Congress must include worker protections in the next coronavirus relief bill: We need an Essential Workers Bill of Rights
In response to the coronavirus pandemic, Congress has now passed four separate relief and recovery measures allocating trillions of dollars in aid, but none have provided meaningful protections to working people. Workers continue to be required to work without protective gear. Sick workers continue to lack access to paid sick leave. And when workers try and speak up for themselves and each other, they are fired. Workers are dying as a result.
Even a global pandemic has not been enough for policymakers to place the needs of working people ahead of corporate interests. As Congress turns its attention to another relief and recovery package, it must prioritize policies and investments that help working families mitigate the economic and public health disaster they are experiencing.
In the last six weeks, nearly 28 million workers have applied for unemployment insurance (UI). That is more than one in six workers and over five times the worst period of the Great Recession. All else equal, this level of job loss would translate into an unemployment rate of 20.5%. Further, 12.7 million workers have likely lost their employer-provided health insurance since the beginning of the pandemic.
Congress must act and pass legislation that is responsive to the magnitude of this crisis and direct assistance to the tens of millions of working families most impacted by the public health and economic emergencies.
The Essential Workers Bill of Rights, introduced by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), would provide front-line workers—including nurses, grocery and drug store workers, janitors, public transit workers, child care workers, and postal workers—the protections they need while providing essential services during the coronavirus pandemic. The following are key worker protections that should be included in the next coronavirus relief bill.
The extra $600 in unemployment insurance has been the best response yet to the economic shock of the coronavirus and should be extended
The CARES Act, the $2 trillion-plus package to provide economic relief and recovery from the coronavirus shock in early April was, for many reasons, deeply imperfect. But the modifications the CARES Act made to the nation’s unemployment insurance (UI) system are an utterly crucial lifeline for tens of millions of American workers. Besides temporarily expanding the eligibility criteria for who qualifies for unemployment benefits through the end of the year and providing an additional 13 weeks of state UI benefits, the CARES Act also provided an extra $600 per week in UI payments through the end of July.
This $600 top-up has been fiercely criticized by some since the Act passed—e.g., Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) stated that it would be extended past July only “over our dead bodies”—but the criticism is either ill-informed or in bad faith. The extra $600 has been by far the most effective part our economic policy response to the coronavirus shock. It is likely improving—not degrading—labor market efficiency, and we should build on this and make the nation’s unemployment insurance system well-resourced and far more generous even in normal times.
The history of how a flat $600 in additional UI benefits was agreed upon by policymakers is straightforward, if depressing. In normal times, these benefits are stingy, typically replacing between one-third and one-half of a typical worker’s weekly wage. For decades, too many economists and policymakers have labored under a number of wrong preconceptions about the labor market, and one of the most damaging was that decent jobs were plentiful and easy to get, and the only thing keeping potential workers out of these jobs for any stretch of time was workers’ own motivation, which could be sapped if benefits were too generous. It was the old and dumb idea that the U.S. social safety net—despite being by far the stingiest in the advanced world—had become a too-comfortable “hammock.” (For what it’s worth, the evidence from the aftermath of the Great Recession reveals that extended UI benefits had little or no effect on whether a worker found a job—meaning it wasn’t UI benefits that were keeping workers out of work—it was a lack of demand for workers.)
The economic shock of the coronavirus was an event so obviously unrelated to the motivations of individual workers that policymakers were willing to substantially (if temporarily) increase the generosity of unemployment benefits. Our preference would have been for a 100% replacement rate up to a quite generous maximum benefit. But decades of disinvestment in the administrative capacity of state UI offices left them incapable of flexibly calculating each new applicant’s benefit amount with a 100% replacement rate. (Case in point: most offices are still using the 1970s-era programming language COBOL to run their computers). State offices are capable of administering a flat-rate increase, however. So, policymakers in Congress came up with a smart and compassionate second-best solution of picking a flat-rate boost to benefits that would leave the average worker (and most workers overall) with 100% of their pre-crisis earnings.
But the necessity of the one-size-fits-all approach means that workers who earned less than the average worker before the crisis will receive benefits that are somewhat higher than 100% of their previous wage. Many conservatives claim this is somehow an economic disaster. They’re wrong—it’s actually great.
