Here's the Emergency Fund You Need To Survive a Recession in Your State
With the ups and downs, and stops and starts, of President Donald Trump's controversial tariff policies, some economists have warned that an economic downturn is inevitable. Less clear, however, is whether or not such a downturn will lead to an actual recession — a downward economic spiral that lasts months and features large declines in employment and production. Should a recession hit, significant numbers of the American workforce could face job layoffs and terminations.
Check Out:
Learn More:
Whether or not an actual recession will be triggered in 2025, having an emergency fund is always a safe bet. That said, it pays to know how much you need to have in an emergency fund in your state. That's why GOBankingRates recently devised a study to calculate just how much an emergency fund would carry citizens in each of the 50 states for three months, six months and 12 months total.
Worried that you don't have enough set aside to survive in your state without a job? Hit the list to see how much you need in your emergency fund to survive a recession.
Annual cost of living: $39,278
Emergency fund for 3 months: $9,820
Emergency fund for 6 months: $19,639
Emergency fund for 12 months: $39,278
Find Out:
Also See:
Annual cost of living: $60,450
Emergency fund for 3 months: $15,113
Emergency fund for 6 months: $30,225
Emergency fund for 12 months: $60,450
Explore More:
Annual cost of living: $56,087
Emergency fund for 3 months: $14,022
Emergency fund for 6 months: $28,043
Emergency fund for 9 months: $56,087
Annual cost of living: $37,609
Emergency fund for 3 months: $9,402
Emergency fund for 6 months: $18,805
Emergency fund for 9 months: $37,609
Annual cost of living: $87,962
Emergency fund for 3 months: $21,990
Emergency fund for 6 months: $43,981
Emergency fund for 9 months: $87,962
Annual cost of living: $64,558
Emergency fund for 3 months: $16,139
Emergency fund for 6 months: $32,279
Emergency fund for 9 months: $64,558
Annual cost of living: $59,423
Emergency fund for 3 months: $14,856
Emergency fund for 6 months: $29,712
Emergency fund for 12 months: $59,423
Discover More:
Annual cost of living: $53,343
Emergency fund for 3 months: $13,336
Emergency fund for 6 months: $26,671
Emergency fund for 12 months: $53,343
Annual cost of living: $53,687
Emergency fund for 3 months: $13,422
Emergency fund for 6 months: $26,843
Emergency fund for 12 months: $53,687
Annual cost of living: $47,888
Emergency fund for 3 months: $11,972
Emergency fund for 6 months: $23,944
Emergency fund for 12 months: $47,888
Annual cost of living: $104,577
Emergency fund for 3 months: $26,144
Emergency fund for 6 months: $52,289
Emergency fund for 12 months: $104,577
Annual cost of living: $57,919
Emergency fund for 3 months: $14,480
Emergency fund for 6 months: $28,960
Emergency fund for 12 months: $57,919
See More:
Annual cost of living: $44,778
Emergency fund for 3 months: $11,195
Emergency fund for 6 months: $22,389
Emergency fund for 12 months: $44,778
Annual cost of living: $41,373
Emergency fund for 3 months: $10,343
Emergency fund for 6 months: $20,687
Emergency fund for 12 months: $41,373
Annual cost of living: $39,889
Emergency fund for 3 months: $9,972
Emergency fund for 6 months: $19,945
Emergency fund for 12 months: $39,889
Annual cost of living: $39,916
Emergency fund for 3 months: $9,979
Emergency fund for 6 months: $19,958
Emergency fund for 12 months: $39,916
Annual cost of living: $39,938
Emergency fund for 3 months: $9,985
Emergency fund for 6 months: $19,969
Emergency fund for 12 months: $39,938
Read More:
Annual cost of living: $37,550
Emergency fund for 3 months: $9,388
Emergency fund for 6 months: $18,775
Emergency fund for 12 months: $37,550
Annual cost of living: $55,360
Emergency fund for 3 months: $13,840
Emergency fund for 6 months: $27,680
Emergency fund for 12 months: $55,360
Annual cost of living: $57,444
Emergency fund for 3 months: $14,361
Emergency fund for 6 months: $28,722
Emergency fund for 12 months: $57,444
Annual cost of living: $77,544
Emergency fund for 3 months: $19,386
Emergency fund for 6 months: $38,772
Emergency fund for 12 months: $77,544
Annual cost of living: $41,579
Emergency fund for 3 months: $10,395
Emergency fund for 6 months: $20,789
Emergency fund for 12 months: $41,579
Find More:
Annual cost of living: $49,462
