6 ms·

Low Barriers Are A Good Thing

61 points by macournoyer_ 16y ago

SlyShy 16y ago
Denmark is an interesting case study of this working very well to encourage a competitive economy. In Denmark it is extremely easy to fire people, but also very easy to hire people. This actually decreases unemployment, because companies can easily downsize during recessions, weather the storm, and then hire the workers back (unlike in the US where companies have to hang on to contracts while in a downturn). http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7880198 http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story...
- arach 16y ago
  This is quite interesting. Thanks for the link. It seems they are at their limit. Quote from the Economist story: "Moreover, despite enviably low unemployment and labour shortages in industries from construction to health care, the Danes are having difficulties nudging the long-term unemployed into work. The post office complains that it cannot recruit new postmen. Newspaper distributors have started importing delivery boys from Poland. One ferry operator's effort to recruit 365 new workers was stymied by an epidemic of seasickness among the unemployed who applied. Even in Denmark, it seems, would-be workers have their limitations."
  - anamax 16y ago
    > It seems they are at their limit. Ease of hire/fire isn't the only factor affecting employment. The easier it is for me to make it without working, the less likely I am to work, no matter how much someone might want to hire me.
- j_baker 16y ago
  That is pretty interesting. Perhaps this is part of the reason denmark is such a happy place: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=4086092&page=1 http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=4086092&page=1
- goatforce5 16y ago
  NPR's Planet Money recently did a couple of podcasts about Denmark which echoes the points you mention. They also point our there's little or no stigma attached to being fired from a job in Denmark. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/01/podcast_the_awesomest_economy.html http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/01/podcast_the_awesomest... http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/01/podcast_tax_me_please.html http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/01/podcast_tax_me_please...
- hristov 16y ago
  This only works if there are high unemployment benefits. Otherwise, this kind of system will just turn even the slightest recession into a terrible crash. When a recession happens, every company lays off people to keep profitability high, but the laid off people will stop spending, and then demand for goods and services will go down and then companies will lay off more people to match demand, but those people will stop spending too, so there will be a feedback cycle that will cause a world wide crash. And this is not just speculation, this is what actually happened in the 50 or so years before the new deal when you had continuous boom and bust cycles. Again this does not happen in Denmark because of their generous government unemployment benefits, but if you do not have said benefits, it is asking for trouble.
- sielskr 16y ago
  > unlike in the US where companies have to hang on to contracts while in a downturn What is your basis for believing that US companies cannot downsize as easily as Danish ones or that their costs in hiring and firing are higher? Were you an employee or hiring manager in both countries?
j_baker 16y ago
I don't necessarily disagree with the thesis of this post, but this seems a bit of a tangent. Was Calcanis really advocating the French model? More than likely he was just venting over high turnover.
- arach 16y ago
  Yes. Calacanis may have just been an excuse. More than likely Gary was just venting over the French model :)
- strlen 16y ago
  When there's high turn over at a company, it's almost always the fault of management. There's a great Russian proverb: don't blame the mirror if your face is ugly. When your employees are leaving after a few months, the one at fault is you, not professionals in other companies staying a few years on the job.
grellas 16y ago
I wouldn't be too quick to assume that bouncing around a lot will not have an adverse impact on your future ability to get hired for a good position - while it may not matter in some contexts, it definitely will for many jobs (including the best ones), where an employer will likely want to hire people who will stick and grow with the company. Repeated hires are a cost and a drain for companies, and employers will definitely consider the intangible of whether you are likely to stay as a non-trivial factor affecting the hiring decision. At the very least, if you bounce around a lot, you will be limiting your options for many future hires. This is not to justify the parting shot given to the employee here. But don't lose perspective on this issue either.
- mynyml 16y ago
  I'm tempted to believe that companies that prefer long term employment are the ones that need to train employees for their specific needs. Companies that make use of transferable skills instead increase their chances of a new hire quickly picking up where the previous employee left. e.g. a web dev, in a FOSS shop that uses well known best practices.
  - arach 16y ago
    > I'm tempted to believe that companies that prefer long term employment are the ones that need to train employees for their specific needs. Great point!
  - halostatue 16y ago
    Or they—like my company—have complex code bases in complex languages (C++) that mean that you're not going to be an effective developer for anywhere from 3 - 6 months after hiring. It has nothing to do with training you for our specific needs, but everything to do with the fact that in a mature codebase there's lots of moving parts that can easily be broken, and there may be older choices that may not make sense because you weren't around when the choice was made. Candidates with short-term employment backgrounds aren't a problem, per se. We want you to be a long-term employee because you like it at our company and want to contribute to something meaningfully. We don't want to be a short-term paycheque job.
angelbob 16y ago
Technically I suppose I might be a "Gen Y" something-or-other, though at 33 I feel too old to be a "trophy kid". But I'm a firm believer in the idea that if you change companies frequently, but also get large, valuable projects done, it all evens out pretty well. Then again, perhaps that's just me rationalizing looking like a flake. Still, I'm a flake who has put together some good projects, and made some folks decent money. I'm okay with that.
- starkfist 16y ago
  At 33 you're Gen X.
  - joubert 16y ago
    What's gonna happen after Gen Z? Will counting wrap as in a spreadsheet?
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - _delirium 16y ago
      Gen [, maybe? Not that catchy, though.
    - davidmurphy 16y ago
      Gen AA
    - qw 16y ago
      There are other alphabets that continue, like Norwegian (Generation Æ). This gives us three additional generations to find an alternative (Generation Æ, Ø and Å). Chinese will probably replace English as a global language anyway by the time Generation Å is born.
      - losethos 16y ago
        China hasn't innovated much. Maybe, Africa will become dominate. They make music. Did China kill-off their intellectuals periodically in history. Brilliant. Stuck-em in labor camps and shit. Camere rouge killed-off intellectuals. Geniuses. Ba ha.
exit 16y ago
read that tweet as free advice not to work for calacanis here's the full exchange between employer and employee: http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:h1M0xdV67_EJ:pastebin.com/PSY4iYZ0+http://pastebin.com/PSY4iYZ0&hl=en&strip=1 http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:h1M0xdV67_EJ:pastebin.co...
- fizx 16y ago
  Wow, that's ugly.
  - zackattack 16y ago
    I understand Jason's perspective though. Unfortunately his attempt to minimize morale tax backfired

