Read on Twitter
I assumed the story to this headline was written by Australians.
I'll add that this claim about unemployment forecasts is wrong. https://twitter.com/mrJeffHowell/status/1254644180246081536
I'll add that this claim about unemployment forecasts is wrong. https://twitter.com/mrJeffHowell/status/1254644180246081536
A paragraph written by two people who, as shown previously, did not understand Treasury's economic scenarios https://twitter.com/Economissive/status/1249991900624379904
Here are the 4 bank *forecasts* and Treasury's *scenarios*.
The banks are anticipating increased Govt spend. Treasury's scenarios that have increased Govt funding (and, so, the ones they consider most likely) all have unempl at the bottom of @coughlthom and Luke Malpass's range.
The banks are anticipating increased Govt spend. Treasury's scenarios that have increased Govt funding (and, so, the ones they consider most likely) all have unempl at the bottom of @coughlthom and Luke Malpass's range.
The other scenarios show what might happen if Covid got away on us, which it plainly isn't, and we had to be in level 4 for six months, and level 3 for six months. (And at no point does it hit 30%.)
We are currently on track to be in level 4 and level 3 the same amount of time or less than in Treasury's scenario 1.
That pink line? That's jobless numbers. There was some public comment about how it shot up 30,000.
But that was LESS than almost all forecasts/scenarios thought (noting it's early days). Forecasts and scenarios that already account for the wage subsidy.
But that was LESS than almost all forecasts/scenarios thought (noting it's early days). Forecasts and scenarios that already account for the wage subsidy.
(The jobless index I've marked doesn't account for population growth, including the large influx in net migration in the last couple of months, so will indicate a slightly larger than increase in actual unemployment rates.)
