Some context on the trade-off between aid to the unemployed and universal checks, from my work with @CortesEcon. UI top-ups and extensions are a great source of targeted stimulus, getting money to folks that really need it and will spend it, which benefits all of us. 1/

Universal checks provide weaker stimulus, but are able to get aid to folks that lost income but are ineligible for UI. Under standard UI, many are ineligible, especially at the bottom of the income distribution. However, the PUA greatly expanded eligibility. 2/

You can see this in this graph: job loss was worse at the bottom of the income distro, who are also much more likely to be ineligible for UI. PUA closes some of the gap but almost 20% of folks in the bottom 10% who were employed last year were ineligible for either program. 3/

Note: this is combining CPS data from April-Nov 2020 and estimates eligibility based on prior year wages. See the paper for more details, we are currently updating through November.
https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/13643/impacts-of-the-covid-19-pandemic-and-the-cares-act-on-earnings-and-inequality 4/

Thus, if we're trying to get money to people who need it, even with the PUA expansion, there are many people who were employed last year who are no longer employed and are likely not eligible for any UI benefits. This is who benefit from checks. 5/

Of course, the UI vs. checks is a false trade-off, we can do both. But given political constraints, we may be able target better by keeping the maximum income for checks lower. The third decile is $25,000 per year, below which is the largest share of UI inelg. non-employed. 6/

The current proposal of checks for folks below $75,000 corresponds to the top 80 percentile or so, which are individuals who are much much less likely to have lost employment during the pandemic, and if so, they are much more likely to be eligible for UI. 7/7