[Mick]

Current estimates hold that 2.4 million people will file for initial unemployment claims.  Last week's estimate was 2.5 million, and the actual figure was nearly 3 million, an undercount by nearly 500,000.  My estimate is that this will be the "experts'" fifth consecutive underestimate of the actual initial jobless claims figures, as the "experts" continue to underestimate the severity of the economic damage.

If accurate, the 2.4 million initial unemployment claims would mean that 38.871 million, or 23.6% of the American workforce will have been terminated by their employers in eight weeks.

[Mick]

Current estimates hold that 2.4 million people will file for initial unemployment claims.  Last week's estimate was 2.5 million, and the actual figure was nearly 3 million, an undercount by nearly 500,000.  My estimate is that this will be the "experts'" fifth consecutive underestimate of the actual initial jobless claims figures, as the "experts" continue to underestimate the severity of the economic damage.

If accurate, the 2.4 million initial unemployment claims would mean that 38.871 million, or 23.6% of the American workforce will have been terminated by their employers in eight weeks.

[OutsiderFan]

C’mon Mick, don’t you know the best way to make unemployment go down is to stop counting the unemployed? 

In all seriousness, the stock markets are now so speculative, so driven by minute-to-minute thinking and so disconnected from reality do to Fed actions that they can’t at all be trusted anymore to be leading or lagging indicators of anything. The reaction to the vaccine trial this week was utterly humiliating for the integrity of those who trade in it and it’s value as some sort of economic Thermometer. On Monday everyone pees their pants with glee with just vague whispers of some progress. On Tuesday everyone poops their pants realizing the trial results actually were no cause for peeing in the first place. The chasm between the artificially inflated equity markets and struggling Main Street economies is like something reaching a point so far away it can barely be made out any longer.

Meanwhile, Governors are trying to sequester truth and mislead citizens about virus spread, following the corrupt AF and made of whole cloth White House public positions. A pandemic that causes people to disengage from others and slow economic activity as a result is no time for governments who want economic activity to increase, to lose the trust of the public. Not only will the lying and truth hiding not stop virus spread, it will actually make things worse for both public health and the economy.

My greatest concern is what happens when the reality of much lower earnings and even losses start piling up for the Fortune 500? Usually those companies react by having layoffs, but the people who would be the subject of them are the only thing keeping the economy going at all. They are the ones like us who have been ordering out and trying to sustain our local businesses, knowing we could lose our jobs too. Will these stock analysts be so dumb as to encourage layoffs in these economic times, and throw gas on the fire?

Jerome Powell knows how precarious the situation is. That’s why he went on 60 Minutes to say Congress must do more. The artificial market inflation calmed investors so maybe Wall Street analysts wouldn’t put pressure on companies to cut their workforces, but as I always say, there is always a price to pay for everything. If companies aren’t whacking people, they are cutting office leases realizing people can work anywhere they want, wherever they want to live. The mortgage debt for CRE, especially for REITs has to be quite concerning. Boston Properties (Embarcadero Center, Salesforce Tower) is a REIT company. It has lost half its value since February, as its stock has gone from $147 to $77, and the plunge has likely only started. How many owners are gonna be able to pay their mortgages as office buildings lose tenants hand over first? We haven’t even started seeing the bankruptcies yet, but they are coming for sure.

[OutsiderFan]

C’mon Mick, don’t you know the best way to make unemployment go down is to stop counting the unemployed? 

In all seriousness, the stock markets are now so speculative, so driven by minute-to-minute thinking and so disconnected from reality do to Fed actions that they can’t at all be trusted anymore to be leading or lagging indicators of anything. The reaction to the vaccine trial this week was utterly humiliating for the integrity of those who trade in it and it’s value as some sort of economic Thermometer. On Monday everyone pees their pants with glee with just vague whispers of some progress. On Tuesday everyone poops their pants realizing the trial results actually were no cause for peeing in the first place. The chasm between the artificially inflated equity markets and struggling Main Street economies is like something reaching a point so far away it can barely be made out any longer.

Meanwhile, Governors are trying to sequester truth and mislead citizens about virus spread, following the corrupt AF and made of whole cloth White House public positions. A pandemic that causes people to disengage from others and slow economic activity as a result is no time for governments who want economic activity to increase, to lose the trust of the public. Not only will the lying and truth hiding not stop virus spread, it will actually make things worse for both public health and the economy.

