Odds of Getting Laid Off Are at Historic Lows in Tightest Labor Market in 50 Years

[Billy Jingo]

Odds of Getting Laid Off Are at Historic Lows in Tightest Labor Market in 50 Years

Jobless claims at lowest levels since 1968, but job security even better, economists say

New claims for unemployment benefits are trending at their lowest levels since 1968, a sign of how few layoffs are happening in the tightest labor market in half a century.

Job security today, by some measures, is even better than it was in the economic halcyon days of the late 1960s.

Behind today’s extremely tight labor market is a transformed U.S. economy, not least because its labor force is much bigger, including more women and more jobs in the service sector. The total number of people either working or looking for work is now 164 million, more than twice what it was in 1968.

That means the layoffs-per-worker rate is significantly lower today than even the 1960s. In March, there were about 1.1 jobless claims per 1,000 people in the labor force—roughly half the 2.3 jobless claims per 1,000 recorded in 1968, according to an analysis of Labor Department data.

Initial jobless claims rose modestly last week, but in the three preceding weeks new unemployment filings came in at the lowest levels since November 1968. The four-week moving average, which smooths out volatile weekly data, is trending in April at the lowest levels on record back to 1967.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

I first read this as "Odds of Getting Laid Are at Historic Lows in Tightest Labor Market in 50 Years," and wondered WTH the labor market had to do with...oops, never mind.

I'm not sure the rate of UIB claims is a particularly good measure, if people who exhausted their entitlement during COVID just aren't filing new claims. However, I do see "help wanted" signs everywhere. Mostly for entry-level retail and food-service jobs, but then, I'm not looking, so I don't know what the rest off the labor market actually looks like.

[scott]

It's beginning to look like 2008.

[Billy Jingo]

I first read this as "Odds of Getting Laid Are at Historic Lows in Tightest Labor Market in 50 Years," and wondered WTH the labor market had to do with...oops, never mind.

I'm not sure the rate of UIB claims is a particularly good measure, if people who exhausted their entitlement during COVID just aren't filing new claims. However, I do see "help wanted" signs everywhere. Mostly for entry-level retail and food-service jobs, but then, I'm not looking, so I don't know what the rest off the labor market actually looks like.

A relative of mine will graduate in May and interviewed for four different positions (mental health). All four offered her a job.

I know that is anecdotal so take it for what it's worth.

[80zephyr]

In my area, the cost of child care has taken a lot of women out of the work force.

Mark

[Newman]

In my area, the cost of child care has taken a lot of women out of the work force.

Mark

It looks like a whole lot of people have re-assessed their commitment to the traditional work routine. They have broken free of "job lock," that bon mot Pelosi introduced in a different context, to glorify the struggle to find sufficient work (you'd have more time for hobbies, etc.). Now people have indeed had time for hobbies, and they've found that they don't need as much job as they thought.

Workers are hard to find, hard to retain. It's not altogether a good thing, and I don't know where it leads.

An essay in today's Hate-Trump newspaper argued that corporations should NOT try to bring folks back to the office. Let 'em save money on commuting, and so on. This will make it easier to find those hard-to-get workers.

Swell, I guess, except for the ancillary businesses like diners and food carts that depend on workers in the vicinity. Keep the city empty; it isn't safe anyway. What could possibly go awry?

[Lady Marva]

Swell, I guess, except for the ancillary businesses like diners and food carts that depend on workers in the vicinity. Keep the city empty; it isn't safe anyway. What could possibly go awry?

People will get hungry. And then..................crime.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

It looks like a whole lot of people have re-assessed their commitment to the traditional work routine. They have broken free of "job lock," that bon mot Pelosi introduced in a different context, to glorify the struggle to find sufficient work (you'd have more time for hobbies, etc.). Now people have indeed had time for hobbies, and they've found that they don't need as much job as they thought.

Workers are hard to find, hard to retain. It's not altogether a good thing, and I don't know where it leads.

An essay in today's Hate-Trump newspaper argued that corporations should NOT try to bring folks back to the office. Let 'em save money on commuting, and so on. This will make it easier to find those hard-to-get workers.

Swell, I guess, except for the ancillary businesses like diners and food carts that depend on workers in the vicinity. Keep the city empty; it isn't safe anyway. What could possibly go awry?

