5 ms·

The European approach makes a lot of sense in other stable industries (Automobile/Steel). But in a fast moving quick changing (e.g. Tech) industries, all it doe

The European approach makes a lot of sense in other stable industries (Automobile/Steel). But in a fast moving quick changing (e.g. Tech) industries, all it does is prevent new risky companies from starting and making it harder for them to adapt. Maybe it is a good thing. But only time can tell that. So far to me it seems like the American approach is winning economy wise.

camillomiller 4y ago
It’s also generating insane levels of inequality, so it really only works if you subscribe to the capitalistic illusion that GDP is a good indicator of the success of a society.
- ramraj07 4y ago
  At least in the tech world calling the layoffs as increasing inequality is not exactly the same.
- satvikpendem 4y ago
  Well, the concepts of regulated free markets, free trade between nations, and generally free immigration have created the single largest increase in human living standards in history.
  - justinclift 4y ago
    > single largest increase in human living standards. That's a good point. It'd be useful if the US could raise it's game for it's citizens, and let them participate in that too. :)
    - satvikpendem 4y ago
      Ask someone from a hundred years ago how it's going today and you'll have your answer.
      - justinclift 4y ago
        There wasn't a question. ;)
  - camillomiller 4y ago
    Check your facts. As much as I am a firm European democrat, you might wanna see what Chinese “state driven capitalist communism” has done between 1975 and today. Again, if the measure is number of people lifted out of poverty, China wins hands down. Now, as much as we can’t consider China’s success without considering the lack of freedoms inscribed within the communist social pact, we can’t take just the good of American capitalism by only using gdp or trade volume as an indicator, because - again - inequality and lack of basic human needs and life safety wouldn’t be included. Reference: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/lifting-800-million-people-out-of-poverty-new-report-looks-at-lessons-from-china-s-experience https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/l...
    - DwnVoteHoneyPot 4y ago
      Check your perspective. Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, Korea all industrialized faster and have a higher standard of living than China. All did it in the 1980s - 40 years ago. All did it without oppressive communism.
      - DaedPsyker 4y ago
        While it might not have been communist, Korea certainly was oppressive when it built the chaebols which did involve a fair bit of government management.
        lmz 4y ago
        Also re: Taiwan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Taiwan) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Taiwan)
      - lostlogin 4y ago
        Hong Kong has made it to oppressive communism, so that’s going to be interesting to watch going forward (or backwards?).
        DwnVoteHoneyPot 4y ago
- crop_rotation 4y ago
  I can see the pros of the European approach, but reducing equality can not be the only goal. If the economy keeps falling behind, the median standard of living will keep dropping. A strong economy can adopt higher taxes and more social services due to election pressures. A fallen behind economy will find it much harder to jump back. The other problem is that tons of European talent keeps going to the US. The people who have the skills to make higher wages might not care about inequality too much, since they would be the ones benefitting from it. I am not sure how Europe can solve that though.
Timon3 4y ago
Economy-wise maybe, but there is more to workers rights than that. They also affect things like life expectancy and quality of life.
bryanrasmussen 4y ago
There is no actual European approach, there are different levels of worker's rights across various industries and in different countries. In Denmark if you have been working for more than a month than when you are fired you have a certain amount of time that you get paid (unless you find a new job), but you still have to work for them if the company wants you to. In the tech industry it is generally 3 months and they don't want you to work during that period.
mikepurvis 4y ago
I think “winning” really depends on your criteria for success. Maybe it’s winning on overall metrics like GDP, but on an individual level, the story is far less clear. Like, is it winning to have the option of starting a company that produces generational wealth for yourself, while living in a city unable to solve its homelessness problem? Is it winning to be a 1%-er but have no safety net so that you're always precarious, at risk of being wiped out by factors you have no control over? Is it winning to have a school system so dysfunctional that you send your kids to private schools that most of your neighbors can't afford? I expect that from a perspective that prioritizes stability, safety, and sustainability, a model where it's hard to be fired and companies are encouraged to take long term responsibility for their employees (and therefore grow slowly) makes a lot of sense.
- Gareth321 4y ago
  > I think “winning” really depends on your criteria for success. Maybe it’s winning on overall metrics like GDP, but on an individual level, the story is far less clear. This is an excellent point. America does an exceptional job of making rich people richer, but it also ranks poorly in many quality of life metrics. It is now #25 on the social progress index (https://www.socialprogress.org/ https://www.socialprogress.org/). If people are richer but their children are more likely to die in child birth (U.S. ranks #50), or be murdered (U.S. ranks #137 in homicide), is that really better?
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - brewdad 4y ago
      You can build an amazing life for yourself in the US and yet be one medical crisis away from ruin. I wish you well but you appear to lack empathy for those who did everything “right” but were dealt a crap hand by fate or circumstances out of their control.
      - 4y ago
fkcgnad 4y ago
Yes but European economies benefit from the American approach without all the downsides. You guys got Google and smartphones and AI in the past couple decades. Europeans lack technical innovation and they don't need it because the innovation comes from somewhere else before percolating into the European economy for free. The European approach is the winning approach so long as at least one country does all the hard work.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jsnell 4y ago
Small companies are typically exempt from mass layoff regulations. And obviously nobody can force a failed company to continue operating. That should cover most of the "risky new company" case. Maybe there's some marginal effect in the willingness of established companies entering risky new business.

