View Full Version : So many jobs!
minnow
07-08-2010, 11:31 AM
[quote=Eric Stoner;1954317]This is getting ridiculous. Obama and his supporters say the Stimulus worked because things aren't worse. That without the stimulus unemployment would be higher. Nobody knows that ! It is UNknowable !
The fairest thing to do is to compare where we are NOW compared to other recessions in our history. Compared to the Recession of 1938 we are arguably doing better BUT in 1938 we started from a much lower baseline in both economic growth and employment. Compared to the Reagan and ( O.K. I'll let him have the credit even though he did NOTHING to cause it ) Clinton recoveries, we are doing LOUSY ! We should be seeing growth of AT LEAST 5 %. Under Reagan it hit 8 %. We should be adding AT LEAST 100,000 NEW jobs per month. Under Reagan, Clinton, JFK and Bush the Dumber, it was much higher than that.
I would argue it's a combination of where we are now and where business anticipates we are going to be NEXT year; and the years after. Even Jeff Immeldt, an Obama cheerleader, is becoming a turncoat as he recognizes that Obama's policies are NOT working and will NOT work.
What incentive is ther for the private sector to hire ?
What incentives are there for banks to lend ?
American corporations are sitting on $1.7 TRILLION in cash. Where is their incentive to invest in new plant, equipment and NEW HIRES ?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Some good points, Eric. Getting back to original subject of jobs..............
Looking at it from another angle, namely from the 90% or so labor pool that is currently employed: Many employees,( including unionized that certain posters love to bash) took paycuts, and "productivity enhancements" as a condition to keeping their jobs. Several workers are putting off their retirement plans longer. Several more are putting in extra overtime, to make up for lost ground. These factors have the effect of negating the requirement to take on new hires.
Taking the domino effect further: As a result of people putting in more hours/ days worked results in less leisure time ( and $$- paycuts aren't completely made up) to spend on discretionary activity thus crimping recovery/additional hiring in some sectors.
Lastly, question #3, re $1.7 trillion cash hoard- some goes to executive bonuses, for "keeping costs under control". If they can get "x plus " output with same number of employees, why take on more?
Melonie
07-08-2010, 12:32 PM
^^^ while I am sure there are many isolated examples to the contrary, the overall 'weekly hours worked' statistic as well as the overall 'average weekly earnings' statistic both declined recently.
My contacts in industry tell me that they are almost as loathe toward paying for overtime hours as they are toward hiring additional employees. As a result, they are seeking to fill any labor shortfalls via 'temp service' workers or contractors ... neither of which involve any present or future 'mandated employee benefit cost' issues for the industry engaging them.
As to your claim that 90% of the 'labor pool' is currently employed, this may possibly be correct from a purely technical standpoint. However, when that official 'labor pool' does not include Americans collecting welfare, Americans no longer actively seeking work, Americans whose 99 weeks worth of unemployment benefits have expired etc. there is a huge discrepancy between 90% of the 'labor pool' having jobs and 90% of working age Americans having jobs ( which is the implied but massively incorrect assumption).
Fortunately, ShadowStats still compiles the overall U6 unemployment statistic using the old pre 'gov't tweaking' methodology of the Carter / Reagan era = the SGS alternative total unemployment rate. This statistic has been bouncing between 21 and 22% for the last few months ... which shows that while 90% of the gov'ts official 'labor pool' may have jobs, only 78-79% of able-bodied working age Americans have jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/sgs-emp.gif
As to the 1.7 trillion supposed 'cash hoard' being held in abeyance by private companies, my industry contacts tell me that they are avoiding making major capital investments ( which have to be justified based on a 'payback period' on the order of 3-5 years ) because they have no clue what their actual operating cost picture is going to look like over that same 3-5 year 'payback' period. Their specific concerns are major increases in 'all in' employee labor costs ( due to potential new national health care costs / liabilities ), major increases in energy costs ( due to a potential new carbon tax and/or increased demand / price for imported oil as US domestic supplies are reduced by gov't order), major increases in corporate financing costs ( due to an increase in the capital gains tax rate ), major increases in state and local tax rates ( property taxes, corporate taxes ), etc.
There is also a major concern on the part of my industry contacts that a 'double-dip' recession is imminent in 2011 ( due to already slated across the board federal and state income tax increases ), which would further reduce demand for their products thus reducing future needs for employee labor / capital investment in expanded production facilities. This strategic conclusion also contributes to their choice to use 'temp services' and/or contractors to fill any labor shortfalls for the balance of 2010 ... in anticipation that those temporary labor shortfalls will quickly vanish with the onset of a 'double-dip' recession.
