'I'm alarmed': With recession fears rising, jobless benefits still fall short: Report
'I'm alarmed': With recession fears rising, jobless benefits still fall short: Report
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Can you get unemployment if you quit? What to know about benefits.
Being out of work doesn't mean you automatically qualify for unemployment benefits. Here's what to know before applying.
During the COVID-19 recession, 22 million laid-off workers sought unemployment benefits, sparking chaos in the payment system and compounding the financial woes of jobless Americans.
Five years later, with many forecasters predicting another downturn is likely in 2025, a far less burdened benefits system remains plagued by myriad problems that could hamper payments to Americans who lose their jobs in an economic slump, according to a new report.
Nearly 1 in 5 unemployment insurance recipients say their benefits were inadequate, with a third complaining they've struggled with food insecurity despite the payments, according to a survey and study by the National Employment Law Project.
Large shares of beneficiaries also lament delayed payments, jammed phone lines, hard-to-navigate websites and incorrectly denied benefits, among other issues, according to the survey, which was conducted in partnership with online polling firm YouGov in September.
The firms surveyed 1,480 workers who were unemployed at some point from 2019 to 2024 and the results were provided exclusively to USA TODAY.
'I'm alarmed,' said Amy Traub, senior researcher and policy analyst for NELP and a co-author of the study. 'The unemployment insurance system is really falling far short in its function of supporting unemployed workers.'
The gaps exist even though Congress provided $1 billion in the American Rescue Plan of 2021 to shore up jobless benefits. Traub said the money did foster more timely payments and website improvements but there are still shortcomings in those and other areas.
States finance unemployment payments themselves while the federal government bankrolls the system's technology and infrastructure. Both are funded by payroll taxes that are generally paid by employers.
Why do we have unemployment insurance?
Besides helping workers make ends meet when they lose their jobs, jobless benefits bolster consumer demand, helping avoid – or dig the economy out of – a recession, the NELP report says. And the payments ensure that workers have enough time to find a job that best suits their skills, improving the efficiency of the labor market and economy.
Economists surveyed say there's a nearly 50% chance of a recession because of President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs on imported goods, according to a survey by Wolters Kluwer Blue Chip Economic Indicators. JPMorgan Chase has put the odds at 60%.
Among the lingering trouble spots with the system:
Benefits fall short
Nineteen percent of the unemployment recipients polled said the money they received wasn't enough to meet their financial needs, the survey showed.
To be sure, the checks go a long way toward helping laid-off workers stay afloat. Of unemployment applicants who didn't receive benefits, 51% experienced hunger, 40% struggled to pay their rent or mortgage and 37% had a hard time paying medical bills, according to the survey. By contrast, among those obtaining payments, 33% went hungry at times, 29% had issues with housing payments and 30% couldn't pay medical costs.
Yet it's troubling that about a third of beneficiaries still had difficulty covering basic expenses, Traub said.
'During the next recession, if we have large numbers of workers who lose their jobs, we want to be sure they're not going hungry or losing their homes,' she said.
A big reason many recipients can't cover such necessities is the wide disparities among states in their benefit disbursements, Traub said.
In early 2024, for example, Alabama workers received an average benefit of $252 a week, replacing 29% of their prior wage on average, while workers in Washington state got an average $721 a week, or 49% of their previous pay.
On average across the U.S., unemployment covered 36% of a worker's previous pay.
Also, most states provide up to 26 weeks of benefits – a standard that's typically expanded in a recession – but 13 states dole out checks for 12 to 21 weeks, including Arkansas, Iowa, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Alabama, Kansas and Florida, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Jammed phone lines, uncooperative websites, late payments
During the COVID-19 pandemic, an unprecedented surge of applicants struggled to obtain payments. Surprisingly, freshly laid-off workers nowadays, numbering about 200,000 each week, still face obstacles.
From 2022 to 2024, about 22% of applicants said they couldn't reach their state unemployment office by phone, the same share as during the pandemic (2020-2021); 20% complained of hard-to-navigate websites vs. 23% during the health crisis; and 17% pointed to delays receiving payments, compared to 21% during the crisis.
Many states beefed up staffing during the COVID-19 pandemic, shifting workers from other parts of state unemployment agencies to customer service, but moved them back to their old positions as the spike in applications ebbed, Traub said. In many cases, that left a reduced but still sizable share of workers struggling to access benefits.
Employers discourage workers from applying
Nearly 1 in 5 workers said an employer tried to deter them from applying for benefits, with 14% saying such steps included telling them they weren't eligible and 5% threatening retaliation if they applied.
Employers may have the incentive to dissuade staffers from filing for unemployment because the taxes they pay to support the benefits system are based on the number of their workers who successfully file claims.
