
3.28M file for U.S. jobless benefits - treyfitty
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-long-run-of-american-job-growth-has-ended-11585215000
======
stupandaus
A few things to note:

1\. These figures are only new claims as of 3/21, so the numbers will get
worse.

2\. This is ~2% of the estimated ~160-165M US Workforce.

3\. This is nearly 5x (!) the prior record of 671K new jobless claims from
1982, and redefines the scale for jobless claims. [1]

4\. This does not account for the countless gig workers that are part of the
modern economy that likely did not file for unemployment since they were not
covered prior to the passing of the senate bill last night.

This goes to show just how sharp of an impact the coronavirus pandemic has had
relative to past recessions. Even the '08 Financial Crisis took MONTHS to
unravel.

[1]
[https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ICSA](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ICSA)

~~~
luma
Further, unemployment benefits are managed by the states, and those states are
running web services which typically see a few hundred hits a day. They are
now trying to process tens of thousands of new records each day, and at least
in MI the service is absolutely not up to the task.

My wife managed to get her filing completed a little after 1am this morning.
She was the only one of her 20 coworkers to successfully file, the rest are
continuing to attempt to get the state web site to work today, while more
people pile in.

These numbers are going to get much, much worse.

~~~
Demiurge
As a developer I immediately though of the power of queues. Twenty people
trying to submit same form does not work for everyone, but a queue processing
one person at a time might allow the twenty people to submit within a short
time. It is flattening the curve! If I was contracted to fix this ASAP, I
would set up an nginx front-end proxy config that doesn't allow more than X
sessions and suggest a time in the future when they could try again.

~~~
driverdan
Having worked on this type of application in the past they should find a new
company to work with if they can't handle this traffic. We were handling
hundreds of requests per second with ease 10 years ago. That was with MySQL
and the app running on the same server.

It doesn't take many resources to show the user a form, validate it, and save
to a DB.

~~~
dubcanada
A bunch of armchair developers seem to have been summoned to tell the Federal
government how to handle form submissions for an extremely security and
privacy intense application using their fancy modern techniques.

You are talking about comparing a basic web form with an application for
unemployment benefits which must go into a federal tax database and be
processed using a what I assume is a garbage mainframe system.

It not only needs to be validated, it needs to securely store records, be able
to compare them, and hook up to the system that handles payments, etc.

They can't just circumvent it and dump it into some silly Amazon or MySQL
database and call it a day. That would require the employees to basically copy
and paste that data into the actual warehouse and considering they have 3+
million to go through as it is making it easy for them to process is just as
important as allowing people to submit.

For the time being the correct response is a queue gate.

Stop being silly.

~~~
Demiurge
I also completely agree with this sentiment. A gov't form could be an
unsightly complex beast that can't be re-architected, sometimes, ever.

~~~
vsareto
They could, they just don't want to pay for it. The government has no interest
in being known for easily handling a huge spike of traffic during a crisis.
They can just take the lower road and get by with less and saying 'try again
later'. There's no repercussions here because it's the government.

Hence mainframe maintainers should really move to charging $1 million/year in
a decade or two.

~~~
kazagistar
They aren't choosing to have crap infrastructure, their infrastructure is
intentionally defunded as part of a political campaign to engender distrust in
government functions and increase privatization. Government is incompetent
because if it is, its easy to justify selling off the country to the
incredibly wealthy so they can get wealthier.

~~~
Demiurge
It's a bit worse than that. The infrastructure isn't actually defunded, there
are huge funds allocated to projects, but they're being consumed by managers
at Deloitte, Lockheed, Booz Allen, Accenture, etc. The times when we see
success is when enough funding trickled down to the few engineers who could
make it work with what they get. Other times we see success is when there is
enough public oversight by sufficiently independent stake holders. I see this
in many local government agencies that are small, and projects accountable to
city council, and so on.

------
duxup
Semi tangent, about dealing with mass unemployment.

I like to think this event changes people's perspective on folks out of work
in the US. There's a lot of recrimination, and even self loathing about being
poor or out of work in the US. It doesn't seem based in reality and certainly
isn't helpful.

Perhaps it is time we realize that much like a pandemic things in this world
change fast and we need to be able to help folks who are out of work pick up
skills quickly / retrain (and maybe retrain employers that people with a
'different' resume might actually be able to do other jobs) so that they can
get back on their feet.

Maybe it won't be a pandemic but things are changing fast whole industries of
people find themselves offshored, jobs change, etc. I think we need to plan
for / get comfortable with the idea that on a smaller scale we should be ready
to deal with such things dynamically over the course of people's lives with
retraining, support for it, and etc. And maybe a workforce with a variety of
experiences will be better for it.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I like to think this event changes people's perspective on folks out of work
> in the US.

Sure, just like the Depression did.

And just like the Depression, a few years of boom times afterwards and that
effect will be negated until the next similar event.

~~~
baron_harkonnen
After the depression the US emerged as the global hegemon because of major
shifts in power that happened as a part of WWII. The US was uniquely adapted
to grow to be the global super power at the same time that European nations
were taking a huge hit from the war.

I suspect this will ultimately lead to China as the new hegemon. We're seeing
key advantages to the Chinese state that the US cannot adapt to. Decades of
pushing the US government to work more and more exclusively in the interest of
capital has lead to a completely impotent state that cannot take care of its
people. Likewise we have a complacent populace who, as many here have argued,
won't be able to endure extended isolation.

The pandemic is not just a rogue wave that has done some damage and we'll
bounce right back. This event has shown deep systemic vulnerability to certain
very real risks that the US is incapable of adapting too. And all these same
risks are what leave us extremely vulnerable to other similar events like
climate change.

The US will recover in a sense, but this is very likely the start of a long
process of a major shift in global power, and the end result will look very,
very different than the world of a few weeks ago.

~~~
chatmasta
I’m not sure about this. China is, rightfully, being blamed for the initial
outbreak of the virus and their failure to contain it. I think when the dust
settles, we’re going to see a rapid decoupling from China as countries look
inward to strengthen their domestic supply chains.

