Was it smart for states to cut UI benefits?

Last year about half of the states eliminated the supplemental unemployment benefit program that was launched in reaction to the pandemic.  The logic in these states, most of which had Republican governors or legislatures, was that the extra UI benefits discouraged job search.  

New research by a team of economists, including a Harvard Business School professor, indicates that only 20 percent of the unemployed workers were employed three months later.  More alarmingly, the cuts in UI benefits led to reduced spending in these states.  The math is pretty simple.  There were 1.1m newly employed workers who collectively made $900m in the states that cut benefits.  At the same time there were 3m unemployed workers who did not get to collect $7.6b in benefits.  The overall result is less spending in those states, which in turn no doubt led to reduced employment.  

Did cutting unemployment benefits lead to more employment?

Under the covid relief bill passed last March, unemployment benefits were increased by $300 per week.  Although this improves the living standard for the unemployed, it does create an incentive to delay returning to work, especially for those who earn more from unemployment benefits than they would from working.  

Employers in many sectors of the economy faced labor shortages, so the supplemental benefits became a political hot potato.  In June 22 states dropped the $300 supplement. 

A new study by economists at four universities were able to get detailed data on 19 of those 22 states.  They found that 1.1m people had their benefits reduced and that by early August only 13% of them had found jobs.  Other recent studies cited in this NYT piece find similar conclusions.  

The $300 supplement ends on September 6.  Based on these studies, we should not expect a big drop in the number of vacant positions or a big increase in employment.  

Private unemployment insurance

People buy all types of insurance -- health, auto, home -- as a mechanism to manage risk.  One of the biggest risks is losing one's job, an event likely to lead to months of zero earnings followed by a new job that pays much less than the one you had.  

Each state has an unemployment insurance system funded by payroll taxes.  The benefits are modest, usually about 25-33% of wages.  Their duration varies by state and with economic conditions; the unemployed typically can get benefits for a year or more during recessions whereas the cap can be three to six months in peak economic conditions.  Relying on state unemployment benefits when jobless is comparable to relying on Social Security when retired -- you better have other sources of income or have some savings you can draw down.

NYT reports that the private sector has come up with a new alternative -- an insurance product called IncomeAssure.  Employees pay a monthly premium and receive insurance that covers the gap between state unemployment insurance and 50% of their before-tax earnings.  As you might expect, the top benefit is capped at $125k.  Also there is a six month lag between the time you pay the premium and the time you are eligible to collect benefits.

To be successful, IncomeAssure will have to make wise decisions on pricing.  Premiums vary by location and occupation to reflect differential risks of being laid off; construction workers pay more for the same benefit than public school teachers.   IncomeAssure also will have to worry about having enough funds to pay promised benefits when the next recession hits.  And their customers should worry about this too!

Historically I have used unemployment insurance as an example of a product that the private market was unlikely to provide.  Maybe IncomeAssure will prove me wrong.

What have we learned from NC's cuts in unemployment benefits?

Not very much, argues Michigan economist Justin Wolfers in Sunday's NYT.  NC cut extended unemployment benefits a year ago and there is little evidence that this has helped promote employment.  The state unemployment rate is down but this is because more have given up looking for work versus more people accepting jobs.  If you compare trends in NC to adjacent states that did not make any cuts in benefits, it is very hard to discern any difference in either unemployment or employment.

My take: unemployment benefits in the US are relatively low compared to European countries, so low that they by themselves do not play a driving role in job search decisions.  But one must be careful to consider other forms of assistance -- especially food stamps and Medicaid.  Job search intensity depends heavily on two variables: (1) the perceived odds of finding a job and (2) the difference in income between working and not working.  If there are not many jobs around and unemployment benefits are not very large, then cutting the number of weeks of eligibility for benefits is not going to make a big difference in the job search behavior of the unemployed.  It is going to make a modest difference in their income and economic well being.

What have the UI benefit cuts in NC done so far?

I just ran across three blog posts on what has happened to the North Carolina labor market since unemployment benefits were cut drastically in July.  One account is from the left, one from the right and one is data-focused.  (Aside: 2 of the 3 appeared in Tyler Cowen's Marginal Revolution website.)

Basic labor econ 101 says that the cuts in benefits will mean fewer unemployed persons and a smaller labor force.  Those collecting benefits must document job search efforts to continue receiving a check; if fewer people can collect checks, some of them will cut back on their search intensity and drop out of the labor force.

The impact on employment is more difficult to gauge.  One possibility is that the unemployed will become willing to work at lower wages and this would lead to faster transitions from joblessness to employment.  On the other hand, net income from a low wage job might not be all that much higher than the income generated from income maintenance programs and informal market activity, so there may be no change in employment.

I took a quick look at the data for NC from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.  So far (June versus November) employment is unchanged, the number of unemployed is down by 18 percent, and the labor force has shrunk by 1 percent.  The unemployment rate is down from 8.8 to 7.4 percent, but it entirely reflects unemployed people dropping out of the labor force.  The good news is that there are fewer unemployed; the bad news is that they are not employed and have lower incomes.