BC (before COVID), our office had about 10 attorneys and probably 12-15 support staff. All our incoming and outgoing mail was already handled at one of 2 regional offices. Our files are all electronic. Most of the support staff live pretty close to the office. All but 1 of the attorneys live 25 minutes or more away. The office is in one of those faceless office parks, with the court right next door. There are no diners, food carts, etc. The nearest "ancillary businesses" are in the mall. Since the shutdown was lifted, we can choose to work from home or the office. Two attorneys routinely work in the office, and a couple of others go in about once a week. Those of us who work from home now patronize the "ancillary businesses" in our own area, spend a LOT less on gas/wear and tear on our cars, and have more time for work/life balance than we did before.

Now, this isn't SF or NYC, by any means. But for everyone who isn't commuting in from Walnut Creek to SF or Oakland, do you think those people aren't patronizing "ancillary businesses" in their own towns? City dwellers are still going out to eat, paying way too much for things for their homes, shopping for gifts, going to the bars. The lockdowns were hell on small usinesses, and that sucks - a lot of them died in the past 2 years - but telecommuting isn't what did that. What did that was forcing people to stay inside and shutting down "non-essential" services.

I may have to drive the 25 miles to court a couple of times/month, but I don't ever plan to go back to commuting, if I can avoid it. Salinas can survive without my business (which it never got anyway, since I brown-bag lunch and buy my gas at the Costco near my home). If it can't, then maybe it was due to downsize. I've been in favor off working where you live for a long time.

[scott]

BC (before COVID), our office had about 10 attorneys and probably 12-15 support staff. All our incoming and outgoing mail was already handled at one of 2 regional offices. Our files are all electronic. Most of the support staff live pretty close to the office. All but 1 of the attorneys live 25 minutes or more away. The office is in one of those faceless office parks, with the court right next door. There are no diners, food carts, etc. The nearest "ancillary businesses" are in the mall. Since the shutdown was lifted, we can choose to work from home or the office. Two attorneys routinely work in the office, and a couple of others go in about once a week. Those of us who work from home now patronize the "ancillary businesses" in our own area, spend a LOT less on gas/wear and tear on our cars, and have more time for work/life balance than we did before.

Now, this isn't SF or NYC, by any means. But for everyone who isn't commuting in from Walnut Creek to SF or Oakland, do you think those people aren't patronizing "ancillary businesses" in their own towns? City dwellers are still going out to eat, paying way too much for things for their homes, shopping for gifts, going to the bars. The lockdowns were hell on small usinesses, and that sucks - a lot of them died in the past 2 years - but telecommuting isn't what did that. What did that was forcing people to stay inside and shutting down "non-essential" services.

I may have to drive the 25 miles to court a couple of times/month, but I don't ever plan to go back to commuting, if I can avoid it. Salinas can survive without my business (which it never got anyway, since I brown-bag lunch and buy my gas at the Costco near my home). If it can't, then maybe it was due to downsize. I've been in favor off working where you live for a long time.

I agree. The urban or suburban with an urban "feel" model of collecting all workers in a central location does sponsor certain ecosystems - but mainly to the detriment of where those people live. Most "bedroom communities" don't have many services because nobody is there during the day. Most businesses that service high rises force workers to overpay for stuff simply because the low margin businesses have to pay so much to get the stuff there. It's a non-prosperous vicious cycle.

I still don't understand why the area around Silicon Valley hasn't cratered yet. Millionaires can't afford to live there. Sheesh.

[Newman]

BC (before COVID), our office had about 10 attorneys and probably 12-15 support staff. All our incoming and outgoing mail was already handled at one of 2 regional offices. Our files are all electronic. Most of the support staff live pretty close to the office. All but 1 of the attorneys live 25 minutes or more away. The office is in one of those faceless office parks, with the court right next door. There are no diners, food carts, etc. The nearest "ancillary businesses" are in the mall. Since the shutdown was lifted, we can choose to work from home or the office. Two attorneys routinely work in the office, and a couple of others go in about once a week. Those of us who work from home now patronize the "ancillary businesses" in our own area, spend a LOT less on gas/wear and tear on our cars, and have more time for work/life balance than we did before.