'It's not really up to the employer who's eligible and who's not,' Traub said.
Incorrectly denied benefits
About 17% of applicants polled said they were improperly denied benefits since the pandemic. The question of whether applicants are entitled to payments can get thorny, hinging on whether they were laid off or fired for cause, and whether they met thresholds for the number of hours they worked and the wages they earned in previous months, Traub said
Discrimination
About 7% of applicants said they faced discrimination because of race or other reasons when they sought benefits, the survey showed.
In a related issue, a growing number of states are using new ID verification systems to detect fraud, according to the report, which was coauthored by researchers Alexander Hertel-Fernandez and Sanjay Pinto. Twelve percent of Black workers report trouble verifying their identity, more than twice the share of white employees, according to NELP's survey.
The NELP report pointed to facial recognition technology that's less accurate for people with darker skin and questions that rely on data from credit bureaus. Black workers are less likely to have substantial credit histories on file, the report said.
Workers in Southern states face more hurdles
Broadly, workers in Southern states are far more likely than those in other regions to complain of discrimination, delayed payments, low payment levels and inadequate duration of payments, the report said. It cited racism and a 'lack of adequate support for social infrastructure' that may more prevalent in the South.
Among NELP's recommendations to bolster the system:
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Axios
29 minutes ago
- Axios
Starbucks taps into health trends with protein coffee test
LAS VEGAS — Starbucks is tapping into the growing demand for protein-packed drinks as consumers seek to boost their intake for health and wellness. Why it matters: The world's largest coffee chain unveiled Tuesday that it is testing protein in its cold foam as part of its "Back to Starbucks" plan. CEO Brian Niccol is trying to reverse a decline in foot traffic and sales by returning to its roots. The big picture: Protein is hot and having a moment beyond social media influencers sharing order hacks. Restaurant brands like Dutch Bros Coffee and Smoothie King have added more protein to their products to cater to changing consumer appetites. Eating a high-protein diet is important to maintain muscle for people taking appetite-suppressing injectable treatments like Ozempic and Wegovy, research shows. Nearly 18 million Americans are expected to be taking versions of GLP-1 drugs by 2029, according to investment bank UBS. Zoom in: Niccol told Axios in an interview Tuesday that the protein cold foam being tested is for a number of different consumer groups including 20-year-old males, 50-year-old females and people taking GLP-1s. "I was watching people coming to our stores, they would get three shots of espresso over ice," Niccol said. "And in some cases, they pull their own protein powder out of their bag, or in other cases, they have a protein drink, like a Fair Life and they'd pour that into their drink." "I'm like, well, wait a second, we can make this experience better for them," he said. "The good news is now I think we're right on trend, and we can do it I think arguably better than anybody else." Flashback: Starbucks had protein smoothies in the past and launched its Vivanno shakes in 2008. They were discontinued in 2018. The company also launched a protein drink in the U.K. last year. The intrigue: Starbucks said the protein powder should be able to be added to any of its cold foam flavors. What's next: Starbucks is testing protein cold foam in five locations in the U.S. under its Starting Five model.


New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Mayor Adams' ‘emergency' spending is out of control — now NYC must hit the brakes
New Yorkers, like all Americans, tend to stock up when any crisis is about to hit: We fill up our gas tanks, empty the bread and egg shelves at grocery stores and buy enough toilet paper to last for months. It's human nature — and for far too long, New York City's government has been behaving the very same way. But City Hall's panic reaction is far worse, and does far more damage. Advertisement In recent emergencies, like the COVID-19 pandemic and the asylum-seeker influx, city government kept on 'crisis buying' for more than a year, without ever comparing prices or rooting out contractor abuse, fraud and waste. It's time for drastic change: We must reform the city's out-of-control emergency procurement practices and add vital checks and balances. Currently, when the mayor declares a state of emergency, the city's comptroller and corporation counsel suspend their ordinary oversight regarding contracts and procurement. Advertisement In theory, this allows City Hall to respond quickly and obtain necessary goods and services to alleviate the crisis. In practice, it means the city can award no-bid contracts for up to one year — contracts that, having bypassed the competitive bidding that's normally required, can be rife with waste and abuse. Imagine purchasing a car or searching for your next apartment without competitively price-shopping for those big-ticket items. That's what City Hall does whenever the mayor declares an emergency. City agencies aren't even required to send 'emergency' contracts to the comptroller for auditing before laying out taxpayer cash. In fact, 84% of such contracts filed between January 2022 and September 2023 were submitted more than 31 days after the contract start date. Advertisement Both Mayor Eric Adams and former Mayor Bill de Blasio spent billions of dollars on the asylum-seeker and COVID crises, respectively, drawing multiple allegations of corruption and pay-to-play politics. This uncontrolled spending was especially acute during the pandemic, as de Blasio extended 'emergency' contracts a whopping 100-plus times and spent nearly $7 billion on emergency supplies with no