Personal Income Growth During the COVID-19 Pandemic
link to page 2 link to page 2 link to page 3 
INSIGHTi
Personal Income Growth During the COVID-
19 Pandemic
November 30, 2020
Personal income measures the resources an individual accrues over a period of time. Typically, measures
of personal income move in line with the business cycle (the pattern of economic expansions and
contractions). During an economic contraction, individuals typical y demand fewer goods and services,
causing total output to decrease, unemployment to increase, and personal income to decrease. However,
personal income has behaved unusual y during the recession caused by the Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID-19) pandemic. This Insight discusses recent patterns of personal income and offers potential
explanations for its irregular behavior.
COVID-19 Personal Income Patterns
In contrast to many previous recessions, total personal income has increased during the COVID-19
recession (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). This is unusual, especial y given the unprecedented decreases in
employment and GDP. In April alone, personal income increased by over 12%. Personal income in
September was stil higher than it was in February, before the pandemic began, but lower than in April.
This increase and maintenance of levels of personal income, due in large part (see Figure 4) to provisions
in the CARES Act, could be responsible for some of the other unusual economic trends in this recession,
such as the maintenance of housing demand and the smal er-than-usual drop in durable goods spending.
Of course, summary data may not show informative trends happening within groups of individuals and
households. With the increased unemployment rate, many are likely to have seen decreased levels of
income over the same period, even as aggregate measures were increasing. As recently as the weeks of
October 28 through November 9, roughly 25% of adults expected someone in their households to have a
loss in employment income in the next four weeks, according to the Census Pulse Survey. In some cases,
enhanced unemployment benefits may have more than replaced normal income for individuals before
expiration, but this is not true across the board.
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN11546
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress
link to page 3
Congressional Research Service
2
Figure 1. Total Personal Income, 2020
Figure 2. Per Capita Personal Income, 2020
Source: CRS calculations using BEA data.
Source: BEA.
Notes: Seasonal y adjusted at annual rates.
Notes: Seasonal y adjusted at annual rates.
Policy Impact on Personal Income
The increase in personal income can be explained in large part by the effects of legislation. In response to
the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government implemented a wide range of stimulus measures. Four
major laws were enacted between March and April 2020, including the CARES Act (P.L. 116-136), to
address the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and provide direct assistance to households and
businesses.
Several provisions contributed to personal income in some capacity starting in April. Figure 3 displays
the effects of certain pandemic-related enacted provisions on personal income as determined by BEA. The
economic impact payments had the largest single-month impact on personal income of the programs
analyzed. In April, the payments constituted more than 12% of total personal income and were largely
responsible for the increase in total personal income in the same month.
Most of the one-time payments were made in April, and therefore the effects dropped off quickly—total
personal income fel 4.2% and 1.2% in May and June, respectively. The enhanced unemployment benefits
also contributed significantly to personal income—over 5% in May, June, and July, at which point the
provision for the additional $600 per week expired, likely contributing to a 2.7% drop in total personal
income in August. This 5% represents the effect on total personal income. For those unemployed
individuals actual y receiving the benefits, this percentage wil be much higher because their incomes
would be lower than average. Other programs, such as the Paycheck Protection Program, contributed
relatively less to total personal income but would also have much larger effects for those individuals
directly receiving the benefits.
link to page 3
Congressional Research Service
3
Figure 3. Effects of Selected Policies on Personal Income
Source: CRS calculations using BEA data.
Notes: Underlying data seasonal y adjusted at annual rates. Data subject to revision. NPISH stands for nonprofit
institutions serving households.
Personal income could have been much lower without the policy interventions. Figure 4 shows actual
quarterly personal income levels and what they would have been without the provisions. Instead of
increasing, personal income levels might have decreased and remained wel below pre-pandemic levels.
This would have had the potential to significantly worsen already large drops in consumer spending and
GDP. Given that personal income has been trending downward since April and that many of the
provisions of the CARES Act have expired or been exhausted—of note, the Payroll Protection Program
closed on August 8, nearly 90% of the $300 bil ion in direct support economic payments provided for in
the CARES Act were made as of August 28, and the temporary increase of $600 per week in
unemployment benefits expired on July 31—personal income could fal below pre-pandemic levels and
contribute to decreases in aggregate demand and spending.
Figure 4. Total Personal Income During COVID-19
Source: CRS calculations based on BEA data.
Notes: Data in nominal dol ars and seasonal y adjusted at annual rates.
link to page 4
Congressional Research Service
4
Breakdown of Personal Income During COVID-19
Individuals receive a certain amount of after-tax income (disposable income) that they can spend or save.
For this reason, it follows that when personal consumption expenditures decreased as COVID-19 spread,
personal saving as a percentage of disposable income would increase, as evidenced by Figure 5. As
shown, the personal saving rate in the United States increased rapidly to 33.7% by April 2020 and has
since fal en, although it stil remains elevated from 8.3% in February. The inability to spend money due to
business closures may be one reason for the spike in the saving rate. However, increased personal income
from various stimulus programs, notably the economic impact payments, likely contributed to the
increase as wel . Conventional economic theory argues that since one-time transfer payments do not
permanently increase individuals’ income, the individuals wil not adjust their behavior as much as with a
permanent shift and, therefore, are more likely to save than spend such payments.
Figure 5. Monthly Personal Saving Rate
Source: BEA
Notes: Underlying data seasonal y adjusted at annual rates.
