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
12.7 million workers have likely lost employer-provided health insurance since the coronavirus shock began
These estimates were updated on May 14, 2020. See the updated estimates.
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 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 April 30, just under 28 million workers had been laid off or furloughed since early March. We find that this translates into likely EPHI losses of 12.7 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.
The linkage between specific jobs and the availability of health insurance is a prime source of inefficiency and inequity in the U.S. health system. It is especially terrifying for workers to lose their health insurance as a result of, and during, an ongoing pandemic.
Nearly 28 million workers applied for unemployment insurance benefits in the last six weeks: Congress must act to mitigate harm from unprecedented joblessness
The number of workers applying for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits has risen to never-before-seen levels as a result of the coronavirus shock. In the last six weeks, nearly 28 million workers have applied for unemployment compensation. That is more than one in six workers, and over five times the worst period of the Great Recession.
I should note that the Department of Labor (DOL) reports that 30.3 million workers applied for UI during the last six weeks on a “seasonally adjusted” basis, compared with 27.9 million on an unadjusted basis. Seasonal adjustments are typically 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, 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.
All else equal, job loss of the magnitude reflected in the UI claims of the last six weeks would translate into an unemployment rate of 20.5%. It’s worth remembering that unemployment hits different racial groups differently as a result of things like occupational segregation, differences in access to educational credentials, discrimination, and other labor market disparities related to race. In our economy, in good times and bad, the white unemployment rate tends to be about 0.9 times the overall unemployment rate, and the black unemployment rate tends to be about 1.8 times the overall unemployment rate. That means that an overall unemployment rate of 20.5% would translate into a white unemployment rate of 18.4% and a black unemployment rate of 36.8%.
However, the official unemployment rates, when they are released, will likely not reflect all coronavirus-related layoffs. This is due to the fact that jobless workers are only counted as unemployed if they are available to work and actively seeking work. That means many workers who lose their job as a result of the virus will be counted as dropping out of the labor force instead of as unemployed, because they are unable to search for work due to the lockdown, or because they are not available to work because they are, for example, caring for children whose day care has closed. March data suggest that roughly half of workers who are out of work as a result of the virus will be counted as unemployed, and half are being counted as dropping out of the labor force.
Unemployment filing failures: New survey confirms that millions of jobless were unable to file an unemployment insurance claim
Millions of the newly jobless are going without benefits as the unemployment system buckles under the weight of new claims, according to our new national survey, conducted in mid-April.
For every 10 people who said they successfully filed for unemployment benefits during the previous four weeks:
- Three to four additional people tried to apply but could not get through the system to make a claim.
- Two additional people did not try to apply because it was too difficult to do so.
These findings imply the official count of unemployment insurance claims likely drastically understates the extent of employment reductions and the need for economic relief during the coronavirus crisis. To quantify the undercount, we look at the 21.5 million workers who filed for unemployment benefits from March 22 to April 18. Our results suggest:
- An additional 7.8 to 12.2 million people could have filed for benefits had the process been easier.
- After accounting for these workers—who applied but could not get through or did not try because of the difficult process—about half of potential UI applicants are actually receiving benefits.
When we extrapolate our survey findings to the full five weeks of UI claims since March 15, we estimate that an additional 8.9–13.9 million people could have filed for benefits had the process been easier.
These findings on the millions of frustrated filers and the UI system’s low payment rate highlight the need for policies to improve rather than hinder the UI application process. At a minimum, states should presume everyone is eligible and immediately pay benefits, only verifying eligibility and reviewing claims after the unprecedented wave of claims slows down.
The next coronavirus relief package should provide aid to state and local governments, protect employed and unemployed workers, and invest in our democracy
Key takeaways:
- Congress has passed a series of bills to mitigate the harm of the coronavirus. However, they haven’t been enough to help working people. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, without additional relief, the unemployment rate will average 16% in the third quarter of 2020 and 10.1% in 2021.
- The next recovery and relief bill should include $500 billion in aid to state and local governments, make additional investments in unemployment compensation, protect workers’ paychecks, include worker protections, invest in our democracy, and more.
In response to the coronavirus, Congress has passed a series of bills allocating more than $2 trillion to relief and recovery programs. However, these measures have been insufficient in scope and magnitude to address the severity of the economic and public health crisis we are experiencing. Further, lawmakers have failed to include key provisions that would address the needs of working families in this crisis. As a result of these policy missteps, the relief and recovery measures have not done nearly enough to mitigate the level of pain working people are experiencing or to ensure that the economy can get back on track after the shutdown period is over. It is critical that Congress correct its failures in future relief packages. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that without additional relief, the unemployment rate will average 16% in the third quarter of this year. As a point of comparison, the highest the unemployment rate reached in the Great Recession was 10%, and it reached that level for only one month. CBO projects that without additional relief, the unemployment rate will average 10.1% for the entire calendar year 2021.
Trump executive order to suspend immigration would reduce green cards by nearly one-third if extended for a full year
President Trump’s April 22 executive order to “suspend immigration” has the potential to reduce the number of migrants who can obtain green cards, i.e., become lawful permanent residents (LPRs), by hundreds of thousands if it remains in place for a substantial period of time beyond its initial 60-day duration.
Table 1 lists the categories of green cards that are affected by Trump’s executive order, along with the number of green cards that were issued in 2019 in each of those categories to applicants who were “new arrivals,” meaning they applied for their green cards from abroad. (The executive order does not suspend green cards for applicants who already reside in the United States.)
As Table 1 shows, there were one million total green cards issued during all of 2019, and 316,000 green cards issued under the categories suspended by Trump’s new executive order. The executive order is initially valid for 60 days (two months); a 60-day suspension of these categories would result in an estimated reduction of 52,600 green cards, or a reduction of 5.1% of all green cards relative to the total number issued in 2019.
However, it is impossible to know whether the executive order will remain in place for just two months, multiple years, or somewhere in between. Each additional 60 days would reduce the number by an additional 52,600, or an additional 5.1% of the annual green card total. If the executive order remains in force for one full year, it would result in a reduction of 316,000 green cards, or 31%, nearly one-third, of the one million green cards issued in 2019.