oversight or limiting guardrails. In the private sector, affordability is a prime factor when choosing bids on contracts. The city's emergency procurement process throws such considerations to the wind, leading to reckless overspending. During COVID, City Hall paid top dollar for ventilators and N95 masks it never received — and in one case, paid an absurd $7.50 apiece for cloth masks. Advertisement Its fire sale of nearly $224 million worth of COVID-era surplus items, from ventilators to face shields, only recouped $500,000, a downright outrage. The current administration is no better, awarding a $432 million emergency contract for asylum-seeker services to an untested company called DocGo. Its dreadful performance — with problems like chronic food waste, moldy hotel rooms, unlicensed security guards and an uncredentialed CEO who was forced to resign — resulted in an investigation by the state attorney general. Even in non-emergency circumstances, the city has never reined in city contractors who utilize loopholes to enrich themselves. Take the company owned by David Levitan, listed as one of New York City's worst landlords. For over a quarter century, the city has repeatedly used Levitan's properties as homeless shelters — buildings with rotted floors, broken elevators, rat infestations and peeling lead paint. Levitan has even required some of the nonprofits operating shelters within his buildings to subcontract with his own maintenance or extermination companies to service the properties — reaping even more revenue from our tax dollars. It's time for reform, top to bottom. Advertisement Emergencies, by their very definition, are short in duration. Accordingly, they should necessitate a strictly time-limited use of no-bid contracts, for instances when competitive bidding will truly hinder the city's response. That's why I am introducing two bills in the New York City Council this week to update our lackadaisical, irresponsible procurement processes. These bills will limit all emergency contracts to 30 days, unless both the comptroller and corporation counsel approve of an extension. If passed, the laws will require all contracts be sent to the comptroller for auditing within 15 days of signing, and will increase subcontractor transparency with fines of up to $100,000 for not disclosing to the city any conflicts of interest or competing contractual obligations. Advertisement New York's broken contracting system has price-gouged our taxpayers for far too long — and recent mayoral administrations have shown no appetite to follow good-government procurement practices. It's up to the City Council to advance this vital legislation, saving precious fiscal resources, restoring responsibility and rooting out corruption. City Council Member Julie Menin (D) represents the East Side of Manhattan and chairs the Consumer and Worker Protection Committee.

Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump bill pledges $1,000 contribution for babies. How much would that be in Tennessee?
Another addition to the President Donald Trump's tax bill is a program to provide financial support for children born in the United States. The program would create the Money Accounts for Growth and Advancement program, or MAGA accounts. Through the program, there would be a one-time contribution of $1,000 from the federal government to the child, and parents, churches, or private foundations are also eligible to contribute financially to the account. House Republicans changed the name of the program from "MAGA accounts" to "Trump accounts" before the bill's passage last month, offering the president a tangible benefit for working-class Americans that he can put his stamp on. Here is what current and future parents can expect from the program. The program for American children born during Trump's current term would involve a one-time contribution of $1,000 per toddler from the federal government into a mutual fund or index fund tied to the performance of the stock market. The legislation touts the program as "a new kind of savings account designed to incentivize education, entrepreneurship, and homeownership while promoting financial security." The accounts are eligible to all future children born and all children under the age of eight by the time Jan. 1, 2026, rolls around. The bill also allows parents, churches, and private foundations to make contributions of up to $5,000 annually during childhood, which the child can access upon turning 18 to pay for education, training, or a first-time home purchase. Contributions to these accounts from tax-exempt entities, like private foundations, are not subject to the annual $5,000 limit but must be provided to all children within a qualified group, such as all children in a state, a school district, or an educational institution. The full balance would be available at age 30. CEOs of several large corporations said they would make billions of dollars in additional investments into accounts for the children of their employees. Dell Technologies, Salesforce, Uber, and Goldman Sachs were among the companies the White House said would participate. According to the University of Tennessee's data center, there were 83,742 live births in Tennessee in 2024. This was the highest number of children born since 2008, when 85,560 babies were born. The program pertains to children under eight years old as of Jan. 1, 2026. There were 489,884 live births in Tennessee between 2019 and 2024, the most recent year for which data is available. Taking into account the rising birth rates, a low estimate for 2025's live births would be 83,000, which would increase the total children eligible to 572,884. This would amount to $572,884,000 for Tennessee alone, assuming every child eligible is signed up for the program. In 2023, Tennessee had a fertility rate of 58.9 per 1,000 women of reproductive age. This is the 14th highest fertility rate in the country. This article originally appeared on Memphis Commercial Appeal: Trump bill sets up cash accounts for kids. How much would TN get?