It's not so much crushing innovation, as it's prioritizing anything but innovation. Primarily the importance and the finances of people living in Brussels. It's more parasitic than actively hostile

And the USA fixes that by moving the crushing to workers.

The "Innovation" of mass layoffs? Okay

"Guys, we're crushing it on innovation! Even the Economist agrees!"

Innovation at the expense of crushing workers and increasing the gap between parasitic management compensation and worker wages. No, thanks. Europe may need reform but it’s not the USA way of doing things, except for the elite for which “ the economist “ is a already known and tired sockpuppet.

I live in Europe and you can do something very close to the American thing in my country. Germany and France are at one end of a spectrum.

I'd rather live in a society with strong labor protections than one that is "more innovative", whatever that means.

The article (which is great) is written from the perspective of "large old established companies innovating". This is something that is fairly elusive even in the different environment of the rest of the western world, I think.

Startups have a different set of constraints in Europe, one of which is the safety net for the people trying to become "ramen profitable".

I would add an aspect that is not covered here but is often ignored: the strong labour protection laws result in a mentality where if you get a good job you are much less likely to want to take risks e.g. start your own business. There was a post on the HENRY (high earner, not rich yet) UK subreddit the other day from someone who had a wealth of experience and had the opportunity to join a start up as a CTO. It honestly sounded like a great chance to initiate change. All of the comments were telling the poster that they had it good, that 99% of start ups fail, that the hours would be gruelling. I feel as though the conversation would have been quite different in a US subreddit.

A term they like to use is 'crabs in a bucket'.

It is indeed pretty impossible to fire people who don't want to be fired. It's still possible to spin up a subsidiary and hire people into it and if doesn't work out, well, it didn't work out. Is it even the most commons reason why companies do layoffs?

Sounds like a propaganda piece to suppress both wages and rights here.

The article is really making the point that shitting on workers is OK—desirable even!—so that individual companies can make trillions of dollars. “Innovation” to the author equals making money, and being unable to sack hundreds of people at once with complete disregard for them or the social impact it causes is seen as a negative.

I remember for the past 50 years, that Americans have been warned that looking across the oceans (or even the Great Lakes) for policy ideas would lead to "stagnation." The latest propaganda point is that Europe is even poorer than Mississippi. That sounds horrifying, if you've never been to either place.

Meanwhile it seems that Europe has been pulling ahead of us in measures that affect the quality of life for common people, including the working class. While the fear of "stagnation" was remotely believable during the 1970s, it's clear today that we're the ones who've been hornswoggled.

The US is still better for making software, as China is better for making printed circuit boards, but I'm not sure either of those things are all that bad for the common people.

Sweden is relatively good at creating innovative companies but is pretty friendly towards small companies especially.

Europe does lag behind though for many different reasons. One big is that the single market of EU is on paper large but in practice it is a lot of different countries with very different cultures and languages.

Did anyone got the funny part?

Here is it: they assume the "innovative" one to be the U.S., not China.

This article is so facile as to be meaningless. All it says is "making it easy to fire people is better for innovation," and then barely backs that up, as if it should be taken as writ that the author has found the one simple thing that Europe needs to fix. It talks about the "European model," but only really specifically mentions Germany (with a brief shout out to France in perhaps the only worthwhile section of the article, where it focuses on actual numbers) and doesn't really discuss anywhere else. It's certainly an opinion piece in that it showcases the author's opinion, but it doesn't do anything vis-a-vis persuasion.

The “American boss” can also over-staff and then fire as they see fit and call it innovation. They hire way more people than they can employ long term, especially during another hype-driven tech bubble. They can get a few billion extra when they sell a company with 1000s of employees instead of 100s. Right after acquisition it’s time for mass layoffs because of “market conditions”. So employees work lives become another asset in speculator’s spreadsheets.

When hackers hear “innovation” they probably think of solving an existing valuable problem better. It seems economists and CEOs think of innovation as finding a better way to extract maximum mental labor for the cheapest price. Then use that to maximize the value of their own equity, at the expense of society if necessary. If you’re building a heavily isolated bunker in Hawaii or New Zealand, you’re not exactly signaling you care about the rest of humanity’s well being.

Unfortunately it is yet another piece from the Economist defending neoliberalism, as it has done from the beginning. Europe is not short on issues, one would have to agree, but the (hidden) author basically frames labour protections as inefficiencies rather than social achievements or desirables, and assumes investor imperatives are the only measure of success. What fairness? And what is this nonsense with people needing shelter, food, and healthcare?

The business enterprise, in this hit piece, should not be simply another tool for improving the quality of life and helping create a society that's worth living in, but the sole purpose of the society itself.

The "cumbersome process for letting go workers comes with hidden costs" aren't really hidden, unlike the author, but transparent social protections ensuring fair treatment, preventing arbitrary dismissal, and stabilising demand. Something a decent society should fully embrace.

> the sheer difficulty of shedding staff en masse—a reality of corporate life—steers Europe’s biggest companies away from making risky bets in innovative fields

No, thank you. Europe's lag in high-tech sectors stems mainly from underinvestment, fragmented capital markets, and US monopoly power, not employment law. Labour rigidity has no strict correlation with innovation deficits (Germany, Scandinavia, France, Japan, and South Korea all had stronger labour protections than the US and managed to become rather innovative), but why bother with data when the point was simply to bash Europe for protecting its workers from predatory businesses? At best, the evidence is mixed and context-dependent (focusing on patents, for example, instead of genuine innovation)[0], and OECD and Eurostat long-term data show that some high-innovation countries have some of the strongest worker protections and unions.

> investments in disruptive breakthroughs [...] require the ability for big companies to hire lots of staff, then later fire most of them if the projects don’t pan out

Likewise, nonsensical economic justification for precarious work. For the most part, innovation depends on R&D funding, talent, and public infrastructure, not firing freedom (which businesses are guaranteed to abuse). Rather than treating humans as disposable risk capital, the author should take a look at US's own history and they will undoubtedly notice that a significant part of the innovation that it benefits from today was developed when the US had huge taxes, immense investments in R&D and public infrastructure. [1]

Strong social and environmental protections should be the bare minimum for any democratic society. Remove that, and no economic system, whether capitalist or not, is worth having.

[0] https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/report...

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S259014512...

I think most in Europe prefer the better living standards and higher life expectancy for most of the population.

The american style lack of employment protection may play a part in fostering innovative companies, although I suspect being the primary superpower with the world's reserve currency may also play a part too.

How is being incredibly innovative making everyone in the US happy? I just see a lot of division and unhappiness right now. And some very rich people.

> An American firm shedding workers will incur costs equivalent to paying those sacked for seven months and be done with it.

Seems like the solution (in both the US and EU) is to have some kind of mandatory severance, probably something like continuation of salary for 1/12th of time employed, up to 12 or 18 months.

Edit: This might impact negotiations with mid-career workers, as it'll make it harder to attract someone with a long tenure at an existing job without some kind of guaranteed severance.