This is a great idea with *awful* execution.

Great idea: prevent unemployment by reducing payroll costs for employers and therefore reducing layoffs

Awful execution: give money to employers with little oversight through loans they choose to apply for

2/
There's a better, much less fraudulent way to do this called short-time compensation (STC), or workshare. Firms have the option to reduce hours instead of laying off workers. The workers keep the job and get partial UI benefits for the hours lost.

3/
Example:

A firm needs to cut payroll costs. It can either:
a) layoff five workers and send them into UI to get benefits
b) reduce hours of 25 workers by 20% and those workers get 20% of a UI benefit.

For firms, a=b. For workers, a (lose job) <<<< b (take pay cut)
4/
The only problem with STC is that is has very low take up. Not all states operate an STC program, and even in states where they exist, most employers don't use them.

Why?

6/
I think that it's the same reason that state IT systems were poorly maintained and the same reason that state trust fund balances are kept dangerously low:

Unemployed workers are not a permanent constituency and unemployment is not a state legislative policy priority.
7/
Ad hoc programs like PPP are the negative spillover of not having a better UI system. We wouldn't need a paycheck loan program (run through banks) if employers were in a robust STC program (run through workforce agencies).

The solution is comprehensive UI reform.
/n
You can follow @keds_economist.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.