We have mandatory unemployment insurance which pays pretty well.

These are well-paid white collar professionals, they should be saving up emergency funds.

I'm more worried about the safety net for low- and mid-income workers, as well as the fact that health insurance is tied to your employment.

Uh, have you been on unemployment? There's a max. In Massachusetts it's $698 / week (with no taxes taken out). That would only barely cover my mortgage, let alone car payment, food, health insurance, etc.

And yes, people should have emergency funds... but when you were a few years out of college, did you have 3-6 months of salary saved up? I certainly didn't.

...why should the taxpayers cover your mortgage? I don't think "debt service on assets" is a universal human right. And why would someone have a mortgage just out of college if they can't even save 3 months first? Either way, $698/week is a lot. Do you know how much these European countries and Canada pay under their "safety net?" It's probably closer to $1500 per month. They certainly don't give a shit about anyone covering their mortgage. Basic shelter and food, that's it.

>...why should the taxpayers cover your mortgage?

because as a taxpayer i have been covering mortgage of somebody unemployed. So i expect (due to social contract of safety net) that if i happen to be unemployed than some other taxpayer(s) will cover my mortgage.

That's obviously true, the question was why should you have to cover someone else's mortgage?

A social security net which doesn't cover mortgages is by definition useless for everyone who has a mortgage. That's a significant part of society. So, a social security net which doesn't include this is more of a social security black hole with a few ropes, only useful for people who have some weird "model life" (e.g. a student without anyone who depends on him) and not for normal people. Usually this goes against the stated goals of social security nets which are introduced to allow people to take risks which could be useful for society without ruining their lifes in case of a failure.

Encouraging labor mobility is a general social good. Whether or not the government does this, it is definitely something we want in the economy. People moving to the jobs for which they are best suited, which changes with the individuals and the firms as they change, is a huge benefit to everyone.

That's not entirely correct, at least for Germany.

ALG1 comes out of the mandatory unemployment insurance (that you and your employer have paid for every month) and they will pay you 60% of your previous take-home salary + health insurance for half of the timespan that you'd been employed. That comes out to 1500-2000€/m in your pocket and insurance taken care of, which is really not so bad (a lot of people working full time make less than that). Can be more if you made north of 50K a year. Unless you have a crazy mortgage, you can make things work for a while. Also, if you hadn't had a pretty solid job for years, you wouldn't have gotten a mortgage anyway.

After 24 months max and still no job you would fall back to ALGII though. That's is taxpayers' money and essentially rent for a cheap place, health insurance and 400 € in your pocket, which sucks. Plus you have to liquidate any assets you may have left (including life insurance) first and they will make you take a shitty job.

"The taxpayers" don't fund your unemployment insurance. You and your employer do. That's why it's called unemployment "insurance," not welfare.

As others have said, part of your paycheck goes to "unemployment insurance". It's not a handout. You're paying for it.

The point isn't that the taxpayers should cover his mortgage, but that the unemployment benefits should be more commensurate with how much one has paid in.

Anecdotal, but one of my older buddies was laid off. He's been earning north of $250k for over 30 years. He had savings, but assuming he didn't, his max withdrawal would be $698 a week, and only for 6 months, which is a max withdrawal of ~$18k, which is right around what he paid in to unemployment in a year. Ignoring that he'd been paying in ~$15k for years (or, I guess, half of that for awhile, as the pay-in percentage used to be lower), then he's not taking taxpayer dollars, he's taking his own money back. Or at least, a fraction of it, because the state made a lot more off of him than he made off of the state.

If he shouldn't be able to profit off of the state, then the state shouldn't be able to profit off of him.

Otherwise though, the compelling reason that unemployment should be enough to cover one's mortgage is because it is specifically designed to prevent homelessness, as the taxpayer cost of allowing him to go homeless because he had a few week lapse between employment and unemployment benefits is substantially higher than simply giving him more of his own money back.

>If he shouldn't be able to profit off of the state, then the state shouldn't be able to profit off of him

That's not how "social safety nets" work. They tend towards being zero-sum in monetary terms, which means that some people will "win" (those worse off, hopefully) and some will "lose". The idea is that such devices help balance and stabilize society, which means we all actually win.

No, I get that, but at the same time, everybody's paying in to unemployment, and even in a down economy, where we have something like 10-12% unemployment, that means that 88% are paying in.

