[Mick]

...to be 2.5 million by the standard group of economists, raising total number of initial unemployment claims to 36 million poor souls who have lost their means to pay for rent, food and other luxuries in the last eight weeks.  

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-joble...ent-2020-5

My guess is the 2.5 million is low, and the prior week's report will be revised upward.  Again.  

Total employment will be 131 million.  
At the end of February, total labor force was 164,546,000.
At the end of April, total labor force was 156,481,000.  Over 8 million people departed the labor force in two months, and are not reflected in the 14.7% unemployment rate at close of April.  A grand total of 40 million people would like jobs but don't have one, more than one in four workers.

Jay Powell, Chairman of the Fed said the brunt of the impact of the joblessness hammered the poor.  And not only would it hammer the poor, but that it will destroy life's work and ruin any kind of economic comeback.  Also stated that 40% of those affected made less than $40k in their households:

The Fed chair in his speech outlined the worrying scenario posed by mass bankruptcies and unemployment while asserting that policy makers may have to do more to prevent these from coming to pass. He said the Fed would publish a survey Thursday showing almost 40% of Americans in households making less than $40,000 a year had lost a job in March.

“Long stretches of unemployment can damage or end workers’ careers as their skills lose value and professional networks dry up, and leave families in greater debt,” Powell said. “The loss of thousands of small- and medium-sized businesses across the country would destroy the life’s work and family legacy of many business and community leaders and limit the strength of the recovery when it comes.”

Maybe it's me, but this sounds a lot more like a Main Street problem than a Wall Street problem.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...to-be-done

[Mick]

...to be 2.5 million by the standard group of economists, raising total number of initial unemployment claims to 36 million poor souls who have lost their means to pay for rent, food and other luxuries in the last eight weeks.  

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-joble...ent-2020-5

My guess is the 2.5 million is low, and the prior week's report will be revised upward.  Again.  

Total employment will be 131 million.  
At the end of February, total labor force was 164,546,000.
At the end of April, total labor force was 156,481,000.  Over 8 million people departed the labor force in two months, and are not reflected in the 14.7% unemployment rate at close of April.  A grand total of 40 million people would like jobs but don't have one, more than one in four workers.

Jay Powell, Chairman of the Fed said the brunt of the impact of the joblessness hammered the poor.  And not only would it hammer the poor, but that it will destroy life's work and ruin any kind of economic comeback.  Also stated that 40% of those affected made less than $40k in their households:

The Fed chair in his speech outlined the worrying scenario posed by mass bankruptcies and unemployment while asserting that policy makers may have to do more to prevent these from coming to pass. He said the Fed would publish a survey Thursday showing almost 40% of Americans in households making less than $40,000 a year had lost a job in March.

“Long stretches of unemployment can damage or end workers’ careers as their skills lose value and professional networks dry up, and leave families in greater debt,” Powell said. “The loss of thousands of small- and medium-sized businesses across the country would destroy the life’s work and family legacy of many business and community leaders and limit the strength of the recovery when it comes.”

Maybe it's me, but this sounds a lot more like a Main Street problem than a Wall Street problem.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...to-be-done

[Nan3cy]

I saw a statistic that, of the households in the US making under $40K/yr, 40% of the individuals in those households have lost their jobs.

[Nan3cy]

I saw a statistic that, of the households in the US making under $40K/yr, 40% of the individuals in those households have lost their jobs.

[Mick]

I saw a statistic that, of the households in the US making under $40K/yr, 40% of the individuals in those households have lost their jobs.

Right, that was Jay Powell, chairman of the Fed. About 35% of all households make under $40k annually, so it is hitting them disproportionately hard.

---

...to be 2.5 million by the standard group of economists, raising total number of initial unemployment claims to 36 million poor souls who have lost their means to pay for rent, food and other luxuries in the last eight weeks.  

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-joble...ent-2020-5

My guess is the 2.5 million is low, and the prior week's report will be revised upward.  Again.  

I was right, the 2.5 million initial unemployment claims last week was absurdly low. The actual number was 2.981 million, off by almost half a million. This brings the eight week total of initial unemployment claims to about 36.5 million. Current employment rate is 51.3%, down from 60.0% at the end of March. Labor force participation rate down to 60.2% of all working age adults, down from 63.4% at the end of March. Technically, the unemployment rate at the end of April was 14.7%. Add another 6 million initial jobless claims in May (to date), and the current rate is closer to 19%.

36.5 million jobs lost, or about 428 lives ruined for every life lost to the coronavirus. Add the fact that typically two other people depend on those people for revenue to pay the bills, and you have about 1,283 lives harmed for every life lost.

[Mick]

I saw a statistic that, of the households in the US making under $40K/yr, 40% of the individuals in those households have lost their jobs.

Right, that was Jay Powell, chairman of the Fed. About 35% of all households make under $40k annually, so it is hitting them disproportionately hard.

---

...to be 2.5 million by the standard group of economists, raising total number of initial unemployment claims to 36 million poor souls who have lost their means to pay for rent, food and other luxuries in the last eight weeks.  

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-joble...ent-2020-5

My guess is the 2.5 million is low, and the prior week's report will be revised upward.  Again.  

I was right, the 2.5 million initial unemployment claims last week was absurdly low. The actual number was 2.981 million, off by almost half a million. This brings the eight week total of initial unemployment claims to about 36.5 million. Current employment rate is 51.3%, down from 60.0% at the end of March. Labor force participation rate down to 60.2% of all working age adults, down from 63.4% at the end of March. Technically, the unemployment rate at the end of April was 14.7%. Add another 6 million initial jobless claims in May (to date), and the current rate is closer to 19%.