camillomiller 4y ago

It’s also generating insane levels of inequality, so it really only works if you subscribe to the capitalistic illusion that GDP is a good indicator of the success of a society.

ramraj07 4y ago
At least in the tech world calling the layoffs as increasing inequality is not exactly the same.
satvikpendem 4y ago
Well, the concepts of regulated free markets, free trade between nations, and generally free immigration have created the single largest increase in human living standards in history.
- justinclift 4y ago
  > single largest increase in human living standards. That's a good point. It'd be useful if the US could raise it's game for it's citizens, and let them participate in that too. :)
  - satvikpendem 4y ago
    Ask someone from a hundred years ago how it's going today and you'll have your answer.
    - justinclift 4y ago
      There wasn't a question. ;)
- camillomiller 4y ago
  Check your facts. As much as I am a firm European democrat, you might wanna see what Chinese “state driven capitalist communism” has done between 1975 and today. Again, if the measure is number of people lifted out of poverty, China wins hands down. Now, as much as we can’t consider China’s success without considering the lack of freedoms inscribed within the communist social pact, we can’t take just the good of American capitalism by only using gdp or trade volume as an indicator, because - again - inequality and lack of basic human needs and life safety wouldn’t be included. Reference: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/lifting-800-million-people-out-of-poverty-new-report-looks-at-lessons-from-china-s-experience https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/l...
  - DwnVoteHoneyPot 4y ago
    Check your perspective. Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, Korea all industrialized faster and have a higher standard of living than China. All did it in the 1980s - 40 years ago. All did it without oppressive communism.
    - DaedPsyker 4y ago
      While it might not have been communist, Korea certainly was oppressive when it built the chaebols which did involve a fair bit of government management.
      - lmz 4y ago
        Also re: Taiwan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Taiwan) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Taiwan)
    - lostlogin 4y ago
      Hong Kong has made it to oppressive communism, so that’s going to be interesting to watch going forward (or backwards?).
      - DwnVoteHoneyPot 4y ago
crop_rotation 4y ago
I can see the pros of the European approach, but reducing equality can not be the only goal. If the economy keeps falling behind, the median standard of living will keep dropping. A strong economy can adopt higher taxes and more social services due to election pressures. A fallen behind economy will find it much harder to jump back. The other problem is that tons of European talent keeps going to the US. The people who have the skills to make higher wages might not care about inequality too much, since they would be the ones benefitting from it. I am not sure how Europe can solve that though.

Timon3 4y ago

Economy-wise maybe, but there is more to workers rights than that. They also affect things like life expectancy and quality of life.

bryanrasmussen 4y ago

There is no actual European approach, there are different levels of worker's rights across various industries and in different countries. In Denmark if you have been working for more than a month than when you are fired you have a certain amount of time that you get paid (unless you find a new job), but you still have to work for them if the company wants you to. In the tech industry it is generally 3 months and they don't want you to work during that period.

mikepurvis 4y ago

I think “winning” really depends on your criteria for success. Maybe it’s winning on overall metrics like GDP, but on an individual level, the story is far less clear. Like, is it winning to have the option of starting a company that produces generational wealth for yourself, while living in a city unable to solve its homelessness problem? Is it winning to be a 1%-er but have no safety net so that you're always precarious, at risk of being wiped out by factors you have no control over? Is it winning to have a school system so dysfunctional that you send your kids to private schools that most of your neighbors can't afford? I expect that from a perspective that prioritizes stability, safety, and sustainability, a model where it's hard to be fired and companies are encouraged to take long term responsibility for their employees (and therefore grow slowly) makes a lot of sense.

Gareth321 4y ago
> I think “winning” really depends on your criteria for success. Maybe it’s winning on overall metrics like GDP, but on an individual level, the story is far less clear. This is an excellent point. America does an exceptional job of making rich people richer, but it also ranks poorly in many quality of life metrics. It is now #25 on the social progress index (https://www.socialprogress.org/ https://www.socialprogress.org/). If people are richer but their children are more likely to die in child birth (U.S. ranks #50), or be murdered (U.S. ranks #137 in homicide), is that really better?
- nemo44x 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - brewdad 4y ago
    You can build an amazing life for yourself in the US and yet be one medical crisis away from ruin. I wish you well but you appear to lack empathy for those who did everything “right” but were dealt a crap hand by fate or circumstances out of their control.
    - 4y ago

fkcgnad 4y ago

Yes but European economies benefit from the American approach without all the downsides. You guys got Google and smartphones and AI in the past couple decades. Europeans lack technical innovation and they don't need it because the innovation comes from somewhere else before percolating into the European economy for free. The European approach is the winning approach so long as at least one country does all the hard work.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jsnell 4y ago

Small companies are typically exempt from mass layoff regulations. And obviously nobody can force a failed company to continue operating. That should cover most of the "risky new company" case. Maybe there's some marginal effect in the willingness of established companies entering risky new business.