Americans not working mainly because "I was caring for someone or sick myself with coronavirus symptoms" ⬆️ more than 2X from 2.0 million in late July to 4.7M in early Sept.
Offsetting this, “I was caring for children not in school or daycare” ⬇️ from 7.1 to 4.4M.
“I was laid off or furloughed due to coronavirus pandemic” had been ⬇️steadily but stopped doing so.
“I was concerned about getting or spreading the coronavirus” pretty stable.
Here are all the main reasons for not working with the counts for the wave ending 9/13.
It's not clear if changes reflect new people not employed or the same people with changing main reasons.
For people with multiple constraints, if one eases (kid care), another may become be reported as the "main reason."
Also, some change in survey design starting with 8/2.
This applies to teachers too, and with special force for those teaching kids age 5-11, who are both legally compelled to be in school & legally barred from being vaccinated.
Coverage of the House passage of the reconciliation bill is terribly process oriented.
It's really hard to learn what's in bill & how it would affect Americans' lives. nyti.ms/3zfieTv
If the newspapers are reluctant to make their own independent characterizations, at least quote some pols, some think tankers, some interest group representatives, some Americans in diners...
Truly, I want to know. What is this bill promising to do & how, with what chance of success? What the heck are these programs?! congress.gov/committee-prin…
Reporters often ask if service workers' recent compensation improvements will stick in the long-run.
To answer yes, one really needs a theory that something changed long-run.
I have the sense their compensation improvements are driven by short-term imbalances in adjustment speeds between supply & demand, not long-term changes in productivity or balance of power. So I'd bet no.
However, one big change does seem permanent: many organizations & workers invested in maximizing their ability to operate with geographically distributed teams. That capacity now exists & isn't going away.
It's been a month. State that decided to cut off their residents' access to UI benefits early have done so.
Without the $300/wk federal supplement to regular state programs, have they experienced faster declines in the shares of their population continuing to claim regular UI?
No. The number of continuing claims in regular state programs seems to be declining just as fast in not-cutting as in cutting states.
Here it is in difference-in-differences form relative to the week ending May 8, the last week before the first state announced its intention to cut off federal UI payments.
No difference in trends in not-cutting versus cutting states.