The good US economic news Thread

[CARLHAYDEN]

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

[CARLHAYDEN]

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/

[CARLHAYDEN]

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

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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 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, 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).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First off, given the estimated 10,000 baby boomers that retire 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, 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). 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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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 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, 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).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First off, given the estimated 10,000 baby boomers that retire 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, 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). 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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[CARLHAYDEN]

BK,

You are hysterically funny.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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." 

[CARLHAYDEN]

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?

[CARLHAYDEN]

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).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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, 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).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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?!?

[CARLHAYDEN]

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).

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

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.

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