36.5 million jobs lost, or about 428 lives ruined for every life lost to the coronavirus. Add the fact that typically two other people depend on those people for revenue to pay the bills, and you have about 1,283 lives harmed for every life lost.

[2006alum]

36.5 million jobs lost, or about 428 lives ruined for every life lost to the coronavirus.  Add the fact that typically two other people depend on those people for revenue to pay the bills, and you have about 1,283 lives harmed for every life lost.

I still don't understand why you are framing this that way. The economic fallout is not for the sake of the lives lost, it's for the sake of the lives saved. Not to mention the many of us who have no desire to end up in the hospital for several weeks on an oxygen machine, as several of my young, healthy, no-comorbidity friends have been. My cousin's sister-in-law has lost 11 friends and relatives to COVID-19 already, and she has been stricken with COVID-19 and bedridden herself for two weeks. None of those people count in the "deaths" category but I can assure you they all experienced severe, long-term consequences as a result of this. (And at a minimum, all the survivors lost weeks of work while they were too ill to stand up, let alone go to work.)

But by your tally, all of that suffering counts for nothing, as well as the avoidance of the suffering of the many, many others. Seems like a completely wrong-headed way to view this.

[2006alum]

36.5 million jobs lost, or about 428 lives ruined for every life lost to the coronavirus.  Add the fact that typically two other people depend on those people for revenue to pay the bills, and you have about 1,283 lives harmed for every life lost.

I still don't understand why you are framing this that way. The economic fallout is not for the sake of the lives lost, it's for the sake of the lives saved. Not to mention the many of us who have no desire to end up in the hospital for several weeks on an oxygen machine, as several of my young, healthy, no-comorbidity friends have been. My cousin's sister-in-law has lost 11 friends and relatives to COVID-19 already, and she has been stricken with COVID-19 and bedridden herself for two weeks. None of those people count in the "deaths" category but I can assure you they all experienced severe, long-term consequences as a result of this. (And at a minimum, all the survivors lost weeks of work while they were too ill to stand up, let alone go to work.)

But by your tally, all of that suffering counts for nothing, as well as the avoidance of the suffering of the many, many others. Seems like a completely wrong-headed way to view this.

[Farm93]

Mick,

Unemployment is tough, but it will only get worse.  Stay-at-home mandates are not going to fuel unemployment from here.

Fear of death will continue to drive economic activity down.
Fear of expensive hospital stays for those uninsured and under-insured will also drive economic activity down.
The expectation of a second wave based on prior pandemics will also drive down consumer spending while driving up savings.
And all of those things will cause companies to focus on cost containment rather than expansion (more unemployment).
Several industries will struggle for several months, not because of the stay at home orders, but because of the deadly virus. 

CSU is an easy example for those of us in California.
CSU's announcement had nothing to do with current stay-at-home orders and everything to do with the reducing the odds of expensive and deadly virus outbreaks on the CSU campuses between October 2020 and March 2021.   
The choice was made to save lives and avoid emergency campus closures, but the CSU closing of campuses will cause thousands of workers to not have their jobs this academic year. (More unemployment claims)

Put it together and the unemployment will keep on climbing up, not because of stay at home orders by governors, but by fear that the virus is out of control in our country.

I feel sorry for POTUS45 as he tries to find a way to boost the economy even while the virus rages and creates economy crushing fear.  I understand why he can't afford to honestly portray how bleak the next 6-12 months could be for USA citizens, but based on his body language when he talks about COVID19 I am pretty confident he knows the economic metrics are all going to remain unfavorable.

[Farm93]

Mick,

Unemployment is tough, but it will only get worse.  Stay-at-home mandates are not going to fuel unemployment from here.

Fear of death will continue to drive economic activity down.
Fear of expensive hospital stays for those uninsured and under-insured will also drive economic activity down.
The expectation of a second wave based on prior pandemics will also drive down consumer spending while driving up savings.
And all of those things will cause companies to focus on cost containment rather than expansion (more unemployment).
Several industries will struggle for several months, not because of the stay at home orders, but because of the deadly virus. 

CSU is an easy example for those of us in California.
CSU's announcement had nothing to do with current stay-at-home orders and everything to do with the reducing the odds of expensive and deadly virus outbreaks on the CSU campuses between October 2020 and March 2021.   
The choice was made to save lives and avoid emergency campus closures, but the CSU closing of campuses will cause thousands of workers to not have their jobs this academic year. (More unemployment claims)

Put it together and the unemployment will keep on climbing up, not because of stay at home orders by governors, but by fear that the virus is out of control in our country.

I feel sorry for POTUS45 as he tries to find a way to boost the economy even while the virus rages and creates economy crushing fear.  I understand why he can't afford to honestly portray how bleak the next 6-12 months could be for USA citizens, but based on his body language when he talks about COVID19 I am pretty confident he knows the economic metrics are all going to remain unfavorable.

[OutsiderFan]

I feel sorry for POTUS45 as he tries to find a way to boost the economy...

I have an idea. Tell the goddamned truth for once.

Imagine Winston Churchill telling Brits that Germany wasn't really a threat and they'd all just go away. No need for anyone to change their daily routine. No need to listen to air raid horns, take shelter at night, and no need to prepare for a hard fight that will require each Brit to pay a heavy price to save themselves, but if they do they would prevail. 

If the POTUS leveled with the American people, told them how hard things were going to be but that he had their back, took full responsibility for everything, was visibly working his butt off, while providing transparent data, and otherwise demonstrating competence, it would be a demonstration of leadership that would make re-election easy, no matter how bad things are. Instead, the white flag is waved, and there is now an effort to suppress truth - the same thing that was supposedly so unconscionable for China - from the American people, while blaming others.

