4 ms·

The author realizes that these 5 restrictions don't even apply in Silicon Valley, right? 1. I can fire you, if I want to. California has at-will employment, b

by ootachi 15y ago

The author realizes that these 5 restrictions don't even apply in Silicon Valley, right? 1. I can fire you, if I want to. California has at-will employment, but you sure can't fire someone based on gender or age anywhere in the United States—and he opens with his desire to do just that. 2. If VAT goes down to at least 20%, better yet 15%. Sales tax alone is not 20%+$.01 anywhere in the Bay Area, but there are a surprising number of added taxes here and there—Healthy San Francisco, for example, or the California state gasoline taxes—that can make the surcharges on consumer goods add up to that level. 3. If the state takes away "only" 30% of your money. Federal income tax + California state income tax + FICA significantly exceeds that for most people in the technology industry in Silicon Valley. 4. If higher income is not exponentially punished. The US certainly does have a progressive income tax scheme. 5. If the states punishes corruption instead of decent companies. No-bid contracts, anyone? The US is hardly free of corruption. He's asking for a place that doesn't exist. Moreover, it's a place I wouldn't want to live in; I don't want to live in a place where it's legal to discriminate against minorities, in particular.

Gotttzsche 15y ago
> but you sure can't fire someone based on gender or age anywhere in the United States—and he opens with his desire to do just that. i think his desire was to be able to fire people who don't do their job or dont do it well
- mrtron 15y ago
  ...or get pregnant. It is a very grey area. Too much government regulation and how the hell can it be profitable to hire someone. Too little and individuals get borked if they get pregnant/sick/etc. Personally I would sacrifice less pseudo stability for less regulation. I believe many problems start off with good intentions, especially when it comes to more regulation.
  - mixmastamyk 15y ago
    I think you guys didn't quite catch his point... he doesn't hate women and children, he hates that the state forces him to employ a person for 3-6 years! without working. I support maternity leave but that's ridiculous if true.
    - wazoox 15y ago
      I don't know how it works exactly in Hungary, but I doubt that the woman on maternity leave would cost him much, if anything. He probably simply has the obligation to hire her back after the leave.
      - mixmastamyk 15y ago
        He explained that he'd have to hire another person in the meantime, and pay her accrued vacation time. Then potentially lay off the second worker.
danmaz74 15y ago
In all fairness, the author just said that he would like to be able fire any worker, even if they were pregnant women/young moms or older folks, which instead have a special protection that would make it impossible even if they're not working well. [BTW, I personally agree with a special protection for pregnant women, but the costs should be on the State]
- waratuman 15y ago
  And the state passes that right along to the business / people through taxes.
  - danmaz74 15y ago
    This is exactly what I meant: That the cost should be distributed on all businesses/people and not just on those businesses which hire young women/potential mothers. This does more than pay itself with a higher participation of women in the workforce; it's just a distribution of risk without adverse selection as with mandatory car insurance.
    - waratuman 15y ago
      The cost should not be distributed. The cost should go directly to the business that is employing these women. If a business employs anyone they hope to do so by creating more value then the value then is spent on the employee. Even if the cost could be distributed, it has little impact on the fact that when the women goes on leave she is taking some 'business knowledge' that will take time to replace. The ability to even determine the value lost is impossible except under very general assumptions. Car insurance isn't compulsory in all states (assuming you are from the US, but most require it). In NH you simple have to prove the ability to provide personal responsibility. If the roads were private, then it should be up to the owner of the road whether or not insurance is required.
