In a 2020 online survey, ** percent of small business owners in the United States said they expected the economy to not recover from the impacts of COVID-19 until beyond 2021. Only ***** percent of respondents believed that the economy would be able to recover in a few more weeks.

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the United States expanded 3.80 percent in the second quarter of 2025 over the previous quarter. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - United States GDP Growth Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

The U.S. economy steamed into its second year of recovery, with little perceptible reacceleration in inflation. In the first quarter of 1984, gains in employment and production accelerated at near-record rates; new-auto sales rose to their highest levels since 1979; and housing starts reached their highest rates since 1978. Indirect evidence of the recovery’s strength was equally impressive. Supply shortages cropped up, which is unusual for so early in a recovery. Even some of the troubled smokestack industries reported, or expect to report, profits in 1984.

Despite an initially strong pace of recovery, the economy is a long way from pre-pandemic levels and several threats loom as Q4 approaches.

BEA has been researching the use of card transaction data as an early barometer of spending in the United States. Since the emergence of COVID-19, dramatic and fast-moving changes to the U.S. economy have increased the public and policymakers' need for more frequent and timely economic data. In response, BEA is presenting these estimates using daily payment card data to measure the effects of the pandemic on spending, updated approximately every two weeks. Note that these payment card transactions are not necessarily representative of total spending in an industry and the data have other limitations, described below. The estimates in these charts and tables are not a substitute for BEA's monthly and quarterly official data, which are grounded in well-tested and proven methodologies. An event study methodology is used to estimate the difference (in percentage points) in spending from the typical level (relative to the day of week, month, and annual trends) prior to the pandemic declared by the World Health Organization on March 11, 2020.

In 2020, global gross domestic product declined by 6.7 percent as a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic outbreak. In Latin America, overall GDP loss amounted to 8.5 percent.

Graph and download economic data for Dates of U.S. recessions as inferred by GDP-based recession indicator (JHDUSRGDPBR) from Q4 1967 to Q1 2025 about recession indicators, GDP, and USA.

The statistic shows the gross domestic product (GDP) of the United States from 1987 to 2024, with projections up until 2030. The gross domestic product of the United States in 2024 amounted to around 29.18 trillion U.S. dollars. The United States and the economy The United States’ economy is by far the largest in the world; a status which can be determined by several key factors, one being gross domestic product: A look at the GDP of the main industrialized and emerging countries shows a significant difference between US GDP and the GDP of China, the runner-up in the ranking, as well as the followers Japan, Germany and France. Interestingly, it is assumed that China will have surpassed the States in terms of GDP by 2030, but for now, the United States is among the leading countries in almost all other relevant rankings and statistics, trade and employment for example. See the U.S. GDP growth rate here. Just like in other countries, the American economy suffered a severe setback when the economic crisis occurred in 2008. The American economy entered a recession caused by the collapsing real estate market and increasing unemployment. Despite this, the standard of living is considered quite high; life expectancy in the United States has been continually increasing slightly over the past decade, the unemployment rate in the United States has been steadily recovering and decreasing since the crisis, and the Big Mac Index, which represents the global prices for a Big Mac, a popular indicator for the purchasing power of an economy, shows that the United States’ purchasing power in particular is only slightly lower than that of the euro area.

View economic output, reported as the nominal value of all new goods and services produced by labor and property located in the U.S.

Unemployment Rate in the United States increased to 4.40 percent in September from 4.30 percent in August of 2025. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - United States Unemployment Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

The Long Depression was, by a large margin, the longest-lasting recession in U.S. history. It began in the U.S. with the Panic of 1873, and lasted for over five years. This depression was the largest in a series of recessions at the turn of the 20th century, which proved to be a period of overall stagnation as the U.S. financial markets failed to keep pace with industrialization and changes in monetary policy. Great Depression The Great Depression, however, is widely considered to have been the most severe recession in U.S. history. Following the Wall Street Crash in 1929, the country's economy collapsed, wages fell and a quarter of the workforce was unemployed. It would take almost four years for recovery to begin. Additionally, U.S. expansion and integration in international markets allowed the depression to become a global event, which became a major catalyst in the build up to the Second World War. Decreasing severity When comparing recessions before and after the Great Depression, they have generally become shorter and less frequent over time. Only three recessions in the latter period have lasted more than one year. Additionally, while there were 12 recessions between 1880 and 1920, there were only six recessions between 1980 and 2020. The most severe recession in recent years was the financial crisis of 2007 (known as the Great Recession), where irresponsible lending policies and lack of government regulation allowed for a property bubble to develop and become detached from the economy over time, this eventually became untenable and the bubble burst. Although the causes of both the Great Depression and Great Recession were similar in many aspects, economists have been able to use historical evidence to try and predict, prevent, or limit the impact of future recessions.

