3 ms·

> Somewhat funnily both Airbus and their suppliers have a much harder time firing staff, due to stricter EU employment regulations, meaning that they unintentio

> Somewhat funnily both Airbus and their suppliers have a much harder time firing staff, due to stricter EU employment regulations, meaning that they unintentionally were better off when demand started up again, nevertheless Airbus and suppliers are currently hiring massively as well. I don't think stability is unintentional. You can see how France economically always "lags behind" other economies in good times, but is also barely affected in bad times. On average, over time, it just performs like the rest of the EU.

constantcrying 3y ago
Sure, the goal of these employment laws is to create stability at the cost of a more dynamic market (Startups are very hard to do in the EU for some of those reasons). Although at the time Airbus would have liked to lay of many more employees, but couldn't. Which ultimately benefitted them. Also, such labor laws exist in Germany as well which is Airbuses other big country.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > Startups are very hard to do in the EU for some of those reasons The biggest obstacle is not employment laws or environmental or other compliance crap. The biggest obstacle is getting funding, Europe doesn't have the sheer amounts of "dumb money" that the US has due to their pension/401k system.
  - p_l 3y ago
    And before, there was huge flows of money because USA didn't have to rebuild from war and instead spent on defense like crazy - which filtered down to building wider and wider rings of industry along Route 128, Silicon Valley, LA, etc.
OJFord 3y ago
GP means it's not what 'Airbus and their suppliers' intended; the regulation stopped them from intended redundancies, which ended up being an advantage but not by their hand, forced on them.
- seszett 3y ago
  Obviously, and what I meant is that it's intentional on the part of the state, even if individual companies wouldn't do that on their own.
  - OJFord 3y ago
    Obviously, and nobody's disputing that or saying anything to the contrary.

constantcrying 3y ago

Sure, the goal of these employment laws is to create stability at the cost of a more dynamic market (Startups are very hard to do in the EU for some of those reasons). Although at the time Airbus would have liked to lay of many more employees, but couldn't. Which ultimately benefitted them. Also, such labor laws exist in Germany as well which is Airbuses other big country.

mschuster91 3y ago
> Startups are very hard to do in the EU for some of those reasons The biggest obstacle is not employment laws or environmental or other compliance crap. The biggest obstacle is getting funding, Europe doesn't have the sheer amounts of "dumb money" that the US has due to their pension/401k system.
- p_l 3y ago
  And before, there was huge flows of money because USA didn't have to rebuild from war and instead spent on defense like crazy - which filtered down to building wider and wider rings of industry along Route 128, Silicon Valley, LA, etc.

OJFord 3y ago

GP means it's not what 'Airbus and their suppliers' intended; the regulation stopped them from intended redundancies, which ended up being an advantage but not by their hand, forced on them.

seszett 3y ago
Obviously, and what I meant is that it's intentional on the part of the state, even if individual companies wouldn't do that on their own.
- OJFord 3y ago
  Obviously, and nobody's disputing that or saying anything to the contrary.