4 ms·
a better percentage to use would be the delta in unemployment rate, e.g. 3M / (# of people who want to work). This would be approximately 3M / 158M [0], or a 1
by jmole 7y ago
a better percentage to use would be the delta in unemployment rate, e.g. 3M / (# of people who want to work).
This would be approximately 3M / 158M [0], or a 1.8% rise in the unemployment rate.
In the 2008 recession, we saw a total unemployment rate of almost 10%, so we'd have to lose an additional 7-8M jobs to get to that level.
[0] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm
- wycy 7y agoConsidering the fed is warning about the possibility of 30% unemployment [0], an additional 7M could come next week. [0] https://www.usnews.com/news/economy/articles/2020-03-23/fed-official-unemployment-could-hit-30-as-coronavirus-slams-economy https://www.usnews.com/news/economy/articles/2020-03-23/fed-...
- jmole 7y agoyes - I didn't mention it explicitly in my comment - but this much unemployment, coming this fast, is unprecedented in US history.
- aabeshou 7y agolet's be clear - it's a 1.8% percentage point increase, relative to the entire US population. but data from the U.S. Dept of Labor (graphed in The Guardian [0]) shows weekly unemployment claims just shot up from around 250k to around 3.25 million, which is a 1300% increase [0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/26/us-unemployment-rate-coronavirus-business https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/26/us-unemploy...