President Trump has thrown the fate of the relief bill into doubt just as economic data show why the help is so desperately needed.
nytimes.com/2020/12/23/bus…
Even a short delay could have severe consequences for the millions of Americans whose unemployment benefits run out at the end of this week.
As @EvermoreMichele told me: “Every day that this drags on, that’s a day that it’s hard to put food on the table for the kids, it’s another bill missed, it’s just another hardship,”
Note that even if Trump signed the bill *today*, millions of people would still face a temporary lapse in benefits because Congress waited so long that states have had to start cutting off the expiring programs.
nytimes.com/live/2020/12/2…
I reached out to UI offices in several states. Here's one representative response, from Kentucky:
"There will be a lapse in payments, as the programs end on Dec. 26. ... We can’t begin to make changes to the UI system until we know all of the details and receive the guidance."

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Ben Casselman

Ben Casselman Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @bencasselman

25 Dec
Just got some very grim Christmas Eve news for unemployed workers: If the president doesn't sign the relief bill by the end of the day on Saturday, it will effectively cut the extension of the expiring unemployment programs to 10 weeks from 11.
nytimes.com/2020/12/24/us/…
Here's why: The bill says that the benefits won't be available for "any week of unemployment commencing before the date of the enactment of this Act." So if Trump doesn't sign the bill until next week, people can't get benefits until the FOLLOWING week.
But the *end date* of benefits doesn't change: March 14 (with a phase-out lasting until April 5). So workers would effectively lose a week of benefits. Note this applies to the $300 supplement as well.
Read 6 tweets
23 Dec
869,000 people filed for unemployment benefits last week (regular state programs, not seasonally adjusted). Another 398,000 filed for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance, which will expire after this week if the president doesn't sign the new relief package.
nytimes.com/live/2020/12/2…
Both regular state claims and PUA were down from the week before but remain above their early November level.
Meanwhile personal income fell for the second straight month in November, and consumer spending fell for the first time since the spring.
(Corrected date in chart.)
Read 7 tweets
27 Oct
On Thursday, @BEA_News will release its preliminary estimate for third-quarter economic growth. Given the timing, it's going to get a ton of attention. It also has the potential to be VERY misleading.

So! Time for a thread on the numbers and how the Times will be covering them:
I also covered much of this in the Times this morning: nytimes.com/2020/10/27/bus…

And here's our story ahead of the Q2 report: nytimes.com/2020/07/29/bus…
First off: Growth in Q3 was almost certainly the fastest on record. Forecasts expect a gain of around 7-8% from Q2 (30-35% annualized -- more about that in a bit). That's roughly 2x the 3.9% growth in the current "best quarter ever," Q1 of 1950.

BUT...
Read 22 tweets
26 Oct
I can't pick one snippet to tweet from this @brianmrosenthal @mrothfeld story on the incompetence and nepotism at NYC's Board of Elections because each line makes me angrier than the one before it. Just read the whole thing.
nytimes.com/2020/10/26/nyr…
@brianmrosenthal @mrothfeld A city investigation found the Board of Elections was plagued by “illegality, inefficiency, laxity and waste" ... in 1940.

An NYT editorial called it “at best a semi‐functioning anachronism” ... in 1971.
In 1985, another city inquiry said the BOE had an “almost embarrassing lack of understanding” of its job.
Read 4 tweets
3 Oct
The U.S. economy is facing a tidal wave of long-term unemployment as millions of people who lost jobs early in the pandemic remain out of work six months later and job losses increasingly turn permanent.

With @jeannasmialek @gillianreporter
nytimes.com/2020/10/03/bus…
Already, 2.4 million Americans have been out of work more than six months. Nearly 5 million more will join their ranks in the next couple months if they don't find jobs first. And history shows many of them will struggle to find jobs even when the economy recovers. Image
Meanwhile, a growing share of job losses are permanent rather than temporary, a sign that we are entering a new, slower phase of the recovery, with more lasting damage.
More on that from @Neil_Irwin here: nytimes.com/2020/10/03/ups… Image
Read 6 tweets
2 Oct
I'm seeing a lot of analysts arguing today's jobs numbers aren't so bad because the slowdown was driven by the late/partial reopening of schools.
A thread:
On the one hand, this is literally true: The August-September slowdown is less stark when you look at the private sector, and disappears more or less entirely if you also strip out private-sector education Image
It's also true that the drop in state/local employment is a result of seasonal adjustment -- on an unadjusted basis, employment rose (just much less than in a normal September). ImageImage
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!