Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Europe crushes innovation

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 146 posts

Re: How Europe crushes innovation

#131

Post by piva00 »

Akranazon wrote: post #130
piva00 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Median wages while prices are higher doesn't mean much, Americans earn more but also pay quite a bit more in most products and services needed for living: housing, healthy food, transportation, healthcare, etc. After experiencing the American work life I'd never trade my life in Sweden to earn 2-3x more in California, I'm sorry to say but it wasn't better to earn more in the USA, I could buy more trinkets but daily l…

I'm not interested in debating the grab-bag of ways life is better in Sweden than in California. I've said this before, but every "US vs Europe work" debate ends with the European patronizingly scolding the American for thinking money is the most important thing in life. I'm also not interested in that. I am only interested in the labor market. You can say the numbers don't matter, but then you've adopted essentially…

> You can say the numbers don't matter, but then you've adopted essentially an unfalsifiable position.

Numbers do matter, just not the cherry-picked narrow ones such as "median wage" with disregard for any context, and all other metrics that could somehow quantify quality of life vs purely financial terms.

> Another factor to consider is the ease of quitting your job. In the US (at least, I have found), it is quite easy to quite your job and find a new one.

Ease of quitting is also a non-problem, most jobs I had in Europe had a 1-3 months notice period which was easily negotiated if you really wanted to quit on the spot, no company wants to keep a disgruntled worker around so it's best to negotiate if said worker explicitly states they would like to shorten it.

> The article explains how American companies are more willing to hire for positions which wouldn't otherwise exist.

That's great for a selected set of jobs which workers would like to do that while being detrimental to society at large, making precarious conditions the default is not great for the less skilled people who prefer stability to keep their families afloat and secure.

> If you are not interested in that, then quit your job and don't work in a position which involves innovation. Which in America, is easy to do.

Not working in "innovation" still has the same precariousness, with no upside, making the divide in society between the haves and have-nots even more intense. It works up to a point, leave enough people behind and you get MAGA.

Re: How Europe crushes innovation

#132

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #83
knowledge-clay wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because labor protection costs money Labor protection does not "cost money". It is a limit on the degree to which workers can be exploited.

Sorry but 50% tax rate is exploitation. Especially so how inefficient government spending is.

I live in Europe and pay 52% marginal. I considered moving to California and it turned out that I'd be paying about 50% marginal. So not sure it makes that much difference.

Re: How Europe crushes innovation

#133

Post by latexr »

Akranazon wrote: post #122
latexr wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for providing sources. Though you’re focused solely on money, which I think is a pretty poor measure for how “better off” one is (and was my original criticism of the article). Especially when you’re ignoring the percentage of people living in poverty and massive income inequality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentag... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_in...…

I would argue that unemployment isn't solely about "money", but fair enough. I'm not sure how to respond overall. Because every time I debate this topic (which isn't a lot), a Europe defender will basically diminish the importance income numbers. Because "money is a poor measure of being better-off". In fact, money is quite a good measure of being better-off, and there is a lot of evidence for this. Europe has better…

> I don't consider "who is better off" to be a very good question.

Your entire argument in the original response was “the American worker is much better off than the European worker”. That’s the only reason we’re discussing what that means. If “who is better off” isn’t a good question, then “X is better off than Y” isn’t a good argument.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45494890

> Saying that immigrants are treated poorly in other ways is just bringing up a political issue unrelated to labor economics.

They are not separate. Saying “it doesn’t matter that you could be wrongfully imprisoned and separated from your children without recourse for committing no crime, but that’s OK because if it doesn’t happen you’ll make a bit more money” is detached from the reality of what matters. Most individuals aren’t money-hungry ghouls who care for wealth above all, including their own personal safety and liberty.

