So much for "sideways," jobless claims jump to 500k

[Plantagenet]

Actually, we aren't at stagnation. Every month the Obama administration shifts workers from the unemployed category into the "discouraged worker" category, so they no longer show up in the statistics even though they are still unemployed.

When you include the growing numbers of unemployed discouraged workers in with the regular old unemployed, the total number of unemployed is still growing and is now over 20% of all workers.

Hi Oilfinder2:

The initial jobless numbers go up and down each month. This month they were below 400K.

The total number of unemployed, when you include the "discouraged workers" continues to increase each month.

Right now its almost gotten up to 23% of all workers----and thats comparable to unemployment last seen during the great depression

Total US unemployment now at ca. 23%---it has risen steadily for last three years and continues to rise

[Daniel_Plainview]

Posted August 18.

If initial unemployment claims (SA) start to head steadily upward, and regularly start hitting the mid-400's by, say, October or November, that is my "doom signal."

With a 397K print today, and it being early November, my doom signal has yet to flash warning signs. If we were headed into another recession right now, claims would be going up. But they aren't.

Oh, I'm so glad you posted that ^^^^

First, the prior week's Initial claims were revised up to 406,000 from an original reading of 402,000. And every week they're revised upward by at least 4 or 5K.

Second, from your own beloved source:

The level of weekly claims has hovered near the 400,000 mark for the past five months, reflecting slow progress for a U.S. economy still struggling to throw off shackles imposed during the 2007-09 recession. The economy isn’t even adding enough jobs to keep up with natural growth in the labor force — never mind put millions of unemployed Americans back to work. “While there has been slight improvement, the broad trend is still consistent with a lukewarm labor market and provides limited reason for renewed optimism among jobseekers,” said Jim Baird, chief investment strategist at Plante Moran Financial Advisors. ...

The U.S. probably needs to add at least 250,000 jobs a month over an extended period to ratchet down the unemployment rate, economists say. And the economy has to add at least 100,000 a month just to keep up with the natural growth in the labor force.

[OilFinder2]

Hi Oilfinder2:

The initial jobless numbers go up and down each month. This month they were below 400K.

The total number of unemployed, when you include the "discouraged workers" continues to increase each month.

Right now its almost gotten up to 23% of all workers----and thats comparable to unemployment last seen during the great depression

Total US unemployment now at ca. 23%---it has risen steadily for last three years and continues to rise

You just proved you don't know what an initial jobless claim is. Your own link says absolutely nothing about them.

[Daniel_Plainview]

Oooh cool ... I had forgotten about that oldie but goodie ...

MarketWatch: Double-dip recession is now undeniable

The ISM’s service-sector index dropped to 52.8 from 57.3 in March. New orders plunged to 52.7, the lowest reading since December 2009, from 64.1 in the prior month. And the employment index dropped to 51.9 from 53.7 a month earlier. First-time jobless claims surged by 43,000 to 474,000 in the week ending April 30th, which was the highest reading since August. And the four-week moving average rose to 431,250 from 409,000. But perhaps most importantly, more evidence of an official double dip in home prices was found in a report from Clear Capital. The report stated that its monthly index is now below the prior all-time low set in March 2009. ... Year-over-year national home prices are down 5%. Home prices have dropped 11.5% in the last nine months, a rate of decline not seen since 2008. The saddest news of all is the fact that over 25% of all homes with a mortgage are underwater on that loan.

MarketWatch

[OilFinder2]

I'm so glad you arrived at this thread DP. Say, when do we get this double-dip? Six months ago it was supposed to be "imminent." Still waiting! Initial jobless claims are lower now than when you posted this six months ago. Perhaps it's time you man up and simply admit you were wrong about your claim of an imminent double dip. If you've got the guts, that is (which I doubt).

Posted May 5 - SIX MONTHS AGO!!

STILL awaiting that double dip!!!!

MarketWatch: Double-dip recession is now undeniable

The ISM’s service-sector index dropped to 52.8 from 57.3 in March. New orders plunged to 52.7, the lowest reading since December 2009, from 64.1 in the prior month. And the employment index dropped to 51.9 from 53.7 a month earlier. First-time jobless claims surged by 43,000 to 474,000 in the week ending April 30th, which was the highest reading since August. And the four-week moving average rose to 431,250 from 409,000. But perhaps most importantly, more evidence of an official double dip in home prices was found in a report from Clear Capital. The report stated that its monthly index is now below the prior all-time low set in March 2009. ... Year-over-year national home prices are down 5%. Home prices have dropped 11.5% in the last nine months, a rate of decline not seen since 2008. The saddest news of all is the fact that over 25% of all homes with a mortgage are underwater on that loan.

MarketWatch

[Daniel_Plainview]

I'm so glad you arrived at this thread DP. Say, when do we get this double-dip? Six months ago it was supposed to be "imminent." Still waiting! Initial jobless claims are lower now than when you posted this six months ago. Perhaps it's time you man up and simply admit you were wrong about your claim of an imminent double dip. If you've got the guts, that is (which I doubt).

Posted May 5 - SIX MONTHS AGO!!

STILL awaiting that double dip!!!!

MarketWatch: Double-dip recession is now undeniable

The ISM’s service-sector index dropped to 52.8 from 57.3 in March. New orders plunged to 52.7, the lowest reading since December 2009, from 64.1 in the prior month. And the employment index dropped to 51.9 from 53.7 a month earlier. First-time jobless claims surged by 43,000 to 474,000 in the week ending April 30th, which was the highest reading since August. And the four-week moving average rose to 431,250 from 409,000. But perhaps most importantly, more evidence of an official double dip in home prices was found in a report from Clear Capital. The report stated that its monthly index is now below the prior all-time low set in March 2009. ... Year-over-year national home prices are down 5%. Home prices have dropped 11.5% in the last nine months, a rate of decline not seen since 2008. The saddest news of all is the fact that over 25% of all homes with a mortgage are underwater on that loan.

MarketWatch

I'm so glad you arrived at this thread DP.

Hi, I'm here!

Say, when do we get this double-dip? Six months ago it was supposed to be "imminent." Still waiting! Initial jobless claims are lower now than when you posted this six months ago. Perhaps it's time you man up and simply admit you were wrong about your claim of an imminent double dip. If you've got the guts, that is (which I doubt).

Does it really matter what we call this infernal recession at this point? A double dip vs. the 2008 Great Recession THAT NEVER ENDED? In any case, this is NOT a "recovery" or "expansion."

The Great Recession of 2008 continues in earnest, with a small handful of upticks thanks to bottomless govt and Fed interventions:





And you can throw in another 200 charts, including the foodstamp usage chart which has increased 8.1% during your "recovery."

Your anemic GDP growth of 1 to 2.5% is all thanks to Uncle Sam ...

[OilFinder2]

Say, when do we get this double-dip? Six months ago it was supposed to be "imminent." Still waiting! Initial jobless claims are lower now than when you posted this six months ago. Perhaps it's time you man up and simply admit you were wrong about your claim of an imminent double dip. If you've got the guts, that is (which I doubt).

Does it really matter what we call this infernal recession at this point? A double dip vs. the 2008 Great Recession THAT NEVER ENDED? In any case, this is NOT a "recovery" or "expansion."

... and blah blah blah ...

Exactly as I predicted. He did not have the guts to admit his May 5th prediction was wrong.

[Daniel_Plainview]

his May 5th prediction

Ummm ... what are you talking about? I didn't make a "May 5th prediction." I quoted a MarketWatch article ... the title "Double-dip recession is now undeniable" is a verbatim quote of the author's title.

[OilFinder2]

You've been predicting and posting articles claiming a double-dip is just around the corner for well over a year now. If you quote one of those, complete with screaming headline accentuated up the kazoo, you're agreeing with the author of the article and therefore agreeing with the prediction.

[OilFinder2]

Here's a case where you editorialized a headline suggesting another recession without quoting verbatim an existing headline. I could find much more of this too.

Recession Fears Worsen as Jobless Claims Jump by 11,000, Reaching a Horrific 428,000

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT

SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA

In the week ending September 10, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 428,000, an increase of 11,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 417,000. The 4-week moving average was 419,500, an increase of 4,000 from the previous week's revised average of 415,500.

[Daniel_Plainview]

You've been predicting and posting articles claiming a double-dip is just around the corner for well over a year now. If you quote yet another one of those, complete with screaming headline accentuated up the kazoo, you're agreeing with the author of the article and therefore agreeing with the prediction.

