Is It Unfair to Pay the Unemployed More Than Those Still Working?

Katrina Kochneva via ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

A reader emails me with a complaint after reading about the very generous unemployment benefits in the coronavirus rescue bill:

I would like to draw attention to a major flaw in the unemployment formula. I work in a grocery store, the epicenter of panic and the only place people can congregate—and believe me, they congregate. I’m deemed an essential worker. Basically if I don’t go to work, society collapses and you all starve (hyperbole, maybe? Maybe not).

I bring home between $550 and $650 a week. If I were laid off, I would be bringing home over $850. How is that fair? Why should we put our lives at risk for people who can’t stay home even when the government pays them to? Why shouldn’t we shut the grocery stores?

That’s a very good question, isn’t it? Back in 2009, a similar question paralyzed action during the Great Recession. From a macroeconomic point of view, giving mortgage relief to households would have been a very good idea. But at a personal level, people objected to the idea of doling out cash to homeowners who had lied about their income when they bought a big house or used a refi to install a shiny new kitchen. Why help them when those of us who had been prudent weren’t getting anything?

This is very much the same. The broad economic goal of the unemployment expansion is to give lots of money to people who are likely to spend it, which is those with low incomes. But on a personal level, that feels deeply unfair. Why should they get more than me just because they got laid off and I didn’t?

The best answer I have is that giving in to that sense of resentment turned out to be a terrible idea back when mortgages were at the heart of an economic meltdown. We should have sucked it up and doled out the cash even though it felt unfair in some cases. It’s now eleven years later, and hopefully we’ve learned our lesson: this time we’ll dole out the cash in the most efficient and targeted way possible even if it feels unfair in some cases.

On a personal level, the best I can say is that there’s a lot of luck inherent in life. Sometimes you’re the lucky one and sometimes you’re not. In the great scheme of things, this is a fairly minor and temporary bit of luck and I can hardly begrudge it to people who have been on the short end of the stick their entire lives.

BY THE WAY: This is why I’m not a politician. I’m sure this answer would convince no one who lacks pointed ears. But I’ll bet Bill Clinton could whomp up something good in a few minutes of free time.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate