
Gas prices could do anything. If ever there were a example to demonstrate the fallacy of rational markets, this is it.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on April 19, 2012, 12:23:33 PM
U.S. jobless claims fall 5,000 to 348,000

Applications for benefits at lowest level since February 2008

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Applications for weekly unemployment benefits set a new four-year low, the government reported Thursday, in another sign that the U.S. labor market continues to gradually improve.

Initial claims fell by 5,000 to a seasonally adjusted 348,000, the lowest level since February 2008, the Labor Department said.

Claims from the prior week were revised up to 353,000 from an original reading of 351,000.

The level of claims is an indicator of whether layoffs are rising or falling. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch had estimated claims would rise to 353,000 in the week ended March 17.

The four-week average of claims, meanwhile, dipped 1,250 to 355,000, just slightly above a four-year low. The monthly average provides a more accurate view of labor-market trends by reducing week-to-week volatility caused by seasonal quirks.

Claims usually range between 300,000 and 400,000 when the economy is growing. New applications for benefits fell below the key 400,000 threshold in the first week of January and have remained there since. Lately claims have settled in the 350,000 range.

Improvement in the labor market is reflected by the monthly employment figures. The U.S. economy has created an average of 245,000 jobs in each of the past three months, the fastest burst of hiring since the recession officially ended in mid-2009.

“The key point here is that the underlying trend in claims is downward, and the current level is already low enough to be consistent with payroll gains around the 250,000 mark,” said chief U.S. economist Ian Shepherdson of High Frequency Economics.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-jobless-claims-fall-5000-to-348000-2012-03-22

Er, 

Update -- the numbers were WRONG!

Weekly Jobless Claims Hit Higher Level Than Expected

Published: Thursday, 19 Apr 2012

By: Reuters   
 
New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits fell less than expected last week, according to a government report on Thursday that could dampen hopes of a pick-up in job creation in April after March's slowdown.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47098817


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Oakvale on April 19, 2012, 06:13:51 PM
U.S. jobless claims fall 5,000 to 348,000

Applications for benefits at lowest level since February 2008

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Applications for weekly unemployment benefits set a new four-year low, the government reported Thursday, in another sign that the U.S. labor market continues to gradually improve.

Initial claims fell by 5,000 to a seasonally adjusted 348,000, the lowest level since February 2008, the Labor Department said.

Claims from the prior week were revised up to 353,000 from an original reading of 351,000.

The level of claims is an indicator of whether layoffs are rising or falling. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch had estimated claims would rise to 353,000 in the week ended March 17.

The four-week average of claims, meanwhile, dipped 1,250 to 355,000, just slightly above a four-year low. The monthly average provides a more accurate view of labor-market trends by reducing week-to-week volatility caused by seasonal quirks.

Claims usually range between 300,000 and 400,000 when the economy is growing. New applications for benefits fell below the key 400,000 threshold in the first week of January and have remained there since. Lately claims have settled in the 350,000 range.

Improvement in the labor market is reflected by the monthly employment figures. The U.S. economy has created an average of 245,000 jobs in each of the past three months, the fastest burst of hiring since the recession officially ended in mid-2009.

“The key point here is that the underlying trend in claims is downward, and the current level is already low enough to be consistent with payroll gains around the 250,000 mark,” said chief U.S. economist Ian Shepherdson of High Frequency Economics.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-jobless-claims-fall-5000-to-348000-2012-03-22

Er, 

Update -- the numbers were WRONG!

Weekly Jobless Claims Hit Higher Level Than Expected

Published: Thursday, 19 Apr 2012

By: Reuters   
 
New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits fell less than expected last week, according to a government report on Thursday that could dampen hopes of a pick-up in job creation in April after March's slowdown.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47098817


What? The numbers from this week were disappointing so the numbers from the end of March are wrong? ???


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on April 19, 2012, 07:11:22 PM
Never let it be said that I don't give Obama credit for portions of the economy he has stimulated.

Gun industry’s economic impact skyrockets during Obama years

By Tim Devaney

The Washington Times

Thursday, April 19, 2012

The economic impact of the firearms industry is up 66 percent since the beginning of the Great Recession, providing an unexpected shot in the arm for the economy, according to a new study.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/19/gun-sales-skyrocket-during-recession/print/


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Joe Republic on April 19, 2012, 07:16:11 PM
Paranoid gun owners* believing that Obama and the Democrats still intend to ban guns.


* As if there's any other kind!


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on April 26, 2012, 02:54:49 PM
U.S. jobless claims fall 5,000 to 348,000

Applications for benefits at lowest level since February 2008

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Applications for weekly unemployment benefits set a new four-year low, the government reported Thursday, in another sign that the U.S. labor market continues to gradually improve.

Initial claims fell by 5,000 to a seasonally adjusted 348,000, the lowest level since February 2008, the Labor Department said.

Claims from the prior week were revised up to 353,000 from an original reading of 351,000.

The level of claims is an indicator of whether layoffs are rising or falling. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch had estimated claims would rise to 353,000 in the week ended March 17.

The four-week average of claims, meanwhile, dipped 1,250 to 355,000, just slightly above a four-year low. The monthly average provides a more accurate view of labor-market trends by reducing week-to-week volatility caused by seasonal quirks.

Claims usually range between 300,000 and 400,000 when the economy is growing. New applications for benefits fell below the key 400,000 threshold in the first week of January and have remained there since. Lately claims have settled in the 350,000 range.

Improvement in the labor market is reflected by the monthly employment figures. The U.S. economy has created an average of 245,000 jobs in each of the past three months, the fastest burst of hiring since the recession officially ended in mid-2009.

“The key point here is that the underlying trend in claims is downward, and the current level is already low enough to be consistent with payroll gains around the 250,000 mark,” said chief U.S. economist Ian Shepherdson of High Frequency Economics.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-jobless-claims-fall-5000-to-348000-2012-03-22

Er, 

Update -- the numbers were WRONG!

Weekly Jobless Claims Hit Higher Level Than Expected

Published: Thursday, 19 Apr 2012

By: Reuters   
 
New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits fell less than expected last week, according to a government report on Thursday that could dampen hopes of a pick-up in job creation in April after March's slowdown.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47098817


What? The numbers from this week were disappointing so the numbers from the end of March are wrong? ???

Just As Predicted, Initial Claims Miss Huge

This is the 10th week in a row of misses to the weaker side and the 16th of the last 18.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/just-predicted-initial-claims-miss-huge-yet-magically-improve


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: cavalcade on April 27, 2012, 08:10:09 AM
Q1 GDP comes in at 2.2% annualized.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 27, 2012, 03:27:40 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/27/markets/stocks/index.htm?iid=A_MKT_News (http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/27/markets/stocks/index.htm?iid=A_MKT_News)

:)


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Bacon King on April 27, 2012, 05:00:00 PM
Q1 GDP comes in at 2.2% annualized.

And it would have been higher without government cuts and the phaseout of some tax advantages for business investments (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gdp-report-rate-of-us-economic-growth-slows-to-22percent/2012/04/27/gIQAwZaElT_story.html).

Quote
The U.S. economic recovery chugged along in the first three months of the year, showing moderate 2.2 percent growth, the Commerce Department reported Friday, thanks largely to consumers who have ratcheted up their spending.

