4 ms·

Well the British recovery was almost certainly slowed by the introduction of austerity following the return of the Conservatives to power. The European (i.e Eu

Well the British recovery was almost certainly slowed by the introduction of austerity following the return of the Conservatives to power. The European (i.e Eurozone/EU) recovery was knocked back by the raising of interest rates by the ECB in 2011. And finally, the US did recover better because they put a lot more proportionally into stimulus (even though it wasn't enough, as later events showed). I'm not sure that you can suggest that the flexible labour market was a cause of that (and indeed, one would have expected the UK to recover quicker than the rest of Europe then, as they have more flexible labour laws).

simonh 6y ago
Nowhere near as flexible as the US though. The ability to hire and fire quickly without high costs has helped the USA recover from crises many times in the past as well. Employers in countries with high protections for workers are often reluctant to hire because it costs so much to slim down the work force once you employ them. It's not like the aftermath of 2008 was the first time this has ever been tested. To be clear I'm not saying their system is superior, I think it goes too far. Poverty and what I consider labour exploitation are much more common over there. Also I think it's pretty clear now that significant increases in minimum wages don't seem to significantly increase unemployment, for example, but on severance pay particularly it's pretty clear this is a tradeoff.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  The US did not "recover" from 2008. It retooled its economy even further towards precarious hiring, with predictably disastrous political consequences. There are proven links between economic insecurity and the rise of political extremism, and it's manifestly incorrect to suggest that corporate economics operates in a moral and political vacuum with no political consequences. http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/74766/1/EPS_2018_accepted%20version.pdf http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/74766/1/EPS_2018_accepted%20ver...

simonh 6y ago

Nowhere near as flexible as the US though. The ability to hire and fire quickly without high costs has helped the USA recover from crises many times in the past as well. Employers in countries with high protections for workers are often reluctant to hire because it costs so much to slim down the work force once you employ them. It's not like the aftermath of 2008 was the first time this has ever been tested. To be clear I'm not saying their system is superior, I think it goes too far. Poverty and what I consider labour exploitation are much more common over there. Also I think it's pretty clear now that significant increases in minimum wages don't seem to significantly increase unemployment, for example, but on severance pay particularly it's pretty clear this is a tradeoff.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
The US did not "recover" from 2008. It retooled its economy even further towards precarious hiring, with predictably disastrous political consequences. There are proven links between economic insecurity and the rise of political extremism, and it's manifestly incorrect to suggest that corporate economics operates in a moral and political vacuum with no political consequences. http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/74766/1/EPS_2018_accepted%20version.pdf http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/74766/1/EPS_2018_accepted%20ver...