6 ms·

> If you can be fired easily, you will find a job easily. If there is another economic crisis and nobody is hiring, preventing companies to fire people will ma

> If you can be fired easily, you will find a job easily. If there is another economic crisis and nobody is hiring, preventing companies to fire people will make the crisis even worse. > It is called "job security" An outdated concept of the XX century. No such thing in the post-industrial society. > Unless you count all the mom and pop cafes all over the Mediterranean? They are closing by thousands now, like in every other economic crisis. And Scandinavian startups — what Scandinavian startups? (Finland and Estonia are not Scandinavian countries, they have somewhat more business-friendly environment).

eCa 4y ago
> An outdated concept of the XX century. I guess that was suggested in the XIX, XVIII, XVII, etc centuries as well. But I quite enjoy my job security in the XXI century.
- atemerev 4y ago
  Yes, that's called a privilege.
Jochim 4y ago
> If there is another economic crisis and nobody is hiring, preventing companies to fire people will make the crisis even worse. Companies that know firing is difficult will hire less aggressively. They are also more likely to accept a deeper reduction in profits before laying people off. The result is a higher threshold of economic instability before the company lets people go. The US approach is like playing speed Jenga, you build something that will inevitably collapse. Mass layoffs only serve to deepen an economic crisis. You remove a huge sum of disposable income from the economy which only contributes to more closures/layoffs. The result is an increased concentration of assets in the hands of those with the most access to capital during the crisis.
- atemerev 4y ago
  This is why there are so few growth-oriented startups in Europe, and so few chances to compete with large companies who can afford absorbing such losses. And (at least in tech) such low salaries, compared to US-based companies. European economic model simply cannot compete. US domination in tech is growing each year.
  - Jochim 4y ago
    Frankly I don't think the US model is something we should be competing with for the same reasons I don't think we should be emulating sweatshops in China or India. Based on recent stock trends their value is largely hypothetical and based on both hype and the assumption that they're able to grow indefinitely. I'd be happier to exclude them from our markets entirely. The growth-oriented model that's become popular in the US looks increasingly like a cancer that only serves to concentrate wealth. There were a few early successes but it seems far more common that these startups "succeed" by distorting a functioning market with external capital and destroying sustainable businesses operating in the sector through price dumping. Once they've captured enough of the market they'll IPO and either collapse entirely when their business model proves to be entirely unsustainable without infinite VC funds or limp along providing inferior service and labour conditions to those available beforehand. Either way harm is caused. The model is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of fair and healthy competition and ultimately makes success a function of who has the most money to burn.
    - ryandrake 4y ago
      It's helpful to think of the USA as a gigantic factory that produces billionaires. The manufacturing process runs off of energy ("money") provided by banks, investors and government, and the raw materials that get consumed and discarded are the lives and livelihoods of workers, and the end product that pops off the assembly line is "wealthy people".
      - atemerev 4y ago
        That’s what they told us in a Soviet primary school back in USSR. The alternative wasn’t compelling enough.
lostlogin 4y ago
Why is job security outdated? The ‘gig economy’ with flexible arrangements seems to suit exploitative employers great. Workers peeing in bottles and the workplace culture in such jobs seems Dickensian. What is the point of a job? To me the point is to look after people (from both the employer and employee’s perspective).
- atemerev 4y ago
  Because the entire economic structure that supported “jobs” has deteriorated and became unsustainable. It was only working in industrial society with tangible outputs. “Jobs” were a temporary development only suitable for a particular social structure: industrial capitalism. Now we still have capitalism, but no more industrial society. See Alvin Toffler’s “Third Wave” for more detailed treatment.

eCa 4y ago

> An outdated concept of the XX century. I guess that was suggested in the XIX, XVIII, XVII, etc centuries as well. But I quite enjoy my job security in the XXI century.

atemerev 4y ago
Yes, that's called a privilege.

Jochim 4y ago

> If there is another economic crisis and nobody is hiring, preventing companies to fire people will make the crisis even worse. Companies that know firing is difficult will hire less aggressively. They are also more likely to accept a deeper reduction in profits before laying people off. The result is a higher threshold of economic instability before the company lets people go. The US approach is like playing speed Jenga, you build something that will inevitably collapse. Mass layoffs only serve to deepen an economic crisis. You remove a huge sum of disposable income from the economy which only contributes to more closures/layoffs. The result is an increased concentration of assets in the hands of those with the most access to capital during the crisis.

atemerev 4y ago
This is why there are so few growth-oriented startups in Europe, and so few chances to compete with large companies who can afford absorbing such losses. And (at least in tech) such low salaries, compared to US-based companies. European economic model simply cannot compete. US domination in tech is growing each year.
- Jochim 4y ago
  Frankly I don't think the US model is something we should be competing with for the same reasons I don't think we should be emulating sweatshops in China or India. Based on recent stock trends their value is largely hypothetical and based on both hype and the assumption that they're able to grow indefinitely. I'd be happier to exclude them from our markets entirely. The growth-oriented model that's become popular in the US looks increasingly like a cancer that only serves to concentrate wealth. There were a few early successes but it seems far more common that these startups "succeed" by distorting a functioning market with external capital and destroying sustainable businesses operating in the sector through price dumping. Once they've captured enough of the market they'll IPO and either collapse entirely when their business model proves to be entirely unsustainable without infinite VC funds or limp along providing inferior service and labour conditions to those available beforehand. Either way harm is caused. The model is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of fair and healthy competition and ultimately makes success a function of who has the most money to burn.
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    It's helpful to think of the USA as a gigantic factory that produces billionaires. The manufacturing process runs off of energy ("money") provided by banks, investors and government, and the raw materials that get consumed and discarded are the lives and livelihoods of workers, and the end product that pops off the assembly line is "wealthy people".
    - atemerev 4y ago
      That’s what they told us in a Soviet primary school back in USSR. The alternative wasn’t compelling enough.

lostlogin 4y ago

Why is job security outdated? The ‘gig economy’ with flexible arrangements seems to suit exploitative employers great. Workers peeing in bottles and the workplace culture in such jobs seems Dickensian. What is the point of a job? To me the point is to look after people (from both the employer and employee’s perspective).

atemerev 4y ago
Because the entire economic structure that supported “jobs” has deteriorated and became unsustainable. It was only working in industrial society with tangible outputs. “Jobs” were a temporary development only suitable for a particular social structure: industrial capitalism. Now we still have capitalism, but no more industrial society. See Alvin Toffler’s “Third Wave” for more detailed treatment.