Monday, July 13, 2020

Workers are pushed to the brink as they continue to wait for delayed unemployment payments [feedly]

Workers are pushed to the brink as they continue to wait for delayed unemployment payments
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/07/13/unemployment-payment-delays/?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=wp_business

Alexis Herdez has been filing for unemployment every week since April, shortly after she was laid off on her first day of work at a bridal clothing store.

But more than two months later, the 23-year-old in Lexington, Ky., has yet to receive any payment.

She and her husband have been struggling to pay rent and make their monthly car payment.

The automated phone system for the state's unemployment system takes her to a queue for a callback that has yet to come. Visits to state offices have been fruitless. While Herdez was finally able to get an appointment with someone at the unemployment agency to look at her case, it's not until August, she said.

The pandemic's toll on workers who have been furloughed or laid off like Herdez is measured in numbers that splash across headlines: 1.4 million new weekly unemployment claims and 18 million people are already receiving continuous unemployment insurance. Tens of thousands of workers at Levi'sWells Fargo and United Airlines learned this past week they could be furloughed or laid off in coming months, sending those workers to seek jobless benefits as well.

AD

Four months into the worst recession since the Great Depression, tens of thousands of workers like Herdez across the country have filed for jobless claims but have yet to receive payments. Many are now in dire financial straits.

"We've been only able to make half payments on everything," Herdez said in an interview. "We bought a large amount of groceries and have been taking things out of the freezer, but as the weeks go by, it's hard to figure out whether to pay bills or whether we have enough food to last the week."

The issue has spilled back into public view in recent weeks, as thousands of frustrated workers awaiting payments have camped out, sometimes overnight, in front of unemployment offices in states like OklahomaAlabama and Kentucky.

The ongoing delays are the result of a confluence of crises, experts say.

A flood of new jobless applications — about 50 million — has overwhelmed state unemployment offices over the past four months. The agencies themselves are hampered by years of neglect. They rely on reduced staffs and badly outdated technology after years of budget cuts, often at the behest of business groups and Republican legislatures. Issues with fraud and user confusion over the new rules and filing process have further bogged down the process.

But cases like Herdez show what happens when workers simply run out of money and the social safety net malfunctions with defaulted payments and trips to food banks. In more desperate situations, workers become homeless.

"We've kind of abdicated our responsibility to the unemployed," George Wentworth, a senior counsel at the National Employment Law Project and an expert on unemployment insurance. "There need to be more standards and those standards need to be rigorously enforced by the federal government."

AD

The Department of Labor does not track the percentage of unemployment benefits that have been processed, an agency spokeswoman said in an email. The agency did not offer a comment on the issue of delays in processing benefits.

But previously unreleased data compiled by Andrew Stettner, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, illustrates the scope. By the end of May, about 18.8 million out of 33 million claims — 57 percent — had been paid nationwide. That number has steadily improved from 47 percent of paid claims at the end of April and 14 percent at the end of March.

In Wisconsin, where about 13 percent of claims remained unprocessed as of July 7, residents told local reporters that they had waited 10 weeks or longer for their claims to be processed, leaving some on the brink of bankruptcy and eviction. The Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development said through a spokesman that the average time from application to payment is 21 days. In Pennsylvania, another 15 percent of claims were still in review as of mid-June.

AD

Oklahoma has approved 235,000 out of about 590,000 claims, with about 2,000 still under review as of June 21, but the state also has denied a whopping 350,000 claims, said Shelley Zumwalt, the interim director of the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. Zumwalt said a small portion of the denied claims — about 47,000 — are people who have applied for the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA), a program for gig and self-employed workers who must get rejected from regular unemployment insurance before qualifying for the expanded benefit for gig workers.

Nevada has also had issues processing these gig worker jobless claims, fulfilling only 74 percent of the 106,667 eligible PUA claims by June 19.

People wait to speak with representatives from the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission about unemployment claims on July 9 in Midwest City, Okla.
People wait to speak with representatives from the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission about unemployment claims on July 9 in Midwest City, Okla. (Sue Ogrocki/AP)

Samuel Jarman, 25, filed for unemployment in Oklahoma in early April, after his start date at a new job to work on software for a payroll services company was pushed back indefinitely. Jarman said the issues he's had collecting unemployment insurance were part of the reason he moved back to his parents' house.