Green cards would fall by 31% under Trump’s executive order: Number of people applying from abroad who became U.S. lawful permanent residents in 2019 in the categories suspended by Trump’s April 2020 executive order
| Immigrant class of admission, new arrivals only | Number in 2019 |
|---|---|
| Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens | |
| Parents | 66,782 |
| Family-sponsored preferences | |
| First: Unmarried sons/daughters of U.S. citizens and their children | 20,866 |
| Second: Spouses, children, and unmarried sons/daughters of alien residents; children of spouses of alien residents | 85,089 |
| Third: Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizens and their spouses and children | 22,874 |
| Fourth: Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizens (at least 21 years of age) and their spouses and children | 56,083 |
| Employment-based preferences | |
| First: Priority workers, and their spouses and children | 2,238 |
| Second: Professionals with advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability, and their spouses and children | 3,432 |
| Third: Skilled workers, professionals, and unskilled workers, and their spouses and children | 13,522 |
| Fourth: Certain special immigrants, and their spouses and children | 2,080 |
| Diversity Immigrant Visa program | 42,437 |
| Children born abroad to alien residents | 59 |
| Other | 356 |
| Total in suspended categories | 315,818 |
| Total green cards issued, all categories | 1,030,990 |
| Suspended categories as a percentage of total green cards | 31% |
Notes: New arrivals represents applicants for lawful permanent resident status who are residing outside of the United States, usually in the country of origin. “Other” category primarily consists of those admitted under special legislation.
Source: Author’s analysis of U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Legal Immigration and Adjustment of Status Report Fiscal Year 2019, Quarter 4, Table 1B.
New state unemployment numbers show workers continue to file unemployment claims in daunting numbers
Correction: This blog post was updated on 4/24/20 with the correct data in Figure A and Table 1. The figure and table initially had the wrong data for the percent change from the previous week. We regret the error.
The Department of Labor released the most recent unemployment insurance (UI) claims data this morning, which shows that another 4.3 million people filed for UI benefits last week (not seasonally adjusted). More people filed for UI in the last week alone than during the worst five-week stretch of the Great Recession. In the past five weeks, more than 24 million workers have applied for UI benefits across the country.
Last week, Connecticut (102,757), Florida (505,137), and West Virginia (46,251) experienced their highest level of initial UI claims filings ever, each seeing the number of claims approximately triple over the week. Last week, Florida saw the largest percent increase in claims (9,869%) relative to the pre-virus period of any state. Florida residents also filed the second most UI claims last week, followed by Texas and Georgia.
Figure A compares UI claims filed last week with filings in the pre-virus period, showing that all states, especially many in the South, continue to struggle. Eight of the 10 states that had the highest percent change in initial UI claims relative to the pre-virus period are in the South: Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia.
Initial unemployment insurance claims filed during the week ending April 18, by state
| State | Initial claims filed | Percent change from the prior week | Level change from the prior week | Percent change from pre-virus period | Level change from pre-virus period | Sum of initial claims for the six weeks ending April 18 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 65,431 | -14.3% | -11,083 | 3,004% | 63,323 | 344,381 |
| Alaska | 13,027 | 1.6% | 194 | 1,443% | 12,183 | 61,539 |
| Arizona | 71,843 | -26.5% | -26,074 | 2,088% | 68,560 | 425,548 |
| Arkansas | 24,236 | -28.7% | -10,225 | 1,538% | 22,757 | 161,532 |
| California | 533,568 | -19.4% | -127,112 | 1,205% | 492,696 | 3,404,910 |
| Colorado | 68,667 | -35.3% | -36,933 | 3,506% | 66,763 | 302,470 |
| Connecticut | 102,757 | 201.9% | 68,758 | 3,881% | 100,176 | 232,089 |
| Delaware | 9,294 | -28.8% | -3,812 | 1,528% | 8,723 | 71,940 |
| Washington D.C. | 8,591 | -13.4% | -1,335 | 1,790% | 8,137 | 65,486 |
| Florida | 505,137 | 180.8% | 326,251 | 9,869% | 500,070 | 1,166,234 |
| Georgia | 243,677 | -22.7% | -72,578 | 4,452% | 238,324 | 1,108,121 |
| Hawaii | 26,477 | -23.4% | -8,126 | 2,231% | 25,341 | 173,409 |
| Idaho | 12,456 | -29.7% | -5,508 | 1,031% | 11,355 | 110,016 |
| Illinois | 102,736 | -27.1% | -38,224 | 994% | 93,345 | 748,542 |
| Indiana | 75,483 | -36.0% | -40,999 | 2,909% | 72,975 | 515,046 |
| Iowa | 27,912 | -38.7% | -16,988 | 1,097% | 25,579 | 234,131 |
| Kansas | 31,920 | 2.4% | 723 | 1,879% | 30,307 | 189,423 |
| Kentucky | 103,548 | -10.6% | -12,296 | 4,039% | 101,046 | 502,790 |
| Louisiana | 92,039 | 15.4% | 12,270 | 5,359% | 90,353 | 444,290 |
| Maine | 11,446 | -12.7% | -1,719 | 1,375% | 10,670 | 102,030 |
| Maryland | 46,676 | -22.9% | -14,409 | 1,591% | 43,916 | 353,050 |
| Massachusetts | 80,345 | -22.0% | -22,844 | 1,226% | 74,287 | 661,753 |
| Michigan | 134,119 | -38.5% | -85,500 | 2,328% | 128,595 | 1,185,147 |
| Minnesota | 74,873 | -19.7% | -18,304 | 2,027% | 71,354 | 507,100 |
| Mississippi | 35,843 | -19.3% | -8,835 | 4,230% | 35,015 | 167,194 |
| Missouri | 52,678 | -41.6% | -42,524 | 1,634% | 49,640 | 403,739 |
| Montana | 10,509 | -21.7% | -3,099 | 1,245% | 9,728 | 83,624 |
| Nebraska | 12,340 | -24.9% | -4,057 | 2,328% | 11,832 | 96,775 |
| Nevada | 40,909 | -32.6% | -19,145 | 1,673% | 38,602 | 348,018 |
| New Hampshire | 19,110 | -19.2% | -4,859 | 3,287% | 18,546 | 146,288 |
