6 ms·

This reply comes from completely internalizing the perspective the above post describes. It only makes sense if you accept that the employer is supposed to comp

by bo1024 6y ago

This reply comes from completely internalizing the perspective the above post describes. It only makes sense if you accept that the employer is supposed to completely care for their employees. But if you view it as society’s job, then everything changes. For one thing, small mom n pop stores can compete with Walmart a lot easier if healthcare is provided by the state. Also employees can quit if they’re not treated well, etc.

griffinkelly 6y ago
From a startup perspective, I've always thought it interesting that more people in Europe/rest of the world don't take chances to create companies because of the great safety net there--at least its not as highly publicized. For whatever reason, the US is still the place to be and everyone wants to come to the US to start a company--my current company included (We have Canadian founders). I quit my job and thanks to the insurance changes in the US a few years ago, I was able to stay on my parents health insurance for a meaningful amount of time. It allowed me to take the chance of starting my own company. Unsure if I would have done the same, had circumstances been different.
- pbiggar 6y ago
  Startups are in the US because of a long chain of decisions and network effects that ultimately come from US military spending in the 60s. > I quit my job and thanks to the insurance changes in the US a few years ago So you're saying that you were able to take the chance to build a startup because of the safety net?
  - griffinkelly 6y ago
    Yeah, had President Obama not made that change and extended health insurance to 26, I would have thought harder about quitting my job.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Sure, a safety net paid for by employers, not the gov’t.
    - pbiggar 6y ago
      Once you agree a safety net is a net positive, then it comes down to implementation. In this case, the employer is the parent's employer. Which means that the people who can take the risk to create startups is limited to "people whose parents have health insurance". Which excludes a large section of society, including for example poor people. (also--and this might be a bit of a jump for someone just learning about inequality of opportunity--but a fun thing to research online is "why is the US the only country with employer-based health insurance", especially once you discover the answer is "slavery")!
      - erik_seaberg 6y ago
        During World War II, the US government imposed price controls to prevent the market from reflecting the reality of shortages. Employers started competing by offering health insurance because they were barred from raising wages.
        pbiggar 6y ago
        Thanks for the correction! I actually confused my facts here - it's tipping I was thinking of that comes directly from slavery. Employer-paid health care just _continues_ because of racism, as opposed to being created by it.
- Aunche 6y ago
  Europe probably has about as many startups as the US if not more. There certainly seem to be a lot more independent contractor software engineers. The bottleneck to highly publicized startups is investors. Investors are less likely to let people use their money if they think the government will get in the way of their growth.
  - amznthrwaway 6y ago
    the US Venture Capital industry was kicked off by the US government, who created a program where they were backing venture funds with $3 to every $1 of private capital. That's what kickstarted Silicon Valley, eventually leading to enough private capital and expertise in that sort of investing that VC became what it is today. European countries did not take that action 60 years ago, and thus are on a different path today. If regulations were the primary issue, Silicon Valley would be in a low regulation state. It is in a high reg state because it is primarily about the long-lasting knock-on effects of the investment program.
- whywhywhywhy 6y ago
  It’s only a safety net to you. If you have free healthcare your entire life you don’t think of it as a safety net it’s just something you expect. And the sort of worries Americans have about healthcare stopping you from starting a business we just move those worries elsewhere to rent or whatever.
- fractionalhare 6y ago
  Others are responding in a way that explains your premise, but I actually reject the premise. Specifically, I do not think this is true: > From a startup perspective, I've always thought it interesting that more people in Europe/rest of the world don't take chances to create companies because of the great safety net there -- at least its not as highly publicized. There are a lot of startups in Europe; particularly France, UK, Germany, Switzerland and Scandanavia, and they are well publicized locally. I hypothesize they don't get surfaced to the attention of Americans for a few reasons: 1. Essentially no country in Europe provides businesses with as many freedoms as America does. American businesses have more autonomy, and a lot of basic facts about American life primarily exist within the framework of a business (e.g. healthcare). This makes it a less attractive environment for investors, so these startups don't get international attention as easily. 2. Partly as a result of #1, and also because of a reduced cost of living (and thereby labor) in much of Europe, startups in Europe typically don't pay as well as those in America. This is to say that Europe has lots of entrepreneurialism, it just exists in a less recognizable way compred to America due to cultural, political and economic differences.
