What to watch on jobs day: The unemployment rate continues to climb but not equally for all demographic groups
In April, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that 20.5 million jobs were lost and the unemployment rate rose faster than ever before, hitting 14.7%, the highest unemployment rate since the Great Depression. May’s unemployment rate is expected to be far higher. Initial unemployment insurance claims suggest an excess of 10 million more people lost their jobs between mid-April and mid-May, the reference period for tomorrow’s report.
In advance of tomorrow’s jobs data from BLS, let’s take a minute to look more closely at the unemployment rate across various demographic groups and consider the extent of economic pain missed in the official count of the unemployed. Because of the use of the microdata in our calculations, the numbers in the figure below are not seasonally adjusted and therefore do not match the topline seasonally adjusted data released by BLS. The microdata, however, allow us to measure the unemployment rate and calculate the adjusted unemployment rate across a variety of groups not reported by the BLS.
The official unemployment rate is in dark blue in Figure A below. As you can see, the unemployment rate is incredibly high across the board. Except for those with an advanced degree, the unemployment rate of all groups has exceeded the highest level the overall unemployment rate hit at the height of the Great Recession, when it reached 10.0% in 2009 (and all groups have exceeded their group’s highest unemployment of the Great Recession). Even though jobs were lost across the board, the data indicate that job losses were particularly stark for black and brown workers, those who are less likely to be able to economically weather the storm. Historically higher unemployment rates and lower liquid savings make job losses even more devastating for African American workers and their families.
Release incarcerated Ohioans to flatten the coronavirus curve
Ohio Governor Mike DeWine acted quickly and decisively in March to flatten the curve of COVID-19 infections in this Midwestern state, closing schools, restaurants, and other gathering places. He also took action by postponing the March primary to slow the spread of the virus, protect vulnerable populations, and keep hospitals from being overwhelmed.
Although not without controversy, these steps appear to have kept hospitals from being overwhelmed in the early months of the pandemic. And while the death toll is still rising, its climb has not been as steep as some models had predicted.
Gov. DeWine has not given the same attention to protecting incarcerated Ohioans and the workers who guard and serve them. At the end of May, the Marshall Project reported that Ohio’s state prison system has reported more deaths of incarcerated people than any other state system in the United States and more than the federal prison system. Ohio’s system has the third-highest per capita death rate among incarcerated people, behind Michigan and New Jersey.
No matter where we live or what we look like, we all want to make sure our loved ones are safe and healthy.
That’s why it’s important to call out the governor’s lack of action to save lives in Ohio prisons, which has a potentially disproportionate impact on black Ohioans. Of the nearly 48,000 people in Ohio prisons, approximately 47% of the men and 74% of the women are black; in contrast, 12% of the state’s total population is black. Black people are disproportionately represented among corrections officers as well, making up 18% of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) staff in that role.
Close to one in four workers are either on unemployment benefits or are waiting to receive them: Congress must take action
Over the last week, I have been consumed with pain and anger over the police murders of George Floyd and so many other Black people—murders rooted in a long history of white supremacy and lynchings in the United States. That long history of white supremacy has profound effects on the labor market. For example, recessions hit Black workers harder than white workers because of dynamics like occupational segregation, discrimination, and other labor market disparities rooted in systemic racism. In this post, I am going to talk about today’s release of unemployment insurance data. These data highlight the deep recession we are now in—a recession that will exacerbate existing racial inequalities by causing greater job loss and income declines in Black households than white households.
Last week, 2.2 million workers applied for unemployment benefits. This is the 11th week in a row that initial unemployment claims have been more than twice the worst week of the Great Recession.
Of the 2.2 million who applied for unemployment benefits last week, 1.6 million applied for regular state unemployment insurance (UI), and 0.6 million applied for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA). PUA is the new federal program for workers who are out of work because of the virus but who are not eligible for regular UI (e.g., the self-employed). At this point, only 36 states and Puerto Rico are reporting PUA claims. This means PUA claims are still being undercounted.
Public education job losses in April are already greater than in all of the Great Recession
It has been well documented that fiscal austerity was a catastrophe for the recovery from the Great Recession. New estimates show that without sufficient aid to state and local governments, the COVID-19 shock could lead to a revenue shortfall of nearly $1 trillion by 2021 for state and local governments. In lieu of substantial federal investments, budget cuts are certain. But I, for one, did not expect to see the losses as soon as April. As of the latest jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), state and local government employment fell by 981,000, with the vast majority of losses found in local government. And the majority of those local government losses are in the education sector, with a loss of 468,800 jobs in local public school employment alone.
State and local government austerity in the aftermath of the great recession contributed to a significant shortfall in employment in public K–12 school systems, a shortfall that continued through 2019. The figure below shows that, as of early 2020, public employment in elementary and secondary schools had yet to recover the level it had reached prior to the losses of the Great Recession. Furthermore, employment levels in the public education system have failed to keep up with growth in public school enrollment since 2008. As of September 2019, the start of the most recent pre-pandemic school year, local public education jobs were still 60,000 short of their September 2008 level, and they were over 300,000 lower than they would have needed to be to keep up with public school enrollment.
Then, the pandemic hit and local education jobs dropped sharply. More K–12 public education jobs were lost in April than in all of the Great Recession. And that’s before any austerity measures from lost state and local revenue have been put in place. A look at the Current Population Survey reveals that losses in public education were concentrated in certain occupations. While some teachers were spared, namely elementary and middle school teachers, others were not. Half of the job losses in K–12 public education between March and April were among special education teachers, tutors, and teaching assistants. Not only are these job losses devastating to those no longer getting a paycheck, but they negatively impact the education students receive. Other significant job losses occurred among counselors, nurses, janitors, and other building maintenance workers. Without sufficient staffing, we cannot safely reopen schools and get parents back to work—which will in turn hamper economic recovery.
Six states have at least one million workers either receiving regular unemployment benefits or waiting for their claim to be approved
The Department of Labor (DOL) released the most recent unemployment insurance (UI) claims data yesterday, showing that another 1.9 million people filed for regular UI benefits last week (not seasonally adjusted) and 1.2 million for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA), the new program for workers who aren’t eligible for regular UI, such as gig workers.
In the last 10 weeks, more than one in five people in the workforce are either receiving or have recently applied for unemployment benefits—regular or PUA. These benefits are a critical lifeline that help workers make ends meet while slowing the spread of coronavirus as we practice social distancing. The $600 increase in weekly UI benefits was perhaps the most effective measure in the CARES Act for insulating workers from economic harm, and it should be extended past July.
For the last few weeks, we have been reporting the sum of initial claims since we first started seeing the economic effects of the pandemic. This week, we are reporting a different measure of the cumulative number of people claiming UI: the total number of workers who are either on unemployment benefits, or have applied and are still waiting to see if they will get benefits.
More than one in five workers are either receiving unemployment benefits or waiting for approval: Congress must do much, much more
Last week, 3.1 million workers applied for unemployment benefits. This is the tenth week in a row that initial unemployment claims are more than three times the worst week of the Great Recession.
Of the 3.1 million who applied for unemployment benefits last week, 1.9 million applied for regular state unemployment insurance (UI), and 1.2 million applied for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA). PUA is the new federal program for workers who are out of work because of the virus but who are not eligible for regular UI (e.g. the self-employed). At this point, 15 states and the District of Columbia are not yet even reporting PUA data. This means PUA claims are still being undercounted.
34.2 million workers are either receiving unemployment benefits or waiting for approval: Reported number of initial and continued UI and PUA claims, as of May 23, 2020
| Regular state UI: Continued claims | Regular state UI: Initial claims | PUA: Continued claims | PUA: Initial claims | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cumulative | 19,051,706 | 4,096,598 | 7,793,066 | 3,289,671 | 0 |
Notes: Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) is the new federal program for workers who are out of work because of the coronavirus but who are not eligible for regular state unemployment insurance (UI) benefits (e.g. the self-employed). Initial claims are still in the first round of processing. Continued claims have made it through at least the first round of processing.
Notes: Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) is the new federal program for workers who are out of work because of the virus but who are not eligible for regular state unemployment insurance (UI) benefits (e.g. the self-employed). Initial claims are still in the first round of processing. Continued claims have made it through at least the first round of processing. PUA initial claims are for the weeks ending May 9, May 16, and May 23; PUA continued claims are for the week ending May 9. Regular state UI initial claims are for the weeks ending May 9 and May 16; regular state UI continued claims are for the week ending May 16. Regular state UI claims are reported for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. PUA claims are currently being reported for 35 states; 15 states and the District of Columbia are not yet reporting PUA data.
Source: U.S. Employment and Training Administration, Initial Claims [ICSA], retrieved from Department of Labor (DOL), https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf and https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp, May 28, 2020.
Many commentators are reporting the cumulative number of initial regular state UI claims over the last 10 weeks as a measure of how many people have applied for UI in this pandemic. At this point, I believe we should abandon that approach because it ignores PUA—and is thus an understatement on that front—but may overstate things in other ways. For example it may lead to some double-counting. Instead, we can calculate the total number of workers who are either on unemployment benefits, or have applied and are still waiting to see if they will get benefits, in the following way:
A total of 19.1 million workers had made it through at least the first round of regular state UI processing as of May 16 (these are known as “continued” claims), and 4.1 million had filed initial UI claims on top of that but had not yet made it through the first round of processing as of May 23. And, 7.8 million workers had made it through at least the first round of PUA processing by May 9, and 3.3 million had filed initial PUA claims on top of that but had not yet made it through the first round of processing as of May 23. Altogether, that’s 34.2 million workers who are either on unemployment benefits or who have applied very recently and are waiting for approval—roughly two-thirds UI, and one-third PUA. Together, that is more than one in five people in the U.S. workforce.
Criminalization of black and brown communities in the Midwest adds to public health crisis during COVID-19 pandemic
The first installment of this three-part series on the impact of the coronavirus in the Midwest describes how weak labor protections have put Midwestern food processing workers at risk for coronavirus. Here we describe how incarceration puts people in the Midwest at risk during the pandemic and what state and local policymakers can do to protect the health and safety of people and families impacted by incarceration.
During a public health crisis, we’re reminded that our communities are only really safe when everyone is safe. Across the nation—and throughout the Midwest—our communities include jails, prisons, and detention centers. And now, people who are incarcerated face an urgent problem: greater health risks from COVID-19. Overcrowding inhibits physical distancing and isolation of people who’ve contracted the virus, and inadequate medical care and supplies in these facilities prevents necessary testing, treatment, and sanitation. Decades of so-called “tough on crime” laws have overcrowded Midwestern jails and prisons and put the people who are incarcerated and the surrounding communities at risk.
State and local policymakers must do more to protect the health and safety of people impacted by incarceration and the workers coming in and out of these facilities as well. Proper medical care; prioritizing people for release from jails, prisons, and detention centers; eliminating unnecessary fees and fines; protecting people on parole and probation; and ensuring incarcerated people are able to communicate with their family and friends without creating additional economic hardship are all steps that should be prioritized during the coronavirus pandemic and further highlight reforms necessary even when we are not facing a global health emergency.
What does incarceration in the Midwest look like?
All states throughout the Midwest have seen a dramatic increase in incarceration over the last 40 years. They have incarcerated people in jails, prisons, detention centers, and juvenile justice facilities at higher rates (652 people per every 100,000 people in the state on average across the Midwest) even when compared with wealthy democracies around the world. Racial disparities are especially stark for black people, who are overrepresented in jails and prisons in every Midwestern state. For example, of the 10 states with the highest black–white differential in incarceration in state prisons, five (Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, and Nebraska) are in the Midwest and three of these (Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota) imprison black people at more than 10 times the rate of white people. Latino and indigenous people are at least two times as likely to be incarcerated in many Midwestern states, including Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. These communities are also more likely to have underlying health conditions that lead to higher rates of death after contracting the virus, a risk factor that reflects and compounds durable patterns of segregation and discrimination.
Without federal aid, many state and local governments could make the same budget cuts that hampered the last economic recovery
If policymakers should learn one lesson from the long, sluggish recovery from the Great Recession, it is that cutting public spending, particularly by state and local governments, is a recipe for prolonged economic pain. My colleague Josh Bivens has described in detail how the state and local austerity of the early 2010s was both an unprecedented cutback in public spending following a recession and directly to blame for the slow pace of recovery.
Unfortunately, facing massive projected losses in revenue as the coronavirus has forced them to lock down their economies, many state and local governments are already cutting critical services and laying off staff. The April jobs report showed that nearly 981,000 state and local public-sector jobs have already been lost. To put that in perspective, that’s more than all the state and local public-sector jobs lost in the Great Recession and its aftermath.
As shown in Figure A, the peak for state and local government employment occurred in July 2008. As state and local budgets deteriorated throughout that year, governments began cutting services and staff. When the recession officially ended in June 2009, lawmakers in many states were already cutting jobs, choosing to slash budgets rather than pursuing new revenues. These cuts accelerated in 2010 as relief funding from the federal recovery act dried up, and they continued for several years, particularly in many states where conservative lawmakers took control following the 2010 elections. The result was a loss of nearly 800,000 state and local public-sector jobs by July 2013.
April’s state and local government job losses were larger than the entirety of cuts in the Great Recession: State and local government employment (in thousands), December 2007–April 2020
| State and local actual | |
|---|---|
| 2007-12-01 | 19620 |
| 2008-01-01 | 19650 |
| 2008-02-01 | 19670 |
| 2008-03-01 | 19691 |
| 2008-04-01 | 19695 |
| 2008-05-01 | 19726 |
| 2008-06-01 | 19758 |
| 2008-07-01 | 19801 |
| 2008-08-01 | 19801 |
| 2008-09-01 | 19769 |
| 2008-10-01 | 19777 |
| 2008-11-01 | 19782 |
| 2008-12-01 | 19781 |
| 2009-01-01 | 19793 |
| 2009-02-01 | 19781 |
| 2009-03-01 | 19763 |
| 2009-04-01 | 19755 |
| 2009-05-01 | 19757 |
| 2009-06-01 | 19762 |
| 2009-07-01 | 19695 |
| 2009-08-01 | 19712 |
| 2009-09-01 | 19625 |
| 2009-10-01 | 19681 |
| 2009-11-01 | 19691 |
| 2009-12-01 | 19651 |
| 2010-01-01 | 19631 |
| 2010-02-01 | 19604 |
| 2010-03-01 | 19595 |
| 2010-04-01 | 19585 |
| 2010-05-01 | 19580 |
| 2010-06-01 | 19547 |
| 2010-07-01 | 19518 |
| 2010-08-01 | 19475 |
| 2010-09-01 | 19378 |
| 2010-10-01 | 19431 |
| 2010-11-01 | 19421 |
| 2010-12-01 | 19396 |
| 2011-01-01 | 19384 |
| 2011-02-01 | 19339 |
| 2011-03-01 | 19315 |
| 2011-04-01 | 19314 |
| 2011-05-01 | 19258 |
| 2011-06-01 | 19304 |
| 2011-07-01 | 19187 |
| 2011-08-01 | 19167 |
| 2011-09-01 | 19137 |
| 2011-10-01 | 19148 |
| 2011-11-01 | 19129 |
| 2011-12-01 | 19118 |
| 2012-01-01 | 19113 |
| 2012-02-01 | 19119 |
| 2012-03-01 | 19115 |
| 2012-04-01 | 19105 |
| 2012-05-01 | 19088 |
| 2012-06-01 | 19106 |
| 2012-07-01 | 19098 |
| 2012-08-01 | 19096 |
| 2012-09-01 | 19103 |
| 2012-10-01 | 19079 |
| 2012-11-01 | 19074 |
| 2012-12-01 | 19081 |
| 2013-01-01 | 19063 |
| 2013-02-01 | 19075 |
| 2013-03-01 | 19076 |
| 2013-04-01 | 19075 |
| 2013-05-01 | 19089 |
| 2013-06-01 | 19069 |
| 2013-07-01 | 19054 |
| 2013-08-01 | 19077 |
| 2013-09-01 | 19082 |
| 2013-10-01 | 19091 |
| 2013-11-01 | 19097 |
| 2013-12-01 | 19079 |
| 2014-01-01 | 19078 |
| 2014-02-01 | 19094 |
| 2014-03-01 | 19105 |
| 2014-04-01 | 19125 |
| 2014-05-01 | 19104 |
| 2014-06-01 | 19166 |
| 2014-07-01 | 19170 |
| 2014-08-01 | 19120 |
| 2014-09-01 | 19162 |
| 2014-10-01 | 19182 |
| 2014-11-01 | 19192 |
| 2014-12-01 | 19204 |
| 2015-01-01 | 19215 |
| 2015-02-01 | 19231 |
| 2015-03-01 | 19222 |
| 2015-04-01 | 19242 |
| 2015-05-01 | 19259 |
| 2015-06-01 | 19261 |
| 2015-07-01 | 19294 |
| 2015-08-01 | 19300 |
| 2015-09-01 | 19281 |
| 2015-10-01 | 19297 |
| 2015-11-01 | 19315 |
| 2015-12-01 | 19321 |
| 2016-01-01 | 19346 |
| 2016-02-01 | 19366 |
| 2016-03-01 | 19397 |
| 2016-04-01 | 19401 |
| 2016-05-01 | 19405 |
| 2016-06-01 | 19387 |
| 2016-07-01 | 19486 |
| 2016-08-01 | 19465 |
| 2016-09-01 | 19496 |
| 2016-10-01 | 19488 |
| 2016-11-01 | 19491 |
| 2016-12-01 | 19491 |
| 2017-01-01 | 19487 |
| 2017-02-01 | 19506 |
| 2017-03-01 | 19514 |
| 2017-04-01 | 19530 |
| 2017-05-01 | 19524 |
| 2017-06-01 | 19540 |
| 2017-07-01 | 19554 |
| 2017-08-01 | 19555 |
| 2017-09-01 | 19564 |
| 2017-10-01 | 19566 |
| 2017-11-01 | 19601 |
| 2017-12-01 | 19587 |
| 2018-01-01 | 19554 |
| 2018-02-01 | 19613 |
| 2018-03-01 | 19611 |
| 2018-04-01 | 19619 |
| 2018-05-01 | 19639 |
| 2018-06-01 | 19663 |
| 2018-07-01 | 19664 |
| 2018-08-01 | 19689 |
| 2018-09-01 | 19685 |
| 2018-10-01 | 19680 |
| 2018-11-01 | 19675 |
| 2018-12-01 | 19686 |
| 2019-01-01 | 19695 |
| 2019-02-01 | 19699 |
| 2019-03-01 | 19713 |
| 2019-04-01 | 19730 |
| 2019-05-01 | 19725 |
| 2019-06-01 | 19724 |
| 2019-07-01 | 19756 |
| 2019-08-01 | 19780 |
| 2019-09-01 | 19793 |
| 2019-10-01 | 19801 |
| 2019-11-01 | 19809 |
| 2019-12-01 | 19832 |
| 2020-01-01 | 19859 |
| 2020-02-01 | 19878 |
| 2020-03-01 | 19831 |
| 2020-04-01 | 18850 |
Note: Shaded area denotes recession.
Source: Current Employment Statistics data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Republicans and corporate interests exploit coronavirus crisis to erase companies’ liability
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) announced that they are working on legislation to give companies enhanced protections against lawsuits by employees and consumers who contract COVID-19 and claim that the business is responsible for their infection. Instead of advancing crucial worker protections and aid to state and local governments, Republicans and corporate advocacy organizations have made “liability shield” legislation the main priority for additional pandemic relief and recovery measures—claiming that it is necessary to remove liability from businesses in order to reopen the economy. To be clear, removing legal accountability from businesses would jeopardize the health and safety of workers and consumers and threaten the overall economic recovery.
In the last several months, there have been many examples of businesses failing to provide workers with the necessary personal protective equipment to enable them to perform their jobs safely and effectively. Further, some workplaces have continued to operate when workers reported infection and have become epicenters of a local outbreak. Eliminating all legal liability for businesses will likely lead to more businesses acting irresponsibly and placing potential profits ahead of worker and consumer safety.
Compounding this problem is the fact that policymakers have gutted federal budgets for worker protection enforcement over the last decade, as shown in Table 1.
More than a quarter of the workforce in 10 states has filed for unemployment
The Department of Labor (DOL) released the most recent unemployment insurance (UI) claims data this morning, showing that another 2.2 million people filed for regular UI benefits last week (not seasonally adjusted) and 1.2 million for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA), the new program for workers who aren’t eligible for regular UI, such as gig workers.
While most states saw a decline in UI claims filed relative to the prior week, 12 states saw increases in UI claims. Washington saw the largest percent increase in claims (31.0%) compared with the prior week, followed by California (15.7%), New York (13.6%), and North Dakota (10.1%).
A note about the data: Unless otherwise noted, the numbers in this blog post are the ones reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, which they receive from the state agencies that administer UI. While DOL is asking states to report regular UI claims and PUA claims separately, many states are also including some or all PUA claimants in their reported regular UI claims. As state agencies work to get these new programs up and running, there will likely continue to be some misreporting. Since the number of UI claims is one of the most up-to-date measures of labor market weakness and access to benefits, we will still be analyzing it each week as reported by DOL, but we ask that you keep these caveats in mind when interpreting the data.
Figure A and Table 1 below compare regular UI claims filed last week with the prior week and the pre-virus period, in both level and percent terms. It also shows the cumulative number of unemployment claims since March 7 and that number as a share of each state’s labor force. In 10 states, more than a quarter of the workforce filed an initial claim during the past 10 weeks: Georgia (39.2%), Kentucky (38.0%), Hawaii (35.0%), Washington (30.9%), Louisiana (29.9%), Rhode Island (29.7%), Nevada (29.6%), Michigan (29.2%), Pennsylvania (28.4%), and Alaska (27.9%).
