Hence, the cases >, < and = denote, respectively, a positive impact of the reform which is, for a given income group, statistically higher, lower, or equal than that on average income. For example, in the case of the unemployment benefit replacement rate (summary measure of generosity), household income effects are negative for all income groups and they are higher in absolute value for median income, incomes of the lower middle class and incomes of the poor, in each case compared with average income. The symbols (*, "") denote, respectively, statistical significance at the 10, 5 and 1% level. This illustrative scenario is based on a modest change (in practice the magnitude of the decline corresponds to the current difference in stringency of regulation between Australia and Denmark).37 Still, taken at face value, the estimates would imply that such reform could raise long-term level of household disposable incomes of the lower middle class by 0.7 and the poor by 1%.