My greatest concern is what happens when the reality of much lower earnings and even losses start piling up for the Fortune 500? Usually those companies react by having layoffs, but the people who would be the subject of them are the only thing keeping the economy going at all. They are the ones like us who have been ordering out and trying to sustain our local businesses, knowing we could lose our jobs too. Will these stock analysts be so dumb as to encourage layoffs in these economic times, and throw gas on the fire?

Jerome Powell knows how precarious the situation is. That’s why he went on 60 Minutes to say Congress must do more. The artificial market inflation calmed investors so maybe Wall Street analysts wouldn’t put pressure on companies to cut their workforces, but as I always say, there is always a price to pay for everything. If companies aren’t whacking people, they are cutting office leases realizing people can work anywhere they want, wherever they want to live. The mortgage debt for CRE, especially for REITs has to be quite concerning. Boston Properties (Embarcadero Center, Salesforce Tower) is a REIT company. It has lost half its value since February, as its stock has gone from $147 to $77, and the plunge has likely only started. How many owners are gonna be able to pay their mortgages as office buildings lose tenants hand over first? We haven’t even started seeing the bankruptcies yet, but they are coming for sure.

[stupac2]

And McConnell is fiddling while the country burns.

Whether or not you like the content of their bill (I think it's a mixed bag) at least the House is doing something.



Although, maybe someone more knowledgeable than I am can explain this, why haven't the previous moves been enough? US GDP is ~$20.5T. We've passed assistance so far of ~$4T, right? Even if economic activity went to 0 (it hasn't) that would be enough to cover several months. If you figure activity is down in proportion with the layoffs (it's probably less) then we'd be looking at a shortfall of ~$0.8 T or so ($21T/year * 1/6 year elapsed * 1/4 employees laid off). Is it just that the funds are so poorly targeted that they're mostly not going where needed? Is the loss of consumer confidence so large that it offsets that? I feel like I must be missing something here because it's manifestly obvious that what's been done so far is insufficient, but I don't see why when the scale seems approximately correct.

[stupac2]

And McConnell is fiddling while the country burns.

Whether or not you like the content of their bill (I think it's a mixed bag) at least the House is doing something.



Although, maybe someone more knowledgeable than I am can explain this, why haven't the previous moves been enough? US GDP is ~$20.5T. We've passed assistance so far of ~$4T, right? Even if economic activity went to 0 (it hasn't) that would be enough to cover several months. If you figure activity is down in proportion with the layoffs (it's probably less) then we'd be looking at a shortfall of ~$0.8 T or so ($21T/year * 1/6 year elapsed * 1/4 employees laid off). Is it just that the funds are so poorly targeted that they're mostly not going where needed? Is the loss of consumer confidence so large that it offsets that? I feel like I must be missing something here because it's manifestly obvious that what's been done so far is insufficient, but I don't see why when the scale seems approximately correct.

[2006alum]

If I could recommend one op-ed to everyone to read, it's this one:

[tweet] https://twitter.com/RussellSageFdn/statu...73728?s=20[/tweet] 
These researchers have found that the vast majority of low wage workers have lost work or their jobs entirely, and yet most have yet to get on state unemployment, a system designed to make accessing public benefits hard. Their suggestion of funding employers to retain employees instead has worked very well in Denmark and the UK, but I fear there is not the political will in this country, and many have already been laid off, so it will be too late to help them that way. 

As for where the $4 trillion went, more than half of it went to large multi-national corporations. Are you at all surprised those dollars aren't trickling down to their low-income workers or to mom and pop shops directly in competition with them? 

Probably the most immediate fallout of this is the consolidation of the market dominance of large companies like Amazon and Walmart. Where the lockdown protestors are absolutely on point is that if Target can sell lawn furniture alongside its "essential services" like household goods and food, but your local patio furniture shop cannot, the playing field is tilted even further against the little guy. Unfortunately those protestors tend to get lumped in with the gun nuts as one large mass of aggrieved loonies.

That, in large part, explains why the stock market keeps shooting up while the number of employed people drops like a stone. Ask yourself what percentage of your spending went to local businesses (like restaurants, cafes, bookstores, hair salons, etc.) before COVID-19 and what percentage does now. For most people, even when spending less they are still spending more of it at big box and online retailers than ever before.

