BLS Reports 14.7% Unemployment Rate
bls.gov
bls.gov
Other tidbits: Employment in information fell by 254,000 in April, driven by a decline in motion picture and sound recording industries (-217,000).
The labor force participation rate decreased by 2.5 percentage points over the month to 60.2 percent, the lowest rate since January 1973 (when it was 60.0 percent). Total employment, as measured by the household survey, fell by 22.4 million to 133.4 million. The employment-population ratio, at 51.3 percent, dropped by 8.7 percentage points over the month. This is the lowest rate and largest over-the-month decline in the history of the series (seasonally adjusted data are available back to January 1948). (See table A-1.)
Has anyone been able to find this?
Edit: oh well, I found the table. i'll make my own graph :p
A more accurate number which reflects true job losses from the pandemic should be the U6 Unemployment Rate (Referred to as the “real” unemployment rate).
This is serious, because the cuts they are going to be forced to take are incredible:
> Required funding for K-12 schools and community colleges will shrink by $18.3 billion, under Proposition 98’s constitutional calculation. That’s more than twice the $8.3 billion California spent out of its general fund last year on its university systems.
And even that article doesn't mention CalPERS, which is almost assuredly going start hitting its limits where it requires local governments to contribute a whole bunch more along with a bunch of other really bad stuff. The public pensions/unions are the single powerful lobby in the state.
I'm betting California isn't even the worst, and I'm also betting the shortfall will be yet higher.
I really do hope I'm wrong.
[1] Coronavirus blows a $54 billion hole in California’s budget. Here are the “jaw-dropping” numbers Projected deficit nearly three times Rainy Day Fund
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/07/california-budget-to-...
If anyone is still bothering to follow the Constitution, the funds have to be distributed across the states, so you can't just give California only some funds.
It is also politically infeasible to give just California funds, most especially because a whole bunch of states don't want to pay for the other states.
Even if it gets passed that, this is the kind of spending that is virtually guaranteed to increase consumer price inflation, which is a far worse problem than state budget shortfalls.
Why would this kind of spending increase CPI more than other kinds of bailout spending, and what kind of spending might it be?
I guess TARP, QE, corporate bonds, etc., are buying things that consumers don't directly buy very much, so those programs didn't apparently cause lots of inflation of CPI indexed things.
So what would this be buying instead? Could the fed buy things like municiple bonds, or maybe other debts assumed at the state level to provide liquidity and keep interest rates/ratings under control?
I don't see consumers caring as much about the price of municiple bonds, for example, as food or houses or cars.
I am a rank initiate in this area, so if I'm missing something I'd like to know more.
Most of the state budget is going to be things like welfare (e.g., health care), unemployment payments, and salaries of state employees. Some infrastructure, but then much of that goes to salaries, too.
Purchase of bonds is the same thing. The money is still created and spent. It's kind of a good deal for the city because by the time they have to pay it back it may cost more to cut a check than what is left on the principal, but of course that also means that every bit of wealth has been reduced to zero.
Many municipalities have passed laws (usually through initiatives) that forbid the cities from borrowing without a vote, and even in California voters do not just automatically pass every bond measure. However, the state might be able to pass bonds, but it looks like there are some hurdles even for that. I found what I thought was an amendment is a referendum and was pass in 2004:
We shouldn't let rich billionaires and well to do Senators or even the President push back and say that we should reopen because they screwed up.
UBI will lead to a better economy anyway.
Federal money comes from the same place as state money.
“However, the report concludes that the projected deficit as a percent of general fund spending “is modestly smaller than the budget deficits faced by the state in 2003 and in 2009,”
Also, I suspect there are a lot of Californians right now who trust their state leadership a more than federal leadership. (I am one of those people.)
Both of those recession deficits were after years of economic decline. This economic decline is less than 8 weeks old. I was hyperbolic, but I'm not sure by how much.
What we haven't seen yet is that Fauci and others have stated there will be regional lockdowns when there are "outbreaks". I suspect that as soon as the business community sees this, many more will just close up permanently, even if they aren't in the locked down regions because many can't survive another lockdown and are risking almost everything to open up now.