Weekly Initial Unemployment Claims Up Slightly (August 11, 2012)

First time unemployment jobless claims increase by 2,000 for week ending August 11th.  Despite this increase, the four-week moving average # of claims decreased  by 5,500.

For the week ending July 28th, 5,680,545 people were receiving unemployment benefits under one of the programs that are available (regular state, extended benefits, federal extended unemployment compensation, or a few other smaller programs). 

Percent of Unemployed People Receiving Benefits decreases slightly to 44.9%.

Extended Benefits claims continue to decline by another 18% as only one state (Idaho) was still eligible for Extended Benefits.  Only 1%  of the number of people who were receiving Extended Benefits a year ago are receiving Extended Benefits this year.

How Many Jobs Have Been Created or Lost Under Obama? (July update)

What Was the Unemployment Rate When Obama Took Office? (July update) 

All Jobs Reports & Numbers Indexed HERE! (July, all 2012 & 2011)

First time unemployment claims increased by slightly by 2,000 over those reported last week.  Last week's claims were revised upwards by 3,000.  The four-week moving average decreased by 5,500.  Initial claims have stayed within a very small range for the past four weeks and have trended down over the past two months.    There have been slight upwards revisions  (2,000 to 3,000) in the numbers of initial claims in twelve of the last thirteen weeks.  (The chart below shows REVISED claims numbers.)

As usual, to put this into perspective, check out the red line on the chart below to see where jobless claims are now, in summer of 2012, compared to  summer of the past three years.

From the current report:

In the week ending August 11, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 366,000, an increase of 2,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 364,000. The 4-week moving average was 363,750, a decrease of 5,500 from the previous week's revised average of 369,250.

The initial claims as announced last week were 361,000, so the claims from that week were revised upwards by 3,000. 

The chart above is one of the BEST charts for understanding and observing changes in the weekly initial claims numbers over time.  This year (red-2012) and the past three years (blue- 2009, green- 2010 and black- 2011) are marked in different colors.  You can see that, as a trend, first time claims for unemployment have gone down SIGNIFICANTLY from one year to the next, even though there are variations within the year.  

Be aware that:

1. These are first time claims, so people who have continued to receive benefits or who have lost unemployment benefits would not be counted in these numbers.  
2. They are seasonally adjusted, so most variations caused by weather or holidays are already included in these numbers.  
3. As these are weekly numbers, they are more volatile than the monthly numbers.

Current Summer Initial Claims Continue to be the Lowest Since 2008; Historical Claims Data Below

As a whole, the current numbers of initial claims continue to be the lowest spring-summer initial claims numbers since 2007, as can be seen on the chart above.  

Average initial claims for this time of year for earlier years include:

• July-Aug 2000:  305,000
• July-Aug 2001:  395,000
• July-Aug 2002:  386,500 
• July-Aug 2003:  401,500
• July-Aug 2004:  345,000
• July-Aug 2005:  317,000 
• July-Aug 2006:  313,000
• July-Aug 2007:  311,000
• July-Aug 2008:  428,000
  
  Late July-Aug 2012 4-week moving average:  363,750 

Continuing regular state claims, from people who are continuing to claim unemployment through the initial 20 to 26 week regular unemployment program, decreased 31,000 for the week ending August 4th after decreasing by 46,000 week before.  3,305,000 people filed continuing regular state claims in the week ending August 4th.  As a whole, continuing regular claims continue to decline despite some individual weekly increases.  (There were 3,709,000 continuing claims a year ago.) 

Total number of people receiving unemployment insurance decreased slightly to 44.9% of officially unemployed for the week ending July 28th.  

The weekly report also tells us the total number of people who are receiving unemployment benefits.  For the week ending July 28th, 5,680,545 people are receiving unemployment benefits under one of the programs that are available (regular state, extended benefits, federal extended unemployment compensation, or a few other smaller programs).  This compares with 12,794,000 people who are unemployed according to the monthly July unemployment situation report which was released two weeks ago.  Those numbers, showing that only 44.9% of the officially unemployed are receiving benefits, should make it clear that people do NOT need to be receiving unemployment insurance to be counted among the unemployed.

