221–230 of 253 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That safety net is a societal issue and should be handled by the government - not private industry
You’ve just argued against higher taxes. How should this safety net be funded?
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…
> 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 It is called "job security" An outdated concept of the XX century.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…
What is the point of a job? To me the point is to look after people (from both the employer and employee’s perspective).
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.
Growth at any cost is utterly toxic in my view.
You describe lower European salaries, yet minimum wage in the US is outrageously low.
What the US seems to have created us a system for creating wealth inequality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Frankly I don't think the US model is something we should be competing with for the same reasons I don't think we should be emulating sweatshops in China or India. Based on recent stock trends their value is largely hypothetical and based on both hype and the assumption that they're able to grow indefinitely. I'd be happier to exclude them from our markets entirely. The growth-oriented model that's become popular in…
> We have normalised firing of people. I don't know about the "developed" countries where people have social security, but for countries like India where there is no social security and stigma is associated with being laid off, it is a very difficult situation. Not to sound crass here but it seems like you're fishing for virtue. Hiring and firing are normal. A company of 20,000 firing 20% of it's workforce sounds maj…
And as fast as companies hire (which people celebrate), companies can quickly layoff too (which we lament).
So just as it is normalized to do fast-hiring, such is the case for fast-layoffs/firings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’ve just argued against higher taxes. How should this safety net be funded?
Unemployment is funded on the state level via corporate taxes. I have no issue with getting rid of loopholes on corporate taxes.
Schemes someone else pays for sound great, but until people agree to pay them, they don’t happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But at what point is it the individuals responsibility to save money for a rainy day? It depends on what you mean by a rainy day. I don't think I'd judge most people too harshly in our current system. Circumstances can change in ways that an individual probably won't or can't foresee. Housing and other living expenses have grown to the point that a low wage worker can barely support themselves in many cities. Perso…
> Even with appropriate safety nets I think a case could still be made for discouraging companies from firing people lightly and requiring the effects to be cushioned due to the amount of upheaval finding a new job can cause both financially and socially. In the US, there is no stigma to losing your job via a reduction in force. As far as financially, I don’t have any moral objection to unemployment insurance being h…
Sorry, I could have been more clear here. I meant the loss of social relationships either at the company or by potentially having to move neighbourhood/city.
> The VC funded company I worked for literal had no money when it was bought out for pennies. I was one of the people doing pitch decks to potential acquirers and in the room for the technical interviews with them.
Most companies have at least some assets when they wind down. Putting employee obligations first simply means that any value derived from the liquidation is first used to settle that debt rather than other creditors.
If there were unpaid wages, then at some point the people running that company continued requiring their employees' labour despite knowing they couldn't keep their end of the contract. Some exceptions might be justifiable for smaller companies but I think we're far too lenient on people who knowingly steal from employees.
Most tech workers can deal with unpaid wages but I've seen it happen to bar and restaurant workers that aren't in as secure a position. The owners wind down the company and leave wages unpaid while immediately creating a new one in the same unit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It’s interesting how your points could be right yet you will have disagreement over whether it’s a problem. Growth at any cost is utterly toxic in my view. You describe lower European salaries, yet minimum wage in the US is outrageously low. What the US seems to have created us a system for creating wealth inequality.
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…
Why is job security outdated? The ‘gig economy’ with flexible arrangements seems to suit exploitative employers great. Workers peeing in bottles and the workplace culture in such jobs seems Dickensian. What is the point of a job? To me the point is to look after people (from both the employer and employee’s perspective).
See Alvin Toffler’s “Third Wave” for more detailed treatment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
While debates about the trolley problem will likely go on forever, the idea of sacrificing a few for the sake of the many is eminently defensible. Companies should do more to avoid this scenario, governments should (a bit more arguably) do what they can to blunt its effects, everyone should treat it with more solemnity, but it can and will and should happen sometimes.