People bought more cars, furniture and clothes, boosting the economy even as businesses invested more cautiously and governments, constrained by post-recession budget woes, cut spending. Consumer spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of the economy, rose 2.9 percent in the first quarter, beating expectations.

...


While consumer spending was strong, other aspects of the economy appeared weak. The budget woes at all levels of government continue to hamper growth, according to the Commerce Department report. Federal government spending dropped 5.6 percent, with defense spending down 8.1 percent. Spending by state and local government dropped by 1.2 percent.

Another key reason for the slowdown was a drop in some business investment, particularly in computers and industrial equipment. That was expected, however, because tax advantages for those purchases expired at the end of last year.

Remember from Econ 101, GDP = consumption + investment + government spending + net exports. What we see here is consumption increasing, government spending decreasing, and investments becoming temporarily tepid.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Oakvale on May 03, 2012, 07:48:01 PM
I don't have a link to hand because I'm lazy, but apparently initial claims plunged by the most in nearly a year, which is nice. CARLHAYDEN was spotted walking into the ocean.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Bacon King on May 03, 2012, 08:17:21 PM
I don't have a link to hand because I'm lazy, but apparently initial claims plunged by the most in nearly a year, which is nice. CARLHAYDEN was spotted walking into the ocean.

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The number of people who applied for jobless benefits fell last week for the first time in a month to just slightly above a four-year low, according to the latest government data. (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-jobless-claims-drop-27000-to-365000-2012-05-03-835590)


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Tender Branson on May 04, 2012, 12:41:50 AM
I don't have a link to hand because I'm lazy, but apparently initial claims plunged by the most in nearly a year, which is nice. CARLHAYDEN was spotted walking into the ocean.

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The number of people who applied for jobless benefits fell last week for the first time in a month to just slightly above a four-year low, according to the latest government data. (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-jobless-claims-drop-27000-to-365000-2012-05-03-835590)

I guess the April Jobs report will be bleak today, but the May one should be good news then.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Negusa Nagast 🚀 on May 04, 2012, 12:59:08 AM
I don't have a link to hand because I'm lazy, but apparently initial claims plunged by the most in nearly a year, which is nice. CARLHAYDEN was spotted walking into the ocean.

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The number of people who applied for jobless benefits fell last week for the first time in a month to just slightly above a four-year low, according to the latest government data. (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-jobless-claims-drop-27000-to-365000-2012-05-03-835590)

I guess the April Jobs report will be bleak today, but the May one should be good news then.

Hard to say. It has overperformed expectations before. manufacturing growth accelerated in April.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Oakvale on May 04, 2012, 07:39:55 AM
I don't have a link to hand because I'm lazy, but apparently initial claims plunged by the most in nearly a year, which is nice. CARLHAYDEN was spotted walking into the ocean.



WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The number of people who applied for jobless benefits fell last week for the first time in a month to just slightly above a four-year low, according to the latest government data. (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-jobless-claims-drop-27000-to-365000-2012-05-03-835590)

I guess the April Jobs report will be bleak today, but the May one should be good news then.


Pretty much! An uninspiring 115k jobs, rate down to 8.1% as growth slows in the least surprising jobs report ever. :P

Good news on revisions, though - March up to 154k, February up to 258k! By the looks of things this should get revised upward a little, too.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: m4567 on May 04, 2012, 08:47:40 AM
Kind of mixed. It's not moving fast enough. At the same time, a few months ago, I never would've imagined the unemployment rate being 8.1 in May.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on May 04, 2012, 12:21:14 PM
Unemployment Rate Dips 0.1%, But Workforce Participation Rate Falls 0.2%
 
By Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.
May 4, 2012

The April jobs report showed employers added fewer workers than expected with nonfarm payrolls rising by only 115,000.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/unemployment-rate-dips-01-workforce-participation-rate-falls-02

-----

All the need to do is keep reducing the alleged labor force!

To simplify this for Obama supporters:

1.)   The unadjusted population 16 and over in April of 2012 was approximately 242,784,000 (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) whereas that population was approximately 242,604,000 in March, an increase of approximately 180,000.

2.)   According to the same source, the unadjusted Civilian Labor Force was approximately 153,905,000 I April of 2012, whereas it was approximately 154,316,000 in March, a decrease of approximately 411,000!

3.)   In April of 2012 per the BLS there were approximately 88,879,000 (unadjusted) persons not in the labor force, and increase of approximately 591,000 from the number in March.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Bacon King on May 04, 2012, 08:03:36 PM
Unemployment Rate Dips 0.1%, But Workforce Participation Rate Falls 0.2%
 
By Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.
May 4, 2012

The April jobs report showed employers added fewer workers than expected with nonfarm payrolls rising by only 115,000.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/unemployment-rate-dips-01-workforce-participation-rate-falls-02

-----

All the need to do is keep reducing the alleged labor force!

To simplify this for Obama supporters:

I agree that the pace of growth could be greatly improved, but your analysis here doesn't really tell the whole picture and makes things appear unnecessarily negative by excluding some key details.


Quote
1.)   The unadjusted population 16 and over in April of 2012 was approximately 242,784,000 (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) whereas that population was approximately 242,604,000 in March, an increase of approximately 180,000.

180,000 new people 16 and over in the United States. Presumably, 180k = (# of people turning 16 - # of adult deaths) + net migration.

Using the estimated  CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html) net nigration rate and population for the US in 2012 to figure out expected migration for the year, and dividing it by 12, that give us an estimated net migration of roughly 95k for the month. Using these CDC statistical tables for death by age group (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/MortFinal2007_Worktable23f.pdf), I estimate that 195k deaths 16+ occurred in April. So, with the 180k increase, that means 280k kids reached age 16 last month. (As an aside, I did estimate a 325k total for this number using census records for 1996 births and the infant/juvenile death rate, but that number's the most likely to be inaccurate of my three estimates because there's a much bigger month to month variation in births than in deaths or migration).

Quote
2.)   According to the same source, the unadjusted Civilian Labor Force was approximately 153,905,000 I April of 2012, whereas it was approximately 154,316,000 in March, a decrease of approximately 411,000!

First off, given the estimated 10,000 baby boomers that retire (http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/sep/26/john-boehner/house-speaker-john-boehner-says-10000-baby-boomers/) every day, around 310k people left the labor force last month via retirements alone. In addition, the BLS's April report shows a participation rate of 72% in the 16-64 group and and 23% for 65+; estimating from the CDC chart linked above that roughly 52k deaths occurred in the 16-64 age group and 146k deaths 65+. This means that about 71k people exited the labor force last month through death (37.5k in the former age group, 33.5k in the latter age group). Therefore, about 381k of the 411k drop can be attributed to deaths and retirements alone.

Furthermore, regarding the gap here with the increase you note in your first point, note that most of the population growth can be attributed to teenagers who turned 16 in last month. Even discounting the fact that teenage participation in the labor force in incredibly low (http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2010/el2010-27-2.png), very few 16 year olds will be looking for a job in April- they'll wait until they're out of school for the summer to start looking for a job and entering the labor force (The BLS notes that this is a very consistent trend among youth (http://bls.gov/news.release/youth.nr0.htm)). With these newly work-age (and almost entirely non-job seeking) teenagers actually outnumbering the overall work-age population increase by a hundred thousand, and the above explanation for the decline in the total civilian labor force, the disparity you note between your first two points here can't really be construed to mean anything.


