Some fraction of this change is attributable to the $2 trillion CARES Act that pays workers $600 per week, contingent on them not working. I assume that the change would still be horrific if this effect is deducted, but that it isn't insignificant.
FTFY. Your original language implied the choice to work was up to the individual person. You can't stay on unemployment insurance if you were given the option to return to work and declined. Many people believe that part of the reason many governments were so quick to reopen in the US was because opening businesses allowed people to be kicked off unemployment insurance if they refused to return to work due to health concerns.
Yes? The point is to make sure people aren't starving, not to preserve their ego and satisfy the "This isn't why I got a college degree" crowd. Obviously there's a good bit of frictional unemployment, which is really what unemployment is designed to handle. That may go up a bit during times of economic stagnation or contraction, but unemployment isn't supposed to handle the "I was making X dollars before and can't maintain my lifestyle if I take a lower-paying job" sort of situation. In this sort of environment, most people will experience a significant reduction in quality of life, and probably should, as there are fewer goods and services being produced. I guess that doesn't win votes, though, so the politicians are out here telling people they shouldn't have to. And I'll get to have my retirement taken in taxes to pay for it.
Having helped an older American (not on social security) to try to obtain the said $600 / week, I can tell you that it is practically impossible to get that money.
What was your experience?