[2006alum]

If I could recommend one op-ed to everyone to read, it's this one:

[tweet] https://twitter.com/RussellSageFdn/statu...73728?s=20[/tweet] 
These researchers have found that the vast majority of low wage workers have lost work or their jobs entirely, and yet most have yet to get on state unemployment, a system designed to make accessing public benefits hard. Their suggestion of funding employers to retain employees instead has worked very well in Denmark and the UK, but I fear there is not the political will in this country, and many have already been laid off, so it will be too late to help them that way. 

As for where the $4 trillion went, more than half of it went to large multi-national corporations. Are you at all surprised those dollars aren't trickling down to their low-income workers or to mom and pop shops directly in competition with them? 

Probably the most immediate fallout of this is the consolidation of the market dominance of large companies like Amazon and Walmart. Where the lockdown protestors are absolutely on point is that if Target can sell lawn furniture alongside its "essential services" like household goods and food, but your local patio furniture shop cannot, the playing field is tilted even further against the little guy. Unfortunately those protestors tend to get lumped in with the gun nuts as one large mass of aggrieved loonies.

That, in large part, explains why the stock market keeps shooting up while the number of employed people drops like a stone. Ask yourself what percentage of your spending went to local businesses (like restaurants, cafes, bookstores, hair salons, etc.) before COVID-19 and what percentage does now. For most people, even when spending less they are still spending more of it at big box and online retailers than ever before.

[BostonCard]

You messed me up Mick.  I thought you had made your post on the eve of the unemployment report release, so I thought today was Thursday (when the initial claims report is released).

We will see the number tomorrow.

BC

[BostonCard]

You messed me up Mick.  I thought you had made your post on the eve of the unemployment report release, so I thought today was Thursday (when the initial claims report is released).

We will see the number tomorrow.

BC

[burger]

You messed me up Mick.  I thought you had made your post on the eve of the unemployment report release, so I thought today was Thursday (when the initial claims report is released).

We will see the number tomorrow.

BC

Days of the week are meaningless now.  Time is a flat circle.

[burger]

You messed me up Mick.  I thought you had made your post on the eve of the unemployment report release, so I thought today was Thursday (when the initial claims report is released).

We will see the number tomorrow.

BC

Days of the week are meaningless now.  Time is a flat circle.

[Mick]

You messed me up Mick.  I thought you had made your post on the eve of the unemployment report release, so I thought today was Thursday (when the initial claims report is released).

We will see the number tomorrow.

BC

I was a day premature.  It's tomorrow, 8:30 eastern time.

[Mick]

You messed me up Mick.  I thought you had made your post on the eve of the unemployment report release, so I thought today was Thursday (when the initial claims report is released).

We will see the number tomorrow.

BC

I was a day premature.  It's tomorrow, 8:30 eastern time.

[82lsju]

In the week ending May 16, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 2,438,000, a decrease of 249,000 from the previous week's revised level. The previous week's level was revised down by 294,000 from 2,981,000 to 2,687,000.

https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf

the 9 week total now ~38.6m people

[82lsju]

In the week ending May 16, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 2,438,000, a decrease of 249,000 from the previous week's revised level. The previous week's level was revised down by 294,000 from 2,981,000 to 2,687,000.

https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf

the 9 week total now ~38.6m people

[Mick]

In the week ending May 16, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 2,438,000, a decrease of 249,000 from the previous week's revised level. The previous week's level was revised down by 294,000 from 2,981,000 to 2,687,000.

https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf

the 9 week total now ~38.6m people

Please note, the DoL is officially undercounting initial unemployment claims. Heidi Shierholz, senior economist at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, noted that the number of new claims filed last week is likely closer to 3.3 million, based on how DOL now separates its data.

The unadjusted raw number of claims filed in regular state unemployment programs last week totaled at 2.2 million workers. But the report indicates another 1.1 million Americans also sought jobless aid under the new temporary Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program.

Finally, a downard revision, by 300,000 for the previous week's claims.  

Anyway, 38.6 million freshly unemployed over nine weeks.  405 Americans out of work for every American death related to the coronavirus. With the 2x factor of lives impacted by those lost jobs, about 1,200 Americans negatively impacted for every American COVID-19 death.

