In a country like Germany, if you fire an employee and they walk away with a hurt ego and start talking to a lawyer, you will end up hurting in some way or another, so the game is to manage egos and make sure that, when a company parts ways with an employee, the employee feels that it was mutual.
Actually, I think it would be a step in the right direction for both bosses and employees, if bosses could just say: Hey, I'm firing you because I just no longer want you here. You didn't do anything wrong. I just have other people who do the job better.
The perverse incentive is that it's probably better for companies to single out individuals they want to get rid of and treat them badly until they leave of their own account, rather than do that.
Regulations are written in blood. They are always Chesterton's fence. That doesn't mean it's still a good idea, or even that it ever was. But there's a reason it was put there, and it's wise to at least know why before removing it.
Today we have at least three "layers" of social security in most European countries:
The first layer is that government makes sure everyone has employment and makes it difficult for employers to get rid of employees, even those ones that cost the company more than they're worth. Family law extends the coverage to everyone else, e.g. for non-bread-winning spouses (even ex-spouses), it's the bread-winner that's on the hook (so, transitively, the bread-winner's employer) and for children the parents (again: ultimately the parents' employers).
The second layer is mandatory social insurance.
The third layer is usually some kind of outright government handout that kicks in for people who, for some reason, fall through both the first AND the second layer of social security. (e.g. [1] in Austria)
My guess would be that each layer was brought in at a time when the layers below were not yet in place, though, maybe, someone can provide the necessary facts to the contrary here.
I just wish they'd do away with all that crap, and instead just implement universal basic income, paid for by the tax payer.
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedarfsorientierte_Mindestsich...
If you don't like your boss you can pack your things and go elsewhere. Your boss doesn't have that luxury.
This requires a really comprehensive social security net to not be abusive.
No one would work awful jobs for terrible pay because why? No employers would keep ineffective employees onboard because why? Unions might become obsolete because bad employers can't exist (people just quit). Anyone would be at liberty to try and start a new business because they never have to risk their passional safety.
Right now many employment situations are like an abusive relationship, staff (and bosses) are getting hurt, but they are afraid to break up. People with strong safety nets and personal wealth can leave terrible relationships much more easily than people who depend on a partner for everything or live in a society where breakups are taboo or illegal.
UBI might let you live in some small town in the middle of nowhere where the rent is low but it's unlikely to let you live in a high demand area. You could say "rent control" but that's not a solution. All that does is start a lottery of who gets it live in the city and who doesn't.
Further, there's a ton of jobs that need to be done but arguably no one wants. jobs like farming and shipping, stocking grocery stores, construction. Ok, so UBI lets everyone quit and now those jobs have to pay more to get anyone to take them. But then all the costs go up and UBI is no longer enough to make it. Raise the UBI and you get a vicious circle.
I don't know all the reasons prices are out of control in the bay area but for example, I ordered 3 simple Thai dishes the other night. $135! In Thailand that would have been $6. 3 burritos in the poor part of town, $60. 4 plates of Chinese dumplings, $80. My guess is this is in part, high rents, and paying higher wages. Sounds great, but now no low-income people can afford to eat out. UBI would take that even further because (see previous paragraph)
Someone will now chime in how it's bad to make people work in jobs they don't want. I don't disagree. My point isn't that people should work shitty jobs. My point is UBI won't fix the problem.
I don’t have much say in UBI, but your mention that rent-control would simply “start a lottery of who gets to live in the city” sounds like a good thing. If you don’t already have established family in a high-demand city (in which case you should be grandfathered in), isn’t a lottery the fairest way to get in?
(This is for software engineering jobs, at least. In other industries it might work differently.)