Initial Jobless Claims Surge To 316k, Highest Since June 2014

[Vigilante]

Isn't December, Christmas time when EVERYONE is supposed to be hiring..... or are all the LIES of this regime finally going to show up?....54% Unemployed...

Tumbling retail sales and now surging jobless claims... perhaps the "low oil is awesome" narrative is not true after all. Initial Jobless claims surged to 316k (smashing expectations of 290k) and has not been higher since June 2014. The BLS reports no unusual activity - so economists can't just shrug this one off. Details on state-by-state job losses are lagged a week so we will not know if this is Shale Oil region-related but yesterday's Beige Book and day after day of announced job cuts by the energy sector suggest it is.

Initial Jobless Claims Surge Above 300k Highest Since June 2014 Zero Hedge

 

[Moonglow]

probably layoffs due to plunging oil prices...

 

[JakeStarkey]

8K in one case, 5K in another.

Not a trend, Viggie.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The numbers are probably influenced by the lay off of far right bloggers who failed to influence the last election on behalf of the far right.

 

[Vigilante]

8K in one case, 5K in another.

Not a trend, Viggie.

But an expected 290K and a 316K reality is how many?

 

[Vigilante]

The numbers are probably influenced by the lay off of far right bloggers who failed to influence the last election on behalf of the far right.

Sounds about as believable as most of your posts! Manchurian Republican....do you EVER side with Republicans, or ONLY when RINO'S agree with the Obomanation?

 

[pinqy]

Isn't December, Christmas time when EVERYONE is supposed to be hiring.

Actually, no: employment usually goes down in December. data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU02000000

Tumbling retail sales and now surging jobless claims... perhaps the "low oil is awesome" narrative is not true after all. Initial Jobless claims surged to 316k (smashing expectations of 290k) and has not been higher since June 2014.

But not all that different from pre-recession weekly claims. Lookin in context, this is hardly a disaster
Graph Initial Claims - FRED - St. Louis Fed

The BLS reports no unusual activity

BLS has nothing to do with weekly claims reports. Yet zero hedge consistently makes that mistake. Not sure how anyone can have any credibility when they consistently misattribute a source

 

[Vigilante]

Isn't December, Christmas time when EVERYONE is supposed to be hiring.

Actually, no: employment usually goes down in December. data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU02000000

Tumbling retail sales and now surging jobless claims... perhaps the "low oil is awesome" narrative is not true after all. Initial Jobless claims surged to 316k (smashing expectations of 290k) and has not been higher since June 2014.

But not all that different from pre-recession weekly claims. Lookin in context, this is hardly a disaster
Graph Initial Claims - FRED - St. Louis Fed

The BLS reports no unusual activity

BLS has nothing to do with weekly claims reports. Yet zero hedge consistently makes that mistake. Not sure how anyone can have any credibility when they consistently misattribute a source

Why not contact them with YOUR VIEW and see what they say? Of course, we would take the word of a USMB poster over a known economic sight that has been in business for years!

 

[JakeStarkey]

8K in one case, 5K in another.

Not a trend, Viggie.

But an expected 290K and a 316K reality is how many?

Go back and read all of the reports, bub.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one takes your word, Viggie; you know that.

 

[Vigilante]

But way more forum members believe what I post and back up, then your subversive bullshit claiming you're a Republican.... But don't worry Flakey, I'll always be here to point it out to the newbies! Jackass!

 

[Vigilante]

8K in one case, 5K in another.

Not a trend, Viggie.

But an expected 290K and a 316K reality is how many?

Go back and read all of the reports, bub.

Why, it states fact right in front of your face! You DO seem to get your panties twisted when things like this happen, Manchurian Republican!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Vigie, only a few on the far right back you out of loyalty.

The rest of us from left to responsible right enjoy your tantrums.

 

[Vigilante]

Vigie, only a few on the far right back you out of loyalty.

The rest of us from left to responsible right enjoy your tantrums.

Now you claim you speak for the majority.... you are a deranged little man that has Obuma's arrogance. No wonder you adore him! Birds of a feather....

