Some thoughts on @tylercowen's thoughts: marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolu…
1. Of course matching matters. The argument from the GR was never that recovery could happen overnight, but that it could have happened significantly faster. A decade of below target inflation and wage growth tracking slack is consistent with this.
2. The data do not allow us to distinguish between “F*** it, I want to get back out there” and "F**** it, I want some PPP money". I am confident it's a mix of both, as consumer spending bottomed & even a small % rehiring for the 50m worker PPP firms would -> big gross hiring.
3. This is 10% of the gross job loss recovered, leaving 19m jobs still on the line. It is way, way, way too soon to draw conclusions about the level of matches which have been broken.
4. Tyler seems surprised at millions of job growth, writing "labor market adjustment was relatively slow coming out of the 2008 crisis". I think most economists and "Twitter-bound intellectuals" we're surprised this happened this soon, but not surprised it would happen.
For example, the day before the jobs report, as we were still getting millions of new UI claims, I wrote this:
6. Anyway, Tyler is right we should not have our normal recession analysis hats on and the issue of maintaining matches should be economic priority #1 at this point. I don't think this is much of a surprise, and it doesn't yet affect my view of business cycles.
7. Last point. There's no denying the surprise of the jobs report relative to mean expectations, but IMO it was clearly a serious possibility ex ante. This is a quote from my labor market preview sent to reporters the day before the jobs report 
8. Ok really last point. The issue is not to ignore regular demand driven recessionary forces today, which may be occurring *underneath* the tidal wave of temporary layoffs, it is just far from the whole story.
