Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Weekly Jobless Claims Rise, Hiring Doesn’t Pick Up

September 9, 2011 by  

Officials from the Labor Department noted that the weekly applications for unemployment benefits rose more than 2,000, bringing the seasonally adjusted claims to 414,000.The Associated Press reported that the number of individuals that are seeking unemployment benefits rose slightly over the past week, indicating that the job market is stagnant and not improving.

Officials from the Labor Department noted that the weekly applications for unemployment benefits rose more than 2,000, bringing the seasonally adjusted claims to 414,000, according to the news outlet.

The number of unemployment applications needs to drop below 375,000 in order for there to be sustainable job growth. This level has not been reached since February, reported the AP.

Numbers from the four-week average, a less volatile measurement, increased for the third straight week to 414,750. These numbers do not include the number of Americans who are receiving benefits under Federal programs, the news outlet reported.

Economists that were surveyed by Bloomberg News had initially projected a drop in the number of claims to 405,000, and the lack of special circumstances that could have contributed to the rise has signaled a weak economic outlook, according to the news source.

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Weekly Jobless Claims Rise, Hiring Doesn’t Pick Up”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • Tim

    How can we create more jobs without a manufacturing base. Thanks to NAFTA and our insane trade agreement with China, our manufacturing base is gone. The delusional among us will say that there are jobs for those who want to work. But, what kind of jobs? You can’t take a person who once made $20.00 an hour in manufacturing and give them a job making $8.00 an hour and expect things to work out. Any company that sends it’s work out of this country should be taxed to the hilt. If they can’t make their crap here, then they should be made to feel the pain. There endeavors should be made unprofitable.

    • coal miner


      Amen! I agree with you one hundred percent.Send a message to these greedy bastards.

    • Bob McCormick

      You hit the nail on the head. Every unemployed American knows this, we need to get the message to the idiots in Washington.

    • DaveH

      The loss of our manufacturers was not a result of NAFTA, even though it is an oxymoron to call a Government administered program “Free Trade”. Our manufacturing companies have for many reasons, mostly due to Government meddling in the Marketplace. More Government meddling would not change that. If Big Government were the solution to our lost jobs then Zimbabwe, Cuba, and North Korea would have robust economies:

      And Tim, they were made to “feel the pain”. That’s why they left our country.

      How can we create more jobs without a manufacturing base. Thanks to NAFTA and our insane trade agreement with China, our manufacturing base is gone. The delusional among us will say that there are jobs for those who want to work. But, what kind of jobs? You can’t take a person who once made $20.00 an hour in manufacturing and give them a job making $8.00 an hour and expect things to work out. Any company that sends it’s work out of this country should be taxed to the hilt. If they can’t make their crap here, then they should be made to feel the pain. There endeavors should be made unprofitable.

      • DaveH

        Note: the last paragraph was from Tim’s comment.

  • Bernie

    Take away the disincentive to send manufacturing jobs overseas…..start with the job killing union demands…….lower corporate taxes……….repatriate overseas corporate cash by removing the tax penalty…….get rid of the IRS….

  • coal miner


    “Outsourcing American jobs offshore is bad, and we are just beginning to see the effects of our offshore binge. The scary part is that the majority of the offshore jobs are being sent by financial companies.

    So, now, someone working in a call center in India has access to my SSN, my credit card number, and all of my information. The security over there is so lax that they can easily steal that information and start opening up accounts in my name.”

    Not to mention the fact that corporate greed is driving honest hard-working Americans jobs offshore. It’s pathetic.

    • coal miner

      Busines Week:

      Outsourcing: Where’s Uncle Sam?
      The U.S. government should safeguard the interests of its citizens and do more to stop companies from sending jobs abroad. Corporations have framed the debate far too long
      Good for Corporatons, Bad for U.S. Workers
      No one likes the idea of American jobs moving overseas. But in recent years, the U.S. has accepted the outsourcing of tens of thousands of jobs, in everything from technology support to Wall Street research. Many prominent corporate executives, politicians, and academics have argued that we have no choice, that with globalization it’s critical to tap the lower costs and unique skills of labor abroad to remain competitive. Samuel Palmisano, the chief executive of IBM (IBM), made this point last year when he hosted IBM’s investor conference in Bangalore, India, the first ever held outside the U.S. He pointed out that IBM now has 43,000 people working in India who are part of “a new kind of organization,” one that’s designed not around a single country, “but on a truly planet-wide model.”