The data hub publishes a broad set of measures across pertinent topics such as public health, government spending, personal finances, and employment to assess the longer-term economic impact of the pandemic and the efficacy of recovery efforts. It includes indicators on health (COVID-19 cases, deaths), economy (unemployment claims, retail sales, air travel passengers, etc), standard of living (household spending, personal income, food scarcity, housing insecurity, etc), and government (federal government spending, federal reserve assets, state tax revenue, federal deficit).

The Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (lOGCC) has conducted a series of studies to evaluate the known, remaining oil resource in twenty-three (23) states. The primary objective of the IOGCC's effort is to examine the potential impact of an aggressive and focused program of research. development, and demonstration (RD&D) and technology transfer on future oil recovery in the United States. As a part of this larger effort by the IOGCC, this report focuses on the potential economic benefits of improved oil recovery in the state of New Mexico. Individual reports for seven other oil producing states and a national report have been separately published by the IOGCC. Several major technical insights for state and Federal policymakers and regulators can be reached from this analysis. ?At the conclusion of conventional recovery operations, two-thirds of the known original oil- in-place will remain in New Mexico oil reservoirs. ?The remaining resource, over 10 billion barrels, is the target for future improved oil recovery techniques. However, a significant portion of this remaining oil resource has already been abandoned. An even greater portion is in imminent danger of abandonment if cost-effective and efficient recovery techniques are not applied. ?Resource abandonment will significantly impact the economic producibility of future production and reserves under improved oil recovery techniques. Major capital investments will be needed to reacquire the leases, rebuild the infrastructure, and more importantly, drill new wells to regain access to the New Mexico target resource. ?New Mexico's future oil production depends on the development of efficient and cost-effective oil recovery technologies, technology transfer to domestic producers, and the timely and successful application of such technologies, given the steady decline in New Mexico production and the accelerating level of well abandonment over the past decade. ?The effective transfer of existing technology could result in 430 to 640 billion barrels of new reserves from analyzed New Mexico reservoirs at oil prices ranging from $20/B to $28/8, potentially increasing the state's current proved reserves by 60% to 90%. ?Technology advances resulting from a focused RD&D effort could result in additional post-conventional reserves of 350 to 400 million barrels. The effective transfer of existing technology, coupled with the development and application of new technologies, could more than replace current proved reserves in New Mexico. ?Public sector revenues from future improved oil recovery activity would total between $2.3 and $4.3 billion given currently available recovery practices and oil prices of $20/B to $28/8. Technology advances could increase these totals by $2 to $3 billion over the same price range, with roughly 40% of the total flowing to the state treasury. ?Potential improved oil recovery would replace imports of foreign oil, keeping between $9 billion and $18 billion in the U.S. economy. This figure is only the direct cost of imports avoided due to increased domestic activity. The true value to the country is actually much higher due to multiplier effects as this money circulates in the economy.

US Covid-19 Cases, Deaths and Mobility by State/County

Analyzing the Impact of the Pandemic on Low-Income Populations

By Liz Friedman [source]

About this dataset

Welcome to the Opportunity Insights Economic Tracker! Our goal is to provide a comprehensive, real-time look into how COVID-19 and stabilization policies are affecting the US economy. To do this, we have compiled a wide array of data points on spending and employment, gathered from several sources.

This dataset includes daily/weekly/monthly information at the state/county/city level for eight types of data: Google Mobility; Low-Income Employment and Earnings; UI Claims; Womply Merchants and Revenue; as well as weekly Math Learning from Zearn. Additionally, three files- Accounting for Geoids-State/County/City provide crosswalks between geographic areas that can be merged with other files having shared geographical levels.

Our goal here is to enable data users around the world to follow economic conditions in the US during this tumultuous period with maximum clarity and precision. We make all our datasets freely available so if you use them we kindly ask you attribute our work by linking or citing both our accompanying paper as well as this Economic Tracker at https://tracktherecoveryorg By doing so you are also agreeing to uphold our privacy & integrity standards which commit us both to individual & business confidentiality without compromising on independent nonpartisan research & policy analysis!

