FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Unemployment Benefits Should Depend on the Pandemic

In recent weeks many members of Congress have been arguing against extending the $600 weekly supplement to unemployment insurance benefits that was put into the original pandemic relief package. Some members of Congress have even argued for extra payments to encourage unemployed workers to return to work.

These proposals miss the logic that led Congress to originally put the supplements in place on a near unanimous vote. The Congress members who want to end the supplements and provide return-to-work bonuses quite explicitly are arguing that we want people to return to work.

However, the whole point of the $600 weekly supplement was to make it possible for people to not work. The idea was to give workers enough money to keep them more or less whole during a period in which they are not getting a paycheck. We wanted people to be able to stay at home rather than go to work in order to limit the spread of the pandemic.

This was a sensible policy. The shutdown of most businesses slowed the spread of the coronavirus in the United States, just as it did in other countries. It would make sense to reverse this policy and encourage people to go to work, if the pandemic were under control. Unfortunately, this is not the case in large parts of the country.

In the areas that had the strictest and longest shutdowns, like Michigan, Illinois and New York, the pace of the spread did slow sharply. At its peak in early April, Michigan was reporting more than 1,600 new cases a day. In recent days, the figure has been just more than 200. Illinois hit a peak of almost 3,000 cases a day in mid-May. It’s now around 500 a day. In early April, New York was seeing over 10,000 cases a day. In recent days it has had close to 500 new cases a day.

In these and other states, governors made the tough call to force businesses to close. These decisions faced opposition both from people within the state and from President Donald Trump. But they paid off in sharply lower infection rates.

While these states can safely reopen, with rules on face mask wearing, social distancing and other measures to prevent a resurgence of the pandemic, the same is not true of states that imposed less stringent lockdowns and reopened businesses earlier. In these states the pandemic is more out of control than ever.

For example, Texas is now seeing more than 6,500 cases a day. At its worst point in April or May, it had just over 1,600 cases a day. Florida now has over 5,000 cases a day compared to a peak in early April of just over 1,200. Arizona has now has almost 2,800 cases a day compared to a May peak of less than 400. Adjusted for the relative size of their populations, the growth of infections in Arizona today is not much lower than it was in New York at its peak in early April.

Given that many states have far higher infection rates now than they did during the periods of the lockdown, how can it make sense to say that we want people to go to work now, risking their own health and the health of those around them?

If Congress felt that the spread of the pandemic warranted people staying home when it passed the initial pandemic relief package, then it should follow that it still wants people to stay home in the areas where the pandemic is continuing to spread out of control.

This suggests that we would want the continuation of supplemental benefits to depend on the success in controlling the pandemic. In states where the pandemic has been largely contained, it makes sense to at least scale back the supplement. (There are still economic considerations, which may warrant an expanded benefit.) However, in states where the pandemic is still out of control, the supplements are needed more than ever.

The positive test rate should provide a simple measure, which is difficult to game, of the extent to which the pandemic is under control. For example, we can say that if the positive rate is less than 4 percent, we can scale back the supplement, but otherwise it remains at its current level.

The basic point here is a simple one. If the pandemic is out of control, we should be encouraging people to stay home, not to return to work.

This column first appeared in the Bozeman Chronicle.

More articles by:

Dean Baker is the senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC. 

August 04, 2020
David Krieger
Eight A-Bomb Haiku
August 03, 2020
Linda Pentz Gunter
The Resistible Rise of Nuclear Gangsters…and Their Downfall
John G. Russell
The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters
Cal Winslow
Their Heroes and Ours: California’s Health Care Crisis
David Barber
Renouncing White Privilege: A Left Critique of Robin DiAngelo’s “White Fragility”
Linda G. Ford
Free Joy Powell! America’s Political Prisoner for Fighting Police Brutality
Prabir Purkayastha
Trump’s Withdrawal From WHO: a Cover-Up for His Abject Failure on COVID-19
Dean Baker
The Plunge in Consumption of Services Leads to a Record 32.9 Percent Drop in GDP
Ramzy Baroud
Human Rights Defenders: Palestinian Eyewitness Testimony of the Execution of Abdul Fattah al-Sharif by Israeli Soldier, Elor Azaria
Karen J. Greenberg
Accountability is Gone in America
Cesar Chelala
A Wrong Message for the Pandemic
Jonah Raskin
Chesa Boudin: Reformer in the San Francisco DA’s Office
George Wuerthner
Forest Plan Failure in the Montana Rockies
Ralph Nader
Speaker Nancy Pelosi Writes to Me!
Laura Flanders
Take on the Tech Mob Now or Perish
CounterPunch News Service
Conservationists Intervene to Oppose New Dam Project Near the Grand Canyon
Weekend Edition
July 31, 2020
Friday - Sunday
Bette Lee
Tear Gas and Thugs at the BLM Protests in Portland
Rob Urie
Russiagate, Nazis, and the CIA
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Demon Seed
T.J. Coles
The Space Wars Have Begun
Andrew Levine
Insurgents and Iconoclasts Needed (But for Now Lay Low)
Paul Street
“Time to Say the F-Word”: Why Now?
Matthew Scully
The Triple Antagonist of the Police, Policing, and Policy
Richard D. Wolff
The Consequences of Inequality Can Be Fatal
Richard C. Gross
Feds Give In, Maybe
Erik Molvar
Inside Trump’s Attack on America’s Environmental Charter
W. T. Whitney
“We Charge Genocide:” Forerunner at UN of Black Lives Matter
Brett Wilkins
The Bologna Massacre, the ‘Strategy of Tension’ and Operation Gladio
Nick Pemberton
Does The Left Stand With Uighurs?
Cesar Chelala
Donald Trump’s Misguided Attacks on WHO
Barbara G. Ellis
A Portland ‘Sit-Down’ Can Rock Trump’s Boat
Nancy J. Altman
On Medicare and Medicaid’s 55th Birthday, Let’s Expand Benefits—Not Cut Them
John O'Kane
Systemic Racism And Progressive Reconstruction
Binoy Kampmark
Julian Assange’s Political Indictment: Old Wine in Older Bottles
Ramzy Baroud
List of Targets Leaked: Israel Fears the Worst in ICC Investigation of War Crimes
Marshall Auerback
Every Step the EU Takes Toward Financial Unity Sows New Seeds of Its Potential Collapse
Bob Fitrakis - Harvey Wasserman
Fascist Ohio’s Bribed $60 Million Nuke Reactor Meltdown
Walden Bello
Could the Duterte Regime be COVID-19’s Next Victim?
Jonathan H. Martin
Bernie Groups Break Free of Dems: New Party Rising?
Ron Jacobs
Hunting with the Father
Michael Welton
What Does It Mean To Tolerate Others?
Eve Ottenberg
Climate Change is Genocide
Serge Halimi
The Twenty Years War
Kathy Kelly
Yemen: a Torrent of Suffering in a Time of Siege
Myles Hoenig
American Exceptionalism
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail