5 ms·

This also a reason why starting a business in USA is usually better.

torben-friis 3mo ago
Economics is hardly a reproducible science, but an American company has basically instant access to 350 million consumers (and workers) with no language barrier and little inter-state red tape. It's hard to imagine that this isn't a larger differentiator than the ability to fire hundreds at will.
- infecto 3mo ago
  You would be surprised. Don’t think about it as firing but also being overly cautious. If you run a division in the EU you are overly thoughtful for every single HC you add. You don’t take risks because that HC at minimum is going to cost a year of severance. It’s a balancing act, maybe less new jobs but you get less layoffs.
  - tonyedgecombe 3mo ago
    Presumably you aren’t paying 52 weeks of severance to someone you hired three months ago.
    - infecto 3mo ago
      That’s right but depending on country there may be other legal requirements necessary so the costs tend to add up quickly and on average when you peak behind the curtains at an EU company you see it’s often easier to retain low performing members than it is to go through legal expenses and the notice period. You tend to be more thoughtful if you want to add HC on that region and avoid restructuring the company. Maybe it works out on average but there are distinct pros and cons. On the net you get less job creation, less innovation and on the flip employees have more protection from being fired.
bunderbunder 3mo ago
Perhaps, but one does have to wonder why the US favors making life easier for founders and venture capitalists over making life more livable for people who aren’t already rich. Like, a while back my employer had 10% layoffs, and their most profitable year ever, in the same year. There’s a real reason why that happened, ans the reason is that the C suite seriously fucked up on managing the company’s finances. In a sane world they should be the first to bear the consequences. Instead they got fat bonuses while hundreds of people who had no part in creating the problem lost their jobs. And the moral justification for a society that allows this is somehow, “But isn’t it great that it’s easier for privileged people to play fast and loose like that?” That is, at best, circular reasoning.
- matchbok3 3mo ago
  Would you rather they never hire those people? Because that is one option.
  - callmeal 3mo ago
    >Would you rather they never hire those people? Because that is one option. Yup, and that way those people should be hired by companies who are in it for the long term and not looking just at the next quarter (and using hiring as a way to deny employees to competitors).
    - yamillove 3mo ago
      [flagged]
    - smsm42 3mo ago
      I don't think there exists a company (at least in the US, in Asia they do have "lifetime employment" system even though that gets eroded too) that can promise it will never have a layoff. Did you know any such company that when it hires you it would tell you "we're here for the long term so you will never laid off, no matter what"?
    - matchbok3 3mo ago

Economics is hardly a reproducible science, but an American company has basically instant access to 350 million consumers (and workers) with no language barrier and little inter-state red tape. It's hard to imagine that this isn't a larger differentiator than the ability to fire hundreds at will.

infecto 3mo ago
You would be surprised. Don’t think about it as firing but also being overly cautious. If you run a division in the EU you are overly thoughtful for every single HC you add. You don’t take risks because that HC at minimum is going to cost a year of severance. It’s a balancing act, maybe less new jobs but you get less layoffs.
- tonyedgecombe 3mo ago
  Presumably you aren’t paying 52 weeks of severance to someone you hired three months ago.
  - infecto 3mo ago
    That’s right but depending on country there may be other legal requirements necessary so the costs tend to add up quickly and on average when you peak behind the curtains at an EU company you see it’s often easier to retain low performing members than it is to go through legal expenses and the notice period. You tend to be more thoughtful if you want to add HC on that region and avoid restructuring the company. Maybe it works out on average but there are distinct pros and cons. On the net you get less job creation, less innovation and on the flip employees have more protection from being fired.

bunderbunder 3mo ago

Perhaps, but one does have to wonder why the US favors making life easier for founders and venture capitalists over making life more livable for people who aren’t already rich. Like, a while back my employer had 10% layoffs, and their most profitable year ever, in the same year. There’s a real reason why that happened, ans the reason is that the C suite seriously fucked up on managing the company’s finances. In a sane world they should be the first to bear the consequences. Instead they got fat bonuses while hundreds of people who had no part in creating the problem lost their jobs. And the moral justification for a society that allows this is somehow, “But isn’t it great that it’s easier for privileged people to play fast and loose like that?” That is, at best, circular reasoning.

matchbok3 3mo ago
Would you rather they never hire those people? Because that is one option.
- callmeal 3mo ago
  >Would you rather they never hire those people? Because that is one option. Yup, and that way those people should be hired by companies who are in it for the long term and not looking just at the next quarter (and using hiring as a way to deny employees to competitors).
  - yamillove 3mo ago
    [flagged]
  - smsm42 3mo ago
    I don't think there exists a company (at least in the US, in Asia they do have "lifetime employment" system even though that gets eroded too) that can promise it will never have a layoff. Did you know any such company that when it hires you it would tell you "we're here for the long term so you will never laid off, no matter what"?
  - matchbok3 3mo ago