~
Eric Stoner
07-09-2010, 08:48 AM
Spot on, Melonie.
The biggest factor holding us back is UNCERTAINTY. Geithner SAYS that Capital Gains will not be taxed at more than 20%. Nobody knows what will really happen. Obama et. al. SAY that taxes will not increase for those making less than $250,000 per year. Not if the Bush tax cuts expire they won't. Geithner and Summers SAY that corporate taxes will be kept competitive with the rst of the world. Not that anybody can see. They SAY the stimulus is working. Most of it has already been spent and unemployment has not improved. They SAY that the deficit will start to go down. Not that anyone can see. Not with a new Stimulus package. Not if the Feds bail out Illinois and California.
Btw, did you see where the Governor of Illinois gave raises to his staff and 40,000 state workers while private companies owed money by the state who aren't getting paid are declaring bankruptcy right and left ? Or how some California politicians are proposing that holders of state and other tax free bonds not get paid ?
Melonie
07-09-2010, 08:20 PM
Btw, did you see where the Governor of Illinois gave raises to his staff and 40,000 state workers while private companies owed money by the state who aren't getting paid are declaring bankruptcy right and left ?
What can I say ? Politics is all about one hand washing the other ( and in Illinois those hands are BADLY in need of washing LOL ). Civil service unions and public sector employees are a huge force in Illinois as well as in CA, NY, NJ etc. Individual private sector companies do not spend millions on political campaign ads or campaign contributions.
Or how some California politicians are proposing that holders of state and other tax free bonds not get paid
Whether these idiots know it or not, they are now f#$king around with one of the 'primordial forces of nature'. It's a generally known but little publicized fact that tax free municipal bonds represent a cornerstone of 'liberal' state economics. The uber-rich loan money to the politicians via tax free muni bond purchases. The politicians use that borrowed money and more to provide benefits for the 'poor' ... who in turn assure the re-election of those politicians. The politicians then increase tax rates on the middle class, rich, and uber-rich to try and cover their spending addiction. And the uber-rich escape the vast majority of those high taxes via their tax free muni bonds ( leaving the middle class and low-end rich to actually bear the brunt of the tax burden ). The uber-rich then make sizeable political contributions to those politicians to insure that this 'game' continues to be played.
If state politicians actually choose to 'stiff' these uber-rich muni bond investors, they will change the rules of the 'game'. Political contributions from the uber-rich will disappear. Some of the uber-rich may be forced to relocate to a different state based on a breach of trust that their de-facto 'immunity' from actually having to pay high 'official' tax rates may be in jeopardy.
Deogol
07-12-2010, 03:02 PM
I would just love to have accountabililty applied to banks and BP. They are not responsible and seem to thrive on sliding by with the 'cheapest' incompetent employees. A lot of us US citizens are smart and industrious. Our tax money was used to bail out the banks that gambled with our money. They were happy to take our money but did nothing to help those who bailed them out. I'm not in agreement that the US citizens should be penalized by 'one sided' unfair regulations that just line insiders pockets. Some of us are extremely skilled at our professions and work very hard. I really have a difficult time when people put the blame on the victims of all the political corruption. I am a free thinker and think things al the way through. People need to think for themselves and voice their honest opinions.
They are gonna help those who bailed them out. There will be campaign contributions for all of them. And those who lose or retire will get consulting jobs or lobbying jobs.
Deogol
07-12-2010, 03:05 PM
So why is it not a high priority to have real paying jobs here? It just seems like the politicians always wait until there is a catastrophe. I'm sensing no sense of urgency. I'm sure that when we hit the double dip recession that there will be many more layoffs. When there is a substantial increase in unemployment maybe then someone will think of ways to keep and create jobs here.
The politicians don't work for us and the voter's won't admit it. They have to vote in some real change to see change. There are massive retirements in the congress coming up and it's a damn shame some congress people have to literally die of old age before they are removed!
It's the voters. And until we (the voters) get our shit together, the country won't get it's shit together.
Deogol
07-12-2010, 03:10 PM
Hmmm where do you get you figrues that is one tenth of the cost? When I get my car fixed I go to someone who is certified. I don't go looking for the cheapest person You don't want unpleasant surprises. Competency is important or you will paint a tank pink.
