Does that salary increase make up for the lost gov benefits (free healthcate etc?)
'Gainfully Employed' people are generally better off in the US. The healthcare there is great - when you are covered.
The risk comes for those unfortunate/unforeseen situations, and of course, when one doesn't have coverage.
Overall - it's one of those factors that goes into the equation - but for a young, single talented person, usually it's not a priority - or - it factors favourably.
It's a good point because for the 'elite economy' - US healthcare is just fine. Good in fact.
For the 'everyone economy' it's arguable that Canadian style (or something like that is better).
The H/C equation kind of reinforces what I am saying: exceptionalism vs. the commons + stability.
Very dependent on where you work. High tech salaries are concentrated in California, where the tax burden at your numbers will be higher than most provinces. I remember doing a comparison of BC to California, and the cross over point was about $250k USD (where taxes become more favorable in California).
Health insurance working for a decent US tech company generally requires some out of pocket, but the amounts are really quite modest. Premiums are typically mostly paid by the employer and not considered part of your compensation. If you're single you'll probably pay nothing for insurance premiums and potentially up to a few thousand out of pocket if you're a heavy user of health care, and maybe $5k in the absolute worst case (and the out of pocket is often tax free). If you've got a family, you might pay a couple thousand per year in premiums and $10k in out of pocket maximum. These numbers are honestly chump change for people who are earning $50k-250k more, with better career prospects and more high paying employers to choose from if a particular job doesn't work out.
It's like the old bait-and-switch swindle.