- ifearthenight 15y ago
  Isn't there a major anatomical part of the disappointing gender discrimation from this post that everyone is neglecting? Men have babies too, they may not carry them to term but they are undeniably a major part. Shouldn't the problem be considered that society forces women to be the ones to take responsibility over the child after it is born? Then companies use this to punish women because they may take a "vacation". How is caring for a child while your husband is allowed to choose what he does a vacation?
moonchrome 15y ago
>California has at-will employment, but you sure can't fire someone based on gender or age anywhere in the United States—and he opens with his desire to do just that. I don't think you understand his position at all. Trying to fire someone in Europe is often compared to adopting a child, lawyers will take cases against former employers on commission because the probability of winning the case is extremely high. There is no comparison when it comes to US at-will employment, for eg. you have to be able to prove that the employee you fired for coming drunk to work was really drunk, that you gave him written warnings, flowed the formal procedure etc. To be fair tough, employers often use employment agencies that exploit loopholes but it only serves to increase the cost of labor. The only ones benefiting from these laws are the public sector and government owned company employees (ironically even government owned companies resort to exploiting loopholes because even they can't operate under the regulation). And these are probably much higher percentage of workforce than in the US. And the corruption he is talking about is tax evasion and gray market, that's a huge part of the economy in these countries. Also, I'm thinking the "progressive tax" in the US kicks in at a much higher nominal amount then Hungary, and that it's disproportionate to the cost of living difference.
- danmaz74 15y ago
  My wife was fired when she was pregnant, because she was pregnant - which is illegal here in Italy - and they were so kind as to write so in a letter (never underestimate human stupidity/arrogance). We're taking the case to court, and I can tell you that there is no "on commission" here in Italy (also forbidden by the law).
  - moonchrome 15y ago
    OK, I don't know about Italy so fair point "Europe" is too broad. But still you've confirmed his point about not wanting to hire women, especially if Italy is comparable in maternity leave. And don't tell me you aren't expecting to win this case.
    - danmaz74 15y ago
      As a matter of fact, businesses not wanting to hire women is a problem in Italy, even if guaranteed, paid (by a national "insurance" agency) maternity leave is just 5 months here (usually 2 months before birth, and 3 after). 5 months don't look as too much to me; this notwithstanding many businesses only hire young women if they sign a blank resignation letter (which of course is illegal too, but very difficult to prove). I agree it's a very complicated matter. The best solution imho would be to have more state-subsidized childcare solutions (we have some, but much less than needed), which would make young mothers more productive for employers, but I understand that most free-market advocates wouldn't agree :) PS Yes I expect to win the case, because my wife's former employer so patently broke the rules. But here in Italy justice is so slow (next month there will be the first hearing, 8 months after we sued) and compensations so little that very often employers get away with it. I decided to go to court more to defend a principle than for an economic reason.
vacri 15y ago
3. If the state takes away "only" 30% of your money. Federal income tax + California state income tax + FICA significantly exceeds that for most people in the technology industry in Silicon Valley. Does it add up to anywhere near the ~52% his graph says it is in Hungary? Or are we talking around 35% or so?

