An Interview With Claudia Sahm

Of rules, recessions and more

Everyone trying to understand and track the U.S. economy keeps an eye on the “Sahm rule,” an indicator that signals, far in advance of official proclamations, that a recession has started. FRED even tracks the rule! Claudia Sahm, who devised the rule when she was working at the Federal Reserve, is one of my favorite macroeconomists — among other things because she devised the rule out of concern for the public good, a deep commitment to limiting the human damage from economic downturns. I spoke with her a few days ago. Transcript below the video:

. . .

TRANSCRIPT:
Paul Krugman in Conversation with Claudia Sahm

(recorded 4/8/25)

Paul Krugman Hi. This is Paul Krugman talking with Claudia Sahm, who is one of my favorite practicing macroeconomists and, particularly, among many other things, an expert on recessions, which seems oddly relevant right now. But there’s a lot to talk about. So hi, Claudia.

Claudia Sahm Good morning. Good to be here. Thank you so much for having me.

Paul Krugman Before we get into current events, a little bit about you. You've had a more interesting or more unorthodox career arc than a lot of us. Do you want to talk a little bit about what you've done with your life, to take it a little bit cosmically?

Claudia Sahm Right. So, I started at the Federal Reserve as an economist out at University of Michigan in the summer of 2007. So, my first year at the Fed was when everything was blowing up. I kind of show up when everything goes south. I spent a year during the Obama administration at the Council of Economic Advisors, so I had that view of policy. And then I left the Fed in 2019 to work on fiscal stimulus because I had done a lot of work on recessions, and ways to fight recession.

So I left and then, of course, not even months later, COVID hit. I had the opportunity to work with the White House and Congress on a response. And then in recent years I was independent as an economist for a while. And then I joined an investment management firm in DC. So now I'm watching with investment professionals as the markets are really in turmoil over tariffs.

It's been really helpful to be in those different kinds of environments and see really smart people trying to process what's happening. But an arc of the whole thing is thinking about policy, whether it's fiscal policy or monetary policy. I do aspire to have it be kind of a real world application. Like, what's actually happening in the data? What are people actually doing? We need the elegant theories, we need the frameworks to think, but sometimes they don't work as well in those moments of crisis.

Paul Krugman So, I'm actually very jealous because I don't have a rule named after me.

Claudia Sahm You have a Nobel Prize. I think you’re ok.

Paul Krugman Yeah, well, that and three dollars will get you a coffee, maybe.

The rule is an interesting thing. Why don't you tell us what the rule is? Let's start out with the rule and why it has worked so well.

Claudia Sahm Right. So, the Sahm rule, which was named after me. I think when economists often talk about rules, it's not like this must happen, like, a recession must happen. It's a policy rule. Like my recession indicator, I developed it in a larger policy volume that was all about different ways to create automatic stabilizers. So in a recession, tie the kinds of relief we give to households and businesses to economic conditions, not the political whims of the moment. Like really try to, ahead of time, get a plan together. And so the recession indicator was: Let's have a very reliable way to say, “Okay, now is time. Now we are in a recession. Let's send out the stimulus. Let's increase unemployment benefits. Let's get aid to communities.”

So, really “the Sahm rule,” this recession indicator, was a supporting actress in this whole process I was going through. It was really about, what do you do in a recession to give a front line of defense in those times to policymakers.

Paul Krugman For viewers, one of the reasons why we don't think we have things like the Great Depression anymore is that both when the economy starts to slump, stuff like unemployment insurance kicks in and tends to put a floor under people's purchasing power. The fact that tax receipts fall is actually good in recession, but it tends to lag some ways behind. And you were looking for something that would get out faster, get ahead of the curve, but still a kind of mechanical rule. So not a judgment call by officials, but some sort of rule, right?

5:00;00

Claudia Sahm As just a way to kind of standardize the response. And it's adding to it. We do have a safety net. We do have automatic stabilizers. It's just giving an extra kick. But you need to, and it's also a way to kind of think about what are the conditions where you'd want that extra policy. And we do know in recessions, Congress tends to step in and do something. But we could standardize under what conditions and what kind of policies we do. And again, I like to think about the real world aspect of this. If Congress has committed ahead of time to doing these policies in a recession, well, then you build the systems to be able to do it. And you can do them much better [by planning ahead] than if we wait until the crisis to put together policies. It can get very messy. And recessions, unfortunately are, I mean, there will be another one, right? We haven't solved that problem. And so, being well-prepared and having the systems in place makes a lot of sense, I think.