[Mick]

In the week ending May 16, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 2,438,000, a decrease of 249,000 from the previous week's revised level. The previous week's level was revised down by 294,000 from 2,981,000 to 2,687,000.

https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf

the 9 week total now ~38.6m people

Please note, the DoL is officially undercounting initial unemployment claims. Heidi Shierholz, senior economist at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, noted that the number of new claims filed last week is likely closer to 3.3 million, based on how DOL now separates its data.

The unadjusted raw number of claims filed in regular state unemployment programs last week totaled at 2.2 million workers. But the report indicates another 1.1 million Americans also sought jobless aid under the new temporary Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program.

Finally, a downard revision, by 300,000 for the previous week's claims.  

Anyway, 38.6 million freshly unemployed over nine weeks.  405 Americans out of work for every American death related to the coronavirus. With the 2x factor of lives impacted by those lost jobs, about 1,200 Americans negatively impacted for every American COVID-19 death.

[2006alum]

I think we can put the false dichotomy of lives vs. jobs to rest, because lockdown or no lockdown, we were never going to avoid an economic catastrophe in the midst of a global pandemic:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/politico/status/1263503592318816256?s=20[/tweet]

Georgia's new jobless claims have been going up and down since the state reopened, rising to 243,000 two weeks ago before dipping to 177,000 last week. The state cited new layoffs in the retail, social assistance and health care industries for the continued high rate of jobless claims that have put it ahead of other states in the proportion of its workforce that has been sidelined.

Georgia, which began pushing to resume economic activity on April 24, presents an early reality check as the White House amps up pressure on governors to lift shutdown orders and President Donald Trump’s economic advisers predict jobless claims will nosedive after the reopening. The state’s persistent unemployment numbers suggest that government restrictions aren’t the only cause of skyrocketing layoffs and furloughs — and that the economy might not fully recover until consumers feel safe.

[2006alum]

I think we can put the false dichotomy of lives vs. jobs to rest, because lockdown or no lockdown, we were never going to avoid an economic catastrophe in the midst of a global pandemic:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/politico/status/1263503592318816256?s=20[/tweet]

Georgia's new jobless claims have been going up and down since the state reopened, rising to 243,000 two weeks ago before dipping to 177,000 last week. The state cited new layoffs in the retail, social assistance and health care industries for the continued high rate of jobless claims that have put it ahead of other states in the proportion of its workforce that has been sidelined.

Georgia, which began pushing to resume economic activity on April 24, presents an early reality check as the White House amps up pressure on governors to lift shutdown orders and President Donald Trump’s economic advisers predict jobless claims will nosedive after the reopening. The state’s persistent unemployment numbers suggest that government restrictions aren’t the only cause of skyrocketing layoffs and furloughs — and that the economy might not fully recover until consumers feel safe.

[Mick]

[quote="2006alum" pid='281313' dateline='1590080427']
I think we can put the false dichotomy of lives vs. jobs to rest, because lockdown or no lockdown, we were never going to avoid an economic catastrophe in the midst of a global pandemic.
[quote]

You certainly don't have to like it.  And I certainly won't stop posting it. Because I think we could have at least partially avoided the economic catastrophe.

[Mick]

[quote="2006alum" pid='281313' dateline='1590080427']
I think we can put the false dichotomy of lives vs. jobs to rest, because lockdown or no lockdown, we were never going to avoid an economic catastrophe in the midst of a global pandemic.
[quote]

You certainly don't have to like it.  And I certainly won't stop posting it. Because I think we could have at least partially avoided the economic catastrophe.

[2006alum]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/living_sweden/status/1263472607397064705?s=20[/tweet]

Look at Sweden - really not much better than any other Western European country. If even Sweden's quasi-non-lockdown didn't do it, I'm not sure what would have.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/IanLJones98/status/1256915208397873152?s=20[/tweet]
Look globally. Even developing countries with non-lockdown policies like Brazil are hurting just as bad. 

Counterfactuals are lovely things because you can stipulate whatever you want and will never need (or be able) to provide data to support your position.

[2006alum]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/living_sweden/status/1263472607397064705?s=20[/tweet]

Look at Sweden - really not much better than any other Western European country. If even Sweden's quasi-non-lockdown didn't do it, I'm not sure what would have.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/IanLJones98/status/1256915208397873152?s=20[/tweet]
Look globally. Even developing countries with non-lockdown policies like Brazil are hurting just as bad. 