The facts demonstrate the guy's mind is unfit for the job he has. Maybe we should all feel sorry for psychopaths. My sorrow is more reserved for the lives of those they destroy.

[OutsiderFan]

I feel sorry for POTUS45 as he tries to find a way to boost the economy...

I have an idea. Tell the goddamned truth for once.

Imagine Winston Churchill telling Brits that Germany wasn't really a threat and they'd all just go away. No need for anyone to change their daily routine. No need to listen to air raid horns, take shelter at night, and no need to prepare for a hard fight that will require each Brit to pay a heavy price to save themselves, but if they do they would prevail. 

If the POTUS leveled with the American people, told them how hard things were going to be but that he had their back, took full responsibility for everything, was visibly working his butt off, while providing transparent data, and otherwise demonstrating competence, it would be a demonstration of leadership that would make re-election easy, no matter how bad things are. Instead, the white flag is waved, and there is now an effort to suppress truth - the same thing that was supposedly so unconscionable for China - from the American people, while blaming others.

The facts demonstrate the guy's mind is unfit for the job he has. Maybe we should all feel sorry for psychopaths. My sorrow is more reserved for the lives of those they destroy.

[stupac2]

36.5 million jobs lost, or about 428 lives ruined for every life lost to the coronavirus.  Add the fact that typically two other people depend on those people for revenue to pay the bills, and you have about 1,283 lives harmed for every life lost.

I still don't understand why you are framing this that way. The economic fallout is not for the sake of the lives lost, it's for the sake of the lives saved. Not to mention the many of us who have no desire to end up in the hospital for several weeks on an oxygen machine, as several of my young, healthy, no-comorbidity friends have been. My cousin's sister-in-law has lost 11 friends and relatives to COVID-19 already, and she has been stricken with COVID-19 and bedridden herself for two weeks. None of those people count in the "deaths" category but I can assure you they all experienced severe, long-term consequences as a result of this. (And at a minimum, all the survivors lost weeks of work while they were too ill to stand up, let alone go to work.)

But by your tally, all of that suffering counts for nothing, as well as the avoidance of the suffering of the many, many others. Seems like a completely wrong-headed way to view this.

It's not just that, but losing a job doesn't ruin a life, many of these jobs will come back, especially if there's a coherent policy response. The only way to prevent this sort of collapse is to prevent the virus from reaching us, which is long since gone. After that you're just talking about managing the pain, which we've done abysmally. Hopefully the next relief bill comes through, otherwise we're looking at enduring an entirely preventable depression because of federal incompetence.

[stupac2]

36.5 million jobs lost, or about 428 lives ruined for every life lost to the coronavirus.  Add the fact that typically two other people depend on those people for revenue to pay the bills, and you have about 1,283 lives harmed for every life lost.

I still don't understand why you are framing this that way. The economic fallout is not for the sake of the lives lost, it's for the sake of the lives saved. Not to mention the many of us who have no desire to end up in the hospital for several weeks on an oxygen machine, as several of my young, healthy, no-comorbidity friends have been. My cousin's sister-in-law has lost 11 friends and relatives to COVID-19 already, and she has been stricken with COVID-19 and bedridden herself for two weeks. None of those people count in the "deaths" category but I can assure you they all experienced severe, long-term consequences as a result of this. (And at a minimum, all the survivors lost weeks of work while they were too ill to stand up, let alone go to work.)

But by your tally, all of that suffering counts for nothing, as well as the avoidance of the suffering of the many, many others. Seems like a completely wrong-headed way to view this.

It's not just that, but losing a job doesn't ruin a life, many of these jobs will come back, especially if there's a coherent policy response. The only way to prevent this sort of collapse is to prevent the virus from reaching us, which is long since gone. After that you're just talking about managing the pain, which we've done abysmally. Hopefully the next relief bill comes through, otherwise we're looking at enduring an entirely preventable depression because of federal incompetence.

[Goose]

I have an idea. Tell the goddamned truth for once.

Imagine Winston Churchill telling Brits that Germany wasn't really a threat and they'd all just go away. No need for anyone to change their daily routine. No need to listen to air raid horns, take shelter at night, and no need to prepare for a hard fight that will require each Brit to pay a heavy price to save themselves, but if they do they would prevail. 

If the POTUS leveled with the American people, told them how hard things were going to be but that he had their back, took full responsibility for everything, was visibly working his butt off, while providing transparent data, and otherwise demonstrating competence, it would be a demonstration of leadership that would make re-election easy, no matter how bad things are. Instead, the white flag is waved, and there is now an effort to suppress truth - the same thing that was supposedly so unconscionable for China - from the American people, while blaming others.

The facts demonstrate the guy's mind is unfit for the job he has. Maybe we should all feel sorry for psychopaths. My sorrow is more reserved for the lives of those they destroy.

I totally agree that Trump has demonstrated his mind is unfit for the office of the president. However OF, Winston Churchill lied to the British public daily as a matter of policy. He was much smarter than Trump in that he acknowledged the things he could not deny, but obfuscated a whole lot of other things. He is a very poor example of "leveling with the people". Nobody outside of Whitehall actually knew how many ships were being sunk in the Atlantic and Western Approaches. Very bad example. Was what he did necessary? Probably, IMHO. However, trump says things "everybody" knows aren't true. He also probably believes them. Churchill knew the real facts. He just didn't share them unless he had no other choice. Actually, that is not quite true. Churchill also had his "chloroquine moments". See air mines.