Quote
3.)   In April of 2012 per the BLS there were approximately 88,879,000 (unadjusted) persons not in the labor force, and increase of approximately 591,000 from the number in March.

Noting my findings above, the ~310k new retirements and ~280k new 16 year olds who almost universally aren't looking for work pretty much entirely explain this number.



You seem to be suggesting that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is somehow cooking the books to show a reduction in unemployment by reclassifying unemployed job-seekers as discouraged and/or marginally attached workers. If this was true, we'd see increases in U-4 and U-5 that mirror decreases in U-3, the official unemployment rate. However, that demonstrably isn't so. According to the seasonally adjusted numbers, last month's 0.1% decline in the unemployment rate was accompanied by a 0.1% decline in U-5 to 9.5%, while U-4 remained steady at 8.7%. Furthermore, the decline in unemployment since December from 8.5% to 8.1% has been accompanied by a reduction in U-4, from 9.1% to 8.7%, as well as U-5, from 10.0% to 9.5% (for the record, U-6, which also includes underemployment, also declined from 15.2% to 14.5% over those four months). Therefore, there is nobody "reducing the alleged labor force"; unemployment numbers are genuinely improving, even among those not counted in the official unemployment rate. Reductions in labor force participation are mostly due to the fact that the baby boomers have started retiring in massive numbers, and because of this you should expect a slow-but-steady decline in participation over the next decade or two, regardless of how the economy is doing.

Also, since you seem to appreciate prefer using the numbers that aren't seasonally adjusted, I think here at the end I should include for you the BLS's unadjusted unemployment rate changes between March and April :)

U-3 (Official Unemployment Rate): 8.4% to 7.7%
U-4: 8.9% to 8.3%
U-5: 9.7% to 9.1%
U-6: 14.8% to 14.1%


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Sbane on May 05, 2012, 12:34:09 AM
Well done BK!


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Oakvale on May 05, 2012, 05:35:15 PM
bacon king you didn't account for sharia law in your alleged post


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on May 07, 2012, 12:58:10 PM
Unemployment Rate Dips 0.1%, But Workforce Participation Rate Falls 0.2%
 
By Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.
May 4, 2012

The April jobs report showed employers added fewer workers than expected with nonfarm payrolls rising by only 115,000.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/unemployment-rate-dips-01-workforce-participation-rate-falls-02

-----

All the need to do is keep reducing the alleged labor force!

To simplify this for Obama supporters:

I agree that the pace of growth could be greatly improved, but your analysis here doesn't really tell the whole picture and makes things appear unnecessarily negative by excluding some key details.


Quote
1.)   The unadjusted population 16 and over in April of 2012 was approximately 242,784,000 (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) whereas that population was approximately 242,604,000 in March, an increase of approximately 180,000.

180,000 new people 16 and over in the United States. Presumably, 180k = (# of people turning 16 - # of adult deaths) + net migration.

Using the estimated  CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html) net nigration rate and population for the US in 2012 to figure out expected migration for the year, and dividing it by 12, that give us an estimated net migration of roughly 95k for the month. Using these CDC statistical tables for death by age group (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/MortFinal2007_Worktable23f.pdf), I estimate that 195k deaths 16+ occurred in April. So, with the 180k increase, that means 280k kids reached age 16 last month. (As an aside, I did estimate a 325k total for this number using census records for 1996 births and the infant/juvenile death rate, but that number's the most likely to be inaccurate of my three estimates because there's a much bigger month to month variation in births than in deaths or migration).

Quote
2.)   According to the same source, the unadjusted Civilian Labor Force was approximately 153,905,000 I April of 2012, whereas it was approximately 154,316,000 in March, a decrease of approximately 411,000!

First off, given the estimated 10,000 baby boomers that retire (http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/sep/26/john-boehner/house-speaker-john-boehner-says-10000-baby-boomers/) every day, around 310k people left the labor force last month via retirements alone. In addition, the BLS's April report shows a participation rate of 72% in the 16-64 group and and 23% for 65+; estimating from the CDC chart linked above that roughly 52k deaths occurred in the 16-64 age group and 146k deaths 65+. This means that about 71k people exited the labor force last month through death (37.5k in the former age group, 33.5k in the latter age group). Therefore, about 381k of the 411k drop can be attributed to deaths and retirements alone.

Furthermore, regarding the gap here with the increase you note in your first point, note that most of the population growth can be attributed to teenagers who turned 16 in last month. Even discounting the fact that teenage participation in the labor force in incredibly low (http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2010/el2010-27-2.png), very few 16 year olds will be looking for a job in April- they'll wait until they're out of school for the summer to start looking for a job and entering the labor force (The BLS notes that this is a very consistent trend among youth (http://bls.gov/news.release/youth.nr0.htm)). With these newly work-age (and almost entirely non-job seeking) teenagers actually outnumbering the overall work-age population increase by a hundred thousand, and the above explanation for the decline in the total civilian labor force, the disparity you note between your first two points here can't really be construed to mean anything.


Quote
3.)   In April of 2012 per the BLS there were approximately 88,879,000 (unadjusted) persons not in the labor force, and increase of approximately 591,000 from the number in March.

Noting my findings above, the ~310k new retirements and ~280k new 16 year olds who almost universally aren't looking for work pretty much entirely explain this number.



You seem to be suggesting that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is somehow cooking the books to show a reduction in unemployment by reclassifying unemployed job-seekers as discouraged and/or marginally attached workers. If this was true, we'd see increases in U-4 and U-5 that mirror decreases in U-3, the official unemployment rate. However, that demonstrably isn't so. According to the seasonally adjusted numbers, last month's 0.1% decline in the unemployment rate was accompanied by a 0.1% decline in U-5 to 9.5%, while U-4 remained steady at 8.7%. Furthermore, the decline in unemployment since December from 8.5% to 8.1% has been accompanied by a reduction in U-4, from 9.1% to 8.7%, as well as U-5, from 10.0% to 9.5% (for the record, U-6, which also includes underemployment, also declined from 15.2% to 14.5% over those four months). Therefore, there is nobody "reducing the alleged labor force"; unemployment numbers are genuinely improving, even among those not counted in the official unemployment rate. Reductions in labor force participation are mostly due to the fact that the baby boomers have started retiring in massive numbers, and because of this you should expect a slow-but-steady decline in participation over the next decade or two, regardless of how the economy is doing.

Also, since you seem to appreciate prefer using the numbers that aren't seasonally adjusted, I think here at the end I should include for you the BLS's unadjusted unemployment rate changes between March and April :)

U-3 (Official Unemployment Rate): 8.4% to 7.7%
U-4: 8.9% to 8.3%
U-5: 9.7% to 9.1%
U-6: 14.8% to 14.1%

BK,

You are hysterically funny.

Apparently NOTHING will  shake you from your worship of Obamanomics.

I realize that this is a difficult matter for you to understand, but, in economic recoveries, for a few months, the labor force dramatically increases, which is NOT happening now!  

So, when a recovery really begins, how are you going to explain the dramatic increase in the labor force which you are not falsely attributing to retirement?

