Free healthcare and social welfare I'm in agreement on. But why does at will employment need to conflict with that? The problems of wage values, food and shelter, and healthcare can be handled completely independently of employment. If someone feels it is too easy to do nothing without requiring employment to gain some of those benefits, you can have the government as an employer of last resort. But making it easy for anyone and everyone to start and maintain a business is a societal good. We are asking why doesn't a person have guaranteed employment, when we should ask why do they need it. If a person was let go and could with empty pockets be assured of food shelter and healthcare, and also be able to start their own company on the way home from being let go, that is the society I'd want to live in.

▲

wolvoleo 4 hours ago | parent [-]

At will employment is something we'll never accept here. We don't need the threat of having nothing from one day to the next.

It's good for billionaires but not for actual people that matter.

Running a business is not something everyone should have to do anyway. It's good if it's hard. That keeps the cowboys at bay.

I would never ever want to own a business. I don't need that uncertainty. I just want a stable wage.

The prevailing idea here is that the US is best at everything and its model will always win. But in reality it's been in decline for a long time and it's become a pretty toxic society I don't want to see here in Europe. Trump is only a symptom of that but not the cause. The real cause is a top layer (which many HN commenters are part of) that is getting ever richer and a huge disadvantaged mass that is stagnant or declining. Their anger is what drives MAGA. Also called late stage capitalism. Going even more capitalist is not the way to fix or prevent that.

▲

galangalalgol 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I agree with everything you said except for the cowboys bit. I don't think business owners should be a separate class of people. It shouldn't be unusual to meet people that own their business. I don't want to do it, it would stress me. But we can let random people try random ideas without having to start out wealthy, and we shouldn't have the failure of that business and the loss of those employees' jobs, risk the health and well-being of those let go. If getting fired just meant you had to do with fewer luxuries until you found another, we wouldn't need to protect those jobs to the detriment of a business. By tying employment to safety and well-being, we complicate the whole matter.

	▲	tick_tock_tick 22 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Most people in the US own stocks the USA is "fixing" this by making everyone part of the owner class. Especially now with childhood investment accounts by the federal government (the "trump accounts").
	▲	wolvoleo 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		By cowboys I mean the people starting businesses left right and center and just collapsing them when they don't get the desired result straight away. E.g. US venture capitalism. I think it's a really good thing that we don't have that here in Europe. Sure it prevents the googles and metas but those would never have made it that big here anyway because we regulate big businesses before they become uncontrollable. And now that we are breaking off ties with the US we will have to build our own anyway, just with sustainable and fair business models. Sure we can get society to pick up the tab but the problem is that those cowboys are even more incentivised to be risky then. There should be a penalty for them when it goes wrong.

▲

ragall 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Various places in Europe already have what amounts to at-will employment. There are exemptions for companies under a certain number of employees (e.g. 25 in Italy). There's a wide use of fixed-term contracts (6/12 months). Many work through agencies, which means they can be "fired" with a few weeks' notice.

▲

wolvoleo 35 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Not really. Fixed-term contracts can not be used indefinitely. A worker must be permanently hired after the first extension. Agencies can not be used indefinitely, and also, the agency is required to support the employee after the client lets them go. So the company just pays to shift that responsibility but the responsibility towards the employee is there. A company is also not allowed to make an employee 'self-employed' by making them start their own company. They must always have multiple clients, if they have just one the government will consider it permanent employment with all strings attached and will apply all relevant restrictions and taxation retroactively.

I'm just talking about holland here but all over europe the conditions are similar.

All the exceptions you mention were just sly ways the companies have tried to circumvent their responsibilities and the law has caught up with regulations to make those impossible or at least impractical.

And there are some exceptions yes. But those are mostly for in-between gig jobs. Not for stuff people make a career out of.

Of course there are also exceptions with easy firing for things like gross negligence. Though the employee always has the ability to countersue.

	▲	ragall 29 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> A worker must be permanently hired after the first extension. After the first extension the worker will not be hired again. > Agencies can not be used indefinitely Yes they can. > A company is also not allowed to make an employee 'self-employed' by making them start their own company. Wrong. I've seen this happening personally. > I'm just talking about holland here but all over europe the conditions are similar. You're talking about what you think is happening in Netherlands, and the conditions in many places in the rest of Europe are not like that. > But those are mostly for in-between gig jobs. Not for stuff people make a career out of. Not yet.

▲

embedding-shape 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Depends a lot on what country, but I think you'll find that the ratio of full-time employee vs contractor/at-will employee in most European countries will look very different from how that ratio looks like in the US (or other similar countries).

	▲	ragall 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, but that's very different from saying that Europeans have would never accept it. It's already happening quite extensively, though not as much as in the US. Europe seems to be 20-40 years behind the US in various economic and social developments, but it's not immune from them.

▲

tick_tock_tick 24 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> The prevailing idea here is that the US is best at everything and its model will always win. But in reality it's been in decline for a long time and it's become a pretty toxic society I don't want to see here in Europe.

If the USA is in decline you must consider Europe a failed state at this point then? Nearly every wealth inequality issue is worse in Europe then the USA. Youth unemployment has become a permanent fixture of society, your housing affordability crisis makes the USA look really good, most of your nations can't afford to keep social services at current levels and will be cutting them over the next decade, and you need to actually spend on military now that's just going to happen faster.

It's kinda funny by trying to avoid "late stage capitalism" the EU is going to force themselves into it as quality of life and global relevance continue to fade.

	▲	wolvoleo 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The EU is not a state. And no, wealth inequality is much higher in the US: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/wealth-in... . And those are averages, we don't have people making 100.000x more than others. We also have wayyy less violent crime: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/violent-c... , and much less people in prison per capita LGBTQ+ rights are way better covered here (with the exception of a couple countries that should really be booted out of the EU). Also really important for me. We're doing pretty good, we will have some challenges going forward but that's always the case. Military equipment is something that we're now buying a lot from the US where prices are really high, and once we move that to European vendors we can get a lot more for the same money (this is similar to how Russia manages to have so much military power on a country with a GDP similar to Italy: they make it themselves with their own purchasing power). The one challenge to the EU is not to fall into the austerity trap as they did in 2007 though. And we don't need so much. I don't need or want a car, a big TV, daily takeaway coffees etc. Less consumerism is also a good thing.