Extended Benefits Expire; 63% Fewer People Receive Extended Benefits

As we've been mentioning, many states have now "triggered" off of Extended Benefits.  The only state eligible for Extended Benefits in late July is Idaho.  All other states have triggered off of Extended Benefits.

As of the week ending July 21st, 6,346 people were still receiving Extended Benefits.  However, for the week ending July 28th, this number declined to 5,223, a reduction of about 18%.  As recently as late April, 350,579 people were receiving Extended Benefits.

In less than three months, 98.5% of the people who were receiving Extended Benefits are no longer receiving such benefits.  We do not know how many of these 345,346 people found jobs or how many have another source of income and how many have nothing. 

To reiterate, while a decrease in the number of people FILING for initial claims is a good thing and indicates that fewer people are being laid off, a decrease in the TOTAL number of people getting unemployment insurance may only show that fewer people are eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.

Any questions or confusion, please leave a comment or email me!

Romney Picks Ryan!

The announcement is all over the news media by now:  

Mitt Romney is going with Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan as his Vice-Presidential choice.

I've talked about Paul Ryan's disastrous Medicare proposals before HERE at "Keep Your Hands off of My (Son's) Medicare."  Paul Ryan is the guy who wants to end Medicare as we know it by privatizing it and giving seniors vouchers which will barely cover the cost of their health care.  Leo Kapakos gives more details on the absurdity of the Ryan plan HERE at examiner.com. 

In my opinion, a country that can't adequately take care of its aged, its poor, its infirm, its children is a backwards country indeed. Let's hope that we have enough people in this country who want to stop moving backwards at the speed of light.

The pick of Ryan is, in my opinion, a gift for the Democrats and Obama.  Apparently, according to this article at Huffington Post, the President's Re-election campaign agrees with me.  Leo Kapakos also comments on the effect of the Ryan pick on the Romney campaign:  

The Ryan budget is political kryptonite for the Romney campaign. Romney’s selection of Ryan, while potentially pacifying conservatives and giving Rush Limbaugh an early Christmas present, is the functional equivalent of putting a giant target on the Romney campaign which already has turned into a disaster.

Don't miss the whole article HERE! 

I'm also glad that Paul Ryan is going to be Romney's Veep candidate, and believe this is the last nail in Romney's political coffin: 

The pairing of two unappealing, personality-deficient characters who lack compassion, empathy, and common sense is a gift for the Democrats and the rest of us. 

Facebook friend Brian adds:  

They're as unappealing as fish and peanut butter sandwiches. Each one of them turns my stomach, but put them together and I need Maalox. 

He's got that right.  Thanks, Brian!.

Visit and like Facebook.com/ItBeginsWithUs

Yep, that's what I thought when I heard this...   Visit and like One Million Strong for Barack Obama on Facebook.

How Seasonal Adjustments Affected the Jobs Numbers in July 2012

Seasonal adjustments change the July 2012 job picture.

It's that time of the year again.  We're entering a time of the year in which the "raw" unadjusted numbers of jobs and workers is LESS than the "seasonally adjusted" numbers of jobs and workers.  This is primarily due to jobs in the education sector that disappear or end during the summer.  (Click this link for more explanation and information about seasonal adjustments.)

So here are a few facts and figures:

In July 2012, in "raw" unadjusted numbers, we:

• LOST 1,204,000 jobs in total.
• ADDED 27,000 private sector jobs. 
• LOST 1,204,000 government sector jobs.
• Of those government sector jobs lost, 1,225,600 were in "local government: Education" 
• 76,000 FEWER people say they are employed 

These numbers adjusted as below for July 2012:

• 1,204,000 total jobs LOST seasonally adjusted to 163,000 total jobs ADDED
• 27,000 private jobs ADDED seasonally adjusted to 172,000 private jobs ADDED
• 1,231,000 government jobs LOST seasonally adjusted to 9,000 government jobs LOST
• 1,225,600 "Local government education" jobs lost seasonally adjusted to 7,000 local government education jobs lost
• 76,000 fewer people employed adjusted to 195,000 FEWER people employed 

So... does this mean that jobs/employment picture is worse than the BLS numbers seem to portray?