You may find this interesting:
The Job Destruction News Letter is an interesting read too.
Melonie
07-13-2010, 03:28 AM
It's the voters. And until we (the voters) get our shit together, the country won't get it's shit together.
Not wanting to drift too far in the political direction, but for a fact nowadays more than 50% of US voters are already on the 'receiving end' of gov't spending ... from welfare / medicaid / food stamps, to working directly for the federal / state / local gov't, to working for a company whose major 'customer' is the gov't ( or working for a company whose product is protected / subsidized by the gov't ), to retirees receiving SSI / medicare and gov't employee retirement benefits ... with little personal stake in actually having to personally PAY for this gov't spending
As such, we have likely already reached the point of ancient Rome - 'tyranny of the majority' - where voters will continue to elect politicians that promise to continue spending !!! But as with ancient Rome or 'Atlas Shrugged', the consequence is likely to be that the <49% of American businesses and actual income tax payers will react to their rising burden in ways that do not involve the ballot box.
US business reaction to this 'tyranny of the majority' is likely to be an intensification of outsourcing, H1B domestic employment, domestic automation, offshore migration etc. - ALL of which will 'destroy' US job opportunities in an effort to reduce mandated employee benefit costs and increase business earnings in order to afford paying higher tax rates.
TinkerBall
07-13-2010, 05:19 AM
Not wanting to drift too far in the political direction, but for a fact nowadays more than 50% of US voters are already on the 'receiving end' of gov't spending ... from welfare / medicaid / food stamps, to working directly for the federal / state / local gov't, to working for a company whose major 'customer' is the gov't ( or working for a company whose product is protected / subsidized by the gov't ), to retirees receiving SSI / medicare and gov't employee retirement benefits ... with little personal stake in actually having to personally PAY for this gov't spending
As such, we have likely already reached the point of ancient Rome - 'tyranny of the majority' - where voters will continue to elect politicians that promise to continue spending !!! But as with ancient Rome or 'Atlas Shrugged', the consequence is likely to be that the <49% of American businesses and actual income tax payers will react to their rising burden in ways that do not involve the ballot box.
Many US voters are on the receiving end now because of 8 years of corporate welfare, tax cuts for the rich that did not result in new jobs, and 2 needless wars which contribute many times more to the deficit than the citizens benefits. The H1B's etc. are all happening now and have been happening for the last decade. I would not blame that on US citizens who went to school, worked hard, and paid more taxes than the rich people.
420bUnNy
07-13-2010, 07:21 AM
Hate to be a boner killer, but accounting for population growth, we need to create over 90,000 new jobs each month just to keep the unemployment rate constant.
And Okun's Law (relationship of GDP and unemployment) says we have a looong way to go before we're even as well off as we used to be: every percent above the natural rate that unemployment rises is accompanied by a 2% decrease in GDP growth. Recall that the economy has shrunk significantly in recent years...that's a lot more growing our economy has to do before the job situation returns to where it used to be.
Melonie
07-13-2010, 10:00 AM
^^^ well, arguably, the US economy will NEVER return to where it used to be. This is because US private sector employers who used to provide jobs that truly created 'added value' or 'wealth' ... via farming, fishing, mining, oil and gas drilling, manufacturing, software development and a host of similar industries that created 'something out of nothing' ... have permanently left US shores. These jobs are never going to come back to the USA as long as adequate skill level workers are available in countries that also offer far lower worker pay rates, lower gov't mandated employee benefit costs, lower environmental compliance costs, lower worker safety compliance costs, lower product liability litigation costs, lower corporate tax rates, etc.
Service sector jobs do not and cannot create 'wealth'. To some degree they can create 'added value' ... but only to the extent that they can 'augment' something else of value that was created by another (dwindling) US industry. In that regard, service sector jobs are 'linked at the hip' to wealth creating industries such that the exodus of wealth creating jobs ( for example deep water Gulf oil drilling rigs leaving for Africa will leave related oil service industries with less work) will result in a direct proportional reduction in linked service sector jobs.
As to Okun's law and GDP, it is arguable that the gov't ( deficit ) spending component of GDP has been masking the true economic situation for at least the past 2 years. Since gov't jobs ( with extremely few exceptions ) do not and cannot create 'wealth' either, they are also 'linked' to wealth creating industries. However, that linkage is looser than for service sector jobs, since it involves tax revenue collections / annual federal and state budget time delays etc. Thus it will really only be since the beginning of this month ( new fiscal year for state and local gov'ts ) that the decline in tax revenue collections over the past year will translate into lower employment levels for direct gov't workers.
