1 in 2 Americans now classified as Poor

Okay, so the JSA is roughly equal to Unemployment in the US. However, from what I can see, it's a lot easier for you to qualify for JSA than it is for us to qualify for Unemployment. From what it looks like, anyone who's paid into it is eligible for it.

With us, Unemployment is available to those that have paid into it, but only if they also meet certain criteria. To get it, you need to be "unemployed through no fault of their own", so if you were fired you can be denied. You also have to take any "suitable job" that comes by, or you lose benefits, even if it's part-time. Also taking a job, (even part-time) disqualifies you from benefits.

It's entirely possible to become unemployed, get unemployment, and then be forced into a job where you make less than you were receiving on unemployment. Using myself as an example, I was working a job where I made roughly $700 every two weeks. After losing my job, I was receiving roughly $400 every two weeks on Unemployment. Because of the restrictions, I wound up taking a job where I made less than $300 a month.

Taking that job also disqualified me from food assistance, because the metric they use to calculate income defined "part-time" as 20-30 hours a week when in reality I was only working 5 hours or less per week.

So I wound up having to survive on less than $300/month, because I wasn't eligible for welfare of any sort.

Eh?

Thats insane.

Also:

I got JSA despite never paying into the system

@Whale: So then it's a hell of a lot easier to get it. With Unemployment, you have to work for a little under a year (consecutively) in order to be eligible.

Also I will add: there is a maximum amount of time (about 6 months, though you can apply for an extension) that you can receive benefits, no matter how long or how much you've paid into it.

As an example, I've been working for a paycheck since I was 14, and was pretty much continuously employed since I left home at 18. So I paid in a lot, but I got the same six months that everyone else gets when I became unemployed, no consideration given for how much I contributed.

edited 17th Mar '12 5:42:49 PM by drunkscriblerian

There's a time limit for unemployment benefits in Canada as well no matter how much you paid into it. So that part isn't very different. However, you get unemployment based on how much you paid and that's it. I think it pretty silly for you to pay into a service yet somehow be denied it after paying the damn money.

Then again, everybody pays all the taxes in America but only citizens get to receive any benefits.

@bread: most countries view being in them without permission a fairly serious crime. As I understand it America is alone in treating illegal immigrants as well as it does.

I was actually talking about legal immigrants. It takes 8 years for someone with a bachelors, on average to get their green card, and the time delay is increasing. For those with work visas (not H1-B), the time delay is indefinite, they never get closer to a green card. They all pay the taxes. America certainly treats its illegal immigrants better than most countries, of course Canada's solution is to create a legal route for those types of people to work in the country, pay taxes and receive limited government services relevant to a migrant worker. But, this is off-topic.

Also, I think that by calling it unemployment "insurance", the government wants to create the impression that it is insurance, not a fund from which you get unemployment proportional to the amount you paid in. I'm not entirely sure that's the correct way of running it. But, I suppose their intention (at least in Canada) was that the poorer folk get a higher proportion of EI (what we call it in Canada) money compared to more well-off people. And, in most cases, more well off people never bother to get EI ever so they pay into what is essentially a black hole. I'm sure there's some grumbling about that in the middle class, as most of the EI is given to seasonal workers, construction-related individuals and the poor who usually have to switch between jobs a lot.

@bread: middle class people did indeed grumble about Unemployment in America in years past - especially when it was easier to get and much easier to scam the system. I used to grumble about it a bit myself...of course, this was also when jobs where the only qualification required was a willingness to get one's hands dirty were plentiful (they really aren't now), so I've since revised my opinion.

It probably doesn't help that we're experiencing the rise of Entry level positions with experience requirements.

@Lance: it would be more accurate to say that there's no such thing as an "entry level" position anymore. Sure, there are jobs that newcomers can get, but they never go anywhere. Working your way up the ladder has largely become a thing of the past, and that's a problem that seriously needs to be addressed.

Oh yeah! In six months or so you'll be able to start moving up the ladder *snicker* You might even get a raise too *Suppressed chortle* (he's totally buying it guys!) Welcome to the family!

then there's the rage inducing "you need 10 years work experience with 2008 server software" or something retarded like that.

edited 17th Mar '12 7:25:42 PM by Lanceleoghauni

When every "entry level job" in a sector requires 1 or 2 years unpaid experience as an intern or volunteer, you're effectively locking out of that sector all the people who lack the resources and support to afford working without pay for that long - i.e. the poor.

Well, the management of the long-term status of the economy in America (or any other country) is just plain bad. So what I see is that the government and business believe that lowering inflation and the price of goods is the way to make everyone more well off. However, in order to do so, they pay people less salaries, attack unions, lower benefits, kill unemployment payments and so on. Reduction in government services, lack of healthcare and poor infrastructure give you slightly lower taxes in America compared to Canada (and a lot lower to the rest of the world).

But then, you get all sorts of really idiotic problems afterward:

• People no longer get educated to get those new requirements for entry level positions. Whereas a country like Canada has nearly 1/3 of the population with post-secondary education, America has far less with much lower quality post-secondary education leading to them being constantly rejected for even entry level positions in favour of foreign visa workers.
• Reduction in good prices to combat inflation is well and good, but if it's off the backs of the working class salaries, then there's no gain. You earn less money to buy crappier goods. That's a drop in standard of living and the reduction in health, education and other issues most certainly do not help to lift the working class to higher standards of living.
• Reducing government services can help to lower taxes, if you're a libertarian or do Reaganomics, but really the side effects cost the government so much money you end up paying so much penalty in taxes and non-taxes (paying for the same things the government would have done through private means) that you have substantially less money. Healthcare is an excellent example. Even a 10 000 a year plan doesn't even get you coverage as good as Canada's basic government program.
• Zero retraining for people who lose jobs in a dying industry to convert into a new industry

The shitty part is that the whole thing is a gamble...no guarantee that you will actually get the job in the end, even if you do manage to scrape by as an unpaid intern. They used to tell job seekers to find something that they would do for free. Well, that's not really a figure of speech in a lot of professions, anymore. You actually have to expect to do it for free, indefinitely, or at best as an "independant contractor," which means no benefits, erratic pay and living paycheck to paycheck.

Yes. My father lost his job and worked for years unpaid. It's a good thing my mother was working or we would have been in the streets.

Only if they're over 25 or have children, as my girlfriend and I found out when we came off JSA.

@Pagad, I didn't know there was an age requirement

Yeah. HMRC isn't very kind to us, as it stands.