Emergency fund for 3 months: $12,365
Emergency fund for 6 months: $24,731
Emergency fund for 12 months: $49,462
Annual cost of living: $36,351
Emergency fund for 3 months: $9,088
Emergency fund for 6 months: $18,176
Emergency fund for 12 months: $36,351
Annual cost of living: $41,219
Emergency fund for 3 months: $10,305
Emergency fund for 6 months: $20,610
Emergency fund for 12 months: $41,219
Annual cost of living: $57,517
Emergency fund for 3 months: $14,379
Emergency fund for 6 months: $28,759
Emergency fund for 12 months: $57,517
Annual cost of living: $42,993
Emergency fund for 3 months: $10,748
Emergency fund for 6 months: $21,496
Emergency fund for 12 months: $42,993
Also Read:
Annual cost of living: $58,665
Emergency fund for 3 months: $14,666
Emergency fund for 6 months: $29,333
Emergency fund for 12 months: $58,665
Annual cost of living: $62,536
Emergency fund for 3 months: $15,634
Emergency fund for 6 months: $31,268
Emergency fund for 12 months: $62,536
Annual cost of living: $66,926
Emergency fund for 3 months: $16,732
Emergency fund for 6 months: $33,463
Emergency fund for 9 months: $66,926
Annual cost of living: $45,368
Emergency fund for 3 months: $11,342
Emergency fund for 6 months: $22,684
Emergency fund for 12 months: $45,368
Annual cost of living: $59,403
Emergency fund for 3 months: $14,851
Emergency fund for 6 months: $29,701
Emergency fund for 12 months: $59,403
Also See:
Annual cost of living: $48,054
Emergency fund for 3 months: $12,014
Emergency fund for 6 months: $24,027
Emergency fund for 12 months: $48,054
Annual cost of living: $43,844
Emergency fund for 3 months: $10,961
Emergency fund for 6 months: $21,922
Emergency fund for 12 months: $43,844
Annual cost of living: $40,788
Emergency fund for 3 months: $10,197
Emergency fund for 6 months: $20,394
Emergency fund for 12 months: $40,788
Annual cost of living: $38,398
Emergency fund for 3 months: $9,599
Emergency fund for 6 months: $19,199
Emergency fund for 12 months: $38,398
Annual cost of living: $62,701
Emergency fund for 3 months: $15,675
Emergency fund for 6 months: $31,351
Emergency fund for 12 months: $62,701
Check Out:
Annual cost of living: $44,255
Emergency fund for 3 months: $11,064
Emergency fund for 6 months: $22,128
Emergency fund for 12 months: $44,255
Annual cost of living: $61,901
Emergency fund for 3 months: $15,475
Emergency fund for 6 months: $30,950
Emergency fund for 12 months: $61,901
Annual cost of living: $45,362
Emergency fund for 3 months: $11,341
Emergency fund for 6 months: $22,681
Emergency fund for 9 months: $45,362
Annual cost of living: $45,859
Emergency fund for 3 months: $11,465
Emergency fund for 6 months: $22,929
Emergency fund for 12 months: $45,859
Annual cost of living: $45,776
Emergency fund for 3 months: $11,444
Emergency fund for 6 months: $22,888
Emergency fund for 12 months: $45,776
Find Out:
Annual cost of living: $45,505
Emergency fund for 3 months: $11,376
Emergency fund for 6 months: $22,752
Emergency fund for 12 months: $45,505
Annual cost of living: $62,806
Emergency fund for 3 months: $15,701
Emergency fund for 6 months: $31,403
Emergency fund for 12 months: $62,806
Annual cost of living: $54,486
Emergency fund for 3 months: $13,622
Emergency fund for 6 months: $27,243
Emergency fund for 12 months: $54,486
Annual cost of living: $53,677
Emergency fund for 3 months: $13,419
Emergency fund for 6 months: $26,839
Emergency fund for 12 months: $53,677
Explore More:
Annual cost of living: $71,722
Emergency fund for 3 months: $17,930
Emergency fund for 6 months: $35,861
Emergency fund for 12 months: $71,722
Annual cost of living: $35,406
Emergency fund for 3 months: $8,852
Emergency fund for 6 months: $17,703
Emergency fund for 12 months: $35406
Annual cost of living: $47,618
Emergency fund for 3 months: $11,905
Emergency fund for 6 months: $23,809
Emergency fund for 9 months: $47,618
Annual cost of living: $49,340
Emergency fund for 3 months: $12,335
Emergency fund for 6 months: $24,670
Emergency fund for 12 months: $49,340
Methodology: For this study, GOBankingRates analyzed each state to find the amount needed for an emergency fund. The cost of living was determined using data from Missouri Economic and Research Information Center, the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey, Zillow Home Value Index and the Federal Reserve. All data was collected on and is up to date as of April 21, 2025.
