Translating Weekly Jobless Claims into Monthly Net Job Losses -Liberty Street Economics
Liberty Street Economics

« Where Have the Paycheck Protection Loans Gone So Far? | Main | Amid the COVID-19 Outbreak, Consumers Temper Spending Outlook »

May 07, 2020

Translating Weekly Jobless Claims into Monthly Net Job Losses



LSE_2020_weekly-job-loss_bram_460

News headlines highlighting the loss of at least 30 million jobs (so far) underscore the massive shock that has hit the U.S. economy and the dislocation, hardship, and stress it has caused for so many American workers. But how accurately does this number actually capture the number of net job losses? In this post, we look at some of the statistical anomalies and quirks in the weekly claims series and offer a guide to interpreting these numbers. What we find is that the relationship between jobless claims and payroll employment for the month can vary substantially, depending on the nature, timing, and persistence of the disaster.

What Exactly Are Initial Jobless Claims?
When a worker is laid off, that person has the option to file a claim to receive unemployment benefits. These applications count as initial claims and are approved based on several eligibility criteria regarding the former employer, work history, and so on. Since 1967, the Department of Labor has produced a weekly report on the number of initial claims for unemployment insurance. The report, released each Thursday, also shows how many unemployed individuals are currently receiving benefits under unemployment insurance. While not all unemployed workers qualify for unemployment benefits, the initial claims number still provides insight into the health of the labor market.

How Appropriate Is Seasonal Adjustment?
The weekly initial jobless claims series is probably the most timely, accurate indicator of employment trends. However, there are some issues that analysts need to be aware of. One is that the national data are seasonally adjusted. This is a standard statistical procedure to discount normal seasonal swings. For example, jobless claims typically surge in early January, as millions of holiday-season positions come to an end. So to get a bead on what’s fundamentally happening in the economy, we need to adjust for this. For instance, if jobless claims are typically about 70 percent above normal in the first week of January (which they are), then it is necessary to scale down that figure so that it is comparable with levels in December, November, and every other month. Conversely, if jobless claims tend to be lower than usual at a certain time of year, as they are in the spring, then they should be scaled up appropriately.

Around this time of the year (spring), initial claims get scaled up by around 10 percent. This is a reasonable practice when the economy is running its regular course and the swings have a seasonal component like every other year. But applying this type of multiplicative seasonal adjustment now would basically imply that pandemics typically cause far fewer jobless claims in the spring than at other times . . . which, of course, is meaningless for a once-in-a-century type event. Clearly, the massive dislocation brought about by the COVID-19 outbreak has little to do with seasonal factors.

Initial claims are currently being used by many analysts to construct a “nowcast” for payroll employment and the unemployment rate—an estimate of the real-time figures for the current month. Using adjusted versus unadjusted figures may not be important when initial claims are around 200,000–300,000 (meaning that 20,000–30,000 claims can be attributed to seasonality). But when you get 3–6 million people filing claims in one week, as was the case for a number of weeks, the seasonal adjustment can make a sizable difference for the unemployment nowcast. In fact, for the five-week period from mid-March to mid-April, using the seasonally adjusted figures increases initial claims by two million—from 24 million to 26 million. It is also important to keep this in mind because in the weeks ahead, the seasonal adjustment will continue to inflate the claims numbers by about the same amount. So as we’re trying to figure out exactly what is happening in the economy, it is important to follow the right numbers.

What Do Initial Jobless Claims Tell Us About Net Job Loss?
Another issue in understanding initial jobless claims pertains to how these claims actually translate into net job losses. When we look at monthly payroll employment data, the headline number is typically the net change in employment; a negative figure is what we call a “net job loss.” In 2019, the average monthly net gain was about 175,000. Meanwhile, the average number of weekly initial jobless claims was about 217,000, which comes to about 940,000 per month. How can this be? Well, in large part, it is because initial claims is a gross, not net, measure of job loss. It counts the number of people who have lost jobs but not the number who have found jobs; during 2019, more than a million people found jobs in the typical month. In the current environment, of course, it is unlikely that as many people are finding new jobs. However, it is plausible that some essential businesses have had to hire people to fill in for absent workers or to enforce safe distancing practices, for example. It is also plausible that some businesses that were able to get Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) funding called back workers who had been laid off a few weeks prior. Thus, we will have to wait for the April employment report, out tomorrow (May 8), to accurately gauge the net effect of the widespread closing of businesses.

Looking at past major surges in jobless claims resulting from broad economic shocks illustrates how variable the relationship between initial claims and net job loss can be. After Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans in 2005, Louisiana’s statewide jobless claims climbed by 250,000 (which is proportionately close to the recent U.S. surge) and employment subsequently fell by 180,000, or about three-quarters of the initial claims number. In the two weeks after Hurricane Sandy hit the New York City metro area in late 2012, jobless claims surged by almost 60,000 in New Jersey—not even close, proportionately, to the current situation nationwide, but still sizable. But based on the final November employment report, the monthly job loss wound up being 16,000, or just over one-quarter of the initial claims.

At the other end of the spectrum, in the weeks after Hurricane Irma struck virtually the entire state of Florida in early September 2017, jobless claims climbed by about 35,000, whereas the monthly job loss figure was upward of 150,000—more than four times as high—and all of it occurred in September, with a full bounce-back in October. This stark difference likely reflects that Irma hit right at the beginning of the monthly survey week (specifically, the week of September 10-16) and suggests that the timing of the disaster within the month can have a huge effect on how to interpret these statistics. This divergence also underscores how short-lived even a steep disruption in employment can be; it seems likely that many of the people who lost their jobs in early-to-mid September may have been called back before they even had a chance to file for unemployment.

