“What We Spent in a Month” Vs. $300/Week Illustrates Ridiculousness of GOP Governors’ Claim that Giving $300/Month to Unemployed is a Disincentive to Work
“What We Spent in a Month” a NYTimes published an article earlier this week, illustrated the budgets of 6 diverse families from across the country who’s monthly spending ranged from $4815 to $11,269. in some cases a monthly snapshot is not exemplary. Some of the families had medical expenses that took a large bite out of their spending for that month, for example. But housing, telecom expenses, and eating are relatively constant and while they varied among the six families, they are a better indicator of what an unemployed person might expect to need— especially where job SEEKING requires internet access and phone service!
In several articles I read that the GOP governors (including ours in NH) are intending to put a stop to the federal government’s $300/week unemployment supplement. Assuming this sample from the NYTimes article is random and representative (it included families from CA, NM, NE, NC, NY and PA) the $1300/month that a $300/week supplement offers would not cover the food costs let along shelter and telecomm expenses.
The game appears to be to force those getting unemployment to return to work even if doing so will not dig them out of a hole or come close to providing the $89,000/year mean earnings of these individuals or the $57,780 of the lowest spending family. I doubt that anyone in the Governor’s office has ever had to scrape by on $300/week or even $57,780 per year…