Also, your 90.000 'break even' new jobs per month number is low compared to many estimates. However, fortunately for the gov't, new high school and college graduates who are unable to find jobs are not counted in the official U1 unemployment statistic ! Nevertheless, they still don't have jobs, they still aren't contributing tax revenues etc.
In essence, at the unskilled level ( via minimum wage laws ), at the semi-skilled level ( via mandated employee benefits / environmental compliance / worker safety ) and at the generally skilled professional level ( same reasons once removed ), American workers have been 'priced out' of viable world economy competitiveness. Unless and until that situation changes via US dollar devaluation, or unless and until the gov't removes America from the 'world economy' via protectionist legislation / tariffs / quotas etc., American workers will remain uncompetitive on a global basis and American jobs will continue 'leaving'.
I don't want to go off the deep end here in regard to NWO stuff, but at some point the gov't, mainstream media, and US voters need to come to terms with the fact that it is a real world impossibility to tax the rich and a real world impossibility to regulate large multinational corporations. One can pass laws attempting to do so. However, the uber-rich and the large corporations will absolutely respond by taking actions that minimize the impact of those new laws. And in doing so, it has historically been the case that they simply shift their assets / business activities beyond the gov'ts jurisdiction ... with consequent US job losses !
~
eagle2
07-13-2010, 03:40 PM
Hate to be a boner killer, but accounting for population growth, we need to create over 90,000 new jobs each month just to keep the unemployment rate constant.
That's right now. In the not too distant future, we're going to needs millions of new workers each year to replace those who are leaving the work force once the baby boomers start retiring in large numbers.
eagle2
07-13-2010, 03:43 PM
Service sector jobs do not and cannot create 'wealth'.
~
So where did all of your 'wealth' come from? How were you able to retire if you never created any wealth?
Melonie
07-13-2010, 06:19 PM
^^^ in fact I didn't ever create any real 'wealth'. As a 'service sector' worker, in blunt terms I managed to 'rake in' second-hand wealth via club customers from wealth creating industries ( i.e. oil company executives, aircraft industry executives, entertainment industry executives), but more likely in Manhattan clubs I managed to rake in third-hand wealth actually produced by wealth creating industries but 'raked' from those industries by club customers who provided services to those industries. Or stated more accurately, the club customers who were attorneys, bankers, brokers, hedge fundies etc. were parasitic feeders on the actual wealth creators, and the dancers were parasitic feeders on those parasites.
In today's American economy there are obviously multiple levels of parasitic feeders. But the fact ultimately remains that at the beginning there must be an actual wealth creator 'host' that produces the 'blood' that the first level of parasites feed on. Absent a sufficient number of wealth creating 'hosts', the parasites begin to starve. And the farther down the parasitic chain, the sooner they will starve. This is the 'dirty little secret' where service industry workers, gov't workers, and other workers who don't actually create wealth themselves are concerned.
Lately, the US gov't has been attempting to substitute debt creation for wealth creation ... in terms of this analogy, borrowing 'blood' from wealth producing foreigners in order to 'feed' the US service sector and gov't sector. However, that borrowed 'blood' must eventually be paid back from surplus 'blood' created by future US wealth producers. This is the second 'dirty little secret' ... that there are already too few actual US wealth producers remaining to ever make good on this debt.
eagle2
07-13-2010, 08:21 PM
^^^ in fact I didn't ever create any real 'wealth'. As a 'service sector' worker, in blunt terms I managed to 'rake in' second-hand wealth via club customers from wealth creating industries ( i.e. oil company executives, aircraft industry executives, entertainment industry executives),
The entertainment industry is a service industry.
but more likely in Manhattan clubs I managed to rake in third-hand wealth actually produced by wealth creating industries but 'raked' from those industries by club customers who provided services to those industries. Or stated more accurately, the club customers who were attorneys, bankers, brokers, hedge fundies etc. were parasitic feeders on the actual wealth creators, and the dancers were parasitic feeders on those parasites.
A parasite is someone or something that gets something without giving anything in return. Attorneys, bankers, brokers, and hedge fundies give something in return for what they receive.
Please explain why spending $10 to take a child to a movie is somehow worth less than spending $10 on a toy that was manufactured.