Actually, the jobs/employment picture for July MAY be BETTER than the BLS numbers portray as you can see from the chart below.  

Even though numbers are seasonally adjusted, it is always a good idea to compare year over year numbers, both adjusted and unadjusted year over year numbers, before jumping to any conclusions.

Here's how the private and government jobs numbers look for the month of  July since 2000:

The red bars represent the huge annual decrease in government jobs, almost all of which represent a decline in "Local Government Education".  This year's decrease in government jobs is lower than it has been in the prior two years.  The blue bars represent the decrease or increase in private sector jobs which is usually a decline or a minor increase in July.  The green and black bars represent the adjusted numbers.

Notice that we had only one year with "real" unadjusted private sector job growth in July from 2000 until 2009, and that was 2005 with only an addition of 5,000 private sector jobs.  This July has been the second best July for private sector job growth in 12 years in unadjusted "real" numbers.

In terms of adjustments, notice that the additional 5,000 private sector jobs in 2005 "adjusted" to an increase of  280,000 private sector jobs.  This year, the additional 27,000 private sector jobs only "adjusted" to 172,000 new private sector jobs.  I do see some of these discrepancies whenever I compare adjusted and unadjusted numbers, and I really don't understand why these adjustments can be so different from one year to the next.  If the adjustment this year has been along the lines of the adjustment in 2005, we would be celebrating 300,000 new jobs instead of complaining about "only" 172,000.

How Many Jobs Were Created or Lost in July 2012?

CLICK HERE:  How Many Jobs Were Created or Lost in All of 2012?

163,000 new jobs were created in the month of July 2012.  NO jobs were lost (net) in the month of July 2012.

The private sector generated 172,000 new jobs, but the government sector continued to shed jobs; it lost 9,000 jobs in July 2012.


195,000 FEWER people reported themselves as working in July 2012.

The following chart shows cumulative private job loss and growth from January 2008 until July 2012:

Latest (July 2012 & all 2011 & 2012 reports) HERE!! 

Seasonal adjustments in July? What Does That Mean?

More or fewer jobs since January 2009 when Obama Took Office?  More or fewer people working since January 2009 when Obama Took Office?


How Many Jobs Lost Altogether in the Great Recession?   Lost Job Rcovered? 

Private & Government Jobs Lost/Created Month by Month for 2011 through July 2012 HERE!!

The unemployment rate edged up by one tenth of one percent to 8.3%.   The increase in the unemployment rate was primarily due to:

•  A decrease of 195,000 people who reported themselves as employed in July vs. June, and: 
• An increase of 150,000 people who said they are re-entering the work force and now looking for work after some period of being out of the labor force.
• The number of unemployed people (people who are actively looking for work) who  lost their jobs declined by 84,000 in July vs. June.  

How Many Jobs Has Obama Created or Lost? (July 2012 update)

*******************************************************************

August 2016 update for THIS REPORT found HERE.

August 2016 reports
(released Friday, Sept., 2) found  HERE.
******************************************************************

The following numbers are for July 2012.  
For latest reports and numbers, please click one of the links above.

How many jobs created or lost under Obama?
How many private sector jobs have been lost or added during Obama's presidency?

