4 ms·

Except in France, unemployment is 10% while in the US it's 4%. My point on this is that it's a lot bigger of a risk to start a company in France, it's harder to

Except in France, unemployment is 10% while in the US it's 4%. My point on this is that it's a lot bigger of a risk to start a company in France, it's harder to hire and fire and thus it makes it a more risk-adverse environment. So the thought experiment -- is it better for someone to work for a year and then get fired unexpectedly or not work at all and collect unemployment money for 3 years? I thought about opening an office in France for a dev team, but after looking at the real costs -- there's no way I could afford it. The actual salaries are fine, but adding in social charges, then all of the ridiculous "protections" -- it's easier for me to hire guys in Serbia, pay them well while not having the financial risk of having to take care of employees when my business may not be able to support them. So there are 5 French engineers that aren't working now and 5 Serbians that are because I can't afford the risk of hiring French workers because as the business owner, I'm the "bad guy" -- despite funding my little company out of my own pocket and not even being able to pay myself a salary. To be on the hook for French social benefits and the job protections when I can't even provide that for myself? No thanks. So I've had Serbian devs for the past 2 years and exactly zero French devs -- despite paying the Serbians the same net salary I would have paid the French. I'm an anecdote, but that's the other side of this "protection" that EU workers "benefit" from -- it's great when they DO have a job, but there are countless jobs that don't exist precisely because of these policies -- and the jobs that do exist pay far less than American jobs (despite similar living costs) because companies have to price the risks into the salaries they offer. So rather than paying a dev $100k per year plus benefits -- a French company would pay $40k per year plus benefits. Then they have roughly 1.5 years of "cushion" in case they're stuck with an employee they can't simply fire. Before folks start to talk about how France has better social benefits and thus a lower salary is ok.. Net disposable income is vastly less than in the US. And, US companies provide health/disability/etc. benefits in addition to a higher salary. So the idea that French companies pay a lower salary because health insurance is free is just ridiculous -- since French companies aren't paying for health insurance, they should be able to pay even higher salaries than the US right? But the reason they don't is because they have to hedge the risk that they can't fire this employee. I'd rather work an uncertain year at $150k than three years of $40k guaranteed, but that's just me. I'm an optimist while most French I know are decidedly pessimistic.

avar 9y ago
I'm sympathetic to your general point but it doesn't seem very relevant to this discussion. It's one thing to have employment law where you can't hire/fire people at will. I agree that's relatively inflexible and I'd prefer the American model (as a European). There's no free lunch here, you either need to pay for this out of your taxes (as in France), or pay lower taxes and save for the unexpected loss of job yourself (as in the US). It's an entirely different thing that a company can't meet its basic contractual obligations, i.e. the ability to pay salaries. That's a case where a contract was made, there seems to be something very wrong with basic US corporate law that would allow this to happen, i.e. a company should have enough assets on hand to pay salaries in the event that it goes bankrupt. In most of Europe companies are obligated to insure against this eventuality. I can't drive a car on public roads without insurance, why should a company be allowed to operate if it isn't insured against failure to meet its basic contract obligations?
- smokeyj 9y ago
  > I'm sympathetic to your general point but it doesn't seem very relevant to this discussion. That you should judge the economy as a whole instead of picking one aspect and extrapolating what "our values are". Europeans tend to view issues through a classist lens. That society is split up into the workers, and the capitalists, and that your ranking in the social hierarchy is solidified. For better or worse, we don't see it that way. Today you're a worker, tomorrow you're a business owner. I would say America has more workers-turned-entrepreneur than anywhere else in the world. We have more millionaires who came from "worker" background than anywhere. I've seen it first hand on multiple occasions. I've seen immigrants come to this country with nothing, work incredibly hard, build a business from scratch, and turn into employers in their community. It's the story of my family and many others here. If the barrier for these immigrants starting a business was anything like complying with EU regulation - I promise you these businesses and their communities would not exist.
  - avar 9y ago
    I don't understand what you think any of this has to do with the topic of unpaid wages owed to workers. Do you think a critical part of the American success story is the ability of these workers-turned-entrepreneurs to skimp out on paying them the wages they owe?

avar 9y ago

I'm sympathetic to your general point but it doesn't seem very relevant to this discussion. It's one thing to have employment law where you can't hire/fire people at will. I agree that's relatively inflexible and I'd prefer the American model (as a European). There's no free lunch here, you either need to pay for this out of your taxes (as in France), or pay lower taxes and save for the unexpected loss of job yourself (as in the US). It's an entirely different thing that a company can't meet its basic contractual obligations, i.e. the ability to pay salaries. That's a case where a contract was made, there seems to be something very wrong with basic US corporate law that would allow this to happen, i.e. a company should have enough assets on hand to pay salaries in the event that it goes bankrupt. In most of Europe companies are obligated to insure against this eventuality. I can't drive a car on public roads without insurance, why should a company be allowed to operate if it isn't insured against failure to meet its basic contract obligations?

smokeyj 9y ago
> I'm sympathetic to your general point but it doesn't seem very relevant to this discussion. That you should judge the economy as a whole instead of picking one aspect and extrapolating what "our values are". Europeans tend to view issues through a classist lens. That society is split up into the workers, and the capitalists, and that your ranking in the social hierarchy is solidified. For better or worse, we don't see it that way. Today you're a worker, tomorrow you're a business owner. I would say America has more workers-turned-entrepreneur than anywhere else in the world. We have more millionaires who came from "worker" background than anywhere. I've seen it first hand on multiple occasions. I've seen immigrants come to this country with nothing, work incredibly hard, build a business from scratch, and turn into employers in their community. It's the story of my family and many others here. If the barrier for these immigrants starting a business was anything like complying with EU regulation - I promise you these businesses and their communities would not exist.
- avar 9y ago
  I don't understand what you think any of this has to do with the topic of unpaid wages owed to workers. Do you think a critical part of the American success story is the ability of these workers-turned-entrepreneurs to skimp out on paying them the wages they owe?