In today's American economy there are obviously multiple levels of parasitic feeders. But the fact ultimately remains that at the beginning there must be an actual wealth creator 'host' that produces the 'blood' that the first level of parasites feed on. Absent a sufficient number of wealth creating 'hosts', the parasites begin to starve. And the farther down the parasitic chain, the sooner they will starve. This is the 'dirty little secret' where service industry workers, gov't workers, and other workers who don't actually create wealth themselves are concerned.
Services are just as vital or even more vital to an economy than manufacturing. No modern economy can exist without a modern banking system, legal system, law enforcement, or education system. I have no idea how you think producing cheap toys is somehow more valuable than a quality education system or legal system.
Lately, the US gov't has been attempting to substitute debt creation for wealth creation ... in terms of this analogy, borrowing 'blood' from wealth producing foreigners in order to 'feed' the US service sector and gov't sector. However, that borrowed 'blood' must eventually be paid back from surplus 'blood' created by future US wealth producers. This is the second 'dirty little secret' ... that there are already too few actual US wealth producers remaining to ever make good on this debt.
The US has more than enough to pay back our debt, which is why we are able to borrow money so cheaply. We wouldn't even have this massive debt were it not for Bush's tax cut and his mismanagement of two wars.
Melonie
07-14-2010, 03:20 AM
The entertainment industry is a service industry.
In this context, the NY segments of the entertainment industries whose executives sometimes appeared in the VIP room 'manufacture' a 'product' and add wealth ... specifically, copyrighted music and copyrighted video.
The US has more than enough to pay back our debt, which is why we are able to borrow money so cheaply
Actually, we are currently using freshly printed dollars to pay back previous debts !!! Sooner or later our foreign lenders will balk.
Melonie
07-14-2010, 06:54 PM
several CEO's of MAJOR US Corporations commenting on future US job growth possibilities ...
(snip)From an investor's view, the United States as described by the CEOs, deserves a long-term "sell" recommendation. These companies are moving capital and jobs to Asia, which is a comparative "buy." For Americans frustrated by the hopeless domestic job market, Asia receives a "look."
Most forthright is David Farr, President, Chairman and CEO of Emerson Electric Corporation, a 120-year-old manufacturer with over $21 billion in annual sales. Emerson's headquarters is in Chicago, Illinois, but maybe not for long:
"Why would any CEO invest one penny in the US? There is not one reason based on the new rules of the game."
- David Farr, CEO, Emerson Electric, quarterly conference call, May 2009 (snip)
(snip)"David Farr has a business to run. He described the reason he is moving Emerson Electric to Asia at the Baird Industrial Conference last November:
"What do I think Washington is doing right now? Washington is doing everything in their manpower capability to destroy U.S. manufacturers. Cap and trade, medical reform, labor rules, whatever they want to do, raise taxes. They're just going to destroy jobs.... What do you think I'm going to do? I'm not going to hire anyone in the United States. I'm moving. So they're doing everything possible to destroy jobs....we employ 125,000 people worldwide. So I do know what the (expletive) I'm talking about."(snip)
(snip)Andy Grove, co-founder and past chairman of Intel Corporation, was interviewed by Bloomberg news on July 1, 2010, an interview which is worth reading in full. ["How to Make an American Job Before it's Too Late"] Grove explains, using past examples from other manufacturing industries, that when production leaves, the engineers, researchers and capital investment follow. Grove also discussed the social consequence of abandoning manufacturing:
"Today, manufacturing employment in the U.S. computer industry is about 166,000 - lower than it was when the first personal computer... was assembled in 1975.... You could say, as many do, that shipping jobs overseas is no big deal because high-value work - and much of the profits - remain in the U.S. But what kind of society are we going to have if it consists of highly paid people doing high-value-added work, and masses of unemployed?"
Paul Otellino, the current CEO of Intel (with annual sales of $35 billion), warned of jobs going overseas in a recent speech: "A new [world scale] semiconductor factory built from scratch costs about $4.5 billion - in the United States. If I build that factory in almost any other country in the world, where they have significant incentive programs, I could save $1 billion [From tax breaks]."