I have a hard time seeing China emerging as a winner from this crisis.

~~~
vkou
Given how poorly the rest of the world reacted after getting two months of
advance warning, I can't think of more than three countries that could have
contained this outbreak.

Fingerpointing at China when they reacted far more decisively then the West
did seems... A tad off the mark.

If this originated in Milan, Kansas, or Bangalore, we'd all be in the exact
same boat today.

Hell, if the outbreak started in Kansas, we would probably have a hundred
thousand dead by now, with our supreme leader still insisting that the virus
will magically go away in three weeks.

~~~
mensetmanusman
Not sure it is fair to say that the world really had advanced warning from
China. They were saying everything was okay and people-people transmission is
low. All trust was lost, so time was reset when Italy was hit, that is the
real time zero, because no one trusts China.

~~~
vkou
> They were saying everything was okay and people-people transmission is low.

For the first two weeks of January.

When they got to the point of locking down an entire city, it became pretty
clear to everyone that it was a serious situation.

We looked at that, and did... Nothing.

~~~
Izkata
The first lockdown in Italy was Feb 21. Trump had alread convened a task force
to investigate and handle the spread of the virus on Jan 29, and was later
called racist for the travel restrictions placed on people coming from China
on Jan 31.

It's apparently been memory-holed, but during this period it was the US media
calling it "no worse than the flu", not the other way around.

~~~
vkou
And what did that task force accomplish?

* Shipping a laughably insufficient number of test kits that didn't work, while banning private labs from developing their own tests. We _still_ have a crippling test kit shortage.

* Asking people traveling from China to self-quarantine, and not following up.

* No stockpiles of necessary medical supplies.

Getting called names has never stopped him from rolling out bad policy in the
past. I don't see why it can be credited for stopping him from rolling out
_good_ policy this time.

------
rubber_duck
And this is just the start.

While I think the US response to Corona was slower than the response in my
country I feel the US is the only country that's seriously discussing economic
repercussions and debating the medical experts.

In EU (at least in my country) it's doctors running things and we are in "stop
the pandemic at all cost". Everyone is in panic due to Italy situation. But
doctors are only trained to see the medical side of the picture - and there is
a point at which this approach to fighting the virus is going to have worse
consequences than a full blown pandemic itself - I don't see anyone publicly
discussing this point around here.

~~~
sundaeofshock
Seriously? There were a number of submissions yesterday to HN discussing the
relative merits of sacrificing millions for the sake of the market. Perhaps
you missed those?

~~~
scottLobster
Not sure if this was your intent, but "sacrificing millions for the sake of
the Market" sounds like you're trying to shift away from the point that right
now about 3.28 million more folks (probably more) are wondering how to pay
their rent/mortgages and feed their children. If this lockdown continues
indefinitely the death numbers from the economic fallout will likely eclipse
those of the pandemic.

But nah, the "market" apparently entirely consists of assholes on Wall Street
playing Capitalism II and lobbying governments for payouts. No way it has any
real impact!

~~~
pjc50
This is where it's very important to distinguish between financial conditions
and material conditions. Feeding children and supplying respirators and masks
are material conditions, dependent on the production and distribution systems.

Paying rent and mortgage, on the other hand, isn't _material_. If you don't
pay it nothing material changes - it's not an iron law of the world in the way
that hunger is, evictions are a choice. Admittedly it transfers the problem to
someone else, but if the solution to maintaining everyone fed includes them
then they're not going to go hungry.

Financial conditions also have a time tradeoff. Reducing retirement funds
affects material conditions _in the future_. Or the date at which people are
able to retire.

If you had a button you could press which let you retire immediately, but
(with probability P) took the life of some random person in the world, would
you press it? With what value of P?

~~~
tathougies
Mortgages and by extension rent provide liquid funds to banks so that account
holders, including essential business's like hospitals, farmers, and factories
can pay their employees and bills.

You are delusional to think it is possible to suspend payments without
printing massive amounts of money that will certainly lead to more death.

~~~
pjc50
_shrug_ we provided liquidity last time and can do so again. Money printing
doesn't kill people, viruses do. The banks are intermediaries. The essential
businesses are not affected provided we do not let the banks fail randomly,
and there is no need to do that.

~~~
tathougies
Last time we had nowhere near the need for liquidity. There were bad
mortgages, but they were the minority.

Currency inflation kills. Look at venezuela. You cannot shrug this off. At
least consider the effects.

~~~
pjc50
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing)

> By March 2009, it held $1.75 trillion of bank debt, mortgage-backed
> securities, and Treasury notes; this amount reached a peak of $2.1 trillion
> in June 2010.

That feels like a lot of liquidity to me.

Liquidity expansion through loans and purchase of credit and equity
instruments simply isn't very inflationary. It can only cause real price
inflation if the money starts chasing a shortage of real goods and services -
which are currently being dramatically _underproduced_. If it does start
causing inflation, the Fed can and will simply raise interest rates from their
current near-zero level. Or fiscal policy can be used.

Venezuela is under sanctions which are intended to exacerbate the situation.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during_the_Venezuelan_crisis)

~~~
tathougies
Yes, quantitative easing is okay. But that is a lot different than the direct
money being given to individuals and businesses by Congress. Especially the
direct payments to individuals means printing money.

What the fed is doing is printing money now that will be destroyed later, or
held in reserve. Either way, it is backed by actual financial instruments
(whatever equity or bonds or notes they're buying).

------
dpcan
Being a sole proprietor / contractor right now feels hopeless. Nobody is
spending money with me right now, projects on hold, no possible way of filing
for unemployment. It's worrisome.

Thankfully my wife is still working - but she's an administrator at a Nursing
Home and people there are starting to get tested - and she's panicking. They
are days from having no nurses. She's worried about cleaning crews being sick.
She's worried about bringing it home. Luckily they have a stockpile of
supplies, BUT THIS WHOLE THING IS ABOUT TO BLOW UP!

The problem is that the tests of their employees are taking UP TO 10 DAYS to
come back. They are sending home nurses for this long just to wait and see if
they are all going to be exposed, their residents too.

Anyone in their facility who may be sick is being sent home for 14 days. There
will be nobody left to take care of the elderly, who may also get sick.

People are worried about dying themselves, or the people they care for dying.

I'm confident we are 10 days from hearing about Nursing Homes and Nurses in
Nursing Homes everywhere getting sick and dying in massive numbers.