AD

It took nearly eight weeks to get his first payment, a lump sum of all the benefits he was owed at that point. But last month, his claim was flagged for fraud, and his payments stopped, he said. He doesn't know why his claim was flagged for fraud. But at one point, one of the people who helped him with his claim over the phone asked him for his full social security number — something he thought was suspicious, as workers are not supposed to do that, state officials say.

Jarman has had problems getting through to the unemployment office in recent weeks, ending up trapped in an automated phone system unable to reach anyone with answers. He said he's frustrated by elected officials, like Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R), who he feels have not been transparent and fail to take threats raised by the pandemic seriously.

"They keep saying 'unprecedented.' We're four months into this — how unprecedented is it still?" he said. "If you're up front about it, it's a lot better than just lying to our faces saying it's all going smoothly."

AD

Other unemployed workers described similarly time-consuming attempts to navigate unemployment systems.

Kelly Johnson, 48, a restaurant manager and single mother of five in Dunedin, Fla., waited almost two months to receive her first payment after she was furloughed in March. She spent much of April calling the state's Department of Economic Opportunity, about 400 times, she estimates. She wasn't able to get through.

When her payment did finally arrive, it was backdated just two weeks. She said she's given up on recovering any of her owed benefits, or filing another claim to recoup income from personal training work that also evaporated during the pandemic.

So she makes do every week with the $71 she gets from the state as well as the $600 in federal supplemental benefits.

"It's just messed up," she said. "It's an overloaded system."

AD

One problem is that some states have made it tougher to access benefits. Florida was one of many Republican-led states that restricted unemployment benefits in the aftermath of the Great Recession. After sustained lobbying from corporations hoping to reduce unemployment taxes, the state, under then Gov. Rick Scott, limited unemployment to 12 weeks and capped weekly benefits at $275, according to the Orlando Sentinel.

By contrast, unemployed workers in Florida, and across the nation, are temporarily eligible for $600 in supplemental federal benefits every week, but that's slated to expire at the end of the month unless Congress extends them.

report written in 2017 by Wentworth, the unemployment expert, found those types of changes, which both limit the amount of benefits paid out and add restrictions, disqualifications or higher burdens for workers applying, had drastically reduced the number of unemployed workers collecting benefits in states around the country.

AD

"States that have been the most restrictive in moving people off unemployment insurance — those states have had the hardest time processing claims now," Stettner said in an interview.

The pandemic has brought a multitude of new challenges, according to state unemployment offices. Zumwalt, the newly appointed director of Oklahoma's unemployment agency, said the state's system relies on a mainframe computer from 1978, which has hampered the speed with which it can process large batches of claims.

"Remember the Oregon Trail? That's what my mainframe looks like," she said. "We have many full-time people whose job is just making sure that thing doesn't die."

Zumwalt said staffing at the agency had dropped to 450 from 700 since 2017, although officials are making a push to hire workers.

She also rented out space in a convention center outside of Oklahoma City for the unemployed to get help with outstanding claims, which has improved their ability to process them — from about 170 claims a day to around 500 to 600 now. Claimants are given masks and have their temperature taken before entering, she said.

Still, there is a never-ending list of knots to untangle.

Nearly 200 Vietnamese speakers showed up, unexpectedly, needing help and language assistance one day. A pregnant woman's water broke while she was waiting in line. Others have overheated while waiting on hot summer days. Many of the complaints are complicated to untangle, like those from people like Jarman, the software troubleshooter, who have had claims flagged as fraudulent, in some instances because they've been impersonated, Zumwalt said.

"Every person that walks in my door is angry, and they have a right to be angry," she said.

The state has forwarded 90,000 claims to be investigated for fraud.

Unemployed workers on facing an uncertain future | Voices from the Pandemic
Over 10 million Americans filed for unemployment in March. Here are some of their stories. (Monica Rodman/The Washington Post)

Other states systems are similarly bogged down by outdated or poorly designed technology, concerns about fraud and staffing issues. In Nevada, the interim director for the state unemployment system resigned in June after facing threats from angry workers. In Washington state, 100 National Guard members have been called in to help sort through issues around fraudulent cases.

The delays in getting jobless benefits to the unemployed have led to some informal organizing — social media groups with thousands of members have cropped up on Facebook and other sites in states like Wisconsin, Nevada, Florida and Oklahoma.

Are you unemployed due to the pandemic? The Post has a new Facebook group to help you navigate.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Saturday, July 11, 2020

Extending the $600 weekly unemployment boost would support millions of workers: See updated state unemployment data [feedly]

Extending the $600 weekly unemployment boost would support millions of workers: See updated state unemployment data
https://www.epi.org/blog/extending-the-600-weekly-unemployment-boost-would-support-millions-of-workers-see-updated-state-unemployment-data/

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) released the most recent unemployment insurance (UI) claims data yesterday, showing that another 1.4 million people filed for regular UI benefits last week (not seasonally adjusted) and 1.0 million for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA), the new program for workers who aren't eligible for regular UI, such as gig workers. As of last week, more than 35 million people in the workforce are either receiving or have recently applied for unemployment benefits—regular or PUA.

Figure A and Table 1 show the total number of workers who either made it through at least the first round of regular state UI processing as of June 27 (these are known as "continued" claims) or filed initial regular UI claims during the week ending July 4. Three states had more than one million workers either receiving regular UI benefits or waiting for their claim to be approved: California (3.1 million), New York (1.7 million), and Texas (1.4 million). Seven additional states had more than half a million workers receiving or awaiting benefits.

While the largest U.S. states unsurprisingly have the highest numbers of UI claimants, some smaller states have larger shares of the workforce filing for unemployment. Figure A and Table 1 also show the numbers of workers in each state who are receiving or waiting for regular UI benefits as a share of the pre-pandemic labor force in February 2020. In four states and the District of Columbia, more than one in six workers are receiving regular UI benefits or waiting on their claim to be approved: Hawaii (19.7%), Nevada (19.3%), New York (17.8%), District of Columbia (17.6%), and Oregon (17.0%).

Figure A

Figure A and Table 2 show the total number of workers who either made it through at least the first round of PUA processing—the new federal program that extends unemployment compensation to workers who are not eligible for regular UI but are out of work due to the pandemic—by June 20 or filed initial PUA claims during the weeks of June 27 or July 4. We do not sum the PUA claims with regular UI claims because some states have misreported PUA claims in their initial claims data, leading to potential double counting.1

As of last week, DOL reported that over 15 million workers across 48 states and the District of Columbia are receiving or waiting on a decision for PUA benefits, which underscores the importance of extending benefits to those who would otherwise not have been eligible. Five states have at least a million workers in this category: Pennsylvania (3.0 million), Arizona (2.3 million), California (1.9 million), Michigan (1.1 million), and New York (1.1 million). New Hampshire and West Virginia still have not reported any PUA claims. Florida, Georgia, and Oklahoma have reported initial PUA claims, but have yet to report any continuing claims.

We should despair for the millions who have lost their jobs and for their families, and our top priority as a country should be protecting the health and safety of workers and our broader communities by paying workers to stay home when possible, whether that means working from home some or all of the time, using paid leave, or claiming UI benefits. When workers are providing absolutely essential services, they must have access to adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) and paid sick leave. The current spike in coronavirus cases across the country—and subsequent re-shuttering of certain businesses—show the devastating costs of reopening the economy prematurely.

As we look at the aggregate measures of economic harm, it is also important to remember that this recession is deepening racial inequalities. Black communities are suffering more from this pandemic—both physically and economically—as a result of, and in addition to, systemic racism and violence. Both Black and Hispanic workers are more likely than white workers to be worried about exposure to the coronavirus at work and bringing it home to their families. These communities, and Black women in particular, should be centered in policy solutions.

To mitigate the economic harm to workers, Congress should extend the across-the-board $600 increase in weekly unemployment benefits well past its expiration at the end of July. If Congress does not extend these benefits through next year, it could cost us more than 5 million jobs and $500 million in personal income. Figure B, at the end of this post, shows these expected job losses by state.

As part of the next federal relief and recovery package, Congress should also include worker protections, investments in our democracy, and resources for coronavirus testing and contact tracing (which is necessary to reopen the economy). At the same time, policymakers should prioritize long-overdue overhauls of federal labor law and continue to strengthen wage standards that protect workers and help boost consumer demand.