Oh, and btw, here is some more info:

Labor Force Disappears in Obama’s Depression
If you’re not scared, you haven’t read the numbers.

http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2012/05/06/labor-force-disappears-in-obamas-depression/

Some nice charts courtesy of The St. Louis Fed.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Oakvale on May 07, 2012, 01:14:41 PM
Oh my! Flee, flee, Bacon King, lest you be skewered by the sheer force of HAYDEN's intellect.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on May 07, 2012, 02:22:56 PM
What's ironic given CARL's insitence that Obama is cooking the books to make his record look better, is that as the WSJ pointed out this weekend, if the job numbers for April were adjusted using the adjustment method in place in 2008, the adjusted April 2012 numbers would not have been 115,000 new jobs, but around 180,000 new jobs.  I guess Obama needs to hire some new cooks for the books while he still has time.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on May 07, 2012, 02:44:03 PM
lol CARL


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on May 07, 2012, 05:29:42 PM
Unemployment Rate Dips 0.1%, But Workforce Participation Rate Falls 0.2%
 
By Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.
May 4, 2012

The April jobs report showed employers added fewer workers than expected with nonfarm payrolls rising by only 115,000.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/unemployment-rate-dips-01-workforce-participation-rate-falls-02

-----

All the need to do is keep reducing the alleged labor force!

To simplify this for Obama supporters:

I agree that the pace of growth could be greatly improved, but your analysis here doesn't really tell the whole picture and makes things appear unnecessarily negative by excluding some key details.


Quote
1.)   The unadjusted population 16 and over in April of 2012 was approximately 242,784,000 (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) whereas that population was approximately 242,604,000 in March, an increase of approximately 180,000.

180,000 new people 16 and over in the United States. Presumably, 180k = (# of people turning 16 - # of adult deaths) + net migration.

Using the estimated  CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html) net nigration rate and population for the US in 2012 to figure out expected migration for the year, and dividing it by 12, that give us an estimated net migration of roughly 95k for the month. Using these CDC statistical tables for death by age group (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/MortFinal2007_Worktable23f.pdf), I estimate that 195k deaths 16+ occurred in April. So, with the 180k increase, that means 280k kids reached age 16 last month. (As an aside, I did estimate a 325k total for this number using census records for 1996 births and the infant/juvenile death rate, but that number's the most likely to be inaccurate of my three estimates because there's a much bigger month to month variation in births than in deaths or migration).

Quote
2.)   According to the same source, the unadjusted Civilian Labor Force was approximately 153,905,000 I April of 2012, whereas it was approximately 154,316,000 in March, a decrease of approximately 411,000!

First off, given the estimated 10,000 baby boomers that retire (http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/sep/26/john-boehner/house-speaker-john-boehner-says-10000-baby-boomers/) every day, around 310k people left the labor force last month via retirements alone. In addition, the BLS's April report shows a participation rate of 72% in the 16-64 group and and 23% for 65+; estimating from the CDC chart linked above that roughly 52k deaths occurred in the 16-64 age group and 146k deaths 65+. This means that about 71k people exited the labor force last month through death (37.5k in the former age group, 33.5k in the latter age group). Therefore, about 381k of the 411k drop can be attributed to deaths and retirements alone.

Furthermore, regarding the gap here with the increase you note in your first point, note that most of the population growth can be attributed to teenagers who turned 16 in last month. Even discounting the fact that teenage participation in the labor force in incredibly low (http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2010/el2010-27-2.png), very few 16 year olds will be looking for a job in April- they'll wait until they're out of school for the summer to start looking for a job and entering the labor force (The BLS notes that this is a very consistent trend among youth (http://bls.gov/news.release/youth.nr0.htm)). With these newly work-age (and almost entirely non-job seeking) teenagers actually outnumbering the overall work-age population increase by a hundred thousand, and the above explanation for the decline in the total civilian labor force, the disparity you note between your first two points here can't really be construed to mean anything.


Quote
3.)   In April of 2012 per the BLS there were approximately 88,879,000 (unadjusted) persons not in the labor force, and increase of approximately 591,000 from the number in March.

Noting my findings above, the ~310k new retirements and ~280k new 16 year olds who almost universally aren't looking for work pretty much entirely explain this number.



You seem to be suggesting that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is somehow cooking the books to show a reduction in unemployment by reclassifying unemployed job-seekers as discouraged and/or marginally attached workers. If this was true, we'd see increases in U-4 and U-5 that mirror decreases in U-3, the official unemployment rate. However, that demonstrably isn't so. According to the seasonally adjusted numbers, last month's 0.1% decline in the unemployment rate was accompanied by a 0.1% decline in U-5 to 9.5%, while U-4 remained steady at 8.7%. Furthermore, the decline in unemployment since December from 8.5% to 8.1% has been accompanied by a reduction in U-4, from 9.1% to 8.7%, as well as U-5, from 10.0% to 9.5% (for the record, U-6, which also includes underemployment, also declined from 15.2% to 14.5% over those four months). Therefore, there is nobody "reducing the alleged labor force"; unemployment numbers are genuinely improving, even among those not counted in the official unemployment rate. Reductions in labor force participation are mostly due to the fact that the baby boomers have started retiring in massive numbers, and because of this you should expect a slow-but-steady decline in participation over the next decade or two, regardless of how the economy is doing.

Also, since you seem to appreciate prefer using the numbers that aren't seasonally adjusted, I think here at the end I should include for you the BLS's unadjusted unemployment rate changes between March and April :)

U-3 (Official Unemployment Rate): 8.4% to 7.7%
U-4: 8.9% to 8.3%
U-5: 9.7% to 9.1%
U-6: 14.8% to 14.1%

It occurred to me that you really might believe the nonsense you are spouting.

So, I'll try to explain it to you quite simply.

As the experts (check with a CFP, pension actuary, PHR specializing in retirement, etc.) and they will tell you that the retirement rate has decreased over the past three years as people who would have retired continue to work as they lost a huge amount of money that had salted away for retirement.

http://www.conference-board.org/press/pressdetail.cfm?pressid=4200


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Bacon King on May 07, 2012, 07:16:15 PM

I spent literally two hours preparing the post you quoted. I'm honestly a bit perturbed that you ignored pretty much everything I said, cherry-picked a few details to attack and just link a couple of articles to fight for you. Not to mention the fact that you seem insistent on demeaning me, as well.

Quote
Apparently NOTHING will  shake you from your worship of Obamanomics.

Please refrain from hyperbole, as I have done you the courtesy. I'd like to keep this discussion civil and related to the facts as much as possible. If that's asking too much, and I feel that it may, just let me know.

Quote
I realize that this is a difficult matter for you to understand, but, in economic recoveries, for a few months, the labor force dramatically increases, which is NOT happening now! 

So, when a recovery really begins, how are you going to explain the dramatic increase in the labor force which you are not falsely attributing to retirement?

I said at the beginning of my post that current trends in economic growth are not nearly what they could be. I'm not contesting that. What I am disputing is your misrepresentation of statistics to imply that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is artificially deflating the unemployment numbers by unjustly kicking people out of the labor market. I have demonstrably proven this is not the case, with no response from you, most notably with my comparison of other unemployment measures to the official number.

By the way, I do hope that when the labor force participation shoots up in a month or two (from high school and college kids seeking summer jobs) that this emphasis you place on the labor force participation rate leads you to conclude that the economy is in full recovery :P

Quote
Oh, and btw, here is some more info:

Labor Force Disappears in Obama’s Depression
If you’re not scared, you haven’t read the numbers.

http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2012/05/06/labor-force-disappears-in-obamas-depression/

Some nice charts courtesy of The St. Louis Fed.

This article actually, for the most part, proves my point. First, notice the significant spikes in both charts, every single summer? That's the youth, entering the labor force for the summer and leaving when school starts back in the fall. Exactly as I said previously to disprove your assertion that the simultaneous population increase and labor force decrease was somehow relevant.

Second, notice that a fairly consistent pattern of year-to-year decline in labor force participation can be observed starting in 2009. Do you know when the first baby-boomers started reaching retirement age? Exactly.

Third, this is mostly an aside to our current discourse, but I must comment on the article's half-truth claim that "a fifth of all personal income is now transfer payments" with the implication that it has anything to do with Obama. First, it's worth pointing out that by far the two most expensive Federal programs of transfer payments to individuals are Social Security and Medicare- both these entitlements go to.... yes, retired people. And besides, most of the fact that transfer payments have increased as a proportion of personal income over the past few decades is due to the ever-increasing cost of medical coverage in the United States, which is a problem that long predates Obama:

()
(red line is transfers minus Medicare and Medicaid)

The recent spike is mostly due to increased unemployment benefits, of course- that has a disproportionate impact on this chart because when someone loses their job, their income goes from 0% to 100% transfer payments.

But, I digress.

It occurred to me that you really might believe the nonsense you are spouting.

So, I'll try to explain it to you quite simply.

Again, I'll gladly debate you but please stop the irrelevant remarks.

Quote
As the experts (check with a CFP, pension actuary, PHR specializing in retirement, etc.) and they will tell you that the retirement rate has decreased over the past three years as people who would have retired continue to work as they lost a huge amount of money that had salted away for retirement.

http://www.conference-board.org/press/pressdetail.cfm?pressid=4200

This has piqued my curiousity. I'm currently searching for the full article through my university's Journal/Article database but I can't seem to find it. It wasn't in Conference Board's quarterly review for spring or summer 2011. Can you shed any light on how I could find the full article?

It doesn't actually specifically mention anything about people delaying retirement above age 65 (which is what my entire assumption of "the baby boomers are turning 65 and retiring en masse just like John Boehner and the Social Security Administration said"). Regardless, just because a greater proportion of people have been delaying retirement (above age 65 or not, would like to find out though) doesn't mean that my above assertions were necessarily wrong, because a much greater bulk of people are still now entering the age group for retirement.

Besides, regardless of retirements, that doesn't change the fact that I demonstrated fairly strongly that there's no sudden increase in detached workers, which you seem to be suggesting is the case in spite of the evidence.

Also, you never commented on my unadjusted unemployment numbers :)


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on May 08, 2012, 02:38:23 AM
It occurred to me that you really might believe the nonsense you are spouting.


I know it's hard to believe it Carl but the same thought about you occurred to me a long time ago.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: philly09 on May 08, 2012, 11:23:02 AM
U.S. heading toward April budget surplus: CBO

(Reuters) - The United States will post a budget surplus for April, the first month it will have done so since the 2007-2009 financial crisis, the Congressional Budget Office forecast on Monday.

"The Treasury realized a surplus of $58 billion in April 2012, CBO estimates, in contrast with the $40 billion deficit reported for the same month last year," the nonpartisan agency said in a statement.

The Treasury Department is scheduled to publish the official April budget statement on Thursday afternoon.

A Treasury spokesman said there has not been a monthly surplus since September 2008 when the economy was struggling in a severe downturn during the financial crisis.

A one-month surplus would not signal a turnaround in U.S. indebtedness. CBO forecast in January that the United States was headed for a fourth straight year of deficits that top $1 trillion during the current fiscal year that ends September 30.

Analysts surveyed by Reuters have forecast a smaller $30-billion surplus for April.

CBO cited some special factors at play in April, partly because of shifts in the timing of payments that would ordinarily occur in March or May but instead came in April.

As well, refunds to taxpayers who overpaid their 2011 taxes were about $14 billion lower this year than last year because some that ordinarily would have been recorded in April were made in prior months.

"Adjusted for those shifts, the surplus in April 2012 would have been $27 billion, compared with a deficit of $13 billion in April 2011," CBO said.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on May 08, 2012, 04:21:30 PM

I spent literally two hours preparing the post you quoted. I'm honestly a bit perturbed that you ignored pretty much everything I said, cherry-picked a few details to attack and just link a couple of articles to fight for you. Not to mention the fact that you seem insistent on demeaning me, as well.

Quote
Apparently NOTHING will  shake you from your worship of Obamanomics.

Please refrain from hyperbole, as I have done you the courtesy. I'd like to keep this discussion civil and related to the facts as much as possible. If that's asking too much, and I feel that it may, just let me know.

Quote
I realize that this is a difficult matter for you to understand, but, in economic recoveries, for a few months, the labor force dramatically increases, which is NOT happening now! 

So, when a recovery really begins, how are you going to explain the dramatic increase in the labor force which you are not falsely attributing to retirement?

I said at the beginning of my post that current trends in economic growth are not nearly what they could be. I'm not contesting that. What I am disputing is your misrepresentation of statistics to imply that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is artificially deflating the unemployment numbers by unjustly kicking people out of the labor market. I have demonstrably proven this is not the case, with no response from you, most notably with my comparison of other unemployment measures to the official number.

By the way, I do hope that when the labor force participation shoots up in a month or two (from high school and college kids seeking summer jobs) that this emphasis you place on the labor force participation rate leads you to conclude that the economy is in full recovery :P

Quote
Oh, and btw, here is some more info:

Labor Force Disappears in Obama’s Depression
If you’re not scared, you haven’t read the numbers.

http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2012/05/06/labor-force-disappears-in-obamas-depression/

Some nice charts courtesy of The St. Louis Fed.

This article actually, for the most part, proves my point. First, notice the significant spikes in both charts, every single summer? That's the youth, entering the labor force for the summer and leaving when school starts back in the fall. Exactly as I said previously to disprove your assertion that the simultaneous population increase and labor force decrease was somehow relevant.

Second, notice that a fairly consistent pattern of year-to-year decline in labor force participation can be observed starting in 2009. Do you know when the first baby-boomers started reaching retirement age? Exactly.

Third, this is mostly an aside to our current discourse, but I must comment on the article's half-truth claim that "a fifth of all personal income is now transfer payments" with the implication that it has anything to do with Obama. First, it's worth pointing out that by far the two most expensive Federal programs of transfer payments to individuals are Social Security and Medicare- both these entitlements go to.... yes, retired people. And besides, most of the fact that transfer payments have increased as a proportion of personal income over the past few decades is due to the ever-increasing cost of medical coverage in the United States, which is a problem that long predates Obama:

()
(red line is transfers minus Medicare and Medicaid)

The recent spike is mostly due to increased unemployment benefits, of course- that has a disproportionate impact on this chart because when someone loses their job, their income goes from 0% to 100% transfer payments.

