8 ms·

Can't wait until the US wakes up and we get an endless 'that's why the startup/innovation culture in the EU sucks and will never be comparable to the US'

refurb 2y ago
Is it wrong for people to voice views that you disagree with? The value of HN is hearing differing view points. It would be nice if people on HN tried to engage in a good willed nature rather than treating discussions like a struggle session. But to the topic at hand, in rapidly changing sectors, high levels of friction when it comes to employment has a cost. There is no free lunch in economics. When hiring employees means you’re hiring them effectively for life, it creates disincentives for hiring. Maybe you hiring consultants instead. Or maybe you make do and not hire at all. No doubt it benefits employees when it comes to job stability. But the cost can be not having those jobs at all. That’s something that has to be considered in the equation. The other thing is the employee obligations it creates. When I worked in Europe I had to give three months notice to quit. Either that or pay the company the equivalent of the salary I made. As an employee it was a penalty I couldn’t afford and thus opportunities at start ups that needed someone now were out of reach. Employee protections had a real cost to me. It’s pretty clear that Europe as a whole is willing to pay that cost, but it’s a choice. Nothing wrong with that, but one can’t make that choice then turn around and wonder why your innovative sectors are lagging other countries.
- tovej 2y ago
  That is unbelievable to me. You always have the right to quit, and penalties are rare. The laws depend on the country you're in of course, but I've never heard of three months, and I've lived in Europe my whole life. Would you mind sharing the country you were working in?
  - vidarh 2y ago
    In Norway, 3 months notice is the norm, and you can be expected to work it. In practice, there's rarely much value in holding people to it (though it can happen) because someone who really doesn't want to be there isn't going to be a productive employee. But lots of people do stay the 3 months because people looking to hire are also used to often having to wait 3 months to get someone on full time.
  - jokethrowaway 2y ago
    It's pretty common to have penalties if you quit without notice. It's also a breach of contract. Employers probably won't go after you in court though, unless your immediate departure cause them some damage larger than the lawyer's bill. One month is common for juniors or contractors. I've never seen a contract with less than 1 month notice in tech. Three months is common for senior or management positions.
    - Aeolun 2y ago
      I’ve only ever seen one month in both Europe and Japan. With no stipulated penalties for leaving immediately (beyond, you know, being an a*).
  - seritools 2y ago
    In Germany the minimum time of notice for being fired scales up with your seniority (number of years employed in the company). However, many work contracts add a stipulation that the minimum time of notice from the law be applied to both parties equally, so quitting will also need an advance notice of the same length.
  - ubersnack 2y ago
    In England I had a 3 month notice period at a previous employer, luckily the employer I was going to was okay with waiting that amount of time.
  - pathsjs 2y ago
    I am Italian and at my previous work at a bank, I had a two month notice (originally one, but increased with seniority). As far as I know, it is pretty common in Italy, and employers know that when they hire someone, the person will only join one to three months later due to this - or sometimes they offer to pay the penalty
  - soneil 2y ago
    My previous contract (Ireland) was 3 months - it was reciprocal, so they had to give me 3 months notice to quit, and I had to give them 3 months notice to quit. Due to the position "garden leave" was the most typical way to spend those 3 months, so it wasn't much of a real-world concern.