Thank you, D.C. Board of Elections, for making voting easier: I dedicate my favorite rap song to you
As I awoke today, preparing myself for another workday by listening to music, one of my favorite songs “Foldin Clothes” by J. Cole had me “feeling like best version of me so happy,” just one of the great lyrics from the rap song.
Why was I so happy? I got an email from the D.C. Board of Elections describing voting procedures that were much easier than in my home state of Louisiana, which recently passed an election plan that limits who has access to mail-in ballots. The email invited me, a new resident to Washington, to request a mail-in ballot for the 2020 election cycle which could be done one of six ways: online, email, fax, mail, phone, or in person.
Anyone who knows me knows I love to talk about voting. My dissertation examined the history of voting in America, including how the ghosts of lynchings still suppress the black vote in this country today. With all that’s going on to suppress minorities from voting—most recently the outrage of the Supreme Court’s refusal to extend the deadline for mail-in voting in Wisconsin in the middle of the pandemic—it’s been exhausting to keep beating the voting rights drum.
Every time I mention the importance of updating our voting methods, I am met with opposition. “You want people to vote by mail?! ONLINE?! There is no way it can be done securely,” many say. Regardless of the evidence I’ve provided that it has already been done securely in several states, people still resist the idea of adding more voting options nationally.
Well, turns out it’s not that difficult after all. D.C., which has had its own voting issues, is trying to make the process easier.
So, I’m dedicating “Foldin Clothes” to the D.C. elections leadership because they’re “doing the right thing.” I was able to download the Vote 4 DC app and it “felt so much better than doing the wrong thing” of not using the latest technology to make voting more accessible. To my surprise, this app allowed me to request a mail-in-ballot in less than two minutes! Having several options to request a ballot, including online options, “saved me some time and alleviated stress from my mind” of having to vote in person during a pandemic.
Updated state unemployment numbers: More than a quarter of the workforce has filed for unemployment in six states
Another 3.5 million U.S. workers filed for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits last week, according to the Department of Labor’s most recent data released this morning (not seasonally adjusted). In the past six weeks, nearly 28 million, or one in six, workers applied for UI benefits across the country.
Despite most states seeing a decline in UI claims filed relative to last week, eight states continued to see increases in UI claims. Last week, Washington saw the largest percent increase in claims (74.6%) compared with the prior week, followed by Oregon (25.6%) and Nevada (14.0%).
Figure A and Table 1 allow you to compare state UI claims filed last week with the prior week and the pre-virus period, in both level and percent terms. It also shows the cumulative number of unemployment claims since March 7 and that number as a share of each state’s labor force.
New and cumulative jobless claims by state: Unemployment insurance (UI) claims filed during the week ending April 25, change in claims , and total claims as share of state labor force
State | Initial claims filed | % change from the prior week | Level change from the prior week | % change from pre-virus period | Level change from pre-virus period | Sum of initial claims for the seven weeks ending April 25 | Sum of initial claims as a share of labor force |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Alabama | 64,170 | -3.4% | -2,262 | 2,944% | 62,062 | 408,551 | 18.2% |
Alaska | 11,187 | -8.3% | -1,014 | 1,225% | 10,343 | 72,726 | 21.1% |