Author Information
Lida R. Weinstock
Analyst in Macroeconomic Policy
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congressional Research Service
5
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
IN11546 · VERSION 1 · NEW
INSIGHTi
Personal Income Growth During the COVID-
19 Pandemic
November 30, 2020
Personal income measures the resources an individual accrues over a period of time. Typically, measures
of personal income move in line with the business cycle (the pattern of economic expansions and
contractions). During an economic contraction, individuals typical y demand fewer goods and services,
causing total output to decrease, unemployment to increase, and personal income to decrease. However,
personal income has behaved unusual y during the recession caused by the Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID-19) pandemic. This Insight discusses recent patterns of personal income and offers potential
explanations for its irregular behavior.
COVID-19 Personal Income Patterns
In contrast to many previous recessions, total personal income has increased during the COVID-19
recession (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). This is unusual, especial y given the unprecedented decreases in
employment and GDP. In April alone, personal income increased by over 12%. Personal income in
September was stil higher than it was in February, before the pandemic began, but lower than in April.
This increase and maintenance of levels of personal income, due in large part (see Figure 4) to provisions
in the CARES Act, could be responsible for some of the other unusual economic trends in this recession,
such as the maintenance of housing demand and the smal er-than-usual drop in durable goods spending.
Of course, summary data may not show informative trends happening within groups of individuals and
households. With the increased unemployment rate, many are likely to have seen decreased levels of
income over the same period, even as aggregate measures were increasing. As recently as the weeks of
October 28 through November 9, roughly 25% of adults expected someone in their households to have a
loss in employment income in the next four weeks, according to the Census Pulse Survey. In some cases,
enhanced unemployment benefits may have more than replaced normal income for individuals before
expiration, but this is not true across the board.
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN11546
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress
link to page 3
Congressional Research Service
2
Figure 1. Total Personal Income, 2020
Figure 2. Per Capita Personal Income, 2020
Source: CRS calculations using BEA data.
Source: BEA.
Notes: Seasonal y adjusted at annual rates.
Notes: Seasonal y adjusted at annual rates.
Policy Impact on Personal Income
The increase in personal income can be explained in large part by the effects of legislation. In response to
the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government implemented a wide range of stimulus measures. Four
major laws were enacted between March and April 2020, including the CARES Act (P.L. 116-136), to
address the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and provide direct assistance to households and
businesses.
Several provisions contributed to personal income in some capacity starting in April. Figure 3 displays
the effects of certain pandemic-related enacted provisions on personal income as determined by BEA. The
economic impact payments had the largest single-month impact on personal income of the programs
analyzed. In April, the payments constituted more than 12% of total personal income and were largely
responsible for the increase in total personal income in the same month.
Most of the one-time payments were made in April, and therefore the effects dropped off quickly—total
personal income fel 4.2% and 1.2% in May and June, respectively. The enhanced unemployment benefits
also contributed significantly to personal income—over 5% in May, June, and July, at which point the
provision for the additional $600 per week expired, likely contributing to a 2.7% drop in total personal
income in August. This 5% represents the effect on total personal income. For those unemployed
individuals actual y receiving the benefits, this percentage wil be much higher because their incomes
would be lower than average. Other programs, such as the Paycheck Protection Program, contributed
relatively less to total personal income but would also have much larger effects for those individuals
directly receiving the benefits.
link to page 3
Congressional Research Service
3
Figure 3. Effects of Selected Policies on Personal Income
Source: CRS calculations using BEA data.
Notes: Underlying data seasonal y adjusted at annual rates. Data subject to revision. NPISH stands for nonprofit
institutions serving households.
Personal income could have been much lower without the policy interventions. Figure 4 shows actual
quarterly personal income levels and what they would have been without the provisions. Instead of
increasing, personal income levels might have decreased and remained wel below pre-pandemic levels.
This would have had the potential to significantly worsen already large drops in consumer spending and
GDP. Given that personal income has been trending downward since April and that many of the
provisions of the CARES Act have expired or been exhausted—of note, the Payroll Protection Program
closed on August 8, nearly 90% of the $300 bil ion in direct support economic payments provided for in
the CARES Act were made as of August 28, and the temporary increase of $600 per week in
unemployment benefits expired on July 31—personal income could fal below pre-pandemic levels and
contribute to decreases in aggregate demand and spending.
Figure 4. Total Personal Income During COVID-19
Source: CRS calculations based on BEA data.
Notes: Data in nominal dol ars and seasonal y adjusted at annual rates.
link to page 4
Congressional Research Service
4
Breakdown of Personal Income During COVID-19
Individuals receive a certain amount of after-tax income (disposable income) that they can spend or save.
For this reason, it follows that when personal consumption expenditures decreased as COVID-19 spread,
personal saving as a percentage of disposable income would increase, as evidenced by Figure 5. As
shown, the personal saving rate in the United States increased rapidly to 33.7% by April 2020 and has
since fal en, although it stil remains elevated from 8.3% in February. The inability to spend money due to
business closures may be one reason for the spike in the saving rate. However, increased personal income
from various stimulus programs, notably the economic impact payments, likely contributed to the
increase as wel . Conventional economic theory argues that since one-time transfer payments do not
permanently increase individuals’ income, the individuals wil not adjust their behavior as much as with a
permanent shift and, therefore, are more likely to save than spend such payments.
Figure 5. Monthly Personal Saving Rate
Source: BEA
Notes: Underlying data seasonal y adjusted at annual rates.
Author Information
Lida R. Weinstock
Analyst in Macroeconomic Policy
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congressional Research Service
5
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
IN11546 · VERSION 1 · NEW