By Christophe
Blot

In the United States as in France, the
COVID-19 crisis has led to numerous measures restricting economic activities intended
to limit the spread of the virus. The result will be a fall in GDP, which is already
showing up in figures for the first quarter of 2020, and which will be much steeper
in the second quarter. In a country noted for its weak employment protection,
this unprecedented recession is quickly having repercussions on the labour
market, as reflected in the rise in the unemployment rate from a low point of 3.5%
in February to 14.7% in April, a level not seen since 1948. As Bruno
Ducoudré and Pierre Madec have recently demonstrated in the case of France,
the current crisis in the United States should also result in heightened inequalities
and insecurity. And the shock will be all the greater in the US since the
social safety net is less extensive there.

In the United States, the Covid-19 restrictions
were set not at the Federal level but by the various States at differing times.
The vast majority of States did decide however to close schools and
non-essential businesses and to encourage people to stay home. The lockdown was
thus imposed by California on March 19, followed by Illinois on March 21 and
New York State on March 22, but South Carolina didn’t follow until April 6.
North Dakota, South Dakota, Arkansas, Iowa and Nebraska have taken no action,
and three other States – Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming – applied measures only in certain
counties, and not State-wide. However, by early April a large part of the
country had been locked down, with a varying degree of strictness, affecting between
92% and 97% of the population[1].

Which employees have been hit hardest by the crisis?

According to a survey by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, almost 25%
of employees worked from home in 2017-2018. However, some employees said they
could have stayed at home to work but did not necessarily do so during the
reporting period. With the COVID-19 crisis and the incentives to modify the
organization of work, we can therefore consider that almost 29% of employees
could stay at home during the lockdown [2].
Furthermore, as the survey
carried out for France highlights, the implementation of teleworking is more
widespread among employees in management jobs and commercial or financial
activities. In 2017-2018, 60% of these people could have managed to work from home.
In contrast, fewer than 10% of workers in agriculture, construction, manufacturing
or transport services would have been able to telework during the crisis. Not surprisingly,
the survey also shows that the employees able to telework are also those at the
top of the wage distribution. For the top quartile, 61.5% of employees could
work at home compared with fewer than 10% for employees in the bottom quartile.

Mirroring these
elements, a more recent study analyzed which jobs would be most affected by the
lockdowns and in particular by the closure of non-essential businesses [3]. Six sectors are particularly exposed.
Logically enough, these include bars and restaurants, transport and travel,
entertainment, personal services, the retail trade and some manufacturing
industries. Based on employment data for the year 2019, these sectors represent
20.4% of total employment. With more than 12 million jobs, the bar and
restaurant sector is being hit hardest. This survey also shows that the most
exposed employees generally receive below-average pay. They are particularly
concentrated in the two lowest wage deciles. For example, the wage bill for bar
and restaurant workers represents barely 3% of the total wage bill but more
than 8% of employment. These people usually work in companies with fewer than
10 employees. This dimension is all the greater in the United States since
access to health insurance is often linked to the employer, whose obligations for
insurance provision depend on how many employees they have. Finally, by
crossing the distribution by sector and geography, it appears that Nevada,
Hawaii and to a lesser extent Florida (23.7%) concentrate a larger share of these
sectors, and therefore of the exposed jobs [4]. Conversely, Nebraska, Iowa and Arkansas
are among the States where these sectors account for a smaller share of
employment [5]. These three States have also not adopted lockdown
measures and should therefore be relatively spared from the rise in unemployment.

Unemployment statistics for the months of
March and April
confirm this outlook. In one year, the unemployment rate increased by 4.8
points for those in management jobs or commercial or financial activities,
while, over the same period, the rate rose by 23 points for service jobs and
almost 15 points for employees in production. The geographic disparities are
also significant. In California and Illinois, the first States to implement a
lockdown, the unemployment rate rose 11.3 and 12.2 points, respectively, in one
year. Conversely, the States that have not enacted lockdown measures are among
those where the unemployment rate has risen the least over the year. The
increase reached 5.2 points for Nebraska, 6.7 points for Arkansas and 7.5
points for Iowa, for example.