But, I digress.

It occurred to me that you really might believe the nonsense you are spouting.

So, I'll try to explain it to you quite simply.

Again, I'll gladly debate you but please stop the irrelevant remarks.

Quote
As the experts (check with a CFP, pension actuary, PHR specializing in retirement, etc.) and they will tell you that the retirement rate has decreased over the past three years as people who would have retired continue to work as they lost a huge amount of money that had salted away for retirement.

http://www.conference-board.org/press/pressdetail.cfm?pressid=4200

This has piqued my curiousity. I'm currently searching for the full article through my university's Journal/Article database but I can't seem to find it. It wasn't in Conference Board's quarterly review for spring or summer 2011. Can you shed any light on how I could find the full article?

It doesn't actually specifically mention anything about people delaying retirement above age 65 (which is what my entire assumption of "the baby boomers are turning 65 and retiring en masse just like John Boehner and the Social Security Administration said"). Regardless, just because a greater proportion of people have been delaying retirement (above age 65 or not, would like to find out though) doesn't mean that my above assertions were necessarily wrong, because a much greater bulk of people are still now entering the age group for retirement.

Besides, regardless of retirements, that doesn't change the fact that I demonstrated fairly strongly that there's no sudden increase in detached workers, which you seem to be suggesting is the case in spite of the evidence.

Also, you never commented on my unadjusted unemployment numbers :)

Bk,

First, making long-winded assertions devoid of either facts or logic does NOT constitute debate.

Second, you have asserted that the reduction in the workforce is simply a matter of increased retirements, with NO evidence to support that assertion (no, data from fifteen years ago cannot be extrapolated to today).

Here's some more information:

“There's no question -- people in the United States are waiting longer to retire.”

http://www.secondact.com/2011/05/10-reasons-boomers-are-delaying-retirement/

Third, have you considered why the trend (begining in 2009) is for a reduced workforce other than the spurious assertion of retirements?  Did something else happen in 2009?

Fourth, who told you that the reduction in the workforce was the result of retirements?

Fifth, I realize that it is an article of faith that "civility" consists of agreeing with whatever preposterous assertions are made by the left, but this is NOT the case!

Finally, yes, I must agree you do "digress." 



Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on May 08, 2012, 04:51:25 PM
Oh, and here's some more info, courtesy of BLS:

Now, let’s take a look at what the BLS has asserted:

First, the Civilian noninstitutional labor force was projected to be approximately 82,626,000 in 2011, and approximately 83,189,000 in 2012.

Now, those ages 65 and over were estimated to be approximately 7,115,000 in 2011, and 7,667,000 in 2012 (a difference of approximately 552,000).  With a little basic math, that means that the civilian noninstitutional labor force, without any increase in the number of those 65 and over, would still increase!

But wait, there’s more.

In 2011, the civilian noninstitutional population was estimated to be approximately 240,317,000, while in 2012 it is projected to be approximately 242,755,000, an increase of approximately 2,438,000.  However the civilian noninstitutional population age 65 and over is projected to increase in 2012 from 2011 by approximately, 1,442,000. 

So, if its not retirement (as you previously asserted), and the Obama administration is absolutely blameless, then where did those people go?


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Bacon King on May 08, 2012, 07:44:40 PM
Bk,

First, making long-winded assertions devoid of either facts or logic does NOT constitute debate.

The two of us vehemently disagree on this subject, certainly. I'm just asking that if you find problems with my sources or reasoning, to attack them instead of me, as I have shown you the same courtesy (although the restraint can be admittedly difficult). :)

Quote
Second, you have asserted that the reduction in the workforce is simply a matter of increased retirements, with NO evidence to support that assertion (no, data from fifteen years ago cannot be extrapolated to today).

I never claimed that a reduction in the labor force was only from retirements; that would be ridiculous. I've only pointed out that most of the decrease in labor force participation- especially currently- can be attributed to the indisputable fact that America's population is getting older and tons of Americans are beginning to retire: the baby-boomers are reaching 65.

Some people certainly do leave the labor force for other reasons. Like I noted earlier, many young people exit the work force during the non-summer months. Also, yes, some people get discouraged and stop looking for jobs. But the thing is, the BLS already measures those sorts of people, and the number of discouraged workers haven't been on the increase, but have been decreasing proportionally with the unemployment rate. See chart:

()

From top to bottom, the lines are U-6, U-5, U-4, and U-3. Since the number of discouraged workers is on the decline, your explanations really don't hold water. How do you explain that?


Quote
Here's some more information:

“There's no question -- people in the United States are waiting longer to retire.”

http://www.secondact.com/2011/05/10-reasons-boomers-are-delaying-retirement/

Again, this makes no reference to anyone waiting to retire until they're older than 65. Also, a quote from the article:

"More than two-thirds (68 percent) of older workers cite health coverage as a reason to delay retirement... Covering health-care costs is even more important to people in poor health: Of that group, an overwhelming majority (77 percent) say they'll keep working until they're eligible for Medicare benefits."

68% of older workers are delaying retirement because of health coverage, and the United States runs a nationwide program to guarantee health insurance access for everyone on the day they turn 65! This isn't about people who were going to retire at 65 waiting longer, this is about people who were going to retire at a younger age waiting until they turn 65. If anything, that causes my assumptions to be underestimates.

Also, for the record, note that per the SSA's FY 2013 Performance Plan (http://www.ssa.gov/performance/2013/FY%202013%20APP%20and%20Revised%20Final%20Performance%20Plan%20for%20FY%202012.pdf), the number of initial retirement claims increased ~12% between 2008 and 2009, and also increased considerably 20010-2011, with further increases estimated in the future (see p29, chart 2.1b).

Quote
Third, have you considered why the trend (begining in 2009) is for a reduced workforce other than the spurious assertion of retirements?  Did something else happen in 2009?

Of course it was greatly exacerbated by discouraged workers who gave up looking for a job from the recession (as the increase in alternative unemployment measures shows) but considering that the measurements also indicate that the level of discouraged workers are at the lowest level since 2009. However, the other trend that started in 2009 (i.e., baby-boomers hitting 65), is only increasing.

Quote
Fourth, who told you that the reduction in the workforce was the result of retirements?

Nobody "told me", it was an obvious conclusion to reach when I saw labor force participation decreased while unemployment and discouraged worker rates both declined. That led me to research the retirement figures and estimates which verified my hypothesis.

Quote
Fifth, I realize that it is an article of faith that "civility" consists of agreeing with whatever preposterous assertions are made by the left, but this is NOT the case!

Finally, yes, I must agree you do "digress." 

I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm pointing out that you're making an argument based on inaccurate assumptions, and defending my stance by demonstrating that it remains valid in spite of the evidence you've cited. All I ask is, if you'd like to continue this discussion further, to not act so rudely.

Oh, and here's some more info, courtesy of BLS:

Now, let’s take a look at what the BLS has asserted:

First, the Civilian noninstitutional labor force was projected to be approximately 82,626,000 in 2011, and approximately 83,189,000 in 2012.

Now, those ages 65 and over were estimated to be approximately 7,115,000 in 2011, and 7,667,000 in 2012 (a difference of approximately 552,000).  With a little basic math, that means that the civilian noninstitutional labor force, without any increase in the number of those 65 and over, would still increase!