Nearly one in four workers has applied for unemployment benefits: Congress must do much, much more
Last week, 3.3 million workers applied for unemployment benefits. That is an improvement over the 6 million per week we saw in late March/early April, but is an increase from the prior week—and is still well over three times the worst week of the Great Recession.
Of the 3.3 million who applied for unemployment benefits last week, 2.2 million applied for regular state unemployment insurance (UI), and 1.2 million applied for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA). PUA is the new federal program for workers who are not eligible for regular UI (e.g., gig workers) but are still out of work as a result of the virus. At this point, 15 states and the District of Columbia are not yet reporting PUA data, so PUA claims are being undercounted. Note, the number of PUA claims for Massachusetts was misreported as 1,184,792. It should have been 115,952. I have corrected for that error throughout this blog post.
It is also worth noting that the Department of Labor (DOL) reports that 2.4 million workers applied for regular state unemployment insurance last week on a “seasonally adjusted” basis, compared with 2.2 million on an unadjusted basis. Seasonal adjustments are usually helpful—they are used to even out seasonal changes in claims that have nothing to do with the underlying strength or weakness of the labor market, typically providing a clearer picture of underlying trends. However, the way DOL does seasonal adjustments is distortionary at a time like this, so I focus on unadjusted numbers when looking at regular state UI. PUA claims are available only on an unadjusted basis.
The coronavirus recession will become a long depression unless federal policymakers act now
This blog post was originally posted in Newsweek.
The coronavirus recession is well upon us. In the U.S., layoffs related to the coronavirus began to intensify around the middle of March. By mid-April, the labor market had shed more than 20 million jobs, by far the most dramatic job loss on record—about two and a half times the job loss of the entire Great Recession. And the situation continues to deteriorate—an additional 12 million workers have applied for unemployment compensation since mid-April. There has never been anything like this.
The official unemployment rate was 14.7% in mid-April, up from 3.5% in February. And even though that is the highest unemployment rate since the Great Depression, it is not actually reflecting all coronavirus-related job losses. In fact, only about half of people who are out of work as a result of the virus are showing up as unemployed. About a quarter are being misclassified—they have been furloughed and should be counted as unemployed and on temporary layoff, but are instead being counted as “employed but not at work.” Another quarter are being counted as having dropped out of the labor force altogether, rather than unemployed. This is because jobless people who have not been furloughed are only counted as unemployed if they are actively seeking work, which is currently impossible for many. How is a jobless worker supposed to look for work in a lockdown or if he/she needs to care for a child whose school or day care has been shuttered?
If all workers who are out of work as a result of the virus had shown up as unemployed, the unemployment rate would have been 23.5% in mid-April instead of 14.7%. And the situation is going to get worse before it gets better—reasonable forecasts predict that the unemployment rate will average over 30% in May and June. Further, because our health system ties health insurance to work, people aren’t just losing their jobs. We estimate that 16.2 million workers have already lost the health insurance they get directly from their employer since the pandemic began—and these workers often cover family members through their employer-based plan, so the total number of people who have lost health insurance is likely almost twice as high.
Ending offshoring and bringing jobs back home will take more than tweets, press releases, and op-eds
Despite repeated warnings, America’s industrial base has been whittled away by corporations offshoring work to Mexico, China, and other countries. The offshoring of much-needed medical equipment in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic heightens the urgency to bring these supply chains home.
While U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer’s recent op-ed heralding an end to “the era of reflexive offshoring” highlights some positive steps forward by the USTR, much more needs to be done to bring supply chains home. It is not enough to—as the administration has done—set tariff policy by tweet, negotiate trade agreements that do not directly take on outsourcing across manufacturing and service sectors, and hope that corporations finally “see the light” and bring jobs home. Rather, returning jobs to America requires a robust, comprehensive strategy that coordinates policies in trade, currency valuation, investment, financing, energy, technology, tax, education, training, government procurement, and labor.
To start, this strategy would include the following:
- Insist that the Defense Department and other U.S. agencies cease their reflexive support for continued use of outside supply chains in Mexico and elsewhere and instead push for bringing work home.
- Ensure that “Made in the U.S.” in government procurement programs actually means that a product is manufactured by U.S. workers with U.S. supplies and materials.
- Require employment impact statements in government contract and award determinations in order to maximize U.S. job creation.
- Create a U.S. Manufacturing Investment Bank.
- Address currency misalignment.
- Eliminate tax incentives that encourage corporations to outsource production.
A prolonged depression is guaranteed without significant federal aid to state and local governments
Congress is currently debating a new relief and recover package—the HEROES Act—that would deliver significant amounts of fiscal aid to state and local governments—more than $1 trillion over the next two years, all told. This is a very welcome proposal. The incredibly steep recession we’re currently in is guaranteed to torpedo state and local governments’ ability to collect revenues. Further, nearly all of these governments are tightly constrained—both by law as well as by genuine economic constraints—from taking on large amounts of debt to maintain spending in the face of this downward shock to their revenues. The result will be intense pressure for large cutbacks in public spending by state and local governments in coming years. Such cutbacks would be absolutely devastating to the cause of restarting the economy and allowing people to find jobs, even if the virus has completely abated.
We know how devastating these cutbacks would be because we have lived through the mistake of allowing them to drag on growth in the quite recent past. State and local governments became relentless anti-stimulus machines during most of the recovery from the Great Recession of 2008–2009. This post highlights a couple of findings from that period that should inform policymakers’ decisions this time around.
- Growth in state and local spending was far slower during the recovery following the Great Recession than in any other post–World War II business cycle on record.
- This state and local spending austerity dragged heavily on growth during that time. If this spending had instead followed the trajectory it established following the recovery from the similarly steep recession of the early 1980s, pre-recession unemployment rates could have been achieved by early 2013 rather than 2017. In short, this austerity delayed recovery by over four years.
- Recent justifications for denying aid to state and local governments sometimes rest on claims that this spending has been profligate in recent years. This is absolutely not so—growth in state and local spending has been historically slow for nearly two decades. Given the importance of what this spending focuses on (education, health care, public order), this decades-long disinvestment should be reversed, not accelerated due to an unforeseen economic crisis.
- If federal aid is passed that is sufficient to close the enormous revenue shortfalls the economic crisis will cause for state and local governments, it will create or save roughly 5–6 million jobs by the end of 2021. Without this aid, we will remain at least that far away from a full economic recovery by then.
Radical far-right CFPB task force threatens consumer protection
This blog post is cross-posted in the American Constitution Society’s Expert Forum Blog.
As unemployment approaches levels last seen during the Great Depression, and requests for mortgage forbearance increase every week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has proceeded doggedly ahead in undermining consumer protection. The CFPB has suspended enforcement of most of the rules requiring mortgage servicers to help homeowners who have fallen behind in their payments; eased disclosure requirements for remittance transfer providers; and reduced collection and reporting of critical fair lending data. Apparently unsatisfied with rolling back regulatory requirements in the middle of a pandemic-driven economic crisis, the CFPB is also paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to a small “task force” of conservative academics and industry lawyers whose charter is to reconsider every aspect of consumer protection.
Although Congress specifically mandated that the CFPB’s advisory committees follow federal sunshine laws, the CFPB has allowed the task force to meet without notice behind closed doors. The first public glimpse of its plans was a sweeping request for information issued in late March. While the rest of the country was struggling to address the spiraling economic threats posed by COVID-19, the task force asked questions about weakening fair lending laws and deregulating consumer finance markets.
Following the CFPB’s expected repeal of consumer protections on payday loans and encouragement to banks to make their own high-priced, short-term loans, the task force asked about “impediments” to expanding such lending. It questioned whether consumer benefits like privacy and accuracy in credit reporting are worth the cost to industry and suggests that enforcement penalties discourage competition. In the midst of the pandemic, the CFPB task force is giving the public a mere two months to comment on fundamental questions like “the optimal mix of regulation, enforcement, supervision, and consumer financial education,” how best to measure whether or not consumer protection is effective, and which markets should and should not be regulated.
Latest Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey data further illustrate the catastrophic COVID-19 labor market
This morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the latest Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) data for March, which further confirms what we already know: The labor market deteriorated quickly through the month of March. As a reminder, JOLTS data are for the whole month (not just mid-month, like the monthly employment numbers). JOLTS shows a net decline of 9.3 million jobs in March, while the monthly employment numbers showed a loss of 870,000. The difference is due to the labor market collapse in the last half of March.
Total separations hit an all-time high of 14.5 million in March. The increase from February of 8.9 million was nearly 13 times faster than any other point in the history of the survey, which dates back to 2000. Separations occurred across nearly all sectors of the economy, but the largest losses were found in leisure and hospitality, other services, retail trade, and education and health services.
The number of layoffs more than account for the increase in the total number of separations. Between February and March, layoffs increased by 9.5 million, hitting 11.4 million in March. In April 2009—the worst month of the Great Recession for layoffs—there were nearly 2.7 million layoffs, or 2% of the workforce. Layoffs in March were more than four times larger than the worst month in the Great Recession.
The layoffs rate—the number of layoffs during the entire month as a percent of total employment—hit 7.5%, more than three times larger than the series high. As with separations, the largest numbers of layoffs occurred in the service sectors. There were nearly 4.9 million layoffs in leisure and hospitality, almost all in accommodation and food services. There were more than 1.1 million layoffs in retail trade and 1.2 million layoffs in education and health services.
Six states saw increases in unemployment claims last week: Many workers who are not usually eligible have filed for unemployment
Correction: This blog post has been updated on 5/15/20 with the correct number of claims for Connecticut. The U.S. Department of Labor’s release on 5/14/20 reported that 298,680 initial claims were filed in Connecticut last week, but Connecticut’s Department of Labor reported that the correct number is 29,846. The total number of initial claims in the U.S. last week, not seasonally adjusted, has also been corrected to 2.3 million to reflect this change.
Another 2.3 million people filed for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits last week (not seasonally adjusted), bringing the total to more than 33 million workers filing for UI benefits in the past eight weeks during the coronavirus pandemic.
While most states saw a decline in UI claims filed relative to the prior week, six states saw increases in UI claims. South Dakota saw the largest percent increase in claims (30.6%) compared with the prior week, followed by Florida (26.9%), Washington (13.7%), Georgia (5.7%), New York (2.7%), and Wisconsin (1.8%).
Georgia had 241,387 initial UI claims last week—more than any other state—followed by Florida (221,905). This comes after several states, including Florida and Georgia, have allowed restaurants and similar businesses to reopen, indicating that state policymakers are risking a greater outbreak with very little of the economic benefits they had expected.
Figure A and Table 1 below compare UI claims filed last week with the prior week and the pre-virus period, in both level and percent terms. It also shows the cumulative number of unemployment claims since March 7 and that number as a share of each state’s labor force. In three states, over a third of the workforce filed an initial claim during the past two months: Georgia (35.8%), Kentucky (35.8%), and Hawaii (33.4%).