Ivan Seidenberg, CEO of Verizon (which can trace its origins to Alexander Graham Bell, employs 217,000 people, and posted $107 billion in sales during 2009), spoke before the Economic Club of Washington in his capacity as president of the Business Roundtable on June 22, 2010. Seidenberg listed the reasons investors should take a break from the U.S. stock market. From the Wall Street Journal's summary:
"The Obama administration has created 'an increasingly hostile environment for investment and job creation.' The U.S. corporate tax structure is a 'major impediment to international competitiveness.' The government should 'stop trying to micromanage industries.'"
Seidenberg was seconded by Dan DiMicro, CEO of Nucor Corporation (20,000 employees, with $11 billion in annual sales, and a history that stretches back to Ransom E. Olds' REO Motor Car Company, founded in 1905).
"I completely agree with what Ivan was saying about how the government needs to be removing itself from the private sector. For a long time they worked through diplomacy, negotiation, and compromise. But the crisis we're in today is of such magnitude that we have to have action in support of the private sector in a bold and out-front manner."
Armchair economists and opinion-makers toy with their self-serving theories, basking in the glow of tenure and popularity and reminding the public how brilliant they are. Most have never held a real job in their lives. They know next to nothing about how people think outside their atrophied circle, yet, set society's course from opinions bouncing through the echo chamber of self-support and self-congratulation."(snip)
eagle2
07-14-2010, 07:41 PM
Of course your perma-bear sites are going to print articles like that. I remember businesses were saying similar things when Bill Clinton became President and raised taxes.
Melonie
07-15-2010, 03:04 AM
^^^ well, the 'perma-bear' sites as you call them did not put these words in the mouths of these American corporation CEO's ! What they DID do, unlike mainstream financial media, was to allow Americans outside of the 'professional' industry / investor community to 'hear' what these CEO's were saying / planning !
Eric Stoner
07-15-2010, 06:57 AM
Of course your perma-bear sites are going to print articles like that. I remember businesses were saying similar things when Bill Clinton became President and raised taxes.
There was some "dooming and glooming" when Clinton was President but most of it was from Gingrich, et. al. and NOT corporate executives. Unlike Obama, Clinton had the good sense to have a few people in his Administration with actual business experience; who had run something other than a community office. And Clinton LISTENED to them. First after the Dems got clobbered in 1994 and expecially in his second term.
Unlike Obama, Clinton focused on deficit reduction, free trade and a strong dollar.
Melonie
07-16-2010, 12:46 PM
interesting viewpoint on the subject of US jobs creation via stimulus spending and ZIRP ...
(snip)"Economics in Freefall
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Offshoring transforms American workers’ wages into performance bonuses for executives, capital gains for shareholders, and honoraria and research grants for economists who shill for the practice.
The problem that the US economy faces is far more serious than the financial crisis resulting from financial deregulation. The reason that traditional monetary and fiscal policies cannot produce an economic recovery is that so much of the US economy has been moved offshore. As the jobs have departed, there is no [ 'wealth' producing - sic ] work to which low interest rates and massive government spending can recall workers. This is the real freefall. "(snip)
from
~
Deogol
07-16-2010, 04:58 PM
^^^ Somebody is finally getting it.
Melonie
07-16-2010, 05:28 PM
^^^ actually, author Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under the Reagan administration. He has been 'getting it' since Bill Clinton signed NAFTA and gave China 'most favored nation' trade status with the USA ( in exchange for Chinese Clinton 'library' contributions ? ) !
Melonie
07-24-2010, 04:26 AM
here's a fresh update ...
(snip)"The DOL reports on weekly unemployment insurance claims:
In the week ending July 17, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 464,000, an increase of 37,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 427,000. The 4-week moving average was 456,000, an increase of 1,250 from the previous week's revised average of 454,750.
...
The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending July 10 was 4,487,000, a decrease of 223,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 4,710,000.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_pMscxxELHEg/TEg6ijOKHCI/AAAAAAAAI34/moEChHj-m_0/s320/WeeklyClaimsJuly22.jpg
The four-week average of weekly unemployment claims increased this week by 1,250 to 456,000.
The 4-week average of initial weekly claims has been at about the same level since December 2009 (eight months) and the 4-week average of 456,000 is high historically, and suggests a weak labor market."(snip)
from
I would also add that the DOL's 'insured unemployment' estimate was undoubtedly affected by repeated failures of the US congress to renew emergency extended unemployment benefits until this week - which was beginning to 'kick' large numbers of long term unemployed off the 'insured unemployment' roll. With the benefits extension, those ultra-long term unemployed will be piling back onto the 'insured unemployment' roll in short order.