4 ms·

A new analysis by Peter Ganong, Pascal Noel and Joseph Vavra, economists at the University of Chicago, uses government data from 2019 to estimate that 68 percen

A new analysis by Peter Ganong, Pascal Noel and Joseph Vavra, economists at the University of Chicago, uses government data from 2019 to estimate that 68 percent of unemployed workers who can receive benefits are eligible for payments that are greater than their lost earnings. They also found that the estimated median replacement rate — the share of a worker’s original weekly salary that is being replaced by unemployment benefits — is 134 percent, or more than one-third above their original wage. A substantial minority of those workers, particularly in low-wage professions like food service and janitorial work, may end up receiving more than 150 percent of their previous weekly salary. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/many-americans-are-getting-more-money-from-unemployment-than-they-were-from-their-jobs/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/many-americans-are-gett... A Bank of America Global Research report published in April estimated, nationwide, workers who earn less than $32,000 annually could make more money on unemployment than they could from work. An analysis of California Employment Development estimates showed $31,200, or $15 an hour, was the break-even point in the state, not accounting for differences in how the money might be taxed. The state portion of benefits is capped at $450 per week for higher-income earners. “You could potentially earn $750 a week maximum in California using unemployment. That can be a disincentive to some workers especially some of those workers in lower-paid jobs,” said Roccato. https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/verify/verify-can-you-make-more-on-unemployment-or-working-for-minimum-wage-why-theres-more-than-just-money-to-consider-childcare-covid-pandemic-safety/509-ed19ee74-28da-439c-8deb-24803649b664 https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/verify/verify-can-you-make...

fishtacos 5y ago
Literally the entirety of that "argument" falls apart when one takes into consideration that unemployment benefits are regularly limited to a short time span and a fraction of your recent income, qualified by lay offs, not being fired or voluntarily leaving work, and even when they were extended due to something as disruptive as a GLOBAL PANDEMIC, the payments were still limited and are no longer in effect. And the fact that the most anyone could make was capped under 24,000 USD a year - if you consider anything above poverty level in the US in 2020/2021, then this conversation should stop here...
- mlyle 5y ago
  Look, this whole argument is terribly messy-- made so by entrenched political positions and lack of constructive dialog. The thing is, a terrible feature of current poverty programs in North America is the existence of cliffs, where the net resources of a household can decrease -- especially in the short to intermediate term-- if one pursues more lucrative careers. See https://www.atlantafed.org/economic-mobility-and-resilience/advancing-careers-for-low-income-families/what-are-benefits-cliffs https://www.atlantafed.org/economic-mobility-and-resilience/... This is at baseline. Some of the pandemic response measures have further worsened the picture. Work, in the short term, is punished. We need a (small) basic income, and to structure the rest of poverty programs to make sure these kinds of perverse incentives no longer exist.
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    The cliffs are designed to divide the population on the issue of the benefits. Making benefits universal is understood as a way to make the population unite behind them long-term, a political danger to capitalist elites who benefit from worker precarity. Having no benefits at all is another political danger. The obvious cruelty of total economic exclusion results in social movements for reform. Crippled benefits gate-kept by a punitive bureaucratic layer are the stable compromise.
    - cplusplusfellow 5y ago
      > a political danger to capitalist elites who benefit from worker precarity. This seems like an unusually pejorative way of describing the desire to have a functioning economy, where workers actually have an incentive to work instead of being paid to Netflix and chill. And this article and its commentary are replete with examples that defy the usual straw men associated with arguments for UBI, if that helps. CERB at $2k a month is the prime example and the source of the original article.
      - DarylZero 5y ago
        I used objective, neutral language. You called it pejorative, then you used pejorative language. Ideological defense of capitalism often takes the same forms as denial of interpersonal abuse.

fishtacos 5y ago

Literally the entirety of that "argument" falls apart when one takes into consideration that unemployment benefits are regularly limited to a short time span and a fraction of your recent income, qualified by lay offs, not being fired or voluntarily leaving work, and even when they were extended due to something as disruptive as a GLOBAL PANDEMIC, the payments were still limited and are no longer in effect. And the fact that the most anyone could make was capped under 24,000 USD a year - if you consider anything above poverty level in the US in 2020/2021, then this conversation should stop here...

mlyle 5y ago
Look, this whole argument is terribly messy-- made so by entrenched political positions and lack of constructive dialog. The thing is, a terrible feature of current poverty programs in North America is the existence of cliffs, where the net resources of a household can decrease -- especially in the short to intermediate term-- if one pursues more lucrative careers. See https://www.atlantafed.org/economic-mobility-and-resilience/advancing-careers-for-low-income-families/what-are-benefits-cliffs https://www.atlantafed.org/economic-mobility-and-resilience/... This is at baseline. Some of the pandemic response measures have further worsened the picture. Work, in the short term, is punished. We need a (small) basic income, and to structure the rest of poverty programs to make sure these kinds of perverse incentives no longer exist.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  The cliffs are designed to divide the population on the issue of the benefits. Making benefits universal is understood as a way to make the population unite behind them long-term, a political danger to capitalist elites who benefit from worker precarity. Having no benefits at all is another political danger. The obvious cruelty of total economic exclusion results in social movements for reform. Crippled benefits gate-kept by a punitive bureaucratic layer are the stable compromise.
  - cplusplusfellow 5y ago
    > a political danger to capitalist elites who benefit from worker precarity. This seems like an unusually pejorative way of describing the desire to have a functioning economy, where workers actually have an incentive to work instead of being paid to Netflix and chill. And this article and its commentary are replete with examples that defy the usual straw men associated with arguments for UBI, if that helps. CERB at $2k a month is the prime example and the source of the original article.
    - DarylZero 5y ago
      I used objective, neutral language. You called it pejorative, then you used pejorative language. Ideological defense of capitalism often takes the same forms as denial of interpersonal abuse.