What to watch for in tomorrow’s Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey data release: A sharp fall in job openings and hires
On Friday, the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) data for March will be released. Even though we already have more recent data on the labor market from other sources, this survey will provide important new information about how the coronavirus recession is unfolding.
That’s because JOLTS provides information on the moving parts that go into the net change in the number of jobs—job openings, hires, layoffs, voluntary quits, and other separations (which includes worker deaths). With JOLTS, we can get a picture of what is driving the net changes reported in the monthly jobs report.
Further, the JOLTS data that will be released tomorrow cover the entire month of March (as opposed to the monthly employment situation numbers, which only cover through the middle of the reference month). Because the labor market began deteriorating dramatically around mid-March, Friday’s release will provide a good sense of the underlying dynamics of the coronavirus labor market. At the bottom of this post is a text box explaining how the JOLTS data fit into the labor market data landscape.
What do we expect to see? Job openings and hires both have surely dropped dramatically, while layoffs have skyrocketed (note, in the JOLTS data, people who were temporarily laid off or furloughed are counted as layoffs, as long as the furlough is expected to last more than seven days). In April 2009—the worst month of the Great Recession for layoffs—there were nearly 2.7 million layoffs, or 2% of the workforce. In that same month, around 2.5 million people applied for unemployment insurance (UI). In March 2020, more than 10 million people applied for UI, so total layoffs will almost surely be higher than 10 million, which would far exceed the highest value in the series.
16.2 million workers have likely lost employer-provided health insurance since the coronavirus shock began
Since the economic fallout of the coronavirus shock began in early March, the number of workers laid off or furloughed—as measured by new claims for unemployment insurance (UI)—has skyrocketed. We have used data from states that track UI claims by industry to get a rough estimate of how many workers are at high risk of losing their employer-provided health insurance (EPHI) over this as well.
The methodology is described in this blog post, and the underlying UI data (which has begun to include more and more states tracking UI claims by industry) can be found here. Table 1 below shows UI claims by industry across states that collect this data, and also shows employer-provided health insurance (EPHI) coverage rates in those industries in 2018. As of May 9, more than 35 million workers had been laid off or furloughed since mid-March, as measured by total initial UI claims during that period. We find that this translates into likely EPHI losses of 16.2 million.
Because the United States is unique among rich countries in tying health insurance benefits to employment, many of the newly unemployed will suddenly face prohibitively costly insurance options. A comprehensive policy solution would be to extend Medicare and Medicaid to all those suffering job losses during the pandemic period, with the federal government funding this expansion. It has been proposed that the federal government pay for all of COBRA coverage so that workers who are laid off or furloughed may continue their employer-provided coverage. While this policy proposal will help many workers continue coverage, in some states it will not help workers from small businesses with fewer than 20 employees, who are not eligible for COBRA.
In the last eight weeks, more than one in five workers applied for state unemployment insurance benefits: Congress must act
In the last eight weeks, more than 33 million people—more than one in five workers—have applied for unemployment insurance (UI) through regular state UI programs. That is more than five times the worst eight-week stretch of the Great Recession.
Weekly initial state unemployment insurance claims: Not seasonally adjusted, 1967–present
| Week ending | Initial claims |
|---|---|
| 1967-01-07 | 346,000 |
| 1967-01-14 | 334,000 |
| 1967-01-21 | 277,000 |
| 1967-01-28 | 252,000 |
| 1967-02-04 | 274,000 |
| 1967-02-11 | 276,000 |
| 1967-02-18 | 247,000 |
| 1967-02-25 | 248,000 |
| 1967-03-04 | 326,000 |
| 1967-03-11 | 240,000 |
| 1967-03-18 | 225,000 |
| 1967-03-25 | 215,000 |
| 1967-04-01 | 223,000 |
| 1967-04-08 | 251,000 |
| 1967-04-15 | 289,000 |
| 1967-04-22 | 218,000 |
| 1967-04-29 | 216,000 |
| 1967-05-06 | 221,000 |
| 1967-05-13 | 188,000 |
| 1967-05-20 | 177,000 |
| 1967-05-27 | 170,000 |
| 1967-06-03 | 175,000 |
| 1967-06-10 | 188,000 |
| 1967-06-17 | 176,000 |
| 1967-06-24 | 178,000 |
| 1967-07-01 | 206,000 |
| 1967-07-08 | 322,000 |
| 1967-07-15 | 309,000 |
| 1967-07-22 | 282,000 |
| 1967-07-29 | 243,000 |
| 1967-08-05 | 250,000 |
| 1967-08-12 | 193,000 |
| 1967-08-19 | 174,000 |
| 1967-08-26 | 160,000 |
| 1967-09-02 | 163,000 |
| 1967-09-09 | 156,000 |
| 1967-09-16 | 165,000 |
| 1967-09-23 | 155,000 |
| 1967-09-30 | 154,000 |
| 1967-10-07 | 195,000 |
| 1967-10-14 | 159,000 |
| 1967-10-21 | 181,000 |
| 1967-10-28 | 174,000 |
| 1967-11-04 | 204,000 |
| 1967-11-11 | 201,000 |
| 1967-11-18 | 209,000 |
| 1967-11-25 | 200,000 |
| 1967-12-02 | 228,000 |
| 1967-12-09 | 258,000 |
| 1967-12-16 | 241,000 |
| 1967-12-23 | 289,000 |
| 1967-12-30 | 332,000 |
| 1968-01-06 | 357,000 |
| 1968-01-13 | 373,000 |
| 1968-01-20 | 293,000 |
| 1968-01-27 | 242,000 |
| 1968-02-03 | 308,000 |
| 1968-02-10 | 257,000 |
| 1968-02-17 | 214,000 |
| 1968-02-24 | 199,000 |
| 1968-03-02 | 198,000 |
| 1968-03-09 | 208,000 |
| 1968-03-16 | 179,000 |
| 1968-03-23 | 175,000 |
| 1968-03-30 | 165,000 |
| 1968-04-06 | 184,000 |
| 1968-04-13 | 167,000 |
| 1968-04-20 | 165,000 |
| 1968-04-27 | 216,000 |
| 1968-05-04 | 180,000 |
| 1968-05-11 | 164,000 |
| 1968-05-18 | 156,000 |
| 1968-05-25 | 148,000 |
| 1968-06-01 | 139,000 |
| 1968-06-08 | 149,000 |
| 1968-06-15 | 154,000 |
| 1968-06-22 | 152,000 |
| 1968-06-29 | 173,000 |
| 1968-07-06 | 266,000 |
| 1968-07-13 | 242,000 |
| 1968-07-20 | 216,000 |
| 1968-07-27 | 238,000 |
| 1968-08-03 | 235,000 |
| 1968-08-10 | 222,000 |
| 1968-08-17 | 160,000 |
| 1968-08-24 | 148,000 |
| 1968-08-31 | 139,000 |
| 1968-09-07 | 135,000 |
| 1968-09-14 | 141,000 |
| 1968-09-21 | 142,000 |
| 1968-09-28 | 143,000 |
| 1968-10-05 | 153,000 |
| 1968-10-12 | 151,000 |
| 1968-10-19 | 151,000 |
| 1968-10-26 | 152,000 |
| 1968-11-02 | 161,000 |
| 1968-11-09 | 174,000 |
| 1968-11-16 | 196,000 |
| 1968-11-23 | 211,000 |
| 1968-11-30 | 180,000 |
| 1968-12-07 | 223,000 |
| 1968-12-14 | 233,000 |
| 1968-12-21 | 243,000 |
| 1968-12-28 | 333,000 |
| 1969-01-04 | 290,000 |
| 1969-01-11 | 337,000 |
| 1969-01-18 | 265,000 |
| 1969-01-25 | 236,000 |
| 1969-02-01 | 250,000 |
| 1969-02-08 | 248,000 |
| 1969-02-15 | 219,000 |
| 1969-02-22 | 199,000 |
| 1969-03-01 | 206,000 |
| 1969-03-08 | 195,000 |
| 1969-03-15 | 179,000 |
| 1969-03-22 | 158,000 |
| 1969-03-29 | 157,000 |
| 1969-04-05 | 170,000 |
| 1969-04-12 | 187,000 |
| 1969-04-19 | 168,000 |
| 1969-04-26 | 151,000 |
| 1969-05-03 | 150,000 |
| 1969-05-10 | 157,000 |
| 1969-05-17 | 141,000 |
| 1969-05-24 | 138,000 |
| 1969-05-31 | 135,000 |
| 1969-06-07 | 148,000 |
| 1969-06-14 | 145,000 |
| 1969-06-21 | 155,000 |
| 1969-06-28 | 177,000 |
| 1969-07-05 | 267,000 |
| 1969-07-12 | 271,000 |
| 1969-07-19 | 246,000 |
| 1969-07-26 | 221,000 |
| 1969-08-02 | 223,000 |
| 1969-08-09 | 210,000 |
| 1969-08-16 | 168,000 |
| 1969-08-23 | 154,000 |
| 1969-08-30 | 144,000 |
| 1969-09-06 | 133,000 |
| 1969-09-13 | 149,000 |
| 1969-09-20 | 147,000 |
| 1969-09-27 | 147,000 |
| 1969-10-04 | 159,000 |
| 1969-10-11 | 168,000 |
| 1969-10-18 | 155,000 |
| 1969-10-25 | 171,000 |
| 1969-11-01 | 174,000 |
| 1969-11-08 | 206,000 |
| 1969-11-15 | 196,000 |
| 1969-11-22 | 230,000 |
| 1969-11-29 | 219,000 |
| 1969-12-06 | 247,000 |
| 1969-12-13 | 264,000 |
| 1969-12-20 | 289,000 |
| 1969-12-27 | 320,000 |
| 1970-01-03 | 344,000 |
| 1970-01-10 | 429,000 |
| 1970-01-17 | 386,000 |
| 1970-01-24 | 316,000 |
| 1970-01-31 | 293,000 |
| 1970-02-07 | 324,000 |
| 1970-02-14 | 308,000 |
| 1970-02-21 | 285,000 |
| 1970-02-28 | 241,000 |
| 1970-03-07 | 270,000 |
| 1970-03-14 | 258,000 |
| 1970-03-21 | 233,000 |
| 1970-03-28 | 236,000 |
| 1970-04-04 | 250,000 |
| 1970-04-11 | 300,000 |
| 1970-04-18 | 339,000 |
| 1970-04-25 | 299,000 |
| 1970-05-02 | 278,000 |
| 1970-05-09 | 279,000 |
| 1970-05-16 | 242,000 |
| 1970-05-23 | 231,000 |
| 1970-05-30 | 224,000 |
| 1970-06-06 | 234,000 |
| 1970-06-13 | 242,000 |
| 1970-06-20 | 245,000 |
| 1970-06-27 | 247,000 |
| 1970-07-04 | 309,000 |
| 1970-07-11 | 369,000 |
| 1970-07-18 | 353,000 |
| 1970-07-25 | 329,000 |
| 1970-08-01 | 293,000 |
| 1970-08-08 | 278,000 |
| 1970-08-15 | 257,000 |
| 1970-08-22 | 238,000 |
| 1970-08-29 | 220,000 |
| 1970-09-05 | 240,000 |
| 1970-09-12 | 207,000 |
| 1970-09-19 | 247,000 |
| 1970-09-26 | 256,000 |
| 1970-10-03 | 284,000 |
| 1970-10-10 | 287,000 |
| 1970-10-17 | 259,000 |
| 1970-10-24 | 280,000 |
| 1970-10-31 | 283,000 |
| 1970-11-07 | 333,000 |
| 1970-11-14 | 307,000 |
| 1970-11-21 | 333,000 |
| 1970-11-28 | 354,000 |
| 1970-12-05 | 378,000 |
| 1970-12-12 | 370,000 |
| 1970-12-19 | 354,000 |
| 1970-12-26 | 451,000 |
| 1971-01-02 | 443,000 |
| 1971-01-09 | 500,000 |
| 1971-01-16 | 452,000 |
| 1971-01-23 | 399,000 |
| 1971-01-30 | 353,000 |
| 1971-02-06 | 375,000 |
| 1971-02-13 | 333,000 |
| 1971-02-20 | 286,000 |
| 1971-02-27 | 289,000 |
| 1971-03-06 | 306,000 |
| 1971-03-13 | 275,000 |
| 1971-03-20 | 260,000 |
| 1971-03-27 | 261,000 |
| 1971-04-03 | 267,000 |
| 1971-04-10 | 278,000 |
| 1971-04-17 | 257,000 |
| 1971-04-24 | 248,000 |
| 1971-05-01 | 237,000 |
| 1971-05-08 | 260,000 |
| 1971-05-15 | 230,000 |
| 1971-05-22 | 231,000 |
| 1971-05-29 | 231,000 |
| 1971-06-05 | 232,000 |
| 1971-06-12 | 244,000 |
| 1971-06-19 | 249,000 |
| 1971-06-26 | 247,000 |
| 1971-07-03 | 288,000 |
| 1971-07-10 | 335,000 |
| 1971-07-17 | 367,000 |
| 1971-07-24 | 342,000 |
| 1971-07-31 | 340,000 |
| 1971-08-07 | 362,000 |
| 1971-08-14 | 282,000 |
| 1971-08-21 | 252,000 |
| 1971-08-28 | 228,000 |
| 1971-09-04 | 268,000 |
| 1971-09-11 | 219,000 |
| 1971-09-18 | 230,000 |
| 1971-09-25 | 236,000 |
| 1971-10-02 | 238,000 |
| 1971-10-09 | 280,000 |
| 1971-10-16 | 233,000 |
| 1971-10-23 | 251,000 |
| 1971-10-30 | 241,000 |
| 1971-11-06 | 297,000 |
| 1971-11-13 | 289,000 |
| 1971-11-20 | 291,000 |
| 1971-11-27 | 284,000 |
| 1971-12-04 | 372,000 |
| 1971-12-11 | 348,000 |
| 1971-12-18 | 329,000 |
| 1971-12-25 | 340,000 |
| 1972-01-01 | 405,000 |
| 1972-01-08 | 479,000 |
| 1972-01-15 | 395,000 |
| 1972-01-22 | 347,000 |
| 1972-01-29 | 326,000 |
| 1972-02-05 | 342,000 |
| 1972-02-12 | 318,000 |
| 1972-02-19 | 279,000 |
| 1972-02-26 | 252,000 |
| 1972-03-04 | 263,000 |
| 1972-03-11 | 257,000 |
| 1972-03-18 | 241,000 |
| 1972-03-25 | 231,000 |
| 1972-04-01 | 224,000 |
| 1972-04-08 | 271,000 |
| 1972-04-15 | 237,000 |
| 1972-04-22 | 223,000 |
| 1972-04-29 | 214,000 |
| 1972-05-06 | 234,000 |
| 1972-05-13 | 218,000 |
| 1972-05-20 | 210,000 |
| 1972-05-27 | 209,000 |
| 1972-06-03 | 198,000 |
| 1972-06-10 | 224,000 |
| 1972-06-17 | 227,000 |
| 1972-06-24 | 240,000 |
| 1972-07-01 | 327,000 |
| 1972-07-08 | 364,000 |
| 1972-07-15 | 367,000 |
| 1972-07-22 | 299,000 |
| 1972-07-29 | 266,000 |
| 1972-08-05 | 256,000 |
| 1972-08-12 | 220,000 |
| 1972-08-19 | 203,000 |
| 1972-08-26 | 195,000 |
| 1972-09-02 | 192,000 |
| 1972-09-09 | 178,000 |
| 1972-09-16 | 196,000 |
| 1972-09-23 | 193,000 |
| 1972-09-30 | 192,000 |
| 1972-10-07 | 233,000 |
| 1972-10-14 | 202,000 |
| 1972-10-21 | 214,000 |
| 1972-10-28 | 196,000 |
| 1972-11-04 | 242,000 |
| 1972-11-11 | 236,000 |
| 1972-11-18 | 280,000 |
| 1972-11-25 | 238,000 |
| 1972-12-02 | 268,000 |
| 1972-12-09 | 317,000 |
| 1972-12-16 | 323,000 |
| 1972-12-23 | 327,000 |
| 1972-12-30 | 338,000 |
| 1973-01-06 | 345,000 |
| 1973-01-13 | 412,000 |
| 1973-01-20 | 324,000 |
| 1973-01-27 | 267,000 |
| 1973-02-03 | 285,000 |
| 1973-02-10 | 276,000 |
| 1973-02-17 | 242,000 |
| 1973-02-24 | 220,000 |
| 1973-03-03 | 233,000 |
| 1973-03-10 | 227,000 |
| 1973-03-17 | 212,000 |
| 1973-03-24 | 209,000 |
| 1973-03-31 | 193,000 |
| 1973-04-07 | 244,000 |
| 1973-04-14 | 212,000 |
| 1973-04-21 | 211,000 |
| 1973-04-28 | 194,000 |
| 1973-05-05 | 214,000 |
| 1973-05-12 | 198,000 |
| 1973-05-19 | 189,000 |
| 1973-05-26 | 190,000 |
| 1973-06-02 | 173,000 |
| 1973-06-09 | 210,000 |
| 1973-06-16 | 198,000 |
| 1973-06-23 | 206,000 |
| 1973-06-30 | 215,000 |
| 1973-07-07 | 309,000 |
| 1973-07-14 | 270,000 |
| 1973-07-21 | 259,000 |
| 1973-07-28 | 265,000 |
| 1973-08-04 | 262,000 |
| 1973-08-11 | 238,000 |
| 1973-08-18 | 207,000 |
| 1973-08-25 | 190,000 |
| 1973-09-01 | 180,000 |
| 1973-09-08 | 177,000 |
| 1973-09-15 | 186,000 |
| 1973-09-22 | 187,000 |
| 1973-09-29 | 191,000 |
| 1973-10-06 | 210,000 |
| 1973-10-13 | 207,000 |
| 1973-10-20 | 208,000 |
| 1973-10-27 | 200,000 |
| 1973-11-03 | 230,000 |
| 1973-11-10 | 277,000 |
| 1973-11-17 | 261,000 |
| 1973-11-24 | 237,000 |
| 1973-12-01 | 299,000 |
| 1973-12-08 | 345,000 |
| 1973-12-15 | 340,000 |
| 1973-12-22 | 429,000 |
| 1973-12-29 | 461,000 |
| 1974-01-05 | 405,000 |
| 1974-01-12 | 584,000 |
| 1974-01-19 | 465,000 |
| 1974-01-26 | 373,000 |
| 1974-02-02 | 381,000 |
| 1974-02-09 | 459,000 |
| 1974-02-16 | 352,000 |
| 1974-02-23 | 296,000 |
| 1974-03-02 | 313,000 |
| 1974-03-09 | 310,000 |
| 1974-03-16 | 293,000 |
| 1974-03-23 | 285,000 |
| 1974-03-30 | 279,000 |
| 1974-04-06 | 288,000 |
| 1974-04-13 | 278,000 |
| 1974-04-20 | 256,000 |
| 1974-04-27 | 235,000 |
| 1974-05-04 | 243,000 |
| 1974-05-11 | 249,000 |
| 1974-05-18 | 238,000 |
| 1974-05-25 | 246,000 |
| 1974-06-01 | 209,000 |
| 1974-06-08 | 267,000 |
| 1974-06-15 | 255,000 |
| 1974-06-22 | 266,000 |
| 1974-06-29 | 285,000 |
| 1974-07-06 | 350,000 |
| 1974-07-13 | 351,000 |
| 1974-07-20 | 325,000 |
| 1974-07-27 | 333,000 |
| 1974-08-03 | 340,000 |
| 1974-08-10 | 318,000 |
| 1974-08-17 | 269,000 |
| 1974-08-24 | 260,000 |
| 1974-08-31 | 259,000 |
| 1974-09-07 | 253,000 |
| 1974-09-14 | 271,000 |
| 1974-09-21 | 283,000 |
| 1974-09-28 | 279,000 |
| 1974-10-05 | 325,000 |
| 1974-10-12 | 358,000 |
| 1974-10-19 | 324,000 |
| 1974-10-26 | 357,000 |
| 1974-11-02 | 375,000 |
| 1974-11-09 | 435,000 |
| 1974-11-16 | 450,000 |
| 1974-11-23 | 532,000 |
| 1974-11-30 | 524,000 |
| 1974-12-07 | 693,000 |
| 1974-12-14 | 637,000 |
| 1974-12-21 | 677,000 |
| 1974-12-28 | 813,000 |
| 1975-01-04 | 681,000 |
| 1975-01-11 | 969,000 |
| 1975-01-18 | 850,000 |
| 1975-01-25 | 729,000 |
| 1975-02-01 | 699,000 |
| 1975-02-08 | 691,000 |
| 1975-02-15 | 608,000 |
| 1975-02-22 | 567,000 |
| 1975-03-01 | 568,000 |
