CARES Act Economic Analysis

This should be a paper where you argue in favor of (or against) a public policy using economic theory and evidence. The goal is to convince a skeptical reader that your position is the right one.
A. The Structure.
In the first one or two paragraphs, indicate what policy you are addressing, and what position you are taking on that policy. The rest of the paper can be organized into three sections or organized in another way that coherently delivers the same content.
Section I. An argument that uses economic theory.
Present an argument about one or more of the effects of the policy. When appropriate, use graphs. These effects may support or conflict with your position on the policy. If the theoretical argument supports your position, then say so and move to evidence. If the theoretical argument conflicts with your position, then say so and argue that the effects are small, that the theory is flawed, or that there is some other reason to discount the theoretical argument. The theory can come from your text, from journal articles, or whatever.
Section II. Empirical evidence.
Present empirical evidence that is consistent with your argument in the theory section. Evidence should take the form of data. To be convincing, the data should come from a known and reliable source.
Section III. Other arguments.
You can add other arguments here, but the goal is to be convincing. This is not a Ph.D. dissertation; it is a short essay. It is the kind of piece that could fit into the editorial page of the New York Times. Such brevity will not usually permit a thorough treatment of counterarguments, etc. If, however, to be convincing you have to knock down a well-known counterargument, then by all means knock it down.

Topic:
The federal pandemic unemployment compensation program (FPUC) was originally established in the 2020 CARES Act. Although it started out paying an additional $600 per week to people who receive regular unemployment insurance benefits, its most recent version only provides an additional $300. This $300 federal supplement ended on September 6, 2021, but at least 26 states elected to stop the supplement early, arguing that the program caused a shortage of workers in many industries. These 26 states acted appropriately in stopping the federal supplement; the overly generous supplement was a bad policy that both discouraged workers from getting jobs and slowed the recovery from the pandemic. Alternatively, the federal supplement was a good policy and the 26 states were unwise; the extra $300 helped struggling family during the pandemic, and had little effect on work incentives or the recovery. Which one do you agree with?

Last Completed Projects