I’m only trying to remember what I learned in college, but I can tell you I flat out do not believe that ridiculous 450,000 figure. Theoretically I think 350,000 is the number that usually is able to find other work fairly quickly, i.e. less than a month. And if that is the case, and that’s a big if, as that number slowly goes down we should see job growth. I’m only going from memory, if I’m wrong and somebody knows the correct number please tell me.
I think that we are in uncharted territory with respect to the economy. We are likely undergoing long-term structural changes wherein former “rules-of-thumb” just don’t apply.
I think what you were referring to is something that government statisticians used to refer to as “churning” — the number of jobs typically lost during a given period where the unemployed can gain new employment within a minimal defined period.
Your number is in the ballpark and supported by the last 20 years of unemployment claims and graphs of the four-week moving average of initial claims. No doubt about that.
We still do not see the long-term (> 6 months or 26 weeks) unemployment trendline coming down, tho.
There is HUGE slack in the labor force. Employers can go forward without hiring two+ million workers simply by pulling back in part-timed labor to full-time, and bringing furloughed workers back on to active employment.
The slack in the labor force is going to be the biggest impediment to creating “new jobs” going foward.