1. Which is a problem if you're immediately unemployed. If you're instead working part time at a rate greater than unemployment and still retaining healthcare b

1. Which is a problem if you're immediately unemployed. If you're instead working part time at a rate greater than unemployment and still retaining healthcare benefits, you don't have to worry about unemployment (depending on what sort of healthcare policies the employer stipulates). This can be a discussion employers have with employers: allowing people to have choices between working part time, taking a temporary pay cut (depending on the situation--aceoss the board including upper management), or being laid off. 2. That's pretty much verifiably false. That's fundamentally trickle down economics which everyone knows simply doesn't work. Employers could take that money and increase your compensation. Historically, that hasn't happened. Any breaks given on those expenses temporarily go to an employee then disappear quickly after because there's nothing the business gains by shifting that to labor expenses. The most recent example to look at is the 2017 'Tax Cuts and Jobs Act' which translated to almost no increase in labor rates aside from initial PR compensation packages that people received, forgot about, and continued on with stagnant compensation rates. 3. I never said it's free money, I pointed out in the first paragraph it's not free money. Employees pay a large portion of unemployment as taxes, as I said. Businesses also contribute to that in taxes but the lionshare comes from labor taxes.