| 1975-03-08 | 569,000 |
| 1975-03-15 | 494,000 |
| 1975-03-22 | 499,000 |
| 1975-03-29 | 477,000 |
| 1975-04-05 | 505,000 |
| 1975-04-12 | 496,000 |
| 1975-04-19 | 456,000 |
| 1975-04-26 | 429,000 |
| 1975-05-03 | 420,000 |
| 1975-05-10 | 432,000 |
| 1975-05-17 | 410,000 |
| 1975-05-24 | 391,000 |
| 1975-05-31 | 360,000 |
| 1975-06-07 | 443,000 |
| 1975-06-14 | 422,000 |
| 1975-06-21 | 428,000 |
| 1975-06-28 | 407,000 |
| 1975-07-05 | 460,000 |
| 1975-07-12 | 517,000 |
| 1975-07-19 | 481,000 |
| 1975-07-26 | 471,000 |
| 1975-08-02 | 462,000 |
| 1975-08-09 | 429,000 |
| 1975-08-16 | 367,000 |
| 1975-08-23 | 353,000 |
| 1975-08-30 | 332,000 |
| 1975-09-06 | 331,000 |
| 1975-09-13 | 341,000 |
| 1975-09-20 | 336,000 |
| 1975-09-27 | 342,000 |
| 1975-10-04 | 365,000 |
| 1975-10-11 | 385,000 |
| 1975-10-18 | 332,000 |
| 1975-10-25 | 372,000 |
| 1975-11-01 | 378,000 |
| 1975-11-08 | 414,000 |
| 1975-11-15 | 371,000 |
| 1975-11-22 | 419,000 |
| 1975-11-29 | 403,000 |
| 1975-12-06 | 487,000 |
| 1975-12-13 | 456,000 |
| 1975-12-20 | 463,000 |
| 1975-12-27 | 573,000 |
| 1976-01-03 | 540,000 |
| 1976-01-10 | 708,000 |
| 1976-01-17 | 563,000 |
| 1976-01-24 | 486,000 |
| 1976-01-31 | 450,000 |
| 1976-02-07 | 452,000 |
| 1976-02-14 | 391,000 |
| 1976-02-21 | 367,000 |
| 1976-02-28 | 353,000 |
| 1976-03-06 | 366,000 |
| 1976-03-13 | 343,000 |
| 1976-03-20 | 330,000 |
| 1976-03-27 | 314,000 |
| 1976-04-03 | 334,000 |
| 1976-04-10 | 366,000 |
| 1976-04-17 | 316,000 |
| 1976-04-24 | 311,000 |
| 1976-05-01 | 313,000 |
| 1976-05-08 | 345,000 |
| 1976-05-15 | 308,000 |
| 1976-05-22 | 311,000 |
| 1976-05-29 | 310,000 |
| 1976-06-05 | 307,000 |
| 1976-06-12 | 351,000 |
| 1976-06-19 | 342,000 |
| 1976-06-26 | 339,000 |
| 1976-07-03 | 401,000 |
| 1976-07-10 | 445,000 |
| 1976-07-17 | 455,000 |
| 1976-07-24 | 418,000 |
| 1976-07-31 | 401,000 |
| 1976-08-07 | 373,000 |
| 1976-08-14 | 329,000 |
| 1976-08-21 | 320,000 |
| 1976-08-28 | 301,000 |
| 1976-09-04 | 321,000 |
| 1976-09-11 | 280,000 |
| 1976-09-18 | 320,000 |
| 1976-09-25 | 327,000 |
| 1976-10-02 | 332,000 |
| 1976-10-09 | 388,000 |
| 1976-10-16 | 325,000 |
| 1976-10-23 | 361,000 |
| 1976-10-30 | 370,000 |
| 1976-11-06 | 387,000 |
| 1976-11-13 | 363,000 |
| 1976-11-20 | 430,000 |
| 1976-11-27 | 369,000 |
| 1976-12-04 | 500,000 |
| 1976-12-11 | 494,000 |
| 1976-12-18 | 434,000 |
| 1976-12-25 | 466,000 |
| 1977-01-01 | 558,000 |
| 1977-01-08 | 685,000 |
| 1977-01-15 | 597,000 |
| 1977-01-22 | 589,000 |
| 1977-01-29 | 518,000 |
| 1977-02-05 | 704,000 |
| 1977-02-12 | 552,000 |
| 1977-02-19 | 422,000 |
| 1977-02-26 | 360,000 |
| 1977-03-05 | 367,000 |
| 1977-03-12 | 335,000 |
| 1977-03-19 | 321,000 |
| 1977-03-26 | 298,000 |
| 1977-04-02 | 296,000 |
| 1977-04-09 | 367,000 |
| 1977-04-16 | 316,000 |
| 1977-04-23 | 314,000 |
| 1977-04-30 | 305,000 |
| 1977-05-07 | 333,000 |
| 1977-05-14 | 309,000 |
| 1977-05-21 | 293,000 |
| 1977-05-28 | 298,000 |
| 1977-06-04 | 283,000 |
| 1977-06-11 | 308,000 |
| 1977-06-18 | 310,000 |
| 1977-06-25 | 321,000 |
| 1977-07-02 | 348,000 |
| 1977-07-09 | 431,000 |
| 1977-07-16 | 424,000 |
| 1977-07-23 | 391,000 |
| 1977-07-30 | 380,000 |
| 1977-08-06 | 379,000 |
| 1977-08-13 | 319,000 |
| 1977-08-20 | 298,000 |
| 1977-08-27 | 282,000 |
| 1977-09-03 | 289,000 |
| 1977-09-10 | 260,000 |
| 1977-09-17 | 289,000 |
| 1977-09-24 | 293,000 |
| 1977-10-01 | 275,000 |
| 1977-10-08 | 345,000 |
| 1977-10-15 | 287,000 |
| 1977-10-22 | 322,000 |
| 1977-10-29 | 309,000 |
| 1977-11-05 | 352,000 |
| 1977-11-12 | 310,000 |
| 1977-11-19 | 367,000 |
| 1977-11-26 | 342,000 |
| 1977-12-03 | 430,000 |
| 1977-12-10 | 448,000 |
| 1977-12-17 | 412,000 |
| 1977-12-24 | 450,000 |
| 1977-12-31 | 535,000 |
| 1978-01-07 | 559,000 |
| 1978-01-14 | 579,000 |
| 1978-01-21 | 500,000 |
| 1978-01-28 | 445,000 |
| 1978-02-04 | 447,000 |
| 1978-02-11 | 438,000 |
| 1978-02-18 | 455,000 |
| 1978-02-25 | 372,000 |
| 1978-03-04 | 360,000 |
| 1978-03-11 | 342,000 |
| 1978-03-18 | 302,000 |
| 1978-03-25 | 280,000 |
| 1978-04-01 | 278,000 |
| 1978-04-08 | 338,000 |
| 1978-04-15 | 279,000 |
| 1978-04-22 | 277,000 |
| 1978-04-29 | 269,000 |
| 1978-05-06 | 291,000 |
| 1978-05-13 | 268,000 |
| 1978-05-20 | 266,000 |
| 1978-05-27 | 256,000 |
| 1978-06-03 | 242,000 |
| 1978-06-10 | 292,000 |
| 1978-06-17 | 287,000 |
| 1978-06-24 | 297,000 |
| 1978-07-01 | 347,000 |
| 1978-07-08 | 428,000 |
| 1978-07-15 | 421,000 |
| 1978-07-22 | 387,000 |
| 1978-07-29 | 371,000 |
| 1978-08-05 | 376,000 |
| 1978-08-12 | 326,000 |
| 1978-08-19 | 287,000 |
| 1978-08-26 | 264,000 |
| 1978-09-02 | 249,000 |
| 1978-09-09 | 246,000 |
| 1978-09-16 | 262,000 |
| 1978-09-23 | 254,000 |
| 1978-09-30 | 249,000 |
| 1978-10-07 | 323,000 |
| 1978-10-14 | 262,000 |
| 1978-10-21 | 287,000 |
| 1978-10-28 | 280,000 |
| 1978-11-04 | 302,000 |
| 1978-11-11 | 286,000 |
| 1978-11-18 | 345,000 |
| 1978-11-25 | 350,000 |
| 1978-12-02 | 427,000 |
| 1978-12-09 | 427,000 |
| 1978-12-16 | 390,000 |
| 1978-12-23 | 447,000 |
| 1978-12-30 | 515,000 |
| 1979-01-06 | 559,000 |
| 1979-01-13 | 680,000 |
| 1979-01-20 | 488,000 |
| 1979-01-27 | 423,000 |
| 1979-02-03 | 424,000 |
| 1979-02-10 | 418,000 |
| 1979-02-17 | 384,000 |
| 1979-02-24 | 364,000 |
| 1979-03-03 | 358,000 |
| 1979-03-10 | 346,000 |
| 1979-03-17 | 315,000 |
| 1979-03-24 | 296,000 |
| 1979-03-31 | 300,000 |
| 1979-04-07 | 449,000 |
| 1979-04-14 | 424,000 |
| 1979-04-21 | 340,000 |
| 1979-04-28 | 303,000 |
| 1979-05-05 | 307,000 |
| 1979-05-12 | 290,000 |
| 1979-05-19 | 280,000 |
| 1979-05-26 | 287,000 |
| 1979-06-02 | 262,000 |
| 1979-06-09 | 322,000 |
| 1979-06-16 | 312,000 |
| 1979-06-23 | 343,000 |
| 1979-06-30 | 366,000 |
| 1979-07-07 | 458,000 |
| 1979-07-14 | 446,000 |
| 1979-07-21 | 445,000 |
| 1979-07-28 | 417,000 |
| 1979-08-04 | 428,000 |
| 1979-08-11 | 360,000 |
| 1979-08-18 | 329,000 |
| 1979-08-25 | 313,000 |
| 1979-09-01 | 312,000 |
| 1979-09-08 | 285,000 |
| 1979-09-15 | 311,000 |
| 1979-09-22 | 309,000 |
| 1979-09-29 | 303,000 |
| 1979-10-06 | 379,000 |
| 1979-10-13 | 335,000 |
| 1979-10-20 | 342,000 |
| 1979-10-27 | 353,000 |
| 1979-11-03 | 372,000 |
| 1979-11-10 | 392,000 |
| 1979-11-17 | 401,000 |
| 1979-11-24 | 379,000 |
| 1979-12-01 | 513,000 |
| 1979-12-08 | 521,000 |
| 1979-12-15 | 455,000 |
| 1979-12-22 | 580,000 |
| 1979-12-29 | 596,000 |
| 1980-01-05 | 574,000 |
| 1980-01-12 | 804,000 |
| 1980-01-19 | 648,000 |
| 1980-01-26 | 515,000 |
| 1980-02-02 | 471,000 |
| 1980-02-09 | 493,000 |
| 1980-02-16 | 418,000 |
| 1980-02-23 | 415,000 |
| 1980-03-01 | 407,000 |
| 1980-03-08 | 413,000 |
| 1980-03-15 | 398,000 |
| 1980-03-22 | 392,000 |
| 1980-03-29 | 399,000 |
| 1980-04-05 | 451,000 |
| 1980-04-12 | 535,000 |
| 1980-04-19 | 495,000 |
| 1980-04-26 | 482,000 |
| 1980-05-03 | 491,000 |
| 1980-05-10 | 526,000 |
| 1980-05-17 | 539,000 |
| 1980-05-24 | 525,000 |
| 1980-05-31 | 477,000 |
| 1980-06-07 | 562,000 |
| 1980-06-14 | 511,000 |
| 1980-06-21 | 529,000 |
| 1980-06-28 | 563,000 |
| 1980-07-05 | 584,000 |
| 1980-07-12 | 643,000 |
| 1980-07-19 | 628,000 |
| 1980-07-26 | 569,000 |
| 1980-08-02 | 536,000 |
| 1980-08-09 | 494,000 |
| 1980-08-16 | 435,000 |
| 1980-08-23 | 410,000 |
| 1980-08-30 | 397,000 |
| 1980-09-06 | 374,000 |
| 1980-09-13 | 414,000 |
| 1980-09-20 | 381,000 |
| 1980-09-27 | 363,000 |
| 1980-10-04 | 410,000 |
| 1980-10-11 | 417,000 |
| 1980-10-18 | 355,000 |
| 1980-10-25 | 384,000 |
| 1980-11-01 | 395,000 |
| 1980-11-08 | 416,000 |
| 1980-11-15 | 403,000 |
| 1980-11-22 | 440,000 |
| 1980-11-29 | 407,000 |
| 1980-12-06 | 534,000 |
| 1980-12-13 | 481,000 |
| 1980-12-20 | 499,000 |
| 1980-12-27 | 546,000 |
| 1981-01-03 | 580,000 |
| 1981-01-10 | 839,000 |
| 1981-01-17 | 638,000 |
| 1981-01-24 | 521,000 |
| 1981-01-31 | 490,000 |
| 1981-02-07 | 500,000 |
| 1981-02-14 | 439,000 |
| 1981-02-21 | 430,000 |
| 1981-02-28 | 432,000 |
| 1981-03-07 | 414,000 |
| 1981-03-14 | 385,000 |
| 1981-03-21 | 365,000 |
| 1981-03-28 | 356,000 |
| 1981-04-04 | 383,000 |
| 1981-04-11 | 401,000 |
| 1981-04-18 | 350,000 |
| 1981-04-25 | 379,000 |
| 1981-05-02 | 342,000 |
| 1981-05-09 | 369,000 |
| 1981-05-16 | 340,000 |
| 1981-05-23 | 342,000 |
| 1981-05-30 | 301,000 |
| 1981-06-06 | 384,000 |
| 1981-06-13 | 367,000 |
| 1981-06-20 | 376,000 |
| 1981-06-27 | 387,000 |
| 1981-07-04 | 430,000 |
| 1981-07-11 | 516,000 |
| 1981-07-18 | 481,000 |
| 1981-07-25 | 429,000 |
| 1981-08-01 | 444,000 |
| 1981-08-08 | 419,000 |
| 1981-08-15 | 369,000 |
| 1981-08-22 | 351,000 |
| 1981-08-29 | 352,000 |
| 1981-09-05 | 396,000 |
| 1981-09-12 | 331,000 |
| 1981-09-19 | 392,000 |
| 1981-09-26 | 392,000 |
| 1981-10-03 | 416,000 |
| 1981-10-10 | 476,000 |
| 1981-10-17 | 408,000 |
| 1981-10-24 | 450,000 |
| 1981-10-31 | 479,000 |
| 1981-11-07 | 534,000 |
| 1981-11-14 | 483,000 |
| 1981-11-21 | 522,000 |
| 1981-11-28 | 535,000 |
| 1981-12-05 | 726,000 |
| 1981-12-12 | 657,000 |
| 1981-12-19 | 644,000 |
| 1981-12-26 | 702,000 |
| 1982-01-02 | 694,300 |
| 1982-01-09 | 1,073,500 |
| 1982-01-16 | 761,700 |
| 1982-01-23 | 771,200 |
| 1982-01-30 | 692,300 |
| 1982-02-06 | 671,000 |
| 1982-02-13 | 532,800 |
| 1982-02-20 | 522,900 |
| 1982-02-27 | 536,300 |
| 1982-03-06 | 566,300 |
| 1982-03-13 | 515,100 |
| 1982-03-20 | 510,500 |
| 1982-03-27 | 501,500 |
| 1982-04-03 | 516,600 |
| 1982-04-10 | 606,300 |
| 1982-04-17 | 540,300 |
| 1982-04-24 | 518,600 |
| 1982-05-01 | 475,600 |
| 1982-05-08 | 516,500 |
| 1982-05-15 | 486,500 |
| 1982-05-22 | 486,300 |
| 1982-05-29 | 485,800 |
| 1982-06-05 | 478,600 |
| 1982-06-12 | 541,600 |
| 1982-06-19 | 508,100 |
| 1982-06-26 | 507,700 |
| 1982-07-03 | 594,400 |
| 1982-07-10 | 631,400 |
| 1982-07-17 | 647,000 |
| 1982-07-24 | 576,100 |
| 1982-07-31 | 562,600 |
| 1982-08-07 | 569,200 |
| 1982-08-14 | 536,400 |
| 1982-08-21 | 510,400 |
| 1982-08-28 | 502,300 |
| 1982-09-04 | 537,600 |
| 1982-09-11 | 467,700 |
| 1982-09-18 | 559,500 |
| 1982-09-25 | 535,000 |
| 1982-10-02 | 565,600 |
| 1982-10-09 | 638,100 |
| 1982-10-16 | 540,300 |
| 1982-10-23 | 577,600 |
| 1982-10-30 | 576,800 |
| 1982-11-06 | 604,800 |
| 1982-11-13 | 546,700 |
| 1982-11-20 | 650,400 |
| 1982-11-27 | 574,100 |
| 1982-12-04 | 709,400 |
| 1982-12-11 | 638,200 |
| 1982-12-18 | 598,000 |
| 1982-12-25 | 653,600 |
| 1983-01-01 | 745,100 |
| 1983-01-08 | 976,600 |
| 1983-01-15 | 773,600 |
| 1983-01-22 | 650,600 |
| 1983-01-29 | 597,700 |
| 1983-02-05 | 594,200 |
| 1983-02-12 | 525,100 |
| 1983-02-19 | 506,300 |
| 1983-02-26 | 448,700 |
| 1983-03-05 | 497,400 |
| 1983-03-12 | 459,700 |
| 1983-03-19 | 427,500 |
| 1983-03-26 | 422,100 |
| 1983-04-02 | 423,000 |
| 1983-04-09 | 509,700 |
| 1983-04-16 | 464,800 |
| 1983-04-23 | 431,300 |
| 1983-04-30 | 399,900 |
| 1983-05-07 | 435,000 |
| 1983-05-14 | 385,200 |
| 1983-05-21 | 380,300 |
| 1983-05-28 | 373,000 |
| 1983-06-04 | 351,100 |
| 1983-06-11 | 390,100 |
| 1983-06-18 | 369,200 |
| 1983-06-25 | 383,500 |
| 1983-07-02 | 397,400 |
| 1983-07-09 | 451,900 |
| 1983-07-16 | 459,400 |
| 1983-07-23 | 428,300 |
| 1983-07-30 | 383,400 |
| 1983-08-06 | 382,500 |
| 1983-08-13 | 382,300 |
| 1983-08-20 | 356,900 |
| 1983-08-27 | 323,600 |
| 1983-09-03 | 328,800 |
| 1983-09-10 | 288,700 |
| 1983-09-17 | 326,900 |
| 1983-09-24 | 324,700 |
| 1983-10-01 | 318,500 |
| 1983-10-08 | 390,500 |
| 1983-10-15 | 319,900 |
| 1983-10-22 | 354,900 |
| 1983-10-29 | 356,400 |
| 1983-11-05 | 398,200 |
| 1983-11-12 | 347,300 |
| 1983-11-19 | 431,900 |
| 1983-11-26 | 362,900 |
| 1983-12-03 | 458,400 |
| 1983-12-10 | 442,900 |
| 1983-12-17 | 414,600 |
| 1983-12-24 | 496,800 |
| 1983-12-31 | 558,900 |
| 1984-01-07 | 621,600 |
| 1984-01-14 | 637,900 |
| 1984-01-21 | 475,100 |
| 1984-01-28 | 448,500 |
| 1984-02-04 | 408,400 |
| 1984-02-11 | 381,500 |
| 1984-02-18 | 349,300 |
| 1984-02-25 | 329,100 |
| 1984-03-03 | 350,500 |
| 1984-03-10 | 344,000 |
| 1984-03-17 | 323,500 |
| 1984-03-24 | 317,600 |
| 1984-03-31 | 291,400 |
| 1984-04-07 | 390,300 |
| 1984-04-14 | 330,800 |
| 1984-04-21 | 326,500 |
| 1984-04-28 | 309,300 |
| 1984-05-05 | 318,900 |
| 1984-05-12 | 312,100 |
| 1984-05-19 | 294,200 |
| 1984-05-26 | 292,700 |
| 1984-06-02 | 268,700 |
| 1984-06-09 | 333,800 |
| 1984-06-16 | 309,900 |
| 1984-06-23 | 316,800 |
| 1984-06-30 | 329,000 |
| 1984-07-07 | 432,500 |
| 1984-07-14 | 435,900 |
| 1984-07-21 | 396,200 |
| 1984-07-28 | 343,800 |
| 1984-08-04 | 348,100 |
| 1984-08-11 | 328,100 |
| 1984-08-18 | 321,000 |
| 1984-08-25 | 303,300 |
| 1984-09-01 | 303,500 |
| 1984-09-08 | 289,300 |
| 1984-09-15 | 320,700 |
| 1984-09-22 | 313,200 |
| 1984-09-29 | 304,700 |
| 1984-10-06 | 373,300 |
| 1984-10-13 | 353,200 |
| 1984-10-20 | 378,700 |
| 1984-10-27 | 380,500 |
| 1984-11-03 | 413,400 |
| 1984-11-10 | 397,500 |
| 1984-11-17 | 370,800 |
| 1984-11-24 | 387,000 |
| 1984-12-01 | 494,700 |
| 1984-12-08 | 477,900 |
| 1984-12-15 | 443,700 |
| 1984-12-22 | 482,300 |
| 1984-12-29 | 527,500 |
| 1985-01-05 | 568,300 |
| 1985-01-12 | 770,000 |
| 1985-01-19 | 537,700 |
| 1985-01-26 | 478,300 |
| 1985-02-02 | 452,400 |
| 1985-02-09 | 473,300 |
| 1985-02-16 | 404,700 |
| 1985-02-23 | 379,000 |
| 1985-03-02 | 377,300 |
| 1985-03-09 | 389,200 |
| 1985-03-16 | 360,500 |
| 1985-03-23 | 346,700 |
| 1985-03-30 | 329,100 |
| 1985-04-06 | 398,000 |
| 1985-04-13 | 397,500 |
| 1985-04-20 | 351,800 |
| 1985-04-27 | 324,700 |
| 1985-05-04 | 335,600 |
| 1985-05-11 | 339,100 |
| 1985-05-18 | 324,900 |
| 1985-05-25 | 328,500 |
| 1985-06-01 | 293,500 |
| 1985-06-08 | 368,900 |
| 1985-06-15 | 339,200 |
| 1985-06-22 | 339,500 |
| 1985-06-29 | 349,800 |
| 1985-07-06 | 409,500 |
| 1985-07-13 | 481,500 |
| 1985-07-20 | 413,700 |
| 1985-07-27 | 358,700 |
| 1985-08-03 | 365,800 |
| 1985-08-10 | 358,200 |
| 1985-08-17 | 319,400 |
| 1985-08-24 | 314,800 |
| 1985-08-31 | 317,600 |
| 1985-09-07 | 304,700 |
| 1985-09-14 | 332,900 |
| 1985-09-21 | 317,600 |
| 1985-09-28 | 301,600 |
| 1985-10-05 | 355,600 |
| 1985-10-12 | 358,000 |
| 1985-10-19 | 331,000 |
| 1985-10-26 | 375,700 |
| 1985-11-02 | 375,300 |
| 1985-11-09 | 404,100 |
| 1985-11-16 | 380,300 |
| 1985-11-23 | 423,100 |
| 1985-11-30 | 384,700 |
| 1985-12-07 | 504,200 |
| 1985-12-14 | 443,400 |
| 1985-12-21 | 458,200 |
| 1985-12-28 | 548,200 |
| 1986-01-04 | 547,500 |
| 1986-01-11 | 803,900 |
| 1986-01-18 | 568,800 |
| 1986-01-25 | 395,700 |
| 1986-02-01 | 425,400 |
| 1986-02-08 | 438,100 |
| 1986-02-15 | 374,200 |
| 1986-02-22 | 382,200 |
| 1986-03-01 | 381,200 |
| 1986-03-08 | 371,700 |
| 1986-03-15 | 361,600 |
| 1986-03-22 | 363,100 |
| 1986-03-29 | 333,300 |
| 1986-04-05 | 366,100 |
| 1986-04-12 | 386,100 |
| 1986-04-19 | 348,700 |
| 1986-04-26 | 335,100 |
| 1986-05-03 | 333,600 |
| 1986-05-10 | 343,800 |
| 1986-05-17 | 319,000 |
| 1986-05-24 | 321,700 |
| 1986-05-31 | 278,700 |
| 1986-06-07 | 342,200 |
| 1986-06-14 | 324,700 |
| 1986-06-21 | 327,400 |
| 1986-06-28 | 336,100 |
| 1986-07-05 | 377,400 |
| 1986-07-12 | 456,200 |
