Reminder: the EU's unemployment rate is twice as high as the US'.
The point is that you're playing with words.
Moreover, you have to factor in things like healthcare, life expectancy, literacy rates, access to education, danger involved in unemployment, crime rates, unemployment pensions, etc if you want to make a useful decision as to which of the two systems is more dysfunctional than the other.
-=EDIT=- : viz "cherry-picked metrics", the quality of a job market is more than just the proportion of people employed. Let's not forget other relevant factors:
- job stability
- employee protection
- workplace hazards & injury compensation
- vacation & sick leave
- retirement pensions
- mandated employee benefits (transportation, remote-work assistance, etc.)
- maternity / paternity leave
- etc
And have the possibility of seeing their life savings evaporate and facing financial ruin when paying for this health care.
Old articles, but I don't imagine it has changed all that much;
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/30/costs-of-delivering-babies-va...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31052665
That does not seem reasonable to me.
What seems reasonable for maternity stay is it being totally free.
This is so funny. IIRC what Republicans in the USA are arguing is that the new health care plan that they want to pass gives "access" to healthcare to everyone, as long as they are "willing" to pay for it.
I have access to a space flight sure, the only thing stopping me is money.
Does the U.S., with its Electoral College, really want to go there? This strikes me as throwing stones from a glass McMansion.
</presumption alert>
More to the point: unhindered, direct-democracy is rarely a good system as it tends to devolve into "majority rule". The case for appointed officials is neither new nor in and of itself undemocratic.