If the caps are so short and arbitrary, unless I'm missing something, the state is pocketing a ton. Perhaps that's okay, because it does definitely defend against the "everybody's out of work" scanario that we haven't really had in awhile, despite the recession. Or maybe it just means that there are more people who need it more than I'm envisioning, or that it disproportionately favors the lower incomes, or any other number of factors.

The point though, which I've perhaps done a poor job of illustrating, is that it still behooves the state to ensure that earners with high wage potential aren't made homeless as a result of those caps.

If the higher wage earners get less benefit from the system, then so be it, but that means that the system needs them more than they need it, and as a result, should probably not be bankrupting those with high income potential, just because "we shouldn't be debt servicing their assets".

> The point isn't that the taxpayers should cover his mortgage, but that the unemployment benefits should be more commensurate with how much one has paid in. ... If he shouldn't be able to profit off of the state, then the state shouldn't be able to profit off of him.

FUTA is only paid on the first $7,000 of an employee's income. The state portion of unemployment insurance is generally similarly capped, just like FICA (Social Security/Medicare) tax.

So your point is invalid.

I don't think the "social safety net" was intended to keep wealthy people wealthy.

It's to ensure basic needs are met.

If you want to remain wealthy, you should probably not count on unemployment to play a role in that.

And in Belgium, you are wrong about that. If you take home 1500€ net each month, and lose your job, social security first gives you around the same 1450 - 1500. After a few months (I think 3 or so) it goes down to 1300 or so, until you get a maximum of X where X is around the minimum living wage.

This is to ensure that people don't have to sell or move immediately after being fired. Which makes sense.

This example is flawed. What is the max take home pay of someone on unemployment benefits in Belgium? In Canada under EI (employment insurance) it's about $500 per week (~$2000 CAD per month).

I think your definition of wealthy needs some serious, serious readjustment.

Maybe you should consider adjusting your understanding of poor too.

3-6 months of salary is not the measurement. You need an emergency fund of 3-6 months of expenses. That amount is easily achievable for someone who is a few years out of college which is generally someone who is young, no mortgage, and no dependents.

If someone wants to make the commitments of mortgages or dependents, then that's on them and they still need to have that 3-6 month emergency fund, except the amount will be higher because of the added responsibilities.

>but when you were a few years out of college, did you have 3-6 months of salary saved up?

Absolutely. This was my first priority. This is personal finance 101 (though I'd replace 'salary' with 'expenses'). I realize not everybody is able to do it, but for many in this forum it would be an issue of prioritization.

> but when you were a few years out of college, did you have 3-6 months of salary saved up? I certainly didn't.

Actually, I did and it was a top-priority for me.

Don't you have reserve money to get a mortgage in the first place? My bank was hesitant to loan without 3 months of mortgage payments in reserve.

Yes, the health insurance one is the big issue in the US. Even with emergency funds after the COBRA period ends you simply cannot buy the same health plan individually, no matter what you were willing to pay. Many people are surprised by this.

Yes, and pre-ACA, if were diagnosed with anything during a coverage gap, it would fall into the dreaded "pre-existing condition" category.

Post-ACA there are plenty of good plans to purchase beyond COBRA so this is now really only an issue of affordability. They are rather expensive, especially for one who doesn't have a job and getting on Medicaid Expansion can take many months, if one is even eligible (which one is likely not to be if he's worked at all that year). Likewise, other ACA discount will not apply if one has made any decent amount of money that calendar year, I believe.

I don't disagree. As a US citizen, I pine for the social safety nets in Canada and Europe. I'm playing the hand I was dealt.

I can't speak to what Europeans have, but as a Canadian I can. It's not all it's cracked up to be. In BC MSP (Medical Services Plan) is $54/Month for an individual and it's mandatory whether you're employed or not. The amount is probably different in other provinces as medical is a provincial concern (and indeed, coverage varies from province to province). Employers usually offer extended medical, covering things like dental, eyewear, prescriptions etc. This all goes away when you're let go.

We have employment insurance, which is also mandatory (mostly) to pay into, but it only pays about 1700/month and payments only last 15 weeks (after a 3 week waiting period). Yes, it's nice to have some money coming in, but it's nowhere near enough for more than a month or two.