| 1986-07-19 | 402,400 |
| 1986-07-26 | 370,700 |
| 1986-08-02 | 370,900 |
| 1986-08-09 | 376,900 |
| 1986-08-16 | 326,000 |
| 1986-08-23 | 310,200 |
| 1986-08-30 | 307,100 |
| 1986-09-06 | 283,700 |
| 1986-09-13 | 320,800 |
| 1986-09-20 | 315,800 |
| 1986-09-27 | 294,200 |
| 1986-10-04 | 328,900 |
| 1986-10-11 | 357,700 |
| 1986-10-18 | 313,000 |
| 1986-10-25 | 332,400 |
| 1986-11-01 | 334,100 |
| 1986-11-08 | 357,600 |
| 1986-11-15 | 347,400 |
| 1986-11-22 | 410,600 |
| 1986-11-29 | 350,900 |
| 1986-12-06 | 462,700 |
| 1986-12-13 | 438,600 |
| 1986-12-20 | 423,800 |
| 1986-12-27 | 483,900 |
| 1987-01-03 | 483,977 |
| 1987-01-10 | 710,493 |
| 1987-01-17 | 545,768 |
| 1987-01-24 | 412,977 |
| 1987-01-31 | 435,743 |
| 1987-02-07 | 444,240 |
| 1987-02-14 | 359,219 |
| 1987-02-21 | 332,930 |
| 1987-02-28 | 355,357 |
| 1987-03-07 | 343,065 |
| 1987-03-14 | 321,153 |
| 1987-03-21 | 313,104 |
| 1987-03-28 | 288,648 |
| 1987-04-04 | 308,940 |
| 1987-04-11 | 344,364 |
| 1987-04-18 | 305,201 |
| 1987-04-25 | 285,566 |
| 1987-05-02 | 277,726 |
| 1987-05-09 | 276,773 |
| 1987-05-16 | 283,832 |
| 1987-05-23 | 286,150 |
| 1987-05-30 | 242,793 |
| 1987-06-06 | 299,672 |
| 1987-06-13 | 281,043 |
| 1987-06-20 | 285,191 |
| 1987-06-27 | 294,288 |
| 1987-07-04 | 321,855 |
| 1987-07-11 | 402,706 |
| 1987-07-18 | 361,491 |
| 1987-07-25 | 339,756 |
| 1987-08-01 | 309,433 |
| 1987-08-08 | 296,403 |
| 1987-08-15 | 256,647 |
| 1987-08-22 | 245,058 |
| 1987-08-29 | 243,829 |
| 1987-09-05 | 255,589 |
| 1987-09-12 | 210,375 |
| 1987-09-19 | 243,651 |
| 1987-09-26 | 242,206 |
| 1987-10-03 | 244,736 |
| 1987-10-10 | 291,075 |
| 1987-10-17 | 242,157 |
| 1987-10-24 | 271,190 |
| 1987-10-31 | 261,036 |
| 1987-11-07 | 306,340 |
| 1987-11-14 | 286,334 |
| 1987-11-21 | 354,037 |
| 1987-11-28 | 288,614 |
| 1987-12-05 | 412,297 |
| 1987-12-12 | 372,869 |
| 1987-12-19 | 384,763 |
| 1987-12-26 | 397,287 |
| 1988-01-02 | 465,503 |
| 1988-01-09 | 654,620 |
| 1988-01-16 | 577,975 |
| 1988-01-23 | 412,685 |
| 1988-01-30 | 394,776 |
| 1988-02-06 | 380,906 |
| 1988-02-13 | 334,833 |
| 1988-02-20 | 315,497 |
| 1988-02-27 | 324,517 |
| 1988-03-05 | 312,409 |
| 1988-03-12 | 294,321 |
| 1988-03-19 | 275,545 |
| 1988-03-26 | 269,000 |
| 1988-04-02 | 256,607 |
| 1988-04-09 | 319,713 |
| 1988-04-16 | 273,160 |
| 1988-04-23 | 272,440 |
| 1988-04-30 | 247,619 |
| 1988-05-07 | 267,315 |
| 1988-05-14 | 257,101 |
| 1988-05-21 | 259,640 |
| 1988-05-28 | 255,852 |
| 1988-06-04 | 235,308 |
| 1988-06-11 | 268,052 |
| 1988-06-18 | 264,100 |
| 1988-06-25 | 268,770 |
| 1988-07-02 | 290,079 |
| 1988-07-09 | 335,780 |
| 1988-07-16 | 377,872 |
| 1988-07-23 | 384,920 |
| 1988-07-30 | 311,475 |
| 1988-08-06 | 293,718 |
| 1988-08-13 | 261,066 |
| 1988-08-20 | 253,359 |
| 1988-08-27 | 241,809 |
| 1988-09-03 | 243,944 |
| 1988-09-10 | 220,226 |
| 1988-09-17 | 247,250 |
| 1988-09-24 | 236,230 |
| 1988-10-01 | 226,453 |
| 1988-10-08 | 276,732 |
| 1988-10-15 | 237,722 |
| 1988-10-22 | 264,201 |
| 1988-10-29 | 265,794 |
| 1988-11-05 | 293,412 |
| 1988-11-12 | 257,201 |
| 1988-11-19 | 335,818 |
| 1988-11-26 | 281,841 |
| 1988-12-03 | 391,406 |
| 1988-12-10 | 354,028 |
| 1988-12-17 | 354,768 |
| 1988-12-24 | 413,175 |
| 1988-12-31 | 474,226 |
| 1989-01-07 | 544,138 |
| 1989-01-14 | 519,727 |
| 1989-01-21 | 364,499 |
| 1989-01-28 | 361,331 |
| 1989-02-04 | 340,647 |
| 1989-02-11 | 365,301 |
| 1989-02-18 | 317,676 |
| 1989-02-25 | 288,690 |
| 1989-03-04 | 333,669 |
| 1989-03-11 | 325,019 |
| 1989-03-18 | 291,112 |
| 1989-03-25 | 276,369 |
| 1989-04-01 | 275,799 |
| 1989-04-08 | 321,723 |
| 1989-04-15 | 275,240 |
| 1989-04-22 | 271,002 |
| 1989-04-29 | 247,646 |
| 1989-05-06 | 275,425 |
| 1989-05-13 | 275,507 |
| 1989-05-20 | 260,543 |
| 1989-05-27 | 266,146 |
| 1989-06-03 | 243,246 |
| 1989-06-10 | 295,499 |
| 1989-06-17 | 285,589 |
| 1989-06-24 | 295,338 |
| 1989-07-01 | 319,577 |
| 1989-07-08 | 364,594 |
| 1989-07-15 | 423,847 |
| 1989-07-22 | 365,026 |
| 1989-07-29 | 320,773 |
| 1989-08-05 | 311,584 |
| 1989-08-12 | 291,429 |
| 1989-08-19 | 261,419 |
| 1989-08-26 | 254,488 |
| 1989-09-02 | 259,540 |
| 1989-09-09 | 239,989 |
| 1989-09-16 | 271,903 |
| 1989-09-23 | 262,895 |
| 1989-09-30 | 265,310 |
| 1989-10-07 | 375,972 |
| 1989-10-14 | 284,584 |
| 1989-10-21 | 315,473 |
| 1989-10-28 | 317,538 |
| 1989-11-04 | 336,759 |
| 1989-11-11 | 303,556 |
| 1989-11-18 | 377,814 |
| 1989-11-25 | 316,458 |
| 1989-12-02 | 443,684 |
| 1989-12-09 | 426,514 |
| 1989-12-16 | 420,795 |
| 1989-12-23 | 534,261 |
| 1989-12-30 | 515,926 |
| 1990-01-06 | 581,679 |
| 1990-01-13 | 730,995 |
| 1990-01-20 | 485,424 |
| 1990-01-27 | 440,748 |
| 1990-02-03 | 432,922 |
| 1990-02-10 | 429,764 |
| 1990-02-17 | 364,616 |
| 1990-02-24 | 341,969 |
| 1990-03-03 | 361,937 |
| 1990-03-10 | 355,935 |
| 1990-03-17 | 325,164 |
| 1990-03-24 | 306,391 |
| 1990-03-31 | 297,117 |
| 1990-04-07 | 372,079 |
| 1990-04-14 | 315,624 |
| 1990-04-21 | 324,936 |
| 1990-04-28 | 294,785 |
| 1990-05-05 | 304,160 |
| 1990-05-12 | 299,266 |
| 1990-05-19 | 287,082 |
| 1990-05-26 | 295,476 |
| 1990-06-02 | 273,910 |
| 1990-06-09 | 321,727 |
| 1990-06-16 | 305,690 |
| 1990-06-23 | 316,999 |
| 1990-06-30 | 326,407 |
| 1990-07-07 | 419,256 |
| 1990-07-14 | 448,952 |
| 1990-07-21 | 407,676 |
| 1990-07-28 | 353,149 |
| 1990-08-04 | 336,997 |
| 1990-08-11 | 330,678 |
| 1990-08-18 | 313,804 |
| 1990-08-25 | 302,267 |
| 1990-09-01 | 305,510 |
| 1990-09-08 | 277,768 |
| 1990-09-15 | 323,246 |
| 1990-09-22 | 306,549 |
| 1990-09-29 | 308,080 |
| 1990-10-06 | 361,538 |
| 1990-10-13 | 356,203 |
| 1990-10-20 | 387,444 |
| 1990-10-27 | 394,598 |
| 1990-11-03 | 424,771 |
| 1990-11-10 | 463,874 |
| 1990-11-17 | 433,003 |
| 1990-11-24 | 422,676 |
| 1990-12-01 | 568,583 |
| 1990-12-08 | 574,323 |
| 1990-12-15 | 523,403 |
| 1990-12-22 | 637,449 |
| 1990-12-29 | 649,471 |
| 1991-01-05 | 651,775 |
| 1991-01-12 | 872,742 |
| 1991-01-19 | 691,092 |
| 1991-01-26 | 511,360 |
| 1991-02-02 | 563,060 |
| 1991-02-09 | 574,760 |
| 1991-02-16 | 498,200 |
| 1991-02-23 | 492,325 |
| 1991-03-02 | 504,023 |
| 1991-03-09 | 514,410 |
| 1991-03-16 | 470,801 |
| 1991-03-23 | 477,877 |
| 1991-03-30 | 412,904 |
| 1991-04-06 | 448,082 |
| 1991-04-13 | 459,364 |
| 1991-04-20 | 433,912 |
| 1991-04-27 | 385,153 |
| 1991-05-04 | 384,458 |
| 1991-05-11 | 382,113 |
| 1991-05-18 | 366,492 |
| 1991-05-25 | 365,117 |
| 1991-06-01 | 320,632 |
| 1991-06-08 | 397,682 |
| 1991-06-15 | 369,074 |
| 1991-06-22 | 371,232 |
| 1991-06-29 | 370,372 |
| 1991-07-06 | 427,161 |
| 1991-07-13 | 517,888 |
| 1991-07-20 | 454,655 |
| 1991-07-27 | 408,098 |
| 1991-08-03 | 397,522 |
| 1991-08-10 | 385,740 |
| 1991-08-17 | 344,969 |
| 1991-08-24 | 329,287 |
| 1991-08-31 | 328,040 |
| 1991-09-07 | 302,187 |
| 1991-09-14 | 342,419 |
| 1991-09-21 | 333,110 |
| 1991-09-28 | 334,206 |
| 1991-10-05 | 366,862 |
| 1991-10-12 | 388,370 |
| 1991-10-19 | 344,189 |
| 1991-10-26 | 380,253 |
| 1991-11-02 | 427,789 |
| 1991-11-09 | 473,432 |
| 1991-11-16 | 417,766 |
| 1991-11-23 | 503,032 |
| 1991-11-30 | 433,180 |
| 1991-12-07 | 610,113 |
| 1991-12-14 | 554,059 |
| 1991-12-21 | 555,747 |
| 1991-12-28 | 625,772 |
| 1992-01-04 | 652,046 |
| 1992-01-11 | 882,118 |
| 1992-01-18 | 687,914 |
| 1992-01-25 | 504,838 |
| 1992-02-01 | 508,594 |
| 1992-02-08 | 537,238 |
| 1992-02-15 | 469,794 |
| 1992-02-22 | 429,723 |
| 1992-02-29 | 454,987 |
| 1992-03-07 | 434,426 |
| 1992-03-14 | 417,282 |
| 1992-03-21 | 413,180 |
| 1992-03-28 | 370,883 |
| 1992-04-04 | 393,384 |
| 1992-04-11 | 412,948 |
| 1992-04-18 | 366,621 |
| 1992-04-25 | 364,454 |
| 1992-05-02 | 363,794 |
| 1992-05-09 | 364,100 |
| 1992-05-16 | 341,425 |
| 1992-05-23 | 343,432 |
| 1992-05-30 | 305,080 |
| 1992-06-06 | 374,978 |
| 1992-06-13 | 369,067 |
| 1992-06-20 | 369,995 |
| 1992-06-27 | 370,373 |
| 1992-07-04 | 395,505 |
| 1992-07-11 | 506,050 |
| 1992-07-18 | 452,468 |
| 1992-07-25 | 554,590 |
| 1992-08-01 | 382,138 |
| 1992-08-08 | 366,092 |
| 1992-08-15 | 322,729 |
| 1992-08-22 | 312,436 |
| 1992-08-29 | 309,806 |
| 1992-09-05 | 339,006 |
| 1992-09-12 | 299,189 |
| 1992-09-19 | 345,093 |
| 1992-09-26 | 315,455 |
| 1992-10-03 | 326,938 |
| 1992-10-10 | 353,504 |
| 1992-10-17 | 310,235 |
| 1992-10-24 | 333,005 |
| 1992-10-31 | 331,922 |
| 1992-11-07 | 392,213 |
| 1992-11-14 | 348,011 |
| 1992-11-21 | 401,972 |
| 1992-11-28 | 317,218 |
| 1992-12-05 | 449,726 |
| 1992-12-12 | 424,677 |
| 1992-12-19 | 396,619 |
| 1992-12-26 | 392,612 |
| 1993-01-02 | 487,466 |
| 1993-01-09 | 704,930 |
| 1993-01-16 | 558,516 |
| 1993-01-23 | 410,944 |
| 1993-01-30 | 397,000 |
| 1993-02-06 | 384,707 |
| 1993-02-13 | 344,520 |
| 1993-02-20 | 345,116 |
| 1993-02-27 | 367,412 |
| 1993-03-06 | 364,185 |
| 1993-03-13 | 335,154 |
| 1993-03-20 | 315,473 |
| 1993-03-27 | 330,512 |
| 1993-04-03 | 331,871 |
| 1993-04-10 | 346,648 |
| 1993-04-17 | 321,564 |
| 1993-04-24 | 310,916 |
| 1993-05-01 | 285,098 |
| 1993-05-08 | 301,906 |
| 1993-05-15 | 287,944 |
| 1993-05-22 | 285,444 |
| 1993-05-29 | 291,206 |
| 1993-06-05 | 273,411 |
| 1993-06-12 | 308,535 |
| 1993-06-19 | 304,843 |
| 1993-06-26 | 301,549 |
| 1993-07-03 | 334,335 |
| 1993-07-10 | 362,425 |
| 1993-07-17 | 402,348 |
| 1993-07-24 | 418,260 |
| 1993-07-31 | 320,155 |
| 1993-08-07 | 314,579 |
| 1993-08-14 | 277,263 |
| 1993-08-21 | 270,913 |
| 1993-08-28 | 254,231 |
| 1993-09-04 | 270,528 |
| 1993-09-11 | 238,902 |
| 1993-09-18 | 280,903 |
| 1993-09-25 | 265,510 |
| 1993-10-02 | 263,636 |
| 1993-10-09 | 338,726 |
| 1993-10-16 | 288,699 |
| 1993-10-23 | 321,509 |
| 1993-10-30 | 309,359 |
| 1993-11-06 | 365,280 |
| 1993-11-13 | 310,455 |
| 1993-11-20 | 377,935 |
| 1993-11-27 | 306,788 |
| 1993-12-04 | 431,210 |
| 1993-12-11 | 398,560 |
| 1993-12-18 | 382,583 |
| 1993-12-25 | 398,084 |
| 1994-01-01 | 481,735 |
| 1994-01-08 | 676,076 |
| 1994-01-15 | 571,816 |
| 1994-01-22 | 427,570 |
| 1994-01-29 | 481,458 |
| 1994-02-05 | 429,800 |
| 1994-02-12 | 385,594 |
| 1994-02-19 | 368,626 |
| 1994-02-26 | 307,194 |
| 1994-03-05 | 355,250 |
| 1994-03-12 | 331,023 |
| 1994-03-19 | 308,038 |
| 1994-03-26 | 292,661 |
| 1994-04-02 | 289,631 |
| 1994-04-09 | 361,348 |
| 1994-04-16 | 327,166 |
| 1994-04-23 | 298,620 |
| 1994-04-30 | 285,837 |
| 1994-05-07 | 332,414 |
| 1994-05-14 | 303,190 |
| 1994-05-21 | 299,324 |
| 1994-05-28 | 291,797 |
| 1994-06-04 | 273,849 |
| 1994-06-11 | 309,033 |
| 1994-06-18 | 298,198 |
| 1994-06-25 | 305,863 |
| 1994-07-02 | 327,262 |
| 1994-07-09 | 394,428 |
| 1994-07-16 | 443,698 |
| 1994-07-23 | 354,495 |
| 1994-07-30 | 295,979 |
| 1994-08-06 | 304,363 |
| 1994-08-13 | 277,614 |
| 1994-08-20 | 262,131 |
| 1994-08-27 | 257,299 |
| 1994-09-03 | 270,561 |
| 1994-09-10 | 237,526 |
| 1994-09-17 | 264,553 |
| 1994-09-24 | 251,191 |
| 1994-10-01 | 255,588 |
| 1994-10-08 | 322,522 |
| 1994-10-15 | 272,742 |
| 1994-10-22 | 296,646 |
| 1994-10-29 | 291,557 |
| 1994-11-05 | 338,561 |
| 1994-11-12 | 298,030 |
| 1994-11-19 | 366,719 |
| 1994-11-26 | 295,729 |
| 1994-12-03 | 412,824 |
| 1994-12-10 | 397,238 |
| 1994-12-17 | 376,210 |
| 1994-12-24 | 423,387 |
| 1994-12-31 | 482,735 |
| 1995-01-07 | 612,648 |
| 1995-01-14 | 608,872 |
| 1995-01-21 | 400,772 |
| 1995-01-28 | 396,457 |
| 1995-02-04 | 381,813 |
| 1995-02-11 | 387,408 |
| 1995-02-18 | 356,237 |
| 1995-02-25 | 316,927 |
| 1995-03-04 | 342,015 |
| 1995-03-11 | 339,580 |
| 1995-03-18 | 319,218 |
| 1995-03-25 | 305,471 |
| 1995-04-01 | 294,031 |
| 1995-04-08 | 356,914 |
| 1995-04-15 | 318,030 |
| 1995-04-22 | 317,072 |
| 1995-04-29 | 305,594 |
| 1995-05-06 | 325,398 |
| 1995-05-13 | 311,646 |
| 1995-05-20 | 316,305 |
| 1995-05-27 | 314,442 |
| 1995-06-03 | 286,566 |
| 1995-06-10 | 340,606 |
| 1995-06-17 | 337,812 |
| 1995-06-24 | 324,411 |
| 1995-07-01 | 341,207 |
| 1995-07-08 | 428,632 |
| 1995-07-15 | 491,891 |
| 1995-07-22 | 409,319 |
| 1995-07-29 | 311,708 |
| 1995-08-05 | 310,703 |
| 1995-08-12 | 296,712 |
| 1995-08-19 | 286,017 |
| 1995-08-26 | 272,182 |
| 1995-09-02 | 278,703 |
| 1995-09-09 | 266,145 |
| 1995-09-16 | 304,323 |
| 1995-09-23 | 272,431 |
| 1995-09-30 | 269,067 |
| 1995-10-07 | 345,311 |
| 1995-10-14 | 306,465 |
| 1995-10-21 | 322,856 |
| 1995-10-28 | 332,061 |
| 1995-11-04 | 383,687 |
| 1995-11-11 | 335,181 |
| 1995-11-18 | 425,889 |
| 1995-11-25 | 336,269 |
| 1995-12-02 | 474,548 |
| 1995-12-09 | 421,109 |
| 1995-12-16 | 423,450 |
| 1995-12-23 | 490,349 |
| 1995-12-30 | 513,686 |
| 1996-01-06 | 596,010 |
| 1996-01-13 | 637,910 |
| 1996-01-20 | 510,820 |
| 1996-01-27 | 492,966 |
| 1996-02-03 | 433,693 |
| 1996-02-10 | 440,961 |
| 1996-02-17 | 395,332 |
| 1996-02-24 | 347,053 |
| 1996-03-02 | 368,044 |
| 1996-03-09 | 355,818 |
| 1996-03-16 | 357,070 |
| 1996-03-23 | 396,731 |
| 1996-03-30 | 342,023 |
| 1996-04-06 | 353,032 |
| 1996-04-13 | 343,654 |
| 1996-04-20 | 336,033 |
| 1996-04-27 | 291,957 |
| 1996-05-04 | 298,195 |
| 1996-05-11 | 303,532 |
| 1996-05-18 | 287,891 |
| 1996-05-25 | 287,622 |
| 1996-06-01 | 266,116 |
| 1996-06-08 | 329,099 |
| 1996-06-15 | 307,141 |
| 1996-06-22 | 312,226 |
| 1996-06-29 | 315,615 |
| 1996-07-06 | 382,989 |
| 1996-07-13 | 449,510 |
| 1996-07-20 | 360,385 |
| 1996-07-27 | 294,762 |
| 1996-08-03 | 283,216 |
| 1996-08-10 | 285,795 |
| 1996-08-17 | 265,742 |
| 1996-08-24 | 259,677 |
| 1996-08-31 | 251,425 |
| 1996-09-07 | 238,893 |
| 1996-09-14 | 272,464 |
| 1996-09-21 | 273,232 |
| 1996-09-28 | 261,251 |
| 1996-10-05 | 292,029 |
| 1996-10-12 | 306,521 |
| 1996-10-19 | 271,934 |
| 1996-10-26 | 311,965 |
| 1996-11-02 | 320,827 |
| 1996-11-09 | 340,240 |
| 1996-11-16 | 330,730 |
| 1996-11-23 | 383,512 |
| 1996-11-30 | 328,186 |
| 1996-12-07 | 444,305 |
| 1996-12-14 | 404,436 |
| 1996-12-21 | 429,566 |
| 1996-12-28 | 520,650 |
| 1997-01-04 | 541,210 |
| 1997-01-11 | 654,473 |
| 1997-01-18 | 513,913 |
| 1997-01-25 | 385,310 |
| 1997-02-01 | 380,099 |
| 1997-02-08 | 370,766 |
| 1997-02-15 | 320,374 |
| 1997-02-22 | 309,202 |
| 1997-03-01 | 317,339 |
| 1997-03-08 | 314,787 |
| 1997-03-15 | 296,698 |
| 1997-03-22 | 291,463 |
| 1997-03-29 | 268,823 |
| 1997-04-05 | 311,186 |
| 1997-04-12 | 329,663 |
| 1997-04-19 | 286,593 |
| 1997-04-26 | 295,166 |
| 1997-05-03 | 295,629 |
| 1997-05-10 | 278,052 |
| 1997-05-17 | 267,251 |
| 1997-05-24 | 264,697 |
| 1997-05-31 | 248,167 |
| 1997-06-07 | 309,928 |
| 1997-06-14 | 302,577 |
| 1997-06-21 | 290,720 |
| 1997-06-28 | 298,299 |
| 1997-07-05 | 372,574 |
| 1997-07-12 | 434,598 |
| 1997-07-19 | 339,250 |
| 1997-07-26 | 281,794 |
| 1997-08-02 | 273,471 |
| 1997-08-09 | 289,083 |
| 1997-08-16 | 272,910 |
| 1997-08-23 | 255,236 |
| 1997-08-30 | 250,205 |
| 1997-09-06 | 224,948 |
| 1997-09-13 | 253,456 |
| 1997-09-20 | 246,061 |
| 1997-09-27 | 237,214 |
| 1997-10-04 | 260,705 |
| 1997-10-11 | 286,436 |
| 1997-10-18 | 255,634 |
| 1997-10-25 | 272,593 |
| 1997-11-01 | 293,086 |
| 1997-11-08 | 322,842 |
| 1997-11-15 | 311,499 |
| 1997-11-22 | 341,845 |