Now, this isn't SF or NYC, by any means. But for everyone who isn't commuting in from Walnut Creek to SF or Oakland, do you think those people aren't patronizing "ancillary businesses" in their own towns? City dwellers are still going out to eat, paying way too much for things for their homes, shopping for gifts, going to the bars. The lockdowns were hell on small businesses, and that sucks - a lot of them died in the past 2 years - but telecommuting isn't what did that. What did that was forcing people to stay inside and shutting down "non-essential" services.

I may have to drive the 25 miles to court a couple of times/month, but I don't ever plan to go back to commuting, if I can avoid it. Salinas can survive without my business (which it never got anyway, since I brown-bag lunch and buy my gas at the Costco near my home). If it can't, then maybe it was due to downsize. I've been in favor off working where you live for a long time.

Well before the plague of Wuhan cooties there was plenty of speculation about the future of our great urban centers. After all, it has been a while since workers needed to be within earshot of the factory whistle and walking distance of the plant.

Ironically both your reply and Scott's just above presume the continued availability of private cars, something progressive Democrats aim to end if possible, or severely restrict otherwise.

End of the car age: how cities are outgrowing the automobile | Cities | The Guardian
2015

Yang: Climate Change May Require Elimination of Car Ownership (freebeacon.com)
2019

Poverty has its uses.

[80zephyr]

I can see people that work from work getting less and less productive. Its just human nature.

Mark

[Celeste Chalfonte]

I can see people that work from work getting less and less productive. Its just human nature.

Mark

On the contrary. Nobody pops in to chat about the weekend. Nobody congregates in the break room or is chronically late back from lunch because they had to stand in line at the deli counter. Nobody cuts out early to beat the traffic.

We have metrics. Reports off hearings and depositions have to be done within x days of the event. Periodic file reports have to be done on every file on a regular schedule. Pleadings have to be filed on time. Productivity can be and is measured. If anything, I've noticed that my colleagues put in more hours because the means to do the work is right there, so if they have a project, they'll work on it in the hour or more that they would otherwise spend commuting.

[scott]

I can see people that work from work getting less and less productive. Its just human nature.

Mark

Have you actually run or owned a business that has tried it both ways? I have for over 20 years.

Most jobs that can feasibly be done remotely have higher productivity when the staff is at home.

In 1999 I was a consultant for HP in Atlanta and there was a freak winter storm that made most roads impassable so about 5000 developers, testers and management worked from home the entire week. Productivity went from about 76% (then considered "top grade") to 85%. It went back down to 70% the week after. I know this because I was the lead (only) developer revamping the interface of the tasks and training report system.

No impromptu staff meetings, no watercooler talk, no birthday parties, no meetings to coordinate the details of the next meeting. Staff meetings were on the phone only to discuss questions people had about the email summary that was sent, reporting was automated instead of double checked by the managers "because we all review what everyone is doing," and people knew they were being expected to still do the job from home.

If you can't effectively manage a professional staff remotely you are simply an ineffective manager. There are obviously LOTS of jobs that cannot be done remotely though.

[80zephyr]

Have you actually run or owned a business that has tried it both ways? I have for over 20 years.

Most jobs that can feasibly be done remotely have higher productivity when the staff is at home.

In 1999 I was a consultant for HP in Atlanta and there was a freak winter storm that made most roads impassable so about 5000 developers, testers and management worked from home the entire week. Productivity went from about 76% (then considered "top grade") to 85%. It went back down to 70% the week after. I know this because I was the lead (only) developer revamping the interface of the tasks and training report system.

No impromptu staff meetings, no watercooler talk, no birthday parties, no meetings to coordinate the details of the next meeting. Staff meetings were on the phone only to discuss questions people had about the email summary that was sent, reporting was automated instead of double checked by the managers "because we all review what everyone is doing," and people knew they were being expected to still do the job from home.

If you can't effectively manage a professional staff remotely you are simply an ineffective manager. There are obviously LOTS of jobs that cannot be done remotely though.

Yeah, over the short term, I think it would work. After 5 years, I'm not sure.

Mark

[Celeste Chalfonte]

Yeah, over the short term, I think it would work. After 5 years, I'm not sure.

Mark

We've been doing it for 2 years. Our last 2 audits were 96 and 98%.