The package should also include substantial aid to state and local governments so that they can invest in the services that will allow the economy to recover, particularly public health and education. Without this aid, a prolonged depression is inevitable, especially if state and local governments make the same budget and employment cuts that slowed the recovery after the Great Recession. More than five million workers would likely lose their jobs by the end of 2021, harming women and Black workers in particular since they are disproportionately likely to work for state and local governments.

Figure B
Table 1
Table 2

1. Unless otherwise noted, the numbers in this blog post are the ones reported by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), which they receive from the state agencies that administer UI. While DOL is asking states to report regular UI claims and PUA claims separately, many states are also including some or all PUA claimants in their reported regular UI claims. As state agencies work to get these new programs up and running, there will likely continue to be some misreporting. Since the number of UI claims is one of the most up-to-date measures of labor market weakness and access to benefits, we will still be analyzing it regularly as reported by DOL, but we ask that you keep these caveats in mind when interpreting the data.

Enjoyed this post? Sign up for the Economic Policy Institute's newsletter so you never miss our research and insights on ways to make the economy work better for everyone.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Friday, July 10, 2020

Dani Rodrik: China as Economic Bogeyman [feedly]

China as Economic Bogeyman
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/west-should-stop-criticizing-china-industrial-policy-by-dani-rodrik-2020-07

Many Western economists presume that governments are not very good at identifying industries that merit support, and that domestic consumers and taxpayers incur the bulk of the costs. By the same logic, if Chinese policymakers effectively targeted activities where social benefits exceed private benefits, then it is not clear why foreigners should complain.

CAMBRIDGE – As COVID-19 spread from China to Europe and then the United States, pandemic-stricken countries found themselves in a mad scramble for medical supplies – masks, ventilators, protective garments. More often than not, it was to China that they had to turn.

By the time the crisis erupted, China had become the world's largest supplier of key products, accounting for half of all European and US imports of personal protective equipment. "China has laid the groundwork to dominate the market for protective and medical supplies for years to come," according to recent reporting by the New York Times.

When China first turned toward global markets, it had the advantage of virtually unlimited supplies of low-cost labor. But as everyone recognizes by now, China's manufacturing prowess is not the result of unfettered market forces.

As part of its Made in China 2025 policy, the Chinese government targeted ambitious increases in domestic producers' share of global medical supplies. The New York Times report explains in detail how the government provided cheap land to Chinese factories, extended subsidized loans, directed state companies to produce key materials, and stimulated domestic supply chains by requiring hospitals and firms to use local inputs.

For example, Sichuan, China's second-largest province, reduced by half the number of categories for which imports of medical equipment were allowed. Most hospitals were obliged to source everything locally, with only top hospitals allowed to bring in supplies from abroad.

Western media are now replete with accounts of China's "drive to dominate important cogs in the global industrial machine," in the words of the New York Times again. Increasingly, China's role in the world economy is portrayed in terms reminiscent not of "doux commerce" but of imperial aggression. Chinese President Xi Jinping's growing authoritarianism and the escalating trade conflicts with the US obviously play into this narrative as well.



The strategic and geopolitical tensions between the US and China are real. They are grounded in China's growing economic and military power and US leaders' reluctance to recognize the reality of a necessarily multipolar world. But we should not allow economics to become hostage to geopolitics or, worse, to reinforce and magnify the strategic rivalry.

For starters, we must recognize that a mixed, state-driven economic model has always been at the root of Chinese economic success. If one-half of China's economic miracle reflects its turn to markets after the late 1970s, the other half is the result of active government policies that protected old economic structures – such as state enterprises – while new industries were spawned through a wide array of industrial policies.

The Chinese people were the main beneficiaries, of course, experiencing the fastest poverty reduction in history. But these gains did not come at the expense of the rest of the world. Far from it. The growth policies that today arouse other countries' ire are the reason China has become such a large market for Western exporters and investors.

But aren't Chinese industrial policies, such as those deployed in medical supplies, unfair to competitors elsewhere?

We should exercise caution before reaching such a verdict. The standard justification for industrial policy is that new industries produce learning spillovers, technological externalities, and other broad social benefits that render state support desirable. But many Western economists presume that governments are not very good at identifying industries that merit support, and that domestic consumers and taxpayers incur the bulk of the costs. In other words, if Chinese industrial policy has been misguided and misdirected, it is China's own economy that has suffered as a result.

By the same logic, if Chinese policymakers effectively targeted activities where social benefits exceed private benefits, producing improved economic performance, then it is not clear why foreigners should complain. This is what economists call a case of "fixing market failures." It makes as much sense for outsiders to want to block the Chinese government from pursuing such policies as it does to prevent a competitor from freeing up its markets.

This is especially true when the externality in question is a global one, as in the case of climate change. Chinese subsidies for solar panels and wind turbines have produced a decline in the cost of renewable energy – an enormous benefit for the rest of the world.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter, PS on Sunday

The economics of industrial policy can get more complicated in the presence of monopolies and market-dominant firms. Industrial policies can be justifiably restricted when they enable the exercise of market power at the expense of the rest of the world.

But Chinese producers are rarely accused of propping up prices, which is the hallmark of market power. More often, the complaint is the opposite. Such considerations probably apply more to the US and European firms that are frequently the dominant players in high-tech markets.

None of this is an argument for other countries to stand idly by while China progresses to ever more sophisticated industries. The US, for one, has a long history of successful industrial policy, particularly in defense-related technologies. There is now broad political agreement in the US political spectrum that the country needs a more explicit industrial policy targeting good jobs, innovation, and a green economy. A bill advanced by the US Senate's top Democrat, Chuck Schumer, proposes to spend $100 billion over the next five years on new technologies.

Much of the new push for industrial policy in the US and Europe is motivated by the perceived Chinese "threat." But economic considerations suggest this is the wrong focus. The needs and remedies lie in the domestic sphere. The objective should be to build more productive, more inclusive economies at home – not simply to outcompete China or try to undercut its economic progress.
 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Thursday, July 9, 2020

Enlighten Radio:Talkin Socialism Friday morning -- Ruthie Foster, Bonnie, and Rhiannon Giddens till then

The Red Caboose has sent you a link to a blog:



Blog: Enlighten Radio
Post: Talkin Socialism Friday morning -- Ruthie Foster, Bonnie, and Rhiannon Giddens till then
Link: https://www.enlightenradio.org/2020/07/talkin-socialism-friday-morning-ruthie.html

--
Powered by Blogger
https://www.blogger.com/

Teleworking is Not Working for the Poor, the Young, and the Women [feedly]

Teleworking is Not Working for the Poor, the Young, and the Women
https://blogs.imf.org/2020/07/07/teleworking-is-not-working-for-the-poor-the-young-and-the-women/

The COVID-19 pandemic is devastating labor markets across the world. Tens of millions of workers lost their jobs, millions more out of the labor force altogether, and many occupations face an uncertain future. Social distancing measures threaten jobs requiring physical presence at the workplace or face-to-face interactions. Those unable to work remotely, unless deemed essential, face a significantly higher risk of reductions in hours or pay, temporary furloughs, or permanent layoffs. What types of jobs and workers are most at risk? Not surprisingly, the costs have fallen most heavily on those who are least able to bear them: the poor and the young in the lowest-paid jobs.

In a new paper, we investigate the feasibility to work from home in a large sample of advanced and emerging market economies. We estimate that nearly 100 million workers in 35 advanced and emerging countries (out of 189 IMF members) could be at high risk because they are unable to do their jobs remotely. This is equivalent to 15 percent of their workforce, on average. But there are important differences across countries and workers.

The nature of jobs in each country

Most studies measuring the feasibility of working from home follow job definitions used in the United States. But the same occupations in other countries may differ in the face-to-face interactions required, the technology intensity of the production process, or even access to digital infrastructure. To reflect that, the work-from-home feasibility index that we built uses the tasks actually performed within each country, according to surveys compiled by the OECD for 35 countries.

We found significant differences across countries even for the same occupations. It is much easier to telework in Norway and Singapore than in Turkey, Chile, Mexico, Ecuador, and Peru, simply because more than half the households in most emerging and developing countries don't even have a computer at home.

Who is most vulnerable?

Overall, workers in food and accommodation, and wholesale and retail trade, are the hardest hit for having the least "teleworkable" jobs at all. That means more than 20 million people in our sample who work in these sectors are at the highest risk of losing their jobs. Yet some are more vulnerable than others:

  • Young workers and those without university education are significantly less likely to work remotely. This higher risk is consistent with the age profiles of workers in the sectors hardest hit by lockdowns and social distancing policies. Worryingly, this suggests that the crisis could amplify intergenerational inequality.

  • Women could be particularly hit hard, threatening to undo some of the gains in gender equality made in recent decades. This is because women are disproportionately concentrated in the hardest-hit sectors like food service and accommodation. In addition, women carry a heavier burden of child care and domestic chores, while market provision of these services has been disrupted.

  • Part-time workers and employees of small and medium-sized firms face greater risk of job loss. Workers in part-time work are often the first to be let go when economic conditions deteriorate, and the last to be hired when conditions improve. They are also less likely to have access to health care and the formal insurance channels that can help them weather the crisis. In developing economies, in particular, part-time workers and those in informal work face a dramatically higher risk of falling into poverty.

The impact on low-income and precariously-employed workers could be particularly severe, amplifying long-standing inequities in societies. Our finding—that workers at the bottom of the earnings distribution are least able to work remotely—is corroborated by recent unemployment data from the United States and other countries. The COVID-19 crisis will exacerbate income inequality.

To compound the effect, workers at the bottom of the income distribution are already disproportionately concentrated in the hardest-hit sectors like food and accommodation services, which are among those sectors least amenable to teleworking. Low-income workers are also more likely to live hand-to-mouth and have little financial buffers like savings and access to credit.

How to protect the most vulnerable?

The pandemic is likely to change how work is done in many sectors. Consumers may rely more on e-commerce, to the detriment of retail jobs; and may order more takeout, reducing the labor market for restaurant workers.

What can governments do? They can focus on assisting the affected workers and their families by broadening social insurance and safety nets to cushion against income and employment loss. Wage subsidies and public-works programs can help them regain their livelihoods during the recovery.

To reduce inequality and give people better prospects, governments need to strengthen education and training to better prepare workers for the jobs of the future. Lifelong learning also means bolstering access to schooling and skills training to help workers displaced by economic shocks like COVID-19.

This crisis has clearly shown that being able to get online was a crucial determinant to people's ability to continue engaging in the workplace. Investing in digital infrastructure and closing the digital divide will allow disadvantaged groups to participate meaningfully in the future economy.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Tim Taylor: The Subway Map View of US Mortality and Health [feedly]

Tim Taylor: always finding diamonds in the rough

The Subway Map View of US Mortality and Health
https://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-subway-map-view-of-mortality-and.html

If the US had a national goal of improving health, it would quite possible take aggressive action to reduce current spending on health care, and instead use those funds to address social factors that affect health. Donald M. Berwick makes this case in his short essay, "The Moral Determinants of Health" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 12, 2020). Berwick writes (footnotes omitted): 
Except for a few clinical preventive services, most hospitals and physician offices are repair shops, trying to correct the damage of causes collectively denoted "social determinants of health." Marmot has summarized these in 6 categories: conditions of birth and early childhood, education, work, the social circumstances of elders, a collection of elements of community resilience (such as transportation, housing, security, and a sense of community self-efficacy), and, cross-cutting all, what he calls "fairness," which generally amounts to a sufficient redistribution of wealth and income to ensure social and economic security and basic equity. ...

The power of these societal factors is enormous compared with the power of health care to counteract them. One common metaphor for social and health disparities is the "subway map" view of life expectancy, showing the expected life span of people who reside in the neighborhood of a train or subway stop. From midtown Manhattan to the South Bronx in New York City, life expectancy declines by 10 years: 6 months for every minute on the subway. Between the Chicago Loop and west side of the city, the difference in life expectancy is 16 years. At a population level, no existing or conceivable medical intervention comes within an order of magnitude of the effect of place on health. ...

How do humans invest in their own vitality and longevity? The answer seems illogical. In wealthy nations, science points to social causes, but most economic investments are nowhere near those causes. Vast, expensive repair shops (such as medical centers and emergency services) are hard at work, but minimal facilities are available to prevent the damage. In the US at the moment, 40 million people are hungry, almost 600 000 are homeless, 2.3 million are in prisons and jails with minimal health services (70% of whom experience mental illness or substance abuse), 40 million live in poverty, 40% of elders live in loneliness, and public transport in cities is decaying. ...

