On hindsight bias.

In March, a reporter for a national newspaper called and asked for comment on the state of the labour market.

I said that we were likely to see the biggest one-month change ever; even bigger than 1930s.

(This isn't about me being prescient....read on...)

/1

So I told the reporter that I thought the one-month labour market change would be the worst ever.

An hour later, he calls me back. His editor **bounced the quote**. The editor said it was not credible. Wanted more documentation of the claim.

/2

The editor bounced my quotation that this would be the worst one month delta in the labour market ever. He thought it was not credible.

That's fine. I provided my reasoning and suggested talking to @trevortombe for further evidence.

All good....

/3

Here is a chart that @trevortombe posted that was part of my reasoning for the claim that the labour market change would be the worse ever. The claim the editor thought was not credible.

(Get ready for it...punchline coming in next tweet....)

/4 https://twitter.com/trevortombe/status/1240418325538074627

To recap:

* I claimed labour market change would be worst ever.
* editor for national newspaper bounced the quote as not credible.

When did this happen....

**March 19th.**

A bit more than 3 weeks ago.

/5

I'm not recounting this tale to dunk on the reporter/editor (who you'll note I didn't name!).

I'm just reminding us all that only *3 weeks* ago, it was considered "not credible" that labour market would implode.

Opinion moved quickly; by the next week it was obvious to all.
/6

As we all reflect on the final form of the CEWS wage subsidy , it is tempting to be curious why we didn't do this three weeks ago.

In hindsight, maybe we should have!

But as of March 19th, the idea that the labour market would do what it has done was seen as "not credible".
7/7