[knowledge-clay]

I'd rather live in a society with strong labor protections than one that is "more innovative", whatever that means.

[jstummbillig]

Do you really? Or do you actually want to sustain your standard of living as safely as you can?

Because then the question arises: What if the current way of handling labor protection in the EU (as one of many components) leads to destroying yours and everyone elses standard of living, simply because it's unaffordable? Would you still argue that this is the way to go? Everyone going down with the ship together?

I don't know what will happen and what the root causes are (labor laws might not contribute much to the picture, I really don't know), but at least we should be somewhat cognizant of the fact, where the industries of the future are currently built and where they are not, and have a fantastic explanation of why this is not going to be a super big issue.

[bojan]

> Because then the question arises: What if the current way of handling labor protection in the EU (as one of many components) leads to destroying yours and everyone elses standard of living, simply because it's unaffordable?

It's quite an assumption that it's unaffordable. In the last decades efficiency has been only increasing, but working hours per week aren't significantly going down nor are the salaries noticeably higher.

Where does all the extra efficiency go to? It's pretty ok in my book if it goes to social security.

[otikik]

> destroying yours and everyone elses standard of living, simply because it's unaffordable?

As opposed to what has happened in the US, where everything is happy and everything is affordable. Innovation!

[brabel]

The EU has been like this for a long time. If it was going to become unaffordable to sustain it that would have happened years ago. Of course in the longer term anything could happen but I find it hard to believe it would happen because of the EU labor laws.

[snapplebobapple]

One has to come to terms with the majority of people being better off in each individual interval under strong labor protections (because they are by definition mediocre) while likely being worse off over time as a group because of the pie not growing. Who gets the growth in pie is also highly unequal within the group large swaths can also be worse off over time. Ie third world labor got almost all of the pie that went to labor over the last 40 years. First world labor is at best treading water. Its still right to favor innovation because the group is better off and its more freedom supporting but lots of unhapoy people dowm that path.

[analog31]

I think it depends on the industry. If it's printed circuit boards, then it's China. If it's software and financial services, then the US. If it's health and science research, then probably Europe.

In fact, where industries are built is even more granular: Shenzen and the Bay Area. Even within the US, big cities have tried building their own tech hubs, and failed. Economic policy may have played a minor role in building NYC or SFO.

[jimbo808]

I don't see a lot of Europeans trying to claw their way into the US, if that's any indication

[Muromec]

Why would it become unaffordable?

[knowledge-clay]

> Because then the question arises: What if the current way of handling labor protection in the EU (as one of many components) leads to destroying yours and everyone elses standard of living, simply because it's unaffordable?

The GDP/capita of e.g. France is 10x what it was in the 1970s. There is nothing "unaffordable" about the European social safety net, except that there are political pressures to dismantle it (right-liberals like the Economist)

[xela79]

> Do you really?

spotted the capitalist.

[Scarblac]

Our standard of living is destroying the planet and it needs to go down a lot anyway.

[bryanlarsen]

You can have your cake and eat it too. It's called the Danish model, although Denmark does not completely implement it. Make it cheap & easy to both hire & fire people, but then take care of people who are fired through a generous safety net. High taxes pay for the safety net.

Explicit taxes are better than implicit taxes. Forcing companies to provide social services such as employment guarantees or health insurance to employees makes taxes look lower than they actually are.

[VirusNewbie]

How does that work with immigration? Does Denmark allow anyone to receive these benefits?

[dzhiurgis]

You might. In aggregate far more people wanna move from Europe to US then opposite.

[Muromec]

There is a small problem -- more innovative society next door will get richer and eat you anyway. So lets enjoy the good times and be weak men while it lasts.

[kalleboo]

Once they get richer they'll reach the same conclusion about the meaning of life. See the "lying flat" trend in China.

[piva00]

Let them get richer, the same people who talk with these threatening remarks also talk how capitalism isn't a zero-sum game, someone else becoming richer doesn't mean someone else getting poorer, right? Just means getting richer at a slower rate, Europe is pretty rich on global standards, let's keep getting a bit richer while others get the chance to reach these levels.