Why is not there a middle ground between hire-and-fire-quick vs very strong/rigid labor laws that would give more optimized/successful end results for most involved than either of the two extreme points would generate? On one hand, I certainly would not want what's happened to e.g. Telltale employees who recently got laid off abruptly with no severance packages to happen to any of my friends/family. On the other hand, if you want a pool of opportunities of strong growth to co-exist within your economy, you gotta relax and give some room for those of us who are or want to be innovative.

Come to think of it, with the safety net that is provided in most developed European countries (e.g. Sweden, Norway) one would think that there'd be more innovations (normalized by metrics like population, etc.) generated there than say, the USA but I doubt that is the case here without having any numbers or proof. Is it the scale that matters most or what am I missing?

Overall, I for one wouldn't still trade strong labor laws with being the most innovative place but I do still hope for a better middle ground for everyone.

If amount/size of labor laws are inversely proportional to startup quality/quantity, how come a state with the most has more success than states with less? Because it's not the reason anymore than any other difference.