Arizona | 52,098 | -28.1% | -20,359 | 1,487% | 48,815 | 477,646 | 13.2% |
Arkansas | 16,745 | -34.1% | -8,659 | 1,032% | 15,266 | 178,277 | 13.0% |
California | 328,042 | -37.9% | -200,318 | 703% | 287,170 | 3,732,952 | 19.1% |
Colorado | 38,367 | -43.3% | -29,272 | 1,915% | 36,463 | 340,837 | 10.7% |
Connecticut | 33,037 | -67.9% | -69,771 | 1,180% | 30,456 | 265,126 | 13.7% |
Delaware | 7,754 | -17.9% | -1,692 | 1,258% | 7,183 | 79,694 | 16.3% |
Washington D.C. | 8,158 | -5.6% | -481 | 1,695% | 7,704 | 73,644 | 17.8% |
Florida | 432,465 | -14.6% | -74,205 | 8,435% | 427,398 | 1,598,699 | 15.3% |
Georgia | 264,818 | 7.2% | 17,815 | 4,847% | 259,465 | 1,372,939 | 26.6% |
Hawaii | 22,615 | -15.0% | -3,976 | 1,891% | 21,479 | 196,024 | 29.3% |
Idaho | 8,268 | -36.5% | -4,755 | 651% | 7,167 | 118,284 | 13.3% |
Illinois | 81,245 | -21.1% | -21,691 | 765% | 71,854 | 829,787 | 13.0% |
Indiana | 57,397 | -21.1% | -15,359 | 2,188% | 54,889 | 572,443 | 16.9% |
Iowa | 28,827 | 7.2% | 1,926 | 1,136% | 26,494 | 262,958 | 15.0% |
Kansas | 28,054 | -8.3% | -2,542 | 1,639% | 26,441 | 217,477 | 14.5% |
Kentucky | 90,824 | -12.7% | -13,157 | 3,530% | 88,322 | 593,614 | 28.5% |
Louisiana | 66,167 | -28.0% | -25,756 | 3,824% | 64,481 | 510,457 | 24.2% |
Maine | 7,478 | -36.5% | -4,291 | 864% | 6,702 | 109,508 | 15.8% |
Maryland | 36,471 | -24.8% | -12,024 | 1,221% | 33,711 | 389,521 | 11.9% |
Massachusetts | 70,714 | -12.7% | -10,255 | 1,067% | 64,656 | 732,467 | 19.1% |
Michigan | 81,312 | -40.5% | -55,395 | 1,372% | 75,788 | 1,266,459 | 25.6% |
Minnesota | 53,561 | -28.4% | -21,268 | 1,422% | 50,042 | 560,661 | 18.0% |
Mississippi | 35,843 | -2.9% | -1,070 | 4,230% | 35,015 | 203,037 | 15.9% |
Missouri | 52,403 | -12.1% | -7,199 | 1,625% | 49,365 | 456,142 | 14.7% |
Montana | 6,619 | -40.8% | -4,557 | 747% | 5,838 | 90,243 | 16.8% |
Nebraska | 8,197 | -32.9% | -4,025 | 1,513% | 7,689 | 104,972 | 10.1% |
Nevada | 45,043 | 14.0% | 5,547 | 1,852% | 42,736 | 393,061 | 25.2% |
New Hampshire | 14,347 | -29.7% | -6,067 | 2,443% | 13,783 | 160,635 | 20.6% |
New Jersey | 71,017 | -49.3% | -69,122 | 768% | 62,838 | 898,947 | 19.7% |
New Mexico | 13,712 | 0.7% | 91 | 1,836% | 13,004 | 119,331 | 12.4% |
New York | 218,912 | 6.7% | 13,728 | 1,088% | 200,482 | 1,624,114 | 17.0% |
North Carolina | 97,232 | -8.5% | -9,034 | 3,680% | 94,660 | 750,836 | 14.7% |
North Dakota | 6,996 | -13.3% | -1,069 | 1,568% | 6,577 | 57,583 | 14.2% |
Ohio | 90,760 | -17.4% | -19,070 | 1,143% | 83,460 | 1,063,741 | 18.2% |
Oklahoma | 42,577 | -8.8% | -4,119 | 2,661% | 41,035 | 275,794 | 15.0% |
Oregon | 46,722 | 25.6% | 9,513 | 1,076% | 42,750 | 283,121 | 13.4% |
Pennsylvania | 131,282 | -32.5% | -63,312 | 940% | 118,661 | 1,635,951 | 24.9% |
Rhode Island | 13,138 | -27.3% | -4,940 | 1,070% | 12,015 | 146,723 | 26.3% |
South Carolina | 65,159 | -12.4% | -9,203 | 3,251% | 63,215 | 415,635 | 17.4% |
South Dakota | 5,389 | 1.8% | 94 | 2,857% | 5,207 | 33,933 | 7.3% |
Tennessee | 43,792 | -34.9% | -23,434 | 2,078% | 41,782 | 428,370 | 12.7% |
Texas | 254,199 | -9.5% | -26,562 | 1,860% | 241,228 | 1,572,171 | 11.1% |
Utah | 11,830 | -39.8% | -7,819 | 1,082% | 10,829 | 138,561 | 8.5% |
Vermont | 4,971 | -24.7% | -1,627 | 708% | 4,356 | 56,781 | 16.7% |
Virginia | 74,043 | -10.5% | -8,686 | 2,703% | 71,402 | 570,240 | 12.8% |
Washington | 145,757 | 74.6% | 62,282 | 2,301% | 139,687 | 871,937 | 22.0% |
West Virginia | 29,576 | -36.7% | -17,179 | 2,517% | 28,446 | 124,693 | 15.5% |
Wisconsin | 49,910 | -10.7% | -5,973 | 783% | 44,256 | 447,771 | 14.4% |
Wyoming | 2,886 | -34.1% | -1,495 | 480% | 2,388 | 30,170 | 10.3% |
Notes: Initial claims for the week ending April 25 reflect advance state claims, not seasonally adjusted. For comparisons with the “pre-virus period,” we use a four-week average of initial claims for the weeks ending February 15–March 7, 2020. For comparisons to the size of the labor force, we use February 2020 levels.
