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 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.

家庭在抵达后一两个月内只花费了 2020 年经济影响付款 (EIP) 的一小部分，这与疫情对支出、其他疫情计划和社会保险的限制一致，而且与疫情期间的经济损失相比，EIP 的支付范围更广。大流行的早期阶段。虽然这些生态投资计划并不能满足大多数家庭的迫切经济需求，但第一轮生态投资计划确实为一些因疫情而遭受经济损失较大的家庭提供了及时的疫情保险。进入疫情期间流动财富较低的家庭以及在家工作时收入较低的家庭在收到 EIP 后增加了消费。虽然我们对后来的 EIP 的测量并不那么可靠，我们的估计表明，第二轮和第三轮生态产业园的平均支出甚至更少。我们的点估计表明，平均短期支出少于 2001 年或 2008 年经济刺激支出。虽然我们的分析缺乏衡量长期支出影响的能力，但短期支出的缺乏促成了强劲的家庭资产负债表随着疫情对家庭的直接经济影响减弱。