| New Jersey | 139,277 | -0.9% | -1,281 | 1,603% | 131,098 | 827,930 |
| New Mexico | 13,338 | -28.5% | -5,422 | 1,783% | 12,630 | 105,619 |
| New York | 204,716 | -48.0% | -189,517 | 1,011% | 186,286 | 1,405,202 |
| North Carolina | 104,515 | -24.2% | -33,889 | 3,964% | 101,943 | 653,604 |
| North Dakota | 9,042 | -15.1% | -1,437 | 2,055% | 8,623 | 50,587 |
| Ohio | 108,801 | -31.1% | -49,487 | 1,390% | 101,501 | 972,981 |
| Oklahoma | 40,297 | -14.3% | -7,785 | 2,513% | 38,755 | 233,217 |
| Oregon | 35,101 | -31.8% | -17,372 | 784% | 31,129 | 236,399 |
| Pennsylvania | 198,081 | -17.1% | -40,274 | 1,469% | 185,460 | 1,504,669 |
| Rhode Island | 17,578 | -22.4% | -5,031 | 1,466% | 16,455 | 132,985 |
| South Carolina | 73,116 | -16.6% | -14,785 | 3,660% | 71,172 | 350,476 |
| South Dakota | 5,128 | -16.7% | -1,064 | 2,714% | 4,946 | 28,544 |
| Tennessee | 68,968 | -6.5% | -4,661 | 3,331% | 66,958 | 384,578 |
| Texas | 280,406 | 2.4% | 6,504 | 2,062% | 267,435 | 1,317,972 |
| Utah | 19,751 | -19.8% | -4,866 | 1,873% | 18,750 | 126,731 |
| Vermont | 6,434 | -31.7% | -3,064 | 945% | 5,819 | 51,810 |
| Virginia | 84,387 | -20.9% | -21,890 | 3,095% | 81,746 | 496,197 |
| Washington | 89,105 | -42.2% | -60,980 | 1,368% | 83,035 | 726,180 |
| West Virginia | 46,251 | 212.9% | 31,811 | 3,993% | 45,121 | 95,117 |
| Wisconsin | 55,886 | -20.2% | -14,117 | 888% | 50,232 | 397,861 |
| Wyoming | 3,321 | -24.4% | -1,413 | 567% | 2,823 | 27,284 |
Notes: Initial claims for the week ending April 18 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.
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 23, 2020
In the last five weeks, more than 24 million workers applied for unemployment insurance benefits
In the last five weeks, the number of workers applying for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits has skyrocketed to well over 20 times what it was in the pre-coronavirus period, and over five times the worst five-week stretch of the Great Recession. For comparison, in the period before the coronavirus hit, just over a million workers would apply for UI in a typical five-week span, and in the worst five-week stretch of the Great Recession, it was less than four million. In the last five weeks, it was more than 24 million. That means more than one in seven workers applied for UI. (It should be noted that using seasonally adjusted numbers, the Department of Labor [DOL] reports that 26.5 million workers applied for UI during the last five weeks, and using unadjusted numbers, they report that 24.4 million workers applied for benefits. I focus on the unadjusted numbers because, while seasonal adjustments are typically 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—the way DOL does seasonal adjustments is somewhat distortionary at a time like this).
Weekly initial 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 | 4,964,568 |
| 2020-04-18 | 4,267,395 |
Note: Due to the scale of the chart and rapid increase in initial unemployment insurance (UI) claims, the initial UI claims for the last five weeks appear to align vertically.
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 23, 2020
All else equal, job losses of this magnitude would translate into an unemployment rate of 18.3%. However, the official unemployment rate, when it is released, will likely not reflect all coronavirus-related layoffs. This is due to the fact that jobless workers are only counted as unemployed if they are actively seeking work. That means many workers who lose their job as a result of the virus will be counted as dropping out of the labor force instead of as unemployed, because they are unable to search for work due to the lockdown.
Widespread reports of UI systems collapsing under the weight of so many applications raise the question not only of how many would-be applicants have been frozen out, but also of how many of those who managed to apply are actually receiving benefits. The data to get at that last question are lagged a week, but they show that roughly 71% of applicants are receiving benefits. That is calculated from noting that between March 14 and April 11, the total number of workers receiving benefits (known as “continued claims” or “insured unemployment”) increased by 14.4 million. Over the same period, 20.1 million workers filed unemployment insurance claims. That means that by April 11, only roughly 14.4 million out of 20.1 million new filers, or 71%, were receiving benefits. Applied to the current data, that would mean that roughly 7.0 million UI applicants from the coronavirus period are still waiting to receive their benefits.
Trump’s corporate-first agenda has weakened worker protections needed to combat the coronavirus
Using the COVID-19 pandemic as cover, the Trump administration is reportedly preparing to take executive action to repeal and suspend federal regulations. This should not be a surprise—one of Trump’s first actions after taking office was to issue an executive order requiring federal agencies to identify at least two existing regulations to “repeal” when proposing a new regulation. Now seizing on the public health crisis and its economic impact as an excuse, the Trump administration is framing this renewed push to deregulate as a necessary policy response to promote economic growth, focusing on repealing and suspending regulations that impact businesses.
Deregulation has long been a central component of the corporate-interest agenda, and the Trump administration has certainly obliged. While the coronavirus was not under anyone’s control, President Trump’s failure to establish strong worker protections during his first term, through laws and regulations, has helped create the crisis millions of essential workers now confront every day on the job. The following are examples of how the Trump administration’s corporate-driven agenda has weakened worker protections needed to combat the coronavirus.
