Economist predicts the blatantly obvious
(twitter.com)
Comments (32)
sorted by:
What of the magic dirt, bigot???
Yeah whycome da wypipos gets ta live in all da nice areas where dey ain't no crime n sheeeeeeeit
1-3 and 5 are reasonable. 4, not really.
The opposite has been true in Europe. More immigration has been paired with more neoliberalism and making it easier to fire workers, whether you think it's good or not (I think in most European countires it may be too hard, and in America too easy if the guy isn't a member of a sacred class).
I don't know how it works in Europe but in America immigrants don't make minimum wage because they can't work legally.
fify
I should have added the illegal part, you really did fix it for me.
In Europe it's REALLY hard to hire new people. You have to 'vet' them to no end, and even then they can turn into a nightmare.
AFAIK: If someone works for you for (iirc) 6-8 weeks? They can go "on paid leave" for 3 months. You still have to pay them a full wage, but they don't have to work. Even after 3 months gone it's hard to fire them, they can still demand money for severance & such.
Someone that knows more than me should chime in. But I heard that in France to fire someone you basically need the employee to consent to being fired.
Some have said there's a lot of variance inside the EU. I thought it was some sort of 'universal rule' for EU nations, but I was mistaken 🙂
I had read 2 accounts (Greece and Belgium) that were very similar.
Seems like what a lot of the left wants. However it seems the only way that is sustainable is by abusing low cost immigrants and yet the left thinks they are virtuous.
In Sweden there is a 6 month trial period unless you manage to negotiate that down in your contract. During that period you can be given 3 weeks notice at any time without reason. These rules only apply to people working full time.
If you have a time limited contract with a company and you keep getting work there multiple times, then over a 5 year period if you have worked at that company for a total of 12 months your contract is converted to a full time contract. This does not apply to part time jobs, however part time can also be converted to full time if your employer always schedules you for on average 40 hours then it is deemed that you have been employed as part time maliciously and your contract is converted to a time limited which in turn can instantly be converted to full time using the rules above. There are quite a few cashiers with full time employments because the manager was sloppy or didn't want to employ more people.
The most common way employers try to make people quit who are protected by law is by claiming they need to cut down due to economics, if the company is actually doing equally well compared to last year they can be legally forced to give you your job back or pay you damages equalling 6-12 months of salary, depending on what the court decides. This may also be literally impossible for the company since firings should be made based on the "last in first out rule" meaning you can't fire that lazy boomer without paying massive penalties.
Giving them really shit tasks or clients to make the bad employee quit is another classic, which can be effective. Usually the employee has a mental breakdown and goes on sick leave for 2-6 months (paid by the state) and never comes back.
Eh, it varies country by country. It's very bad in countries like France, Spain and Italy. Go further north and it's not nearly as bad, though there's also not the more dynamic employment market America has. Nearly everyone here is happy with what we have, although they're not taking account of the costs that our system imposes, no more than you consider the costs of the American system: having no job security at all isn't a cakewalk either.
This may be true for one country or another (though I doubt even that). I can assure you that this is not universal though. There are places where employees can be fired in the first few months, no questions asked. You can also just not have your temporary contract renewed.
We have job security in America. When you get fired, the company pays for your unemployment through the government. They pay the state, and the state pays you, which is expensive.
Just because its easier to do, doesn't mean it doesn't cost anything to do it.
That's hopeful then. I'd heard about 2 examples (Greece and Belgium) that were very similar. Small business owners were stressed beyond belief.
In theory Canada has a 3 month "probationary period" but lawyers often get involved anyhow...
In Spain you can get rid of new hires for no reason within six months. It's like a trial run.
That may well be true, I just heard about 2 specific nations (Greece and Belgium) that were very similar. I figured it was some EU rules or something.
You've also got the push for automation across the public and private sectors which will render a lot of people out of work at the same time as unfettered immigration.
I actually disagree. I understand your position, but it's a difference between Neo-Liberalism and Progressive Intersectionalists.
Basically, it might be easier to fire white workers. But every gay, black, trans, lesbian, and white woman would screech discrimination at each round of layoffs, and the companies would just choose not to fire them because the lawsuits are too expensive. It would be easier to fire the unprotected workers, but harder to fire the protected workers.
In my (admittedly limited) experience, that is not the case here. The lawsuits and judgments aren't quite as expensive. And they are far more scared of violating employment law than of violatng discrimination law. I do know that in America, basically you can be immune from firing if you're a member of a sacred class.
Which is why I don't understand why the right opposes making it harder to fire people. That would only benefit conservatives and the groups unpopular among the woke. And not even unfairly, it would just put them on a par with the sacred classes.
This chart conflates colorblindness with mass immigration from shitholes. One refers to the treatment of our fellow countrymen, the other to the destruction and replacement of our countrymen.
But how do you decide who our countrymen are? There's my standard, your standard, and then there's the law.
I would think it's pretty simple. your countrymen are the citizens of the country to which you are a part of.
Maybe decades ago, but Abdu Pajeet Turdamumbarri who is my coworker on an H-1B for burger flipping is on the fast track to becoming a citizen, nevermind already being able to live here and use all of the resources while he schemes to bring over 4 generations of his family.
Have the archive:
Post from thread reader: https://archive.ph/d0R7n
Post from ghost archive: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/67AJe
Sadly, you have to do both to get it all.
The economist needs to put it in graphical form for GDP maxxers to vaguely understand. Social externalities aren't normally considered in utilitariland.
I don't see how #4 works in this situation.
Raising the minimum wage & having more "workers rights" leads to:
5 Innovation is hard when there's a civil war / invasion underway, eh? 😢
I just need the market to hang on for about 20 more years, which honestly doesn't seem likely at the current rate of decline. But the alternative is to get eaten alive by inflation so I just have to hope for the best.
Just buy huge stocks of ammunition, store it correctly and wait.
Great.. another book to read