Paul Krugman The thing is, in the United States, the official definition of a recession is: it's a recession if the business cycle dating committee says it's a recession. But that's way after the fact. So you want something that says, you know, “We think this is highly likely to eventually be called a recession.” And the logic of the rule. Why don't you tell us what the rule is and then we'll talk about the logic behind it.

Claudia Sahm So, it's a very simple calculation. You look at the national unemployment rate and take the three month average. We never want to overreact to one month of data. So you average it out over three months. And then you look and see the current value. Is it a half a percentage point or more higher than the low over the prior 12 months? If that is the case, then it is highly likely that we are already in a recession or in the early months of a recession.

Now it is not perfect. And in fact, last year it triggered, we went just barely above that threshold and there was not a recession, I think, for a lot of reasons. It's a simple rule. It has some blind spots, but over time it has been very accurate. And the thing is, that's the early stages of a recession. So, we're trying to get something quicker than, say, the NBER telling us, or two months of GDP declines, or other kinds of rules of thumb. But the thing is the unemployment rate, even in the mildest of recessions, say, like the 2001 recession, rose two percentage points. So, that half a percentage point threshold, that's a pretty modest increase and it tends in recessions where once we get going, the feedback effects happen and then that unemployment rate keeps rising quite a bit more past that.

Paul Krugman So that's what I was going to say. The logic here is that recessions are a process. That once a recession gets going, it tends to feed on itself. The logic is that if you've seen unemployment rise that much, probably something really bad, or serious, is happening.

People often say it predicts recessions, but it doesn't. It's supposed to be a tripwire that says a recession has already started.

Claudia Sahm And to be fair, it's an empirical pattern. There's nothing magical about this half a percentage point threshold. It's just looking at the past episodes of recessions in the United States. It wouldn't necessarily apply to other countries that have different safety nets or different ways of dealing with unemployment. But increases in the unemployment rate, particularly once they get past pretty low thresholds, are not a good sign generally.

Sometimes there's other things going on that might push it up. Like maybe we got a big burst of immigration or labor supply. There are reasons why it could go up. But in general, in the U.S., if the unemployment rate is really moving up, we have big problems. And as you said, they do tend to feed on themselves. People lose their jobs. People don't get their raises. They're afraid they might have less income and they cut back on spending. And that just leads to more layoffs and more problems. So it's a dynamic that, once it gets going, it really does feed on itself.

The .5, maybe it's empirical. It's in the past. It's not magical. But it tells us something, that things are going in the wrong direction.

Paul Krugman There is a long-standing debate about whether a recession is somehow different or whether there's different degrees of deviation from full employment, but the whole point of the rule and the fact that the rule works is telling us that there is something different, that a recession is a special kind of event. Am I fair in saying that?

10:00;00

Claudia Sahm I think that's right. Having worked on the forecast at the Fed and again, really just starting my journey as an economist in 2007, 2008, there is this sense that in recessions, we see these contractions. We can see really sharp movements in economic activity. I mean, the pandemic was something in its own class. That hardly counts. But even just kind of our typical recessions, you can't get a model to do that.

They're not a typical kind of forecast where you're looking at averages over time. There's an extra kick from a recession where you start to see some very sudden movements. And I think this is important. And, as we start to hear, right now, different forecast shops talking about putting in a recession call and some of the unemployment rate numbers that are being put out, I'm like, “That's not a recession.” Those are too small. It's just very hard to forecast with those.

Paul Krugman Anyone who sat through this has a sense that there's something there, but it's not actually in the models, but it's important. Textbook macroeconomic models really don't have the process. But you were doing Fed forecasts.

Just to finish the rule discussion up, I guess you weren't specifying the program, but the idea was that, if you're having a fiscal response, the idea would be that this simple measure would trigger spending that would help to fight the recession. Is that it?

Claudia Sahm Right. So, the automatic salary piece is to send out stimulus checks, bump up the unemployment, insurance benefits. It's less well developed, but I also put time and thinking into, How do you taper that off? I had done a lot of work on and was an advocate for the rounds of stimulus checks that were put in place during the pandemic, though I would never have advised the biggest check to be the last one.

Paul Krugman Yeah.