~~~
cheeze
> Being a sole proprietor / contractor right now feels hopeless. Nobody is
> spending money with me right now, projects on hold, no possible way of
> filing for unemployment. It's worrisome.

Please don't take this as me being captain hindsight here, but I think that
this pandemic has reallllly shown the need for an emergency fund. IMO if
you're sole prop or contractor, you owe it to yourself to have a bigger
emergency fund for this exact scenario.

~~~
manquer
It is not that people don’t know this and spend all they make. Not all
contractors make enough to save for an emergency fund easily. Independent of
all of this, every experienced contractor knows that sometimes there will be
dull patches and you save for that . However it is not always possible to do
so, and you may have saved for 2weeks or 2 months and it may not be enough the
economy might limp for 6months or a year .

------
wpietri
And as an econ/business reporter points out, this should be seen as the lower
bound on the true number of lost job, because there are a lot of reasons
people didn't file, including confusion, overwhelmed systems, and many lost
jobs not qualifying:
[https://twitter.com/bencasselman/status/1243147516784324608](https://twitter.com/bencasselman/status/1243147516784324608)

~~~
toomuchtodo
This is also only the beginning, as lockdowns across the nation aren’t in full
swing yet.

~~~
yulaow
There is usa how the implemented lockdowns work? They forced to shut down all
non-essential industries and shops? Or they just suggested it?

I am finding confusing information online. Like... Did they really give to the
each employer the power to decide if they are essential or not?

~~~
toomuchtodo
The authority has been delegated to states, each state is making their own
decisions.

~~~
tathougies
No. The authority was never given to the federal government. Key difference.
The federal government cannot grant that which it does not have

~~~
toomuchtodo
We're saying the same thing. No need to be pedantic.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights)

~~~
tathougies
No, it's different. Delegated to the states implies that someone else had the
power and gave it to the states. That is not true. The states always had the
power, and have had it since they formed, and it was not removed upon
admission to the United States.

It's like saying France was delegated the power to enforce a national
quarantine. That is simply not the case.

------
csomar
> A week ago, he said he had “a good middle-class job” which paid him $35.50
> an hour plus health care and retirement benefits. Now he is struggling to
> figure out how he’ll pay a $300 electric bill and $1,000 in rent for his
> townhouse. He also lost his health insurance.

You make $35.5/hour in (I suppose?) a stable job but if the work stops for a
week, you struggle with a $300 bill? I know some people are living paycheck to
paycheck but starting from a certain income you should build a safety net.
What about your IRA? What about your credit score? What about small
investments?

Looks like some people are living $ to $ without leaving any money aside. This
might be what is going to make this even harder for the economy.

~~~
ithinkinstereo
I went to my local 7-11 a couple of weeks ago to get some cash at the ATM.
Next to it was a garbage bin for throwing away your receipt.

Out of curiosity, I went through about a dozen and not a single one had a
balance above $1,000. Most were below $500.

There is little financial literacy in this country. Basic lessons about
opening a bank account, the difference between checkings and savings, etc. is
not something that is taught in K-12 nor in College. Let alone more "advanced"
topics like 401Ks and IRAs and investing in the stock market.

~~~
tharne
That's a pretty biased sample. Most people with financial literacy aren't
withdrawing cash at a 7/11\. They're doing it at their own bank branch to
avoid paying any fees.

The reasoning here is circular. At the ATM in 7/11 that would only be used by
people who aren't financially literate enough to absorb excessive fees, we
find evidence of poor finances and poor financial literacy.

~~~
sodafountan
Uhm, what?

Or maybe they're just doing it out of convenience? Have you never payed a fee
for convenience?

Have you tipped in a restaurant? Have you taken the highway instead of the
back roads and payed a toll? Have you ever had food delivered to you?

Congrats you're doing the same thing people who pull money out of an ATM are
doing you financially illiterate rube.

~~~
dwaltrip
FYI, I liked the points you made. However, personal insults ruin discussion
and lower the quality of the forum, so I downvoted this comment.

I can certainly relate to getting fired up at foolish comments on the
internet! It's tough sometimes... heh. Cheers, I hope you have a good day.

------
PaulRobinson
A staggering number, and unprecedented in the modern era.

I'm not in the US or an America, but my (retired), Father is and for the sake
of the people around him and his family I hope this is the point where the
American political system - and Republicans in particular - realise that their
ideologies are dead.

In the UK we saw an Old-Etonian Tory Prime Minister in the space of a couple
of weeks:

\- Effectively nationalise a huge chunk of private industry by offering to
subsidise 80% of all salaries up to £30k/year

\- Delay tax payments for businesses, and offer up to 15% of GDP in loans and
grants to help keep them alive

\- Renationalise the train industry (privatising it and others was a hallmark
of Thatcher's period in power)

\- Accept that their planned immigration policy post-Brexit is now probably
dead in the water because who knew that "low skilled workers" like cleaners
and agricultural workers would be useful?

\- Severely curtail free movement and enterprise by shutting every pub,
restaurant, cinema, theatre and cafe across the UK as well as almost every
shop that isn't a pharmacy or food shop

\- Become champion supporters of an NHS they were - until recently - trying to
sell bit off of

Politics here has changed forever, and likely for the better (assuming the
sanctions on free movement and enterprise are temporary and not a back door
for more draconian measures). For the sake of the most vulnerable in America,
I hope it's the same there too.

And maybe - just maybe - it's time everybody took another look at the UBI
debate, again.

~~~
shripadk
> And maybe - just maybe - it's time everybody took another look at the UBI
> debate, again.

Doesn't UBI directly result in inflation and cause currency devaluation? If
the money that you hold loses its value (because everyone has at the very
least the same amount of money as a basic, consistent income) then it is worth
nothing in the end. It is as good as having no money in my humble opinion.
Money has to be valuable for it to be useful in trade. Giving away money to
everyone devalues the currency.

~~~
lotsofpulp
You would have to implement it in a way that redistributed wealth, i.e.
increase marginal tax rates.

The goal is to make sure everyone is housed, fed, and educated. One option is
to just give them housing, food, and education. Another is to give people
money and let them choose. Yet another is to loan the money and to put them in
debt forever.

