Why would you not agree? It’s simple math. In most states, your weekly unemployment is half your salary, up to a cap. Under the CARES Act, you then add $600/week. So if that extra $600 is more than half your weekly paycheck, you earn more on unemployment. It works out to everyone earning less than about $62,000, which is more than half of people in most of the country.

Pointing out that this creates a disincentive to return to work isn’t accusing anyone of “living high in the benefits hog.” It’s not that we’re talking about a ton of money. It’s that we do need most of the country to return to work eventually. And if even white collar workers making $60,000 a year are getting paid more in unemployment, that is a pickle we’re going to have to resolve at some point.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't unemployment benefits temporary? Are these any different? I was reading through the tangled web of information at the DOL[0] and did not come away feeling certain one way or another.

Do you really think not enough people working belongs near the top of our list of concerns at the moment? I have heard this line from every conservative I've talked to about this, and it just seems like missing the forest for the trees. On the long list of systemic problems this period and our response to it is in danger of creating, this seems like it belongs on the list, but not close enough to the top to be worth the time discussing it. I'm a lot more worried about the incentives we're manipulating for businesses and investors than for unemployed people.

[0]: https://www.dol.gov/coronavirus/unemployment-insurance

Yes, they're temporary. The concern is that if the shut down ends soon (seems unlikely but who knows) then it will delay an economic recovery until the temporary benefits expire. For a faster economic recovery we would want as many people getting back to work as possible. If you make more money not working, the rational choice is to wait for the temporary benefits to expire and then go back to work.

Again, unemployment requires you to actively search for work and accept offered employment or you lose benefits. Higher benefits don't create an incentive to voluntarily stay out of work since you can't have them if you do that.

The requirement to be actively searching for work has actually been temporarily paused in many states, including eg/ CA https://www.edd.ca.gov/unemployment/eligibility.htm. Presumably that provision will be removed along with the SIPs, but just figured it was worth being precise here.

That seems to rely on an assumption that there's no variation in amount or quality of job searching effort, above the minimum required, which might be influenced. It also assumes inability to fake a job search, or sabotage an otherwise legitimate one, which might let an individual so intending to fall below the required minimum. The latter seems questionable, the first seems wrong.

I feel like there's a lot of pedantry in this thread and this topic in general. The point is that people not wanting to work is just so very far from our problem that it is ridiculous to see people harping on it so much. People aren't working because they were furloughed or laid off because aggregate demand is way down, it has nothing to do with the unemployment benefits they're getting. The vast vast majority of those people just want their boss to call them and say "good news! our customers are back! see you tomorrow!".

Of course we are all speculating on what people want or will do in this situation.

But take a hypothetical continuum of unemployment benefits. At which point will your thesis that "people want to work but are unable" switch to "people aren't working because they're being paid way more to not work? The switch will probably be binary at the individual level but will look like a continuum when looking at the population level.

Individuals will of course respond differently depend on the specific contexts of their life. I think in the end a quantity that will matter will be the ratio of unemployment benefits to old job salary. Other factors such as job satisfaction in previous job will contribute to the variance.

My actual point is that this is an ideologically driven distraction, not a real policy debate.

I was speaking just to the argument made by dragonwriter that, because something is banned, the possibility has no impact. If you think this was motivated by an ideological objection to government assistance... well, you're mistaken, because I don't have one of those. I can't speak to anything up-thread.

Ok you're right, maybe I have two points: I think this distraction is driven by ideology and partly maintained by (or taking advantage of) pedantry. It is far too tempting for logically-minded pedants to say "but you can clearly see what the numbers show", which is true, but is not a useful point except as further fuel for the distraction.

The real problem we're going to have is people struggling to find jobs as demand ramps back up slowly in fits and starts. This whole conversation is an attempt to portray those struggling people as the problem. It is indirection, like in a magic trick. And the pedantic "well actually"s are falling for the trap.

It's a real bummer because it's definitely going to work, which is going to cause us to underinvest in unemployment insurance over time, which is going to make this even more painful than it was already going to be. It would just be nice if people could see that they're being played.

Calling out significant flaws is not pedantry. Defending arguments because they are "on your side", irrespective of merit, is destructive to the kind of reasoned discussion I value on this site (certainly it's not always available, but let's aim for more of it, yeah?). And I actually think that repeating obviously flawed arguments does the other side's work, turning away the undecided - especially on a site like this.

For some topics that are intended purely as distractions, the whole goal is just to get people talking about it. So mission accomplished.

Cura te ipsum, but if that's your remaining issue I won't distract further.

Indeed you're right! Plus I enjoyed looking that up :)

The CARES Act extends unemployment benefits through the end of 2020 delegates to the states what the job search requirement means. States have a strong incentive to interpret it loosely because the federal government is footing the bill. Additionally, the “offered employment” thing is not hard and fast line. Restrictions will be lifted incrementally—there will be no “everyone back to work moment.” Businesses with furloughed employees will want to call them back up sooner rather than later, but workers earning more on unemployment have an incentive to not come back to work as soon as they could. Businesses, particularly smaller ones, aren’t going to be in a position to say “come back or you’re fired.” (Can you imagine the liability?) It’s during that transition period when the incentives could slow down the recovery.

Businesses are going to have trouble finding enough customers to support the staff they do hire, not this fantasy problem of having trouble finding staff.