- snowpid 2y ago
  The problem on such discussion that many Americans (I am not sure if you are but experience says yes you're) tend to use only straw man arguments (and that's why the reason they are ignored) "When hiring employees means you’re hiring them effectively for life, it creates disincentives for hiring. " In Germany it is not the case. "The other thing is the employee obligations it creates. When I worked in Europ" Europe is a big place and working law in the EU (and outside too!) is in the charge of national law. Where have you been living ? In Germany you can talk to company to quit earlier because these quitting comworkers tend to be rather unproductive.
  - lazide 2y ago
    How is it not the case in Germany? The only German tech company I’m aware of was a fintech which was a massive fraud that collapsed on itself.
    - snowpid 2y ago
      Yeah, Such rage bait argument with no real arguments don't help to improve my perception.
      - lazide 2y ago
        Care to reply with opposing facts? Literally the only German tech firm of note I’m aware of is [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirecard_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirecard_scandal]. Do you have some opposing examples?
        Timon3 2y ago
        What about SAP?
        lazide 2y ago
        lol. The German cope is strong here. It doesn’t generally get included for the same reason IBM doesn’t typically get included in list of ‘tech companies’, even if they are one of the oldest actual tech companies. Been around forever (70’s or earlier), large multinational, more about business integration and sales than any headline tech. Frankly, their tech has been a side thought for a very long time internally. It’s a blue chip that happens to involve tech, not a ‘tech company’ like any of the FAANGs. Same issue Tata/Wipro, etc. have IMO. Arguably Oracle falls in the same class too. A parallel comment mentioned Deutsch Telecom, but they’re really not a ‘tech company’ anymore than T-Mobile, AT&T, Comcast, etc. are. If we include it anyway, that gives Germany 2 and the US…. Several dozen? Minimum? Maybe 50ish, actually. Even if we don’t use the same broad criteria in the US. If we use the same broad criteria in the US, probably 1/3 of the Fortune 500 qualify, if not more. Is Bank of America a ‘tech company’?
Yeul 2y ago
Americans call it innovation I call it going back to 1890. But I refuse to believe that every employer in the US is a piece of shit. I bet most of them are decent people.
nolok 2y ago
I mean, it does allow a better access to "move fast, innovate and break things", the issue being that some of things broken are people lives and careers and in the EU we more or less decided this was not ok nor worth it.
iepathos 2y ago
Treating workers terribly isn't considered good startup/innovation culture by the US. It is standard practice by large non-innovative corporations though which is what Twitter is. Twitter surpassed stats that would qualify it as a startup over a decade ago long before Musk entered the picture.
- mensetmanusman 2y ago
  Youth unemployment is a better metric to track. It’s objectively more expensive to hire/fire.
jokethrowaway 2y ago
Well, stifling regulation is one problem, but the real reason the EU is behind is the lack of a single place with low taxes on investors and talent. The effect is compounded by all the smart talent going to SV or large rich cities (London, Zurich), leaving scraps to the rest. Unrealized capital tax gains being reinvested tax free made Silicon Valley's exponential growth possible (which is the only reason why a16z was forced to back Trump despite the Tech are being overwhelmingly democrat leaning - they're scared they'll be taxed out of existance).

