Looking forward to learning how the DoL juked these stats. This doesn't pass the smell test, with the Atlanta Fed's GDPnow still predicting a 50%+ contraction through Q2.
Most of the economic forecasting models have to be using historically-fit models.
Which is to say, they're giving predictions of what would happen if all of their data sources had experienced these changes in normal economic times.
But it's a bit of an open question as to what happens if we artificially demand substantial economic activity stop on a dime (via lockdown).
My gut says that we're going to see mitigated impact, for the simple reason that customers are a herd, and move gradually. They're going to tend to want to behave as they did before the lockdown (see: resistance to masks and other changes!) as long as they didn't lose their jobs. Which is turn should restart the economy fairly solidly.
What's required for doomsday scenarios would be for people to start behaving as though a depression were imminent. That is to say: limiting spending, hoarding cash, withdrawing money from banks, businesses putting off capital purchases.
Of those, the last is the only thing I'm aware of that's been happening. So we'll be in risky-but-fine land for awhile.
> If the workers who were recorded as employed but absent from work due to “other reasons” (over and above the number absent for other reasons in a typical May) had been classified as unemployed on temporary layoff, the overall unemployment rate would have been about 3 percentage points higher than reported (on a not seasonally adjusted basis). However, according to usual practice, the data from the household survey are accepted as recorded. To maintain data integrity, no ad hoc actions are taken to reclassify survey responses.
If you apply the correction, the rate would be 16.3%.
Did Canada commit reporting fraud as well? Their big May jobs report matches up with the US, on a population ratio basis, and given how tightly linked the two economies are.
But I think "pure cynicism" is too dismissive for an administration that is somewhat open about wanting to keep numbers lower than their reality and fires inspectors general without proper cause (though DOL IG left by choice). That said, the career professionals in DOL would absolutely leak if they were being told to fudge this data. That's why I have basically no doubts.
It's worth adding, there are lots of unique categorical employment issues that have presented themselves during the pandemic that can have large impacts on numbers. There's plenty you could imagine political officials arguing with the career staff about for legit reasons. If this was happening and affecting numbers to a large degree, I think we'd be hearing leaks about that, too.
This assumes that the Department of Labor is taking direction from the administration. There's no indication of that.
So if someone says "they are fake numbers" they should be ready to corroborate that with evidence, it's not on the people who believe the institutions to prove that they are correct.
If you think the data is wrong or deceptive, then you need to provide evidence of that.