[podperson]

Nice link. The same article points out that greater benefits are available in some parts of the US (Massachusetts being cited). The thing in the US isn't so much the lack of such benefits, but the difficulty in obtaining them.

[ccera]

The unemployment benefits available in the US aren't comparable.

The most significant difference is that in the US unemployment benefits are generally limited to a maximum of 26 weeks, while in Australia you can collect benefits for decades.

The "greater benefits" available in some states (e.g., Massachusetts) are only available to people who have been recently working in a high-income job. Your unemployment benefit in MA = 50% of the bi-weekly pay rate you had when you were working, up to a certain maximum. And, again, you can only draw unemployment for a maximum of 26 weeks.

[podperson]

You're referring to unemployment insurance, which is not the only equivalent to the Australian "dole". There's also "welfare" which (as of "welfare reform") is limited to 5y in a lifetime. (Getting welfare, as far as I can tell, is a major pain in the ass; so is collecting unemployment insurance -- getting unemployment benefits in Australia is -- or was when I did it -- by comparison, trivial.)

I don't know how the Australian laws have changed, but you can't just collect unemployment benefits forever without doing anything, but it is pretty close. I'd guess that the amount of crap the Australian system puts you through in a lifetime is probably about with the US puts you through in a year.