Source: U.S. Employment and Training Administration, Initial Claims [ICSA], retrieved from Department of Labor (DOL), https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf and https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp, April 30, 2020
12.7 million workers have likely lost employer-provided health insurance since the coronavirus shock began
These estimates were updated on May 14, 2020. See the updated estimates.
Since the economic fallout of the coronavirus shock began in early March, the number of workers laid-off or furloughed—as measured by new claims for unemployment insurance (UI)—has skyrocketed. We have used data from states that track UI claims by industry to get a rough estimate of how many workers are at high risk of losing their employer-provided health insurance (EPHI) over this as well.
The methodology is described in this blog post, and the underlying data (which has begun to include more and more states tracking UI claims by industry) can be found here. Table 1 below shows UI claims by industry across states that collect this data, and also shows employer-provided health insurance (EPHI) coverage rates in those industries in 2018. As of April 30, just under 28 million workers had been laid off or furloughed since early March. We find that this translates into likely EPHI losses of 12.7 million.
Because the United States is unique among rich countries in tying health insurance benefits to employment, many of the newly unemployed will suddenly face prohibitively costly insurance options. A comprehensive policy solution would be to extend Medicare and Medicaid to all those suffering job losses during the pandemic period, with the federal government funding this expansion. It has been proposed that the federal government pay for all of COBRA coverage so that workers who are laid off or furloughed may continue their employer-provided coverage. While this policy proposal will help many workers continue coverage, in some states it will not help workers from small businesses with fewer than 20 employees, who are not eligible for COBRA.
The linkage between specific jobs and the availability of health insurance is a prime source of inefficiency and inequity in the U.S. health system. It is especially terrifying for workers to lose their health insurance as a result of, and during, an ongoing pandemic.
Nearly 28 million workers applied for unemployment insurance benefits in the last six weeks: Congress must act to mitigate harm from unprecedented joblessness
The number of workers applying for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits has risen to never-before-seen levels as a result of the coronavirus shock. In the last six weeks, nearly 28 million workers have applied for unemployment compensation. That is more than one in six workers, and over five times the worst period of the Great Recession.
I should note that the Department of Labor (DOL) reports that 30.3 million workers applied for UI during the last six weeks on a “seasonally adjusted” basis, compared with 27.9 million on an unadjusted basis. Seasonal adjustments are typically helpful—they are used to even out seasonal changes in claims that have nothing to do with the underlying strength or weakness of the labor market, providing a clearer picture of underlying trends. However, the way DOL does seasonal adjustments is distortionary at a time like this, so I focus on unadjusted numbers here.
All else equal, job loss of the magnitude reflected in the UI claims of the last six weeks would translate into an unemployment rate of 20.5%. It’s worth remembering that unemployment hits different racial groups differently as a result of things like occupational segregation, differences in access to educational credentials, discrimination, and other labor market disparities related to race. In our economy, in good times and bad, the white unemployment rate tends to be about 0.9 times the overall unemployment rate, and the black unemployment rate tends to be about 1.8 times the overall unemployment rate. That means that an overall unemployment rate of 20.5% would translate into a white unemployment rate of 18.4% and a black unemployment rate of 36.8%.
However, the official unemployment rates, when they are released, will likely not reflect all coronavirus-related layoffs. This is due to the fact that jobless workers are only counted as unemployed if they are available to work and actively seeking work. That means many workers who lose their job as a result of the virus will be counted as dropping out of the labor force instead of as unemployed, because they are unable to search for work due to the lockdown, or because they are not available to work because they are, for example, caring for children whose day care has closed. March data suggest that roughly half of workers who are out of work as a result of the virus will be counted as unemployed, and half are being counted as dropping out of the labor force.
