Using the Consumer Expenditure Survey and variation in amount, receipt, and timing of receipt of Economic Impact Payments (EIPs) authorized by the CARES Act, this paper estimates that people spent less of their EIPs in the few months following arrival than in similar previous policy episodes and than estimated by existing studies using other types of data. Accounting for volatility during the pandemic and comparing the consumer spending behavior of broadly similar households, people spent roughly 10 percent (standard error 3.4) of their EIPs on non-durable goods and services in the three months of arrival, with little evidence of additional spending in the subsequent three months or on durable goods. People who report mostly spending their EIPs spent 14.3\% (3.7) of their EIPs compared to 5.9\% (8.3) and -1.6\% (5.0) for those who report mostly paying off debt and saving respectively. People with low liquid wealth and people receiving their EIPs on debit cards spent at higher rates: 21.7\% (6.4) and 36.8\% (24.6) respectively, with economically larger estimates for total spending.
Households spent only a small fraction of their 2020 Economic Impact Payment (EIPs) within a couple of months of arrival, consistent with i) pandemic constraints on spending, ii) other pandemic programs and social insurance, and iii) the broader disbursement of the EIPs compared to the economic losses during the early stages of the pandemic. While these EIPs did not fill an urgent economic need for most households, the first round of EIPs did provide timely pandemic insurance to some households who were more exposed to the economic losses from the pandemic. Households with lower liquid wealth entering the pandemic and those less able to earn while working from home each raised consumption more following receipt of their EIP. While our measurement for later EIPs is not as reliable, our estimates suggest even less spending on average to the second and third rounds of EIPs. Our point estimates imply less short-term spending on average than in response to economic stimulus payments in 2001 or 2008. While our analysis lacks the power to measure longer-term spending effects, the lack of short-term spending contributed to strong household balance sheets as the direct economic effects of the pandemic on households waned.
Households spent only a small fraction of their 2020 Economic Impact Payments (EIPs) within a month or two of arrival, consistent with pandemic constraints on spending, other pandemic programs and social insurance, and the broader disbursement of the EIPs compared to the economic losses during the early stages of the pandemic. While these EIPs did not fill an urgent economic need for most households, the first round of EIPs did provide timely pandemic insurance to some households that were more exposed to the economic losses from the pandemic. Households with lower liquid wealth entering the pandemic and those less able to earn while working from home raised consumption more following receipt of their EIP. While our measurement for later EIPs is not as reliable, our estimates suggest even less spending on average to the second and third rounds of EIPs. Our point estimates imply less short-term spending on average than in response to economic stimulus payments in 2001 or 2008. While our analysis lacks the power to measure longerterm spending effects, the lack of short-term spending contributed to strong household balance sheets as the direct economic effects of the pandemic on households waned.
As part of the implementation of its strategic plan, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has increasingly studied the issue of using alternative data to improve both the quality of its data and the process by which those data are collected. The plan includes the goal of integrating alternative data into BLS programs. This article describes the framework used by the BLS Consumer Expenditure Surveys (CE) program and the potential these data hold for complementing data collected in traditional formats. It also addresses some of the challenges BLS faces when using alternative data and the complementary role that alternative data play in improving the quality of data currently collected. Alternative data can substitute for what is presently being collected from respondents and provide additional information to supplement the variables the CE program produces or to adjust the CE program’s processing and weighting procedures.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.