      Yet a critical point has been lost in the debate: The interests of U.S. corporations are often not the same as those of the country and its citizens. Hiring staff in India may help companies like IBM, Dell (DELL), Microsoft (MSFT), Accenture (ACN), and others lower their costs and boost their profits, but it hurts the workers who lose jobs and those who lose the prospect of jobs.

      Economist Paul Samuelson, a Nobel Prize winner, wrote in a 2004 paper that the economic effect of outsourcing is similar to allowing mass immigration of workers willing to compete for service jobs at extremely low wages. They can drive down the income for huge swaths of the middle class, even if they benefit their employers. “Mainstream trade economists have insufficiently noticed the drastic change in mean U.S. incomes and in inequalities among different U.S. classes,” he wrote.

      There’s no question that the American people would like their government to take a stand against companies that send jobs overseas. A Zogby International poll found that 71% of Americans believe that outsourcing jobs overseas hurts the U.S. economy, and 62% say the U.S. government should tax or legislate to try to stop the job loss.

      Yet virtually nothing has been done. “We need some creative solutions here,” says Ron Hira, a public policy professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology who is now on leave at the progressive Economic Policy Institute. While some outsourcing opponents advocate taxes on companies that send jobs overseas, that’s controversial because it could end up handicapping U.S. companies and becoming counterproductive.

      Still, there are other steps that government officials could take. Hira points out that decoupling health-care plans from the employer and making the plans more portable would be an important step, since U.S. companies now bear the costs of health care while rivals in countries with government-sponsored care don’t. U.S. visa programs could be modified too. He says that some of the most active users of visas for visiting workers are Indian outsourcing firms, which appear to be training workers in the U.S. and then sending them home to be more effective at taking U.S. jobs. The most important point perhaps is to reexamine the costs of letting American jobs go abroad. “The CEOs of international companies have been dominating the debate and the current situation serves their interests,” Hira says.

      • DaveH

        You just don’t get it, do you Coal Miner? Big Government caters to certain Big Businessmen, notably to those who help them get re-elected. They call them Crony Capitalists. No, they are not representative of Capitalism, any more than a thief or a murderer is representative of his friends and neighbors. They can take advantage of the system because ignorant people have allowed the Government to get heavily involved in the Marketplace. The Crony Capitalists are often involved in the regulatory process, thus helping to tailor the regulations to protect themselves while deluding the ignorant people into thinking that Big Government is protecting them. Even when the regulations are applied evenly, the larger companies benefit because they can afford the cadres of lawyers and accountants to wade through the regulations. Their smaller competitors can’t afford them, so many of them go out of business and many other would-be competitors are discouraged from trying.
        It isn’t Capitalism that is the problem. It is the perversion of Capitalism by Big Government that is the problem. We need to get Government out of the Marketplace and bring back competition. The only way we can accomplish that is to educate Ignorant people. And judging from many of the comments on this board that is going to be a difficult task.

  • FreedomFighter

    Is this the “SUCKING” sound Rossy talked about, of NAFTA sending jobs out of the US?

    Why yes sir it is.

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

    • Raggs

      You bet it is…

    • DaveH

      For those who don’t understand the role of Free Trade in our economy:

      NAFTA is NOT Free Trade. But I also don’t believe that it is responsible for the loss of our manufacturing base. Big Government bears that responsibility. As Government Grows, Corruption Flows. That’s just a fact of life. NAFTA should be eliminated, but only to be replaced by true Free Trade. That is to get our Government out of our Marketplaces. Let the consumers decide which companies survive and which fail.
      Remember that when we protect our own companies from foreign trade that restriction cuts both ways (trade wars). If we tariff their products, for instance, their loss of sales results in them being able to purchase fewer of our exports. Restricting trade is not the answer to our problems. It didn’t work during the Great Depression, and it won’t work now.

  • eddie47d

    Even more reason to get this urgent Jobs Bill passed. Not only that there are several other job bills sitting on the House floor by both parties and yet nothing is done. Is Congress sleeping? Are they afraid to take bold action on a serious problem? Are they not getting paid enough..ha ha get this country moving? Do we need to go to Washington and hold their hand and walk them through the process?

    • Raggs

      You… ARE A MORON

      What is it about oblamas non-plan that you do not understand?

      This F-K-turd is only going to give billions to the unions for his re-election and why can’t you see that?

