Hacker News Reader

Comment by shmatt | Hacker News Reader

This just means a lot of these people wouldn’t have a job to begin with.

Not saying one is better than the other, but if it took months to fire people, lots of US tech companies wouldn’t have grown 30% without thinking twice. Leaving many of then people let go today without an entry ticket to tech to begin with

View on HN

Just to be pedantic, in the US there may be little difference between being laid off and being fired, but in the UK there's quite a difference. We're talking about layoffs/redundancies, and yes it's hard specifically to discourage these poor labour practices.

However in the UK firing someone is much easier than this. There are protections, and in some jobs (like the civil service) it can be difficult to fire, but that's not universally true.

In the US there is still a big difference between being fired and being furloughed [1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furlough#Private_sector

In the US there is a big difference between fired and laid off. Fired means for cause, and when asked the company will say "bad employee, you shouldn't hire them" fired also means you don't get unemployment as it is your fault you don't work there anymore (this varies from state to state). Laid off means you were an acceptable employee (or better), but the company just doesn't need someone to do your job anymore, when asked they will report you left in good standing, and since it isn't your fault that you don't have a job you get unemployment while looking for a new job.

Fired is so negatives that companies will rarely fire anyone. They prefer to ask you to quit - you still don't get unemployment pay (varies from state to state, but it is your fault you are not working). If this happens it is in your best interest - while it is now your fault you quit (and you cannot sue them for it - which is why they do it and a downside to keep in mind!) they will then report that you worked there in good standing until you left. In practice most companies only fire someone when they discover actions that would go to the police.

That same argument could be made about lots of worker protections, from safety controls to minimum wage standards.

Greater worker protections leading to greater stability rather than a boom and bust over-hiring and mass lay-offs sounds like a feature, not a bug, to me.

That kind of "stability" is more accurately described as stagnation. It may protect workers in a narrow sense, but it also disincentivizes the kind of productive risk-taking that leads to business creation, innovation and overall societal increases in wealth. This type of worker protection scheme is what people tend to reach for because it's the first thing they think of and it sounds sensible, but it can really drag on society in the long-term.

A much more effective approach would be to make loss of employment not be a big deal, e.g. through stronger social safety nets. That way you ensure people's lives are financially stable but without introducing friction to efficient allocation of resources. Ideally, losing your job would be no more than a mild inconvenience - like having to buy a different brand of milk because your usual is out of stock. That ideal isn't realistically achievable, but we can at least try to get closer.

> lots of US tech companies wouldn’t have grown 30% without thinking twice.

Sounds like trickle-down risk to me, to just randomly hire and fire.

I know many startup founders in the states who use "Hire Fast, Fire Fast" (vs "Hire Slow, Fire Fast")

If you have more money than time, that could even be optimal for the company.

>, lots of US tech companies wouldn’t have grown 30% without thinking twice

So what? Apparently that didn't work in any way, since their stocks are crashing and they need to mass fire. So what's the benefit of what you are saying at all?

And why would 30% growth be some goal just because its a high number, compared to a stable job market?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com