President Trump blocked the Workplace Injury and Illness record-keeping rule, which would have clarified an employer’s obligation under the Occupational Safety and Health Act to maintain accurate records of workplace injuries and illnesses. As a result, OSHA does not require employers to keep accurate records that could be used to identify unsafe, potentially life-threatening working conditions.
President Trump blocked the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule, which would have helped ensure that taxpayer dollars were not awarded to contractors who violate basic labor and employment laws. Without this regulatory safeguard, more than 300,000 workers have been the victims of wage-related labor violations while working under federal contracts in the last decade.
The extreme jobless numbers will lead to a jump in the unemployment rate, but that won’t tell the whole story
In the four weeks between March 15 and April 11, more than 20 million workers applied for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits. This is more than five times the worst four-week stretch of the Great Recession, which, at the time, was the worst recession the United States had seen since the Great Depression. What are we really up against here?
The situation is unfolding quickly, but one helpful way to understand it is to put the UI numbers in the context of the unemployment rate. When we do that, we find the jump in jobless claims over the last four weeks would have increased the unemployment rate to 15.7%—if everything else (like the rate of hiring and the rate of people voluntarily quitting their jobs) stayed the same—and all the workers who filed for unemployment benefits were counted as unemployed. But everything else definitely did not stay the same, and it is unlikely that all the workers applying for UI were counted as unemployed.
- Everything else did not stay the same. The overall change in employment over any period is equal to the number of hires over the period minus the number of job “separations” over the period (in the pre-virus period, there were around 5.9 million hires and 5.7 million separations every month). For one, hires drop dramatically in recessions. And secondly, separations are not just job losses where people filed for UI. They can also be job losses where people didn’t file for UI (or were frozen out of the system), or voluntary quits, retirements, or worker deaths. All these parts are moving right now. In other words, there are important elements aside from what shows up in the UI data that go into determining the overall change in employment. As a result, it remains to be seen if the overall employment decline related to the coronavirus will be greater or less than the increase in coronavirus-related jobless claims.
- Not all workers who filed for unemployment benefits will be counted as unemployed. A worker is counted as unemployed in the monthly unemployment numbers if they are on furlough (i.e., on temporary layoff), or if they don’t have a job but are available to work and are actively seeking work. So, someone who lost their job but is not actively seeking work because the virus makes job search impossible will not be counted as unemployed. And someone who lost their job because they have to care for a child whose school or day care closed would not be counted as unemployed because they are not available to work. Instead, these workers would be counted as dropping out of the labor force. It is difficult to know what share of workers who applied for unemployment insurance benefits will be counted as unemployed, but in the March unemployment data, which showed the leading edge of the impact of the virus, only about half of the drop in employment showed up as an increase in unemployment, and the rest showed up as a drop in the labor force participation rate. If that ratio holds, the unemployment rate will rise only half as much as it “should” in this crisis. (This is why it would be useful to use the employment rate as the metric when determining when pandemic-related relief provisions should trigger off, instead of solely the unemployment rate.)
Workers Memorial Day highlights Secretary of Labor Scalia’s failure to protect workers during the coronavirus crisis
April 28 is Workers Memorial Day, a day observed around the world to remember those workers killed or injured on the job and to fight for strong safety and health protections for all workers. This fight has never been more critical. The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed a reality many workers have long confronted—workers are routinely forced to work in unsafe conditions, risking their health and safety for a job.
In 2018, the most recent annual data available, more than 5,000 U.S. workers died on the job. Prior to the pandemic, an average of 14 workers died each day of workplace injuries. This does not include workers who died from occupational diseases, estimated to be nearly 100,000 each year. In total, 275 workers died each day in 2018 as the result of workplace injuries and illnesses, and more than 3.5 million workers were injured at work in 2018.
As staggering as these data are, they understate the problem. Widespread underreporting as well as limitations in the injury and illness reporting system mean that many worker injuries remain uncounted. Worker health and safety experts estimate that more than seven million workers suffer workplace injuries and illnesses each year.
The coronavirus pandemic lays bare the long-standing failure of existing U.S. health and safety laws to protect workers. Weak worker protections cost thousands of workers’ lives each year and are now leaving essential workers unprotected on the job during this crisis. Over the last few months alone, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has received thousands of complaints from workers concerned about workplace exposure to COVID-19 and a lack of safeguards on the job.
While policymakers have been quick to highlight the sacrifices and heroic efforts of essential workers at this moment, they have done little to change the system to ensure that these workers are protected on the job. As a result, workers continue to be required to work without protective gear. Sick workers continue to lack access to paid leave. And, when workers try to speak up for themselves and each other, they are fired. Workers are dying as a result.
Instead of looking for ways to address weak health and safety protections for workers in this crisis, Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia is taking this opportunity to weaken protections for millions of workers. He issued a rule exempting certain firms from being required to provide paid sick and family medical leave to workers, which could rob nine million health care workers and 4.4 million first responders from paid leave protections. Further, Scalia has refused to require employers to follow Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidance for public businesses.
Weak labor protections have put Midwestern food processing workers at risk for coronavirus
Earlier this year, our report Race in the Heartland detailed stark and pervasive racial disparities in Midwestern states—tracing these to long-standing patterns of discrimination and segregation in the region and the disproportionate impact of “rust belt” deindustrialization and the collapse of union membership for workers of color. Unsurprisingly, the COVID-19 crisis has magnified these disparities and their consequences. Across the Midwest, residential and occupational segregation put African Americans and Hispanics in the region more at risk. And across the Midwest, public policies—by design and by neglect—do little to address or alleviate that risk.
Workers of color are disproportionately exposed at work. The luxury of working from home is steeply stratified by race and income. African American and Hispanic workers are overrepresented in low-wage direct service occupations; in the 12 states of the Midwest, for example, Hispanic workers make up 7% of the labor force but over 18% of the workforce in building and cleaning services. In Midwestern cities, African American workers are dramatically overrepresented in occupations like child care and public transit. Across the rural Midwest, workers of color make up the majority of the workforce in the concentrations of low-wage food-processing production that dot the landscape.