| 1997-11-29 | 309,788 |
| 1997-12-06 | 402,699 |
| 1997-12-13 | 374,107 |
| 1997-12-20 | 368,823 |
| 1997-12-27 | 445,345 |
| 1998-01-03 | 479,854 |
| 1998-01-10 | 682,016 |
| 1998-01-17 | 512,837 |
| 1998-01-24 | 355,092 |
| 1998-01-31 | 357,976 |
| 1998-02-07 | 368,113 |
| 1998-02-14 | 328,354 |
| 1998-02-21 | 313,367 |
| 1998-02-28 | 313,480 |
| 1998-03-07 | 305,542 |
| 1998-03-14 | 298,302 |
| 1998-03-21 | 293,692 |
| 1998-03-28 | 272,808 |
| 1998-04-04 | 288,484 |
| 1998-04-11 | 294,014 |
| 1998-04-18 | 288,059 |
| 1998-04-25 | 278,220 |
| 1998-05-02 | 261,089 |
| 1998-05-09 | 270,108 |
| 1998-05-16 | 262,107 |
| 1998-05-23 | 259,125 |
| 1998-05-30 | 248,550 |
| 1998-06-06 | 289,495 |
| 1998-06-13 | 293,195 |
| 1998-06-20 | 322,017 |
| 1998-06-27 | 348,842 |
| 1998-07-04 | 379,734 |
| 1998-07-11 | 428,977 |
| 1998-07-18 | 364,767 |
| 1998-07-25 | 314,782 |
| 1998-08-01 | 277,621 |
| 1998-08-08 | 279,621 |
| 1998-08-15 | 246,823 |
| 1998-08-22 | 237,999 |
| 1998-08-29 | 233,516 |
| 1998-09-05 | 255,938 |
| 1998-09-12 | 217,454 |
| 1998-09-19 | 237,609 |
| 1998-09-26 | 220,668 |
| 1998-10-03 | 246,284 |
| 1998-10-10 | 300,862 |
| 1998-10-17 | 257,172 |
| 1998-10-24 | 275,574 |
| 1998-10-31 | 281,932 |
| 1998-11-07 | 332,611 |
| 1998-11-14 | 315,504 |
| 1998-11-21 | 338,501 |
| 1998-11-28 | 295,041 |
| 1998-12-05 | 421,605 |
| 1998-12-12 | 355,872 |
| 1998-12-19 | 344,452 |
| 1998-12-26 | 442,200 |
| 1999-01-02 | 508,983 |
| 1999-01-09 | 713,805 |
| 1999-01-16 | 514,082 |
| 1999-01-23 | 364,737 |
| 1999-01-30 | 349,733 |
| 1999-02-06 | 344,947 |
| 1999-02-13 | 320,679 |
| 1999-02-20 | 286,130 |
| 1999-02-27 | 297,918 |
| 1999-03-06 | 297,325 |
| 1999-03-13 | 289,813 |
| 1999-03-20 | 275,453 |
| 1999-03-27 | 260,817 |
| 1999-04-03 | 263,516 |
| 1999-04-10 | 327,621 |
| 1999-04-17 | 286,018 |
| 1999-04-24 | 263,835 |
| 1999-05-01 | 252,190 |
| 1999-05-08 | 274,268 |
| 1999-05-15 | 251,063 |
| 1999-05-22 | 250,360 |
| 1999-05-29 | 260,517 |
| 1999-06-05 | 256,922 |
| 1999-06-12 | 267,582 |
| 1999-06-19 | 267,825 |
| 1999-06-26 | 269,755 |
| 1999-07-03 | 303,758 |
| 1999-07-10 | 364,078 |
| 1999-07-17 | 369,123 |
| 1999-07-24 | 293,348 |
| 1999-07-31 | 254,195 |
| 1999-08-07 | 259,805 |
| 1999-08-14 | 236,658 |
| 1999-08-21 | 226,061 |
| 1999-08-28 | 219,278 |
| 1999-09-04 | 235,849 |
| 1999-09-11 | 204,302 |
| 1999-09-18 | 219,070 |
| 1999-09-25 | 232,486 |
| 1999-10-02 | 246,445 |
| 1999-10-09 | 278,925 |
| 1999-10-16 | 234,580 |
| 1999-10-23 | 250,864 |
| 1999-10-30 | 257,767 |
| 1999-11-06 | 297,136 |
| 1999-11-13 | 262,607 |
| 1999-11-20 | 309,248 |
| 1999-11-27 | 268,255 |
| 1999-12-04 | 378,735 |
| 1999-12-11 | 318,175 |
| 1999-12-18 | 329,649 |
| 1999-12-25 | 377,695 |
| 2000-01-01 | 439,912 |
| 2000-01-08 | 606,897 |
| 2000-01-15 | 442,494 |
| 2000-01-22 | 328,841 |
| 2000-01-29 | 332,740 |
| 2000-02-05 | 365,245 |
| 2000-02-12 | 311,897 |
| 2000-02-19 | 281,256 |
| 2000-02-26 | 258,962 |
| 2000-03-04 | 283,024 |
| 2000-03-11 | 255,109 |
| 2000-03-18 | 242,139 |
| 2000-03-25 | 239,835 |
| 2000-04-01 | 229,520 |
| 2000-04-08 | 274,130 |
| 2000-04-15 | 237,218 |
| 2000-04-22 | 240,266 |
| 2000-04-29 | 249,458 |
| 2000-05-06 | 259,546 |
| 2000-05-13 | 231,706 |
| 2000-05-20 | 234,599 |
| 2000-05-27 | 239,836 |
| 2000-06-03 | 242,991 |
| 2000-06-10 | 267,752 |
| 2000-06-17 | 265,617 |
| 2000-06-24 | 273,344 |
| 2000-07-01 | 280,979 |
| 2000-07-08 | 363,793 |
| 2000-07-15 | 377,982 |
| 2000-07-22 | 296,255 |
| 2000-07-29 | 253,466 |
| 2000-08-05 | 266,151 |
| 2000-08-12 | 261,358 |
| 2000-08-19 | 251,844 |
| 2000-08-26 | 239,030 |
| 2000-09-02 | 242,375 |
| 2000-09-09 | 229,954 |
| 2000-09-16 | 245,991 |
| 2000-09-23 | 222,219 |
| 2000-09-30 | 227,249 |
| 2000-10-07 | 292,784 |
| 2000-10-14 | 255,082 |
| 2000-10-21 | 263,445 |
| 2000-10-28 | 269,489 |
| 2000-11-04 | 342,414 |
| 2000-11-11 | 294,727 |
| 2000-11-18 | 374,160 |
| 2000-11-25 | 321,859 |
| 2000-12-02 | 447,262 |
| 2000-12-09 | 390,088 |
| 2000-12-16 | 402,476 |
| 2000-12-23 | 481,720 |
| 2000-12-30 | 568,973 |
| 2001-01-06 | 558,768 |
| 2001-01-13 | 599,562 |
| 2001-01-20 | 398,188 |
| 2001-01-27 | 447,386 |
| 2001-02-03 | 424,696 |
| 2001-02-10 | 396,151 |
| 2001-02-17 | 345,841 |
| 2001-02-24 | 357,591 |
| 2001-03-03 | 379,286 |
| 2001-03-10 | 377,210 |
| 2001-03-17 | 351,497 |
| 2001-03-24 | 334,747 |
| 2001-03-31 | 328,576 |
| 2001-04-07 | 397,282 |
| 2001-04-14 | 346,981 |
| 2001-04-21 | 369,745 |
| 2001-04-28 | 353,831 |
| 2001-05-05 | 336,319 |
| 2001-05-12 | 331,765 |
| 2001-05-19 | 338,374 |
| 2001-05-26 | 346,231 |
| 2001-06-02 | 335,765 |
| 2001-06-09 | 397,015 |
| 2001-06-16 | 354,526 |
| 2001-06-23 | 351,770 |
| 2001-06-30 | 375,885 |
| 2001-07-07 | 526,826 |
| 2001-07-14 | 524,139 |
| 2001-07-21 | 406,038 |
| 2001-07-28 | 332,957 |
| 2001-08-04 | 341,660 |
| 2001-08-11 | 333,042 |
| 2001-08-18 | 317,046 |
| 2001-08-25 | 307,850 |
| 2001-09-01 | 319,016 |
| 2001-09-08 | 309,567 |
| 2001-09-15 | 317,245 |
| 2001-09-22 | 353,611 |
| 2001-09-29 | 400,400 |
| 2001-10-06 | 441,754 |
| 2001-10-13 | 426,881 |
| 2001-10-20 | 429,542 |
| 2001-10-27 | 436,901 |
| 2001-11-03 | 443,971 |
| 2001-11-10 | 456,366 |
| 2001-11-17 | 420,259 |
| 2001-11-24 | 438,893 |
| 2001-12-01 | 605,916 |
| 2001-12-08 | 491,836 |
| 2001-12-15 | 440,906 |
| 2001-12-22 | 529,570 |
| 2001-12-29 | 647,045 |
| 2002-01-05 | 637,343 |
| 2002-01-12 | 799,246 |
| 2002-01-19 | 558,297 |
| 2002-01-26 | 431,690 |
| 2002-02-02 | 445,552 |
| 2002-02-09 | 438,611 |
| 2002-02-16 | 376,573 |
| 2002-02-23 | 367,504 |
| 2002-03-02 | 385,272 |
| 2002-03-09 | 386,992 |
| 2002-03-16 | 352,045 |
| 2002-03-23 | 366,372 |
| 2002-03-30 | 386,296 |
| 2002-04-06 | 432,384 |
| 2002-04-13 | 428,834 |
| 2002-04-20 | 385,151 |
| 2002-04-27 | 367,350 |
| 2002-05-04 | 362,681 |
| 2002-05-11 | 358,286 |
| 2002-05-18 | 348,887 |
| 2002-05-25 | 346,439 |
| 2002-06-01 | 309,183 |
| 2002-06-08 | 378,613 |
| 2002-06-15 | 356,096 |
| 2002-06-22 | 358,959 |
| 2002-06-29 | 358,658 |
| 2002-07-06 | 456,716 |
| 2002-07-13 | 506,718 |
| 2002-07-20 | 394,586 |
| 2002-07-27 | 338,441 |
| 2002-08-03 | 326,356 |
| 2002-08-10 | 332,673 |
| 2002-08-17 | 313,869 |
| 2002-08-24 | 314,852 |
| 2002-08-31 | 310,864 |
| 2002-09-07 | 318,361 |
| 2002-09-14 | 337,577 |
| 2002-09-21 | 317,264 |
| 2002-09-28 | 319,063 |
| 2002-10-05 | 365,613 |
| 2002-10-12 | 385,689 |
| 2002-10-19 | 349,927 |
| 2002-10-26 | 375,591 |
| 2002-11-02 | 397,346 |
| 2002-11-09 | 427,078 |
| 2002-11-16 | 372,829 |
| 2002-11-23 | 436,549 |
| 2002-11-30 | 385,788 |
| 2002-12-07 | 547,430 |
| 2002-12-14 | 486,258 |
| 2002-12-21 | 483,449 |
| 2002-12-28 | 620,929 |
| 2003-01-04 | 620,004 |
| 2003-01-11 | 724,111 |
| 2003-01-18 | 542,563 |
| 2003-01-25 | 434,888 |
| 2003-02-01 | 449,286 |
| 2003-02-08 | 439,520 |
| 2003-02-15 | 398,291 |
| 2003-02-22 | 387,536 |
| 2003-03-01 | 429,782 |
| 2003-03-08 | 414,568 |
| 2003-03-15 | 389,909 |
| 2003-03-22 | 361,492 |
| 2003-03-29 | 371,692 |
| 2003-04-05 | 394,160 |
| 2003-04-12 | 434,911 |
| 2003-04-19 | 399,180 |
| 2003-04-26 | 401,342 |
| 2003-05-03 | 377,383 |
| 2003-05-10 | 364,287 |
| 2003-05-17 | 362,276 |
| 2003-05-24 | 359,500 |
| 2003-05-31 | 351,890 |
| 2003-06-07 | 421,190 |
| 2003-06-14 | 383,371 |
| 2003-06-21 | 376,560 |
| 2003-06-28 | 394,214 |
| 2003-07-05 | 483,401 |
| 2003-07-12 | 552,621 |
| 2003-07-19 | 429,381 |
| 2003-07-26 | 348,382 |
| 2003-08-02 | 333,770 |
| 2003-08-09 | 348,207 |
| 2003-08-16 | 312,087 |
| 2003-08-23 | 313,058 |
| 2003-08-30 | 319,362 |
| 2003-09-06 | 322,501 |
| 2003-09-13 | 328,414 |
| 2003-09-20 | 301,217 |
| 2003-09-27 | 304,968 |
| 2003-10-04 | 337,880 |
| 2003-10-11 | 368,876 |
| 2003-10-18 | 328,572 |
| 2003-10-25 | 352,117 |
| 2003-11-01 | 345,573 |
| 2003-11-08 | 397,387 |
| 2003-11-15 | 347,719 |
| 2003-11-22 | 397,990 |
| 2003-11-29 | 357,811 |
| 2003-12-06 | 486,202 |
| 2003-12-13 | 412,627 |
| 2003-12-20 | 424,192 |
| 2003-12-27 | 516,493 |
| 2004-01-03 | 552,815 |
| 2004-01-10 | 677,897 |
| 2004-01-17 | 490,763 |
| 2004-01-24 | 382,262 |
| 2004-01-31 | 406,298 |
| 2004-02-07 | 433,234 |
| 2004-02-14 | 341,634 |
| 2004-02-21 | 328,171 |
| 2004-02-28 | 342,140 |
| 2004-03-06 | 339,007 |
| 2004-03-13 | 312,067 |
| 2004-03-20 | 304,462 |
| 2004-03-27 | 296,776 |
| 2004-04-03 | 304,249 |
| 2004-04-10 | 350,739 |
| 2004-04-17 | 334,965 |
| 2004-04-24 | 313,686 |
| 2004-05-01 | 283,236 |
| 2004-05-08 | 292,754 |
| 2004-05-15 | 297,061 |
| 2004-05-22 | 293,974 |
| 2004-05-29 | 304,067 |
| 2004-06-05 | 308,229 |
| 2004-06-12 | 313,930 |
| 2004-06-19 | 322,481 |
| 2004-06-26 | 318,746 |
| 2004-07-03 | 349,920 |
| 2004-07-10 | 444,531 |
| 2004-07-17 | 394,372 |
| 2004-07-24 | 313,225 |
| 2004-07-31 | 282,128 |
| 2004-08-07 | 291,611 |
| 2004-08-14 | 262,936 |
| 2004-08-21 | 274,433 |
| 2004-08-28 | 276,308 |
| 2004-09-04 | 274,930 |
| 2004-09-11 | 250,568 |
| 2004-09-18 | 275,846 |
| 2004-09-25 | 282,729 |
| 2004-10-02 | 279,591 |
| 2004-10-09 | 338,711 |
| 2004-10-16 | 279,846 |
| 2004-10-23 | 317,573 |
| 2004-10-30 | 305,546 |
| 2004-11-06 | 351,404 |
| 2004-11-13 | 311,901 |
| 2004-11-20 | 355,954 |
| 2004-11-27 | 320,690 |
| 2004-12-04 | 473,570 |
| 2004-12-11 | 370,604 |
| 2004-12-18 | 374,749 |
| 2004-12-25 | 446,699 |
| 2005-01-01 | 540,927 |
| 2005-01-08 | 693,776 |
| 2005-01-15 | 467,862 |
| 2005-01-22 | 360,583 |
| 2005-01-29 | 364,704 |
| 2005-02-05 | 347,391 |
| 2005-02-12 | 309,290 |
| 2005-02-19 | 303,814 |
| 2005-02-26 | 290,776 |
| 2005-03-05 | 332,067 |
| 2005-03-12 | 307,061 |
| 2005-03-19 | 290,719 |
| 2005-03-26 | 291,378 |
| 2005-04-02 | 294,994 |
| 2005-04-09 | 339,709 |
| 2005-04-16 | 285,657 |
| 2005-04-23 | 299,891 |
| 2005-04-30 | 290,824 |
| 2005-05-07 | 297,347 |
| 2005-05-14 | 275,524 |
| 2005-05-21 | 276,761 |
| 2005-05-28 | 304,306 |
| 2005-06-04 | 289,914 |
| 2005-06-11 | 315,938 |
| 2005-06-18 | 289,831 |
| 2005-06-25 | 286,681 |
| 2005-07-02 | 327,268 |
| 2005-07-09 | 427,323 |
| 2005-07-16 | 374,665 |
| 2005-07-23 | 295,026 |
| 2005-07-30 | 261,906 |
| 2005-08-06 | 269,746 |
| 2005-08-13 | 257,151 |
| 2005-08-20 | 252,016 |
| 2005-08-27 | 251,642 |
| 2005-09-03 | 271,613 |
| 2005-09-10 | 322,387 |
| 2005-09-17 | 346,204 |
| 2005-09-24 | 292,435 |
| 2005-10-01 | 313,847 |
| 2005-10-08 | 380,093 |
| 2005-10-15 | 303,158 |
| 2005-10-22 | 304,733 |
| 2005-10-29 | 294,376 |
| 2005-11-05 | 340,491 |
| 2005-11-12 | 283,564 |
| 2005-11-19 | 368,859 |
| 2005-11-26 | 290,730 |
| 2005-12-03 | 444,600 |
| 2005-12-10 | 391,961 |
| 2005-12-17 | 359,108 |
| 2005-12-24 | 433,397 |
| 2005-12-31 | 475,889 |
| 2006-01-07 | 555,114 |
| 2006-01-14 | 439,873 |
| 2006-01-21 | 317,926 |
| 2006-01-28 | 318,805 |
| 2006-02-04 | 321,527 |
| 2006-02-11 | 310,078 |
| 2006-02-18 | 269,571 |
| 2006-02-25 | 272,478 |
| 2006-03-04 | 301,867 |
| 2006-03-11 | 294,764 |
| 2006-03-18 | 269,237 |
| 2006-03-25 | 265,370 |
| 2006-04-01 | 253,985 |
| 2006-04-08 | 314,696 |
| 2006-04-15 | 268,472 |
| 2006-04-22 | 291,349 |
| 2006-04-29 | 279,715 |
| 2006-05-06 | 317,239 |
| 2006-05-13 | 288,972 |
| 2006-05-20 | 277,168 |
| 2006-05-27 | 292,714 |
| 2006-06-03 | 260,263 |
| 2006-06-10 | 285,892 |
| 2006-06-17 | 277,441 |
| 2006-06-24 | 287,503 |
| 2006-07-01 | 304,638 |
| 2006-07-08 | 418,363 |
| 2006-07-15 | 377,115 |
| 2006-07-22 | 288,875 |
| 2006-07-29 | 259,974 |
| 2006-08-05 | 275,430 |
| 2006-08-12 | 256,259 |
| 2006-08-19 | 252,357 |
| 2006-08-26 | 251,275 |
| 2006-09-02 | 259,539 |
| 2006-09-09 | 240,231 |
| 2006-09-16 | 267,036 |
| 2006-09-23 | 261,396 |
| 2006-09-30 | 249,288 |
| 2006-10-07 | 307,646 |
| 2006-10-14 | 271,863 |
| 2006-10-21 | 291,372 |
| 2006-10-28 | 301,079 |
| 2006-11-04 | 326,711 |
| 2006-11-11 | 286,151 |
| 2006-11-18 | 367,690 |
| 2006-11-25 | 323,509 |
| 2006-12-02 | 448,898 |
| 2006-12-09 | 384,123 |
| 2006-12-16 | 361,672 |
| 2006-12-23 | 425,357 |
| 2006-12-30 | 499,979 |
| 2007-01-06 | 506,059 |
| 2007-01-13 | 506,709 |
| 2007-01-20 | 367,583 |
| 2007-01-27 | 359,959 |
| 2007-02-03 | 339,018 |
| 2007-02-10 | 363,018 |
| 2007-02-17 | 305,945 |
| 2007-02-24 | 299,000 |
| 2007-03-03 | 320,194 |
| 2007-03-10 | 298,927 |
| 2007-03-17 | 277,187 |
| 2007-03-24 | 273,432 |
| 2007-03-31 | 268,218 |
| 2007-04-07 | 328,266 |
| 2007-04-14 | 317,917 |
| 2007-04-21 | 303,984 |
| 2007-04-28 | 267,672 |
| 2007-05-05 | 274,801 |
| 2007-05-12 | 258,516 |
| 2007-05-19 | 270,446 |
| 2007-05-26 | 273,397 |
| 2007-06-02 | 263,527 |
| 2007-06-09 | 302,368 |
| 2007-06-16 | 290,951 |
| 2007-06-23 | 292,583 |
| 2007-06-30 | 300,348 |
| 2007-07-07 | 417,554 |
| 2007-07-14 | 383,839 |
| 2007-07-21 | 298,366 |
| 2007-07-28 | 257,426 |
| 2007-08-04 | 270,563 |
| 2007-08-11 | 266,420 |
| 2007-08-18 | 257,573 |
| 2007-08-25 | 266,179 |
| 2007-09-01 | 257,454 |
| 2007-09-08 | 245,526 |
| 2007-09-15 | 261,971 |
| 2007-09-22 | 247,643 |
| 2007-09-29 | 255,431 |
| 2007-10-06 | 298,317 |
| 2007-10-13 | 306,519 |
| 2007-10-20 | 307,675 |
| 2007-10-27 | 303,357 |
| 2007-11-03 | 325,831 |
| 2007-11-10 | 351,760 |
| 2007-11-17 | 323,124 |
| 2007-11-24 | 324,047 |
| 2007-12-01 | 462,902 |
| 2007-12-08 | 423,130 |
| 2007-12-15 | 393,042 |
| 2007-12-22 | 456,280 |
| 2007-12-29 | 507,908 |
| 2008-01-05 | 522,700 |
| 2008-01-12 | 547,943 |
| 2008-01-19 | 415,397 |
| 2008-01-26 | 369,498 |
| 2008-02-02 | 380,234 |
| 2008-02-09 | 377,595 |
| 2008-02-16 | 325,886 |
| 2008-02-23 | 330,013 |
| 2008-03-01 | 345,287 |
| 2008-03-08 | 341,364 |
| 2008-03-15 | 335,909 |
| 2008-03-22 | 316,208 |
| 2008-03-29 | 342,189 |
| 2008-04-05 | 357,209 |
| 2008-04-12 | 370,960 |
| 2008-04-19 | 328,334 |
| 2008-04-26 | 337,854 |
| 2008-05-03 | 335,533 |
| 2008-05-10 | 325,479 |
| 2008-05-17 | 319,817 |
| 2008-05-24 | 326,627 |
| 2008-05-31 | 300,989 |
| 2008-06-07 | 373,033 |
| 2008-06-14 | 349,254 |
| 2008-06-21 | 358,158 |
| 2008-06-28 | 368,544 |
| 2008-07-05 | 401,672 |
| 2008-07-12 | 476,071 |
| 2008-07-19 | 403,607 |
| 2008-07-26 | 374,182 |
| 2008-08-02 | 381,887 |
| 2008-08-09 | 372,807 |
| 2008-08-16 | 342,164 |
| 2008-08-23 | 344,255 |
| 2008-08-30 | 360,485 |
| 2008-09-06 | 336,131 |
| 2008-09-13 | 381,720 |
| 2008-09-20 | 397,610 |
| 2008-09-27 | 392,121 |
| 2008-10-04 | 426,786 |
| 2008-10-11 | 454,100 |
| 2008-10-18 | 416,114 |
| 2008-10-25 | 449,429 |
| 2008-11-01 | 466,373 |
| 2008-11-08 | 539,812 |
| 2008-11-15 | 513,047 |
| 2008-11-22 | 609,128 |
| 2008-11-29 | 537,230 |
| 2008-12-06 | 760,481 |
| 2008-12-13 | 629,867 |
| 2008-12-20 | 719,691 |
| 2008-12-27 | 717,000 |
| 2009-01-03 | 731,958 |
| 2009-01-10 | 956,791 |
| 2009-01-17 | 763,987 |
| 2009-01-24 | 620,143 |
| 2009-01-31 | 682,176 |
| 2009-02-07 | 710,152 |
| 2009-02-14 | 619,951 |
| 2009-02-21 | 605,668 |
| 2009-02-28 | 645,827 |
| 2009-03-07 | 652,635 |
| 2009-03-14 | 601,192 |
| 2009-03-21 | 590,067 |
| 2009-03-28 | 599,299 |
| 2009-04-04 | 623,279 |
| 2009-04-11 | 610,522 |