[Goose]

I have an idea. Tell the goddamned truth for once.

Imagine Winston Churchill telling Brits that Germany wasn't really a threat and they'd all just go away. No need for anyone to change their daily routine. No need to listen to air raid horns, take shelter at night, and no need to prepare for a hard fight that will require each Brit to pay a heavy price to save themselves, but if they do they would prevail. 

If the POTUS leveled with the American people, told them how hard things were going to be but that he had their back, took full responsibility for everything, was visibly working his butt off, while providing transparent data, and otherwise demonstrating competence, it would be a demonstration of leadership that would make re-election easy, no matter how bad things are. Instead, the white flag is waved, and there is now an effort to suppress truth - the same thing that was supposedly so unconscionable for China - from the American people, while blaming others.

The facts demonstrate the guy's mind is unfit for the job he has. Maybe we should all feel sorry for psychopaths. My sorrow is more reserved for the lives of those they destroy.

I totally agree that Trump has demonstrated his mind is unfit for the office of the president. However OF, Winston Churchill lied to the British public daily as a matter of policy. He was much smarter than Trump in that he acknowledged the things he could not deny, but obfuscated a whole lot of other things. He is a very poor example of "leveling with the people". Nobody outside of Whitehall actually knew how many ships were being sunk in the Atlantic and Western Approaches. Very bad example. Was what he did necessary? Probably, IMHO. However, trump says things "everybody" knows aren't true. He also probably believes them. Churchill knew the real facts. He just didn't share them unless he had no other choice. Actually, that is not quite true. Churchill also had his "chloroquine moments". See air mines.

[BostonCard]

Maybe the problem was not COVID-19 or our response.  Maybe the problem is the way the US labor force is structured, or what we've done to mitigate the impact.



It seems crazy that Spain's unemployment rate has increased by only 1.3%.  Germany's unemployment has actually dropped!

https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-e...f-the-data

The good news is that generally speaking, America's labor force is more dynamic and tends to bounce back much faster than other country's.  But you do wonder if we have a problem with employment fragility in the US.

BC

[BostonCard]

Maybe the problem was not COVID-19 or our response.  Maybe the problem is the way the US labor force is structured, or what we've done to mitigate the impact.



It seems crazy that Spain's unemployment rate has increased by only 1.3%.  Germany's unemployment has actually dropped!

https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-e...f-the-data

The good news is that generally speaking, America's labor force is more dynamic and tends to bounce back much faster than other country's.  But you do wonder if we have a problem with employment fragility in the US.

BC

[Farm93]

The facts demonstrate the guy's mind is unfit for the job he has. Maybe we should all feel sorry for psychopaths. My sorrow is more reserved for the lives of those they destroy.

My sorrow is like Nancy Pelosi's prayers.   I feel sorry for a lot of people in this situation right now.  

POTUS45's career as a real estate owner, deal negotiator, and promotion innovator are just not well suited for dealing with a global pandemic.   I was never sure his life experiences were ideally aligned for all of the responsibilities of POTUS, but at this point it is very clear that pandemic management is not in his wheelhouse.

---

Maybe the problem was not COVID-19 or our response.  Maybe the problem is the way the US labor force is structured, or what we've done to mitigate the impact.



It seems crazy that Spain's unemployment rate has increased by only 1.3%.  Germany's unemployment has actually dropped!

https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-e...f-the-data

The good news is that generally speaking, America's labor force is more dynamic and tends to bounce back much faster than other country's.  But you do wonder if we have a problem with employment fragility in the US.

BC

So we are #1 in this too???
USA! USA!

Some of those countries make it very challenging to layoff workers, so it is not super shocking to see the USA at the top of this list.   The unemployment does imply the USA economy is dynamic and quick to adapt to market conditions.   That can be OK for a society over the long-term.

Having 10-30% of the population roaming around without great access to health care during a global pandemic because of that unemployment?   Not quite as ideal for a society.

[Farm93]

The facts demonstrate the guy's mind is unfit for the job he has. Maybe we should all feel sorry for psychopaths. My sorrow is more reserved for the lives of those they destroy.

My sorrow is like Nancy Pelosi's prayers.   I feel sorry for a lot of people in this situation right now.  

POTUS45's career as a real estate owner, deal negotiator, and promotion innovator are just not well suited for dealing with a global pandemic.   I was never sure his life experiences were ideally aligned for all of the responsibilities of POTUS, but at this point it is very clear that pandemic management is not in his wheelhouse.

---

Maybe the problem was not COVID-19 or our response.  Maybe the problem is the way the US labor force is structured, or what we've done to mitigate the impact.



It seems crazy that Spain's unemployment rate has increased by only 1.3%.  Germany's unemployment has actually dropped!

https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-e...f-the-data

The good news is that generally speaking, America's labor force is more dynamic and tends to bounce back much faster than other country's.  But you do wonder if we have a problem with employment fragility in the US.

BC

So we are #1 in this too???
USA! USA!

Some of those countries make it very challenging to layoff workers, so it is not super shocking to see the USA at the top of this list.   The unemployment does imply the USA economy is dynamic and quick to adapt to market conditions.   That can be OK for a society over the long-term.

Having 10-30% of the population roaming around without great access to health care during a global pandemic because of that unemployment?   Not quite as ideal for a society.

[stupac2]

Maybe the problem was not COVID-19 or our response.  Maybe the problem is the way the US labor force is structured, or what we've done to mitigate the impact.