But wait, there’s more.

In 2011, the civilian noninstitutional population was estimated to be approximately 240,317,000, while in 2012 it is projected to be approximately 242,755,000, an increase of approximately 2,438,000.  However the civilian noninstitutional population age 65 and over is projected to increase in 2012 from 2011 by approximately, 1,442,000. 

So, if its not retirement (as you previously asserted), and the Obama administration is absolutely blameless, then where did those people go?


Don't have much time to respond to this, as I need to get on the road pretty soon, but a few points

-what statistics are you citing here? Please provide sources. I do hope you're not comparing adjusted numbers to unadjusted numbers!
-I also hope you're not doing something silly like comparing year-end average figures to single-month figures
-Where'd you find direct figures on 65+ labor force and non-labor force growth? was looking everywhere for them.

but will look at these numbers in more detail as soon as I get home :)


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on May 09, 2012, 03:07:29 PM
Bk,

First, making long-winded assertions devoid of either facts or logic does NOT constitute debate.

The two of us vehemently disagree on this subject, certainly. I'm just asking that if you find problems with my sources or reasoning, to attack them instead of me, as I have shown you the same courtesy (although the restraint can be admittedly difficult). :)

Quote
Second, you have asserted that the reduction in the workforce is simply a matter of increased retirements, with NO evidence to support that assertion (no, data from fifteen years ago cannot be extrapolated to today).

I never claimed that a reduction in the labor force was only from retirements; that would be ridiculous. I've only pointed out that most of the decrease in labor force participation- especially currently- can be attributed to the indisputable fact that America's population is getting older and tons of Americans are beginning to retire: the baby-boomers are reaching 65.

Some people certainly do leave the labor force for other reasons. Like I noted earlier, many young people exit the work force during the non-summer months. Also, yes, some people get discouraged and stop looking for jobs. But the thing is, the BLS already measures those sorts of people, and the number of discouraged workers haven't been on the increase, but have been decreasing proportionally with the unemployment rate. See chart:

()

From top to bottom, the lines are U-6, U-5, U-4, and U-3. Since the number of discouraged workers is on the decline, your explanations really don't hold water. How do you explain that?


Quote
Here's some more information:

“There's no question -- people in the United States are waiting longer to retire.”

http://www.secondact.com/2011/05/10-reasons-boomers-are-delaying-retirement/

Again, this makes no reference to anyone waiting to retire until they're older than 65. Also, a quote from the article:

"More than two-thirds (68 percent) of older workers cite health coverage as a reason to delay retirement... Covering health-care costs is even more important to people in poor health: Of that group, an overwhelming majority (77 percent) say they'll keep working until they're eligible for Medicare benefits."

68% of older workers are delaying retirement because of health coverage, and the United States runs a nationwide program to guarantee health insurance access for everyone on the day they turn 65! This isn't about people who were going to retire at 65 waiting longer, this is about people who were going to retire at a younger age waiting until they turn 65. If anything, that causes my assumptions to be underestimates.

Also, for the record, note that per the SSA's FY 2013 Performance Plan (http://www.ssa.gov/performance/2013/FY%202013%20APP%20and%20Revised%20Final%20Performance%20Plan%20for%20FY%202012.pdf), the number of initial retirement claims increased ~12% between 2008 and 2009, and also increased considerably 20010-2011, with further increases estimated in the future (see p29, chart 2.1b).

Quote
Third, have you considered why the trend (begining in 2009) is for a reduced workforce other than the spurious assertion of retirements?  Did something else happen in 2009?

Of course it was greatly exacerbated by discouraged workers who gave up looking for a job from the recession (as the increase in alternative unemployment measures shows) but considering that the measurements also indicate that the level of discouraged workers are at the lowest level since 2009. However, the other trend that started in 2009 (i.e., baby-boomers hitting 65), is only increasing.

Quote
Fourth, who told you that the reduction in the workforce was the result of retirements?

Nobody "told me", it was an obvious conclusion to reach when I saw labor force participation decreased while unemployment and discouraged worker rates both declined. That led me to research the retirement figures and estimates which verified my hypothesis.

Quote
Fifth, I realize that it is an article of faith that "civility" consists of agreeing with whatever preposterous assertions are made by the left, but this is NOT the case!

Finally, yes, I must agree you do "digress." 

I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm pointing out that you're making an argument based on inaccurate assumptions, and defending my stance by demonstrating that it remains valid in spite of the evidence you've cited. All I ask is, if you'd like to continue this discussion further, to not act so rudely.

Oh, and here's some more info, courtesy of BLS:

Now, let’s take a look at what the BLS has asserted:

First, the Civilian noninstitutional labor force was projected to be approximately 82,626,000 in 2011, and approximately 83,189,000 in 2012.

Now, those ages 65 and over were estimated to be approximately 7,115,000 in 2011, and 7,667,000 in 2012 (a difference of approximately 552,000).  With a little basic math, that means that the civilian noninstitutional labor force, without any increase in the number of those 65 and over, would still increase!

But wait, there’s more.

In 2011, the civilian noninstitutional population was estimated to be approximately 240,317,000, while in 2012 it is projected to be approximately 242,755,000, an increase of approximately 2,438,000.  However the civilian noninstitutional population age 65 and over is projected to increase in 2012 from 2011 by approximately, 1,442,000. 

So, if its not retirement (as you previously asserted), and the Obama administration is absolutely blameless, then where did those people go?


Don't have much time to respond to this, as I need to get on the road pretty soon, but a few points

-what statistics are you citing here? Please provide sources. I do hope you're not comparing adjusted numbers to unadjusted numbers!
-I also hope you're not doing something silly like comparing year-end average figures to single-month figures
-Where'd you find direct figures on 65+ labor force and non-labor force growth? was looking everywhere for them.

but will look at these numbers in more detail as soon as I get home :)

You are incredible.

You make assumptions which are contrary to facts.

Just because people reach retirement age does NOT mean they retire, particularly if they sustained massive loses to their savings in recent years.

Try dealing with reality, rather than continuing your mindless worship of Obamanomics.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Negusa Nagast 🚀 on May 09, 2012, 03:37:25 PM

You are incredible.

You make assumptions which are contrary to facts.

Just because people reach retirement age does NOT mean they retire, particularly if they sustained massive loses to their savings in recent years.

Try dealing with reality, rather than continuing your mindless worship of Obamanomics.

There is someone who is "mindless" and who wins the irony award in this thread. I'll give you a hint: it's not Bacon King.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Tender Branson on May 11, 2012, 12:28:26 AM
U.S. records first monthly budget surplus since 2008

By Jeanne Sahadi @CNNMoney May 10, 2012: 3:05 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- For the first time in more than three years, Washington took in more money than it paid out last month.

The Treasury Department on Thursday recorded a $59 billion surplus. Tax receipts were higher and spending lower than they were last April.

The government has been bedeviled by budget deficits. The last time federal coffers were in the black for a month was September 2008, when Treasury reported a $46 billion surplus.

Of course, a lot has happened since then: a historic financial crisis, a deep recession and a slow recovery.

To counteract the negative effects on the economy, lawmakers have passed at least $2 trillion in tax cuts and spending increases since 2008.

Even though a surplus after so much time is welcome news, it's not likely to be the start of a trend.

