Page images
PDF
EPUB

27-42

Maximum Weekly Benefit Amount, December 1965, as Percent of Average Weekly Wage in Covered Employment

[blocks in formation]

Alaska

[subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Includes maximum dependents' allowance; augmented amount in Massachusetts may not exceed claimants average weekly wage

CHART 28

DATA RELATING TO S. 1991

109

[graphic]

TABLE 29.-Percentage of new insured claimants eligible for State maximum basic weekly benefit amount, by State, selected years 1939–65

[merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

1 For 1939, represents percentage of weeks of total unemployment compensated at the maximum weekly benefit amount ($15, or $16 in Alaska, Michigan, Rhode Island, and Utah, and $18 in Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, and Wyoming) and therefore understates by a small percentage the proportion of new insured claimants eligible for the maximum.

Data are for year ending June 30, 1965.

Comparable data not available.

No provision for unemployment insurance under Federal-State program,

TABLE 30.—Increases in maximum weekly benefit amount since Jan. 1, 1964

[blocks in formation]

1 When 2 figures are given, the higher includes maximum allowance for dependents; in Massachusetts, maximum including dependents' allowances may not exceed claimant's weekly wage.

2 Based on average weekly covered wage for year ending 6 months prior to indicated date.

Based on "flexible" maximum percentage adopted in Hawaii (6633 percent), Iowa (50 percent) and Rhode Island (50 percent).

Effective January 1966 in Hawaii, April 1966 in Maine, and July 1966 in Minnesota.

2 increases enacted since Jan. 1, 1964.

TABLE 31.-Maximum weekly benefit amount, December 1965, and amounts representing 50 percent, 60 percent, and 66% percent of average weekly wage in covered employment in 1964, by State

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors]

1 When 2 figures are shown, the higher includes maximum allowance for dependents; in Massachusetts maximum including dependents' allowances may not exceed claimant's weekly wage.

2 In States noted, the maximum is recomputed annually (semiannually in Colorado and Wisconsin) based on a specified percentage of the average weekly wage in covered employment (selected industries in Colorado) during the 1-year period ending 6 months prior to effective date of recomputed rate.

3 Excludes dependents' allowances.

CHART 32

EFFECTS OF PROPOSED UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFIT STANDARDS (S. 1991) IN 13 STATES ON PROPORTION OF CLAIMANTS ABLE TO RECEIVE HALF THEIR WEEKLY WAGE

S. 1991 proposed that every eligible claimant be assured weekly compensation equal to at least one-half of his weekly wage loss up to a maximum weekly benefit amount equal to 50 percent of the statewide average weekly wage in covered employment by July 1, 1967; the maximum is to go up to 60 percent by July 1, 1969, and up to 66% percent by July 1, 1971.

The following charts portray the effect of the first and the final steps of the requirement on the proportion of all claimants, and of men and women claimants, who would receive compensation equal to at least half their usual wages, compared with the proportion receiving that amount under the State law. The data relate to 1961; average weekly wages were reported by samples of claimants surveyed in May and September 1961 and January 1962. Although, as shown below, maximum weekly benefit amounts in dollar terms have been raised in 11 of the 13 States in the study, only 3 have substantially improved their maximums relative to wage levels.

[blocks in formation]

States are charted in order of the proportion the 1961 State maximum was of the 1961 Statewide average wage, starting with the highest percentage. In the charting, dependents' allowances were ignored, which tends to exaggerate somewhat the effects of increases in the maximum in the four States that provided such allowances in 1961-62. For two States, the effect could be estimated; almost no difference exists for women claimants, while the proportion of men receiving half their wage would be increased by 4 percentage points in each State. Summary of the effects

The lower the State maximum in relation to State wages, the larger the effect of the first step of the proposed standard. Increasing the maximum from 50 to 66% percent of State average wages would increase benefits for from 23 to 43 percent of all claimants. At this final level, between 80 and 90 percent of all claimants-unquestionably the great majority-would be able to receive half their

wages.

A dramatic difference appears when the effects of changes in the maximum are shown separately for men and women. A maximum set at 50 percent of State average wages permits almost all women to receive half their wages, and further steps would have no particular effect. For men, however, a maximum of 50 percent of the State average wage cuts off the benefits of 36 to 64 percent at a point below 50 percent of their own wages. Even at the final 66% percent level, from 14 to 27 percent of the men would still receive less than half their wages.

« PreviousContinue »