That's fine. But there's a difference between a "personal prediction" versus a general agreement with another author's tone and tenor.

In any case, my personal prediction appeared a few posts above, namely, that "The Great Recession of 2008 continues in earnest, with a small handful of upticks thanks to bottomless govt and Fed interventions ..."

That's my prediction ... and that has been my prediction since 2008. Any reference to a "double-dip" fails to appreciate that our current recession is really an organic offshoot from and continuation of the 2008 Recession that was never allowed to end naturally due to unprecedented (by many orders of magnitude) levels of govt intervention.

[OilFinder2]

I'm curious - what would be your criteria for a "genuine" recovery?

[Daniel_Plainview]

I'm curious - what would be your criteria for a "genuine" recovery?

A genuine recovery is one that isn't bought and paid for by massive, unprecedented, unsustainable deficit spending and Fed life-support (ZIRP, QE1, 2, 2.5). A genuine recovery is one which is propagated and propelled by private enterprise, entrepreneurship, and industry ... not by Obama spending more of our children's futures.

[OilFinder2]

Last quarter we had 2.5% GDP growth with ...

-- No QE. And Operation Twist had yet to be implemented.
-- Obama's stimulus money - which was passed all the way back in February of 2009 - was all but spent up. AFAIK it's *entirely* spent up, or darn close to it.

The largest contributors to GDP growth were purchases of services and business investment in equipment and software.

How the hell is that propped up by Obama? You're just so politically obsessed you're loathe to admit the economy might be recovering with him in office. So you make up excuses as to why the economy isn't recovering, and invoke Obama however you can.

[Daniel_Plainview]

Last quarter we had 2.5% GDP growth with ...

-- No QE. And Operation Twist had yet to be implemented.
-- Obama's stimulus money - which was passed all the way back in February of 2009 - was all but spent up. AFAIK it's *entirely* spent up, or darn close to it.

The largest contributors to GDP growth were purchases of services and business investment in equipment and software.

How the hell is that propped up by Obama? You're just so politically obsessed you're loathe to admit the economy might be recovering with him in office. So you make up excuses as to why the economy isn't recovering, and invoke Obama however you can.

We still have ZIRP ... we still have annual deficits of $1.6 trillion (above and beyond Obozo's initial stimulus), which is 11% of GDP ... and this repeats year after year under Obimbo ... plus countless other Obozo programs, payroll tax breaks, food-stamps, yada yada ...

[Cog]

Food stamp data doesn't show a thriving economy. When the number starts dropping a half million people a month instead of increasing by that amount, I'll start believing in a recovery.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/34SNAPmonthly.htm

Aug 2011 45,837,824

[OilFinder2]

We still have ZIRP ... we still have annual deficits of $1.6 trillion (above and beyond Obozo's initial stimulus), which is 11% of GDP ... and this repeats year after year under Obimbo ... plus countless other Obozo programs, payroll tax breaks, food-stamps, yada yada ...

What if we had ZIRP and the unemployment rate got down to, say, 7%? Only an idiot would believe that still wasn't a recovery. Reagan got re-elected in a landslide with an unemployment rate having fallen that "low."

Reagan, Clinton and just about every president since Roosevelt has had tax breaks of one kind or another. According to this criteria of yours, there's basically *never* been a genuine recovery.

Food stamps have existed since the 60's, I believe. Once again, even Clinton's and Reagan's recoveries weren't legitimate according to this criteria.

BTW, according to this, 61% of Obama's stimulus money had been spent as of last December. By now they don't even bother tracking it any more - no doubt because there's so little of it left.

As I said, you're making up excuses for denying the recovery, simply because you don't like the guy in the White House. You're obsessed by politics and ideology.

[peripato]

Last quarter we had 2.5% GDP growth with ...

-- No QE. And Operation Twist had yet to be implemented.
-- Obama's stimulus money - which was passed all the way back in February of 2009 - was all but spent up. AFAIK it's *entirely* spent up, or darn close to it.

The largest contributors to GDP growth were purchases of services and business investment in equipment and software.

How the hell is that propped up by Obama? You're just so politically obsessed you're loathe to admit the economy might be recovering with him in office. So you make up excuses as to why the economy isn't recovering, and invoke Obama however you can.

