Question A:
The $300 supplement to weekly unemployment benefits available from now through September 6 constitutes a major disincentive to work for lower-wage workers.
Responses
Responses weighted by each expert's confidence
Question B:
The $300 supplement to weekly unemployment benefits available from now through September 6 is likely to lead to re-employment wages for currently unemployed workers that are higher by an economically meaningful amount.
Responses
Responses weighted by each expert's confidence
Question C:
Click to write the question text
Responses
Responses weighted by each expert's confidence
Question A Participant Responses
| Participant | University | Vote | Confidence | Bio/Vote History |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Daron Acemoglu |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Probably yes. Slow response of employment to demand doesn't seem to be due to other factors. But no hard evidence and still some uncertainty
-see background information here |
||||
 Joseph Altonji |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
"Major" is probably too strong, but with COVID improving and labor demand rebounding, UI benefit levels matter more now than before.
-see background information here -see background information here -see background information here |
||||
 Alan Auerbach |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 David Autor |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Since there's no evidence on this Q yet, only the WSJ editorial page can be certain that it constitutes a major disincentive to work!
|
||||
 Katherine Baicker |
University of Chicago | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Abhijit Banerjee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Marianne Bertrand |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Markus Brunnermeier |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Raj Chetty |
Harvard | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Judith Chevalier |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
I haven't seen a study that is current.
|
||||
 David Cutler |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
the "major" part makes me uncertain.
|
||||
 Angus Deaton |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Darrell Duffie |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Aaron Edlin |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
$300 of extra money per week is quite meaningful to a low wage worker. Certainly enough to affect decisions.
|
||||
 Barry Eichengreen |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
I go for "minor disincentive." More important are childcare responsibilities, fear of COVID in jobs with close personal contact.
|
||||
 Liran Einav |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Ray Fair |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Not likely "major"
|
||||
 Amy Finkelstein |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Pinelopi Goldberg |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
It depends. In sectors where demand has not yet recovered, the $300 is not the issue. Where demand has recovered, the disincentive may exist
|
||||
 Austan Goolsbee |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
So far slow hiring is not really correlated w/UI generosity either across sectors or across states. Once things are “normal” again, then yes
|
||||
 Michael Greenstone |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Robert Hall |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Only for people eligible for benefits
|
||||
 Oliver Hart |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
I don't think we know enough about it. Fears of getting Covid may be a more important factor.
|
||||
 Bengt Holmström |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Caroline Hoxby |
Stanford | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Hilary Hoynes |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
The existing evidence is now dated but shows that moral hazard is not large. That could be changing but no evidence yet that it has.
|
||||
 Kenneth Judd |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Steven Kaplan |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Anil Kashyap |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
How many think with the uncertainty about how reopening will proceed and the risk of reversals and another layoff, why take a job now?
|
||||
 Pete Klenow |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
There will be some adverse effect on employment, just not clear how much
-see background information here |
||||
 Jonathan Levin |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Eric Maskin |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 William Nordhaus |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
major too strong, but significant
|
||||
 Maurice Obstfeld |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Emmanuel Saez |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Larry Samuelson |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Anecdotal cases of benefit recipients declining work will abound, but the evidence is that the effect is not major.
-see background information here |
||||
 José Scheinkman |
Columbia University | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
It is a disincentive but not sure about major
|
||||
 Richard Schmalensee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Clearly a disincentive, but major? Compared with the effect of schools being closed?
|
||||
 Carl Shapiro |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Robert Shimer |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Many workers are still get more in UI than their old wage.
|
||||
 James Stock |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Richard Thaler |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Christopher Udry |
Northwestern | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
"Major" is probably too strong, but it does permit some workers to search more/longer for better jobs.
|
||||
Question B Participant Responses
| Participant | University | Vote | Confidence | Bio/Vote History |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Daron Acemoglu |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Theory strongly suggests yes. But with low employment growth and the supplement set to expire, the hoped-for impact may be small or absent.
-see background information here |
||||
|
Joseph Altonji |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
I expect wages in low wage, higher turnover jobs to rise, but firms will not make big wage changes in response to a temporary policy.
|
||||
|
Alan Auerbach |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
David Autor |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Katherine Baicker |
University of Chicago | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
|
Abhijit Banerjee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Marianne Bertrand |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Markus Brunnermeier |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Raj Chetty |
Harvard | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
|
Judith Chevalier |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
David Cutler |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Angus Deaton |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Darrell Duffie |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Aaron Edlin |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Too complex to guess. Workers can wait for a good opportunity. But long term unemployed people often have bad opportunities.
|
||||
|
Barry Eichengreen |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
I go for "economically marginal" instead of "economically meaningful," following the logic of my answer to the first question.
|
||||
|
Liran Einav |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Ray Fair |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
labor supply increases, wages rise? But wages may rise along with price inflation.
|
||||
|
Amy Finkelstein |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Pinelopi Goldberg |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
IFF they get re-employed, probably yes. By how much is uncertain, depends on the industry and state.
|
||||
|
Austan Goolsbee |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Maybe for some but not overall (yet)
|
||||
|
Michael Greenstone |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Robert Hall |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Oliver Hart |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Bengt Holmström |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Caroline Hoxby |
Stanford | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
|
Hilary Hoynes |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
I want to believe this but little evidence from the US that this is the case.
|
||||
|
Kenneth Judd |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Higher UI benefits allows workers to spend more time looking for a good job, in terms of wages or other job characteristics.
|
||||
|
Steven Kaplan |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Anil Kashyap |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Pete Klenow |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Depends on how sticky wages are.
-see background information here |
||||
|
Jonathan Levin |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Eric Maskin |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
William Nordhaus |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
could add a few basis points to wage inflation
|
||||
|
Maurice Obstfeld |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Emmanuel Saez |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Extensive unemployment ins. empirical evidence not able to show such wage effects. This is a much bigger experiment that we will learn from.
|
||||
|
Larry Samuelson |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
It will be difficult to distinguish this effect from the effect of looming inflation.
|
||||
|
José Scheinkman |
Columbia University | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Higher UI increases workers bargaining position and also allows searching for better matches. Not sure about economically meaningful amount.
|
||||
|
Richard Schmalensee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Carl Shapiro |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Robert Shimer |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
There is no evidence that higher UI raises reemployment wages (perhaps surprisingly)
-see background information here |
||||
|
James Stock |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Richard Thaler |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Christopher Udry |
Northwestern | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