This, of course, is not likely to be the case during the current pandemic, since its disruptions are clearly lasting for many weeks, not just a few days. Given the closer parallels to Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana—in both magnitude and duration—the relationship between jobless claims and job losses for that storm would seem to be the most relevant in trying to get a rough handle on the current situation. Of course, there still are many differences between the nationwide situation amid the coronavirus pandemic and Louisiana’s situation during the post-Katrina flooding, so it remains to be seen how many of the 24 million nationwide jobless claims filed between mid-March and mid-April translate into net monthly job losses.


Bram_jasonJason Bram is a research officer in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group.


Karahan_fatihFatih Karahan is a senior economist in the Bank’s Research and Statistics Group.



How to cite this post:
Jason Bram and Fatih Karahan, “Translating Weekly Jobless Claims into Monthly Net Job Losses,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Liberty Street Economics, May 7, 2020, https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2020/05/translating-weekly-jobless-claims-into-monthly-net-job-losses.html.



Disclaimer
The views expressed in this post are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve System. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors.
Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Daniel:
Thank you for your question. When you have multiple jobs and lose one of them (or experience reduced hours at either or both), you can file a partial loss claim. Whether or not you qualify for unemployment benefits still depends on your state’s eligibility criteria, and so there isn’t much difference there in most states. However, the weekly amount you will receive conditional on qualifying depends on the amount you are still earning. Again, the exact amount you will get varies across states.

How do such job losses factor in the official statistics? The payroll survey reports the net change in number of jobs. Let’s take a person with two jobs and suppose that a person loses both of them and does not find another work. This would count as two jobs lost on net in the payroll (establishment) survey data. The employment and unemployment rate statistics in the household survey, however, are based on the number of people, not of jobs. Therefore, in the example above, the person would count as one unemployed.

Frank:
Thank you for the question. Continuing claims refer to unemployed workers that are currently collecting unemployment insurance benefits. Therefore, while initial claims is a proxy for people that lose their job, continuing claims is aimed at capturing the evolution of the stock of unemployed workers. The relationship between continuing claims (the insured unemployment rate) and the “true” unemployment rate is also a bit murky in general.

First of all, continuing claims does not capture people that are unemployed but do not qualify for benefits, although this discrepancy would likely be much smaller this time, since the CARES Act relaxed eligibility criteria. Second, there are outflows from continuing claims that are not related to going back to work but are simply due to benefit exhaustion. However, this is not relevant now, as it will be some time before recently laid-off workers start seeing their benefits expire. On the other hand, there is one way in which changes in continuing claims are a more accurate indicator of changes in the labor market than initial jobless claims: that is that they reflect net, rather than gross changes—i.e., when someone in that group finds a job, that is reflected in the continuing claims numbers (they go down), but not in the initial claims numbers. Consistent with this idea, the weekly change in continuing claims is typically well below the level of weekly initial claims. We hope this is helpful.

Hi,
What about people having multiple jobs? Say a person with two jobs loses one, can he claim unemployment benefits? Also it would show up as one job lost. If he loses both jobs, one person would be responsible for two job losses, even though just one new person is unemployed...
How would that influence those numbers, and is it even significant? I could imagine low-wage jobs being particularly vulnerable right now, and people working in these sectors might be inclined having several jobs at once.

Hi, can you please comment on continuing claims as well? Thanks.

The comments to this entry are closed.

About the Blog
Liberty Street Economics features insight and analysis from New York Fed economists working at the intersection of research and policy. Launched in 2011, the blog takes its name from the Bank’s headquarters at 33 Liberty Street in Manhattan’s Financial District.

The editors are Michael Fleming, Andrew Haughwout, Thomas Klitgaard, and Asani Sarkar, all economists in the Bank’s Research Group.

Liberty Street Economics does not publish new posts during the blackout periods surrounding Federal Open Market Committee meetings.

The views expressed are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the New York Fed or the Federal Reserve System.


Economic Research Tracker

Liberty Street Economics is now available on the iPhone® and iPad® and can be customized by economic research topic or economist.


Most Viewed

Last 12 Months
Useful Links
Comment Guidelines
We encourage your comments and queries on our posts and will publish them (below the post) subject to the following guidelines:
Please be brief: Comments are limited to 1500 characters.
Please be quick: Comments submitted after COB on Friday will not be published until Monday morning.
Please be aware: Comments submitted shortly before or during the FOMC blackout may not be published until after the blackout.
Please be on-topic and patient: Comments are moderated and will not appear until they have been reviewed to ensure that they are substantive and clearly related to the topic of the post. We reserve the right not to post any comment, and will not post comments that are abusive, harassing, obscene, or commercial in nature. No notice will be given regarding whether a submission will or will not be posted.‎
Disclosure Policy
The LSE editors ask authors submitting a post to the blog to confirm that they have no conflicts of interest as defined by the American Economic Association in its Disclosure Policy. If an author has sources of financial support or other interests that could be perceived as influencing the research presented in the post, we disclose that fact in a statement prepared by the author and appended to the author information at the end of the post. If the author has no such interests to disclose, no statement is provided. Note, however, that we do indicate in all cases if a data vendor or other party has a right to review a post.
Archives