Claudia Sahm So, even giving guidance to policymakers about how to calibrate. Like, what should the size of these payments be? What should be the frequency? I think there's a lot we could do to help guide. Or if you enhance unemployment benefits, when do you, when do you pull those enhancements off? And do you do that on local conditions? Do you do that on national conditions? So, the recoveries actually can be the hardest place, where the politics just really overwhelm the discussion of what the fiscal policy is. At the beginning of a recession, Congress tends to act. Like, when the bottom's falling out, we tend to act. Maybe not as effectively as we could, but there is this question about how the policy then plays out during the recovery.

Paul Krugman You arrived at the Fed just in time for all hell breaking loose and then were there during the recovery, and the sluggishness of that recovery had a big impact, certainly on how a lot of us perceived both the politics and the economics of that. Do you have a take or a feel about what you thought happened? Were you in a position to plead for policies that would make a faster return to full employment?

Claudia Sahm So, my role at the Fed was to focus on the macro economy. I was one of the leads on consumer spending. I could talk. I certainly had some pretty dismal forecasts, like, “I don't think this is coming back,” and, “this is causing a lot of damage.” And I did a lot of work on fiscal policy because, as odd as it might seem, someone who works at the Fed has to spend a lot of time on fiscal policy because the Fed's working around the edges. They're not going to comment in public on the policies that are being put in place, but they need to have a sense of what it is. So I spent a lot of time thinking about what the stimulus was, doing research on it. And yeah, it was pretty dark. So that did give me a lot of input to kind of say, “We need to do this better.” And that's where I hear discussions right now about recessions. “The short-term pain.” “We'll get past this.”

It's like, well, sometimes the short term is really long.

And you know, recession can be very damaging, especially to people beginning their careers or people who end up long term unemployed. We're not talking about six months and you're back on track. That was certainly the case after the Great Recession that really dragged on and we saw effects on productivity. I mean, recessions can be very damaging but recessions differ. And, in the end, the response needs to be tailored.

Paul Krugman Yeah.

Claudia Sahm But yeah. That absolutely radicalized me on how important fiscal policy is. It's really powerful if used properly.

15:00;00

Paul Krugman Yeah. By the way, some people may be watching this who don’t know. The distinction between fiscal and monetary policy is actually one of those things that not many people know. But we have, on the one hand, the Federal Reserve, which is quasi-independent and basically just sets interest rates. It has a few other things one can do, but not much. And that's very fast and technical or technocratic. But then we also have taxes and spending, which is set by Congress and the White House. It's an old tradition, going back to Milton Friedman, that says, “don't use fiscal policy, just money is enough.” But it hasn't been. And so what you've learned in the aftermath of the Great Recession was that fiscal policy was realistically the only game in town because interest rates were already zero. And you saw that it was really, very important.

We had premature austerity after that, after the Great Recession, which held us back a lot. Did you actually ever try to quantify the long-term damage? I mean, a lot of people have talked about it. I have to admit that I would just spend so much time tearing my hair out over the whole thing that I never really tried to put a number to it.

Claudia Sahm Yeah, I don't have a number per se, especially for an aggregate effect. A lot of what I spent time going through in my research was looking at different worker groups. The last recession was not this, but in the United States we’ve had a string of these jobless recoveries where even the GDP loss doesn't often cover the worker loss. Like, GDP came back after past recessions much more quickly than, say, workers getting employment and jobs and things like that. So I guess I've focused more at the demographic group levels as opposed to the aggregate economy.

Paul Krugman So, the COVID slump was incredibly high unemployment for a little while, but we came back really fast this time. Were you gratified by that? I mean, a lot of people were upset about the bout of inflation, but…

Claudia Sahm With the pandemic recession, its cause was so sudden. It was very dramatic. I mean, the layoffs, the job losses came so rapidly. That's not how we should think of a recession developing. We typically don't have, you know, things develop in weeks. And then, on the one hand, I was surprised at how rapidly the jobs started to come back. I was also surprised at how slowly some of the people who'd left the labor force—and we had millions of people just walk away from work—how slowly they came back. I think that what I learned to appreciate from the pandemic recession is how important supply is and how much production and how much time it takes to adjust. We really shut down the global economy. And when we turned it back on, there were all kinds of disruptions, especially when you think about inflation, how long it took for disruptions to work their way through.