Unemployment filing failures: New survey confirms that millions of jobless were unable to file an unemployment insurance claim
Millions of the newly jobless are going without benefits as the unemployment system buckles under the weight of new claims, according to our new national survey, conducted in mid-April.
For every 10 people who said they successfully filed for unemployment benefits during the previous four weeks:
- Three to four additional people tried to apply but could not get through the system to make a claim.
- Two additional people did not try to apply because it was too difficult to do so.
These findings imply the official count of unemployment insurance claims likely drastically understates the extent of employment reductions and the need for economic relief during the coronavirus crisis. To quantify the undercount, we look at the 21.5 million workers who filed for unemployment benefits from March 22 to April 18. Our results suggest:
- An additional 7.8 to 12.2 million people could have filed for benefits had the process been easier.
- After accounting for these workers—who applied but could not get through or did not try because of the difficult process—about half of potential UI applicants are actually receiving benefits.
When we extrapolate our survey findings to the full five weeks of UI claims since March 15, we estimate that an additional 8.9–13.9 million people could have filed for benefits had the process been easier.
These findings on the millions of frustrated filers and the UI system’s low payment rate highlight the need for policies to improve rather than hinder the UI application process. At a minimum, states should presume everyone is eligible and immediately pay benefits, only verifying eligibility and reviewing claims after the unprecedented wave of claims slows down.
The next coronavirus relief package should provide aid to state and local governments, protect employed and unemployed workers, and invest in our democracy
Key takeaways:
- Congress has passed a series of bills to mitigate the harm of the coronavirus. However, they haven’t been enough to help working people. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, without additional relief, the unemployment rate will average 16% in the third quarter of 2020 and 10.1% in 2021.
- The next recovery and relief bill should include $500 billion in aid to state and local governments, make additional investments in unemployment compensation, protect workers’ paychecks, include worker protections, invest in our democracy, and more.
In response to the coronavirus, Congress has passed a series of bills allocating more than $2 trillion to relief and recovery programs. However, these measures have been insufficient in scope and magnitude to address the severity of the economic and public health crisis we are experiencing. Further, lawmakers have failed to include key provisions that would address the needs of working families in this crisis. As a result of these policy missteps, the relief and recovery measures have not done nearly enough to mitigate the level of pain working people are experiencing or to ensure that the economy can get back on track after the shutdown period is over. It is critical that Congress correct its failures in future relief packages. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that without additional relief, the unemployment rate will average 16% in the third quarter of this year. As a point of comparison, the highest the unemployment rate reached in the Great Recession was 10%, and it reached that level for only one month. CBO projects that without additional relief, the unemployment rate will average 10.1% for the entire calendar year 2021.
Trump executive order to suspend immigration would reduce green cards by nearly one-third if extended for a full year
President Trump’s April 22 executive order to “suspend immigration” has the potential to reduce the number of migrants who can obtain green cards, i.e., become lawful permanent residents (LPRs), by hundreds of thousands if it remains in place for a substantial period of time beyond its initial 60-day duration.
Table 1 lists the categories of green cards that are affected by Trump’s executive order, along with the number of green cards that were issued in 2019 in each of those categories to applicants who were “new arrivals,” meaning they applied for their green cards from abroad. (The executive order does not suspend green cards for applicants who already reside in the United States.)
As Table 1 shows, there were one million total green cards issued during all of 2019, and 316,000 green cards issued under the categories suspended by Trump’s new executive order. The executive order is initially valid for 60 days (two months); a 60-day suspension of these categories would result in an estimated reduction of 52,600 green cards, or a reduction of 5.1% of all green cards relative to the total number issued in 2019.
However, it is impossible to know whether the executive order will remain in place for just two months, multiple years, or somewhere in between. Each additional 60 days would reduce the number by an additional 52,600, or an additional 5.1% of the annual green card total. If the executive order remains in force for one full year, it would result in a reduction of 316,000 green cards, or 31%, nearly one-third, of the one million green cards issued in 2019.