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

This dataset provides US COVID-19 case and death data, as well as Google Community Mobility Reports, on the state/county level. Here is how to use this dataset:

• Understand the file structure: This dataset consists of three main files: 1) US Cases & Deaths by State/County, 2) Google Community Mobility Reports, and 3) Data from third-parties providing small business openings & revenue information and unemployment insurance claim data (Low Inc Earnings & Employment, UI Claims and Womply Merchants & Revenue).
• Select your Subset: If you are interested in particular types of data (e.g., mobility or employment), select the corresponding files from within each section based on your geographic area of interest – national, state or county level – as indicated in each filename.
• Review metadata variables: Become familiar with the provided variables so that you can select which ones you need to explore further in your analysis. For example, if analyzing mobility trends at a city level look for columns such as ‘Retailer_and_recreation_percent_change’ or ‘Transit Stations Percent Change’; if focusing on employment decline look for columns such pay or emp figures that align with industries of interest to you such as low-income earners (emp_{inclow},pay_{inclow}).
• Unify dateformatting across row values : Convert date formats into one common unit so that all entries have consistent formatting if necessary; for exampe some entries may display dates using YYYY/MM/DD notation while others may use MM//DD//YY format depending on their source datasets; make sure to review column labels carefully before converting units where needed..

• Merge datasets where applicable : Utilize GeoID crosswalks to combine multiple sets with same geographical coverageregionally covering ; example might be combining low income earnings figures with specific county settings by reference geo codes found in related documents like GeoIDs-County .
  6 . Visualise Data : Now that all the different measures have been reviewed can begin generating charts visualize findings . This process may include cleaning up raw figures normalizing across currency formats , mapping geospatial locations others ; once ready create bar graphs line charts maps other visual according aggregate output desired Insightful representations at this stage will help inform concrete policy decisions during outbreak recovery period..

  Remember to cite

Research Ideas

• Estimating the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Small Businesses - By comparing county-level Womply revenue and employment data with pre-COVID data, policymakers can gain an understanding of the economic impact that COVID has had on local small businesses.
• Analyzing Effects of Mobility Restrictions - The Google Mobility data provides insight into geographic areas where...

On October 29, 1929, the U.S. experienced the most devastating stock market crash in it's history. The Wall Street Crash of 1929 set in motion the Great Depression, which lasted for twelve years and affected virtually all industrialized countries. In the United States, GDP fell to it's lowest recorded level of just 57 billion U.S dollars in 1933, before rising again shortly before the Second World War. After the war, GDP fluctuated, but it increased gradually until the Great Recession in 2008. Real GDP Real GDP allows us to compare GDP over time, by adjusting all figures for inflation. In this case, all numbers have been adjusted to the value of the US dollar in FY2012. While GDP rose every year between 1946 and 2008, when this is adjusted for inflation it can see that the real GDP dropped at least once in every decade except the 1960s and 2010s. The Great Recession Apart from the Great Depression, and immediately after WWII, there have been two times where both GDP and real GDP dropped together. The first was during the Great Recession, which lasted from December 2007 until June 2009 in the US, although its impact was felt for years after this. After the collapse of the financial sector in the US, the government famously bailed out some of the country's largest banking and lending institutions. Since recovery began in late 2009, US GDP has grown year-on-year, and reached 21.4 trillion dollars in 2019. The coronavirus pandemic and the associated lockdowns then saw GDP fall again, for the first time in a decade. As economic recovery from the pandemic has been compounded by supply chain issues, inflation, and rising global geopolitical instability, it remains to be seen what the future holds for the U.S. economy.

United States US: Government-Financed GERD: % of GDP data was reported at 0.650 % in 2022. This records a decrease from the previous number of 0.654 % for 2021. United States US: Government-Financed GERD: % of GDP data is updated yearly, averaging 0.786 % from Dec 1981 (Median) to 2022, with 42 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1.245 % in 1985 and a record low of 0.650 % in 2022. United States US: Government-Financed GERD: % of GDP data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.OECD.MSTI: Gross Domestic Expenditure on Research and Development: OECD Member: Annual.

For the United States, from 2021 onwards, changes to the US BERD survey questionnaire allowed for more exhaustive identification of acquisition costs for ‘identifiable intangible assets’ used for R&D. This has resulted in a substantial increase in reported R&D capital expenditure within BERD. In the business sector, the funds from the rest of the world previously included in the business-financed BERD, are available separately from 2008. From 2006 onwards, GOVERD includes state government intramural performance (most of which being financed by the federal government and state government own funds). From 2016 onwards, PNPERD data are based on a new R&D performer survey. In the higher education sector all fields of SSH are included from 2003 onwards.

Following a survey of federally-funded research and development centers (FFRDCs) in 2005, it was concluded that FFRDC R&D belongs in the government sector - rather than the sector of the FFRDC administrator, as had been reported in the past. R&D expenditures by FFRDCs were reclassified from the other three R&D performing sectors to the Government sector; previously published data were revised accordingly. Between 2003 and 2004, the method used to classify data by industry has been revised. This particularly affects the ISIC category “wholesale trade” and consequently the BERD for total services.

