Rents may be high in some cities, but compare that to London or Geneva?
Unemployment benefits in the US were extended to 98 week during the last recession. That's two years. Most of the folks I know who went on unemployment insurance had no issues with getting the benefit.
I won't argue with you that the ACA has some stupid income limits. Those don't exist outside of the US?
The medical bankruptcy data that gets thrown around is misleading. It's true that a lot of people that go bankrupt have medical debt, but it's not necessarily the cause of their bankruptcy. That data came from a Harvard study that has been severely criticized.[1]
And health can cause bankruptcy in countries with single payers. There was an article in Canada that health problems are a big cause of bankruptcies in that country as well.[1]
Approximately 15 percent of bankrupt
Canadian seniors -- those 55 and older -- cited medical reasons, including uninsured expenses, as the main culprit for their insolvency. In fact, the rate isn't that far off from what you see in the US.
The thing that matters with rents is your income vs. the rising rent. I'm not sure how comparing to London or Geneva means anything. All that matters is "your income vs. rising San Fransisco rents" if that's where you live, and this discussion mainly centered around the US. For job-creating areas, that's a few major metros, by and large.
The 99 week extension ended, and it differs by region anyway:
"Workers in most states are eligible for up to 26 weeks of benefits from the regular state-funded unemployment compensation program, although ten states provide fewer weeks and two provide more. " That's nothing.
The maximum amount in California is $450 per week, not even enough to pay the median rent for a studio: ($2,722 in August 2015.) Start adding in food and bills, and it's a laugh.
The many sources I've read support the medical bankruptcy stats. I'm aware of the criticisms, but they don't seem to diminish the core case much at all. Other developed countries have medical bankruptcy, but nothing like the US.
The maximum amount in California is $450 per week, not even enough to pay the median rent for a studio: ($2,722 in August 2015.) Start adding in food and bills, and it's a laugh.
Sure, if you pick the most expensive city in the US right now. How does the unemployment insurance in the UK stack up?
We'll just have to agree to disagree. The EU might have a very generous safety net, but it's incorrect to say that the US is that far behind.
The most expensive is a proxy for job creation (see Atlantic article) and social mobility in the current economy: "the San Francisco-San Jose area has a better record of social mobility than just about any region in the country, according to Harvard economist Raj Chetty. In other words, a variety of factors make it the best place for young person to work his or her way into the middle class and beyond."
You can repeat the experiment on other job-creating cities like New York, Boston, or San Jose. Or scale back to "cheap" Oakland (median rent ~2100) and it still looks terrible.
Let's compare just unemployment insurance between the US and Germany. Similar cases can be made for health care, pensions, time off, public/social housing, and even college funding. This doesn't even include things the US doesn't have at all, like Kuzarbeit.
US: maximum 99 weeks during the crisis, now back down to 26 weeks in most places
Germany: "benefit recipients aged 50 to 54 now receive an unemployment benefit for 15 months, those 55 to 57 for 18 months and those 58 or older receive benefits for 24 months. For those under the age of 50 who have not been employed for more than 30 months in a job which paid into the social security scheme, full unemployment benefit can be received for a maximum period of 12 months" then "If a worker is not eligible for the full unemployment benefits or after receiving the full unemployment benefit for the maximum of 12 months, he is able to apply for benefits from the so-called Arbeitslosengeld II (Hartz IV) programme, an open-ended welfare programme which, unlike the US system, ensures people do not fall into penury. A person receiving Hartz IV benefits is paid 399 EUR (2015) a month for living expenses plus the cost of adequate housing (including heating) and health care."
Perform the same comparison between the US and Sweden (with multiple levels of UI, followed by the Job and development guarantee), Austria (unemployment assistance is payable for one year (52 weeks) and may be extended ‘indefinitely’ by application, provided that the qualifying conditions are fulfilled), Denmark (90% of their average earnings for up to four years), or the west/north European country of your choice and you come up with similarly large contrasts. When you start putting those together with their health care, housing, and more general welfare programs, the differences are not small at all.
Rents may be high in some cities, but compare that to London or Geneva?
Unemployment benefits in the US were extended to 98 week during the last recession. That's two years. Most of the folks I know who went on unemployment insurance had no issues with getting the benefit.
I won't argue with you that the ACA has some stupid income limits. Those don't exist outside of the US?
The medical bankruptcy data that gets thrown around is misleading. It's true that a lot of people that go bankrupt have medical debt, but it's not necessarily the cause of their bankruptcy. That data came from a Harvard study that has been severely criticized.[1]
And health can cause bankruptcy in countries with single payers. There was an article in Canada that health problems are a big cause of bankruptcies in that country as well.[1]
Approximately 15 percent of bankrupt Canadian seniors -- those 55 and older -- cited medical reasons, including uninsured expenses, as the main culprit for their insolvency. In fact, the rate isn't that far off from what you see in the US.
[1]http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/2635...