As someone who has recently needed said 6 months in the bank, I agree completely, yes - you need it. I burned out, but I couldn't have done something about it (quit) without that cushion.

You could also live in a country where there is unemployment pay...

In what possible way does unemployment coverage make having a few months in the bank not a good idea? In my country, we have such coverage, and I've used it. It doesn't suffice to meet any but the most nominal financial obligations, and the bureaucracy involved in obtaining it is impressive - if you don't plan to cover your own bills for the month or two before the checks start coming, you're likely to be screwed.

For these to be equivalent, your unemployment pay would have to equal the value of 6months in the bank. Ignoring the fact you could have both, I can only think of two scenarios where unemployment / welfare is equal to six months pay:

1. You live in a very socially generous country and the unemployed are paid what they made before unemployment.

2. You did not make very much money to begin with.

Having six month's salary in the bank is a good strategy, regardless of where you live (ignoring countries where banks are untrustworthy enough that people don't bank their money).

Is there any particular reason, beyond it being a saying, that it should be 6 months in the bank? (Is there any data to support that number?) Just wondering, if anyone knows.