Since the "trough" of the recession in late 2009/early 2010:

• 4,001,000 MORE jobs in total
• 4,545,000 MORE private sector jobs
• 4,252,000 MORE people working 

Since Bush left office & Obama took office (January 2009):

• 316,000 FEWER jobs in total

But:

• 332,000 MORE private sector jobs
• 33,000 MORE people working

Since the stimulus was passed (# as of March 12, 2009): 

• 1,207,000 MORE jobs in total
• 1,844,000 MORE private sector jobs
• 1,466,000 MORE people working
  

Since the beginning of Obama's first Fiscal Year (October 2009): 

• 3,511,000 MORE jobs in total
• 4,083,000 MORE private sector jobs
• 3,445,000 MORE people working

Have any private jobs been lost (net) over the past 29 months?

NO!

• 29 months of consecutive private-sector job growth.

Have any jobs been lost (net) over the past 22 months?
NO!

• 22 months of consecutive over all job growth.

(Explanations and detail below.  Keep reading.)

Also see:  Private Sector Job Loss/Gain since 2008

How many jobs have been lost or gained during the Obama administration?  Have more new jobs been created or have more jobs been lost under Obama to date?   

Summary:  

We are in positive territory when we look at total jobs numbers, private jobs numbers, and people working compared to the "trough" of the jobs recession in late 2009/early 2010.

We are also in positive territory when we look at total jobs numbers, private jobs numbers, and people working compared to the start of Obama's first Fiscal Year in office which started October 1, 2009.
 
We are still in negative territory in terms of total jobs numbers since Obama took office; however, we are in positive territory in private sector jobs and in the number of people working.  

We are now adding jobs at a fair clip, with an average of 152,600 MORE jobs  total added per month since December 2010, and an average of  170,000 MORE jobs added per month in the private sector since December 2010.

Here's a summary of data from the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics).  All numbers lost to the "trough" of the recession reflect ALL non-farm jobs lost between the time Obama took office and the lowest point of the recession in late 2009/early 2010 :

(Note:  All of the jobs numbers are NET numbers.  In other words, we know that jobs are lost and added every month, in good years and in bad.  The numbers reported here, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers, are "net" numbers; that is, the number of jobs gained after the number of jobs lost is subtracted, or the number of jobs lost after the number of jobs gained is added.)  

Seasonally adjusted:

• All jobs lost from the time Obama took office to "trough" (bottom of recession): .....4,317,000
• All jobs gained since "trough": ....4,001,000

Net LOSS in seasonally-adjusted jobs since Obama took office: .... 316,000                     

Private & Government Jobs Gained & Lost Under Obama (July 2012 update)

JUNE 2013 BLS Jobs Numbers and Unemployment Rate were released today, Friday, July 5th.  Details and links HERE!!

This report has been updated for JUNE 2013 HERE!!

All jobs numbers & reports  (2013, 2012, and 2011) HERE!!

How many jobs (total, private, and government) have been lost or gained since Obama was inaugurated?  

• 4,317,000 TOTAL jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were LOST in from the time Obama took office until the "trough" of the recession in early 2010.  That's a decrease of 3.2%. 
• 4,001,000 jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were CREATED from the "trough" of the recession until now, July 2012.  That's an increase of 3.10%.
• In total, 316,000  jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were LOST from the time Obama took office until now, July 2012.  That's a decrease of 0.24%. *
• We have experienced 22 months WITHOUT job losses since September 2010.  We have ADDED 3,360,000 jobs during those 22 months. 
• We now have 133,245,000 TOTAL non-farm jobs.  
  
  

*  These are all net figures, meaning that they represent the total number of jobs at the end of a reporting period.  All losses have been subtracted from all gains and vice verse.

*  Though, as of July 2012, we still have fewer jobs (in adjusted numbers) than when President Obama took office, jobs are being added at a faster clip under Obama than under George Bush at the same time in his presidency.  At this point in Bush's presidency (July 2004), there were still 978,000 FEWER jobs than when he was inaugurated in January 2001 (compared to 316,000 FEWER for Obama).  The number of jobs didn't eclipse the number when Bush was first inaugurated until February 2005, in Bush's second term.   

How many PRIVATE sector jobs have been lost or gained since Obama was inaugurated?