It seems crazy that Spain's unemployment rate has increased by only 1.3%.  Germany's unemployment has actually dropped!

https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-e...f-the-data

The good news is that generally speaking, America's labor force is more dynamic and tends to bounce back much faster than other country's.  But you do wonder if we have a problem with employment fragility in the US.

BC

You probably also want to compare the levels before as well. For instance, Spain's unemployment rate was already ~14% when the virus hit. Meanwhile ours was <4%. There's a lot more room for movement when you're at a lower level.

I think Farm93 is also right that different labor market laws (and unionization rates and the like) explain a lot of it, too. We may also have been alone in using unemployment insurance as a way to pay workers to not work, while other places made other decisions.

Which isn't to say we've done well, we sure haven't. But it's not clear to me that this is a real apples-to-apples comparison.

[stupac2]

Maybe the problem was not COVID-19 or our response.  Maybe the problem is the way the US labor force is structured, or what we've done to mitigate the impact.



It seems crazy that Spain's unemployment rate has increased by only 1.3%.  Germany's unemployment has actually dropped!

https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-e...f-the-data

The good news is that generally speaking, America's labor force is more dynamic and tends to bounce back much faster than other country's.  But you do wonder if we have a problem with employment fragility in the US.

BC

You probably also want to compare the levels before as well. For instance, Spain's unemployment rate was already ~14% when the virus hit. Meanwhile ours was <4%. There's a lot more room for movement when you're at a lower level.

I think Farm93 is also right that different labor market laws (and unionization rates and the like) explain a lot of it, too. We may also have been alone in using unemployment insurance as a way to pay workers to not work, while other places made other decisions.

Which isn't to say we've done well, we sure haven't. But it's not clear to me that this is a real apples-to-apples comparison.

[burger]

You probably also want to compare the levels before as well. For instance, Spain's unemployment rate was already ~14% when the virus hit. Meanwhile ours was <4%. There's a lot more room for movement when you're at a lower level.



I think Farm93 is also right that different labor market laws (and unionization rates and the like) explain a lot of it, too. We may also have been alone in using unemployment insurance as a way to pay workers to not work, while other places made other decisions.



Which isn't to say we've done well, we sure haven't. But it's not clear to me that this is a real apples-to-apples comparison.

Didn't many (most?) European countries give loans to companies to keep people on payroll, even if the business was closed?  This would explain the difference in unemployment rates.  I can't imagine that France and Spain are seeing enough retail activity to keep their unemployment rates in check.

[burger]

You probably also want to compare the levels before as well. For instance, Spain's unemployment rate was already ~14% when the virus hit. Meanwhile ours was <4%. There's a lot more room for movement when you're at a lower level.



I think Farm93 is also right that different labor market laws (and unionization rates and the like) explain a lot of it, too. We may also have been alone in using unemployment insurance as a way to pay workers to not work, while other places made other decisions.



Which isn't to say we've done well, we sure haven't. But it's not clear to me that this is a real apples-to-apples comparison.

Didn't many (most?) European countries give loans to companies to keep people on payroll, even if the business was closed?  This would explain the difference in unemployment rates.  I can't imagine that France and Spain are seeing enough retail activity to keep their unemployment rates in check.

[BostonCard]

Yes.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/europes-eco...1585083397

(sorry if it is paywalled)

In the past days, governments across the continent have deployed new programs—or extended existing ones—to subsidize the wages of idled workers, allowing employers to keep them in their jobs even if there is nothing for them to do.

While the models vary by country, eligible workers would generally see all or part of their wages paid by the government while they either stop working or work a reduced shift, all the while remaining on their company’s payroll.

BC

[BostonCard]

Yes.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/europes-eco...1585083397

(sorry if it is paywalled)

In the past days, governments across the continent have deployed new programs—or extended existing ones—to subsidize the wages of idled workers, allowing employers to keep them in their jobs even if there is nothing for them to do.

While the models vary by country, eligible workers would generally see all or part of their wages paid by the government while they either stop working or work a reduced shift, all the while remaining on their company’s payroll.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

Fair enough re: Churchill, Goose.

As for unemployment, another part of the puzzle is likely having paid sick leave and other safety nets in place for a lot of countries on that list. People forget for every acton there is an equal and opposite reaction. We can cut corporate tax rates and take away social safety nets all we want, but when the pendulum swings back, more people are thrown on to unemployment roles.

Countries like Sweden and Denmark have much higher tax rates, but their citizens aren't at risk of starving or being kicked out of their homes when times get tough because they have a much more balanced pendulum. The sad irony is we're probably going to end up paying more on a per capita basis to provide emergency spending to save the whole system from collapse than those countries who paid more to have safety nets in good times.

[OutsiderFan]

Fair enough re: Churchill, Goose.

As for unemployment, another part of the puzzle is likely having paid sick leave and other safety nets in place for a lot of countries on that list. People forget for every acton there is an equal and opposite reaction. We can cut corporate tax rates and take away social safety nets all we want, but when the pendulum swings back, more people are thrown on to unemployment roles.

Countries like Sweden and Denmark have much higher tax rates, but their citizens aren't at risk of starving or being kicked out of their homes when times get tough because they have a much more balanced pendulum. The sad irony is we're probably going to end up paying more on a per capita basis to provide emergency spending to save the whole system from collapse than those countries who paid more to have safety nets in good times.

[Snorlax94]

I recently looked up some data that I think helps describe what's happening in the US, and this, along with a recent column by Paul Krugman, makes me feel somewhat better that the jobs for many can rebound fairly quickly.

First, I looked up sectors of the economy by contribution to GDP. Travel/Hospitality/Arts/Entertainment/Recreation, Retail, and Air Travel add up to only about 6% of the US GDP. Maybe a little bit more based on the year and how things are defined.