In all of these settings, workers face both a greater risk of unemployment as the service economy shuts down and a heightened risk of exposure if and where they keep working. These risks are exaggerated in the Midwest, where four states (Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska) are among the five nationwide that still do not have statewide stay-at-home orders. In these states, the list of “essential businesses” is expansive and idiosyncratic, the expectation that workers show up—regardless of the risks—is clear, and the protection offered workers—by public policies or by their places of employment—is virtually nonexistent.
How Southern state policymakers can strengthen democracy and protect voter health during the coronavirus pandemic
This is the final installment of a three-part series examining the economic and social conditions that impact health outcomes in Southern states, and how these conditions leave communities underprepared to protect front-line workers and communities during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In the earlier pieces of this three-part series, we described what actions are especially needed in Southern states to protect public health and front-line workers and communities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we highlight action that is also needed in the South to address the threats the coronavirus poses to participation in our democracy at the expense of voter and poll worker health. The country witnessed this most recently during the Wisconsin presidential primary election last week. As we describe below, Southern states already face significant challenges to democratic participation. The coronavirus pandemic further heightens the need around the country and especially in the South to address longstanding barriers to free and fair elections, an accurate count for the once-a-decade census, and a legislative process that is accountable to the communities elected officials represent.
Free and fair elections and healthy voters
Today, voter suppression, which disproportionately impacts black and brown people, comes in the form of enforcing strict voter identification laws, disenfranchising people with felony convictions, purging registered voters from voter lists, closing polling locations, and failing to provide required language assistance. In Southern states, these barriers are layered on top of the legacy of Jim Crow, which as our colleague Jhacova Williams demonstrates in her research, continues to stifle rates of black voter registration today.
The coronavirus pandemic creates additional barriers, asking voters to choose between protecting their health and their right to participate in our democracy and compromising the health and safety of poll workers during presidential primary as well as state and local elections. Today, progress for fair and accessible election reforms remains mixed. In Kentucky, the legislature overrode a veto by the governor to create a new voter identification law at the worst possible time. On the other hand, Virginia policymakers have enacted the kinds of voting reforms necessary to strengthen democracy in the wake of the crisis.Virginia’s governor recently signed multiple bills that expanded early voting, repealed voter identification laws, made election day a holiday, expanded absentee voting, and implemented automatic voter registration.
Southern state policymakers and election officials have taken some useful steps to protect public health and limit the spread of the coronavirus by postponing elections. For example, though most states in the South have already had their presidential primary elections, officials in states such as Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, and West Virginia delayed theirs until June. The North Carolina Board of Elections and Mississippi Governor Reeves postponed congressional runoff elections, and other officials in Alabama, Oklahoma, and Texas postponed local elections. In Oklahoma, the secretary of state will identify a new deadline for collecting ballot initiative signatures once the governor indicates that the state’s emergency declaration is over.
Access to online learning amid coronavirus is far from universal, and children who are poor suffer from a digital divide
In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, teachers, parents, school districts, and communities are doing their best to replace in-person with online learning. But as a recent Washington Post article notes, the move to e-learning prompted by school closures has “exposed the technology divides”—with K–12 students who lack the resources they now need to learn at home facing long-term academic disadvantages.
Although the Post article focused on the digital divide in the District of Columbia, this is a national problem.
EPI analysis of data from the most comprehensive study of primary and secondary education in the country illustrates a widespread digital divide based on family income. The data, from the National Center for Education Statistics’ National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for eighth-graders, show that full access to online learning is far from universal and that students who are poor are less likely to have access to the key tools and experiences they need to attend school online. For example, nearly 16% of eighth-graders overall, and almost a quarter of eighth-graders who are poor, don’t have a desktop or laptop computer at home on which to follow their classes. About 8% of eighth-graders who are not poor lack access to these essential devices. The data also show that low shares of students have teachers with full technological proficiency to teach online. (Poor students are defined as students who are eligible for the federal free or reduced-price lunch program.)
Not all students are set up for online learning and students who are poor have less access to key tools: Share of eighth-graders with access to tool for online learning, by income level, 2017
| All students | 95.8% |
|---|---|
| Non-poor | 98.4% |
| Poor | 93.0% |
| All students | 84.4% |
| Non-poor | 92.3% |
| Poor | 76.3% |
| All students | 76.3% |
| Non-poor | 81.8% |
| Poor | 70.6% |
| All students | 51.3% |
| Non-poor | 56.1% |
| Poor | 46.4% |
| All students | 43.4% |
| Non-poor | 45.0% |
| Poor | 41.7% |
| All students | 69.2% |
| Non-poor | 71.4% |
| Poor | 66.8% |
| All students | 32.5% |
| Non-poor | 32.5% |
| Poor | 32.6% |
| All students | 19.3% |
| Non-poor | 18.3% |
| Poor | 20.3% |
Notes: Poor students are students eligible for the federal free or reduced-price lunch programs. Non-poor students are students who are ineligible for those programs. Frequent use of internet at home for homework means every day or almost every day. Students’ teachers were either “already proficient” in, “have not” received training in, or “had received training” in “software applications” and “integrating computers into instruction” in the last two years.
Source: 2017 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), eighth-grade reading sample microdata from the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics
A coronavirus recovery: How to ensure older workers fully participate
Key takeaways:
- Because older workers are more likely to be unemployed for long periods, have work-limiting disabilities, and live in areas of the country that were struggling even before the crisis, policies aimed at addressing these problems will especially benefit these workers.
- While infrastructure spending could help jump-start the post-pandemic recovery, policies must ensure that older workers participate in training and jobs programs related to these investments.
- Regulatory protections for front-line workers, especially older workers and others at heightened risk for contracting or suffering serious consequences from contagious diseases, need to be strengthened and updated using lessons learned from the pandemic.
- Employer-provided benefits result in spotty coverage and higher costs for older workers. The United States should catch up to other countries and provide sick leave, paid family leave, and health insurance through government programs rather than leaving these to the discretion of employers.
