Newly published paper by @danascoot @finamor_lucas which has I think the best evidence to date on the incentive effects of the $600 weekly supplement (🧵) 
(Dana's thread on the paper is here)
https://twitter.com/danascoot/status/1346508771586174976?s=20
The paper uses time clock data from small biz, many of which are restaurants. they compare workers with higher and lower earnings in 2019 & ask "were workers with lower earnings in 2019 (and therefore higher benefit replacement rates) slower to return to work after expiration?"
the answer is no, workers with higher replacement rates were not slower to return to work. this holds even among firms that were hiring (see plot above).
This suggests that the \$600 supplement was not a constraint to firms that wanted to (re)hire during the summer.
This suggests that the \$600 supplement was not a constraint to firms that wanted to (re)hire during the summer.
the study has some limitations which it does a good job of acknowledging: don't know which workers actually get UI or what their benefit levels are, and only focusing on workers who worked substantial hours in 2019.
It will take some time for the economics profession to fully sort out the effects of benefit supplements. This is the best study I have seen so far on the topic.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