But then when you look at employment data for these sectors, these sectors that are hardest hit contribute well over 17% of jobs. 

So that's how you can easily see unemployment hitting over 20% at its peak.

The good news, if there is any, is that for retail and many restaurant jobs, first, unemployment benefits should cover a good chunk of their lost wages. Second, there is a bit less of a loss of human capital -- if you lose a job being at a cashier, short-order cook, or waitstaff at one shop or restaurant, hopefully it's relatively easier to get re-hired at a different one. The unemployment benefits can be a reasonably small chunk of stimulus costs. If unemployment hits a peak where 40M Americans are receiving $1800 a month, that's $72B a month, and how many months will it be? If the US doesn't royally screw this up, the vast majority of Americans will be unemployed in total (even if there are two waves) for less than 6 months. Or, the total cost of paying unemployment for all of these hard-hit Americans should stay under $450B, which is a relatively small portion of the stimulus costs. Remember, the Tax Act of 2017, which unnecessarily inflated the US economy's deficit when things were already running well, increased the budget deficit by about $500B a year, each year. So to think of the scale, paying unemployment for 40M Americans for 6 months will be less than each year of the tax cuts for corporations (with special loop holes for real estate).

*Some* Americans will face unemployment for longer, and yes, some business owners will lose their businesses (or, they will lose their capital, which, fair or not, is how capitalism works. If the economy grows great, you reap the upside. If there is a brobdingnagian shock, you lose the investment. I think more should be done for small business owners who didn't have the resources to diversify and are hard-hit.) Some things will not come back in less than 6 months, but a LOT will. Retail + Restaurants contribute over over 17M  jobs, and they are largely totally closed across the US now, but I expect they'll all be permitted to re-open in a few months.

Some stores and restaurants will continue with less employment. The worst case is for a handful of industries where jobs will not-reappear quickly -- concession sellers at stadiums and concerts, employees at movie theatres and live theatres. But at least, that is a small portion of unemployment.



In fact, in a recent Paul Kruman email newsletter, he compared job recovery in pre-1990 recessions and post-1990. Pre-1990, recessions tended to be more like this one, by things like economic shocks where the shops/restaurants/theme parks are all there and ready to go when they can. Post 1990 recessions were often caused by business over-extension, so even when conditions improved and consumers wanted to spend their money, the businesses couldn't respond and grow as quickly. Krugman points out this recession is more like a pre-1990 recession, unless the federal government screws it up, and he thinks they probably will.

I think it's more of a hybrid. Less of a rosy picture than the typical pre-1990 recession because many jobs will not come back in the short-term (like clubs and movie theatres). But look how employment-typically roars back. That should be the case for the strong majority of Americans currently on unemployment.

The focus should be on a competent recovery. The employment picture brightens rapidly as long as the US doesn't keep screwing this up.

[Snorlax94]

I recently looked up some data that I think helps describe what's happening in the US, and this, along with a recent column by Paul Krugman, makes me feel somewhat better that the jobs for many can rebound fairly quickly.

First, I looked up sectors of the economy by contribution to GDP. Travel/Hospitality/Arts/Entertainment/Recreation, Retail, and Air Travel add up to only about 6% of the US GDP. Maybe a little bit more based on the year and how things are defined.

But then when you look at employment data for these sectors, these sectors that are hardest hit contribute well over 17% of jobs. 

So that's how you can easily see unemployment hitting over 20% at its peak.

The good news, if there is any, is that for retail and many restaurant jobs, first, unemployment benefits should cover a good chunk of their lost wages. Second, there is a bit less of a loss of human capital -- if you lose a job being at a cashier, short-order cook, or waitstaff at one shop or restaurant, hopefully it's relatively easier to get re-hired at a different one. The unemployment benefits can be a reasonably small chunk of stimulus costs. If unemployment hits a peak where 40M Americans are receiving $1800 a month, that's $72B a month, and how many months will it be? If the US doesn't royally screw this up, the vast majority of Americans will be unemployed in total (even if there are two waves) for less than 6 months. Or, the total cost of paying unemployment for all of these hard-hit Americans should stay under $450B, which is a relatively small portion of the stimulus costs. Remember, the Tax Act of 2017, which unnecessarily inflated the US economy's deficit when things were already running well, increased the budget deficit by about $500B a year, each year. So to think of the scale, paying unemployment for 40M Americans for 6 months will be less than each year of the tax cuts for corporations (with special loop holes for real estate).

*Some* Americans will face unemployment for longer, and yes, some business owners will lose their businesses (or, they will lose their capital, which, fair or not, is how capitalism works. If the economy grows great, you reap the upside. If there is a brobdingnagian shock, you lose the investment. I think more should be done for small business owners who didn't have the resources to diversify and are hard-hit.) Some things will not come back in less than 6 months, but a LOT will. Retail + Restaurants contribute over over 17M  jobs, and they are largely totally closed across the US now, but I expect they'll all be permitted to re-open in a few months.

Some stores and restaurants will continue with less employment. The worst case is for a handful of industries where jobs will not-reappear quickly -- concession sellers at stadiums and concerts, employees at movie theatres and live theatres. But at least, that is a small portion of unemployment.



In fact, in a recent Paul Kruman email newsletter, he compared job recovery in pre-1990 recessions and post-1990. Pre-1990, recessions tended to be more like this one, by things like economic shocks where the shops/restaurants/theme parks are all there and ready to go when they can. Post 1990 recessions were often caused by business over-extension, so even when conditions improved and consumers wanted to spend their money, the businesses couldn't respond and grow as quickly. Krugman points out this recession is more like a pre-1990 recession, unless the federal government screws it up, and he thinks they probably will.

I think it's more of a hybrid. Less of a rosy picture than the typical pre-1990 recession because many jobs will not come back in the short-term (like clubs and movie theatres). But look how employment-typically roars back. That should be the case for the strong majority of Americans currently on unemployment.

The focus should be on a competent recovery. The employment picture brightens rapidly as long as the US doesn't keep screwing this up.

[oregontim]

I agree completely with OF on this...

I have an idea. Tell the goddamned truth for once.

If the POTUS leveled with the American people, told them how hard things were going to be but that he had their back, took full responsibility for everything, was visibly working his butt off, while providing transparent data, and otherwise demonstrating competence, it would be a demonstration of leadership that would make re-election easy, no matter how bad things are. Instead, the white flag is waved, and there is now an effort to suppress truth - the same thing that was supposedly so unconscionable for China - from the American people, while blaming others.

The facts demonstrate the guy's mind is unfit for the job he has. Maybe we should all feel sorry for psychopaths. My sorrow is more reserved for the lives of those they destroy.

And I'd like to add some specificity. We discuss opening the economy or not, and/or the health/economy dilemma, against the background of gross mismanagement and divisions that should never have been. To see how substantial the problem, compare our situation today to what would have been under any past president since Hoover. Or what it is compared to any G7 or G20 nation. What is supposed to happen is a cohesive unified national purpose. In times of crisis people want to turn to their leadership for these horrible judgment calls we now face, pitting health against the economy. That doesn't happen in this country because leadership at the top doesn't want unity; it wants culture wars, and at all cost. How devastating is it that now we're mapped on these crucial health/economy decisions into political tribes. One wants health and the other wants economy. Didn't we pull together as a nation during past crises? We haven't changed, but our politics have. And it's not equally distributed dysfunction either: Trump and the Trump campaign thrive on divisions.

And there's another factor here too: the mismanagement. We struggle with these terrible health vs. economy decisions now in part because we did not have a massive unified campaign to address the health risks from the beginning. We missed the entire month of February. And since then we have continuing mismanagement, misinformation, failure to focus on the testing, PPE, and related factors that would have made opening up after two months of shut-down much safer than it actually is now.

[oregontim]

I agree completely with OF on this...

I have an idea. Tell the goddamned truth for once.

If the POTUS leveled with the American people, told them how hard things were going to be but that he had their back, took full responsibility for everything, was visibly working his butt off, while providing transparent data, and otherwise demonstrating competence, it would be a demonstration of leadership that would make re-election easy, no matter how bad things are. Instead, the white flag is waved, and there is now an effort to suppress truth - the same thing that was supposedly so unconscionable for China - from the American people, while blaming others.

The facts demonstrate the guy's mind is unfit for the job he has. Maybe we should all feel sorry for psychopaths. My sorrow is more reserved for the lives of those they destroy.

And I'd like to add some specificity. We discuss opening the economy or not, and/or the health/economy dilemma, against the background of gross mismanagement and divisions that should never have been. To see how substantial the problem, compare our situation today to what would have been under any past president since Hoover. Or what it is compared to any G7 or G20 nation. What is supposed to happen is a cohesive unified national purpose. In times of crisis people want to turn to their leadership for these horrible judgment calls we now face, pitting health against the economy. That doesn't happen in this country because leadership at the top doesn't want unity; it wants culture wars, and at all cost. How devastating is it that now we're mapped on these crucial health/economy decisions into political tribes. One wants health and the other wants economy. Didn't we pull together as a nation during past crises? We haven't changed, but our politics have. And it's not equally distributed dysfunction either: Trump and the Trump campaign thrive on divisions.

And there's another factor here too: the mismanagement. We struggle with these terrible health vs. economy decisions now in part because we did not have a massive unified campaign to address the health risks from the beginning. We missed the entire month of February. And since then we have continuing mismanagement, misinformation, failure to focus on the testing, PPE, and related factors that would have made opening up after two months of shut-down much safer than it actually is now.

[stupac2]

To buttress Snorlax's point, here's 538 taking a look at what sectors are hardest hit: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the...nt-crisis/

[stupac2]

To buttress Snorlax's point, here's 538 taking a look at what sectors are hardest hit: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the...nt-crisis/

[oldalum]

Countries like Sweden and Denmark have much higher tax rates, but their citizens aren't at risk of starving or being kicked out of their homes when times get tough because they have a much more balanced pendulum. The sad irony is we're probably going to end up paying more on a per capita basis to provide emergency spending to save the whole system from collapse than those countries who paid more to have safety nets in good times.

That's Nicholas Kristof's conclusion in this excellent column on Denmark: NY Times column

[oldalum]

Countries like Sweden and Denmark have much higher tax rates, but their citizens aren't at risk of starving or being kicked out of their homes when times get tough because they have a much more balanced pendulum. The sad irony is we're probably going to end up paying more on a per capita basis to provide emergency spending to save the whole system from collapse than those countries who paid more to have safety nets in good times.

That's Nicholas Kristof's conclusion in this excellent column on Denmark: NY Times column

[OutsiderFan]

I agree completely with OF on this...

I have an idea. Tell the goddamned truth for once.

If the POTUS leveled with the American people, told them how hard things were going to be but that he had their back, took full responsibility for everything, was visibly working his butt off, while providing transparent data, and otherwise demonstrating competence, it would be a demonstration of leadership that would make re-election easy, no matter how bad things are. Instead, the white flag is waved, and there is now an effort to suppress truth - the same thing that was supposedly so unconscionable for China - from the American people, while blaming others.