The structure of employment is, however, a
key factor determining the variation in unemployment. Despite fairly close starting
dates for the lockdowns in Connecticut and Michigan, the unemployment rate rose
only 4.2 points in the former versus over 18 points in industrial Michigan. The
statistics also confirm the exposure to the shock of Nevada and Hawaii, which
recorded the two largest increases: 24.2 and 19.6 points respectively, while
Minnesota, with a very low exposure, saw its unemployment rate rise by only 4.9
points, one of the smallest variations since April 2019. Likewise, the impact
has been relatively softer in the District of Columbia, where the unemployment
rate rose by 5.5 points.

Health under threat?

The deteriorating state of the labour
market will be accompanied by a deterioration in living conditions for millions
of Americans, especially if the end of the lockdowns is not synonymous with a
rapid rebound in activity, as Jerome Powell, Chairman of the Federal Reserve,
now fears. This would result in increased poverty for households that have lost
their jobs. Previous analyses indicate that workers at the bottom of the
distribution will be the most exposed, especially since, despite the measures taken to
extend unemployment insurance, the duration of benefits remains overall
shorter in the United States. To deal with the crisis, the Federal government
has spent USD 268 billion (or 1.3 percentage points of GDP) on unemployment
insurance to extend the duration and amount of compensation. This is in
addition to the tax credit of up to USD 1,200 for households without children [6].
The government has thus chosen to support incomes temporarily, but unlike the
partial unemployment schemes in force in France and in many other European
countries, it has not protected jobs [7].
The flexibility of the US labour market could, however, prove more advantageous
in so far as the recovery is rapid and differs depending on the sector.
Employees actually do not lose much of their skills and can more easily find a
job in another business sector. But a protracted crisis associated with persistently
higher unemployment would greatly increase poverty.

In addition, access to health insurance is
also often linked to employment. Indeed, 66% of insured Americans are covered
by their employer, who is obliged to offer health insurance in companies with
more than 50 employees. The corollary is that many workers risk losing their
health coverage at the same time as their jobs if they cannot pay the portion of
the insurance costs previously borne by their employer. As for employees of
small businesses exposed to the risk of closure and unemployment, it is very
likely that they will no longer have the means to take out a private insurance
policy on their own. Already, in early 2019, just over 9% of the population had
no health coverage. While this rate had dropped sharply since 2010 and the
“Obamacare” reform, the annual report
of the US Census Bureau published in November 2019 estimated that more than 29
million people had no coverage in 2019, a figure that has risen somewhat since
2017. The coverage rates also show strong regional disparities, which is due to
the demographic structure of the States.

Although part of the economic support plan
is devoted to food aid [8]
and some health expenses, the COVID-19 crisis will once again hit the most
vulnerable populations and widen inequalities that are already significant and being
deepened by the recent tax reforms of the Trump administration.

---

[1]
In terms of GDP, the share of States that have imposed lockdowns is in much the
same proportions.

[2]
Note that this survey does not show a significant difference between men and
women, even if women have a slightly fewer opportunities for teleworking: 28.4%
against 29.2% for men.

[3]
See Matthew Dey and Mark A. Loewenstein, “How
many workers are employed in sectors directly affected by COVID-19 shutdowns,
where do they work, and how much do they earn?”, Monthly Labor Review,
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, April 2020.

[4]
In Nevada, the exposed sectors represent 34.3% of jobs. This figure also
exceeds 30% in Hawaiï and is 23.7 % in Florida.

[5]
This is also the case of the District of Columbia due to the large presence of Federal
employees.

[6]
This amount is granted to households
receiving less than USD 75,000 (150,000 for a couple) per year. USD 500 is
awarded per child. The amount of the tax credit is regressive and falls to zero
for households with an income above USD 99,000.

[7]
See here
for our analysis of European and American strategies to deal with the crisis.

[8]
The plan approved on 18 March (Families
First Coronavirus Response Act) actually provides for over 20 billion
dollars in assistance for poor people.

By Guillaume
Allègre

Between 2017 and 2018, Finland conducted an experiment with universal income that gave rise to significant media coverage. 2,000 unemployed people receiving the basic unemployment benefit (560 euros per month) received the same amount in the form of unconditional income, which could be combined with income from work for the duration of the experiment (2 years, not renewable). On 6 May 2020, the final report evaluating the experiment was published (here is a summary of the results). The evaluators concluded that the experimental universal income had moderate positive effects on employment and positive effects on economic security and mental health. According to the final report, on average individuals in the treatment group worked approximately 6 additional working days (they worked 78 days). They experienced significantly less mental stress, depression and loneliness, and their cognitive functioning was perceived as better. Life satisfaction was also significantly higher. The results of the experiment therefore seem to argue in favour of a universal income. But is it really possible to draw lessons from the experiment with a view to generalizing the system? In 2018, I wrote that experimenting with universal income was “impossible“. Does the Finnish experience contradict this claim? It turns out that it is indeed difficult to draw lessons.

The principle of a universal income, as it
is commonly defined, is to pay a sum of money to all members of a political
community, on an individual basis, without means-testing or any obligation to
work or take a job.

Such experiments generally concern a small
number of people (in Finland, 2,000 individuals): the universal aspect of the
measure is therefore lost, but a measure’s impact can differ depending on
whether it affects everyone or only some of the population. How are the individuals
chosen? Two options are favoured by practitioners: a totally random draw, which
favours the representativeness of the experimental sample, or a saturation site,
which consists of including in the experimental sample an entire community (for
example a single labour market area), which helps to capture externalities and
interactions (“do I stop working more easily when my neighbour stops or
when my spouse receives assistance?”). In Kenya, villages
are used as saturation sites. In the Finnish experiment, 2,000 long-term
unemployed people receiving end-of-entitlement benefits (equivalent in France
to ASS assistance) constituted the experimental group, with the control group
being made up of recipients of end-of-entitlement benefits who had not been randomly
selected. This poses two problems. First, the experimental group is not
representative of the Finnish population. The long-term unemployed make up only
a small part of the population. So we cannot really say how people with jobs would
have reacted (would they have reduced their working hours?). Second,
interaction effects are not taken into account: for example, consider a job taken
up by an unemployed person in the experimental group, who thus increases his or
her labour supply in the context of the experiment – might this job have been taken
up by a member of the control group?

The definition of universal income tells us
nothing about its level or what benefits it replaces. All options are on the
table. Programmes with a more liberal, free-market orientation offer a
relatively low universal income and replace most social benefits and sectoral
subsidies (notably in agriculture) or can even substitute for regulations on
the labour market (the abolition of the minimum wage is envisaged). In a more
social-democratic logic, universal income would replace only the social minimum
(France’s RSA income support benefit) and income support for the in-work poor
(in France, the Prime d’activité). The amount envisaged is often equal
to or slightly higher than the social minimum. Finally, in a degrowth logic, the
universal income could be lifted to at least the poverty line in order to
eradicate statistical poverty. The effects expected from the reform depend
greatly on the amount envisaged and the benefits it replaces. In the framework of
the Finnish experiment, the universal income was 560 euros, the amount of the
basic unemployment benefit received by the members of the experimental group. Simply
replacing this basic allowance meant that at first the income of the unemployed
in the experimental group remained unchanged. But the universal income could at
the same time be cumulated with job income. This means that returning to work could
lead to an additional financial gain of as much as 560 euros.

The experimentation thus increased the
financial gains from a return to work. This is not a result that one usually thinks
of in relation to establishing a universal income. One question often asked is,
“What
happens when you get 1,000 euros a month without working?” It turns
out that, for those on low incomes, the generalized roll-out of a universal
income could have ambiguous effects on the incentive to work: it increases
income without work but it also provides additional income for the working poor.
On the other hand, for those earning the highest incomes, the monetary gain
from increasing their income would be reduced.