Counterfactuals are lovely things because you can stipulate whatever you want and will never need (or be able) to provide data to support your position.

[stupac2]

I mean, Mick's right in that we certainly could have done better (and we could certainly still do better), but since literally all available evidence I've ever seen points toward the SiP orders being at best a marginal contribution to the decline it seems best to focus elsewhere (like on government response).

[stupac2]

I mean, Mick's right in that we certainly could have done better (and we could certainly still do better), but since literally all available evidence I've ever seen points toward the SiP orders being at best a marginal contribution to the decline it seems best to focus elsewhere (like on government response).

[ChicagoCard]

I mean, Mick's right in that we certainly could have done better (and we could certainly still do better), but since literally all available evidence I've ever seen points toward the SiP orders being at best a marginal contribution to the decline it seems best to focus elsewhere (like on government response).

I'm curious if this view that the SiP has been at best only marginally effective is an emerging view.

[ChicagoCard]

I mean, Mick's right in that we certainly could have done better (and we could certainly still do better), but since literally all available evidence I've ever seen points toward the SiP orders being at best a marginal contribution to the decline it seems best to focus elsewhere (like on government response).

I'm curious if this view that the SiP has been at best only marginally effective is an emerging view.

[stupac2]

I mean, Mick's right in that we certainly could have done better (and we could certainly still do better), but since literally all available evidence I've ever seen points toward the SiP orders being at best a marginal contribution to the decline it seems best to focus elsewhere (like on government response).

I'm curious if this view that the SiP has been at best only marginally effective is an emerging view.

I think you misunderstand me, it's been marginal economically, because most of the things it did (like closing down restaurants or concerts or whatever) were things people weren't going to be doing anyway, so it only affected the economics on the margin. But it's entirely possible that it was very effective epidemiologically because it stopped the 5-25% of people who would've continued as normal (or those who would've been coerced into going into work in a now-dangerous job) from spreading it. After all, as we've seen elsewhere, 5% of the population getting it is enough to cause a lot of trouble, but it's nowhere near enough to run an actual economy.

And this is why places that have reopened or never shut down in the first place are still seeing economic trouble, the root problem isn't the SiP laws, it's the fear caused by the virus. If everyone suddenly increases their savings rate at the same time you get a recession, there's nothing you can do about it except try to convince them to spend more.

[stupac2]

I mean, Mick's right in that we certainly could have done better (and we could certainly still do better), but since literally all available evidence I've ever seen points toward the SiP orders being at best a marginal contribution to the decline it seems best to focus elsewhere (like on government response).

I'm curious if this view that the SiP has been at best only marginally effective is an emerging view.

I think you misunderstand me, it's been marginal economically, because most of the things it did (like closing down restaurants or concerts or whatever) were things people weren't going to be doing anyway, so it only affected the economics on the margin. But it's entirely possible that it was very effective epidemiologically because it stopped the 5-25% of people who would've continued as normal (or those who would've been coerced into going into work in a now-dangerous job) from spreading it. After all, as we've seen elsewhere, 5% of the population getting it is enough to cause a lot of trouble, but it's nowhere near enough to run an actual economy.

And this is why places that have reopened or never shut down in the first place are still seeing economic trouble, the root problem isn't the SiP laws, it's the fear caused by the virus. If everyone suddenly increases their savings rate at the same time you get a recession, there's nothing you can do about it except try to convince them to spend more.

[ChicagoCard]

Gotcha, thanks. The thrust of this thread was economic after all. And I appreciate your point about the fear that has been engendered.

[ChicagoCard]

Gotcha, thanks. The thrust of this thread was economic after all. And I appreciate your point about the fear that has been engendered.

[Mick]

https://apnews.com/900aa1955a82b7bbe2e028a8bc1a4be7

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said over the weekend that U.S. unemployment could peak in May or June at 20% to 25%, a level last seen during the depths of the Great Depression almost 90 years ago. Unemployment in April stood at 14.7%, a figure also unmatched since the 1930s.

[Mick]

https://apnews.com/900aa1955a82b7bbe2e028a8bc1a4be7

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said over the weekend that U.S. unemployment could peak in May or June at 20% to 25%, a level last seen during the depths of the Great Depression almost 90 years ago. Unemployment in April stood at 14.7%, a figure also unmatched since the 1930s.