  - amznthrwaway 6y ago
    reason 0: EU startups focus on the EU market first.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    There's another factor worth mentioning: Europe provides a better social net, and this is funded in larger part by heavier taxes on companies. To encourage entrepreneurship, small companies are exempted from many taxes and regulations, which causes there to be a more prominent cliff as a company grows from small to large. This is perhaps most noticeable in France, where a lot of stuff kicks in with your 50th employee, and so there are a great deal more companies with 49 employees than 50 employees. I think a consequence of this is that European entrepreneurs tend not to result in as many large companies as American entrepreneurs, as you'll have more people who stop at a smaller size to avoid the penalties of being large.
- novok 6y ago
  It's easier to bootstrap in Europe, it's harder to go further than that because of much higher regulatory barriers (ex: need to implement GDPR from day one) and a lack of investment dollars relatively. Also since it's more comfortable, european startups looks more like Radical Fish Games (from germany) or Bear (from Italy) than they do like Spotify or Nokia.
- specialist 6y ago
  USA might be better for startups than else where (I have no idea), but it's definitely gotten objectively worse since the 70s, measured by number of companies started every year, number of publicly traded companies, and so forth. IMHO, universal healthcare and childcare would indirectly lead to a lot of new startups.
hrktb 6y ago
> if you view it as society’s job It makes sense with a system like a universal basic income. Where we stand now, society is expecting everyone being supported by one or more (self)employed jobs, so underpaying people is unacceptable. I'd argue a change like UBI should come first before lifting the need for companies to pay their employees better.
michaelmrose 6y ago
In a truly free market with no government fingers on the scale no worker would ever work for less than is required to live or at least they wouldn't work for long at such a wage. People factor in the assistance they expect to receive when taking a job in terms of food, healthcare, and money when they take a job that will with assistance provide them the means to live. It is not unheard of at some low paying employers to guide new employees to benefit programs to help them meet their needs. In effect such programs reduce the market clearing price for labor at the expense of other tax payers. Such program often require that the recipients work but not for how much. At the limit sufficiently generous benefits could inspire someone to work for $1 per year and you could subsidize taco bells entire workforce but the minimum wage and the limits of federal dollars both prevent this.
- andrepd 6y ago
  >In a truly free market with no government fingers on the scale no worker would ever work for less than is required to live or at least they wouldn't work for long at such a wage. I don't know how you're even supposed to go from such a premise that is demonstrably, empirically false.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    If you don't make enough to have a place to live, medicine, and food you die or at least your life falls apart. How is that false. Some people make so little money they would at that wage not be able to sustain life. These people sustain themselves via government benefits in addition to wages.
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      Well, the real truth is that we're all able to survive on very low wages. If your options are shit job that delays death 10 years or die now, you take the shit job. Bare survival is very cheap in America.
      - michaelmrose 6y ago
briandear 6y ago
If healthcare was provided by the state, Mom and Pop stores wouldn’t be able to easily afford to operate. In France, it’s extremely expensive for small businesses to hire workers and the advantages go to the large companies who can afford to pay those “social charges.” If you pay a worker €20,000 in France, it costs the employer €40,000 for that worker. Then the €20,000 wage is also taxed at a high percentage. The result is. That France has very low per capita disposable income than does the US. Anytime government “runs” something, there is a non-trivial deadweight loss incurred. We need to find ways to increase efficiency, not hamper it.

by bo1024 6y ago

griffinkelly 6y ago

From a startup perspective, I've always thought it interesting that more people in Europe/rest of the world don't take chances to create companies because of the great safety net there--at least its not as highly publicized. For whatever reason, the US is still the place to be and everyone wants to come to the US to start a company--my current company included (We have Canadian founders). I quit my job and thanks to the insurance changes in the US a few years ago, I was able to stay on my parents health insurance for a meaningful amount of time. It allowed me to take the chance of starting my own company. Unsure if I would have done the same, had circumstances been different.

pbiggar 6y ago
Startups are in the US because of a long chain of decisions and network effects that ultimately come from US military spending in the 60s. > I quit my job and thanks to the insurance changes in the US a few years ago So you're saying that you were able to take the chance to build a startup because of the safety net?
- griffinkelly 6y ago
  Yeah, had President Obama not made that change and extended health insurance to 26, I would have thought harder about quitting my job.
- refurb 6y ago
  Sure, a safety net paid for by employers, not the gov’t.
  - pbiggar 6y ago
    Once you agree a safety net is a net positive, then it comes down to implementation. In this case, the employer is the parent's employer. Which means that the people who can take the risk to create startups is limited to "people whose parents have health insurance". Which excludes a large section of society, including for example poor people. (also--and this might be a bit of a jump for someone just learning about inequality of opportunity--but a fun thing to research online is "why is the US the only country with employer-based health insurance", especially once you discover the answer is "slavery")!
    - erik_seaberg 6y ago
      During World War II, the US government imposed price controls to prevent the market from reflecting the reality of shortages. Employers started competing by offering health insurance because they were barred from raising wages.
      - pbiggar 6y ago
        Thanks for the correction! I actually confused my facts here - it's tipping I was thinking of that comes directly from slavery. Employer-paid health care just _continues_ because of racism, as opposed to being created by it.
Aunche 6y ago
Europe probably has about as many startups as the US if not more. There certainly seem to be a lot more independent contractor software engineers. The bottleneck to highly publicized startups is investors. Investors are less likely to let people use their money if they think the government will get in the way of their growth.
- amznthrwaway 6y ago
  the US Venture Capital industry was kicked off by the US government, who created a program where they were backing venture funds with $3 to every $1 of private capital. That's what kickstarted Silicon Valley, eventually leading to enough private capital and expertise in that sort of investing that VC became what it is today. European countries did not take that action 60 years ago, and thus are on a different path today. If regulations were the primary issue, Silicon Valley would be in a low regulation state. It is in a high reg state because it is primarily about the long-lasting knock-on effects of the investment program.
whywhywhywhy 6y ago
It’s only a safety net to you. If you have free healthcare your entire life you don’t think of it as a safety net it’s just something you expect. And the sort of worries Americans have about healthcare stopping you from starting a business we just move those worries elsewhere to rent or whatever.
fractionalhare 6y ago
Others are responding in a way that explains your premise, but I actually reject the premise. Specifically, I do not think this is true: > From a startup perspective, I've always thought it interesting that more people in Europe/rest of the world don't take chances to create companies because of the great safety net there -- at least its not as highly publicized. There are a lot of startups in Europe; particularly France, UK, Germany, Switzerland and Scandanavia, and they are well publicized locally. I hypothesize they don't get surfaced to the attention of Americans for a few reasons: 1. Essentially no country in Europe provides businesses with as many freedoms as America does. American businesses have more autonomy, and a lot of basic facts about American life primarily exist within the framework of a business (e.g. healthcare). This makes it a less attractive environment for investors, so these startups don't get international attention as easily. 2. Partly as a result of #1, and also because of a reduced cost of living (and thereby labor) in much of Europe, startups in Europe typically don't pay as well as those in America. This is to say that Europe has lots of entrepreneurialism, it just exists in a less recognizable way compred to America due to cultural, political and economic differences.
- amznthrwaway 6y ago
  reason 0: EU startups focus on the EU market first.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  There's another factor worth mentioning: Europe provides a better social net, and this is funded in larger part by heavier taxes on companies. To encourage entrepreneurship, small companies are exempted from many taxes and regulations, which causes there to be a more prominent cliff as a company grows from small to large. This is perhaps most noticeable in France, where a lot of stuff kicks in with your 50th employee, and so there are a great deal more companies with 49 employees than 50 employees. I think a consequence of this is that European entrepreneurs tend not to result in as many large companies as American entrepreneurs, as you'll have more people who stop at a smaller size to avoid the penalties of being large.
novok 6y ago
It's easier to bootstrap in Europe, it's harder to go further than that because of much higher regulatory barriers (ex: need to implement GDPR from day one) and a lack of investment dollars relatively. Also since it's more comfortable, european startups looks more like Radical Fish Games (from germany) or Bear (from Italy) than they do like Spotify or Nokia.
specialist 6y ago
USA might be better for startups than else where (I have no idea), but it's definitely gotten objectively worse since the 70s, measured by number of companies started every year, number of publicly traded companies, and so forth. IMHO, universal healthcare and childcare would indirectly lead to a lot of new startups.

hrktb 6y ago

> if you view it as society’s job It makes sense with a system like a universal basic income. Where we stand now, society is expecting everyone being supported by one or more (self)employed jobs, so underpaying people is unacceptable. I'd argue a change like UBI should come first before lifting the need for companies to pay their employees better.

michaelmrose 6y ago

In a truly free market with no government fingers on the scale no worker would ever work for less than is required to live or at least they wouldn't work for long at such a wage. People factor in the assistance they expect to receive when taking a job in terms of food, healthcare, and money when they take a job that will with assistance provide them the means to live. It is not unheard of at some low paying employers to guide new employees to benefit programs to help them meet their needs. In effect such programs reduce the market clearing price for labor at the expense of other tax payers. Such program often require that the recipients work but not for how much. At the limit sufficiently generous benefits could inspire someone to work for $1 per year and you could subsidize taco bells entire workforce but the minimum wage and the limits of federal dollars both prevent this.

andrepd 6y ago
>In a truly free market with no government fingers on the scale no worker would ever work for less than is required to live or at least they wouldn't work for long at such a wage. I don't know how you're even supposed to go from such a premise that is demonstrably, empirically false.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  If you don't make enough to have a place to live, medicine, and food you die or at least your life falls apart. How is that false. Some people make so little money they would at that wage not be able to sustain life. These people sustain themselves via government benefits in addition to wages.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Well, the real truth is that we're all able to survive on very low wages. If your options are shit job that delays death 10 years or die now, you take the shit job. Bare survival is very cheap in America.
    - michaelmrose 6y ago

briandear 6y ago

If healthcare was provided by the state, Mom and Pop stores wouldn’t be able to easily afford to operate. In France, it’s extremely expensive for small businesses to hire workers and the advantages go to the large companies who can afford to pay those “social charges.” If you pay a worker €20,000 in France, it costs the employer €40,000 for that worker. Then the €20,000 wage is also taxed at a high percentage. The result is. That France has very low per capita disposable income than does the US. Anytime government “runs” something, there is a non-trivial deadweight loss incurred. We need to find ways to increase efficiency, not hamper it.