[cyrnel]

> you're going to personally be better off changing companies

Job mobility for tech workers is a fluke of current economic conditions. If interest rates spike, or a recession happens, or a bubble bursts, this benefit would go away and you'd be stuck at that exploitative company or unemployed.

Unionization and labor laws can make workers less disposable without substantially affecting growth (see: European tech hubs).

[lolinder]

> make workers less disposable without substantially affecting growth (see: European tech hubs).

Sorry, but you shot your argument in the foot with this example. The last two months of Europeans trying with great difficulty to replace US tech with local tech have shown just how little tech has grown in Europe relative to the US. Is that because of their labor laws? Unclear. But it's certainly not a shining example of success.

[cyrnel]

The effort to replace US tech is not anything similar to the European tech industry.

US technology has a hegemony because we were first to the party, our economy is larger, and our laws are hostile to newcomers (lack of interoperability requirements, lack of enforcement of anti-trust laws, strong defense of DMCA laws, non-competes, and trade secret laws).

I've worked in the EU tech sector. They have tons of startups that operate just like US startups: VC funded, hockey-stick growth, and hiring like crazy. Their stricter labor laws don't get in the way of that.

The hyper-growth, VC-funded startup model is itself quite exploitative, but if it's still possible with stricter labor laws, then fears about them impacting growth are unfounded.

[FirmwareBurner]

>I've worked in the EU tech sector. They have tons of startups that operate just like US startups: VC funded, hockey-stick growth, and hiring like crazy.

Which are those EU start-ups growing like crazy?

[lolinder]

Oh, we're talking about bubbly VC growth and not actual GDP growth or growth of sustainable businesses or new useful products. In that case, I suppose I concede.