Texas recently opted out of federal unemployment compensation related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including the $300 weekly supplement. The reason often given is that there are as many job openings as there are Texans receiving benefits, with the implication being that people will now be more eager to enter the workforce.

This talking point seems thoroughly ensconced in our political rhetoric, and is unlikely to be dislodged. Nonetheless, it simplifies and obfuscates a much more complex issue. There are certainly some people choosing not to work at least partially because of the added benefits, but the limited available evidence suggests that their numbers are relatively small.   

Many job openings are indeed going unfilled. Recall, however, that there were widespread shortages before the pandemic. In early 2020 (pre-COVID), there were far more job openings in Texas than unemployed workers, despite the fact that 1.1 million undocumented people went to jobs every day. This situation reflects demographic patterns which haven’t materially changed.

One inescapable aspect of this phenomenon is the aging of the baby boomers. We will be confronting a labor shortage throughout the decade and beyond, and reducing unemployment benefits won’t alter this trend. There are also skills mismatches; the abilities of workers and the requirements of jobs are frequently not in sync.

Additionally, some workers continue to have safety concerns. With mask guidance still somewhat unclear and a mix of vaccinated and unvaccinated people in most workplaces, it will take time for these concerns to abate. Evidence suggests that this issue is quite significant.

Another factor is the changing dynamics of many families, including remote school. Moreover, childcare is difficult to obtain and expensive. Employment in childcare remains below pre-pandemic levels and needs have escalated, suggesting that Texas requires additional capacity. 

Beyond these constraints is the issue of affordability, which was a problem before the pandemic. A 2018 study found average costs in Texas of center-based care of $1,080 per month for infants and $690 for toddlers, while home-based childcare was $840 for providers meeting minimum requirements. Based on federal standards, childcare is considered affordable if it costs 7% or less of household income ($437 based on median income for Texas). Quality varies across programs, with smaller class sizes and well-compensated teachers costing twice the average. In such circumstances, it is not surprising that staying home is often a better financial option. Correspondingly, those not reentering the workforce are disproportionately female.

The solutions will ultimately involve investments in education and training, more affordable and available childcare, sensible immigration reform, and other notable initiatives. Eliminating an essential source of relief for many individuals and families under unprecedented circumstances will pose additional challenges, while not dealing with the real problem. Stay safe!

Editor’s Note: The above guest column was penned by Texas-based economist M. Ray Perryman. It appears in The Rio Grande Guardian with the permission of the author. Perryman can be reached by email via: [email protected]

Quality journalism takes time, effort and…. Money!

Producing quality journalism is not cheap. The coronavirus has resulted in falling revenues across the newsrooms of the United States. However, The Rio Grande Guardian is committed to producing quality news reporting on the issues that matter to border residents. The support of our members is vital in ensuring our mission gets fulfilled. 

Can we count on your support? If so, click HERE. Thank you!

Keep on top of the big stories affecting the Texas-Mexico. Join our mailing list to receive regular email alerts.

Sign-up for the latest news

By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: . You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact


  1. Certainly Mr. Perryman is correct as far as he goes. One more thing that needs to be said is, if employers want employees, they should pay them for their work. $7.25 ($15,000) is a poverty wage almost every where in our nation. It definitely is a poverty wage for any worker trying to support just one other person. Wages at the bottom need to be raised.

    Minimum wage might be great for a high school student working a part time job. It was for me. But it is not for anyone trying to support themself, much less support themself and someone else. For those trying to support themselves, minimum wage ALWAYS has been too low. With the extreme in income inequality we have today, we need a major increase in the minimum wage to AT LEAST $15 per hour. The billionaire club will not be standing on a street corner with a tin cup in their hands if their income is diminished by a few million a year.

    Small business, of course, are another issue completely. Many are operating on very thin margins and doubling the minimum wage, at least initially, will cause financial distress unless steps are taken to assist and protect them with the higher payroll until the economic growth created by increasing the minimum wage begins to improve their businesses.