(See the companion blog post outlining steps needed to protect vulnerable older workers in the economic collapse caused by measures needed to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.)
Once the worst of the outbreak is over and social distancing measures are relaxed, policies to help older workers will be needed to ensure they share in the recovery.
Deficit-financed stimulus spending—needed to quickly bring the economy back to something approaching full employment—will help but not ensure broad-based prosperity. Policymakers also need to address power imbalances between employers and workers and target policies at disadvantaged workers, including unemployed older workers.
Older workers, as I discussed in my last blog post, may find it harder to get back in the job market after layoffs for a number of reasons. They may have health conditions that limit what they can do or they may feel forced to accept large pay cuts because some skills and knowledge they’ve built up aren’t transferable and may be undervalued by prospective employers. Absent policies to help these workers regain their footing, they may become “discouraged workers” who give up on the job search and retire before they’re ready to.
This post lays out a series of policies to address barriers to employment for unemployed older workers and to protect older workers from health and financial risks.
Updated state unemployment numbers remain astonishingly high: Six states saw record-high levels of initial unemployment claims last week
This morning, the Department of Labor released the latest initial unemployment insurance (UI) claims data, showing that another five million people (not seasonally adjusted) filed for UI last week. In the last four weeks, more than 20 million workers—whose economic security has been upended by the coronavirus crisis and inadequate policy responses—filed for UI.
Last week, Colorado, New York, South Carolina, Connecticut, Mississippi, and West Virginia saw their highest level of initial UI claim filings ever. These six states, along with Florida, Missouri, and North Carolina, saw increases in initial filings compared with the prior week.
Most states had fewer initial UI claims last week than in the week prior, but the number of UI claims remained astonishingly high. California and Michigan—the two states with the largest decline since the week before—still had 661,000 and 219,000 claims filed last week, respectively—the third-highest week on record for both.
Figure A compares UI claims filed last week with filings in the pre-virus period, showing once again that Southern states are faring particularly poorly. Seven of the 10 states that had the highest percent change last week relative to the pre-virus period are Southern: Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Louisiana, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Alabama.
Initial unemployment insurance claims filed during the week ending April 11, by state
| State | Initial claims filed | Percent change from the prior week | Level change from prior week | Percent change from pre-virus period | Level change from pre-virus period | Sum of initial claims for the five weeks ending April 11 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 91,079 | -14.7% | -15,660 | 4221% | 88,971 | 291,513 |
| Alaska | 12,752 | -12.6% | -1,838 | 1410% | 11,908 | 50,083 |
| Arizona | 97,784 | -26.2% | -34,644 | 2878% | 94,501 | 352,344 |
| Arkansas | 34,635 | -44.2% | -27,451 | 2241% | 33,156 | 135,134 |
| California | 660,966 | -28.1% | -257,848 | 1517% | 620,094 | 2,882,044 |
| Colorado | 105,073 | 126.8% | 58,747 | 5418% | 103,169 | 235,332 |
| Connecticut | 33,962 | 1.5% | 498 | 1216% | 31,381 | 129,193 |
| Delaware | 13,272 | -29.6% | -5,579 | 2224% | 12,701 | 62,508 |
| Washington D.C. | 9,904 | -35.4% | -5,425 | 2079% | 9,450 | 56,777 |
| Florida | 181,293 | 6.7% | 11,408 | 3478% | 176,226 | 660,438 |
| Georgia | 317,526 | -18.6% | -72,606 | 5831% | 312,173 | 859,063 |
| Hawaii | 34,693 | -34.7% | -18,408 | 2955% | 33,557 | 146,794 |
| Idaho | 17,817 | -42.3% | -13,087 | 1518% | 16,716 | 96,279 |
| Illinois | 141,049 | -29.8% | -59,992 | 1402% | 131,658 | 645,495 |
| Indiana | 118,184 | -6.9% | -8,826 | 4611% | 115,676 | 446,719 |
| Iowa | 46,356 | -27.8% | -17,838 | 1887% | 44,023 | 209,697 |
| Kansas | 30,769 | -37.6% | -18,537 | 1808% | 29,156 | 159,723 |
| Kentucky | 115,763 | -1.5% | -1,812 | 4527% | 113,261 | 398,295 |
| Louisiana | 80,045 | -20.4% | -20,576 | 4648% | 78,359 | 352,759 |
| Maine | 13,273 | -57.1% | -17,637 | 1610% | 12,497 | 90,046 |
| Maryland | 60,823 | -44.4% | -48,666 | 2103% | 58,063 | 302,474 |
| Massachusetts | 103,040 | -26.2% | -36,607 | 1601% | 96,982 | 580,011 |
| Michigan | 219,320 | -43.6% | -169,234 | 3870% | 213,796 | 1,045,553 |
| Minnesota | 89,634 | -18.7% | -20,626 | 2447% | 86,115 | 428,772 |
| Mississippi | 46,160 | 0.7% | 308 | 5477% | 45,332 | 130,693 |
| Missouri | 95,785 | 4.7% | 4,327 | 3053% | 92,747 | 337,796 |
| Montana | 13,437 | -36.7% | -7,807 | 1620% | 12,656 | 71,610 |
| Nebraska | 16,391 | -39.4% | -10,663 | 3125% | 15,883 | 84,665 |
| Nevada | 60,180 | -24.1% | -19,105 | 2509% | 57,873 | 310,061 |
| New Hampshire | 23,936 | -38.9% | -15,266 | 4142% | 23,372 | 124,537 |
| New Jersey | 140,600 | -34.6% | -74,236 | 1619% | 132,421 | 686,971 |
| New Mexico | 19,494 | -25.4% | -6,638 | 2652% | 18,786 | 92,449 |
| New York | 395,949 | 15.0% | 51,498 | 2048% | 377,519 | 1,201,266 |
| North Carolina | 137,934 | 0.4% | 512 | 5263% | 135,362 | 545,117 |
| North Dakota | 10,378 | -31.4% | -4,747 | 2374% | 9,959 | 43,398 |
| Ohio | 157,218 | -30.5% | -68,973 | 2054% | 149,918 | 861,052 |
| Oklahoma | 48,977 | -19.1% | -11,557 | 3076% | 47,435 | 181,017 |
| Oregon | 50,930 | -18.9% | -11,858 | 1182% | 46,958 | 195,539 |
| Pennsylvania | 238,357 | -14.1% | -39,283 | 1788% | 225,736 | 1,313,564 |
| Rhode Island | 22,805 | -19.3% | -5,438 | 1931% | 21,682 | 115,803 |
| South Carolina | 87,686 | 1.3% | 1,113 | 4409% | 85,742 | 274,653 |
| South Dakota | 6,152 | -24.4% | -1,986 | 3276% | 5,970 | 23,042 |
| Tennessee | 74,772 | -33.3% | -37,414 | 3620% | 72,762 | 320,237 |
| Texas | 273,567 | -13.2% | -41,600 | 2009% | 260,596 | 1,036,521 |
| Utah | 24,171 | -26.8% | -8,869 | 2314% | 23,170 | 106,738 |
| Vermont | 9,478 | -42.5% | -6,996 | 1440% | 8,863 | 45,028 |
| Virginia | 106,723 | -27.6% | -40,646 | 3940% | 104,082 | 415,572 |
| Washington | 150,516 | -12.1% | -20,736 | 2379% | 144,446 | 648,766 |
| West Virginia | 14,595 | 0.7% | 101 | 1192% | 13,465 | 48,013 |
| Wisconsin | 69,884 | -33.3% | -34,939 | 1136% | 64,230 | 341,862 |
| Wyoming | 4,904 | -25.0% | -1,639 | 885% | 4,406 | 22,013 |
Notes: Initial claims for the week ending April 11 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.
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 16, 2020
9.2 million workers likely lost their employer-provided health insurance in the past four weeks
These estimates were updated on May 14, 2020. See the updated estimates.
We estimate that 9.2 million workers were at high risk of losing their employer-provided health insurance in the past four weeks. To avoid prohibitively costly insurance options, the federal government should fund an expansion of Medicare and Medicaid to all those suffering job losses during the pandemic period.
Two weeks ago, when the two-week total of unemployment insurance (UI) initial claims was 8.7 million, we estimated that 3.5 million workers may have lost their health insurance at work. Since then, 11.4 million more workers filed claims for unemployment benefits, bringing the total of UI initial claims over the last four weeks to 20.1 million, currently the most comprehensive measure of the extent of job losses and furloughs due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
We estimate that across all industries where workers have filed UI claims, about 45.7% of workers had their own health insurance provided through their employer. As a result, of the 20.1 million workers who filed initial UI claims in the last four weeks, 9.2 million may have lost coverage through their own employer-provided health insurance (EPHI).
The analysis, described below, combines industry-specific UI claims data for 11 states, representing about 20% of national employment, with national, industry-specific health insurance coverage rates. Using these data, we provide a rough prediction of 9.2 million workers losing EPHI. We can’t say exactly how many people will lose insurance coverage altogether for several reasons. For example, some workers who lose EPHI due to layoffs or hours reductions that trigger UI claims may be able to obtain coverage through health care exchanges set up by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or through Medicaid. Some of this group may also be able to obtain continuing coverage through COBRA, paying out of pocket the full cost of their EPHI coverage. Some workers may be able to obtain coverage through other family members, or if only experiencing a temporary furlough or hours reduction, their employers might continue to pay for coverage. On the other hand, our calculations might understate the loss of health insurance coverage because they do not account for family members who are no longer covered because of the policyholder’s layoff. And, because not all layoffs result in UI claims, we will underestimate the actual magnitude of job losses.
Women have been hit hard by the coronavirus labor market: Their story is worse than industry-based data suggest
Key findings:
- The latest payroll employment data for March show that women were the hardest hit by initial job losses in the COVID-19 labor market; women represented 50.0% of payroll employment in February, but represented 58.8% of job losses in March.
- If women’s share of new unemployment insurance (UI) claims in recent weeks was driven solely by sector-level differences in gender composition, then they would have accounted for roughly 45% of new UI claims, or about 6.8 million new claims.
- However, relying solely on the gender composition of sectoral unemployment may lead to an underestimate of new UI claims that were filed by women. Using three states that provide direct estimates of the gender composition of new UI claims shows that the female share of these claims is substantially higher than what we estimate by using only the sectoral composition of employment by gender.
- We estimate that once the overrepresentation of women in sectors with new layoffs is corrected for, between 7.8 and 8.4 million women filed for unemployment insurance in the three weeks ending April 4.
Since March 15, 15.1 million workers in the United States have filed for unemployment insurance. Tomorrow, the latest initial unemployment insurance claims will be released by the Department of Labor for the week ending April 11, and estimates suggest that there could be another 4.5 million initial claims reported. These top-line numbers are vital for understanding what is going on in the economy and the extent of the economic insecurity millions of workers and their families are experiencing. But what is less clear is who these workers are and where they work. While national statistics that directly report the demographic characteristics of UI claimants will not be available for months, we use national employment data from March and preliminary state UI reports through April to begin to answer those questions. We find that job losses and furloughs have disproportionately affected women. This is the result of two factors: Women are more concentrated in sectors that experienced more job loss, and women also tended to see more job loss than men within these sectors.
New survey and report reveals mistreatment of H-2A farmworkers is common: The coronavirus puts them further at risk
The irony should be lost on no one that NPR’s reporting on the Trump administration’s push to lower wages for H-2A farmworkers came out the same week that a new report was published by Centro de los Derechos del Migrante (CDM) that calls into question whether the H-2A temporary work visa program should exist at all without major reforms to protect migrant workers.
The report details the findings of in-depth interviews with 100 H-2A workers, who “reported discrimination, sexual harassment, wage theft, and health and safety violations by their employers—and a chilling lack of recourse.” Every single H-2A worker “experienced at least one serious legal violation of their rights, and 94% experienced three or more.” And before they had even arrived in the United States, many were already heavily in debt as a result of paying illegal recruitment fees in exchange for the opportunity to work in a low-wage farm job.