Green cards would fall by 31% under Trump’s executive order: Number of people applying from abroad who became U.S. lawful permanent residents in 2019 in the categories suspended by Trump’s April 2020 executive order
Immigrant class of admission, new arrivals only | Number in 2019 |
---|---|
Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens | |
Parents | 66,782 |
Family-sponsored preferences | |
First: Unmarried sons/daughters of U.S. citizens and their children | 20,866 |
Second: Spouses, children, and unmarried sons/daughters of alien residents; children of spouses of alien residents | 85,089 |
Third: Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizens and their spouses and children | 22,874 |
Fourth: Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizens (at least 21 years of age) and their spouses and children | 56,083 |
Employment-based preferences | |
First: Priority workers, and their spouses and children | 2,238 |
Second: Professionals with advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability, and their spouses and children | 3,432 |
Third: Skilled workers, professionals, and unskilled workers, and their spouses and children | 13,522 |
Fourth: Certain special immigrants, and their spouses and children | 2,080 |
Diversity Immigrant Visa program | 42,437 |
Children born abroad to alien residents | 59 |
Other | 356 |
Total in suspended categories | 315,818 |
Total green cards issued, all categories | 1,030,990 |
Suspended categories as a percentage of total green cards | 31% |
Notes: New arrivals represents applicants for lawful permanent resident status who are residing outside of the United States, usually in the country of origin. “Other” category primarily consists of those admitted under special legislation.
Source: Author’s analysis of U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Legal Immigration and Adjustment of Status Report Fiscal Year 2019, Quarter 4, Table 1B.
New state unemployment numbers show workers continue to file unemployment claims in daunting numbers
Correction: This blog post was updated on 4/24/20 with the correct data in Figure A and Table 1. The figure and table initially had the wrong data for the percent change from the previous week. We regret the error.
The Department of Labor released the most recent unemployment insurance (UI) claims data this morning, which shows that another 4.3 million people filed for UI benefits last week (not seasonally adjusted). More people filed for UI in the last week alone than during the worst five-week stretch of the Great Recession. In the past five weeks, more than 24 million workers have applied for UI benefits across the country.
Last week, Connecticut (102,757), Florida (505,137), and West Virginia (46,251) experienced their highest level of initial UI claims filings ever, each seeing the number of claims approximately triple over the week. Last week, Florida saw the largest percent increase in claims (9,869%) relative to the pre-virus period of any state. Florida residents also filed the second most UI claims last week, followed by Texas and Georgia.
Figure A compares UI claims filed last week with filings in the pre-virus period, showing that all states, especially many in the South, continue to struggle. Eight of the 10 states that had the highest percent change in initial UI claims relative to the pre-virus period are in the South: Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia.
Initial unemployment insurance claims filed during the week ending April 18, by state
State | Initial claims filed | Percent change from the prior week | Level change from the prior week | Percent change from pre-virus period | Level change from pre-virus period | Sum of initial claims for the six weeks ending April 18 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Alabama | 65,431 | -14.3% | -11,083 | 3,004% | 63,323 | 344,381 |