• 4,213,000 PRIVATE-sector jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were LOST from the time Obama took office until the "trough" of the recession in early 2010.  That's a decrease of 3.8%.
• 4,545,000 PRIVATE-sector jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were GAINED OR CREATED from the "trough" of the recession until now, July 2012.  That's an increase of 4.26%.
• In total, 332,000 private sector jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) have been GAINED from the time Obama took office until now, July 2012.  That's a net increase of 0.30%. *
• We have experienced 29 months of positive private-sector job GROWTH from February 2010 until July 2012.  We have added 4,545,000 private-sector jobs during those 29 months.    
• We now have 111,317,000 PRIVATE sector non-farm jobs.

*Though, as of July 2012, we still have fewer private-sector jobs (in adjusted numbers) than when President Obama took office, jobs are being added at a faster clip under Obama than under George Bush at the same time in his presidency.  At this point in Bush's presidency (July 2004), there were still 1,749,000 FEWER private sector jobs than when he was inaugurated in January 2001 (compared to 332,000 MORE for Obama).  The number of private-sector jobs didn't eclipse the number when Bush was first inaugurated until June 2005, in Bush's second term.       

How many GOVERNMENT jobs have been lost or gained since Obama was inaugurated?

• 102,000 GOVERNMENT jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were LOST from the time Obama took office until the "trough" of the recession in early 2010.  That's a decrease of  .47%  (about half of a percent). 
• Another 548,000 GOVERNMENT jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were LOST from the "trough" of the recession until now, July 2012.  That's a decrease of 2.43%.
• In total, 648,000 government jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were LOST from the time Obama took office until now, July 2012.  That's a decrease of 2.87%. 
• We have experienced decreases in the number of government jobs in 23 out of the last 26 months, starting in June 2010, when the layoff of 2010 Census workers began.  
• We now have 21,928,000 GOVERNMENT non-farm jobs, not including people in the military.  (Civilians employed by the U.S. and working for the military are counted.)

(Note:  Current numbers taken from the June Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment Situation Report.  Historical numbers taken from various archived Employment Situation reports as indexed HERE. Specifics will be provided upon request; please email me or leave a comment.)

An afterthought---
A reader asks:

How Many Private Sector Jobs Were Lost Because of Obama?

We haven't lost ANY private sector jobs (net) since February 2010, a year after Obama took office.  Between January 2009 and February 2010, we lost 4,213,000 private sector jobs as stated above.

Should we "blame" Obama for not being immediately able to stem the tide of private sector job loss in 2009?  If a house is burning out of control and the fire department comes to put out the fire, it continues to burn until it is brought under control and cooled down, right?  Now.. would you blame the fire department for the continued fire and the time to put it out after the firefighters arrive on the scene?


Well, you might, but I wouldn't:  Here's my reasoning:  Burning Down the House!


So my answer to this question would be a big, fat ZERO.  I do NOT feel that Obama is to blame for any loss of jobs between January 2009 and February 2010.  If you think he is, please leave a comment and explain your reasoning! 

What Was the Unemployment Rate When Obama Took Office? (July 2012 update)

This report has been updated HERE for November 2016.

Click HERE for all published jobs reports and updates for 2011 through 2016 to date.

The numbers below are outdated.  For current reports, click either of the links above.

What was the unemployment rate when Bush left office and Obama was inaugurated? 7.8%

What was the unemployment rate after Obama's first full month in office (February 2009)?  8.3%

What was the unemployment rate at peak?  10.0%

What is today's (July 2012's) unemployment rate?   8.3%

How many people were looking for work when Obama was inaugurated; how many were working?  And how many people are looking for work and how many are employed now?

• What Caused the Rise in Unemployment When Obama Took Office?  Obama caused the unemployment rate to rise?  (Continue reading; the answer  is below.)
•  What Was the Unemployment Rate When Bush Took Office?  How high did it rise?  (The answer is also below.)  

The following chart shows unemployment in three month intervals: