MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122824413 · doi:10.17848/1075-8445.27(4)-2

Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic and the CARES Act on Earnings and Inequality

2020· article· en· W3122824413 on OpenAlexafffund
Guido Matías Cortés, Eliza Forsythe

Bibliographic record

VenueEmployment Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignYork UniversityW.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research
KeywordsEarningsUnemploymentPandemicEconomicsInequalityCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Labour economicsDemographic economicsPaymentPopulationPanel dataDistribution (mathematics)Economic inequalityEconomic growthMedicineFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using data from the Current Population Survey (CPS), we show that the Covid-19 pandemic led to a loss of aggregate real labor earnings of more than $250 billion between March and July 2020. By exploiting the panel structure of the CPS, we show that the decline in aggregate earnings was entirely driven by declines in employment; individuals who remained employed did not experience any atypical earnings changes. We find that job losses were substantially larger among workers in low-paying jobs. This led to a dramatic increase in inequality in labor earnings during the pandemic. Simulating standard unemployment benefits and Unemployment Insurance (UI) provisions in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, we estimate that UI payments exceeded total pandemic earnings losses between March and July 2020 by $9 billion. Workers who were previously in the bottom third of the earnings distribution received 49% of the pandemic-associated UI and CARES benefits, reversing the increases in labor earnings inequality. These lower-income individuals are likely to have a high fiscal multiplier, suggesting these extra payments may have helped stimulate aggregate demand.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.379
GPT teacher head0.546
Teacher spread0.167 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmployment ResearchSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207