      • http://?? Joe H.

        HI! I’M FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND I’M HERE TO HELP!!! Are you a little scared yet???

      • DaveH

        Because he’s one of the recipients, Raggs.

        • http://?? Joe H.

          Was that pointed at me? I’m not a recipient of any government help of any kind! I have never collected welfare, I did collect unemployment for two months in 1980 and I moved to another state to obtain a job. I work every day of my life, and I don’t appreciate your assumptions! I have been on this site for about two years and have supported almost all you have said, even stuck up for you more than a few times and if this is what you return for that, then perhaps you should search your soul a little closer!

  • Jon

    Search Google for” Bush Signed Afghanistan Invasion The Day Before 9/11!

  • Raggs

    This make believe fairytale butt wiping bull-chit is getting on my nerves.
    Ironic that there is a “NEW” terror threat as soon as oblama finishes his pro union anti-american speech… Bull crap it is NOT ironic at all!!!! They want to instill fear in the sheeple as they prance around like Hitlers gestapo… You have to ask yourself… WHY the hell would the POS government tell you that there is a threat of a terrorist???? Anyone with half a brain knows that you do not leak that kind of information if it is a true threat… Would the military give you a months notice before they bomb your ass? Come on people you are all being played as fools!!!! Make no mistake about it… oblama is a sorry son of a bitch!

  • DaveH

    From the years before the Progressives arrived to chase away our manufacturers:

    Remember when there were “Robber Barons”? It seems that those who know how to build an economy will be damned if they do, and damned if they don’t, by the ignorant among us who think that countries can steal their way to prosperity.

    • Raggs

      oblama the tyrant feels as if he can spend ( blow )our money on the unions in order to achieve for himself immortality while the unions achieve prosperity on the backs all of us worthless slaves….

      • DaveH

        Yep, just about everything the Obama administration is doing involves a transfer of wealth from the citizens to the special interests that revolve around Obama.
        When the government borrows money to support special interests, the rest of us (and future generations) are on the hook to pay that money back.
        When the Federal Reserve creates excess money to support special interests, they are robbing from the savings of the rest of us by diminishing their value. That includes the value of the money of those who are on fixed incomes.

        • Raggs

          How true… The system that we have only works for those that are in the loop and the rest be dammed. I personally do not care what it will take to rid ourselves of every one of these thugs that only have their self interest in mind.. Just take a look at pelosi the queen she is said to be worth billions ( our money ) … Something needs to happen….

  • coal miner

    Science Daily:
    Psychological studies.

    A More Progressive Tax System Makes People Happier, 54-Nation Study Finds
    ScienceDaily (Sep. 6, 2011) — The way some people talk, you’d think that a flat tax system — in which everyone pays at the same rate regardless of income — would make citizens feel better than more progressive taxation, where wealthier people are taxed at higher rates. Indeed, the U.S. has been diminishing progressivity of its tax structure for decades.

    But a new study comparing 54 nations found that flattening the tax risks flattening social wellbeing as well. “The more progressive the tax policy is, the happier the citizens are,” says University of Virginia psychologist Shigehiro Oishi, summarizing the findings, which will be published in an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science. Oishi conducted the study with Ulrich Schimmack of the University of Toronto at Mississauga and Ed Diener, also at University of Illinois and the Gallup Organization.

    The researchers analyzed the relationship between tax progressivity and personal well-being in 54 nations surveyed by the Gallup Organization in 2007 — a total of 59,634 respondents. Well-being was expressed in people’s assessments of their overall life quality, from “worst” to “best possible life,” on a scale of 1 to 10; and in whether they enjoyed positive daily experiences (such as smiling, being treated with respect, and eating good food) or suffered negative ones, including sadness, worry, and shame. Finally, the analysis looked at the participants’ satisfaction with their nation’s public goods, from schools to clean air.

    The degree of progressivity was measured by the difference between the highest and lowest tax rates, corrected for such confounding factors as family size, social security taxes paid, and tax benefits received by individuals.

    The results: On average, residents of the nations with the most progressive taxation evaluated their own lives as closer to “the best possible.” They also reported having more satisfying experiences and fewer discomfiting ones than respondents living in nations with less progressive taxes. That happiness, Oishi says, was “explained by a greater degree of satisfaction with the public goods, such as housing, education, and public transportation.”