Re: How Europe crushes innovation

#134

Post by latexr »

senordevnyc wrote: post #128
latexr wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for providing sources. Though you’re focused solely on money, which I think is a pretty poor measure for how “better off” one is (and was my original criticism of the article). Especially when you’re ignoring the percentage of people living in poverty and massive income inequality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentag... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_in...…

To be fair, while Europe dominates the top ten happiness scores, those countries at the top of the list are mostly all some of the richest countries in the world. And there are 20+ European countries with lower happiness scores than the US, including France, Spain, and Italy. So living in Europe means you’re about as happy as Americans but also poorer… I don’t think it’s as clear cut as you’re indicating.

> I don’t think it’s as clear cut as you’re indicating.

I’m not saying it’s clear cut. On the contrary, I’m saying it’s not. Unlike the person who responded to me, who claimed “the American worker is much better off than the European worker”, I am not claiming “every worker in every European country is better off than the US American worker”.

Re: How Europe crushes innovation

#135

Post by Akranazon »

latexr wrote: post #133
Akranazon wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that unemployment isn't solely about "money", but fair enough. I'm not sure how to respond overall. Because every time I debate this topic (which isn't a lot), a Europe defender will basically diminish the importance income numbers. Because "money is a poor measure of being better-off". In fact, money is quite a good measure of being better-off, and there is a lot of evidence for this. Europe has better…

> I don't consider "who is better off" to be a very good question. Your entire argument in the original response was “the American worker is much better off than the European worker”. That’s the only reason we’re discussing what that means. If “who is better off” isn’t a good question, then “X is better off than Y” isn’t a good argument. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45494890 > Saying that immigrants are treat…

> If “who is better off” isn’t a good question...

I said the American worker is better off in general. The only question I don't consider is good is, "which types of workers?" Unless your point is that some kinds of workers are better off than others? In which case, make that argument.

> “it doesn’t matter that you could be wrongfully imprisoned and separated from your children without recourse for committing no crime, but that’s OK because if it doesn’t happen you’ll make a bit more money” is detached from the reality of what matters.

You put that in quotes, but my comments have nothing whatsoever to do with that. Can you clarify what this has to do with whether a country should enact regulations which make it difficult for firms to lay off employees?

> Most individuals aren’t money-hungry ghouls who care for wealth above all, including their own personal safety and liberty.

Great. Again, what does this have to do with labor market regulations? I am not interested in debating "what matters" generally, in a "meaning of life" sort of way, unless you can connect it to labor market regulations, the discussion you entered.

Re: How Europe crushes innovation

#136

Post by Akranazon »

piva00 wrote: post #131
Akranazon wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not interested in debating the grab-bag of ways life is better in Sweden than in California. I've said this before, but every "US vs Europe work" debate ends with the European patronizingly scolding the American for thinking money is the most important thing in life. I'm also not interested in that. I am only interested in the labor market. You can say the numbers don't matter, but then you've adopted essentially…

> You can say the numbers don't matter, but then you've adopted essentially an unfalsifiable position. Numbers do matter, just not the cherry-picked narrow ones such as "median wage" with disregard for any context, and all other metrics that could somehow quantify quality of life vs purely financial terms. > Another factor to consider is the ease of quitting your job. In the US (at least, I have found), it is quite e…

> and all other metrics that could somehow quantify quality of life vs purely financial terms

If you have measures in non-financial terms, I'm happy to consider those, as long as they have to do with labor market regulations.

> most jobs I had in Europe had a 1-3 months notice period which was easily negotiated if you really wanted to quit on the spot, no company wants to keep a disgruntled worker around

I could quibble that 1-3 months sounds like a shockingly long time from a US perspective, but the bigger problem is the "ease of finding a new job" part of the equation.

> making precarious conditions the default is not great for the less skilled people who prefer stability to keep their families afloat and secure.

The industries which don't experience as much instability are less likely to lay off people anyway. So workers who want stability can self-select into government jobs or something, which offer that stability.

> Not working in "innovation" still has the same precariousness, with no upside

Some industries are less precarious, I would say getting paid nearly twice as much is an upside.

> leave enough people behind and you get MAGA.

I don't think there's any strong evidence that income inequality caused maga. I couldn't find any evidence that poorer people are more likely to support Trump. But let me know if I'm wrong here.