refurb 2y ago

Is it wrong for people to voice views that you disagree with? The value of HN is hearing differing view points. It would be nice if people on HN tried to engage in a good willed nature rather than treating discussions like a struggle session. But to the topic at hand, in rapidly changing sectors, high levels of friction when it comes to employment has a cost. There is no free lunch in economics. When hiring employees means you’re hiring them effectively for life, it creates disincentives for hiring. Maybe you hiring consultants instead. Or maybe you make do and not hire at all. No doubt it benefits employees when it comes to job stability. But the cost can be not having those jobs at all. That’s something that has to be considered in the equation. The other thing is the employee obligations it creates. When I worked in Europe I had to give three months notice to quit. Either that or pay the company the equivalent of the salary I made. As an employee it was a penalty I couldn’t afford and thus opportunities at start ups that needed someone now were out of reach. Employee protections had a real cost to me. It’s pretty clear that Europe as a whole is willing to pay that cost, but it’s a choice. Nothing wrong with that, but one can’t make that choice then turn around and wonder why your innovative sectors are lagging other countries.

tovej 2y ago
That is unbelievable to me. You always have the right to quit, and penalties are rare. The laws depend on the country you're in of course, but I've never heard of three months, and I've lived in Europe my whole life. Would you mind sharing the country you were working in?
- vidarh 2y ago
  In Norway, 3 months notice is the norm, and you can be expected to work it. In practice, there's rarely much value in holding people to it (though it can happen) because someone who really doesn't want to be there isn't going to be a productive employee. But lots of people do stay the 3 months because people looking to hire are also used to often having to wait 3 months to get someone on full time.
- jokethrowaway 2y ago
  It's pretty common to have penalties if you quit without notice. It's also a breach of contract. Employers probably won't go after you in court though, unless your immediate departure cause them some damage larger than the lawyer's bill. One month is common for juniors or contractors. I've never seen a contract with less than 1 month notice in tech. Three months is common for senior or management positions.
  - Aeolun 2y ago
    I’ve only ever seen one month in both Europe and Japan. With no stipulated penalties for leaving immediately (beyond, you know, being an a*).
- seritools 2y ago
  In Germany the minimum time of notice for being fired scales up with your seniority (number of years employed in the company). However, many work contracts add a stipulation that the minimum time of notice from the law be applied to both parties equally, so quitting will also need an advance notice of the same length.
- ubersnack 2y ago
  In England I had a 3 month notice period at a previous employer, luckily the employer I was going to was okay with waiting that amount of time.
- pathsjs 2y ago
  I am Italian and at my previous work at a bank, I had a two month notice (originally one, but increased with seniority). As far as I know, it is pretty common in Italy, and employers know that when they hire someone, the person will only join one to three months later due to this - or sometimes they offer to pay the penalty
- soneil 2y ago
  My previous contract (Ireland) was 3 months - it was reciprocal, so they had to give me 3 months notice to quit, and I had to give them 3 months notice to quit. Due to the position "garden leave" was the most typical way to spend those 3 months, so it wasn't much of a real-world concern.
snowpid 2y ago
The problem on such discussion that many Americans (I am not sure if you are but experience says yes you're) tend to use only straw man arguments (and that's why the reason they are ignored) "When hiring employees means you’re hiring them effectively for life, it creates disincentives for hiring. " In Germany it is not the case. "The other thing is the employee obligations it creates. When I worked in Europ" Europe is a big place and working law in the EU (and outside too!) is in the charge of national law. Where have you been living ? In Germany you can talk to company to quit earlier because these quitting comworkers tend to be rather unproductive.
- lazide 2y ago
  How is it not the case in Germany? The only German tech company I’m aware of was a fintech which was a massive fraud that collapsed on itself.
  - snowpid 2y ago
    Yeah, Such rage bait argument with no real arguments don't help to improve my perception.
    - lazide 2y ago
      Care to reply with opposing facts? Literally the only German tech firm of note I’m aware of is [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirecard_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirecard_scandal]. Do you have some opposing examples?
      - Timon3 2y ago
        What about SAP?
        lazide 2y ago
        lol. The German cope is strong here. It doesn’t generally get included for the same reason IBM doesn’t typically get included in list of ‘tech companies’, even if they are one of the oldest actual tech companies. Been around forever (70’s or earlier), large multinational, more about business integration and sales than any headline tech. Frankly, their tech has been a side thought for a very long time internally. It’s a blue chip that happens to involve tech, not a ‘tech company’ like any of the FAANGs. Same issue Tata/Wipro, etc. have IMO. Arguably Oracle falls in the same class too. A parallel comment mentioned Deutsch Telecom, but they’re really not a ‘tech company’ anymore than T-Mobile, AT&T, Comcast, etc. are. If we include it anyway, that gives Germany 2 and the US…. Several dozen? Minimum? Maybe 50ish, actually. Even if we don’t use the same broad criteria in the US. If we use the same broad criteria in the US, probably 1/3 of the Fortune 500 qualify, if not more. Is Bank of America a ‘tech company’?

Yeul 2y ago

Americans call it innovation I call it going back to 1890. But I refuse to believe that every employer in the US is a piece of shit. I bet most of them are decent people.

nolok 2y ago

I mean, it does allow a better access to "move fast, innovate and break things", the issue being that some of things broken are people lives and careers and in the EU we more or less decided this was not ok nor worth it.

iepathos 2y ago

Treating workers terribly isn't considered good startup/innovation culture by the US. It is standard practice by large non-innovative corporations though which is what Twitter is. Twitter surpassed stats that would qualify it as a startup over a decade ago long before Musk entered the picture.

mensetmanusman 2y ago
Youth unemployment is a better metric to track. It’s objectively more expensive to hire/fire.

jokethrowaway 2y ago

Well, stifling regulation is one problem, but the real reason the EU is behind is the lack of a single place with low taxes on investors and talent. The effect is compounded by all the smart talent going to SV or large rich cities (London, Zurich), leaving scraps to the rest. Unrealized capital tax gains being reinvested tax free made Silicon Valley's exponential growth possible (which is the only reason why a16z was forced to back Trump despite the Tech are being overwhelmingly democrat leaning - they're scared they'll be taxed out of existance).