New findings on spending during unemployment and macro conditions by my colleagues at #JPMCInstitute
TLDR: UI policy and liquidity are the key drivers of spending for unemployed households.
Macro conditions, in contrast, appear not to matter.
Thread
^ Spending very similar for
* Green line: Great Recession
* Blue line (almost identical): 2010's boom
These are two periods where macro conditions are very different, but income in the first few months of unemployment are very similar
^ The orange line for 2020 when PUC available, is radically different -- much more income paid out and much higher spending too
One clear way to see the neutrality result regarding how macro conditions don't change the spending drop at unemployment is to compare the drop in 2009 when the economy was tanking and in 2019 in the white hot labor market
The spending drop from unemployment is the same in both!
(Important piece of context: *everyone's* consumption fell in the Great Recession, but that gap between employed and unemployed was constant.)
They also find that households with lower pre-job loss income and lower pre-job loss liquidity have higher MPCs during unemployed
Finally, they show a striking neutrality result regarding racial inequality: after taking into account income and liquidity, there are essentially no *residual* MPC differences by race/ethnicity.
What this means is *not* that race doesn't matter for the MPC. Rather, it means that those differences are mediated by income and liquidity. This echoes the neutrality result in prior work with the same data by @nomadj1s@pascaljnoelnber.org/papers/w27552
Thread by author @chrisowheat on their new research is here
Black and Hispanic households see their housing wealth grow less, contributing to the overall racial wealth gap substantially.
The large raw differences are mostly about differences in borrower characteristics, particularly about *place* of purchase.
The returns gap is 1) amplified by high leverage and 2) entirely concentrated in distressed sales (foreclosures and other sales arising out of delinquency).
Millions of people have had federal UI benefits cut off
Stated goal: speed the labor market recovery.
Is it working?
Tldr: Nope. Per person losing benefits, net employment changes by -0.14 to + 0.08. Uncertainty remains large.
What makes today special? BLS releases state employment data, so we can compare July employment in states that cut off benefits and states that did not.
The new data capture employment during the payroll period containing July 12. @pascaljnoel and @JoeVavra and I analyze.
First, we plot the change in employment by state, coloring each state by whether they terminated benefits
Tomorrow is jobs day and everyone wants to know how early cut off of pandemic benefits will affect employment
I can tell you the answer tonight... you won't learn anything tomorrow‼️
no state data are released ‼️
🧵 on evidence from 5 other data sources that *are* by state
TLDR: four data sources point to no significant/detectable effect, one data source finds a decrease in employment. issues with parallel trend assumptions and inference are plentiful though.
1) The BLS releases state-level employment estimates based on the establishment survey two weeks after the national numbers. For July data, have to wait until August 20. Analysis of the June state-level estimates is here. Looks like a noisy zero.
The plot above shows that for people who got regular UI in 2019, non-UI income falls at exactly the same time that UI kicks in (green line).
Regular UI in 2020 (orange line) income starts to fall four weeks before UI kicks in
PUA (blue) income starts to fall ten weeks before
There is also a smaller decline in income after UI receipt for the blue line. Two likely interpretations:
--PUA recipients account for smaller share of HH income
--some PUA recipients have already gone back to work by the time they finally get their benefits
Disincentive remains small even after job openings up
An overarching theme of the pandemic has been to view the supplements as responsible for the biggest problems (slow employment recovery, usually conservatives) and the biggest successes (rising wages at the bottom, usually liberals).
Our results are inconsistent with both views.
Instead, it makes sense to think of the effects of pandemic UI primarily as an ambitious anti-poverty policy. I can’t think of a time before when a country gave *full* insurance to earnings losses (examples welcome in the comments)