~~~
_curious_
The goal is to make sure everyone is housed, fed, and educated. One option is
to just give them housing, food, and education. Another is to give people
money and let them choose. Yet another is to loan the money and to put them in
debt forever.

It's a noble goal. What about exercising the option of personal responsibility
and agency of choice? (D) none of the above.

~~~
lotsofpulp
What about it? From what I can tell, people would rather choose to live in
countries where there is some social contract regarding a minimum quality of
life rather than Somalia.

------
ian0
How is our social system so fragile?

I mean seriously - thousands of years and wireless comms and rockets to the
moon and not only do we forget to prepare for a virus (something that had
happened routinely throughout our history) but when it hits and people have to
stay at home for a few weeks the economy falls down and leaves millions of
people who want to work unable to do so.

~~~
TeMPOraL
It's just the consequence of market economy. Everyone is under pressure to
"cut out fat", make themselves "lean". That applies everywhere across the
supply chain. First thing that goes is every redundancy, buffer and spare
capacity - things that would mitigate a crisis like this. It's because the
companies that "cut out fat" can grow faster, sell cheaper and profit more,
compared to their competitors that have risk horizons longer than few months.

What needs to be done is legally mandated buffers and redundancies (so that no
one can gain a competitive advantage by omitting or removing them). Many
countries had that after II World War. Unfortunately, out of the wood works
came people screaming "efficiency!" and cut it all out.

~~~
zaroth
Have you considered what the cost of adding these “mandated buffers and
redundancies” to the overall economy? Have you attempted to integrate these
costs over time when there isn’t a pandemic going on, and made any attempt to
determine the net effect?

Have you considered that you can’t start a small business with buffers and
redundancies? And that small business accounts for 50% of overall employment?

~~~
tonyhb
Yes. His point is that game theory and economic principles favour the leaner,
therefore every company moves to max. efficiency with JIT supply chains and
max leverage.

The only way around this is regulation if we want to be able to withstand
crises _without_ bailouts.

That's currently not the situation, which is why bailouts happen.

~~~
zaroth
It’s not just game theory, it’s actual real world efficiency. Which translates
into jobs and salaries. Reducing baseline capital efficiency drives up all
baseline costs. These costs are passed on to consumers and act as a drag on
the economy.

It would make no sense to do that in response to a black swan event.

Let’s say small business has to keep 6 months of expenses in reserve instead
of the typical 3 months rule of thumb. For the same amount of cash on hand
that means you can afford half the monthly expenses.

It’s not just a matter of “hoard more cash”. That cash had to come from prior
quarter’s net income. Revenue you don’t invest drags down growth (a.k.a
hiring). Revenue you don’t spend is also taxed, adding further drag on the
business.

Basically what this proposal is suggesting is to drastically reduce the “money
multiplier”. This shrinks GDP.

If the government forces your company to shut down for weeks, I expect them to
pay for it. It doesn’t make any sense for small businesses to self-insure
against government mandated shutdowns. That would simply be a recipe for
destroying small business.

~~~
tonyhb
Nope, the efficiency is captured as profit only until other efficient
competitors appear and lower the price.

The price does _not_ "trickle down" to consumers or employees until it has to.
Again, theory: why would a company give away free money?

------
bearjaws
Anecdotal but my company is hiring 2x support and 2x QA, yesterday alone we
went from receiving 5-10 applicants a day to 53. I just got into work and
there is already 21 from last night.

~~~
castratikron
Just curious, did your company get an essential business exemption from any
stay at home orders?

~~~
bearjaws
We have not, but we can work remote and have had to move our hiring process to
be entirely remote.

------
est31
To make it sure that I understand it correctly: this is not the total number
of unemployed people, but the number of people who became unemployed recently
and now file the forms? Then that number is gigantic, wow.

~~~
skrowl
The USA is home to ~340 million people (many people here illegally aren't
counted). Only about 63.4% (~215M) of them work.

[https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-
parti...](https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-
participation-rate)

~~~
qntmfred
Labor force participation rate does not include children, so the 215M number
is actually much lower

------
pupdogg
As you look at this story, please keep some basic numbers in mind:

1\. US Population: 329,433,166 (as of 3/25/2020)

2\. Employed: 158,130,000 (approx. 48% of population)

3\. Unemployed: 8,787,000 (approx. 5.6% of employed)

Note:

Take these numbers with a grain of salt as US Population is only as good as
the Census Reporting itself. The Employed # is an estimate based on 155.76
million factually employed in 2018 and does not include self-employed,
contractors, gig workers etc.

Sources:

1\. [https://www.census.gov/popclock/](https://www.census.gov/popclock/)

2\. [https://www.statista.com/statistics/269959/employment-in-
the...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/269959/employment-in-the-united-
states/)

3\.
[https://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/us/](https://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/us/)

------
hopfog
Just to illustrate how absurd this number is:
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EUCTISVXQAcIKEb?format=png&name=...](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EUCTISVXQAcIKEb?format=png&name=large)

~~~
trackone
This is messing up charts so much that maybe in a couple years we will be
removing 2020 from the data just to have a chart that doesn't have a crazy
x-axis.

~~~
b3kart
2020: the Shetland Islands of unemployment charts. (For context:
[https://bit.ly/2UEV5H5](https://bit.ly/2UEV5H5))

------
yurlungur
The thing about the current situation is that there is still no end in sight
and it feels like we are just at the beginning stages of a tough struggle.

Thankfully tech seems to be holding up in terms of employment for the moment,
but we have stopped hiring as well so who knows what may come next. Not every
tech can withstand or even benefit from the current crisis.

------
cjslep
I grew up with the puritanical mindset of: "Your intrinsic worth as a human is
the money you earn; because the money you earn is from how hard you work; and
how hard you work is a reflection of your intrinsic Virtue."

Thus I grew up in a family that loathes the unemployed. I really hope --
though I have grave doubts -- that this event gets through to them, so that
they can have some personal growth, too.

~~~
bbxxcc
I think loathing the unemployed (especially if it isn't caused by health
conditions and isn't temporary, like in this case) is commonplace in any
society. There are many studies which show unemployed people are more likely
to commit crimes. e.g. [1]

Unemployed people, by definition, are net consumers. [2] Unless society as a
whole actually produces wealth, there is nothing to tax, and the government
doesn't have any money to spend. And how does wealth get created without
people in employment? Unless you are the country with the reserve currency,
which effectively gives you the ability to keep printing money until the world
catches up to the con. Which doesn't still change the underlying economics, it
is just that at any given point in time there is always some country which
will be using the reserve currency status to make it appear like you can
create wealth by printing more money.

Aiming for more employment is a net positive to any society, and I think that
is what conditions people to loathe the permanently unemployed.

[1]
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/40057352?seq=1](https://www.jstor.org/stable/40057352?seq=1)

[2] I remember reading an essay by PG about how getting employment is when you
go from being a "net consumer" to become a "net producer", cannot find the
link.

~~~
danharaj
Landlords are bigger parasites than any NEET.

~~~
throwawayjava
I've encountered exactly two people in my life who were perfectly healthy,
both mentally and physically, but just sat around all day doing nothing for
years on end.

Both were landlords.

------
dubcanada
Canada is at 1 million or about 5% of our population. And it's only going to
go up from here.

I have no idea how they are doing to handle any of this, having that
percentage of your population on EI is going to hurt.

~~~
nahname
Have heard similar estimates, found an article corroborating this.

[https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-
unemploymen...](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-unemployment-
claims-reach-nearly-one-million-as-businesses-battered-by/)

------
poidos
Most, if not all (?) will lose their healthcare. Horrible situation to be in
during a pandemic.

------
scottLobster
Won't know for sure until Apr 03 (The Day BLS releases the official
unemployment rate for March) but this may very well trip the Sahm recession
indicator, which has correctly predicted/detected every US recession back to
1950 (If it's been further backfitted I can't find the data).

[https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SAHMCURRENT](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SAHMCURRENT)

~~~
yread
I don't think you need a black magic/AI/fancy algorithm to tell whether there
is a recession or not

~~~
scottLobster
No, but it's nice to have some confirmation :)

------
NamTaf
3.28 million? Really?

With the lockdowns of retail, hospitality, etc. in Australia, a country of 25
million total, we've seen nearly something north of 800,000 unemployed
(temporarily or permanently). This can't be an accurate figure, surely!

~~~
jeltz
This is just the people who have filed last week. There is bound to be many
more soon. And I am not sure everyone who have lost their jobs are eligible.

~~~
packet_nerd
My wife and many of her coworkers quite their jobs in the last two weeks as
working from home wasn't an option. My understanding is they won't be eligible
for unemployment?

~~~
kasey_junk
Depends on the jurisdiction but in most no, voluntary leaving is not covered.

------
MisterBastahrd
For those playing at home, that's 3.28 million people who probably don't have
access to health care now. Many probably didn't before due to the nature of
their jobs, but it's going to be interesting to watch the cry for bailout of
hospitals from the same politicians who are completely fine otherwise with
people going without healthcare.

------
donquichotte
The economical impact of COVID-19 on people's lives will be far more severe
than the biological one.

Hopefully this won't discourage governments from taking appropriate action
once a more lethal pandemic comes.

~~~
johnpowell
So lets say that there are a couple hundred thousand dead and you are pretty
sure that 50% of the people out there have it. Are you going to go out for
dinner or a movie? Not me..

But ignore me if you aren't saying that the restrictions should be reversed so
the economy goes back to normal. A guy on CNBC just said that even if it means
400K would die. The economy just will not go back to normal anytime soon.

------
fallingfrog
Things that Coronavirus is teaching us:

-the people who are _actually_ vital to make the economy are grocery clerks, doctors, nurses, teachers and other carers, but not corporate CEOs, who are ultimately just dead weight.

-money is imaginary and they can print as much as they want.

-the people in power right now would rather have the stock market crash and watch you and a million other Americans die than give healthcare to everyone, even in the middle of a pandemic. How much would it help to have a centralized, organized response where everyone gets tested early right now? But it’s impossible, because it would mean giving health care to poor people.

-capitalism is a beast that dies if it cannot grow. People work mostly to pay rent and debts. They pay rent so the landlord can pay the mortgage. The bank has already lent out the money they expect to get from people paying the mortgage- so if property owners don’t pay their monthly bill, the whole financial system has a heart attack. Same thing with corporate debt. The corporation is assuming that you’re going to buy crap you don’t need. If you don’t, then they can’t pay their massive debts and again the whole system seizes up. So the primary reason we spend all our useful hours at work is so that we can make numbers bigger at the bank. And all of these debts, ultimately, are paid off on the backs of the working class. But the whole system can’t be reduced, or paused, or even slowed down- it _must_ grow exponentially more and more, consuming more and more resources forever, or else it craters in a devastating crash and cannibalizes itself on the way down.

~~~
rchaud
I'm not sure if the lessons will be interpreted in this way, or even
remembered once things go back to some form of normalcy, at least for the
monied classes that hold the largest microphones in our society.

The lessons learned from the conflict in Vietnam was not that "war is a
racket" or "the US shouldn't militarily intervene unless it's a last resort".
It was simply that "the US should use proxies where possible and only
intervene where the opposition has a limited capacity to fight back".

And even then, they've greatly overestimated their strength in these
conflicts. Because the people with the largest microphones said it would be
enough to win.

------
1zael
Welcome to the Great Depression of the 21st century.

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
Things are bad enough without exaggerating the situation. The big problem with
the great depression was not the size of the crash but the duration of the
recovery. Our view of the money supply seems a bit more effective these days
and it seems unlikely that the recession that comes out of this situation will
last as long.

~~~
PaulRobinson
Like you say, things are bad enough without exaggerating the situation.

If you think this is all over in anything less than 4-5 years in terms of
economic impact, I don't think you've understood what has really just happened
and is about to happen.

~~~
jeltz
I do not think anyone knows how long the recovery will take, not even the
experts.

~~~
TeMPOraL
There are indicators from past problems, though. One example I've seen is that
it took 17 years for airlines to recover after 9/11[0].