| 2009-04-18 | 596,564 |
| 2009-04-25 | 583,457 |
| 2009-05-02 | 536,648 |
| 2009-05-09 | 570,412 |
| 2009-05-16 | 540,925 |
| 2009-05-23 | 538,311 |
| 2009-05-30 | 500,380 |
| 2009-06-06 | 581,092 |
| 2009-06-13 | 562,449 |
| 2009-06-20 | 572,425 |
| 2009-06-27 | 563,387 |
| 2009-07-04 | 585,963 |
| 2009-07-11 | 677,038 |
| 2009-07-18 | 590,730 |
| 2009-07-25 | 516,351 |
| 2009-08-01 | 470,988 |
| 2009-08-08 | 486,586 |
| 2009-08-15 | 461,780 |
| 2009-08-22 | 460,998 |
| 2009-08-29 | 460,525 |
| 2009-09-05 | 470,079 |
| 2009-09-12 | 414,557 |
| 2009-09-19 | 441,311 |
| 2009-09-26 | 449,620 |
| 2009-10-03 | 456,233 |
| 2009-10-10 | 513,852 |
| 2009-10-17 | 464,985 |
| 2009-10-24 | 499,374 |
| 2009-10-31 | 487,714 |
| 2009-11-07 | 537,230 |
| 2009-11-14 | 479,350 |
| 2009-11-21 | 547,022 |
| 2009-11-28 | 462,090 |
| 2009-12-05 | 673,097 |
| 2009-12-12 | 561,655 |
| 2009-12-19 | 571,378 |
| 2009-12-26 | 561,852 |
| 2010-01-02 | 651,215 |
| 2010-01-09 | 825,891 |
| 2010-01-16 | 659,173 |
| 2010-01-23 | 507,651 |
| 2010-01-30 | 538,617 |
| 2010-02-06 | 512,463 |
| 2010-02-13 | 482,078 |
| 2010-02-20 | 458,160 |
| 2010-02-27 | 474,662 |
| 2010-03-06 | 462,679 |
| 2010-03-13 | 439,061 |
| 2010-03-20 | 413,067 |
| 2010-03-27 | 412,710 |
| 2010-04-03 | 421,130 |
| 2010-04-10 | 514,136 |
| 2010-04-17 | 436,814 |
| 2010-04-24 | 429,196 |
| 2010-05-01 | 399,350 |
| 2010-05-08 | 414,327 |
| 2010-05-15 | 414,572 |
| 2010-05-22 | 410,778 |
| 2010-05-29 | 418,873 |
| 2010-06-05 | 398,864 |
| 2010-06-12 | 448,305 |
| 2010-06-19 | 427,080 |
| 2010-06-26 | 444,712 |
| 2010-07-03 | 470,366 |
| 2010-07-10 | 515,991 |
| 2010-07-17 | 502,065 |
| 2010-07-24 | 413,679 |
| 2010-07-31 | 402,140 |
| 2010-08-07 | 425,471 |
| 2010-08-14 | 405,484 |
| 2010-08-21 | 384,955 |
| 2010-08-28 | 383,135 |
| 2010-09-04 | 381,863 |
| 2010-09-11 | 341,791 |
| 2010-09-18 | 382,341 |
| 2010-09-25 | 372,551 |
| 2010-10-02 | 373,681 |
| 2010-10-09 | 462,667 |
| 2010-10-16 | 394,016 |
| 2010-10-23 | 408,489 |
| 2010-10-30 | 421,097 |
| 2010-11-06 | 452,657 |
| 2010-11-13 | 409,548 |
| 2010-11-20 | 464,817 |
| 2010-11-27 | 412,922 |
| 2010-12-04 | 585,711 |
| 2010-12-11 | 491,776 |
| 2010-12-18 | 495,548 |
| 2010-12-25 | 525,710 |
| 2011-01-01 | 578,904 |
| 2011-01-08 | 773,499 |
| 2011-01-15 | 549,688 |
| 2011-01-22 | 485,950 |
| 2011-01-29 | 464,775 |
| 2011-02-05 | 440,706 |
| 2011-02-12 | 424,400 |
| 2011-02-19 | 380,985 |
| 2011-02-26 | 353,797 |
| 2011-03-05 | 407,299 |
| 2011-03-12 | 371,721 |
| 2011-03-19 | 354,457 |
| 2011-03-26 | 357,457 |
| 2011-04-02 | 353,817 |
| 2011-04-09 | 448,029 |
| 2011-04-16 | 381,834 |
| 2011-04-23 | 387,867 |
| 2011-04-30 | 415,974 |
| 2011-05-07 | 397,737 |
| 2011-05-14 | 361,573 |
| 2011-05-21 | 376,632 |
| 2011-05-28 | 381,497 |
| 2011-06-04 | 366,816 |
| 2011-06-11 | 400,608 |
| 2011-06-18 | 394,286 |
| 2011-06-25 | 406,633 |
| 2011-07-02 | 425,640 |
| 2011-07-09 | 473,963 |
| 2011-07-16 | 470,086 |
| 2011-07-23 | 369,207 |
| 2011-07-30 | 341,103 |
| 2011-08-06 | 354,408 |
| 2011-08-13 | 346,014 |
| 2011-08-20 | 344,870 |
| 2011-08-27 | 336,761 |
| 2011-09-03 | 348,582 |
| 2011-09-10 | 328,868 |
| 2011-09-17 | 353,820 |
| 2011-09-24 | 328,073 |
| 2011-10-01 | 332,394 |
| 2011-10-08 | 405,906 |
| 2011-10-15 | 357,562 |
| 2011-10-22 | 377,156 |
| 2011-10-29 | 369,647 |
| 2011-11-05 | 402,532 |
| 2011-11-12 | 363,016 |
| 2011-11-19 | 440,157 |
| 2011-11-26 | 372,640 |
| 2011-12-03 | 528,793 |
| 2011-12-10 | 435,863 |
| 2011-12-17 | 421,103 |
| 2011-12-24 | 497,689 |
| 2011-12-31 | 540,057 |
| 2012-01-07 | 646,219 |
| 2012-01-14 | 525,422 |
| 2012-01-21 | 416,880 |
| 2012-01-28 | 422,287 |
| 2012-02-04 | 401,365 |
| 2012-02-11 | 365,014 |
| 2012-02-18 | 346,659 |
| 2012-02-25 | 334,242 |
| 2012-03-03 | 368,433 |
| 2012-03-10 | 340,102 |
| 2012-03-17 | 319,498 |
| 2012-03-24 | 323,373 |
| 2012-03-31 | 315,800 |
| 2012-04-07 | 390,064 |
| 2012-04-14 | 370,482 |
| 2012-04-21 | 370,632 |
| 2012-04-28 | 333,476 |
| 2012-05-05 | 341,080 |
| 2012-05-12 | 325,094 |
| 2012-05-19 | 330,427 |
| 2012-05-26 | 346,260 |
| 2012-06-02 | 324,385 |
| 2012-06-09 | 376,610 |
| 2012-06-16 | 364,548 |
| 2012-06-23 | 370,521 |
| 2012-06-30 | 369,826 |
| 2012-07-07 | 442,192 |
| 2012-07-14 | 455,260 |
| 2012-07-21 | 340,780 |
| 2012-07-28 | 312,931 |
| 2012-08-04 | 320,219 |
| 2012-08-11 | 317,680 |
| 2012-08-18 | 311,857 |
| 2012-08-25 | 312,542 |
| 2012-09-01 | 309,537 |
| 2012-09-08 | 299,729 |
| 2012-09-15 | 330,454 |
| 2012-09-22 | 303,685 |
| 2012-09-29 | 301,046 |
| 2012-10-06 | 329,925 |
| 2012-10-13 | 362,730 |
| 2012-10-20 | 345,227 |
| 2012-10-27 | 339,924 |
| 2012-11-03 | 361,823 |
| 2012-11-10 | 478,551 |
| 2012-11-17 | 403,636 |
| 2012-11-24 | 358,865 |
| 2012-12-01 | 500,163 |
| 2012-12-08 | 429,191 |
| 2012-12-15 | 401,431 |
| 2012-12-22 | 457,584 |
| 2012-12-29 | 490,126 |
| 2013-01-05 | 557,424 |
| 2013-01-12 | 558,047 |
| 2013-01-19 | 437,360 |
| 2013-01-26 | 369,567 |
| 2013-02-02 | 388,708 |
| 2013-02-09 | 361,759 |
| 2013-02-16 | 351,087 |
| 2013-02-23 | 310,512 |
| 2013-03-02 | 335,794 |
| 2013-03-09 | 317,661 |
| 2013-03-16 | 301,471 |
| 2013-03-23 | 316,133 |
| 2013-03-30 | 317,494 |
| 2013-04-06 | 356,935 |
| 2013-04-13 | 359,415 |
| 2013-04-20 | 326,264 |
| 2013-04-27 | 301,622 |
| 2013-05-04 | 301,602 |
| 2013-05-11 | 320,253 |
| 2013-05-18 | 303,357 |
| 2013-05-25 | 319,508 |
| 2013-06-01 | 294,608 |
| 2013-06-08 | 332,964 |
| 2013-06-15 | 336,970 |
| 2013-06-22 | 336,901 |
| 2013-06-29 | 335,424 |
| 2013-07-06 | 383,811 |
| 2013-07-13 | 410,974 |
| 2013-07-20 | 340,457 |
| 2013-07-27 | 281,692 |
| 2013-08-03 | 288,861 |
| 2013-08-10 | 282,756 |
| 2013-08-17 | 281,164 |
| 2013-08-24 | 279,803 |
| 2013-08-31 | 269,359 |
| 2013-09-07 | 229,648 |
| 2013-09-14 | 272,946 |
| 2013-09-21 | 255,087 |
| 2013-09-28 | 252,196 |
| 2013-10-05 | 335,937 |
| 2013-10-12 | 360,957 |
| 2013-10-19 | 312,037 |
| 2013-10-26 | 325,326 |
| 2013-11-02 | 331,867 |
| 2013-11-09 | 364,167 |
| 2013-11-16 | 327,053 |
| 2013-11-23 | 369,197 |
| 2013-11-30 | 321,896 |
| 2013-12-07 | 463,413 |
| 2013-12-14 | 414,613 |
| 2013-12-21 | 418,272 |
| 2013-12-28 | 452,664 |
| 2014-01-04 | 488,537 |
| 2014-01-11 | 534,966 |
| 2014-01-18 | 416,116 |
| 2014-01-25 | 357,806 |
| 2014-02-01 | 357,742 |
| 2014-02-08 | 360,338 |
| 2014-02-15 | 322,761 |
| 2014-02-22 | 312,665 |
| 2014-03-01 | 317,832 |
| 2014-03-08 | 302,311 |
| 2014-03-15 | 285,970 |
| 2014-03-22 | 274,072 |
| 2014-03-29 | 294,862 |
| 2014-04-05 | 299,162 |
| 2014-04-12 | 318,793 |
| 2014-04-19 | 299,182 |
| 2014-04-26 | 318,127 |
| 2014-05-03 | 288,748 |
| 2014-05-10 | 270,738 |
| 2014-05-17 | 287,398 |
| 2014-05-24 | 275,412 |
| 2014-05-31 | 264,133 |
| 2014-06-07 | 313,371 |
| 2014-06-14 | 301,195 |
| 2014-06-21 | 305,029 |
| 2014-06-28 | 305,791 |
| 2014-07-05 | 322,753 |
| 2014-07-12 | 370,559 |
| 2014-07-19 | 287,049 |
| 2014-07-26 | 257,625 |
| 2014-08-02 | 247,877 |
| 2014-08-09 | 269,468 |
| 2014-08-16 | 249,463 |
| 2014-08-23 | 249,006 |
| 2014-08-30 | 249,780 |
| 2014-09-06 | 234,755 |
| 2014-09-13 | 242,318 |
| 2014-09-20 | 239,780 |
| 2014-09-27 | 227,571 |
| 2014-10-04 | 257,545 |
| 2014-10-11 | 273,756 |
| 2014-10-18 | 256,166 |
| 2014-10-25 | 271,331 |
| 2014-11-01 | 266,921 |
| 2014-11-08 | 309,338 |
| 2014-11-15 | 286,115 |
| 2014-11-22 | 357,202 |
| 2014-11-29 | 294,389 |
| 2014-12-06 | 389,284 |
| 2014-12-13 | 327,827 |
| 2014-12-20 | 340,827 |
| 2014-12-27 | 389,757 |
| 2015-01-03 | 439,342 |
| 2015-01-10 | 529,685 |
| 2015-01-17 | 383,538 |
| 2015-01-24 | 281,885 |
| 2015-01-31 | 306,643 |
| 2015-02-07 | 324,158 |
| 2015-02-14 | 277,904 |
| 2015-02-21 | 280,639 |
| 2015-02-28 | 315,566 |
| 2015-03-07 | 277,925 |
| 2015-03-14 | 260,242 |
| 2015-03-21 | 248,032 |
| 2015-03-28 | 239,748 |
| 2015-04-04 | 253,533 |
| 2015-04-11 | 308,173 |
| 2015-04-18 | 279,797 |
| 2015-04-25 | 250,780 |
| 2015-05-02 | 236,421 |
| 2015-05-09 | 242,882 |
| 2015-05-16 | 243,612 |
| 2015-05-23 | 253,454 |
| 2015-05-30 | 230,676 |
| 2015-06-06 | 275,619 |
| 2015-06-13 | 258,764 |
| 2015-06-20 | 263,199 |
| 2015-06-27 | 274,646 |
| 2015-07-04 | 303,585 |
| 2015-07-11 | 344,471 |
| 2015-07-18 | 262,949 |
| 2015-07-25 | 230,314 |
| 2015-08-01 | 224,104 |
| 2015-08-08 | 239,326 |
| 2015-08-15 | 229,251 |
| 2015-08-22 | 226,649 |
| 2015-08-29 | 230,079 |
| 2015-09-05 | 232,507 |
| 2015-09-12 | 198,903 |
| 2015-09-19 | 219,342 |
| 2015-09-26 | 215,116 |
| 2015-10-03 | 227,176 |
| 2015-10-10 | 256,522 |
| 2015-10-17 | 232,860 |
| 2015-10-24 | 245,365 |
| 2015-10-31 | 258,440 |
| 2015-11-07 | 291,098 |
| 2015-11-14 | 264,816 |
| 2015-11-21 | 305,424 |
| 2015-11-28 | 262,628 |
| 2015-12-05 | 384,491 |
| 2015-12-12 | 313,276 |
| 2015-12-19 | 319,641 |
| 2015-12-26 | 346,542 |
| 2016-01-02 | 405,368 |
| 2016-01-09 | 502,904 |
| 2016-01-16 | 378,747 |
| 2016-01-23 | 295,936 |
| 2016-01-30 | 311,940 |
| 2016-02-06 | 290,796 |
| 2016-02-13 | 258,380 |
| 2016-02-20 | 248,870 |
| 2016-02-27 | 265,802 |
| 2016-03-05 | 247,628 |
| 2016-03-12 | 236,888 |
| 2016-03-19 | 230,882 |
| 2016-03-26 | 235,716 |
| 2016-04-02 | 245,035 |
| 2016-04-09 | 270,419 |
| 2016-04-16 | 242,400 |
| 2016-04-23 | 245,040 |
| 2016-04-30 | 243,392 |
| 2016-05-07 | 261,899 |
| 2016-05-14 | 244,869 |
| 2016-05-21 | 240,798 |
| 2016-05-28 | 246,740 |
| 2016-06-04 | 232,300 |
| 2016-06-11 | 266,277 |
| 2016-06-18 | 247,968 |
| 2016-06-25 | 263,662 |
| 2016-07-02 | 267,437 |
| 2016-07-09 | 298,673 |
| 2016-07-16 | 268,526 |
| 2016-07-23 | 231,925 |
| 2016-07-30 | 219,202 |
| 2016-08-06 | 231,542 |
| 2016-08-13 | 219,570 |
| 2016-08-20 | 217,011 |
| 2016-08-27 | 215,688 |
| 2016-09-03 | 217,715 |
| 2016-09-10 | 193,291 |
| 2016-09-17 | 205,649 |
| 2016-09-24 | 198,455 |
| 2016-10-01 | 200,456 |
| 2016-10-08 | 238,581 |
| 2016-10-15 | 233,633 |
| 2016-10-22 | 237,314 |
| 2016-10-29 | 245,751 |
| 2016-11-05 | 258,608 |
| 2016-11-12 | 223,770 |
| 2016-11-19 | 287,794 |
| 2016-11-26 | 249,774 |
| 2016-12-03 | 351,580 |
| 2016-12-10 | 305,268 |
| 2016-12-17 | 315,068 |
| 2016-12-24 | 343,213 |
| 2016-12-31 | 350,561 |
| 2017-01-07 | 414,742 |
| 2017-01-14 | 352,799 |
| 2017-01-21 | 284,030 |
| 2017-01-28 | 280,983 |
| 2017-02-04 | 259,713 |
| 2017-02-11 | 245,886 |
| 2017-02-18 | 239,322 |
| 2017-02-25 | 212,829 |
| 2017-03-04 | 243,959 |
| 2017-03-11 | 222,227 |
| 2017-03-18 | 224,693 |
| 2017-03-25 | 228,269 |
| 2017-04-01 | 208,347 |
| 2017-04-08 | 239,823 |
| 2017-04-15 | 225,864 |
| 2017-04-22 | 241,611 |
| 2017-04-29 | 210,955 |
| 2017-05-06 | 215,040 |
| 2017-05-13 | 206,905 |
| 2017-05-20 | 210,544 |
| 2017-05-27 | 232,138 |
| 2017-06-03 | 212,696 |
| 2017-06-10 | 234,652 |
| 2017-06-17 | 228,883 |
| 2017-06-24 | 239,635 |
| 2017-07-01 | 252,886 |
| 2017-07-08 | 284,329 |
| 2017-07-15 | 257,763 |
| 2017-07-22 | 220,455 |
| 2017-07-29 | 198,776 |
| 2017-08-05 | 211,924 |
| 2017-08-12 | 198,280 |
| 2017-08-19 | 195,130 |
| 2017-08-26 | 196,227 |
| 2017-09-02 | 250,627 |
| 2017-09-09 | 211,923 |
| 2017-09-16 | 212,313 |
| 2017-09-23 | 212,987 |
| 2017-09-30 | 204,180 |
| 2017-10-07 | 229,241 |
| 2017-10-14 | 205,592 |
| 2017-10-21 | 216,004 |
| 2017-10-28 | 215,977 |
| 2017-11-04 | 242,111 |
| 2017-11-11 | 236,654 |
| 2017-11-18 | 275,004 |
| 2017-11-25 | 224,851 |
| 2017-12-02 | 326,052 |
| 2017-12-09 | 282,055 |
| 2017-12-16 | 287,479 |
| 2017-12-23 | 325,180 |
| 2017-12-30 | 351,500 |
| 2018-01-06 | 403,930 |
| 2018-01-13 | 354,708 |
| 2018-01-20 | 260,432 |
| 2018-01-27 | 268,197 |
| 2018-02-03 | 243,422 |
| 2018-02-10 | 233,252 |
| 2018-02-17 | 212,609 |
| 2018-02-24 | 196,294 |
| 2018-03-03 | 225,893 |
| 2018-03-10 | 205,185 |
| 2018-03-17 | 198,649 |
| 2018-03-24 | 195,433 |
| 2018-03-31 | 201,057 |
| 2018-04-07 | 231,759 |
| 2018-04-14 | 226,090 |
| 2018-04-21 | 200,139 |
| 2018-04-28 | 186,451 |
| 2018-05-05 | 190,262 |
| 2018-05-12 | 195,214 |
| 2018-05-19 | 207,043 |
| 2018-05-26 | 202,846 |
| 2018-06-02 | 191,523 |
| 2018-06-09 | 217,289 |
| 2018-06-16 | 206,023 |
| 2018-06-23 | 222,766 |
| 2018-06-30 | 231,539 |
| 2018-07-07 | 264,869 |
| 2018-07-14 | 232,238 |
| 2018-07-21 | 201,288 |
| 2018-07-28 | 179,880 |
| 2018-08-04 | 185,174 |
| 2018-08-11 | 180,038 |
| 2018-08-18 | 173,331 |
| 2018-08-25 | 175,745 |
| 2018-09-01 | 173,607 |
| 2018-09-08 | 162,640 |
| 2018-09-15 | 173,624 |
| 2018-09-22 | 172,930 |
| 2018-09-29 | 171,816 |
| 2018-10-06 | 193,936 |
| 2018-10-13 | 190,501 |
| 2018-10-20 | 198,733 |
| 2018-10-27 | 198,530 |
| 2018-11-03 | 214,814 |
| 2018-11-10 | 235,981 |
| 2018-11-17 | 226,576 |
| 2018-11-24 | 218,658 |
| 2018-12-01 | 317,936 |
| 2018-12-08 | 261,525 |
| 2018-12-15 | 255,195 |
| 2018-12-22 | 291,581 |
| 2018-12-29 | 327,388 |
| 2019-01-05 | 350,681 |
| 2019-01-12 | 343,678 |
| 2019-01-19 | 269,369 |
| 2019-01-26 | 250,580 |
| 2019-02-02 | 254,263 |
| 2019-02-09 | 242,762 |
| 2019-02-16 | 210,679 |
| 2019-02-23 | 203,049 |
| 2019-03-02 | 220,540 |
| 2019-03-09 | 209,302 |
| 2019-03-16 | 194,335 |
| 2019-03-23 | 190,023 |
| 2019-03-30 | 183,775 |
| 2019-04-06 | 196,071 |
| 2019-04-13 | 196,364 |
| 2019-04-20 | 211,762 |
| 2019-04-27 | 204,755 |
| 2019-05-04 | 204,033 |
| 2019-05-11 | 188,264 |
| 2019-05-18 | 191,931 |
| 2019-05-25 | 198,194 |
| 2019-06-01 | 189,577 |
| 2019-06-08 | 220,186 |
| 2019-06-15 | 205,921 |
| 2019-06-22 | 225,819 |
| 2019-06-29 | 224,565 |
| 2019-07-06 | 231,995 |
| 2019-07-13 | 243,621 |
| 2019-07-20 | 196,382 |
| 2019-07-27 | 178,897 |
| 2019-08-03 | 179,879 |
| 2019-08-10 | 186,914 |
| 2019-08-17 | 171,386 |
| 2019-08-24 | 176,867 |
| 2019-08-31 | 179,516 |
| 2019-09-07 | 160,342 |
| 2019-09-14 | 173,134 |
| 2019-09-21 | 175,394 |
| 2019-09-28 | 172,968 |
| 2019-10-05 | 188,106 |
| 2019-10-12 | 201,677 |
| 2019-10-19 | 186,748 |
| 2019-10-26 | 198,733 |
| 2019-11-02 | 205,625 |
| 2019-11-09 | 238,996 |
| 2019-11-16 | 227,892 |
| 2019-11-23 | 252,428 |
| 2019-11-30 | 216,827 |
| 2019-12-07 | 317,866 |
| 2019-12-14 | 270,547 |
| 2019-12-21 | 287,243 |
| 2019-12-28 | 312,524 |
| 2020-01-04 | 335,480 |
| 2020-01-11 | 338,550 |
| 2020-01-18 | 282,088 |
| 2020-01-25 | 229,002 |
| 2020-02-01 | 224,664 |
| 2020-02-08 | 219,601 |
| 2020-02-15 | 209,336 |
| 2020-02-22 | 199,278 |
| 2020-02-29 | 216,982 |
| 2020-03-07 | 200,382 |
| 2020-03-14 | 251,416 |
| 2020-03-21 | 2,920,162 |
| 2020-03-28 | 6,015,821 |
| 2020-04-04 | 6,211,406 |
| 2020-04-11 | 4,965,046 |
| 2020-04-18 | 4,281,648 |
| 2020-04-25 | 3,515,439 |
| 2020-05-02 | 2,855,560 |
| 2020-05-09 | 2,614,093 |
Note: Due to the scale of the chart and rapid increase in initial unemployment insurance (UI) claims, the initial UI claims for the last eight weeks appear to align vertically. These reports only include regular state unemployment insurance claims and do not include claims from the federal Pandemic Unemployment Assistance Program. Shaded areas denote recessions.