The evaluation was complicated by the
introduction of activation measures during the second year of the experiment
(2018). Based on the “activation model” put in place, people on unemployment
benefits had to work a certain number of hours or undergo training, otherwise their
benefit was reduced by 5%. These measures affected the experimental groups
asymmetrically: two-thirds of the control group were affected, compared with only
half of the experimental group (Van
Parijs, 2020). Theoretically, the incentive to return to work was therefore
greater for the control group. Note that activation goes against the principles
of the universality and unconditionality of universal income.

Notwithstanding the activation measure, the
results of the Finnish experiment tell us that the hours worked are higher for
the experimental group than for the control group. The financial incentives to
work would therefore have worked! In fact, the evaluators stress the moderate degree
of the impact on employment. In the interim report, which covered the first
year (2017), the impact was not significant. In 2018, the impact was
significant, since the people in the experimental group worked an average of 78
days, or 6 days (8.3%) more than the control group. The impact is, however, not
very significant: with a 95% confidence interval, it is between 1.09 and 10.96
days (i.e. between 1.5% and 15%). Kari Hämäläinen concludes:
“All in all, the employment effects were small. This indicates that for
some persons who receive unemployment benefits from Kela [Finland’s agency
handling benefits for those at end of entitlement] the problems related to
finding employment are not related to bureaucracy or to financial incentives”.
On the other hand, the experiment tells us nothing about the effects of
possible disincentives for higher earners due to the financing of the measure:
by construction, an experimental universal income is not financed. More
seriously, gender analysis is virtually absent from the final report. All we know
is, from reading a table, that women in the experimental group worked 5.85
additional days compared to 6.19 for men, but there is no discussion of the
issue of gender equality. The issue of how choices are negotiated within a household
is also not posed. The impact on the lone parent group is not significant
“due to its small size”. In an Op-Ed
published by the New York Times, Antti Jauhiainen and Joona-Hermanni
Mäkinen criticize the sample size, which is five times smaller than initially
planned: the small size makes it difficult to draw any conclusions about subgroups.

The final report highlights the beneficial
effects on mental health and economic well-being. The impacts on people’s life satisfaction
and on stress and depression are very significant. However, two comments can be
made. First, we do not know what comes from the higher living standards of the
individuals in the treatment group and what comes from the mechanism of a universal
income (the certainty that people will have an income whatever happens). Given
the way the experimental income was actually designed (it functions like an
employment bonus), one can easily assume that it is the income effect that
takes precedence. Likewise, since the individuals in the experimental group are
in all cases better off financially, it is not surprising that their economic
well-being increases. Second, there may also be a reporting bias due to a Hawthorne Effect:
individuals in the experimental group know that they are part of an experiment
and that they were chosen so that they have an advantage over the control group.
This can lead them to be more optimistic in their statements.

In the end, the Finnish experiment offers
few lessons about the effects of the establishment of a global universal
income, i.e. one for all citizens. Only a small category of the population was
involved, and funding was not tested. Yet funding is half the mechanism;
Finnish trade unions are also opposed to a universal income because they fear
that the necessary tax increases will reduce earnings from working. In
addition, a family and gender approach has been completely ignored, whereas a universal
income has been denounced by feminists as being liable to discourage women from
taking up jobs (likening it to a mother’s wage). As with the RSA income supplement experiment
in France [article in French], the failure of the Finnish experiment is
explained in part by the contradictory objectives of the various scientific and
political actors. The evaluators hoped for a sample of 10,000 people including individuals
with different employment statuses. They were constrained by a combination of time,
money and a ruling political coalition that was no longer enthusiastic about
the idea of ​​testing a universal income (“Why
Basic Income Failed in Finland”). The Prime Minister’s Centre Party
was in fact interested in the question of financial incentives for the
long-term unemployed, which is a long way from the idea of ​​reconsidering the
central role of market labour or being able to say no to low-quality jobs, which
is often associated with universal income. This was certainly a limitation of
these costly experiments: subject to the inevitable supervision of politics,
they risk becoming showcases promoting the agenda of the government in power.