U.S. R&D data are generally comparable, but there are some areas of underestimation:

1. i) Up to 2008, Government sector R&D performance covers only federal government activities. That by State and local government establishments is excluded;
2. ii) Except for the Government and the Business Enterprise sectors, the R&D data exclude most capital expenditures. For the Business Enterprise sector, depreciation is reported in place of gross capital expenditures up to 2014. Higher education (and national total) data were revised back to 1998 due to an improved methodology that corrects for double-counting of R&D funds passed between institutions.

Breakdown by type of R&D (basic research, applied research, etc.) was also revised back to 1998 in the business enterprise and higher education sectors due to improved estimation procedures.

The methodology for estimating researchers was changed as of 1985. In the Government, Higher Education and PNP sectors the data since then refer to employed doctoral scientists and engineers who report their primary work activity as research, development or the management of R&D, plus, for the Higher Education sector, the number of full-time equivalent graduate students with research assistantships averaging an estimated 50 % of their time engaged in R&D activities. As of 1985 researchers in the Government sector exclude military personnel. As of 1987, Higher education R&D personnel also include those who report their primary work activity as design.

Due to lack of official data for the different employment sectors, the total researchers figure is an OECD estimate up to 2019. Comprehensive reporting of R&D personnel statistics by the United States has resumed with records available since 2020, reflecting the addition of official figures for the number of researchers and total R&D personnel for the higher education sector and the Private non-profit sector; as well as the number of researchers for the government sector. The new data revise downwards previous OECD estimates as the OECD extrapolation methods drawing on historical US data, required to produce a consistent OECD aggregate, appear to have previously overestimated the growth in the number of researchers in the higher education sector.

Pre-production development is excluded from Defence GBARD (in accordance with the Frascati Manual) as of 2000. 2009 GBARD data also includes the one time incremental R&D funding legislated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Beginning with the 2000 GBARD data, budgets for capital expenditure – “R&D plant” in national terminology - are included. GBARD data for earlier years relate to budgets for current costs only.

This paper examines the underlying structural elements of US growth patterns, pre- and post-crisis. Prior to the recession, the US economy exhibited a defective growth pattern driven by outsized domestic demand. As domestic aggregate demand retreats to more sustainable levels relative to total income, the tradable side of the economy is a catalyst for restoring strong growth. A structural rebalancing is already underway; although it is only a third of the economy, the tradable sector generated more than half of gross gains in value-added since the start of the recovery. However, distributional issues loom on the horizon.

Workers’ compensation and other insurance funds businesses have experienced significant changes in recent years, largely driven by economic fluctuations and shifts in investment income. The crash of the US economy in 2020 due to pandemic-related restrictions placed immense pressure on the industry. Business formation plunged and unemployment soared, resulting in a diminished customer base for insurance funds and a steep drop in revenue. Regardless, the Federal Reserve's injection of liquidity into the financial system propelled stock prices upward, boosting investment income for insurance providers. This increase in investment income provided some relief for providers, enabling them to cover expenses and sustain profits despite revenue losses. The relaxation of COVID-19 restrictions spurred economic recovery in 2021, driving unemployment down and corporate profit up. This positive economic climate increased demand for insurance services and enhanced investment income due to robust stock market conditions. However, since 2022, inflation has wreaked havoc, causing businesses and organizations to slash investments in insurance funds amid soaring prices. More recently, rising interest rates have reduced downstream demand due to the emergence of recessionary fears, but revenue and profit have expanded because of growing returns on fixed-income products. Overall, revenue for workers’ compensation and other insurance funds has inched downward at a CAGR of 0.2% over the past five years, reaching $56.6 billion in 2025. This includes a 0.5% rise in revenue in that year. Looking ahead, providers are poised for moderate growth over the next five years. As the US economy stabilizes, with solid GDP growth and potential increases in business formation and employment, the customer base for insurance funds is likely to expand. These favorable economic conditions should bolster consumer confidence and investment in the stock market, leading to greater investment income for the industry. Nonetheless, larger players are expected to dominate, given their ability to invest in cutting-edge technologies like AI for predicting claim risks and optimizing business operations. Smaller providers may face intensified internal competition, prompting some to exit the market, while others could focus on niche offerings or invest in technological advancements to remain viable and competitive. Overall, revenue for workers’ compensation and other insurance funds is expected to expand at a CAGR of 1.3% over the next five years, reaching $60.3 billion in 2030.