Source: U.S. Employment and Training Administration, Initial Claims [ICSA], retrieved from Department of Labor (DOL), https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf and https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp, May 14, 2020
Some good news is that regular state UI claims have declined in each of the last five weeks. Though last week’s number is still close to three times the worst week of the Great Recession, the improvement is welcome. However, regular state UI claims do not include people who applied for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA), the federal program that extends unemployment compensation coverage to many workers who are out of work because of the coronavirus but are not eligible for regular UI—people like independent contractors, gig workers, and people who had to leave their job to take care of a child whose school closed. It took quite some time for the PUA programs to get set up in most states, but they are now largely operational. The Department of Labor (DOL) reports that 3.4 million people had had PUA claims processed by April 25, and another 2.6 million have filed initial PUA claims on top of that.
Last Friday, the monthly employment situation report showed that the U.S. labor market saw a net decline of 20.5 million jobs between mid-March and mid-April. (Note, that number is not just layoffs where people filed for UI—it also accounts for a drop in hires, job losses where people didn’t file for UI, quits, and worker deaths.) The monthly employment numbers are from a survey that is taken mid-month. Today’s weekly UI claims numbers show that things have further deteriorated—drastically—since mid-April. An additional roughly 9.0 million people have applied for regular UI and 2.6 million have applied for PUA since that time. The May jobs number is going to be grim. And of course, workers aren’t just losing their jobs. Our health care system ties health insurance to work, so millions of workers have likely already lost their employer-provided health insurance.
As economic forecasts worsen, up to $1 trillion in federal aid to state and local governments could be needed by the end of 2021
Key takeaways:
- Congress should prioritize federal aid to state and local governments in the next relief and recovery legislation.
- New estimates show that the economic shock of the coronavirus could lead to a revenue shortfall of nearly $1 trillion by 2021 for state and local governments.
- Unemployment is forecast to be quite elevated even by the end of 2021, and so federal aid should continue as long as economic conditions warrant and not be set by arbitrary timelines.
As the next round of legislative relief and recovery packages are debated, federal aid to state and local governments has emerged as a high priority. This aid is absolutely crucial for avoiding a deep and prolonged recession.
The revenue shortfall facing state and local governments stemming from the collapse in economic activity—driven by the shock of the coronavirus—could reach nearly $1 trillion by the end of 2021. And even at the end of 2021, recent economic projections indicate that unless more relief and recovery is passed, the unemployment rate could still sit at just under 10%. In short, all facets of relief and recovery—including substantial aid to state and local governments—could well be needed for a long time, and their continuation should be tied explicitly to economic conditions and not to arbitrary timelines.
Tim Bartik at the Upjohn Institute has released updated projections of the revenue shortfall facing state and local governments. His projections are transparent and are largely based on estimated parameters from publicly available academic research. Bartik finds that if the recent projections for the path of the unemployment rate estimated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) come to pass, state and local governments will be facing a revenue shortfall of nearly $1 trillion by the end of 2021.*
Updated state unemployment numbers: Large shares of the labor force have filed for unemployment in every state
The Department of Labor released the most recent unemployment insurance (UI) claims data yesterday, showing that another 2.8 million people filed for unemployment last week (not seasonally adjusted). In the past seven weeks, more than 30 million workers applied for UI benefits across the country, or nearly one in five workers.
Despite most states seeing a decline in UI claims filed relative to last week, six states saw increases in UI claims. Maine saw the largest percent increase in claims (111.1%) compared with the prior week, followed by Maryland (72.1%), New Mexico (38.9%), Oklahoma (30.0%), New Jersey (21.6%), and Connecticut (9.5%).
After California, Texas residents filed the second most UI claims last week, followed by Georgia. This comes after several states have allowed restaurants and similar businesses to reopen, including many in the South and Midwest, indicating that state policymakers are risking a greater outbreak with very little of the economic benefits they had expected.
Figure A and Table 1 below compare UI claims filed last week with the prior week and the pre-virus period, in both level and percent terms. It also shows the cumulative number of unemployment claims since March 7 and that number as a share of each state’s labor force. In three states, almost a third of the workforce filed an initial claim during the past two months: Kentucky (32.3%), Hawaii (31.7%), and Georgia (31.1%).
The pandemic sparked more appreciation for teachers, but will it give them a voice in education and their working conditions?
This year’s National Teacher Appreciation Week is happening under the unprecedented hardships that the COVID-19 pandemic has imposed on us. The health emergency forced the closing of schools all over the country, sending over 55 million K-12 students and about four million teachers home for the remainder of the school year.
But amidst the pain so many are enduring is a bright spot: Some teachers feel the appreciation is deeper than ever before.
With so much at stakes in the aftermath of this crisis, this can be an opportunity to turn that appreciation into the fuel that will finally restore the prestige of the teaching profession and improve teachers’ working conditions.
Overnight, the pandemic imposed a radical switch to remote teaching and learning that many hoped would be temporary. We soon learned, however, the school closings would last indefinitely as the country coped with the most severe worldwide public health crisis of our lifetimes complete with dramatic economic consequences.
With the support from parents and communities, teachers and students are carrying on with their respective endeavors as well as they can. In watching them, we’re all reminded of what learning and teaching entails: the mysteries embedded in each of the subjects, the lectures, the assignments, the projects, the questions, among so many others. But we’ve also realized that teaching goes beyond these day-in-and-day-out activities in the countless moments when we saw teachers go beyond the call of duty.Read more
What to watch on jobs day: Job losses in April may set U.S. employment levels back 20 years
- Job losses in the last two months likely set us back two decades.
- Aggregate weekly work hours will continue to fall precipitously.
- Don’t be misled by stronger-than-expected nominal wage growth.
- The unemployment rate will exceed the high-water mark in the Great Recession. Black unemployment could hit 20% in April.
- The employment-to-population ratio, or the share of the population with a job, will drop sharply.
On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) will release the latest monthly employment situation report for April and, based on the weekly numbers of workers who’ve applied for unemployment insurance, the labor market losses will be enormous. Last month’s report was just the tip of the iceberg of the labor market devastation experienced across the country over the last several weeks. By the reference week for the April report, an astounding 24.4 million workers had applied for claims. At the same time, millions more have been unsuccessful at filing claims either because they couldn’t get through or found the process too difficult.
Workers have been laid off, furloughed, or have needed to leave their jobs for COVID-19-related reasons. Because of the uncertainty in how many workers have lost their jobs and how they will be counted in the latest statistics—and uncertainty about how many workers have not been hired because job openings have dried up in this crisis—there are a wide range of projections for what we will see on Friday.
Here, I’m going to unpack a few of the key statistics and speculate on just how deep and wide-reaching this recession already is for workers across the economy.
Nearly one in five workers applied for state unemployment insurance benefits in the last seven weeks: Congress must act to mitigate harm from unprecedented joblessness
A previously unimaginable number of workers have applied for state unemployment insurance (UI) benefits as a result of the coronavirus shock. In the last seven weeks alone, more than 30 million workers have applied for unemployment compensation. That is nearly one in five workers. And it is nearly five times the worst seven-week stretch of the Great Recession.
These figures do not include people who applied for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA), the new federal program that extends unemployment compensation coverage to many workers who are not eligible for regular UI but are nevertheless out of work as a result of the virus—people like independent contractors, gig workers, and people who had to leave their job to take care of a child whose school closed. It took a while for the PUA programs to get set up, but they are now operational in many states. With today’s data release, the Department of Labor (DOL) began providing PUA claims numbers, reporting that nearly a million people had had PUA claims processed by April 18, and at least another 1.4 million had filed PUA claims since that time.
It is worth noting that the DOL reports that 33.5 million workers applied for regular state unemployment compensation during the last seven weeks on a “seasonally adjusted” basis, compared with 30.7 million on an unadjusted basis. Seasonal adjustments are usually helpful—they are used to even out seasonal changes in claims that have nothing to do with the underlying strength or weakness of the labor market, typically providing a clearer picture of underlying trends. However, the way DOL does seasonal adjustments is distortionary at a time like this, so I focus on unadjusted numbers here.
Congress must include worker protections in the next coronavirus relief bill: We need an Essential Workers Bill of Rights
In response to the coronavirus pandemic, Congress has now passed four separate relief and recovery measures allocating trillions of dollars in aid, but none have provided meaningful protections to working people. Workers continue to be required to work without protective gear. Sick workers continue to lack access to paid sick leave. And when workers try and speak up for themselves and each other, they are fired. Workers are dying as a result.
Even a global pandemic has not been enough for policymakers to place the needs of working people ahead of corporate interests. As Congress turns its attention to another relief and recovery package, it must prioritize policies and investments that help working families mitigate the economic and public health disaster they are experiencing.
In the last six weeks, nearly 28 million workers have applied for unemployment insurance (UI). That is more than one in six workers and over five times the worst period of the Great Recession. All else equal, this level of job loss would translate into an unemployment rate of 20.5%. Further, 12.7 million workers have likely lost their employer-provided health insurance since the beginning of the pandemic.
Congress must act and pass legislation that is responsive to the magnitude of this crisis and direct assistance to the tens of millions of working families most impacted by the public health and economic emergencies.
The Essential Workers Bill of Rights, introduced by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), would provide front-line workers—including nurses, grocery and drug store workers, janitors, public transit workers, child care workers, and postal workers—the protections they need while providing essential services during the coronavirus pandemic. The following are key worker protections that should be included in the next coronavirus relief bill.
The extra $600 in unemployment insurance has been the best response yet to the economic shock of the coronavirus and should be extended
The CARES Act, the $2 trillion-plus package to provide economic relief and recovery from the coronavirus shock in early April was, for many reasons, deeply imperfect. But the modifications the CARES Act made to the nation’s unemployment insurance (UI) system are an utterly crucial lifeline for tens of millions of American workers. Besides temporarily expanding the eligibility criteria for who qualifies for unemployment benefits through the end of the year and providing an additional 13 weeks of state UI benefits, the CARES Act also provided an extra $600 per week in UI payments through the end of July.
This $600 top-up has been fiercely criticized by some since the Act passed—e.g., Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) stated that it would be extended past July only “over our dead bodies”—but the criticism is either ill-informed or in bad faith. The extra $600 has been by far the most effective part our economic policy response to the coronavirus shock. It is likely improving—not degrading—labor market efficiency, and we should build on this and make the nation’s unemployment insurance system well-resourced and far more generous even in normal times.
The history of how a flat $600 in additional UI benefits was agreed upon by policymakers is straightforward, if depressing. In normal times, these benefits are stingy, typically replacing between one-third and one-half of a typical worker’s weekly wage. For decades, too many economists and policymakers have labored under a number of wrong preconceptions about the labor market, and one of the most damaging was that decent jobs were plentiful and easy to get, and the only thing keeping potential workers out of these jobs for any stretch of time was workers’ own motivation, which could be sapped if benefits were too generous. It was the old and dumb idea that the U.S. social safety net—despite being by far the stingiest in the advanced world—had become a too-comfortable “hammock.” (For what it’s worth, the evidence from the aftermath of the Great Recession reveals that extended UI benefits had little or no effect on whether a worker found a job—meaning it wasn’t UI benefits that were keeping workers out of work—it was a lack of demand for workers.)
The economic shock of the coronavirus was an event so obviously unrelated to the motivations of individual workers that policymakers were willing to substantially (if temporarily) increase the generosity of unemployment benefits. Our preference would have been for a 100% replacement rate up to a quite generous maximum benefit. But decades of disinvestment in the administrative capacity of state UI offices left them incapable of flexibly calculating each new applicant’s benefit amount with a 100% replacement rate. (Case in point: most offices are still using the 1970s-era programming language COBOL to run their computers). State offices are capable of administering a flat-rate increase, however. So, policymakers in Congress came up with a smart and compassionate second-best solution of picking a flat-rate boost to benefits that would leave the average worker (and most workers overall) with 100% of their pre-crisis earnings.
But the necessity of the one-size-fits-all approach means that workers who earned less than the average worker before the crisis will receive benefits that are somewhat higher than 100% of their previous wage. Many conservatives claim this is somehow an economic disaster. They’re wrong—it’s actually great.
Thank you, D.C. Board of Elections, for making voting easier: I dedicate my favorite rap song to you
As I awoke today, preparing myself for another workday by listening to music, one of my favorite songs “Foldin Clothes” by J. Cole had me “feeling like best version of me so happy,” just one of the great lyrics from the rap song.
Why was I so happy? I got an email from the D.C. Board of Elections describing voting procedures that were much easier than in my home state of Louisiana, which recently passed an election plan that limits who has access to mail-in ballots. The email invited me, a new resident to Washington, to request a mail-in ballot for the 2020 election cycle which could be done one of six ways: online, email, fax, mail, phone, or in person.
Anyone who knows me knows I love to talk about voting. My dissertation examined the history of voting in America, including how the ghosts of lynchings still suppress the black vote in this country today. With all that’s going on to suppress minorities from voting—most recently the outrage of the Supreme Court’s refusal to extend the deadline for mail-in voting in Wisconsin in the middle of the pandemic—it’s been exhausting to keep beating the voting rights drum.
Every time I mention the importance of updating our voting methods, I am met with opposition. “You want people to vote by mail?! ONLINE?! There is no way it can be done securely,” many say. Regardless of the evidence I’ve provided that it has already been done securely in several states, people still resist the idea of adding more voting options nationally.
Well, turns out it’s not that difficult after all. D.C., which has had its own voting issues, is trying to make the process easier.
So, I’m dedicating “Foldin Clothes” to the D.C. elections leadership because they’re “doing the right thing.” I was able to download the Vote 4 DC app and it “felt so much better than doing the wrong thing” of not using the latest technology to make voting more accessible. To my surprise, this app allowed me to request a mail-in-ballot in less than two minutes! Having several options to request a ballot, including online options, “saved me some time and alleviated stress from my mind” of having to vote in person during a pandemic.
Updated state unemployment numbers: More than a quarter of the workforce has filed for unemployment in six states
Another 3.5 million U.S. workers filed for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits last week, according to the Department of Labor’s most recent data released this morning (not seasonally adjusted). In the past six weeks, nearly 28 million, or one in six, workers applied for UI benefits across the country.
Despite most states seeing a decline in UI claims filed relative to last week, eight states continued to see increases in UI claims. Last week, Washington saw the largest percent increase in claims (74.6%) compared with the prior week, followed by Oregon (25.6%) and Nevada (14.0%).
Figure A and Table 1 allow you to compare state UI claims filed last week with the prior week and the pre-virus period, in both level and percent terms. It also shows the cumulative number of unemployment claims since March 7 and that number as a share of each state’s labor force.
New and cumulative jobless claims by state: Unemployment insurance (UI) claims filed during the week ending April 25, change in claims , and total claims as share of state labor force
| State | Initial claims filed | % change from the prior week | Level change from the prior week | % change from pre-virus period | Level change from pre-virus period | Sum of initial claims for the seven weeks ending April 25 | Sum of initial claims as a share of labor force |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 64,170 | -3.4% | -2,262 | 2,944% | 62,062 | 408,551 | 18.2% |
| Alaska | 11,187 | -8.3% | -1,014 | 1,225% | 10,343 | 72,726 | 21.1% |
| Arizona | 52,098 | -28.1% | -20,359 | 1,487% | 48,815 | 477,646 | 13.2% |
| Arkansas | 16,745 | -34.1% | -8,659 | 1,032% | 15,266 | 178,277 | 13.0% |
| California | 328,042 | -37.9% | -200,318 | 703% | 287,170 | 3,732,952 | 19.1% |
| Colorado | 38,367 | -43.3% | -29,272 | 1,915% | 36,463 | 340,837 | 10.7% |
| Connecticut | 33,037 | -67.9% | -69,771 | 1,180% | 30,456 | 265,126 | 13.7% |
| Delaware | 7,754 | -17.9% | -1,692 | 1,258% | 7,183 | 79,694 | 16.3% |
| Washington D.C. | 8,158 | -5.6% | -481 | 1,695% | 7,704 | 73,644 | 17.8% |
| Florida | 432,465 | -14.6% | -74,205 | 8,435% | 427,398 | 1,598,699 | 15.3% |
| Georgia | 264,818 | 7.2% | 17,815 | 4,847% | 259,465 | 1,372,939 | 26.6% |
| Hawaii | 22,615 | -15.0% | -3,976 | 1,891% | 21,479 | 196,024 | 29.3% |
| Idaho | 8,268 | -36.5% | -4,755 | 651% | 7,167 | 118,284 | 13.3% |
| Illinois | 81,245 | -21.1% | -21,691 | 765% | 71,854 | 829,787 | 13.0% |
| Indiana | 57,397 | -21.1% | -15,359 | 2,188% | 54,889 | 572,443 | 16.9% |
| Iowa | 28,827 | 7.2% | 1,926 | 1,136% | 26,494 | 262,958 | 15.0% |
| Kansas | 28,054 | -8.3% | -2,542 | 1,639% | 26,441 | 217,477 | 14.5% |
| Kentucky | 90,824 | -12.7% | -13,157 | 3,530% | 88,322 | 593,614 | 28.5% |
| Louisiana | 66,167 | -28.0% | -25,756 | 3,824% | 64,481 | 510,457 | 24.2% |
| Maine | 7,478 | -36.5% | -4,291 | 864% | 6,702 | 109,508 | 15.8% |
| Maryland | 36,471 | -24.8% | -12,024 | 1,221% | 33,711 | 389,521 | 11.9% |
| Massachusetts | 70,714 | -12.7% | -10,255 | 1,067% | 64,656 | 732,467 | 19.1% |
| Michigan | 81,312 | -40.5% | -55,395 | 1,372% | 75,788 | 1,266,459 | 25.6% |
| Minnesota | 53,561 | -28.4% | -21,268 | 1,422% | 50,042 | 560,661 | 18.0% |
| Mississippi | 35,843 | -2.9% | -1,070 | 4,230% | 35,015 | 203,037 | 15.9% |
| Missouri | 52,403 | -12.1% | -7,199 | 1,625% | 49,365 | 456,142 | 14.7% |
| Montana | 6,619 | -40.8% | -4,557 | 747% | 5,838 | 90,243 | 16.8% |
| Nebraska | 8,197 | -32.9% | -4,025 | 1,513% | 7,689 | 104,972 | 10.1% |
| Nevada | 45,043 | 14.0% | 5,547 | 1,852% | 42,736 | 393,061 | 25.2% |
| New Hampshire | 14,347 | -29.7% | -6,067 | 2,443% | 13,783 | 160,635 | 20.6% |
| New Jersey | 71,017 | -49.3% | -69,122 | 768% | 62,838 | 898,947 | 19.7% |
| New Mexico | 13,712 | 0.7% | 91 | 1,836% | 13,004 | 119,331 | 12.4% |
| New York | 218,912 | 6.7% | 13,728 | 1,088% | 200,482 | 1,624,114 | 17.0% |
| North Carolina | 97,232 | -8.5% | -9,034 | 3,680% | 94,660 | 750,836 | 14.7% |
| North Dakota | 6,996 | -13.3% | -1,069 | 1,568% | 6,577 | 57,583 | 14.2% |
| Ohio | 90,760 | -17.4% | -19,070 | 1,143% | 83,460 | 1,063,741 | 18.2% |
| Oklahoma | 42,577 | -8.8% | -4,119 | 2,661% | 41,035 | 275,794 | 15.0% |
| Oregon | 46,722 | 25.6% | 9,513 | 1,076% | 42,750 | 283,121 | 13.4% |
| Pennsylvania | 131,282 | -32.5% | -63,312 | 940% | 118,661 | 1,635,951 | 24.9% |
| Rhode Island | 13,138 | -27.3% | -4,940 | 1,070% | 12,015 | 146,723 | 26.3% |
| South Carolina | 65,159 | -12.4% | -9,203 | 3,251% | 63,215 | 415,635 | 17.4% |
| South Dakota | 5,389 | 1.8% | 94 | 2,857% | 5,207 | 33,933 | 7.3% |
| Tennessee | 43,792 | -34.9% | -23,434 | 2,078% | 41,782 | 428,370 | 12.7% |
| Texas | 254,199 | -9.5% | -26,562 | 1,860% | 241,228 | 1,572,171 | 11.1% |
| Utah | 11,830 | -39.8% | -7,819 | 1,082% | 10,829 | 138,561 | 8.5% |
| Vermont | 4,971 | -24.7% | -1,627 | 708% | 4,356 | 56,781 | 16.7% |
| Virginia | 74,043 | -10.5% | -8,686 | 2,703% | 71,402 | 570,240 | 12.8% |
| Washington | 145,757 | 74.6% | 62,282 | 2,301% | 139,687 | 871,937 | 22.0% |
| West Virginia | 29,576 | -36.7% | -17,179 | 2,517% | 28,446 | 124,693 | 15.5% |
| Wisconsin | 49,910 | -10.7% | -5,973 | 783% | 44,256 | 447,771 | 14.4% |
| Wyoming | 2,886 | -34.1% | -1,495 | 480% | 2,388 | 30,170 | 10.3% |
Notes: Initial claims for the week ending April 25 reflect advance state claims, not seasonally adjusted. For comparisons with the “pre-virus period,” we use a four-week average of initial claims for the weeks ending February 15–March 7, 2020. For comparisons to the size of the labor force, we use February 2020 levels.
Source: U.S. Employment and Training Administration, Initial Claims [ICSA], retrieved from Department of Labor (DOL), https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf and https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp, April 30, 2020
