https://www.nytimes.com/article/stimulus-unemployment-payment-benefit.html?auth=login-google
The Trump administration and many other states have agreed to distribute $300 to those who are unemployed from the Federal Emergency Management Agency who gives out disaster relief payments. So basically these funds are coming from the federal funds disaster savings. People without jobs with small unemployment benefits will not get the $300, but only those who already get the $100 weekly check. After the delays in the spring because of backlogs in the system, now states have the ability to keep the checks flowing to those who qualify for the check. Republicans are hoping for a smaller, $200, payment while Democrats are looking to give out larger sums of money. This extra liquidated cash sent out to people will stimulate the economy because more people will go to restaurants and retailers in the short run.
We know this is helping the economy in the short run, but how do you think it will stimulate and stabilize our economy in the long run?
Do you think that the payments should be more or less then $300? Personally I believe they should be more.
ReplyDeleteWhen the pandemic was still in its early stages, an extra $600 a week was being given out to those unemployed on top of what they would be receiving from their state's unemployment programs. As a result, two-thirds of those laid off because of the pandemic were earning more from unemployment than had they would have had they remained at their jobs. This then has led to a debate as to whether or not the more generous unemployment benefits helped delay people from returning to work. I am not sure if I believe that is the case or not, I think more factors come into play. However, since President Trump has reduced the benefits to $300 a week, there has been a significant drop in jobless claims. So to answer Libby's question, I think it is possible the reduction could help stimulate the economy in the long run because maybe it gave an incentive for more people to return to work (? - I doubt the majority of people willingly chose to remain unemployed - but perhaps it did cause some people to return to work). Then to answer Noah's question, I think $300 is a good amount, so people are not making more from unemployment than what they would have at their old jobs, instead it may be closer to equal. However, it is unfortunate for those who are now earning even less than they would have at their job.
ReplyDeleteTaking money from FEMA most likely is not the best funding source. There was hurricane Laura that just hit on the 20th of August. FEMA may not have the funding necessary to help mitigate the damage done by Laura. Not only will Laura do damage that FEMA might not be able to fix, but there are more hurricanes on the horizon approaching. There has been a trend that tropical storms are getting more powerful, and with FEMA having funds taken away, it sounds like a bad combo.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that it probably was not the best place to take money out of considering how natural disasters are increasing in frequency, but I also think that taking the money out of disaster relief is mitigated by non-profit organizations like Red Cross and donations from Americans. not Although I do not agree that money should be taken out from FEMA and that not all donations are going to cover the cost of damages incurred by a natural disaster.
Delete