Now, I will say, with fiscal policy, the transfers to households, to communities, the unemployment benefits, there is so much room for improvement on how that was done. And maybe it could have been more targeted, less generous in total. But it is quite remarkable in the United States. And this was true relative to many of our peer countries how well in terms of consumer spending, even after inflation, employment came back. So if we were thinking about this as fiscal relief, it really did the job. It was very messy. There was hardship. This was not a perfect cycle. But if you think about the alternative [where we say], “Let's just not. Let's not support households as much. Let's do fiscal austerity.” We could have had even more problems on top of it.

Paul Krugman Yeah, in human terms, we actually got through the whole COVID thing with less pain and a faster snap back than almost anyone would have imagined. And people hated it, but that's a whole other story.

Everyone out there now is trying desperately to figure out what's happening. We've had the craziest policy making environment I've ever seen, I think that anyone has ever seen. What's your take on where we are right now?

20:00;00

Claudia Sahm Yeah, in trying to think through that very question, where are we and where are we headed in the coming month, it's really kind of overwhelming at this moment. I do think given the policies, particularly after last week and the announcements of the much larger tariffs, putting that layering that on top of the efforts to downsize the federal government, cut back on contracts through the Department of Government Efficiency, the basic shutdown of immigration into the country. We now have a whole string of negative growth effects coming at us. And so by last week, my baseline is the US is likely to go into a recession later this year. It's just that you've layered on so much, if policies go in place as announced. And we continue on this path.

And then on top of that, you have this uncertainty that is just, I mean… Really the right thing to do in a moment like this is: don't hire, don't invest, don't do the big purchase. Because you don't know what comes next. And that actually is one of the pieces. We talked about how recessions are just so different than other models, because you get that heightened [uncertainty]. People just kind of freeze. And that creates another piece of the pullback.

Paul Krugman Yeah.

Claudia Sahm So on the one hand, look at all the pieces of the puzzle where we're at right now. We're not pointing in a good direction. It's not just about avoiding recession. There's a whole continuum, right? We're slowing growth and that has its problems. And because the tariffs have a stagflationary impulse, we're also looking at prices picking back up. And even if that's temporary, a temporarily higher inflation, it still is moving in the wrong direction. And that cuts into disposable income. So there's just a lot of effects here.

But what's so different is, this is where one individual is calling the shots here. And so many of these policy decisions that are being layered on top of each other, they have several common threads, but one that has really struck me and I found very troubling is how fast they're moving.

Paul Krugman Yeah.

Claudia Sahm So, a lot of times if there's a shock, if we have some time, we can adjust to it. But we can't adjust to tariff rates that change within a week or within a few months. That's just not enough time. It's in a very delicate moment in terms of where we go.

There’s this little bit of hope where President Trump [says]: ‘we're going to negotiate, these tariffs aren't gonna really be this high, we're gonna back off, we're gonna slow down DOGE…’ There are so many things you could do so that, okay, maybe growth slows down this year, but we're not going off a cliff. But that feels like wishful thinking as opposed to forecasting.

Paul Krugman Yeah, I've been saying that in some ways almost the openness to change may make it worse because if we just had a 20% tariff then, okay, people would work their way around that, but if we have a “maybe it will be and maybe it won't be 20% tariff,” that may be even more paralyzing than the tariff itself.

Claudia Sahm Right. It was, I thought, pretty notable on Monday when there was the fake news that the administration was going to pause the so-called reciprocal tariffs for 90 days, and the market just shot up on this. And it turned out not to be true, the White House walked it back down.

But I mean, just think if in March of 2020, we'd been able to say, “Oh, let's put a 90 day pause on COVID.” Like, how much better [that would have been with] the amount of time to adjust, get better policies, have a better plan. So, I think the speed with which this is moving is causing real problems. But I absolutely hear you that even if these tariffs were to disappear or get cut in half, around the next corner could be a whole set of new ones, right? Like, there's going to be this uncertainty that we're going to carry with us.

Paul Krugman I'm wondering, you mentioned DOGE and all of that stuff. Do you have a sense of how big a deal that is? I mean, we don't know exactly what they're doing. Are you tracking it? Never mind the merits of the policy itself, but the effects of it? Can you see it out there?

