4 ms·

If increased employee protection causes you to layoff almost everyone in a country -- you probably had little good business reason to be in that country. Emplo

If increased employee protection causes you to layoff almost everyone in a country -- you probably had little good business reason to be in that country. Employee protection exists because there's a huge power imbalance. A company who can constantly just say, "we'll fire you if this doesn't get done" and colludes with other companies on such matters makes it very difficult for workers. This is why employee protection, unions, etc... exist.

WalterBright 4y ago
Whether it does or does not protect them, employees will pay for these protections in the form of lowered salary and fewer jobs available. Nothing comes for free.
- danielheath 4y ago
  That's absolutely true, but in practice most people would experience substantial hardship if they suddenly lost their job. I wouldn't, but being in a country with employee protections means the people around me are almost never placed in a desparate situation, and I am meaningfully safer because of that.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Since you'd get more pay without these protections, you can save the excess for a rainy day. People should save for a rainy day, anyway. Why must the employer be their parents? I don't buy the idea that people in a free country like the US somehow found the one and only job they could ever have.
    - kenjackson 4y ago
      You likely won’t get more pay. In times without protections against collusion and without minimum wages, and laws against child labor — wages don’t typically go up. But you will have more workers in labor. Just not protected and poorer.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        Pay for workers is set by Supply&Demand, just like everything else. Adding worker protections increases costs to hire, which reduces demand, and so salaries drop. It's inevitable.
    - ADuckOnQuack 4y ago
      > Since you'd get more pay without these protections, you can save the excess for a rainy day. It sounds like you are speaking from a position of extreme privilege, more than 165 million Americans (over half) do not have a spare ~$400 for an emergency, much less savings to pay rent after a sudden job loss. And when people get desperate some turn to crime. Which then increases your costs through increased taxation for policing and incarceration and secondary effects such as reduced safety and increased personal costs due to crime, such as increased insurance costs and the greater threat of being targeted. So when all costs are internalized, worker protections pay dividends at making a society better for all involved, for example the many northers European countries with very low crime and very strong worker protections.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        > It sounds like you are speaking from a position of extreme privilege, more than 165 million Americans (over half) do not have a spare ~$400 for an emergency "Extreme"? What nonsense. I know many middle class people who don't have a spare $400 for an emergency. They also have a boat in the driveway. They don't have an income problem, they have a spending problem. > And when people get desperate some turn to crime. Or sell the boat. I remember one couple I counselled that couldn't pay the rent, but had a new car. I suggested they sell that, and buy one they could afford. I was surprised to find out that's just what they did. It's not a poverty problem, it's a financial management problem. Don't conflate that with being actually poor. > when people get desperate some turn to crime. Crime causes poverty, not the other way around. The downside to treating employees like children is a lower standard of living.
    - danielheath 4y ago
      Most people _don’t_ save for a rainy day. That’s an objective fact; imagining it would be otherwise if you gave them a bit more money is a fantasy not supported by anything observed in reality. As to finding another job: of course they will, but switching costs are pretty high for job changes.
- kenjackson 4y ago
  Maybe fewer jobs, but probably not lower salaries. Collusion would likely would cut into salaries a fair bit.
- shynrou 4y ago
  Yeah you are absolutely right. Here in germany a lot of companies pay a decent premium on temporary/loan workers and freelancers just to not be bound to then.
kcplate 4y ago
> If increased employee protection causes you to layoff almost everyone in a country -- you probably had little good business reason to be in that country. This kind of directly speaks to the commenters point. There may have “little good”, but enough reason until the legal change to increase employee protections created “no good reason”.

WalterBright 4y ago

Whether it does or does not protect them, employees will pay for these protections in the form of lowered salary and fewer jobs available. Nothing comes for free.

danielheath 4y ago
That's absolutely true, but in practice most people would experience substantial hardship if they suddenly lost their job. I wouldn't, but being in a country with employee protections means the people around me are almost never placed in a desparate situation, and I am meaningfully safer because of that.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Since you'd get more pay without these protections, you can save the excess for a rainy day. People should save for a rainy day, anyway. Why must the employer be their parents? I don't buy the idea that people in a free country like the US somehow found the one and only job they could ever have.
  - kenjackson 4y ago
    You likely won’t get more pay. In times without protections against collusion and without minimum wages, and laws against child labor — wages don’t typically go up. But you will have more workers in labor. Just not protected and poorer.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Pay for workers is set by Supply&Demand, just like everything else. Adding worker protections increases costs to hire, which reduces demand, and so salaries drop. It's inevitable.
  - ADuckOnQuack 4y ago
    > Since you'd get more pay without these protections, you can save the excess for a rainy day. It sounds like you are speaking from a position of extreme privilege, more than 165 million Americans (over half) do not have a spare ~$400 for an emergency, much less savings to pay rent after a sudden job loss. And when people get desperate some turn to crime. Which then increases your costs through increased taxation for policing and incarceration and secondary effects such as reduced safety and increased personal costs due to crime, such as increased insurance costs and the greater threat of being targeted. So when all costs are internalized, worker protections pay dividends at making a society better for all involved, for example the many northers European countries with very low crime and very strong worker protections.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      > It sounds like you are speaking from a position of extreme privilege, more than 165 million Americans (over half) do not have a spare ~$400 for an emergency "Extreme"? What nonsense. I know many middle class people who don't have a spare $400 for an emergency. They also have a boat in the driveway. They don't have an income problem, they have a spending problem. > And when people get desperate some turn to crime. Or sell the boat. I remember one couple I counselled that couldn't pay the rent, but had a new car. I suggested they sell that, and buy one they could afford. I was surprised to find out that's just what they did. It's not a poverty problem, it's a financial management problem. Don't conflate that with being actually poor. > when people get desperate some turn to crime. Crime causes poverty, not the other way around. The downside to treating employees like children is a lower standard of living.
  - danielheath 4y ago
    Most people _don’t_ save for a rainy day. That’s an objective fact; imagining it would be otherwise if you gave them a bit more money is a fantasy not supported by anything observed in reality. As to finding another job: of course they will, but switching costs are pretty high for job changes.
kenjackson 4y ago
Maybe fewer jobs, but probably not lower salaries. Collusion would likely would cut into salaries a fair bit.
shynrou 4y ago
Yeah you are absolutely right. Here in germany a lot of companies pay a decent premium on temporary/loan workers and freelancers just to not be bound to then.

kcplate 4y ago

> If increased employee protection causes you to layoff almost everyone in a country -- you probably had little good business reason to be in that country. This kind of directly speaks to the commenters point. There may have “little good”, but enough reason until the legal change to increase employee protections created “no good reason”.