Alaska | 13,027 | 1.6% | 194 | 1,443% | 12,183 | 61,539 |
Arizona | 71,843 | -26.5% | -26,074 | 2,088% | 68,560 | 425,548 |
Arkansas | 24,236 | -28.7% | -10,225 | 1,538% | 22,757 | 161,532 |
California | 533,568 | -19.4% | -127,112 | 1,205% | 492,696 | 3,404,910 |
Colorado | 68,667 | -35.3% | -36,933 | 3,506% | 66,763 | 302,470 |
Connecticut | 102,757 | 201.9% | 68,758 | 3,881% | 100,176 | 232,089 |
Delaware | 9,294 | -28.8% | -3,812 | 1,528% | 8,723 | 71,940 |
Washington D.C. | 8,591 | -13.4% | -1,335 | 1,790% | 8,137 | 65,486 |
Florida | 505,137 | 180.8% | 326,251 | 9,869% | 500,070 | 1,166,234 |
Georgia | 243,677 | -22.7% | -72,578 | 4,452% | 238,324 | 1,108,121 |
Hawaii | 26,477 | -23.4% | -8,126 | 2,231% | 25,341 | 173,409 |
Idaho | 12,456 | -29.7% | -5,508 | 1,031% | 11,355 | 110,016 |
Illinois | 102,736 | -27.1% | -38,224 | 994% | 93,345 | 748,542 |
Indiana | 75,483 | -36.0% | -40,999 | 2,909% | 72,975 | 515,046 |
Iowa | 27,912 | -38.7% | -16,988 | 1,097% | 25,579 | 234,131 |
Kansas | 31,920 | 2.4% | 723 | 1,879% | 30,307 | 189,423 |
Kentucky | 103,548 | -10.6% | -12,296 | 4,039% | 101,046 | 502,790 |
Louisiana | 92,039 | 15.4% | 12,270 | 5,359% | 90,353 | 444,290 |
Maine | 11,446 | -12.7% | -1,719 | 1,375% | 10,670 | 102,030 |
Maryland | 46,676 | -22.9% | -14,409 | 1,591% | 43,916 | 353,050 |
Massachusetts | 80,345 | -22.0% | -22,844 | 1,226% | 74,287 | 661,753 |
Michigan | 134,119 | -38.5% | -85,500 | 2,328% | 128,595 | 1,185,147 |
Minnesota | 74,873 | -19.7% | -18,304 | 2,027% | 71,354 | 507,100 |
Mississippi | 35,843 | -19.3% | -8,835 | 4,230% | 35,015 | 167,194 |
Missouri | 52,678 | -41.6% | -42,524 | 1,634% | 49,640 | 403,739 |
Montana | 10,509 | -21.7% | -3,099 | 1,245% | 9,728 | 83,624 |
Nebraska | 12,340 | -24.9% | -4,057 | 2,328% | 11,832 | 96,775 |
Nevada | 40,909 | -32.6% | -19,145 | 1,673% | 38,602 | 348,018 |
New Hampshire | 19,110 | -19.2% | -4,859 | 3,287% | 18,546 | 146,288 |
New Jersey | 139,277 | -0.9% | -1,281 | 1,603% | 131,098 | 827,930 |
New Mexico | 13,338 | -28.5% | -5,422 | 1,783% | 12,630 | 105,619 |
New York | 204,716 | -48.0% | -189,517 | 1,011% | 186,286 | 1,405,202 |
North Carolina | 104,515 | -24.2% | -33,889 | 3,964% | 101,943 | 653,604 |
North Dakota | 9,042 | -15.1% | -1,437 | 2,055% | 8,623 | 50,587 |
Ohio | 108,801 | -31.1% | -49,487 | 1,390% | 101,501 | 972,981 |
Oklahoma | 40,297 | -14.3% | -7,785 | 2,513% | 38,755 | 233,217 |
Oregon | 35,101 | -31.8% | -17,372 | 784% | 31,129 | 236,399 |
Pennsylvania | 198,081 | -17.1% | -40,274 | 1,469% | 185,460 | 1,504,669 |
Rhode Island | 17,578 | -22.4% | -5,031 | 1,466% | 16,455 | 132,985 |
South Carolina | 73,116 | -16.6% | -14,785 | 3,660% | 71,172 | 350,476 |
South Dakota | 5,128 | -16.7% | -1,064 | 2,714% | 4,946 | 28,544 |
Tennessee | 68,968 | -6.5% | -4,661 | 3,331% | 66,958 | 384,578 |
Texas | 280,406 | 2.4% | 6,504 | 2,062% | 267,435 | 1,317,972 |
Utah | 19,751 | -19.8% | -4,866 | 1,873% | 18,750 | 126,731 |
Vermont | 6,434 | -31.7% | -3,064 | 945% | 5,819 | 51,810 |
Virginia | 84,387 | -20.9% | -21,890 | 3,095% | 81,746 | 496,197 |
Washington | 89,105 | -42.2% | -60,980 | 1,368% | 83,035 | 726,180 |
West Virginia | 46,251 | 212.9% | 31,811 | 3,993% | 45,121 | 95,117 |
Wisconsin | 55,886 | -20.2% | -14,117 | 888% | 50,232 | 397,861 |
Wyoming | 3,321 | -24.4% | -1,413 | 567% | 2,823 | 27,284 |
Notes: Initial claims for the week ending April 18 reflect advance state claims, not seasonally adjusted. For comparisons with the “pre-virus period,” we use a four-week average of initial claims for the weeks ending February 15–March 7, 2020.
Source: U.S. Employment and Training Administration, Initial Claims [ICSA], retrieved from Department of Labor (DOL), https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf and https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp, April 23, 2020