\--

[0] - [https://www.businessinsider.com/airline-stocks-recover-
septe...](https://www.businessinsider.com/airline-stocks-recover-
september-11-911-losses-2017-6?IR=T)

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
I'm guessing that index does not capture total return. For example, DAL has
offered ~2-3% annual dividends at least since 2013, which adds up to a pretty
substantial difference to between total return and asset price if reinvested.
It's not clear if that's when they resumed dividends or if Yahoo Finance just
doesn't have data going back further.

~~~
aguyfromnb
Why don't you do the calculation then, instead of dismissing an
article/calculation based on something you're not even sure is true?

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
You want me to . . . hand-calculate market-weighted total return of an index?
Without access to the underlying financials? That's a big ask for an internet
comment.

I didn't dismiss the article. I provided additional context that might be
helpful in evaluating its claims. You are free to do with that what you will.

[https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/indices/nyse_arca_globa...](https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/indices/nyse_arca_global_airline_index.pdf)

"The Index tracks the price performance ..." suggests that my surmise is
correct, at least for the global version of this index.

~~~
aguyfromnb
> _That 's a big ask for an internet comment._

So your solution is to "guess" that it didn't happen?

> _I didn 't dismiss the article. I provided additional context that might be
> helpful in evaluating its claims._

You didn't add anything. You insinuated that it wasn't correct, with zero
evidence or knowledge.

Why didn't you add other things, like maybe the journalist made the entire
thing up? Or perhaps the whole measure of the index is simply a lie and
doesn't exist?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that people here consider random aspersions
"adding context".

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
I'm puzzled that you think factual and relevant context is an aspersion. The
article is technically correct that asset prices took a long time to recover
to the previous levels. But it is limited in its application. In order to
judge the return of an investment, you have to look at not just its asset
price but what it produces. A chicken only decreases in value from the time it
begins laying eggs, but that doesn't make it a bad investment. Same with the
airlines.

> So your solution is to "guess" that it didn't happen?

It's not a guess. It's an informed inference from my knowledge of airline
dividend habits, which I subsequently backed up with a citation. However, I
will not do hours of modeling work to satisfy your curiosity. If you want that
information, do it yourself.

------
rsweeney21
The US federal and state governments have implemented policies that have
forced a large number of businesses to close temporarily. A business that is
closed can't pay it's employees, so naturally it would have to lay them off.

If tomorrow we found a cure and got the all clear to return to life as normal,
how many of the 3.28M would be re-hired immediately? What we need is a
distinction between being laid off temporarily and being laid off permanently.
That would give us a clearer picture of the real economic impact.

We need a new metric. The senate stimulus bill should have included a new
classification and support for workers temporarily put on unpaid leave.

------
abootstrapper
And the stock market loves it? I’m so confused.

~~~
01100011
It may be a temporary bump. I'm still debating pulling some money out of the
market for a while. I'd still be buying via my 401(k), so I'm not totally out,
but I just feel like the fundamentals will pull the market down for a while.
Then again, we will probably, finally, start to see (stag|in)flation soon so
having cash may be a bad move.

------
jostmey
That’s about 1% of the US population to put it in perspective

~~~
hyperbovine
And a far higher percentage of the workforce.

~~~
adtac
About 1.6-1.8% by most estimates, so not really _far_ higher

~~~
vikramkr
That's 60 to 80 percent higher. Large differences in small numbers still look
small haha

------
tmpynews
Someone can correct me on this if I am wrong.

Most of the unemployment is people on the lower end of the spectrum in terms
of financials. Most of them are in the service sector. The middle of the pack
group did not suffer because of this (yet). Whenever this clears the service
sector, travel, restaurants, hospitality etc will bounce back very quickly. So
all the people that lost their jobs could just get them back and the recovery
will be sharp.

However, the kick in the nuts will be if the virus drags on for months. Then
it becomes uncertain.

------
mrfusion
What is the process for freelancers to get unemployment? I think that was
mentioned in the new stimulus?

~~~
lonelappde
Some info: [https://www.thebalancecareers.com/can-i-collect-
unemployment...](https://www.thebalancecareers.com/can-i-collect-unemployment-
if-i-m-self-employed-2064148)

------
Daniel_sk
And yet - S&P 500 reacts with a sharp climb and most investors already think
we hit the bottom two days ago.

------
neonate
[https://archive.md/6BC8F](https://archive.md/6BC8F)

------
treyfitty
For context, the previous record was ~680K in the early 1980s.

~~~
allcentury
Also worth noting the population then was 231 million, of which 110 million
was in the labor force.

So today: 3 mil / 160 mil - 1.9%

1982: 670k / 110 mil - 0.6%

------
rukittenme
My initial response to this is... duh. How many governments have ordered
people _not to work_. Is it surprising that all those people would then file
for _not working_ benefits?

Of course not. Its an artificial unemployment spike (provoked by very real,
fundamental forces in the world i.e. covid-19).

It will be VERY interesting to watch how state governments react to this
spike. The federal government has monopoly money but state governments are
VERY MUCH concerned with debt levels.

We'll see how long these isolation orders last. States will have to chose
between unemployment, pensions, welfare programs, transit operations, etc. I
wonder who gets the axe first. You could very easily see states go bankrupt
and whole classes of the social safety net depleted for a generation.

------
wayne_skylar
More than anything right now people are going to have a very strong appetite
for financial security. It's about time we reconsider 'working for 50 weeks to
pay for 52' as a viable means to have that security.

------
max93
The stock rises after the announcement...

~~~
quickthrowman
Yes, a higher unemployment number was expected. Did you think unemployment
going way up wasn’t already partially priced in?

------
AtlasBarfed
If the US was smart (big if...)

The pandemic quarantine will accumulate pent up demand, or at least a desire
to consume once it is "over".

A good economic recovery would provide enough money to fund this demand and
immediately reward rehiring of people to previous levels.

But this will be a series of discredited supply-side measures until (perhaps)
a Keynesian friendly democrat is in office.

~~~
treyfitty
Pent up demand for what? I’m being half facetious here, but something of this
magnitude and rare will likely cause a shift in our world-views. This whole
talk of “pent up demand” in Econ 101 really leads me to believe this system is
guided by shibboleths and buzz phrases.

Let’s be real for a second: this pandemic will fundamentally change
consumption as we recalibrate just how much we “need” that new shiny thing.