 

[JakeStarkey]

You were just speaking for the majority, slim.

 

[Vigilante]

You were just speaking for the majority, slim.

Yes, they believe you are a deranged little man that has Obuma's arrogance....See how that works?... Apparently not!

 

[pinqy]

Isn't December, Christmas time when EVERYONE is supposed to be hiring.

Actually, no: employment usually goes down in December. data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU02000000

Tumbling retail sales and now surging jobless claims... perhaps the "low oil is awesome" narrative is not true after all. Initial Jobless claims surged to 316k (smashing expectations of 290k) and has not been higher since June 2014.

But not all that different from pre-recession weekly claims. Lookin in context, this is hardly a disaster
Graph Initial Claims - FRED - St. Louis Fed

The BLS reports no unusual activity

BLS has nothing to do with weekly claims reports. Yet zero hedge consistently makes that mistake. Not sure how anyone can have any credibility when they consistently misattribute a source

Why not contact them with YOUR VIEW and see what they say? Of course, we would take the word of a USMB poster over a known economic sight that has been in business for years!

I'm not stating a view or opinion, I'm stating facts that are easily double-checked: from the timeseries data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU02000000 reformatted to show the not seasonally adjusted change in December (in thousands)
Year Dec
1948 -437
1949 -904
1950 -961
1951 -212
1952 -646
1953 -1506
1954 -911
1955 -572
1956 -691
1957 -531
1958 -624
1959 50
1960 -1107
1961 -817
1962 -461
1963 -680
1964 -349
1965 -5
1966 -395
1967 119
1968 91
1969 73
1970 -209
1971 0
1972 193
1973 -172
1974 -694
1975 -11
1976 -42
1977 156
1978 -119
1979 106
1980 -271
1981 -940
1982 -530
1983 -215
1984 -197
1985 -219
1986 -163
1987 -130
1988 -336
1989 -470
1990 -353
1991 -577
1992 -169
1993 10
1994 -167
1995 -463
1996 -254
1997 -214
1998 155
1999 181
2000 385
2001 -101
2002 -85
2003 -144
2004 -303
2005 -50
2006 67
2007 -784
2008 -1259
2009 -1179
2010 -256
2011 -389
2012 -489
2013 -352
2014 -476

2. I linked to the graph that shows current initial claims are at about or lower than pre-recession.

3. The website for UI claims is Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Data Employment Training Administration ETA - U.S. Department of Labor note that that's NOT BLS (and yes, I have posted that at zerohedge more than once.

So...what are you saying is my "view" and not straight fact?

 

[Vigilante]

Isn't December, Christmas time when EVERYONE is supposed to be hiring.

Actually, no: employment usually goes down in December. data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU02000000

Tumbling retail sales and now surging jobless claims... perhaps the "low oil is awesome" narrative is not true after all. Initial Jobless claims surged to 316k (smashing expectations of 290k) and has not been higher since June 2014.

But not all that different from pre-recession weekly claims. Lookin in context, this is hardly a disaster
Graph Initial Claims - FRED - St. Louis Fed

The BLS reports no unusual activity

BLS has nothing to do with weekly claims reports. Yet zero hedge consistently makes that mistake. Not sure how anyone can have any credibility when they consistently misattribute a source

Why not contact them with YOUR VIEW and see what they say? Of course, we would take the word of a USMB poster over a known economic sight that has been in business for years!