    Higher government spending per se did not yield greater happiness, in spite of the well-being that was associated with satisfaction with state-funded services. In fact, there was a slight negative correlation between government spending and average happiness.

    “That data is kind of weird,” Oishi says. He guesses that the misalignment might indicate national differences in the efficiency with which those services are delivered or in people’s relative ability to access them. For example, the U.S. spends more on education and health care than other developed countries, “but its international standing in those areas is not so great.” Such puzzling findings may be illuminated in further research.

    The study, like others Oishi has done looking at connections between economics and personal life, has important social implications. “If the goal of societies is to make citizens happy, tax policy matters,” he says. “Certain policies, like tax progressivity, seem to be more conducive to the happiness of the people

    • Raggs

      WTF kind of ignorant chit is that?

      You study must have came from the same goons that say that the earth is melting…

      Beam us up scotty the earth is falling…

      How is it that when the communist want more money that they attempt to tell us that WE the people want them to reach DEEPER into our pockets? WTF WTF WTF…. MORONIC STUPID RETARED BS.

      This F-un chimp is prancing around the country celebrating 9/11 as his political gain.. I say to hell with him.

      • coal miner

        You better read that post again,that is if you got the intellectual capacity to understand it. Science Daily is a very prestigious news source,well renown world wide.I am sure you and DaveH will agree with this other post.Science Daily takes no sides,it just reports the latest findings in different fields of Science.Got a problem with that?

        Science News
        Couples Who Receive Government Assistance Report Less Marital Satisfaction, Commitment, U.S. Study Finds
        ScienceDaily (Sep. 7, 2011) — For better or worse, marital quality influences the well-being of couples and those around them. In addition, economic and social hardships can reduce overall happiness within marriages. According to a new study from the University of Missouri, low-income couples who receive government assistance, such as Medicaid or Food Stamps, are significantly less satisfied and committed in their marriages.

        Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development
        “We found that there’s a unique relationship among income level, government assistance and marital satisfaction and commitment,” said David Schramm, assistant professor in Human Development and Family Studies in the College of Human Environmental Sciences. “The study confirms that low income does have a negative impact on marital quality, but there are additional factors as well. The relationship between income and marital satisfaction is influenced by other issues, including whether or not the couple receives some form of government assistance.”

        In the study, couples with low incomes (less than $20,000 per year) scored significantly lower on five of the six dimensions of marital quality: overall satisfaction, commitment, divorce proneness, feelings of being trapped in a marriage, and negative interaction. Married individuals who received government assistance reported similar scores. Couples that experienced the combination of earning low-incomes while receiving government assistance had drastically lower levels of overall marital satisfaction and commitment.

        “Economic hardship, the feeling of strain and tension associated with money issues, tends to be a driver for other stressors,” Schramm said. “For example, if couples can’t pay the bills, then they are likely to be more irritable and stressed about other areas of life. This leads to negative interactions between spouses or individual feelings of being trapped because they can’t survive on their own. It’s a constant drain on many aspects of marital quality and overall well-being.”

        Few studies have focused on government assistance and marital quality. This study provides evidence supporting the distinct relationship between these factors. Future research should address additional factors beyond income and marital quality, Schramm said.

        “It’s likely there are pre-existing or co-existing issues that occur in addition to the receipt of government assistance,” Schramm said. “Possible explanations for the relationship among income, government assistance and marriage include mental health issues, psychiatric disorders, physical handicaps and substance abuse problems.”

        Based on the findings and related research, Schramm plans to implement education programs aimed at low-income couples who receive government assistance.

        “Now we’ve identified a specific population to target with marriage and relationship education,” Schramm said. “No longer will we reach out to just low-income couples. Specifically, programs will target couples who receive government assistance and provide resources, including healthy relationship and wellness education, employment training and financial planning.”

        The study was published in the September issue of the Journal of Family and Economic Issues.

  • Sara

    I understand that a little over 9% of the people in America is without Jobs, but what about the 91% who are working. Am I missing something here. You can never get 100% of the people working no matter what you do. There are illegal drugs users, criminals,vet’s who come home and unable to work due to various disablities, and those who just don’t want to work. How many of the 9% fall in this catagory?

    • http://?? Joe H.

      Those are just the ones still collecting benefits!! The ones not activly collecting because they have exhausted thier unemployment are not even counted. The ones that got laid off from, say a machinists job and now working at Mickey D’s are considered fully employed, as well! The true unemployment percentage is probably closer to about 29%!!!


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.