4 ms·

> they could do nothing and be criticized for allowing the economy to tank and causing mass unemployment Or they could purposefully close the economy with "sta

• Sanzig 5y ago
  That's what direct-to-individual programs are for, though. In Canada we had both types of programs. Businesses qualified for loans of up to $40k, a rent subsidy, and a wage subsidy that covered up to 75% of employee wages. In cases where that was insufficient and employees had to get laid off or significantly had their hours cut, it was backstopped with a program where individuals could apply for a $2000 per month subsidy by attesting they met a list of criteria. We've had a number of lockdowns but we rode through them by having both sets of measures. My understanding is the US had similar programs to the former, but not like the latter. Other than a couple of general stimulus payments, increased unemployment benefits were delegated to state agencies, many of which were overwhelmed and weren't able to process unemployment in a timely manner.