I'm not stating a view or opinion, I'm stating facts that are easily double-checked: from the timeseries data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU02000000 reformatted to show the not seasonally adjusted change in December (in thousands)
Year Dec
1948 -437
1949 -904
1950 -961
1951 -212
1952 -646
1953 -1506
1954 -911
1955 -572
1956 -691
1957 -531
1958 -624
1959 50
1960 -1107
1961 -817
1962 -461
1963 -680
1964 -349
1965 -5
1966 -395
1967 119
1968 91
1969 73
1970 -209
1971 0
1972 193
1973 -172
1974 -694
1975 -11
1976 -42
1977 156
1978 -119
1979 106
1980 -271
1981 -940
1982 -530
1983 -215
1984 -197
1985 -219
1986 -163
1987 -130
1988 -336
1989 -470
1990 -353
1991 -577
1992 -169
1993 10
1994 -167
1995 -463
1996 -254
1997 -214
1998 155
1999 181
2000 385
2001 -101
2002 -85
2003 -144
2004 -303
2005 -50
2006 67
2007 -784
2008 -1259
2009 -1179
2010 -256
2011 -389
2012 -489
2013 -352
2014 -476

2. I linked to the graph that shows current initial claims are at about or lower than pre-recession.

3. The website for UI claims is Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Data Employment Training Administration ETA - U.S. Department of Labor note that that's NOT BLS (and yes, I have posted that at zerohedge more than once.

So...what are you saying is my "view" and not straight fact?

Then as you previously stated, he's used BLS many times before, and if incorrect, why would he still use it, especially if, like you say, many say it's wrong?

 

[pinqy]

Isn't December, Christmas time when EVERYONE is supposed to be hiring.

Actually, no: employment usually goes down in December. data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU02000000

Tumbling retail sales and now surging jobless claims... perhaps the "low oil is awesome" narrative is not true after all. Initial Jobless claims surged to 316k (smashing expectations of 290k) and has not been higher since June 2014.

But not all that different from pre-recession weekly claims. Lookin in context, this is hardly a disaster
Graph Initial Claims - FRED - St. Louis Fed

The BLS reports no unusual activity

BLS has nothing to do with weekly claims reports. Yet zero hedge consistently makes that mistake. Not sure how anyone can have any credibility when they consistently misattribute a source

Why not contact them with YOUR VIEW and see what they say? Of course, we would take the word of a USMB poster over a known economic sight that has been in business for years!

I'm not stating a view or opinion, I'm stating facts that are easily double-checked: from the timeseries data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU02000000 reformatted to show the not seasonally adjusted change in December (in thousands)
Year Dec
1948 -437
1949 -904
1950 -961
1951 -212
1952 -646
1953 -1506
1954 -911
1955 -572
1956 -691
1957 -531
1958 -624
1959 50
1960 -1107
1961 -817
1962 -461
1963 -680
1964 -349
1965 -5
1966 -395
1967 119
1968 91
1969 73
1970 -209
1971 0
1972 193
1973 -172
1974 -694
1975 -11
1976 -42
1977 156
1978 -119
1979 106
1980 -271
1981 -940
1982 -530
1983 -215
1984 -197
1985 -219
1986 -163
1987 -130
1988 -336
1989 -470
1990 -353
1991 -577
1992 -169
1993 10
1994 -167
1995 -463
1996 -254
1997 -214
1998 155
1999 181
2000 385
2001 -101
2002 -85
2003 -144
2004 -303
2005 -50
2006 67
2007 -784
2008 -1259
2009 -1179
2010 -256
2011 -389
2012 -489
2013 -352
2014 -476

2. I linked to the graph that shows current initial claims are at about or lower than pre-recession.

3. The website for UI claims is Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Data Employment Training Administration ETA - U.S. Department of Labor note that that's NOT BLS (and yes, I have posted that at zerohedge more than once.

So...what are you saying is my "view" and not straight fact?

Then as you previously stated, he's used BLS many times before, and if incorrect, why would he still use it, especially if, like you say, many say it's wrong?

He hasn't used BLS...that data isn't published by them and only available via a link to ETA. Why he keeps claiming BLS is the reporting agency is a mystery, especially when he links to The ETA press release.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Vigie, only a few on the far right back you out of loyalty.

The rest of us from left to responsible right enjoy your tantrums.

Now you claim you speak for the majority.... you are a deranged little man that has Obuma's arrogance. No wonder you adore him! Birds of a feather....

It's OK to root FOR America.

You guys will NEVER admit that the economy is good; It makes us think that you care more about your party than the country.