------
KoftaBob
Isn't it meaningful that the cause of this particular unemployment is very
unique, in that it wasn't caused by a weak economy, but by the government
artificially closing the businesses temporarily?

Theoretically, once everything starts to open back up, won't there be a
similarly sized surge in "new jobs" so to speak?

------
kingkawn
At least in New York the state dept of labor unemployment page is broken under
the server stress and untold numbers of people haven’t been able to login and
file claims.

------
anthony_barker
Canada wins 500,000 jobs lost at 10% of the population. Oil and gas prices is
a double whammy.

------
peterwwillis
Reminder: we spend 700 Billion on our military. No reason that can't be
reduced to provide aid if needed.

------
mensetmanusman
A year from now, will we look back and say it was worth the suffering for
something 5x as bad as the flu? (based on Germany’s numbers, which are more
fully accounting for those with mild symptoms)

Shows how important testing randomly is, if the denominator is low because you
are only testing those in the hospital, it looks like the second coming of the
Spanish flu.

~~~
matwood
Even if we raise the denominator to make the percentages look better, there is
no denying that hospitals are being overwhelmed. The flu often already pushed
hospitals to the edge, so even only (heh) 5x worse will cause most hospital
systems collapse.

~~~
mensetmanusman
Should 1000 people go unemployed to save one person?

~~~
cbruns
Phrased differently, are you willing to die to give employment to 1000 people?

~~~
mensetmanusman
Phrased differently, I would be willing to die to give employment to 1000
people who can work to save 10 (?) people. If people aren’t working to care
for the system, then doctors can’t find helpers with their kids, etc.

The system collapses in this scenario as well.

I don’t have a real answer, but this event is helping discuss interesting and
difficult questions.

If I was over 70 y.o., I would think that I would be willing to die to prevent
my grandchildren from experiencing the great depression.

------
throwaway_USD
Everyone should expect the stock market to thrive off this data today...

~~~
treyfitty
Why’s that? I see that the SP500 is rising... but why is this “good news” for
businesses?

~~~
throwaway_USD
The danger was businesses losing customers (revenue/income), which these
initial numbers confirm...but on the other hand these jobless folks (and the
whole country)just took out a $6T loan, of which $5.75T is going to these
businesses ($1.75 will not have to be paid back and $4T will be interest free
loans, and likely in may cases these companies will actually have negative
interest rates, in other words they will make money on borrowing these tax
payer loans). These are the very same companies that will also avoid paying US
taxes.

Public companies cut all their costs/expenses and are going to be given
$5.75T...mainstreet can't buy on these lows (because they have no jobs/income,
fear and lack of liquidity are a bad combination) and the companies are flush
with cash to buy back stocks now before they get the real windfall from tax
payers. In short, public companies will be spending today to buy their own
stock.

~~~
treyfitty
But it's been confirmed that stock buybacks will not be allowed for companies
receiving a bailout. Am I missing something more here?

[https://www.marketwatch.com/story/coronavirus-stimulus-
packa...](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/coronavirus-stimulus-package-set-
to-ban-stock-buybacks-for-companies-that-get-aid-2020-03-25)

~~~
throwaway_USD
>Am I missing something more here?

Apparently...they are doing the buy backs now (like right now) while they are
flush with cash/no expenses, main street can't invest, and before they get
their bailout cash. Never mind the buy back prohibitions are being majorly
overstated.

------
biolurker1
Stock market up, Trump says churches will be full of people in two weeks. I'm
watching a movie it seems

------
adriancooney
I wonder would a vaccine be able to reverse this instantly? Can you imagine.
It's going to be a bumpy few months.

------
helen___keller
My biggest concern is that we aren't working on the infrastructure and
cultural shift that is going to be needed to have a return to normal.

The endgame of covid-19 is herd immunity, which requires either 30-60% of the
population infected and recovered, or it requires a vaccine. Realistically
both are probably 9+ months out: vaccines are slow to develop, and almost
every governor has proven they'd rather shut down everything than see
hospitals be overloaded.

In other words, for the next 6-12 months we have two choices:

(a) Public life sees a boom-bust pattern of sickness, where we open things
back up, then a new outbreak of infection happens, and everything shuts down
again for 2-6 weeks.

(b) We aggressively fight off our initial outbreak, then build infrastructure
to quickly identify and contain all infections. We gently reopen life back to
a kind-of-normal states of permanent semi-quarantine until a vaccine arrives.

In my opinion, (b) is clearly the optimal approach. And yet we haven't even
begun working on the infrastructural and cultural changes needed to support
pre-herd-immunity public life.

We need mass production of face masks and a culture where it is unacceptable
to not wear a face mask in public, particularly crowded locations and public
transit.

We need every building, every bus and train, every tourist attraction, testing
every visitor with a contactless thermometer. If you have a fever you get a
covid-19 test.

To support allowing non-remote-capable work to resume, any jobs that are
remote capable should remain remote until we have herd immunity. More people
leaving their homes means higher risk of an outbreak, and when an outbreak
happens non-remote-capable employees are the ones screwed over.

As much as I distrust the CCP and China's official numbers, it just takes one
glance on the measures being taken in China to prove that China is a thousand
times more serious about containing this virus than we are, and that's going
to play in their favor in getting things back to normal. Here's an eye-opening
video on some of the steps Nanjing has taken to prevent an outbreak:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfsdJGj3-jM&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfsdJGj3-jM&feature=youtu.be)

The simple fact is we're lacking the national leadership to make an effective
response to this disease.

~~~
bin0
Cultural changes? How would you build those? The government doesn't control
the culture. How would you make it unacceptable? Bureaucrats don't have direct
control over that. Also, a bunch of "we need"s about the ideal situation don't
do much.

The reason the China contained it is because she is an authoritarian state.
While that provides certain advantages in this situation, it comes with
certain drawbacks: not being able to access many websites, inability to
express your political opinion, inability to own a firearm, being tossed in a
concentration camp if the government doesn't like you. This isn't a question
of leadership, you're asking the government to do things it literally has no
power to do, things entirely outside of the constitution.