More From GOBankingRates
7 Things You'll Be Happy You Downsized in Retirement
This article originally appeared on GOBankingRates.com: Here's the Emergency Fund You Need To Survive a Recession in Your State
Inicia sesión para acceder a tu portafolio
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
43 minutes ago
- USA Today
Conservative Josh Hawley introduces bill to raise federal minimum wage to $15 an hour
Conservative Josh Hawley introduces bill to raise federal minimum wage to $15 an hour Show Caption Hide Caption Lawmakers advance bill to lower pay for trainees Florida lawmakers are advancing bills that would allow employers to pay certain workers in training below the minimum wage for up to 12 months. Fox - 35 Orlando WASHINGTON - Ultraconservative Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley introduced a bill on June 10 with Democratic Vermont Sen. Peter Welch to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, making him one of the few Republicans to support the cause. The bill, dubbed the 'Higher Wages for American Workers Act,' would raise the minimum wage starting in January 2026 and allow it to increase on the basis of inflation in subsequent years. The federal minimum wage is currently $7.25 per hour and it's been unchanged since 2009. It is unclear whether the legislation will be taken up for a vote. Members of Congress have previously tried to raise the minimum wage, but to no avail. In 2021, Democratic lawmakers tried to tack a $15 per hour minimum wage provision in former President Joe Biden's $1.9 trillion coronavirus package, but a Senate official ruled that the measure couldn't be included in the bill. President Donald Trump said in December 2024 that he would 'consider' raising the minimum wage. However, he revoked a 2024 executive order that set the minimum wage for federal contractors at $17.75. 'For decades, working Americans have seen their wages flatline," Hawley said in a statement. One major culprit of this is the failure of the federal minimum wage to keep up with the economic reality facing hardworking Americans every day." Welch, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, echoed a similar sentiment. 'Every hardworking American deserves a living wage that helps put a roof over their head and food on the table–$7.25 an hour doesn't even come close,' he said. The Employment Policies Institute, a think tank dedicated to researching employment growth, opposed Hawley and Welch's push, arguing that it would result in a loss of jobs. 'Sen. Hawley should know better,' Rebekah Paxton, research director of the institute, said in a news release. 'This proposal would more than double the minimum wage and slash over 800,000 jobs. An overwhelming majority of economists agree that drastic minimum wage hikes cut employment, limit opportunities for workers, and shutter businesses.' The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found in an analysis that raising the minimum wage would 'raise the earnings and family income of most low-wage workers' but would cause other low-income workers to lose their jobs and their family income to fall. Hawley in February teamed up with progressive firebrand Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders to introduce a bill capping credit card interest rates at 10%, saying it would "provide meaningful relief to working people." He's also been a vocal critic of Medicaid cuts.
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
Trump says 'changes' are coming to immigration enforcement after complaints from farmers and the hospitality industry
There may be some changes coming to the Trump administration's approach to immigration enforcement. President Donald Trump said in a Truth Social post on Thursday that both farmers and "people in the Hotel and Leisure business" have said that his approach to immigration enforcement "is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace." "In many cases the Criminals allowed into our Country by the VERY Stupid Biden Open Borders Policy are applying for those jobs," Trump added. "This is not good. We must protect our Farmers, but get the CRIMINALS OUT OF THE USA. Changes are coming!" At a White House event later on Thursday, he said that "we're going to have an order on that pretty soon, I think." "We can't do that to our farmers," Trump said. "We're going to have to use a lot of common sense." It comes one day after Tom Homan, the Executive Associate Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, told Semafor that the administration would begin prosecuting companies that employ immigrants living in the country illegally. According to Census data, the agriculture and leisure industries have relatively high proportions of non-US citizen workers.