The Trump administration has weakened crucial worker protections needed to combat the coronavirus: Agencies tasked with protecting workers have put them in danger
Key takeaways:
- The Department of Labor (DOL) issued a temporary rule that will exempt 96% of applicable firms from providing paid sick and paid family and medical leave to their staff. It could also exempt 9 million health care workers and 4.4 million first responders from receiving paid leave.
- DOL issued guidance that narrows the eligibility of workers to receive Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA). For example, gig workers must be “forced to suspend operations” by a government quarantine in order to receive PUA benefits, rather than voluntarily quarantining themselves.
- The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) issued guidance that will jeopardize the health and safety of workers. The CDC now allows essential workers to continue to work even if they may have been exposed to the coronavirus—as long as they appear to be asymptomatic and the employer implements additional precautions.
- The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) advises that certain businesses are not required to investigate or record workplace-related coronavirus cases. Not only does this guidance make workers less safe, it will likely make the public health crisis worse as employers will not be required to record virus-related illness as officials work to track these cases.
In the last three weeks, an unprecedented 17 million workers applied for unemployment insurance (UI), while millions more risk their lives to provide essential services. To mitigate the health and economic impacts of the coronavirus pandemic, Congress has passed a series of bills aimed at providing relief and recovery measures. The Families First Coronavirus Relief Act (FFRCA) and the CARES Act included critical provisions to assist workers impacted by the pandemic; chief among those are an expansion of Unemployment Insurance (UI) and access to paid leave. However, rather than working to implement these relief and recovery bills efficiently and effectively, the Trump administration has instead looked for ways to narrow and weaken the worker protections included in the legislation.
Trump administration looking to cut the already low wages of H-2A migrant farmworkers while giving their bosses a multibillion-dollar bailout
Key takeaways:
- The Trump administration, which recently deemed farmworkers essential to the economy, is considering lowering the wages of the 205,000 migrant farmworkers employed in the United States through the H-2A temporary work visa program, according to published reports.
- H-2A wages are usually based on a mandated wage standard that varies by region—known as the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR)—aiming to prevent temporary migrant farmworkers from being underpaid according to local standards and to prevent downward pressure on the wages of farmworkers in the United States.
- Farmworkers in general are paid very low wages—in 2019 they earned $13.99 per hour, which is only three-fifths of what production and nonsupervisory workers outside of agriculture earned, and they earned less than what workers with lowest levels of education in the U.S. labor market earned.
- The national average AEWR wage, at $12.96 per hour, was lower than wages for any of these groups of workers, and many H-2A farmworkers earned far less in some of the biggest H-2A states.
- The Trump administration may try to lower the wages of H-2A farmworkers through the regulatory process or a provision attached to a broader piece of legislation.
- This comes at a time when farm owners looking to cut their workers’ wages are on the verge of receiving a federal bailout worth at least $16 billion, which will help cover potential financial losses related to impact of the coronavirus pandemic.
Last week, NPR reported that “new White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows is working with Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue to see how to reduce wage rates for foreign guest workers on American farms.” Apparently, the Trump administration believes that temporary migrant farmworkers—who earned between $11.01 and $15.03 per hour in 2019—are overpaid.
Why should migrant farmworkers have to take a pay cut, especially right now, when farmers and ranchers are about to receive at least $16 billion in direct payments thanks to a federal bailout?
The coronavirus will explode achievement gaps in education
This blog post was originally posted on shelterforce.org.
The COVID-19 pandemic will take existing academic achievement differences between middle-class and low-income students and explode them.
The academic achievement gap has bedeviled educators for years. In math and reading, children of college-educated parents score on average at about the 60th percentile, while children whose parents have only a high school diploma score, on average, at the 35th percentile.* The academic advantages of children whose parents have master’s degrees and beyond are even greater.
To a significant extent, this is a neighborhood issue—schools are more segregated today than at any time in the last 50 years, mostly because the neighborhoods in which they are located are so segregated. Schools with concentrated populations of children affected by serious socioeconomic problems are able to devote less time and attention to academic instruction.
In 2001 we adopted the “No Child Left Behind Act,” assuming that these disparities mostly stemmed from schools’ failure to take seriously a responsibility to educate African American, Hispanic, and lower-income students. Supporters claimed that holding educators accountable for test results would soon eliminate the achievement gap. Promoted by liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans, the theory was ludicrous, and the law failed to fulfill its promise. The achievement gap mostly results from social-class based advantages that some children bring to school and that others lack, as well as disadvantages stemming from racial discrimination that only some children have to face.
The coronavirus, unfortunately, will only exacerbate the effects of these advantages.
A comprehensive U.S. manufacturing policy is needed now more than ever
Twelve years ago, we warned that:
-
- The increasing dependence of U.S. defense systems on foreign suppliers is alarming, especially, it might be argued, in a post-September 11 world…What happens when supply routes, for example, anywhere across the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans, are disrupted?
These warnings could not be more relevant today as we experience devastating disruptions in our supply chains across virtually every industry sector due to the growing COVID-19 crisis. Essential medical supplies are impacted as we struggle to combat the coronavirus pandemic.
The U.S. commercial industrial base is particularly threatened by excessive reliance on outsourcing without regard to possible downsides. Aerospace, which contributes heavily to gross domestic product (GDP) with almost 500,000 U.S. jobs, has been outsourcing production for many years to repeated protests from the Machinists Union, among others. Fifty years ago, U.S. commercial airplanes were mostly produced in the U.S. Now, a much larger percentage of aircraft is outsourced—with an estimated 70% of the Boeing 787 production being outsourced.
Of course, it is not just aerospace and related products that are outsourced. The U.S. shipbuilding and repair industry has declined dramatically, along with other fundamental industries like machine tools. We are now more dependent on other countries for these items—along with countless others—than ever before.