As of June 9, 2020, the coronavirus outbreak posed a level ***** threat to businesses, meaning that severe and widespread economic impacts were likely. The composite index, which has level *** as its highest warning, was raised to level *** on March 12 and to level ***** on April 13.

Strong plans needed in response to coronavirus Countries are taking small steps on the road to economic recovery by gradually lifting lockdown measures. Manufacturing firms were among the first to return to work, and governments are now permitting shops, bars, and restaurants to reopen. However, there is no guarantee that consumers will return to their normal habits. In order to reduce the risks, businesses are being encouraged to activate contingency plans that include separating all essential operations from non-essential and focusing on high-priority areas and clients.

A focus on the U.S. economy COVID-19 has left the United States facing an economic crisis, and the country’s GDP fell by *** percent in the first quarter of 2020. Record numbers of Americans have lost their jobs during the pandemic, and the unemployment rate jumped to **** percent in April 2020. The Dow Jones, which monitors the stock prices of the ** largest companies in the United States, has rallied since the U.S. economy restarted but continues to feel the effects of a destructive period that wiped out years of gains in a matter of weeks.

United States US: GERD: % of GDP data was reported at 3.586 % in 2022. This records an increase from the previous number of 3.483 % for 2021. United States US: GERD: % of GDP data is updated yearly, averaging 2.612 % from Dec 1981 (Median) to 2022, with 42 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 3.586 % in 2022 and a record low of 2.268 % in 1981. United States US: GERD: % of GDP data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.OECD.MSTI: Gross Domestic Expenditure on Research and Development: OECD Member: Annual.

For the United States, from 2021 onwards, changes to the US BERD survey questionnaire allowed for more exhaustive identification of acquisition costs for ‘identifiable intangible assets’ used for R&D. This has resulted in a substantial increase in reported R&D capital expenditure within BERD. In the business sector, the funds from the rest of the world previously included in the business-financed BERD, are available separately from 2008. From 2006 onwards, GOVERD includes state government intramural performance (most of which being financed by the federal government and state government own funds). From 2016 onwards, PNPERD data are based on a new R&D performer survey. In the higher education sector all fields of SSH are included from 2003 onwards.

Following a survey of federally-funded research and development centers (FFRDCs) in 2005, it was concluded that FFRDC R&D belongs in the government sector - rather than the sector of the FFRDC administrator, as had been reported in the past. R&D expenditures by FFRDCs were reclassified from the other three R&D performing sectors to the Government sector; previously published data were revised accordingly. Between 2003 and 2004, the method used to classify data by industry has been revised. This particularly affects the ISIC category “wholesale trade” and consequently the BERD for total services.

U.S. R&D data are generally comparable, but there are some areas of underestimation:

1. i) Up to 2008, Government sector R&D performance covers only federal government activities. That by State and local government establishments is excluded;
2. ii) Except for the Government and the Business Enterprise sectors, the R&D data exclude most capital expenditures. For the Business Enterprise sector, depreciation is reported in place of gross capital expenditures up to 2014. Higher education (and national total) data were revised back to 1998 due to an improved methodology that corrects for double-counting of R&D funds passed between institutions.

Breakdown by type of R&D (basic research, applied research, etc.) was also revised back to 1998 in the business enterprise and higher education sectors due to improved estimation procedures.

The methodology for estimating researchers was changed as of 1985. In the Government, Higher Education and PNP sectors the data since then refer to employed doctoral scientists and engineers who report their primary work activity as research, development or the management of R&D, plus, for the Higher Education sector, the number of full-time equivalent graduate students with research assistantships averaging an estimated 50 % of their time engaged in R&D activities. As of 1985 researchers in the Government sector exclude military personnel. As of 1987, Higher education R&D personnel also include those who report their primary work activity as design.

Due to lack of official data for the different employment sectors, the total researchers figure is an OECD estimate up to 2019. Comprehensive reporting of R&D personnel statistics by the United States has resumed with records available since 2020, reflecting the addition of official figures for the number of researchers and total R&D personnel for the higher education sector and the Private non-profit sector; as well as the number of researchers for the government sector. The new data revise downwards previous OECD estimates as the OECD extrapolation methods drawing on historical US data, required to produce a consistent OECD aggregate, appear to have previously overestimated the growth in the number of researchers in the higher education sector.

Pre-production development is excluded from Defence GBARD (in accordance with the Frascati Manual) as of 2000. 2009 GBARD data also includes the one time incremental R&D funding legislated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Beginning with the 2000 GBARD data, budgets for capital expenditure – “R&D plant” in national terminology - are included. GBARD data for earlier years relate to budgets for current costs only.