25:00;00

Claudia Sahm So, the government has not been very transparent in reporting. There's one thing about the agencies with the layoffs and we've seen headlines about tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands of fewer federal workers, but as with the employment report for March, there was basically no effect on federal employment. And the Bureau of Labor Statistics pointed out that any person who is on paid or, say, administrative leave or is receiving severance, the way the system always works with our employment statistics, they are still considered an employee of the federal government. So the standard places where we would do the accounting, we can't really see it. And the office of personnel management isn't being helpful. And some of the layoffs are being contested in court, so these are all kind of shadows in the background.

The federal workforce is relatively small. It's less than two percent of the total employment. I had written a piece trying to do the math on whether DOGE could really cause the recession on its own [even without] any of these other policies, and I don't think it reaches that bar. I mean, we have 170 million workers in the labor force. To get up to some rule triggering, it's almost adding another million unemployed workers, right? And so, that's a high bar. And I think from the straight federal layoffs, that's unlikely the case, although again, it’s still unclear how far the reductions in the work force are going to go. The big question mark that's even harder to trace is how important will be the reductions in contracts to universities and hospitals, what has been referred to as kind of “government adjacent,” because there you can get that type of employment that's tied back to the federal government, that's like two, maybe three times the number of the federal payroll employees. And so then you start to add things up. But, again, the accounting on the contracts is even sketchier coming out of DOGE with their website. So that one's really hard to quantify.

Paul Krugman Again, for viewers, there's been a lot of criticism of DOGE's claims about savings and what they’re going through and trying to end. Their response [to the criticism] was to make their reports harder to read. It's harder to tease out what it is they're claiming, let alone what they may actually be doing.

So I hadn't seen that figure. You say that the kind of contract-related stuff that might be in the crosshairs of the Musk people is two or three times the actual [directly employed number]...

Claudia Sahm Mm-hmm. I mean, those are estimates of what are federal contractors, grant employees. Again, those are estimates of what it is and it shifts around some, but yes. And then it depends on exactly how much they're cutting, but we certainly have seen a variety of universities putting hiring freezes in place. And some of that's where they haven’t necessarily had their grant funding cut, but it's that uncertainty about: will we have the funding in the next year? So, it's very hard to add it all up and see if in the aggregate, it's sufficient [to trigger a recession], but that's where you start. To me, it's when you start layering all of these policies that point you in the same direction, then it's kind of hard to avoid a real slowdown and an increase in unemployment.

Paul Krugman It’s a poor sample, but a large number of people I know have already been hit by freezes or have put plans on ice because they don't know if the federal funding is there. And that's got to be a pretty major issue. Admittedly, I'm not out there in the business world, but if it's that many people that are “me adjacent,” I guess you could say, that's gotta be a pretty significant thing.

You mentioned the immigration and so on. We're all talking tariffs, tariffs, tariffs. We're really not talking about ICE and immigration and all of that. Do you think that that's a significant drag? I obviously do, but can we talk about that for a second?

30:00;00

Claudia Sahm We had, if you just think about the economics of it, the surge in immigration over the past years, that was really important to the strength of the recovery and labor. I mean, we had a period early in the recovery where we had some very intense labor shortages that were disruptive and were putting some pressure on prices. They were inflationary.

And typically when you have a labor shortage, the Fed comes in and they help solve it by raising interest rates and, you know, demand goes down. But in this case, the labor shortage that was there was largely solved by bringing in more workers. And immigration wasn't the only source of more workers. We had people come off the sidelines and labor force participation of some marginalized groups like women and black men increased quite a bit. And so that was important.

But immigration was a really important piece of it. And in terms of dealing with the labor shortages, growing the economy, last year the unemployment rate did rise and it triggered the Sahm rule. It was in a period where we had labor force participation rising. And it's this kind of temporary [situation] when you have more workers come in, it takes them a little more time to find jobs as the unemployment rate goes up. For a good reason, when we have more workers on the other side of it, you don't have a recession, you have more production. So, already in the second half of last year, immigration into the country still under President Biden really slowed down. And so we're getting to a place where you don't even have to talk about the deportations. It's just also that coming into the country has really come to a standstill. So we don't have that “labor supply support” to growth that we had even just a year ago. So that's another piece of it.

Now, it may mean that our labor supply isn't growing as fast. We might see jobs numbers that aren't as big because we don't have as many people looking for jobs. It gets a little complicated, but in general, [immigration] was a pro-growth support to the economy and [now that’s been] thrown in reverse.

