The Best Places to Lose Your Job | Hacker News Reader

The Best Places to Lose Your Job

foreignpolicy.com

19 pointsrobg19 comments

I think the best place to lose your job is the US. The economy is dynamic, people are raised with tales of startups and success, folks don't feel bound by class or caste or good taste in not rocking the boat, there's not too much credentialism, taxes are high (but not as high as elsewhere).

If you're forward thinking and interested in creating value, the best place on earth to be unemployed is the place where it's easiest to launch a new firm and have a chance of winning really really big.

I agree with your reasoning. Only, I would be more careful about the superlatives:

Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_Doing_Business_Index#Ra...

I think the deeper question here is how eager are the recently-unemployed to find another job and what is the key motivating factor to get another job? I think it's highly related to how people in different countries view the world of work.

I can't speak for other countries, but in the US, I think that most people view work as a necessary evil. They don't view their jobs as opportunities to make a self-satisfying difference. It's just a place to trade 40 hours (or more) a week for a paycheck.

Most American workers feel overworked and constantly exhausted. When they lose their jobs, depending on their financial situation, they don't rush to find the next one. This is most likely because they use their period of unemployment as a substitute for the rest they didn't get while working.

Perhaps if we improved the world of work, the world of unemployment would also improve.

Sort of tangentially related to this is a rather fascinating look at Holland from the vantage point of a US ex-pat: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03european-t.html...

Lots of interesting notes on our contrasting social systems and cultures. One of the main points that I took away from the article is that we tend to have an falsely dichotomous view of european countries generally. They're either lampooned as socialist nightmares where all of your money is confiscated by the government and nobody wants to work, or utopias where the government cares for all of your needs and you get 6 weeks vacation. the truth is rather more complex.

And they have more vacations :(

We surely do. Here in Norway we have either 4 or 5 weeks of vacation (I myself has a special deal which gives me 6 weeks).

I have 4 weeks vacation and I live in the US.

It is possible when living in the states.

I am not a fan of socialism. If you want it, go out and get it. Don't live off other peoples hard work and thats just what people in these countries do.

Yes, people need support, but don't sit at home every day playing video games at your parents house. I would expect everyone who is unemployed to fill out at least 5 applications a day for jobs.

Why get voted down for this? Stating an opinion gets voted down?

Actually, yes. An opinion without some kind of justification or explanation behind it isn't particularly valued by the HN community.

Suggesting that unemployment in countries with high social benefits is the product of laziness places the blame on individuals when the economic system itself is largely responsible for making it extremely expensive to hire new employees.

Nowhere in the article did it state that people were sitting at home playing video games.

It stated one government was cracking down on their younger folk for claiming no jobs while at home with their parents. And what do most young people do most when they have no need for a job? Get bored.

What do you do when you get bored?

Switzerland:

"Despite the generosity of its benefits, the country maintains a low rate of unemployed and underemployed workers."

vs. France:

"Unfortunately, because the French workforce is so cushy, it can be a very tough club to join. France has astronomically high rates of unemployment among youths -- up to 40 percent in some areas -- who’ve never held jobs and therefore do not qualify for benefits."

and Luxembourg:

"The government of Luxembourg, however, has recently grown fed up with wastrel youths applying for unemployment benefits while still living with their parents."

So, is this just a cultural difference, or can a government provide generous benefits while still incentivizing full employment? The Luxembourg solution:

"Anyone applying for social benefits now has to take minimum-wage government jobs or attend subsidized vocational training instead."

seems to make sense. Economic support, but with a requirement to work or get training of some sort. One trick is for the government to successfully predict which vocations will actually be in demand. Or just let the unemployed decide what to train in, with a flat cash amount to spend? You would still need checks to prevent abuse.

Of course the big Hacker News question: is any or all of this compatible with entrepreneurship? Should a government allow people to start a business venture while collecting benefits, instead of accepting the first employment opportunity?

Basic income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income) may be compatible with entrepreneurship.

Interesting to see Milton Friedman cited as an advocate of Basic Income. I think he championed the Earned Income Tax Credit, maybe they are referring to that?

As far as I know Earned Income Tax Credit is one possible implementation of Basic Income.

Unemployment benefits is not the same as welfare. People in Sweden pay taxes and they pay a fee to the A-kassa a sort of communal opt-in pot (which people gladly opt into) to be able to reach what the article is talking about.

It would be insulting to suggest they are living of someone else when they explicitly have payed to be in that system. They are living of their own hard work.

You also do have to look for work and take what the job agency offers you that they think is suitable if you are unable to find a job on your own, the amount of money you get also deteriorates with time.

Believe it or not but people don't actually like sitting at home being completely unproductive all day. or maybe they do in your country but stop making assumptions about mine.

I am not a fan of socialism. If you want it, go out and get it.

You seem to think that letting fellow members of your society buy food when they are laid off is a waste of your tax money. Maybe it is. The problem is, "non-socialist" countries like the US waste plenty of my tax money. Illegal wars, bridges to nowhere, kickbacks to lobbyist friends, etc. These things cost way more than "socialism", but they don't get the taxpayers any actual benefits. This worries me more (and is more wasteful) than paying a few kids to play video games all day.

If I'm paying taxes, I want to get something out of it. (As an example, think of how much more free the job market would be if everyone had healthcare regardless of their employer. People could change jobs without worry of not being able to get the medical care they need. A freer job market is good for you even if you can afford your own healthcare.)

Norway has historically had one of the lowest unemployment rates in Europe. In February 2009 there were 3.9% unemployed. This is an increase compared to previous years. In 2008 there were only 2.6% unemployed.

I look forward to seeing your statistics showing how this system encourages people to stay home.

For your information, there are terms and conditions that they have to follow to get money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com