The facts demonstrate the guy's mind is unfit for the job he has. Maybe we should all feel sorry for psychopaths. My sorrow is more reserved for the lives of those they destroy.

And I'd like to add some specificity. We discuss opening the economy or not, and/or the health/economy dilemma, against the background of gross mismanagement and divisions that should never have been. To see how substantial the problem, compare our situation today to what would have been under any past president since Hoover. Or what it is compared to any G7 or G20 nation. What is supposed to happen is a cohesive unified national purpose. In times of crisis people want to turn to their leadership for these horrible judgment calls we now face, pitting health against the economy. That doesn't happen in this country because leadership at the top doesn't want unity; it wants culture wars, and at all cost. How devastating is it that now we're mapped on these crucial health/economy decisions into political tribes. One wants health and the other wants economy. Didn't we pull together as a nation during past crises? We haven't changed, but our politics have. And it's not equally distributed dysfunction either: Trump and the Trump campaign thrive on divisions.

And there's another factor here too: the mismanagement. We struggle with these terrible health vs. economy decisions now in part because we did not have a massive unified campaign to address the health risks from the beginning. We missed the entire month of February. And since then we have continuing mismanagement, misinformation, failure to focus on the testing, PPE, and related factors that would have made opening up after two months of shut-down much safer than it actually is now.

I hope you didn't see the new White House Propaganda, err, Press Secretary's SNL act today. The propaganda must be believable to work. When it's just plainly absurd, it only generates laughter.

[OutsiderFan]

I agree completely with OF on this...

I have an idea. Tell the goddamned truth for once.

If the POTUS leveled with the American people, told them how hard things were going to be but that he had their back, took full responsibility for everything, was visibly working his butt off, while providing transparent data, and otherwise demonstrating competence, it would be a demonstration of leadership that would make re-election easy, no matter how bad things are. Instead, the white flag is waved, and there is now an effort to suppress truth - the same thing that was supposedly so unconscionable for China - from the American people, while blaming others.

The facts demonstrate the guy's mind is unfit for the job he has. Maybe we should all feel sorry for psychopaths. My sorrow is more reserved for the lives of those they destroy.

And I'd like to add some specificity. We discuss opening the economy or not, and/or the health/economy dilemma, against the background of gross mismanagement and divisions that should never have been. To see how substantial the problem, compare our situation today to what would have been under any past president since Hoover. Or what it is compared to any G7 or G20 nation. What is supposed to happen is a cohesive unified national purpose. In times of crisis people want to turn to their leadership for these horrible judgment calls we now face, pitting health against the economy. That doesn't happen in this country because leadership at the top doesn't want unity; it wants culture wars, and at all cost. How devastating is it that now we're mapped on these crucial health/economy decisions into political tribes. One wants health and the other wants economy. Didn't we pull together as a nation during past crises? We haven't changed, but our politics have. And it's not equally distributed dysfunction either: Trump and the Trump campaign thrive on divisions.

And there's another factor here too: the mismanagement. We struggle with these terrible health vs. economy decisions now in part because we did not have a massive unified campaign to address the health risks from the beginning. We missed the entire month of February. And since then we have continuing mismanagement, misinformation, failure to focus on the testing, PPE, and related factors that would have made opening up after two months of shut-down much safer than it actually is now.

I hope you didn't see the new White House Propaganda, err, Press Secretary's SNL act today. The propaganda must be believable to work. When it's just plainly absurd, it only generates laughter.

[Mick]

It's not just that, but losing a job doesn't ruin a life, many of these jobs will come back, especially if there's a coherent policy response. The only way to prevent this sort of collapse is to prevent the virus from reaching us, which is long since gone. After that you're just talking about managing the pain, which we've done abysmally. Hopefully the next relief bill comes through, otherwise we're looking at enduring an entirely preventable depression because of federal incompetence.

Again, with respect, you are severely underplaying the problem. The jobs aren't coming back. The lengthy period of positive growth means that businesses haven't had to really examine their cost structures or the efficiency of their production and profitability. The New Post-Coronavirus Productivity will not include workers who have been furloughed, not as a general rule.

Think about it. Businesses are, right now, getting as efficient as the possibly can. Why should they hire back furloughed workers -- or, frankly, lease commercial real estate -- if they are profitable anyways?

But even if we didn't have the destruction of jobs, the way we decided to kill the economy will cause homelessness in the United States to grow as much as 45% in a year, says a Columbia University professor:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-hom...r-BB146dAr

[Mick]

It's not just that, but losing a job doesn't ruin a life, many of these jobs will come back, especially if there's a coherent policy response. The only way to prevent this sort of collapse is to prevent the virus from reaching us, which is long since gone. After that you're just talking about managing the pain, which we've done abysmally. Hopefully the next relief bill comes through, otherwise we're looking at enduring an entirely preventable depression because of federal incompetence.

Again, with respect, you are severely underplaying the problem. The jobs aren't coming back. The lengthy period of positive growth means that businesses haven't had to really examine their cost structures or the efficiency of their production and profitability. The New Post-Coronavirus Productivity will not include workers who have been furloughed, not as a general rule.

Think about it. Businesses are, right now, getting as efficient as the possibly can. Why should they hire back furloughed workers -- or, frankly, lease commercial real estate -- if they are profitable anyways?

But even if we didn't have the destruction of jobs, the way we decided to kill the economy will cause homelessness in the United States to grow as much as 45% in a year, says a Columbia University professor:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-hom...r-BB146dAr