Hacker News Reader

Comment by katelynsills | Hacker News Reader

There's the general rule that the more restrictions you have on how employers can hire, how they can pay, and how they can fire, the less likely they are to hire more people and take risks in hiring. This means being less likely to hire the young, the old, those without a spotless record, and even women who may start families.

I'm not by any means an expert on labor in Europe, but it seems like the obvious way to increase the number of jobs, especially to those who need them most, is to allow employers more flexibility. Instead of artificially creating stratification (some people having no jobs or very temporary jobs, and some having incredibly cushy ones) we would have many more low paying jobs in the middle.

View on HN

I never would have thought myself a socialist, but a basic income (guaranteed payments from government) seems to make so more much sense in this context.

You could scrap the minimum wage, scrap labour laws basically (?), at least from the point of view that if someone was let go they'd still be looked after, so it's more about finding the right fit. If someone gets fired 6 times in a row until they find a job they really do well in then so be it.

Basic income sounds a bit socialist, but it actually lubricates the hell out of a capitalist economy.

So your solution is more of what's described in the second paragraph:

"it was a rare flicker of opportunity after a series of temporary positions, applications that went nowhere and employers who increasingly demanded that young people work long, unpaid stretches just to be considered for something permanent." ?

You don't do your camp any favors with this category of response.

Why not? It is one of the consequences of removing labor rights. It's a difficult balance: too many labor rights will stifle the economy, too few will stifle the worker.

I am happy that in most European countries workers are entitled to a 40 or 48 hour work week, plenty of holidays, and paid overtime. Because life is not only work...

One area where more flexibility is required in Southern European, and even Western European, countries is making it easier to hire and fire an employee.

I might have been unclear, the question wasn't entirely rhetorical. In my experience "more flexibility" generally leads to weakening of labour rights, more part time, more time limited contracts -- and more of the things featured in the above comment.

In short, in a buyers market (employers purchasing wage labour) -- without regulation, the buyers hold all the keys (starve or work - that's not a choice).

If you have any examples of de-regulation of a labour market benefiting the majority of the population over say a ten or twenty year period, I'd love to hear about it.

I, too, might have been unclear. You were citing a description of a highly, highly regulated labor market as an example of what might come to pass were that market deregulated.

>If you have any examples of de-regulation of a labour market

Because that ever happens. C'mon.

> buyers market (employers purchasing wage labour)

That's not what 'buyer's market' means.

>> buyers market (employers purchasing wage labour) > > That's not what 'buyer's market' means.

That parentheses explain what I mean by market (the labour market) -- was that unclear? The rest of that sentence tried to highlight what "A situation in which supply exceeds demand, giving purchasers an advantage over sellers in negotiations" generally means in the labour market.

If one side might loose a few days of productivity by holding out for a better deal, and the other side will loose their home and starve -- that's a pretty uneven balance of power.

Perhaps ending the emergency low interest rates we have had for years, and letting economics work the way it should. Let house prices come down, let unviable businesses fail and make room for newer more efficient ones.

Ah, a proponent of another Great Depression.

You're being ridiculous.

Employers have stopped hiring excessive numbers of people to sit of their asses because companies can now get get more work for less pay from their young, bright employees, as well as outsource and automate other tasks with software.

Bottom line: today, there are simply too many educated potential laborers to expect jobs to keep up with demand.

Bottom line: today, there are simply too many educated potential laborers to expect jobs to keep up with demand.

Maybe. It would be interesting to think of the consequences of having a situation where there are systematically more laborers than work.

In theory, this means that everyone can work less, or perhaps not even work at all, while we are still able to produce enough food, etc. to give everybody a reasonable life. In practice we seem to end up in a completely different situation: those who have work are rich, those who don't become very poor.

> You're being ridiculous.

Do we really need this? I downvoted you after reading this first sentence, although the rest of the comment is quite good.

Most of the times insulting doesn't help you in raising your point.

You missed the part where they are working in Amsterdam?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com