Well, as unemployment is a lagging indicator this could be good news supporting the claim that the recession is over OR it could mean that more people have stopped looking for work and thus don't show up.

IIRC, you should see a slight uptick in unemployment right before the economy gets back into gear, as more people get out actively looking for jobs.

It might mean more people ran out of benefits and are now about to be homeless and broke. Or they broke down and took that job as a Sonic car hop.

boner.

Algebrat: These are *new* unemployment claims.

Yeah, I'll admit my reading comprehension has been unemployed for some time, and has given up looking and working.

This is due to the economy recovering because of the probability that the Republicans will take back the House and Senate. Finally, the grown-ups will be back in charge and will roll us back to the laws and rules that helped us enjoy the economic boom of the previous decade.

ihatedumbpeople: Nah. Not good news, people are just unemployed so long they're losing eligibility, hence the claims go down.

You must hate yourself.

Saiga410: How does this affect my poitics so I know how to react to this news?

Always default to outrage. You'll rarely be wrong.

If only people would give Obama a little of their faith, instead of falling for the doom-and-gloom rhetoric of his critics.

Algebrat: These are *new* unemployment claims. They don't reflect people who've been out of work for a while, only people who recently lost their jobs. The fact that there are fewer layoffs is in itself a leading indicator to a possible uptick in hiring. We're still a few months off from any real improvement in the unemployment rate, but the direction of the labor market looks to be turning positive this fall.

You know, they scraped a guy up off the pavement down the road a piece. I understand he was bleeding like a sonovabiatch when it first happened, but the bleeding slowed then stopped. He must have gotten better, because the ambulance workers wanted nothing to do with him.

Right?

Algebrat:
That's a pretty good metaphor, since unemployment is close to 100%. People are losing fewer jobs because there are no more jobs to lose. I mean, it feels right, so it's gotta be right. Right?

Actually, death by exsanguination rarely involves loss of all blood. There comes a point before complete blood loss, especially when bleeding is relatively slow but continues unabated, that the heart no longer functions, for a variety of reasons, which causes bleeding to stop. Blood loss will slow as blood volume and pressure decrease, especially to extremities.

Similarly, society will cease to function long before 100% unemployment is reached, regardless of the reason for the condition. I can't tell you what this number is. I don't think we're there, or will be there any time soon. I can tell you that there are less, overall, non-essential workers in the workforce than there were in 2000, you can agree with that, right?

Once you've gotten to a certain % of floor sweepers, redundant/standby personnel, telephone sanitizers, etc, the only people left to lay off are the people who will be missed, those who NEED to be there for the business to function with the same outcomes as before, i.e., if you have a shop with 10 guys that each know how to run 3 machines, and one machine for each guy, how many can you lay off before you have machines that can't be run at all because nobody knows how to use them? Assuming equal distribution the answer is 6. Lay off 7 and one machine is a paperweight. Lay off 8 and four machines collect dust. Lay off all but one and you're down to having only three machines that you can use.

And much like "full employment" is not 0% unemployment, there is a certain point at which this necessary/discretionary employment ratio becomes azeotropic.