[Esophagus4]

> If the market dynamics do not naturally lead to this, then regulation should shape the field.

Look no further than the economies of France and Germany… both of those countries have very stringent regulations around layoffs. And none of whom have the dominance of American companies or breadth of unicorn startups.

Making firing difficult makes hiring difficult, which disincentives risk and innovation.

The leave/fire at-will contracts of most tech jobs in the US is a feature, not a bug.

> It also sucks for businesses, because hiring & onboarding is so freaking hard and expensive.

Sometimes, but sometimes not. Layoffs are important to get rid of low performers who could be replaced with better talent, and they’re important to help companies adjust their labor to market conditions.

[whatever1]

Neither France nor Germany have access to the high-risk capital that American startups enjoy.

Layoff protections and entrepreneurship in this case have a correlation but not a causation relationship.

If your thesis was correct startups would thrive in States with absolutely zero protections, yet the most successful tech startups are in the most “stringent” (for American standards) State. California.

[Esophagus4]

Even if it is the most stringent, California is still an at-will state. You can fire people for any reason at any time, minus protections for discrimination or retaliation, etc.

France and Germany require a lot more bureaucratic red tape (documentation, severance pay, notice periods, and justification). I have not seen this personally in France, but I have in Germany and it was a nightmare. I will be very careful about hiring in Germany next time.

An incredible amount of capital is in the United States for a reason (you're on a website of those capital providers). While termination protocol is obviously not the only reason, it is undeniably one of the many that contribute to the States having the most favorable environment to build a high growth, innovative company.

[disgruntledphd2]

I look forward to Americans realizing that it was the dollar all along at some point in the next fifty years.

[Esophagus4]

Well in fifty years, I likely won’t be here judging by life expectancy numbers… so I guess it’s a moot point for me.

Kidding aside, it’s a whole bunch of pieces. Including the dollar, including the friendly regulatory environment, including friendly tax treatment for founders (which European nations are starting to adopt), including small areas with lots of great schools, plus those schools helping to connect founders with capital, plus gobs of money running around looking for high risk opportunities, plus…

It’s not just the ability to fire someone, and it’s not just the dollar.

[iseletsk]

California prohibits non-competes, which is one of the reasons why so many new start-ups are created here. So, while it is not the most 'business' state, it is actually very startup-friendly.

[disgruntledphd2]

Yeah, and Sweden's success in startups also argues against the notion that it's hire and fire fast.

And if you're a loss making business like most startups, it's easier to lay people off even in Europe.

[brazukadev]

Well, look no further than the American economy if you want to see what unlimited layoffs and outsourcing can do.

[Esophagus4]

You mean... the economy with the highest developer salaries on the planet?[1]

Or the one that has the world's largest startup economy? Or the one that has almost all of the world's top 20 companies by market cap?

[1]https://codesubmit.io/blog/software-engineer-salary-by-count...

[Supermancho]

> Or the one that has the world's largest startup economy?

The reason there is excess capital is because of opportunistic and predatory behavior. Optimal capitalism, which other countries can't compete with (fully). This doesn't make it a net good for the American public, nor an optimal strategy for other economies.

[Esophagus4]

If you see the startup economy that has minted an absurd amount of wealth for some very talented people as predatory and a net negative for the public, we see things very differently.

And so do most who come to the Valley to be a part of it.

This strikes me as such an abjectly absurd thing to say that I can’t imagine we’ll come to a common conclusion on this.

And by the way, you’re writing this comment on a forum operated by one of the largest “predatory” sources of capital in the Valley.

[arwhatever]

Is the friction of hiring and firing responsible for all of Europe’s economic stagnation? Only some of it? If only some, how are you quantifying the proportion?