191–200 of 253 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GDP per capita is an interesting number and I was quiet surprised recently when I compared US and European cities and countries. For those who haven’t the spoiler is the US is significantly higher. Most pro-EU economic narratives are on pretty shaky ground even before recent developments.
What does gdp per Capita means when inequalities are very high?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is just so wrong on so many levels. > If you can be fired easily, you will find a job easily. Unless it is another economical crisis and nobody is hiring? > In Europe where firing is almost impossible It is called "job security" - if you hired somebody, you "promised" them to pay a wage. If they are not needed anymore, you need to keep on promise and pay a wage. For at least some time. E.g. a few month of salary…
Most industries would deserve less barriers of entry and less legal protections, it would favor the little ones. Of course employment is an exchange of promises between employer and employees to bring stability for less money and less risks. But if the exchange benefits both sides, there is no reason to forbid both parties to negotiate whatever they prefer. In Europe there are too many legal hurdles (called "protecti…
Firing isn't entirely forbidden for a start.
Secondly, if companies know that firing has a cost they're more likely to grow their headcount in line with what they're able to support. Making firing cheap only serves to encourage the type of behaviour that leads to instability in an economic crisis.
> Of course employment is an exchange of promises between employer and employees to bring stability for less money and less risks. But if the exchange benefits both sides, there is no reason to forbid both parties to negotiate whatever they prefer. In Europe there are too many legal hurdles (called "protection" of course they're going to choose a positive word !)
The vast majority of employee/employer relationships have a power balance that's vastly in favour of the employer. Even for those of us lucky enough to be in tech, we've seen that employers are more than willing to secretly conspire in order to drive employee wages below what would have been the market rate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you can be fired easily, you will find a job easily. If there is another economic crisis and nobody is hiring, preventing companies to fire people will make the crisis even worse. > It is called "job security" An outdated concept of the XX century. No such thing in the post-industrial society. > Unless you count all the mom and pop cafes all over the Mediterranean? They are closing by thousands now, like in ever…
> If there is another economic crisis and nobody is hiring, preventing companies to fire people will make the crisis even worse. Companies that know firing is difficult will hire less aggressively. They are also more likely to accept a deeper reduction in profits before laying people off. The result is a higher threshold of economic instability before the company lets people go. The US approach is like playing speed…
European economic model simply cannot compete. US domination in tech is growing each year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding 3), I believe that solving problems and creating systems will always be relevant.
True. In fact, at my last interview they looked hard at my resume and then asked, "And so why should we hire you?". I snapped off my sunglasses and, trying to contain my annoyance, said, "Guys, I solve problems and create systems." After a long moment of silence, they looked at each other and nodded in approval. The boss reached out his hand to shake mine. I was hired.
https://media.tenor.com/L0RMEbQrLXwAAAAM/meme-sunglasses.gif
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In Europe where firing is almost impossible, hiring is a very tedious process. I don't know where you got this idea, but, at least in tech, the most infamous 7 rounds of whiteboard interviews stories I've heard are from Silicon Valley, not Europe. The company I work for (a Romanian branch of a US company - and yes, Romania has all the same legal protections against t firing as most of Europe) typically does one tec…
Your perception is skewed because Romania is a hotspot for companies to outsource to. There's a lot of companies hiring in Romania and the employers are not as picky.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If there is another economic crisis and nobody is hiring, preventing companies to fire people will make the crisis even worse. Companies that know firing is difficult will hire less aggressively. They are also more likely to accept a deeper reduction in profits before laying people off. The result is a higher threshold of economic instability before the company lets people go. The US approach is like playing speed…
This is why there are so few growth-oriented startups in Europe, and so few chances to compete with large companies who can afford absorbing such losses. And (at least in tech) such low salaries, compared to US-based companies. European economic model simply cannot compete. US domination in tech is growing each year.
The growth-oriented model that's become popular in the US looks increasingly like a cancer that only serves to concentrate wealth. There were a few early successes but it seems far more common that these startups "succeed" by distorting a functioning market with external capital and destroying sustainable businesses operating in the sector through price dumping.
Once they've captured enough of the market they'll IPO and either collapse entirely when their business model proves to be entirely unsustainable without infinite VC funds or limp along providing inferior service and labour conditions to those available beforehand. Either way harm is caused.
The model is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of fair and healthy competition and ultimately makes success a function of who has the most money to burn.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For at least some time. E.g. a few month of salary seems reasonable because a person has planned his future with you, now he needs to find a new job which will take some time. I realize I speak from a privileged position as a software developer. But never since the first day that I stepped into an office as a professional software developer in June of 1996 did I “plan a future” with a company. My plan was always to…
> But never since the first day that I stepped into an office as a professional software developer in June of 1996 did I “plan a future” with a company. You're missing the point. It's that you're planning your future on having income from the company you currently work for. In Europe they can't pull the rug from under you and say "good luck with your mortgage, you're fired today". Instead they have to say "you are fi…
> In Europe they can't pull the rug from under you and say "good luck with your mortgage, you're fired today".
I’ll take the tradeoff of much lower taxes and much higher pay any day.
> Instead they have to say "you are fired, but will receive 3 months of pay while you find something else"
Alternatively, I can save three to six months living expenses so that I’m not at the mercy of my current employer for my food and shelter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For at least some time. E.g. a few month of salary seems reasonable because a person has planned his future with you, now he needs to find a new job which will take some time. I realize I speak from a privileged position as a software developer. But never since the first day that I stepped into an office as a professional software developer in June of 1996 did I “plan a future” with a company. My plan was always to…
> I realize I speak from a privileged position as a software developer. But never since the first day that I stepped into an office as a professional software developer in June of 1996 did I “plan a future” with a company. If you can acknowledge that you're in a more secure position, why then argue for the treatment of those less fortunate based on the security that's been afforded to you by your particular set of ci…
If society thinks there should be a safety net, and I agree, then society should take responsibility in the form of insuring that safety net is available. I have no problem with company funded, state run unemployment insurance, I think that the idea of your health insurance being tied to your job is asinine, etc.
But at what point is it the individuals responsibility to save money for a rainy day?
But why should it be on the company?
> The economy consists of more than just developers. Unemployment spiked in 2008 and many people were unable to find work after having been fired.
And what were the companies suppose to do (like the one I worked for) that ran out of money? Most people that tying your health insurance to your company is ass backwards. So why tie more of your livelihood to your company?
Definitely harder to lay people off when they know them. I can remember my dad not sleeping for weeks after he made it to management because he was going to have to lay off 5 friends. -- That being said, I'm not sure the entire tech industry wouldn't benefit from less friction to switching - hiring is an insanely expensive and very low-signal process - spend 200 hours hiring a person and maybe they fit and work well,…
I find interviewing to be pretty frictionless for the most part. The hardest part is setting some time aside for for leetcode prep.
