Skip to main content
. 2020 Sep 30;191:104273. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104273

Table A-1.

Median statutory replacement rates by state.

Replacement rate (SE)
Replacement rate (SE)
State With FPUC Without FPUC State With FPUC Without FPUC
Alaska 139% (6.1) 46% (0.6) Montana 154% (3.0) 52% (0.0)
Alabama 148% (1.3) 47% (0.7) North Carolina 152% (1.1) 50% (0.0)
Arkansas 152% (3.6) 50% (0.0) North Dakota 148% (5.1) 50% (0.0)
Arizona 119% (5.8) 34% (1.6) Nebraska 152% (6.1) 50% (0.0)
California 143% (3.2) 50% (0.0) New Hampshire 139% (4.0) 48% (1.3)
Colorado 150% (5.2) 60% (0.0) New Jersey 141% (6.0) 60% (0.0)
Connecticut 145% (5.1) 50% (0.0) New Mexico 162% (5.2) 53% (0.0)
Delaware 159% (7.5) 57% (0.0) Nevada 139% (2.3) 52% (0.0)
Florida 148% (1.0) 47% (0.3) New York 135% (2.9) 50% (0.0)
Georgia 163% (1.8) 62% (1.7) Ohio 142% (4.2) 50% (0.0)
Hawaii 149% (3.6) 62% (0.0) Oklahoma 165% (6.9) 57% (0.0)
Iowa 151% (2.7) 57% (0.0) Oregon 158% (6.6) 65% (0.0)
Idaho 152% (3.9) 50% (0.0) Pennsylvania 147% (4.1) 51% (0.0)
Illinois 149% (4.8) 47% (0.0) Rhode Island 136% (6.8) 50% (0.0)
Indiana 143% (5.3) 47% (0.0) South Carolina 138% (4.3) 49% (1.4)
Kansas 143% (5.6) 55% (0.0) South Dakota 155% (4.2) 50% (0.0)
Kentucky 160% (7.9) 62% (1.6) Tennessee 142% (6.6) 44% (2.7)
Louisiana 143% (6.2) 39% (2.2) Texas 153% (4.0) 52% (0.0)
Massachusetts 135% (3.0) 50% (0.0) Utah 151% (4.5) 49% (0.1)
Maryland 144% (5.7) 54% (0.0) Virginia 154% (3.3) 52% (0.0)
Maine 161% (4.2) 59% (0.0) Vermont 147% (5.7) 58% (0.0)
Michigan 140% (3.9) 53% (1.5) Washington 137% (2.3) 50% (0.0)
Minnesota 145% (5.7) 50% (0.0) Wisconsin 154% (2.5) 52% (0.0)
Missouri 154% (3.7) 51% (1.5) West Virginia 157% (3.2) 55% (1.3)
Mississippi 147% (8.9) 41% (2.5) Wyoming 154% (6.5) 52% (0.0)

Notes: this table reports the median statutory replacement rate for April through July 2020 with and without Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC). The median replacement rates we report exceed measures of mean replacement rates calculated a part of the Department of Labor's Benefit Accuracy Measurement (BAM) program. For example, using the 2019 ASEC to model benefits in 2019Q2, we find that the national median replacement rate is 50% while the mean “replacement rate 2” in BAM is 36%. This is because benefits schedules have caps, which lower replacement rates for unemployed with high pre-job loss earnings. These caps bring down mean replacement rates but are not relevant for the median unemployed worker. Many states have a reported standard error of zero for their replacement rate without FPUC. The best way to convey the intuition for how this can arise is to consider a scenario where there is no cap in unemployment benefits, so every worker has the same replacement rate. In this case, regardless of whether the inference procedure is a bootstrap or replicate weights, we will find that there is no sampling-based uncertainty about the median replacement rate. In practice, states with benefit caps that are high relative to the median wage for unemployed workers will have a standard error of zero.