Thread by @ArmineYalnizyan

What to expect in tomorrow's job numbers: huge unemployment #s.
bloomberg.com/news/articles/…

What you won't see: she-cession followed by, initial he-covery (LFS ran survey 10-14 days ago, before we started "re-opening"); and difficulty of she-covery.

@shellykhagan covers it all. 👍

Tomorrow we'll likely see unemployment match peak rate during Great Depression, but in 2 months, not 4 years.
1929: 2.9%
1930: 9.1%
1931: 11.6%
1932: 17.6%
1933: 19.3%
1934: 14.5%
1935: 14.2%
1936: 12.8%
1937: 9.1%
1938: 11.4%
1939: 11.4%
www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-516-…

Mathematically, we can't return to "normal" pre-Covid unemployment/GDP conditions without a huge share of women who lost their jobs regaining them.
This is unlikely.
No recovery without a shecovery.
No shecovery without childcare.
This explains why: theloop.ca/watch/news/can…

People are talking about accelerating shovel-ready infrastructure projects and recovery started in male-dominated jobs.
Both are great. But not enough.
Mathematically we need more women coming back.
Not enough reserve army of men to make up the difference.

Here's the history of recessions in Canada from World War II to the 2008-9 crisis. From Exposed: Revealing Truths about Canada's Recession, which I published with @ccpa in April 2009.
Historically, recessions in Canada have been he-cessions, immediately followed by she-coveries

Source: policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/… p.24

By 2008-9 recession, women were 47% of employed workforce. No reserve army of women left. Only she-covery was marginal (among women aged 55+)
Covid19 stood the standard issue story on its head.

(Why a "he-cession" you ask? Irrespective of reason for economic downturn - financial shock, natural disaster, "business cycle" - the first thing in the real economy that freezes up is the production of goods. The goods-producing sector is male-dominated and better paid....

Men in good-paying jobs usually have a higher reservation wage, but their families can't wait for a same paying job to come along. The shock of lower household income historically drove more women into the service-sector, more poorly paid, economy to stabilize household income.

They didn't tend to go back home, after their guy (I'm talking the vast majority of households here) finally got another job.
After a while, the reserve army of women vanished.
By 2008-9 there was no juice in that tank, except more *hours* of work.
But China never stopped buying

So the he-cession of 2008-9 was followed by a he-covery, a mighty rebounding because of oil and gas, copper, iron, forestry products, soybeans and pork, all male-dominated jobs and all because China was the ox that pulled Canada's cart.
Conspicuous absence: manufacturing.

That made the 2008-9 recession not just a he-cession but an Ontario-cession (and an Alberta-covery)
policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/…
(a piece written w @trishhennessy July 2009, when the Harper government was declaring green shoots....hard to wrap our heads around at that time but, China)

But Covid19 wasn't a normal economic downturn. It required shutting down schools/childcare (heavily she-skewed jobs), non-local travel, non-essential retail, personal services (nail and hair salons, yoga and health studios) and hospitality, all she-skewed to varying degrees.

For us to come back from the economic hit of Covid19 these non-essential services (often low paid) will have to function to same level as previously.
That's not going to happen for a long time.
Some of those biz were marginal pre Covid and can't survive with lower traffic.

No recovery without a shecovery.
No shecovery without childcare.
Given that many of these jobs were lower paid/part time/precarious before, childcare is the second biggest household spending item after shelter costs, and the kids are home, some will stop paying user fees.

Stop paying for your childcare spot, even when you are not using it, and you are most likely to lose it (few exceptions).
That means more childcare centres will also close their doors because of Covid19.
It's a vicious circle.

Because childcare is such a critical piece of social infrastructure (no recovery without shecovery, no shecovery without childcare) we need our governments to support the sector.
But not blindly.
Like long term care facilities, we need better training, better enforcement.

Just to underscore the ECONOMIC importance of not letting this sector collapse: without preventing closure of a huge part of the ecosystem of childcare, more women will not be able to opt to work.
Household incomes will decline. Household spending will decline.

Household spending was 56.5% of GDP in Canada by the end of 2019. Given the collapse in biz and export sectors, the only thing that's left is government spending.
If, by women staying home because of the economics of Covid19, household incomes fall, so will household spending.

If you don't like big government, you have to make sure some of big government's spending is helping secure social infrastructure so women can work in the paid labour force. Else we are looking at years of economic decline (and roll back in gains made in equality).

Note, I'm not fetishizing paid work. But - fact - without it, more women have less power and independence.

Second note: the primary purpose of childcare and school, in the era of population aging, should not be warehousing the kids so the moms can go to work.

The main role of childcare and school should be educate our children, and help them develop their maximum potential.
Because in the era of population aging, we'll need all hands on deck. We'll need everyone to develop skills, and face fewest barriers possible to deploy them.

Herein endeth my epistle on what to expect tomorrow, and after tomorrow, when the LFS numbers make the hairs stand up on your neck.