Decades of research on the true causes of ill health, a long series of pedigreed reports, and voices of public health advocacy have not changed this underinvestment in actual human well-being. Two possible sources of funds seem logically possible: either (a) raise taxes to allow governments to improve social determinants, or (b) shift some substantial fraction of health expenditures from an overbuilt, high-priced, wasteful, and frankly confiscatory system of hospitals and specialty care toward addressing social determinants instead. Either is logically possible, but neither is politically possible, at least not so far.
Here is one of the 21 "subway maps" of life expectancy in different areas of the United States from researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University ("Mapping Life Expectancy," September 26, 2016), this one using data from Chicago. 

Health care spending is headed for one-fifth of total GDP, and there's substantial reason to doubt that it is improving health by enough to justify that bill.  For example, here's a figure from Our World in Data showing the shifts health care spending per person over time (horizontal axis) and the change in life expectancy over time (vertical axis). The US is clearly on a different path from other high-income countries. 
Making sure people have access the kind of health care with a high impact on health seems like a valuable social goal. But if the overall social goal is improving health, not just feeding the health care industry, finding ways to transfer funds away from health care to other social needs that affect health may be more important than health insurance for all. For a previous post on the need for spending on programs "upstream" of medical care, see "U.S. Health Care: The Case for Going Upstream" (March 15, 2017). 

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Census: Household Pulse Survey shows 34.9% of Households Expect Loss in Income; 25.9% Concerned about Housing [feedly]

Census: Household Pulse Survey shows 34.9% of Households Expect Loss in Income; 25.9% Concerned about Housing
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CalculatedRisk/~3/aVWHtjMUGsk/census-household-pulse-survey-shows-349.html

Note: The details in the pulse survey this week are concerning - especially about loss in income and concern about housing.

First, from @ernietedeschi 
The @uscensusbureau Household Pulse Survey, which performed admirably in anticipating the June jobs report, now shows employment has fallen by about 1.3 million cumulatively over the last 2 weeks.

Some of this may be seasonality or survey error, but it merits pause nonetheless.
This graph is from Ernie Tedeschi (former US Treasury economist).

Note: The question on lost income is always since March 13, 2020 - so this percentage will not decline.

From the Census Bureau: Measuring Household Experiences during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic
The U.S. Census Bureau, in collaboration with five federal agencies, is in a unique position to produce data on the social and economic effects of COVID-19 on American households. The Household Pulse Survey is designed to deploy quickly and efficiently, collecting data to measure household experiences during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Data will be disseminated in near real-time to inform federal and state response and recovery planning.

Data collection for the Household Pulse Survey began on April 23, 2020. The Census Bureau will collect data for 90 days, and release data on a weekly basis.
This will be updated weekly, and the Census Bureau released the recent survey results last Wednesday. This survey asks about Loss in Employment Income, Expected Loss in Employment Income, Food Scarcity, Delayed Medical Care, Housing Insecurity and K-12 Educational Changes.

 Click on graph for larger image.

The data was collected between June 25 and June 30, 2020.

Definitions:

Loss in employment income: "Percentage of adults in households where someone had a loss in employment income since March 13, 2020."

This number is since March 13, and has increased slightly.

Expected Loss in Employment Income: "Percentage of adults who expect someone in their household to have a loss in employment income in the next 4 weeks."

34.9% of households expect a loss in income over the next 4 weeks.   This is down from 38.8% in late April, but up from 32% the previous (the previous week was the reference week for the BLS employment report).   This might suggest the job gains stalled after the data was collected for the June employment report.

Food Scarcity: Percentage of adults in households where there was either sometimes or often not enough to eat in the last 7 days.

About 10% of households report food scarcity.

Delayed Medical Care: "Percentage of adults who delayed getting medical care because of the COVID-19 pandemic in the last 4 weeks."

41.5% of households report they delayed medical care over the last 4 weeks. This has not declined.

Housing Insecurity: "Percentage of adults who missed last month's rent or mortgage payment, or who have slight or no confidence that their household can pay next month's rent or mortgage on time."

25.9% of households reported they missed last month's rent or mortgage payment (or little confidence in making this month's payment).  This has increased from a low of 22.1% in the survey of June 4th - June 9th.

Without an extension of the extra unemployment benefits (expires at the end of July), we will likely see a significant increase in housing stress.

K-12 Educational Changes: "Percentage of adults in households with children in public or private school, where classes were taught in a distance learning format, or changed in some other way."

Essentially all households with children are reporting were not being taught in a normal format.  

 -- via my feedly newsfeed