~~~
helen___keller
> Cultural changes? How would you build those? The government doesn't control
> the culture. How would you make it unacceptable? Bureaucrats don't have
> direct control over that. Also, a bunch of "we need"s about the ideal
> situation don't do much.

We have a federal government. A federal government can spend money, including
on marketing. Remember WWII propaganda, some of which people can still recite
to this day, like "loose lips sink ships"?

A federal government can pass laws that require workplaces to take certain
actions (temperature checks for employees, WFH for jobs that are capable of
doing so). A federal government can pass regulations requiring public
gatherings to take certain security actions such as taking visitors'
temperatures with a contactless thermometer. A federal government can spend
money to have factories produce a very large number of face masks and
contactless thermometers, and can coordinate with states to distribute them to
population centers.

> The reason the China contained it is because she is an authoritarian state

Yes, thanks for stating the obvious. If you notice I didn't suggest we
restrict travel between states and cities, or that we lock people inside their
homes, or that we should register every location that a person goes to so that
we can quickly identify who they've been in contact with should they test
positive for covid-19. These are the more authoritarian actions that China has
taken.

In fact, lacking the authoritarian actions, we need to try even harder at the
non-authoritarian stuff. Which we aren't doing.

------
justlexi93
Recession will take place in every country next year so expect that the number
of jobless people will strike up during and after the pandemic.

------
lettergram
And this is only the beginning... if you look for projections (or run your own
[1]), we will need a hard nationwide shutdown for at least 2-3 months (not 2
weeks) for this to not kill a million plus Americans.

I suspect even if a shutdown is lifted, when people start seeing body counts
it’s not like they’ll return to traveling or eating out.

We’d probably need to see an anti-body test first and/or vaccine. This is
going to take years to recover from.

[1] [https://austingwalters.com/covid-19-vs-the-
economy/](https://austingwalters.com/covid-19-vs-the-economy/)

~~~
Slartie
Well, the antibody tests are coming in a matter of weeks - multiple approaches
have already been developed and they are currently being validated, that is,
checked if they trigger reliably on the Coronavirus antibodies and ONLY on
those and not similar ones (source: Charité Berlin - the virology lab there is
on the forefront of developing Coronavirus tests and assists in validating new
antibody tests).

They will allow us to make large randomized studies in the population and
finally determine the "real" percentage of people who can be considered
immune, which is the key element currently missing in all projection models.
Having that data, more realistic projections can be made as to how fast the
virus will resume to spread if we lift specific restrictions. At the moment,
we can only hope for this number to be far larger than expected.

But doing such studies takes time, and without their results, lifting any of
the restrictions is going to be a dangerous gamble with public health. So I
would also suspect for most restrictions to stay in place for about 2 months,
and then maybe a slow and gradual opening. First schools, then essential day-
to-day businesses, and travel/leisure stuff last.

However, antibody tests are not a substitute for a vaccine. Only a broadly
available vaccine will give people enough confidence of not contracting the
disease for them to start living a normal life again. We can't expect any kind
of normality in the economy until this happens, regardless of whether "America
(or any other country) is opened for business" again or not - because an open
business is worth nothing if the customers stay away.

------
stillbourne
You know how to fix the problem with those record layoffs though right? First
cut all funding to social safety net programs and use that money to give tax
cuts to the rich, who then don't even pretend that trickle down economics
works and instead set up a fund for the public to donate to help those who
need relief because fuck you I got mine.

------
Dirlewanger
"The great American job machine"

The whole previous decade needs to come with an asterisk when talking about
job growth. Looking at job participation rates and those that have stopped
looking completely from BLS paints a completely different story. The pandemic
obviously isn't making things better, but it's just always been an
afterthought when talking about job growth.

------
big_chungus
For this not to bankrupt the nation and retard our growth for the next twenty-
five years, we need to all go back to work, today. Even if coronavirus kills a
million people, the rest will probably be fine in the long term. If we shut
down the economy, three hundred million will be affected. This "flattening the
curve" business is clearly not worth it.

You cannot shut the economy. There is only so much we can borrow. The fed is
buying debt right and left, and the government surely doesn't want to borrow
money and remove that liquidity. So, the fed will buy t-bills instead and
probably have to inflate the currency to pay for it all. We could end up
spending orders of magnitude than 2 trillion on more hand-outs, so we could
end up with another period of stagflation. Unless we want to retard our growth
and prosperity for the next 25 years, we all have to go back, consequences
aside. Vulnerable people need to stay home for months until this blows over;
it's not the responsibility of the rest of us to lose our jobs for the sake of
a few others. Doctors say we have to stay home, but as doctors, they naturally
want to prioritize health. As the saying goes, if you have a hammer,
everything looks like a nail.

Like many other problems, there are diminishing returns as we approach either
extreme of opening the economy or shutting it down. This extreme clearly isn't
working. The at-risk million stay home; everyone else goes to work.

~~~
Kaze404
One thing I don't understand about this line of thinking is how do you expect
sick people from working? Sure, not everyone will die but a significant
portion of the population will get infected and need at the very least to stay
home for a week or two. How is that situation better than where we're at now?

~~~
big_chungus
3.28 million people are already out of work, likely a good deal more than
that. One million are most at risk. There won't be zero impact, but that's
less than a third, right out of the gate. Long-term we'll see significant
increases in unemployment on the "shut-it-down" path.

To clarify based on your reply to this comment, my point was that we've
already seen more people out of work than the estimated worst-case 1.2 million
death toll. This is the first data point, and we'll see more huge increases as
we gather more. You mentioned that sick people won't work, but we're already
seeing what is possibly more unemployment than we'd have with people sick. 1.2
million < 3.28 million.

While some people may not work in the short term, this "flattening the curve"
business prolongs that time greatly. We'd all be back much sooner if we just
ripped off the band-aid and got it over with.

EDIT: Replying to circumvent123 here, as HN is rate-limiting.

Yes, death is worse than unemployment, but for how many? Death for one vs
unemployment for everyone, which would you pick? If so, is this simply a
question of the ratio of the two? Regardless, that's not the choice of
bureaucrats to make. At-risk populations are responsible for staying home and
keeping themselves safe.

~~~
Kaze404
I don't understand what this has to do with the question I asked. Feels like a
non sequitur

