Very interesting concept. While I agree w/ all of the recommendations after plowing the premiums into savings, instead, it's important to think about the context of your current situation. I checked out the pricing simply because I've got five years of college tuition payments left for my kids and an unplanned unemployment would force me to dip into funds I don't want to. Still - their calculator wasn't quite tempting enough for me. But I wouldn't be surprised if this type of product gets more demand in the future, which should lower premiums.
Wondering if the premiums would be deductible on tax return.
cheaper to buy a ticket to Canada.
1
There's not any real "insurance" here based on any actuarial standards. Just forced "savings" through premiums that would come back to you fully taxable. Another not-so-bright idea from America's profit-driven insurers.
9
if you use authors example - IT in NY @ 100k. its cost $900 per year with the a claim payments up to 12k. it would take you 12 years to save that much. sounds like a good idea to me...
2
Better to save that money in case you are actually out of work.
4
Actuarially, this "product" looks and acts like a Disability Insurance policy: occupational surcharge, six month quick claim penalty , two week waiting period, 50% benefit cap, 24-week benefit limit, post-claim investigations, non-guaranteed premiums and a promise not to consider your age or a bad review in the underwriting process. Pass.
Assuming you can afford to pay premiums for this type of insurance product, why not simply build your own emergency fund? Don't let the threat of a benefit number you may never realize dissuade you from putting your own money aside in a disciplined manner to offset changes in employment.
Assuming you can afford to pay premiums for this type of insurance product, why not simply build your own emergency fund? Don't let the threat of a benefit number you may never realize dissuade you from putting your own money aside in a disciplined manner to offset changes in employment.
8
24 lousy weeks? You have to be joking. Republicans will love this.
1
Private UI policies have been available since the 1980's. Unfortunately, they have not been successful. State UI remains the primary method of providing wage loss benefits.
2
Interesting. I haven't been involuntarily unemployed more than a few weeks in 30 years, and this isn't something I would likely make use of, (I keep a 10-12 month cushion available) but just for the heck of it I tried their calculator.
Before it asked for anything more than the state I work in, my current annual salary, and the type of business I'm in (they don't list IT as a choice) it bluntly informed me I'm not eligible.
That doesn't upset me at all, but it does make me very curious as to what in that limited data set triggered the ineligible flag.
Before it asked for anything more than the state I work in, my current annual salary, and the type of business I'm in (they don't list IT as a choice) it bluntly informed me I'm not eligible.
That doesn't upset me at all, but it does make me very curious as to what in that limited data set triggered the ineligible flag.
1
I think IT is listed as "Information" on their site.
Since insurance is regulated at the state level, it's probably that the insurance company is not licensed to sell this product in your state.
I was laid off on 10-31-1985 by AT&T. Conditions being what they were with layoffs starting almost immediately after the company was broken upon 1-1-1984 I could never have gotten this insurance. Instead i hung on as long as I could so I could get my severance check for 16 years times 4 weeks. Despite all the taxes it was enough to complete my plans for starting my own business. I never did get unemployment because I was able to pay myself before the severance pay rule applied.
I looked at the AM Best rating on Great American Insurance Group and it was
A+, a very solid rating.
In this era of relatively few families having the standard recommendation of six
months of living expenses held in liquid savings, this appears to be a valid need in the marketplace.
Given that there is a relatively high rate of individuals who have lost their jobs due to factors beyond their control, this may well be worth considering for those whose liquid assets is less than six months living expenses.
A+, a very solid rating.
In this era of relatively few families having the standard recommendation of six
months of living expenses held in liquid savings, this appears to be a valid need in the marketplace.
Given that there is a relatively high rate of individuals who have lost their jobs due to factors beyond their control, this may well be worth considering for those whose liquid assets is less than six months living expenses.
1
Good column, reads even better with a financial calculator.
1
Ppl that make 100k a year wont be unemployed for long. This is a silly idea. Unemployement insurance is there for ppl who are struggling with the commitment of a minimum wage job (mainly ppl who are struggling with a disorder or a history of poor personal choices). But there is another reason this wont work. Ppl do not have money for waste anymore. Rent, mortgage, bills are leaving just enough to get buy. Silly idea mark my words it wont work.
6
It is a reality that at some point in the near future we are going to have to pay people to live. As we continue to automate things we will not have the capacity to have enough jobs for all to work. If you don't work it doesn't mean your a slacker just there aren't enough positions for all the people. So why don't we get around to excepting that premise and start moving in that direction. The government s going to have to be the venue to distribute money to those that do not work. So "republicans" need to climb out of the stone age and start thinking forward. The old model will not work forever. I would love to collect check every week and just stay home and make my home a life more beautiful. We will be needed as consumers of what our automation produces. We will take our fully autonomous cars to the store to get hat we want. Trust me it is sooner than anyone thinks. I wish I was younger so I could enjoy it. That is coming from one tired old hack that as worked himself to near death for too long. Happy Memorial Day.
6
We are? Perhaps you want to pay people to live but many don't. We don't have to do this and we should not.
Then we better start enforcing some sort of population control, because this poster is correct. Way too many people, dwindling jobs. Look at the national and global demographics and workplace trends. No way near enough available jobs...it's just numbers. But everyone wants to procreate...what is your solution?
2
Indeed, CJ in Orlando, what you are articulating is a subject that academics, economists and futurists are also examining. Technological progress is already revolutionizing the world of work. (Here come the Robots.) The questions is no longer whether jobs will be lost to automation and artificial intelligence, but how soon technology will accelerate these losses.
According to a recent article in The Atlantic, A World Without Work, “In 2013, Oxford University researchers forecast that machines might be able to perform half of all U.S. jobs in the next two decades. The projection was audacious, but in at least a few cases, it probably didn’t go far enough.”
By necessity, industrialized countries will have to adjust to the new paradigm of growing unemployment (and underemployment) as a result of automation. I, too, hope that I am alive to witness these seismic changes, ones that promise to challenge our social, cultural and political norms.
According to a recent article in The Atlantic, A World Without Work, “In 2013, Oxford University researchers forecast that machines might be able to perform half of all U.S. jobs in the next two decades. The projection was audacious, but in at least a few cases, it probably didn’t go far enough.”
By necessity, industrialized countries will have to adjust to the new paradigm of growing unemployment (and underemployment) as a result of automation. I, too, hope that I am alive to witness these seismic changes, ones that promise to challenge our social, cultural and political norms.
Fascinating. I wouldn't do it because I'm already expected to save for so many problems that this would be throwing good money after bad. In America we are expected to save for medical issues, a college education, unemployment, retirement all at the same time. I don't know about the rich people but I can save for only one disaster at a time. If I lose my job and can't find another one the money I haven't spent on vacations, buying a house I can't afford, going out for dinner, a new car every 5 years, goes to keeping me alive. Of course if I were Donald Trump and owed the bank more money than it could afford to lose and I was bankrupt, the bank would offer me terms that I liked.
14
Any particular reason why you shouldn't expect to pay for some of those things?
4
Pass a law to force people to buy insurance. That seems to be the only way to get people who have no money to buy insurance, nowadays. And, if they have no money, lend them the money to buy that worthless protection at usuriously high interest rates. When they go bankrupt by the millions, use their poverty to sell them more political snake oil.
16
For a maximum benefit payout of only 24 weeks you'd be better off stashing the premium payments in a savings account.
20
...or better yet, some sort of mutual aid society like people did before Social Security existed.
This is why mutual aid societies did before the government crowded them out.
This is why mutual aid societies did before the government crowded them out.
1
Interesting. But wouldn't a more straight-forward path be to take that monthly premium and build a robust emergency fund?
15