61 points by macournoyer_ 16y ago

Denmark is an interesting case study of this working very well to encourage a competitive economy. In Denmark it is extremely easy to fire people, but also very easy to hire people. This actually decreases unemployment, because companies can easily downsize during recessions, weather the storm, and then hire the workers back (unlike in the US where companies have to hang on to contracts while in a downturn). http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7880198 http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story...

arach 16y ago
This is quite interesting. Thanks for the link. It seems they are at their limit. Quote from the Economist story: "Moreover, despite enviably low unemployment and labour shortages in industries from construction to health care, the Danes are having difficulties nudging the long-term unemployed into work. The post office complains that it cannot recruit new postmen. Newspaper distributors have started importing delivery boys from Poland. One ferry operator's effort to recruit 365 new workers was stymied by an epidemic of seasickness among the unemployed who applied. Even in Denmark, it seems, would-be workers have their limitations."
- anamax 16y ago
  > It seems they are at their limit. Ease of hire/fire isn't the only factor affecting employment. The easier it is for me to make it without working, the less likely I am to work, no matter how much someone might want to hire me.
j_baker 16y ago
That is pretty interesting. Perhaps this is part of the reason denmark is such a happy place: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=4086092&page=1 http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=4086092&page=1
goatforce5 16y ago
NPR's Planet Money recently did a couple of podcasts about Denmark which echoes the points you mention. They also point our there's little or no stigma attached to being fired from a job in Denmark. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/01/podcast_the_awesomest_economy.html http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/01/podcast_the_awesomest... http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/01/podcast_tax_me_please.html http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/01/podcast_tax_me_please...
hristov 16y ago
This only works if there are high unemployment benefits. Otherwise, this kind of system will just turn even the slightest recession into a terrible crash. When a recession happens, every company lays off people to keep profitability high, but the laid off people will stop spending, and then demand for goods and services will go down and then companies will lay off more people to match demand, but those people will stop spending too, so there will be a feedback cycle that will cause a world wide crash. And this is not just speculation, this is what actually happened in the 50 or so years before the new deal when you had continuous boom and bust cycles. Again this does not happen in Denmark because of their generous government unemployment benefits, but if you do not have said benefits, it is asking for trouble.
sielskr 16y ago
> unlike in the US where companies have to hang on to contracts while in a downturn What is your basis for believing that US companies cannot downsize as easily as Danish ones or that their costs in hiring and firing are higher? Were you an employee or hiring manager in both countries?

