does anybody know

[solarbird]

Everybody's going on about the drop in continuing unemployment insurance claims this week, but I'm wondering about something. Specifically, I'm aware that there are two ends to this line, not just one. Allow me to explain.

Unemployment insurance, unless extended, runs for six months. Unemployment started spiking up pretty hard in January this year; that was the only month even the BLS's crazy birth/death model showed lost jobs. That's six months ago. My question: is the weekly continuing-claim purely a matter of people running out of unemployment insurance? If so, that's not better. That's worse.

Now, unemployment insurance often gets extended in downturns. Has there been a Federal extension that I don't remember? I do know that some states have provided extensions (e.g., Washington State) but I'm also aware that few states are able to do that right now because of their drained unemployment insurance funds. (Unlike most states, we have a substantial surplus.)

That's the question in my mind today. The next U-5 and U-6 reports will be extremely interesting.

Also, I started a news post last night but didn't get far enough along to post it. And now I have a show! Maybe tonight.

eta: interactiveleaf has it: there has been an extension, but they changed the rules to make claim-filing more difficult. Rules went into effect this week - and lo, claims dropped. It's like magic.

eta2: No, wait, it's more complicated than that. People on extended unemployment don't count in that figure. So it is people wrapping off six months of eligibility - but only "extended" eligibility, not off entirely. In other words: the number is bullshit. (Source NPR.)

Comments

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

Note that new claims rose slightly. Also, according to sophiaserpentia, this week changes went into effect that make it more onerous (http://sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com/884980.html) to actually collect; now you have to get employers to sign off on a form confirming that you've actually applied for a job.

[solarbird]

Elevated to top as an eta. Thanks.

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

Yep. Fffffuckers.

[ankh-f-n-khonsu.livejournal.com]

With all the propaganda and confabulated statistics, what do you think the actual unemployment rate stands at?

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

The official unemployment rate has been garbage for years and is only getting worse. U5 and U6 seem like much more realistic indicators of employment strength or weakness.

[lordperrin.livejournal.com]

Where are these new regulations in effect? I am currently collecting in Connecticut, and I do not have to do this, nor is there any new alerts on the CT Department of Labor website saying that I will need to do this. The LJ you linked to does not seem to tell me this information. Thanks.

[silussa.livejournal.com]

This evening's Marketplace from American Public Radio stated at one point that people on extended unemployment (the extension past six months) are counted in a different category.

Near the bottom: http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/06/18/pm_unemployment/ (http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/06/18/pm_unemployment/)

[solarbird]

Oh, it's Massachusetts only? Or maybe states that have borrowed from the fed only? This needs more investigation.

I guess I don't have a good answer for this. I should do research to see whether it's just one state or more than one. (Note to self: DO NOT RUN WITH SHORT-SOURCE MATERIAL. Even if you're in a hurry and it's interesting.)

[solarbird]

Oh wait, NPR has the bigger factor: Apparently people on extended unemployment don't count in that number! So what you saw was roll-off - only onto extended unemployment rather than employment or no coverage at all:

Source, courtesy silussa, below.

[lordperrin.livejournal.com]

Please let me know what you find, I have not been able to uncover any information on this, and I'd like to know if I will soon be required to go through these nasty hoops in order to collect my unemployment.

[backrubbear.livejournal.com]

I can't speak for official numbers - I don't follow such things except perhaps cursorily through your posts. I can say that it's a well known phenomenon in Michigan for people to fall off the unemployment rate by simply being unable to collect any longer. A random local NPR spot a few months ago said that there was probably another 10% of the local working population that's unemployed and no longer eligible for benefits.

[jimmywitz.livejournal.com]

You're right. All the stats on unemployment have been something of a sham for years. The primary figures are the worst. They don't count the long-term unemployed, or those who are denied unemployment benefits because they didn't work long enough in the prvious six months. Nor do they count those ineligible because they are "contract" workers filing 1099, and this is a rapidly increasing group of workers. And of course, they don't count those who are "under-employed" working part-time, or doing just "odd jobs". So REAL unemployment is probably nearer 15%, conservatively.
A more realistic figure could be derived from average working week, factored by the number of people willing and able to work.
The real facts will come out using what i think is the most significant figure: real median family incomes. We will see a drop in this this yea of about 6%, possibly more if the banks get back into the game of speculating again in the oil market and driving the prices back up above $100 a barrel.