And lastly Welfare only pays about $650/Month not even enough for rent anywhere Metro Vancouver or the Fraser Valley.

The MSP side of what you've described sounds to me like _all it's cracked up to be_.

I live in the U.S. and recently enrolled my family of two in the cheapest healthcare plan available (high deductible, no dental, no vision) through the Freelancers Union - which I'm required to do as part of the Affordable Healthcare Act - and it's going to cost me USD $814 per month ... for the next 35 years. In today's dollars, that's nearly $350K and doesn't cover any of the out-of-pocket costs that we'll incur should we decide to actually use the damn plan.

This is on top of a 46% marginal income tax rate and 12% sales tax.

I don't know what the BC plan is like, but in Manitoba if I didn't have any coverage through my employer I'd be paying for almost everything except visiting a doctor or ER. And you're still stuck in a line to see specialists. It's not unheard of to schedule an appointment with a specialist a year out.

Manitoba Pharmacare exists for prescription plans and is income adjusted. Similar story in Ontario with the Trillium drug plan. I'm certain other provinces are similar.

People with true emergent cases are seen quickly. You may not, but it's probably because it's not an emergency.

Coverage/participation is mandatory - they send collections after you if you stop paying in BC

Sure, my only point is it's not universal nor free (so many pundits in the US seem to think it is). Family of 2-4 is 104/month in BC.

Note, this does not include anything beyond medical, ie not ambulances, not vision, no private rooms, no dental, no physio and not prescriptions and in BC does NOT cover things like IVF (Ontario does cover up to 3 attempts).

Those are all extra (to the tune of 200-300/month for a family - usually paid by your employer - there are plans for solo/self employed http://www.coverme.com/ for instance).

I'm paying $600/month in the states for two people, and my old coworker is paying $1200/month for a family of 5.

MSP is mandatory - but its tied to how much money you make. Most people here are probably making enough that they are paying the maximum amount (which is $72 for an individual these days), but as a university student I had the same coverage for free.

EI coverage last significantly longer than 15 weeks if you've been working full time in the last year. It depends on the regional unemployment rate - for BC its probably around 36 weeks: http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/ei/types/regular.shtml#lo... .

Oh and I forgot, if you're fired with cause, you don't qualify for EI. You only get EI if you're laid off for lack of work.

Being fired for cause in this case refers to misconduct at the job, which is quite different from just being not good enough at your job.

I won't repost the list, but you can find the definition and the most common list on their website here:

http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/ei/information/misconduct...

You can dispute this, and in most cases you'll get the EI anyways.

Emigration is an option, and an easier one than people treat it as. There are plenty of good reasons to want to stay where you are, but it's worth remembering that you have the option.

Okay, you've made your point that America is backwards and doesn't look out for its workers. Nice one!

Do you have anything to say that might help people who happen to agree with you but are powerless to change it, and in need of income? Because while it really feels good to find things that confirm that your opinions are correct, being correct doesn't put food on the table and it doesn't help unemployed people find a job.

You can also get fired FOR doing everything right. It happened to me once. I fired back.

All I had to do was publicize the fact that the so-called CEO was selling weed on a NASA installation as a side business, which is an extremely stupid thing to do and an even stupider thing to tell your so-called subordinate about (Dude, if I am older than you, bigger than you, developed the tech, and put more money into the business than you - I am not your subordinate. I am your equal, and even that because I am magnanimous).

Your story is short and doesn't mention many potentially important facts, but it left me with the impression that you are rather vengeful. Selling marijuana may be illegal and unwise, but it's not very harmful.

> (Dude, if I am older than you, bigger than you, developed the tech, and put more money into the business than you - I am not your subordinate. I am your equal, and even that because I am magnanimous).

And so humble!

Being vengeful is sometimes necessary. It's not a virtue, but it's not a vice either. If the market for justice is inelastic or rigged, make your own. The hard part is to not go overboard - being fair to someone who hurt you, once you have them beaten, requires great self-discipline.

And yes, if someone just sort of declares themselves CEO in interviews just because they have a famous relative and have an easier time getting invited to talks, me insisting that we are equal partner is humble. This person contributed little else to the business.

I don't have a problem with marijuana (don't want any, but it should be legal), I have a problem with people who steal credit for my work.