Re: How Europe crushes innovation

#137

Post by Akranazon »

mentalfist wrote: post #61
Akranazon wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think software engineers in the US are paid twice as much as software engineers in Europe? Is it because US is better at crushing workers?

Because their cost of living is insane, the social safety net is shitty, labor protections nonexistent, and they don't get any holidays, among other factors

Almost none of this is true.

Labor protections are indeed less, but this is actually a good thing. Like with many free-market topics, "labor protections" are a very dangerous thing, because they are a policy that sounds extremely good to the voting public, but many economists can tell you it's actually bad. US just got lucky, that it tricked the public to vote against it.

Re: How Europe crushes innovation

#138

Post by zvr »

gwbas1c wrote: post #123
latexr wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've spent most of my career in the 4/ths of startups that aren't wildly successful. That has nothing to do with the point. And again, you’re only focusing on one type of job which is not the only one which exists . There are other people in the world. > I've done pretty well for myself. Of course I want more, but I'm well past the point of "enough." And therein lies the issue. No, it’s not “of course”, that idea o…

This one quote summarizes the whole point of the article: > Rather, the sheer difficulty of shedding staff en masse—a reality of corporate life—steers Europe’s biggest companies away from making risky bets in innovative fields. And then the article goes on to defend that point. It explains the difference in cost here: > An American firm shedding workers will incur costs equivalent to paying those sacked for seven mon…

Of course this applies to any business.

So your position is that there is no economically feasible way in Europe to open an new restaurant, bakery, hair or nail salon, or any other new enterprise. Yet reality shows that somehow such activities exist and keep happening.

Re: How Europe crushes innovation

#139

Post by gwbas1c »

zvr wrote: post #138
gwbas1c wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This one quote summarizes the whole point of the article: > Rather, the sheer difficulty of shedding staff en masse—a reality of corporate life—steers Europe’s biggest companies away from making risky bets in innovative fields. And then the article goes on to defend that point. It explains the difference in cost here: > An American firm shedding workers will incur costs equivalent to paying those sacked for seven mon…

Of course this applies to any business. So your position is that there is no economically feasible way in Europe to open an new restaurant, bakery, hair or nail salon, or any other new enterprise. Yet reality shows that somehow such activities exist and keep happening.

I never said that.

Restaurants, bakeries, hair and nail salons are not startups and do not do product development. Their market is known before the business is opened. Running one of those businesses is extremely different than a tech startup, where the risk is from not knowing what the market will be for the product in development.

(And you should know that, given that this message board you caters to the startup crowd, and is sponsored by a company that educates people on how to run a startup.)

I encourage you to read through YCombinator's "startup school" materials to understand the fundamental difference.

Re: How Europe crushes innovation

#140

Post by gwbas1c »

latexr wrote: post #112
gwbas1c wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You’re also ignoring the argument of the article. No I'm not. I've spent most of my career in the 4/ths of startups that aren't wildly successful. I've also walked away from situations where I wouldn't get paid because I'm not financially independent. I'm not "rolling in dough," but I've done pretty well for myself. Of course I want more, but I'm well past the point of "enough."

> I've spent most of my career in the 4/ths of startups that aren't wildly successful. That has nothing to do with the point. And again, you’re only focusing on one type of job which is not the only one which exists . There are other people in the world. > I've done pretty well for myself. Of course I want more, but I'm well past the point of "enough." And therein lies the issue. No, it’s not “of course”, that idea o…

You might want to look at "Why Liberalism Failed", specifically the chapter "The New Aristocracy."

The section "Classical Liberalism: Roots of the New Aristocracy", summarizes the fundamental philosophy behind why a certain amount of inequality is embraced in classically liberal countries (IE, democracies): Overall, it rises everyone's everyone's living standards; even the poor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Liberalism_Failed

(Just a warning: The author is very conservative and outspoken about social issues. Try to read to understand the author's opinion, instead of reading to agree or disagree.)

Post reply on HN