We still have ZIRP ... we still have annual deficits of $1.6 trillion (above and beyond Obozo's initial stimulus), which is 11% of GDP ... and this repeats year after year under Obimbo ... plus countless other Obozo programs, payroll tax breaks, food-stamps, yada yada ...

Don't forget the POMO (Permanent Open Market Operations) which is working every other day in the market to support equity prices, which are really the only things the authorities can influence, apart from economic statistics. Imagine all you economic simpletons out there, what would be the result if the POMO effect was to disappear from the scene? We had a taste of this just a few short weeks ago when the market reached within a whisker of a technical bear market (down 20% peak to trough) before the Fed, having ended its last round of printing in July watched, scared shitless, as the markets lurched towards the precipice. Unable to stand it any longer they intervened to kill the dollar on the second trading day in October, stoking the markets with more funny money and orchestrating a 400 point rally in the DOW during the last 45 minutes of trading. What was the long-lasting result? Insta-rally party for the past month! Without this permanent influence by the Fed. the market would know no floor. Why? Because it's built on nothing, nothing!

[OilFinder2]

Oh - here goes the POMO conspiracy theory again.

Let's analyse this ...

First of all ... When stocks do well, bonds don't do well. And vice-versa. Hope there's no disagreement on that.

Second ... POMO operations mostly involve the Fed purchasing Treasuries (sometimes Agencies). When you've got an extra (and large) buyer of something, that's going to support the price. Hope there's no disagreement on that, either.

It follows from the Second -- if the Fed purchases some Treasuries on some given date ... Which leads to the First -- that is, the Fed is supporting the bond market by purchasing Treasuries ... then the stock market should go down, not up. Because, after all, when bonds do well (as they should on POMO days), stocks don't.

The conspiracy theory usually then goes that the Fed is buying Treasuries from banks or other institutions ("open market" operations) so that frees up cash these institutions can invest in the stock market. But if that were the case, we'd see both the bond *and* stock markets go up on POMO days. But, as anyone who follows the market knows, that almost never happens.

As for the dollar, anyone who follows the markets also knows that, when the bond market tanks, the dollar goes down, and vice-versa. So, the Fed's POMO operations, by buying Treasuries and supporting the bond market, should send the dollar up, not down.

Conspiracy theory debunked.

[peripato]

Oh - here goes the POMO conspiracy theory again.

Let's analyse this ...

First of all ... When stocks do well, bonds don't do well. And vice-versa. Hope there's no disagreement on that.

Second ... POMO operations mostly involve the Fed purchasing Treasuries (sometimes Agencies). When you've got an extra (and large) buyer of something, that's going to support the price. Hope there's no disagreement on that, either.

It follows from the Second -- if the Fed purchases some Treasuries on some given date ... Which leads to the First -- that is, the Fed is supporting the bond market by purchasing Treasuries ... then the stock market should go down, not up. Because, after all, when bonds do well (as they should on POMO days), stocks don't.

The conspiracy theory usually then goes that the Fed is buying Treasuries from banks or other institutions ("open market" operations) so that frees up cash these institutions can invest in the stock market. But if that were the case, we'd see both the bond *and* stock markets go up on POMO days. But, as anyone who follows the market knows, that almost never happens.

As for the dollar, anyone who follows the markets also knows that, when the bond market tanks, the dollar goes down, and vice-versa. So, the Fed's POMO operations, by buying Treasuries and supporting the bond market, should send the dollar up, not down.

Conspiracy theory debunked.

So where did you get that definition of POMO from Oily? The Ministry of Information?

It's an open secret that POMOs are the Fed's way of creating additional bank reserves to finance asset purchases and loans for its Primary Dealers, namely Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan.

Now, this from an elucidating article printed in Business Insider, hardly what you would call a radical source of economic information, last October, where the author of a study on POMO and its effects, was disturbed to find the following;

I’ll be honest with the reader. When I ran this data I was really hoping that I would find evidence showing that the POMO’s have no impact on market direction. The conclusion is unsettling for obvious reasons. And while this might be nothing more than a case of datamining the evidence is convincing that the Federal Reserve is helping to boost equity prices without creating an equally positive change in SUSTAINABLE economic growth. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but when I’ve got the Manager of the System Open Market Account for the Federal Open Market Committee telling me that he wants to keep “prices higher than they otherwise would be” combined with this evidence it makes it very hard to believe that the Fed isn’t attempting to outdo Bernie Madoff.