[gwbas1c]

The case is very simple: Working on risky ventures requires the ability to lay people off when the venture is not profitable. When only 1/5 risky ventures is profitable, you can't expect a business to take a risk if the likely result is severe financial penalties for failure.

[latexr]

I understand the argument the article is making. The point I’m making is that “innovation” which consists of a select few being better off at the expense of the majority is not something to be celebrated.

[gwbas1c]

> at the expense of the majority

I disagree

First, the vast majority of tech work is not in risky startups.

Second, the risk is known. That is why high salaries are negotiated going into startups.

Third, most comprehension is not in equity. Startup employees do invest in their retirement outside of their equity.

Fourth, anyone can invest in software in the public market and through institutional investments like mutual funds, ETFs, ect.

---

Criticize the system if you want. What's better? Feudalism? Communism? They're all much worse. Maybe someday someone will care enough to figure out a better system that doesn't repeat the mistakes of the past.

[gspetr]

>anyone can invest in software in the public market and through institutional investments like mutual funds, ETFs, ect.

"Public" being the keyword. There is some irony in being on HN, a YC site, yet a random HN user cannot invest in a YC company: https://jaredheyman.medium.com/on-the-176-annual-return-of-a...

[latexr]

> I disagree

And then all your examples are about tech work and startups. Other types of work exist, and they comprise the majority of jobs. Labour laws don’t exist only for startups and tech workers.

You’re also ignoring the argument of the article.

> Criticize the system if you want. What's better? Feudalism? Communism?

Let’s please leave out the purposefully exaggerated bad examples and engage in good faith. You don’t have to change the whole system to increase respect and conditions for workers, as proven by the difference between the USA and Europe described in the article.

[gwbas1c]

> You’re also ignoring the argument of the article.

No I'm not. I've spent most of my career in the 4/ths of startups that aren't wildly successful. I've also walked away from situations where I wouldn't get paid because I'm not financially independent.

I'm not "rolling in dough," but I've done pretty well for myself. Of course I want more, but I'm well past the point of "enough."

[latexr]

> I've spent most of my career in the 4/ths of startups that aren't wildly successful.

That has nothing to do with the point. And again, you’re only focusing on one type of job which is not the only one which exists. There are other people in the world.

> I've done pretty well for myself. Of course I want more, but I'm well past the point of "enough."

And therein lies the issue. No, it’s not “of course”, that idea of “I have enough but want more” is not a universal desire. But it is a major source of the world’s problems. That’s how we get to major corporations exploiting workers, customers, polluting the environment, rigging elections… All because of “more” well past what they need. That is called “greed”.

[gwbas1c]

This one quote summarizes the whole point of the article:

> Rather, the sheer difficulty of shedding staff en masse—a reality of corporate life—steers Europe’s biggest companies away from making risky bets in innovative fields.

And then the article goes on to defend that point. It explains the difference in cost here:

> An American firm shedding workers will incur costs equivalent to paying those sacked for seven months and be done with it. In Germany costs amount to 31 months of wages for each employee let go; in France 38 months. Beyond severance pay and sops to keep unions happy, the biggest expense is firms keeping unproductive workers on their books they would rather be rid of. New investments are delayed for years as dismissed employees are gradually replaced. American firms quickly pivot to new moon-shot opportunities; Europeans ones are stuck in the same old mire as they haggle with unions, due often to laws devised nearly a century ago.

There's no economically feasible way to hire someone to build a product that may not succeed in the marketplace and guarantee them lifetime employment. That requires a certain about of clairvoyance about the market and many other variables that go into product development that no one has.

[gwbas1c]

You might want to look at "Why Liberalism Failed", specifically the chapter "The New Aristocracy."

The section "Classical Liberalism: Roots of the New Aristocracy", summarizes the fundamental philosophy behind why a certain amount of inequality is embraced in classically liberal countries (IE, democracies): Overall, it rises everyone's everyone's living standards; even the poor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Liberalism_Failed

(Just a warning: The author is very conservative and outspoken about social issues. Try to read to understand the author's opinion, instead of reading to agree or disagree.)

[surgical_fire]

"I want to take risks exploiting workers. Taking risks treating them fairly is risky".

[latexr]

“Some of you may die, but it’s a sacrifice I am willing to make.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm2x6CVIXiE