That seems incorrect based on a couple of important points. A job is an ongoing relationship that can yield years of income and marketable experience. A fraction of a year of unemployment is not really comparable. Jobs and careers are anything but simple math. Furthermore the recent Pew study indicates that only 29% of unemployed in March collected benefits, largely because systems for distributing benefits are slow and typically service numbers several orders of magnitude smaller. Even in the best of times unemployment insurance has a failure rate of around 15% give or take depending on the state. If a system for distributing benefits is slow, significantly dysfunctional, and prone to cutting people off for a range of reasons then it is unlikely to compete with employment as a source of money, satisfaction, or resume enhancement.

But is anyone seriously advocating keeping a $600/week around after the quarantine? If we can get out the other side without millions of bankruptcies, foreclosures, and evictions, certainly that will contribute to a faster economic recovery. Sure, some white collar workers will be disincentivized from working... as long as the CARES act stays in effect. And you don't get unemployment if you quit, so no one will actively leave their jobs under this scheme.

> But is anyone seriously advocating keeping a $600/week around after the quarantine?

Yes. Or something close to it:

https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-would-receive-2000...

"The Emergency Money for the People Act, introduced by Reps. Tim Ryan and Ro Khanna, would give $2,000 a month to Americans over the age of 16 who make less than $130,000 a year."

"The payments would continue for at least six months and would last until unemployment falls to pre-coronavirus levels."

That would probably only cost a few trillion dollars. It'll take a decade to get back to pre-virus unemployment levels, and they know that. It took nearly a decade to get to those super low unemployment levels after the great recession, which was not nearly so bad as this situation.

Actually, the payments (because they would encourage marginally employable people to stay out of the labor force and thus out of the divisor for unemployment) would radically accelerate the (brief) return to pre-crisis unemployment. Of course, once they were withdrawn, the unemployment number would shoot back up, but that has no effect on the duration of the payments.

It’s either they pay for everyone’s lost salary or people will just disregard the stay home orders and go back to work.

> That would probably only cost a few trillion dollars. It'll take a decade to get back to pre-virus unemployment levels, and they know that. It took nearly a decade to get to those super low unemployment levels after the great recession, which was not nearly so bad as this situation.

Well, it was a horrible way for the US to get to experiment with a wide-scale UBI system and create a viable model. One that was previously thought to be unfathomable, but honestly I'll take it.

And maybe because of my age, but 2008 was way worse than this. This doesn't seem like it will create waves of lost generations, for startes no one is being evicted from their Homes (yet) and no eviction systems are in place in many parts of the US.

> The bill comes as the IRS is about to begin mailing out checks approved by the recent COVID-19 relief package. Those will come printed with President Donald Trump's name on them, it was revealed this week.

Lets see what we learn from this, I'm personally cautiously optimistic on a Human level if this is the step being proposed. I'm just having a hard time internalizing how this is all being done while a clown like Trump is in office... I mean if this Andrew Yang, of course, maybe even Sanders, but Trump?!

In my state, unemployment maxes out at $400/week, not half my salary. So with CARES, I would get an additional $600 for a total of $1k/week. This doesn't last indefinitely, only 26 weeks. Also, unemployment isn't immediate; in my state (prior to the huge backlog) it could take up to 21 days to get paid. Now I assume it's longer.

So someone on unemployment is only "making" up to $26K, then they're SOL.

> disincentive to return to work

Arguably, this is a positive unintended consequence of the act in this situation.

It’s not a positive consequence. Contrary to popular notions of “bullshit jobs” our economy actually needs all these people to work to maintain our standard of living.

> Pointing out that this creates a disincentive to return to work isn’t accusing anyone of “living high in the benefits hog.”

Sure it is, plus it's a lie since unemployment requires active job search and taking offered employment, except for temporary layoff where you position is retained, where it still requires return to work when the employer ends the temporary layoff. You cannot choose to stay out of work and draw unemployment, so it cannot create incentives to do so.

I think you're being extraordinarily generous in your assumption that people wont just apply to jobs in bad faith. There are myriad opportunities to present yourself as a person that shouldn't be hired that occur between applying and getting an offer.

Im a proponent of UBI, but we don't do ourselves any favors by insisting that the current system isnt exploitable.

Is there a single state in the US that has not waived the “active job search” requirement for unemployment benefits at this point?

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/employers-and-workers-i... Says most states. Without much searching I found at least 3 (AK,WA and CA).

Not Washington:

https://esd.wa.gov/newsroom/job-search-requirement-now-optio...

CA is currently requiring the unemployed to be actively seeking work to receive benefits? That can’t be right.

Yeah, it's not right. As a CA resident who has looked into it, their unemployment website specifically says that requirement is waved

Yes, and that's a GOOD thing. If their job really is that essential then it's on the employer to pay them enough to make it worth it. No one should have to risk their lives (and that of their loved ones, and really everyone's) to put food on the table.

Those increased unemployment benefits are very unlikely to last as long as widespread unemployment.

Most states are still dreadfully far behind processing unemployment insurance claims. A lot of people who should be getting slightly bigger checks haven’t yet seen a dime of their unemployment insurance.

Yup, my sister said she is making two times as much here in MO. She was blown away. Honestly I thought it was a mistake in her favor until I read this.

Well, there's a very real systems level concern there. There are anecdotes - just anecdotes, but it'll already be a disaster if we start getting data - of workers yelling at business owners for securing the PPP funds to save their jobs.