State Unemployment Compensation Programs: Immediate Reforms Needed Introduction State unemployment insurance (UI) programs have serious defects that require immediate reforms. The most glaring defects are the relatively low proportion of unemployed workers who receive UI benefits and inadequate trust fund reserves in most states. The primary purpose of this paper is to analyze the major defects in state UI programs and offer recommendations for improvements. Since substantial amounts of new revenues are necessary that may require a sharp increase in employer UI contribution rates, needed improvements are likely to be strongly opposed by employers. Thus, the authors argue that employees should be required to contribute to UI programs. The economic effects of a new payroll tax on employees and public policy implications are analyzed in some depth. The major conclusions of the study are that employee contributions could substantially increase the proportion of unemployed workers who receive benefits, improve the solvency of state UI programs, increase the effectiveness of UI as an automatic stabilizer, and encourage greater employee interest in the programs. Defects in State Unemployment Insurance Programs State unemployment insurance programs have serious defects that limit the effectiveness of the programs in reducing economic insecurity from involuntary unemployment. The most important defects are summarized as follows: * Small proportion of unemployed who receive benefits * Inadequate trust fund reserves in most states * Greater difficulty in obtaining extended benefits * Reduction in the effectiveness of experience rating * Contestment of claims by employers * Reduction in real UI benefits * Decline in the effectiveness of UI as an automatic stabilizer Small Proportion of Unemployed Receiving Benefits The most serious defect in unemployment insurance (UI) programs is the small proportion of unemployed workers who receive benefits. Although about 97 percent of all wage and salary workers or about 85 percent of all employed persons are covered by UI programs, only a small fraction of the total unemployed at any time receives UI benefits (U.S. Congress, 1989, p. 440). In 1988, fewer than one in three unemployed workers received benefits in an average month (see Table 1). The record is not much better during business recessions. During the trough of the severe 1981-82 recession (November, 1982), only 49 percent of the unemployed received benefits. This compares with a peak of 81 percent of the unemployed who received UI benefits in April 1975 and a lowpoint of about 26 percent in October 1987 (U.S. Congress, 1989, p. 442). In contrast, foreign countries generally compensate a much higher percentage of unemployed workers. For example, in August 1984, Germany, Japan, and Sweden compensated over 60 percent of their unemployed, while the comparable figure for the United States was only 31 percent (U.S. Congress, 1987a, p. 329). The reasons for the decrease in the proportion of unemployed workers who receive UI benefits will be discussed later in the paper. In addition, there is wide variation among the individual states. In four states (Florida, New Hampshire, South Dakota, and Virginia) fewer than one in five unemployed workers received benefits in 1987. Virginia had the lowest percentage with only about 17 percent of the workers receiving benefits in an average month. Only three states (Alaska, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island) paid benefits to more than half of the unemployed workers (see Table 2). Reasons for the Decline. A recent study by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor provides valuable information on the reasons for the decline in the proportion of unemployed workers who receive benefits. To estimate the proportion of unemployed who received benefits, Mathematica used a measure called the UI claims ratio, which is defined as the ratio of average weekly UI benefit claims under state programs during a quarter to the state's average total unemployment during the quarter. …
Read full abstract