Paul Krugman Sounds like you're of the view that immigration actually helped the employment of native-born workers because it kind of filled gaps and allowed us to have a non-inflationary expansion. Is that where you are?

Claudia Sahm I agree with that. You know, this is a hotly contested, long standing area of [contention]. Do immigrant workers substitute for native born workers or not? But I think there's some really compelling work that's been done that says, if you think about, say, in construction or other [sectors], we work as a team. You need, as you said, people kind of filling in the gaps you can't fill if you're missing a certain number of workers. You're just not going to get the job done and that could then cost the entire team their work.

Paul Krugman Yeah.

Claudia Sahm And this long standing research and debate over who's substituting for whom, it was a rather unique environment in that we had some pretty severe labor shortages. We were looking for workers. It wasn't that we were trading out people. Businesses were trying to fill job openings that they couldn't fill. That's an even more special case from just any particular time we have immigration into the country and who are they competing against. So this had more of a win-win set up to it than during a typical time.

Paul Krugman Yeah, I think you and I were probably both looking at this a lot, the abnormally high ratio of unfilled positions to the number of unemployed workers. Some people were very pessimistic about inflation because of that, and it didn't actually turn out to be a problem. But that was probably in part because immigrants came in there and helped fill that hole.

So, it sounds to me like you feel we're gonna have a recession. But how deep? I mean, if we don't know what the administration is going to do, we don't know what the policies are going to be. But how deep do you fear it might be?

35:00;00

Claudia Sahm I guess I worry with this one more about the length than the depth. Because, especially if these tariffs are higher, and they remain higher, I mean, there's a whole concern about the recession. And then I do think it's also important to discuss longer term growth. Coming into this year, the talk had all been about the US economy being exceptional, that we had stronger growth relative to our peer countries coming out of the pandemic recession. And a piece that had gotten attention, and this can be a little fuzzy, but it got attention that the productivity numbers, productivity growth in the United States had picked up. And it's too early for it to be all about AI. Maybe the dynamic labor market, people moved around to different jobs—that might've been part of the pickup. Maybe the labor shortages, you know, encouraged more automation. We got some productivity kick, but having productivity growth pick up, even if it's like a quarter percentage point and be sustained would be amazing over the long term.

And so in this moment where we are so focused on these policies and the potential of recession and moving backwards [we should see] there's an opportunity cost where we had this labor productivity growth, we were making investments in this. And so that's the piece that's more about the long-term growth path than it is about the recession. But that's where I would worry that the consequences of this feel like they could be more long term than just the acute pain of a recession.

Paul Krugman That's a really interesting perspective.We had everything set for a really good few years but people in charge may have actually really screwed that up.

Claudia Sahm And I don't want to say the economy was perfect and the labor market was perfect. I am sympathetic to some of the problems that this administration points out. Like some of the stresses. But we were on the expansion path. Not without its weaknesses. But I'd much rather see businesses investing in how they're going to effectively deploy artificial intelligence than rework all of their supply chains and try and bring them back to the US.

The big disruption from the policies that are being put in place right now aren't necessarily what comes in the second half of this year where we have maybe a couple quarters of higher unemployment.

Paul Krugman Yeah, because that's one of those things where, if a quarter point on productivity growth doesn't seem like much, but if it extends over 10 years, then it dwarfs anything else that might be happening. Yeah.

I'm boggled by what's happening and you must be just as much, especially since this is kind of your specialty. Any thoughts about looking forward? What worries you besides this sort of downshift in growth?

Claudia Sahm Right, so it's going to be really important to sort out the winners and losers of this. Like thinking about different groups of workers, different industries. And then this is a tough one in terms of [projections, but], we've got inflation potentially picking up, employment losses, less investment, less spending.

But it could go in a lot of different directions. So I guess, and maybe this comes from my time at the Fed, my inclination is just to stick my nose in the data and try to watch and let people and their actions tell this story. Because it's a tough one to sort out. And it's confusing and it's kind of hard to think through the policies and make sense of it.

Paul Krugman Yeah. Well, we could go on, but I think I'm going to spare us both.

Thank you so much for coming on.

Claudia Sahm Thank you for having me, appreciate it.

Follow Claudia Sahm:

Stay-At-Home Macro (SAHM):

BlueSky: @claudia-sahm