j_baker 16y ago

I don't necessarily disagree with the thesis of this post, but this seems a bit of a tangent. Was Calcanis really advocating the French model? More than likely he was just venting over high turnover.

arach 16y ago
Yes. Calacanis may have just been an excuse. More than likely Gary was just venting over the French model :)
strlen 16y ago
When there's high turn over at a company, it's almost always the fault of management. There's a great Russian proverb: don't blame the mirror if your face is ugly. When your employees are leaving after a few months, the one at fault is you, not professionals in other companies staying a few years on the job.

grellas 16y ago

I wouldn't be too quick to assume that bouncing around a lot will not have an adverse impact on your future ability to get hired for a good position - while it may not matter in some contexts, it definitely will for many jobs (including the best ones), where an employer will likely want to hire people who will stick and grow with the company. Repeated hires are a cost and a drain for companies, and employers will definitely consider the intangible of whether you are likely to stay as a non-trivial factor affecting the hiring decision. At the very least, if you bounce around a lot, you will be limiting your options for many future hires. This is not to justify the parting shot given to the employee here. But don't lose perspective on this issue either.

mynyml 16y ago
I'm tempted to believe that companies that prefer long term employment are the ones that need to train employees for their specific needs. Companies that make use of transferable skills instead increase their chances of a new hire quickly picking up where the previous employee left. e.g. a web dev, in a FOSS shop that uses well known best practices.
- arach 16y ago
  > I'm tempted to believe that companies that prefer long term employment are the ones that need to train employees for their specific needs. Great point!
- halostatue 16y ago
  Or they—like my company—have complex code bases in complex languages (C++) that mean that you're not going to be an effective developer for anywhere from 3 - 6 months after hiring. It has nothing to do with training you for our specific needs, but everything to do with the fact that in a mature codebase there's lots of moving parts that can easily be broken, and there may be older choices that may not make sense because you weren't around when the choice was made. Candidates with short-term employment backgrounds aren't a problem, per se. We want you to be a long-term employee because you like it at our company and want to contribute to something meaningfully. We don't want to be a short-term paycheque job.

angelbob 16y ago

Technically I suppose I might be a "Gen Y" something-or-other, though at 33 I feel too old to be a "trophy kid". But I'm a firm believer in the idea that if you change companies frequently, but also get large, valuable projects done, it all evens out pretty well. Then again, perhaps that's just me rationalizing looking like a flake. Still, I'm a flake who has put together some good projects, and made some folks decent money. I'm okay with that.

starkfist 16y ago
At 33 you're Gen X.
- joubert 16y ago
  What's gonna happen after Gen Z? Will counting wrap as in a spreadsheet?
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - _delirium 16y ago
    Gen [, maybe? Not that catchy, though.
  - davidmurphy 16y ago
    Gen AA
  - qw 16y ago
    There are other alphabets that continue, like Norwegian (Generation Æ). This gives us three additional generations to find an alternative (Generation Æ, Ø and Å). Chinese will probably replace English as a global language anyway by the time Generation Å is born.
    - losethos 16y ago
      China hasn't innovated much. Maybe, Africa will become dominate. They make music. Did China kill-off their intellectuals periodically in history. Brilliant. Stuck-em in labor camps and shit. Camere rouge killed-off intellectuals. Geniuses. Ba ha.

exit 16y ago

read that tweet as free advice not to work for calacanis here's the full exchange between employer and employee: http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:h1M0xdV67_EJ:pastebin.com/PSY4iYZ0+http://pastebin.com/PSY4iYZ0&hl=en&strip=1 http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:h1M0xdV67_EJ:pastebin.co...

fizx 16y ago
Wow, that's ugly.
- zackattack 16y ago
  I understand Jason's perspective though. Unfortunately his attempt to minimize morale tax backfired