Including the April surplus, Treasury forecasts a $1.33 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2012, which ends Sept. 30.

To date this fiscal year, the United States has racked up a $720 billion deficit. But that's less than the $870 billion recorded during the same period last year.

The April surplus also isn't likely to change expectations for when U.S. borrowing will hit the country's debt ceiling. The current legal limit on borrowing is $16.394 trillion, and total accrued debt subject to that limit has already topped $15.6 trillion.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/10/news/economy/budget-deficit


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Tender Branson on May 11, 2012, 12:34:47 AM
For fiscal 2011, the deficit was 1.299 Bio. $ or 8.7% of GDP.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/2011_Nov_MBR.pdf

After 7 months of fiscal 2012 the deficit is 720 Bio. $, which is 150 Bio. less than in 2011.

So, why are they predicting 1.33 Trillion $ for this year ?

I think they are setting the expectations too high, so they can say slightly ahead of the election that the deficit is down by about 10-20% compared with last year.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Tender Branson on May 11, 2012, 12:44:56 AM
According to my calculations, the budget deficit for this year will be about 7-7.5% of GDP, with 7.1% most likely.

Recent numbers:

2009: 10.1%
2010:   9.1%
2011:   8.7%
2012:   7.1%

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: phk on May 11, 2012, 02:14:21 PM
A few points here.

1.) The LFP for older people has actually been slowly increasing since the mid-1990s.

Changes from 2000 to 2010
55-64: 59.3% => 64.9%
65+: 12.9% => 17.4%
75+: 5.3% => 7.4%

2.) Even with a decline attributable to baby boomers, shouldn't their kids entering the labor force be muting that effect? Even if their fertility is ~2 it should be a cohort that is just about the size of their parents, especially if their daughters participate more than their mothers do.



Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on May 14, 2012, 12:55:17 PM
According to my calculations, the budget deficit for this year will be about 7-7.5% of GDP, with 7.1% most likely.

Recent numbers:

2009: 10.1%
2010:   9.1%
2011:   8.7%
2012:   7.1%

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

February 14, 2011, 1:06 p.m. ET

White House Expects Deficit to Spike to $1.65 Trillion

By DAMIAN PALETTA and COREY BOLES

WASHINGTON—The White House projected Monday that the federal deficit would spike to $1.65 trillion in the current fiscal year, the largest dollar amount ever, adding pressure on Democrats and Republicans to tackle growing levels of debt.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703361904576143253522341850.html

So, you expect a GDP of approximately $23.2 trillion in 2012?  Really?!?


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Tender Branson on May 14, 2012, 01:40:00 PM
According to my calculations, the budget deficit for this year will be about 7-7.5% of GDP, with 7.1% most likely.

Recent numbers:

2009: 10.1%
2010:   9.1%
2011:   8.7%
2012:   7.1%

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

February 14, 2011, 1:06 p.m. ET

White House Expects Deficit to Spike to $1.65 Trillion

By DAMIAN PALETTA and COREY BOLES

WASHINGTON—The White House projected Monday that the federal deficit would spike to $1.65 trillion in the current fiscal year, the largest dollar amount ever, adding pressure on Democrats and Republicans to tackle growing levels of debt.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703361904576143253522341850.html

So, you expect a GDP of approximately $23.2 trillion in 2012?  Really?!?


What the feck are you talking about, Carl ?

A) You are posting an article from February 2011 - more than 1 year old - about the mid-session projection for the Fiscal 2011 budget.

The article says that the Obama admin predicted a Fiscal 2011 deficit of 1.65 Trillion $, but in fact Fiscal 2011 closed with a 1.299 Trillion $ deficit (= 8.7% of GDP).

Fiscal 2012 is already running 150 Bio. $ behind the Fiscal 2011 numbers after 7 months.

So, I predict a deficit of about 1100 Bio. $ this year, which is 7.1% of GDP this year.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Sbane on May 14, 2012, 06:43:27 PM
LOL Carl.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on May 15, 2012, 05:50:45 PM
According to my calculations, the budget deficit for this year will be about 7-7.5% of GDP, with 7.1% most likely.

Recent numbers:

2009: 10.1%
2010:   9.1%
2011:   8.7%
2012:   7.1%

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

February 14, 2011, 1:06 p.m. ET

White House Expects Deficit to Spike to $1.65 Trillion

By DAMIAN PALETTA and COREY BOLES

WASHINGTON—The White House projected Monday that the federal deficit would spike to $1.65 trillion in the current fiscal year, the largest dollar amount ever, adding pressure on Democrats and Republicans to tackle growing levels of debt.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703361904576143253522341850.html

So, you expect a GDP of approximately $23.2 trillion in 2012?  Really?!?


What the feck are you talking about, Carl ?

A) You are posting an article from February 2011 - more than 1 year old - about the mid-session projection for the Fiscal 2011 budget.

The article says that the Obama admin predicted a Fiscal 2011 deficit of 1.65 Trillion $, but in fact Fiscal 2011 closed with a 1.299 Trillion $ deficit (= 8.7% of GDP).

Fiscal 2012 is already running 150 Bio. $ behind the Fiscal 2011 numbers after 7 months.

So, I predict a deficit of about 1100 Bio. $ this year, which is 7.1% of GDP this year.

Well, lets see what actually happens.

(Which is why I'm saving this quote).



Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on May 18, 2012, 08:52:55 AM
http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2012/05/17/facebook-prices-421m-shares-at-38-each/

Don't know how "good" this can be considered, but I think it's pretty impressive.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on June 04, 2012, 12:33:19 PM
I don't have a link to hand because I'm lazy, but apparently initial claims plunged by the most in nearly a year, which is nice. CARLHAYDEN was spotted walking into the ocean.

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The number of people who applied for jobless benefits fell last week for the first time in a month to just slightly above a four-year low, according to the latest government data. (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-jobless-claims-drop-27000-to-365000-2012-05-03-835590)

I guess the April Jobs report will be bleak today, but the May one should be good news then.

Well, your prediction for the May jobs report was, er, well...not very accurate.


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on June 04, 2012, 12:35:58 PM
I don't have a link to hand because I'm lazy, but apparently initial claims plunged by the most in nearly a year, which is nice. CARLHAYDEN was spotted walking into the ocean.



WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The number of people who applied for jobless benefits fell last week for the first time in a month to just slightly above a four-year low, according to the latest government data. (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-jobless-claims-drop-27000-to-365000-2012-05-03-835590)

I guess the April Jobs report will be bleak today, but the May one should be good news then.


Pretty much! An uninspiring 115k jobs, rate down to 8.1% as growth slows in the least surprising jobs report ever. :P

Good news on revisions, though - March up to 154k, February up to 258k! By the looks of things this should get revised upward a little, too.


Lets discuss revisions:

A little piece of information which hasn’t received much attention in the recent BLS employment release.

• The April job growth figure was revised down to 77,000 from an already weak 115,000.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-06-01/the-u-dot-s-dot-economy-slips-below-the-mendoza-line


Title: Re: The good US economic news Thread
Post by: Oakvale on June 06, 2012, 09:52:17 AM
Cross your fingers and pray (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303918204577448802287653684.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories), everyone.

The article's behind a paywall, but the headline's all you need. ;)