Lastly, we use the Marginal Value of Public Funds (MVPF) framework to compare the value of expanding UI eligibility against raising benefit levels or extending benefit duration.

We find lowering the eligibility threshold is the most cost-effective UI policy studied to date.

When we look at earnings, we see a similar pattern. The effect on earnings is even more persistent in the quarters following job loss.

UI recipients earn $~15k more than non-recipients over the two years following job loss. (50%⬆️)

The delay in re-employment is only 20 hours of work in the quarter in which the job loss occurred.

Even more surprisingly, we find large increases in hours worked in the following quarters.

UI recipients work ~600 MORE hours over the two years following job loss. (37%⬆️)

🚨🚨🚨 NEW WORKING PAPER: "The Benefits of UI for Marginally Attached Workers" with Brendan Moore

➡️ We find that UI minimally delays re-employment, but substantially improves labor market outcomes for low-income workers

🧵1/13

The dot com bust in '01 had a similar slow recovery, and it barely recovered by the time the Great Recession rolled around

If you had bought in just before The Great Recession, then it would have taken six years to return to that level. Even if you bought six months in when it seemed like it had stabilized, you would've waited four years

"Buy the dip" benefits from recency bias. COVID vaccines were on their way, the government stepped in to stop the bleeding, and S&P had made gains by the end of '21. Still a gamble, but it paid off

"Best week since '23" ?!?!

"Wall Street had its best day in 16 years" is an irresponsible way to cover the stock rally that resulted from the announced pause on tariffs