It is indeed pretty impossible to fire people who don't want to be fired. It's still possible to spin up a subsidiary and hire people into it and if doesn't work out, well, it didn't work out. Is it even the most commons reason why companies do layoffs?
Sounds like a propaganda piece to suppress both wages and rights here.
Isn't that part of the job of being in top management? Being paid millions of bucks for your skills that should tell what your business need?
If the signs are showing that you might need to fire people, you need to think and work for that: set enough money aside to pay for severance and/or buy-outs, not just decide "oh shit, I can't pay them, and I can't pay what is needed for me to fire them", that's just incompetence.
The way you present this is like business leaders are victims that were helpless on forecasting what their businesses need, which is exactly their fucking job to do.
If the business fails, the owners will have to use their assets to adequately compensate the employees according to what they are owed, and the employees are free to find another job.
Let's not mince words here - if the business fails it was because of the incompetence of those managing it, and it would fail whether or not it was treating employees unfairly. I won't accept this as an excuse to erode labor rights.
Moreover, what weak-ass crybaby rhetoric is that now? I always hear that business owners should earn more because they take risks. Failing is a very real possibility when you take risks. If you don't want to take risks just don't start a business.
Actually it’s everybody’s problem, since job inflexibility is one of the reasons why Europe is so poor compared to other first world countries.
Who exactly benefits from a business going under? Its bigger competitors? The less well off are the ones that suffer the most from oligarchic sectors and cartels.
Many of those countries have smaller populations and economies than American cities. The EU as a whole has less than half the GDP per capita than the USA.
>Many of those countries have smaller populations and economies than American cities
We can take NY (the state) and the Netherlands for example. Comparable populations (18-19 million), but GDP is 2.17 vs 1.27 trillion in favor of NY.
What it translates to in practice -- what kind of nice things New Yorkers have twice as much? Could is as well mean that Dutch do half the work compare to New Yorkers?
GDP is a measurement of market value of goods and services. This hyperfocus on GDP is a societal disease, and all sorts of terrible policy derives from this hyperfocus.
There's a nice public park on my neighborhood. It's a very scenic place, with a river going through it, with trees along its course, there's also a playground for kids with a large lawn area where people do picnics and relax around. Very pleasant place.
That park generates 0 GDP. From a GDP standpoint, it would make more sense to remove the public park and turn it into a concrete hellscape for people to park their cars. Large cars preferably - huge SUVs or pickup trucks for that matter, no weakass economic cheap hybrids. GDP has to grow after all.
And if that came to pass, the lives of everyone here would be miserable. But GDP would be higher, so that wins.
Hey, I didn’t pick the metric, I was just responding to someone who had.
I’ve lived in both Europe and America, and if my personal situation allowed for it right now, I’d prefer to be in Europe. But I also do think GDP can be a useful metric, especially in the long run. I think Europe has great QoL, but I think it’s naive to not look at the growth rates of the major countries in the world and not be concerned about the long-term future of the European economy.
Edit: you’re also wrong about the park. Someone paid to create it, and someone pays to maintain it. Both of those numbers show up in GDP.
> Actually it’s everybody’s problem, since job inflexibility is one of the reasons why Europe is so poor compared to other first world countries.
Except it is not. I chose to live in the EU when I had the option to move to the US, and it is fine.
Unless your measurement of "being poor" is that you can't exploit people in a get rich quick scheme and make destructive amounts of money but being acquired or dumping your IPO in the stock market.
We are talking here about businesses with say 10 employees that go through dire straits and can’t fire people to survive. The only solution is to close down and lay EVERYONE off. IPO? Get rich quick scheme? Why is hyperbole the only response to this actual issue?
Again, of the business with only 10 employees cannot survive, it was due to the incompetence of those managing it. Part of a healthy economy is allowing businesses to fail, so that others can take its place.
If demand for those services exist, other businesses will take it. If the demand is not there, the business should not exist.
How your reply is related to the previous point of "Europe being poor" is for anyone to guess.
>Europe is so poor compared to other first world countries.
is it?
>Who exactly benefits from a business going under? Its bigger competitors? The less well off are the ones that suffer the most from oligarchic sectors and cartels.
The big thing going under right now is legacy auto manufacturers in Germany. That's sad, but the same happened in US without all the labor protections. It's just a lifecycle of industries -- they got fat and comfortable.
The way German manufacturers managed to outlive US ones while having stronger labor laws seems to contradict you story big time.
The German magazine "Spiegel" has a (paywalled) career-info article on the homepage right now about a lawyer specializing in getting rid of unwanted employees.
> “I'm currently trying to get a severely disabled works council member out. We're well on our way.”
> Removing high earners from the payroll, compensating employees who cannot be dismissed: employer lawyers like Alexander Birkhahn are booming. Here, he reveals how companies can get almost anyone out—and how employees can secure their jobs.
Sounds like a propaganda piece to suppress both wages and rights here.