by ootachi 15y ago

Gotttzsche 15y ago

> but you sure can't fire someone based on gender or age anywhere in the United States—and he opens with his desire to do just that. i think his desire was to be able to fire people who don't do their job or dont do it well

mrtron 15y ago
...or get pregnant. It is a very grey area. Too much government regulation and how the hell can it be profitable to hire someone. Too little and individuals get borked if they get pregnant/sick/etc. Personally I would sacrifice less pseudo stability for less regulation. I believe many problems start off with good intentions, especially when it comes to more regulation.
- mixmastamyk 15y ago
  I think you guys didn't quite catch his point... he doesn't hate women and children, he hates that the state forces him to employ a person for 3-6 years! without working. I support maternity leave but that's ridiculous if true.
  - wazoox 15y ago
    I don't know how it works exactly in Hungary, but I doubt that the woman on maternity leave would cost him much, if anything. He probably simply has the obligation to hire her back after the leave.
    - mixmastamyk 15y ago
      He explained that he'd have to hire another person in the meantime, and pay her accrued vacation time. Then potentially lay off the second worker.

danmaz74 15y ago

In all fairness, the author just said that he would like to be able fire any worker, even if they were pregnant women/young moms or older folks, which instead have a special protection that would make it impossible even if they're not working well. [BTW, I personally agree with a special protection for pregnant women, but the costs should be on the State]

waratuman 15y ago
And the state passes that right along to the business / people through taxes.
- danmaz74 15y ago
  This is exactly what I meant: That the cost should be distributed on all businesses/people and not just on those businesses which hire young women/potential mothers. This does more than pay itself with a higher participation of women in the workforce; it's just a distribution of risk without adverse selection as with mandatory car insurance.
  - waratuman 15y ago
    The cost should not be distributed. The cost should go directly to the business that is employing these women. If a business employs anyone they hope to do so by creating more value then the value then is spent on the employee. Even if the cost could be distributed, it has little impact on the fact that when the women goes on leave she is taking some 'business knowledge' that will take time to replace. The ability to even determine the value lost is impossible except under very general assumptions. Car insurance isn't compulsory in all states (assuming you are from the US, but most require it). In NH you simple have to prove the ability to provide personal responsibility. If the roads were private, then it should be up to the owner of the road whether or not insurance is required.
ifearthenight 15y ago
Isn't there a major anatomical part of the disappointing gender discrimation from this post that everyone is neglecting? Men have babies too, they may not carry them to term but they are undeniably a major part. Shouldn't the problem be considered that society forces women to be the ones to take responsibility over the child after it is born? Then companies use this to punish women because they may take a "vacation". How is caring for a child while your husband is allowed to choose what he does a vacation?

moonchrome 15y ago

>California has at-will employment, but you sure can't fire someone based on gender or age anywhere in the United States—and he opens with his desire to do just that. I don't think you understand his position at all. Trying to fire someone in Europe is often compared to adopting a child, lawyers will take cases against former employers on commission because the probability of winning the case is extremely high. There is no comparison when it comes to US at-will employment, for eg. you have to be able to prove that the employee you fired for coming drunk to work was really drunk, that you gave him written warnings, flowed the formal procedure etc. To be fair tough, employers often use employment agencies that exploit loopholes but it only serves to increase the cost of labor. The only ones benefiting from these laws are the public sector and government owned company employees (ironically even government owned companies resort to exploiting loopholes because even they can't operate under the regulation). And these are probably much higher percentage of workforce than in the US. And the corruption he is talking about is tax evasion and gray market, that's a huge part of the economy in these countries. Also, I'm thinking the "progressive tax" in the US kicks in at a much higher nominal amount then Hungary, and that it's disproportionate to the cost of living difference.

danmaz74 15y ago
My wife was fired when she was pregnant, because she was pregnant - which is illegal here in Italy - and they were so kind as to write so in a letter (never underestimate human stupidity/arrogance). We're taking the case to court, and I can tell you that there is no "on commission" here in Italy (also forbidden by the law).
- moonchrome 15y ago
  OK, I don't know about Italy so fair point "Europe" is too broad. But still you've confirmed his point about not wanting to hire women, especially if Italy is comparable in maternity leave. And don't tell me you aren't expecting to win this case.
  - danmaz74 15y ago
    As a matter of fact, businesses not wanting to hire women is a problem in Italy, even if guaranteed, paid (by a national "insurance" agency) maternity leave is just 5 months here (usually 2 months before birth, and 3 after). 5 months don't look as too much to me; this notwithstanding many businesses only hire young women if they sign a blank resignation letter (which of course is illegal too, but very difficult to prove). I agree it's a very complicated matter. The best solution imho would be to have more state-subsidized childcare solutions (we have some, but much less than needed), which would make young mothers more productive for employers, but I understand that most free-market advocates wouldn't agree :) PS Yes I expect to win the case, because my wife's former employer so patently broke the rules. But here in Italy justice is so slow (next month there will be the first hearing, 8 months after we sued) and compensations so little that very often employers get away with it. I decided to go to court more to defend a principle than for an economic reason.

vacri 15y ago

3. If the state takes away "only" 30% of your money. Federal income tax + California state income tax + FICA significantly exceeds that for most people in the technology industry in Silicon Valley. Does it add up to anywhere near the ~52% his graph says it is in Hungary? Or are we talking around 35% or so?