Time Magazine
an hour ago
- Time Magazine
The History of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit—And How it Could Improve Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill'
This April, over 150 Republicans and Democrats in Congress came together to introduce the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act. The bill aims to address a crisis plaguing nearly every U.S. city: the shortage of low-income and moderate-income housing. Nearly half of American renters spend over 50% of their income on housing, a level that experts consider 'cost burdened," according to the National Low-Income Housing Coalition. The bill works by expanding a tool—the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) —which has a long and bipartisan history. Everyone from businesspeople to housing advocates have enthusiastically supported it. The credit helps underwrite nearly all construction of affordable housing in the U.S. Whether Congress can pass the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act (AHCIA) may come down to whether its Republican boosters can get it into President Donald Trump's ' Big, Beautiful Bill," which the Senate is now working on. It would add cost to the legislation, which could cause rifts between GOP legislators. Yet, history indicates that including it could improve a key source of housing for America's 'working poor.' At the heart of the LIHTC is the idea of giving investors subsidies for building housing. This concept dates back to the era after World War II. Americans may be familiar with the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, the ' GI Bill,' which set up low-interest mortgages for veterans and other home buyers. It produced broad rings of single-family suburban homes around every city. Much less well-known, however, are a series of incentive programs the government enacted to spur the building of rental housing. Read More: A Look at Community Land Trusts and How They Combat the Affordable Housing Crisis During the late 1940s and early 1950s, the administration of Democrat Harry Truman used a tool called FHA 608 to quickly house veterans returning from World War II and the Korean War. It offered long-term loans and free project-planning assistance to apartment developers and guaranteed them a profit. In many cities, that produced more low-rent units than did the nascent U.S. Public Housing program. In the 1960s, another Democratic President, Lyndon B. Johnson, pushed a new set of subsidies. Housing was a top concern for Johnson as part of his War on Poverty —leading to his creation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in 1965. His administration used two programs, FHA 221(d)3 and HUD 236, to provide depreciation tax breaks and ultra-low interest loans to private developers of low- and moderate-income apartments. As nationally syndicated financial columnist Sylvia Porter reported excitedly, 'There are unparalleled opportunities for profit awaiting you, the investor, in low-cost housing … as a result of the meshing of giant new housing and tax laws.' A savvy investor could use the 'big deductions … to offset your other highly taxed income'—a technique called a "tax shelter." As with the earlier Truman program, these subsidies to private developers 'far outdistanced the traditional public housing program' in producing new units, according to the United States Comptroller General Elmer Staats. During the 1980s, federal housing efforts ran headlong into a rising conservative movement, led by President Ronald Reagan. The right was determined to pare back government spending and slash programs. Congress moved to wipe out most aid to help build affordable housing and replace it with Section 8 vouchers. Instead of subsidizing construction, the government would pay landlords the difference between what a renter could afford and the market rate for rent. But business leaders and housing activists revolted. They insisted that Congress should create a strategy to stimulate construction of new units. In 1986, their efforts paid off as part of the sweeping, seminal bipartisan Tax Reform Act. Among its many provisions was the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. LIHTC gave investors a tax credit—an update of the tax shelter idea—if they developed affordable housing or provided dollars to a non-profit doing that work. From 1986 through to today, the majority of affordable housing in the U.S. has been constructed with this credit. Local or state dollars often supplement it, but without LIHTC, many projects simply would not get built. The credit has worked pretty well for nearly 40 years, an impressive longevity. But two shortcomings have become apparent. The first is that when the Reagan Administration launched the program, the idea of mixed-income housing was not yet a goal. So LIHTC regulations favor projects that serve households that make 60% of an area's median income (AMI). That's an important demographic, including teachers, nurse assistants, food service managers, and other similarly situated individuals. But this target is too narrow on both ends. It often prices out the poorest Americans, who make 30% AMI or less, and it also offers nothing to people making 80% AMI, who increasingly need help with today's skyrocketing rents. A second shortcoming of LIHTC is that funding has not expanded since 1986, when both the population and its needs were dramatically smaller. The result is that, now, meaningful projects are excluded simply because of lack of available money. As Scott Farmer, the head of the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency told me in an interview, 'The worst part of our job is that we get 120 applications a year and can only fund 30 to 35. Those other deals are great deals, we just don't have enough resources to go around.' The new AHCIA bill recently introduced in Congress aims to address both of those problems. It would encourage landlords to mingle tenants at all incomes. Mixed-income projects have been considered best-practice for some 30 years now; the AHCIA will help regulations catch up with that reality. The AHCIA would also dramatically expand the available credits. It would re-institute a temporary increase of 12.5% that Congress approved in 2018 but later allowed to lapse. And it would boost the total by an another 50%, allowing hundreds of additional projects to become reality. The AHCIA has serious support on both side of the aisle in Washington. Its Senate co-sponsors include conservative Republicans Todd Young of Indiana and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, along with liberal Democrats Ron Wyden of Oregon and Maria Cantwell of Washington. The House version of the bill already has 130 cosponsors. The difficulty in passing the bill may not be opposition. Rather, it's that relatively small tax-related proposals like AHCIA rarely get enacted as stand-alone legislation. Instead, they often get swept up into fierce and partisan debates over taxes and spending. That's precisely what's happening right now in the Capitol—President Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' includes massive tax cuts along with reductions in social service programs such as Medicaid and SNAP (food stamps), increased funding for deportations and border security, and much more. Despite its broad support, the AHCIA could be overlooked amid the bigger battles. The question will be whether advocates of AHCIA can push some pieces of their legislation into this larger bill. The history provides at least some modest hope. The use of tax credits has deep roots, both among Republicans and Democrats, and a long track-record of success. When Congress adopted LIHTC back in 1986, it came as part of much bigger legislation—so that path is a genuine possibility. Will leaders in Congress take action in 2025? If they do, the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act has the potential to do a lot of good, to expand the housing supply, spur the economy, and help address the affordability crisis plaguing America. Tom Hanchett is a North Carolina-based historian. His new book Affordable Housing in Charlotte: What One City's History Tells Us About America's Pressing Problem is published by UNC Press.
