I'd rather live in a society with strong labor protections than one that is "more innovative", whatever that means.
You might. In aggregate far more people wanna move from Europe to US then opposite.
How Europe crushes innovation
81–90 of 146 posts
Re: How Europe crushes innovation
#82This has been the case for over 40 years by now. Europe has been lucky or has made the best of it, but imagine: 40 years of hobbled economy!
But European firms have found some workarounds. For example, lots of engineers are owned, I mean, salaried by service companies who then contract that manpower to whoever wants some. A large company can then modulate year after year how many engineers of what kind they want to work for them. It adds a layer of intermediaries who collect a profit and shuffle paperwork - more costly - but engineers expect less salary to begin with. And this provides less control on who exactly does the work - which perhaps doesn't matter for the bulk of workers. But that's all easier than firing lots of people. It also makes it much easier to modulate between local and offshore engineering groups.
Pooling engineers is big business.
Re: How Europe crushes innovation
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because labor protection costs money. If you get something from that, that's net boosting your economy, you have no problem. If not, you get social cohesion, at a price. Somebody is paying that price. If it's companies they are disincentivized to employ people in your market. If companies go somewhere else to employ people, jobs disappear from your market. If the jobs disappear, so does the money.
> 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.
Re: How Europe crushes innovation
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
> efficiency has been only increasing Through innovation.
> Through innovation. done by the workforce. The financial benefits of worker innovation flow upwards, first to shareholders then to executives. Whatever is left over is claimed by expenses, modernization and as low a wage as can be engineered.
Yes, the workers innovate, rather than the shareholders or management. I think that's the understood context of this discussion/reality. I think this is a tangent of the above.
Re: How Europe crushes innovation
#85It is indeed pretty impossible to fire people who don't want to be fired. It's still possible to spin up a subsidiary and hire people into it and if doesn't work out, well, it didn't work out. Is it even the most commons reason why companies do layoffs? Sounds like a propaganda piece to suppress both wages and rights here.
> It is indeed pretty impossible to fire people It isn't really. In fact, it's usually very easy: you just have to follow the exact procedure that is written down for you. Every example I've seen when people have claimed differently, they haven't followed that procedure. Literally every time.
It’s very easy: spend an insane amount of money, usually at a time when your business can’t afford it.
Re: How Europe crushes innovation
#86The article is really making the point that shitting on workers is OK—desirable even!—so that individual companies can make trillions of dollars. “Innovation” to the author equals making money, and being unable to sack hundreds of people at once with complete disregard for them or the social impact it causes is seen as a negative.
The case is very simple: Working on risky ventures requires the ability to lay people off when the venture is not profitable. When only 1/5 risky ventures is profitable, you can't expect a business to take a risk if the likely result is severe financial penalties for failure.
"I want to take risks exploiting workers. Taking risks treating them fairly is risky".
Re: How Europe crushes innovation
#87I would add an aspect that is not covered here but is often ignored: the strong labour protection laws result in a mentality where if you get a good job you are much less likely to want to take risks e.g. start your own business. There was a post on the HENRY (high earner, not rich yet) UK subreddit the other day from someone who had a wealth of experience and had the opportunity to join a start up as a CTO. It hones…
And that was sound advice.
I had the opportunity to move to the US and likely make 2-3x what I make in Europe.
My question is - what for? I earn enough money here that I could buy a nice house and raise my family in relative comfort. Why take unnecessary risk when I already have what I want?
Re: How Europe crushes innovation
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is indeed pretty impossible to fire people It isn't really. In fact, it's usually very easy: you just have to follow the exact procedure that is written down for you. Every example I've seen when people have claimed differently, they haven't followed that procedure. Literally every time.
It’s very easy: spend an insane amount of money, usually at a time when your business can’t afford it.
That's not how it works. You just can't fire at will.
If your business can't afford to fire people it probably shouldn't be hiring too.
Re: How Europe crushes innovation
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
How nicely you ask. I arrived at them by division. Since you ask so nicely, it gives me pleasure to provide further details: - This link discusses the 2025 EU budget: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-annual-budget... there are two numbers. It is unclear if the budget is the sum, or if one number includes the other. But let's add them for an annual budget of approx 250bn EUR - EU GDP is around 20tn EUR a…
As I suspected, there isn’t much there. What about individual member state expenditures (perhaps even limited to spending on things required by EU law)? OP’s point may have been silly, but this really isn’t any better.
Oh great oracle, I bow to your superior thinking.
Might you share then how the EU is a money grab for Brussels Eurocrats? With at least the level of detail you got from me?
Re: How Europe crushes innovation
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
The case is very simple: Working on risky ventures requires the ability to lay people off when the venture is not profitable. When only 1/5 risky ventures is profitable, you can't expect a business to take a risk if the likely result is severe financial penalties for failure.
I understand the argument the article is making. The point I’m making is that “innovation” which consists of a select few being better off at the expense of the majority is not something to be celebrated.
> at the expense of the majority
I disagree
First, the vast majority of tech work is not in risky startups.
Second, the risk is known. That is why high salaries are negotiated going into startups.
Third, most comprehension is not in equity. Startup employees do invest in their retirement outside of their equity.
Fourth, anyone can invest in software in the public market and through institutional investments like mutual funds, ETFs, ect.
---
Criticize the system if you want. What's better? Feudalism? Communism? They're all much worse. Maybe someday someone will care enough to figure out a better system that doesn't repeat the mistakes of the past.