

Low Barriers Are A Good Thing - macournoyer_
http://garyharan.com/2010/04/23/low-barriers-are-a-good-thing.html

======
SlyShy
Denmark is an interesting case study of this working very well to encourage a
competitive economy. In Denmark it is extremely easy to fire people, but also
very easy to hire people. This actually decreases unemployment, because
companies can easily downsize during recessions, weather the storm, and then
hire the workers back (unlike in the US where companies have to hang on to
contracts while in a downturn).

[http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story...](http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7880198)

~~~
arach
This is quite interesting. Thanks for the link. It seems they are at their
limit.

Quote from the Economist story: "Moreover, despite enviably low unemployment
and labour shortages in industries from construction to health care, the Danes
are having difficulties nudging the long-term unemployed into work. The post
office complains that it cannot recruit new postmen. Newspaper distributors
have started importing delivery boys from Poland. One ferry operator's effort
to recruit 365 new workers was stymied by an epidemic of seasickness among the
unemployed who applied. Even in Denmark, it seems, would-be workers have their
limitations."

~~~
anamax
> It seems they are at their limit.

Ease of hire/fire isn't the only factor affecting employment. The easier it is
for me to make it without working, the less likely I am to work, no matter how
much someone might want to hire me.

------
exit
read that tweet as free advice not to work for calacanis

here's the full exchange between employer and employee:
[http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:h1M0xdV67_EJ:pastebin.co...](http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:h1M0xdV67_EJ:pastebin.com/PSY4iYZ0+http://pastebin.com/PSY4iYZ0&hl=en&strip=1)

~~~
fizx
Wow, that's ugly.

~~~
zackattack
I understand Jason's perspective though. Unfortunately his attempt to minimize
morale tax backfired

------
angelbob
Technically I suppose I might be a "Gen Y" something-or-other, though at 33 I
feel too old to be a "trophy kid". But I'm a firm believer in the idea that if
you change companies frequently, but also get large, valuable projects done,
it all evens out pretty well.

Then again, perhaps that's just me rationalizing looking like a flake. Still,
I'm a flake who has put together some good projects, and made some folks
decent money. I'm okay with that.

~~~
halostatue
As someone who is hiring right now, I would look suspiciously at anyone who
changed jobs every 12 - 24 months; it doesn't mean that I wouldn't interview
you or hire you, but it means that I'm going to be digging pretty hard to
understand why you've moved around so much.

There's a lot of good reasons for people moving around, but I have to make
absolutely certain that it's not a personality flaw that is in the candidate.

Note that if you've spent time as a contractor and have indicated that you're
working on 12 - 24 month contracts, that's entirely different. Moving on
wasn't completely your choice.

~~~
mrkurt
The unfortunate truth for tech people is that moving jobs is the most
effective way to get a promotion. If you're hiring for a company that will
quickly and effectively "promote" people who perform well, I wouldn't think
you'd have any problems.

If employees are going to outgrow their positions with you, though, and don't
have a position to grow into, then you should dig. :)

------
grellas
I wouldn't be too quick to assume that bouncing around a lot will not have an
adverse impact on your future ability to get hired for a good position - while
it may not matter in some contexts, it definitely will for many jobs
(including the best ones), where an employer will likely want to hire people
who will stick and grow with the company.

Repeated hires are a cost and a drain for companies, and employers will
definitely consider the intangible of whether you are likely to stay as a non-
trivial factor affecting the hiring decision.

At the very least, if you bounce around a lot, you will be limiting your
options for many future hires.

This is not to justify the parting shot given to the employee here. But don't
lose perspective on this issue either.

~~~
mynyml
I'm tempted to believe that companies that prefer long term employment are the
ones that need to train employees for their specific needs. Companies that
make use of transferable skills instead increase their chances of a new hire
quickly picking up where the previous employee left. e.g. a web dev, in a FOSS
shop that uses well known best practices.

~~~
halostatue
Or they—like my company—have complex code bases in complex languages (C++)
that mean that you're not going to be an effective developer for anywhere from
3 - 6 months after hiring. It has nothing to do with training you for our
specific needs, but everything to do with the fact that in a mature codebase
there's lots of moving parts that can easily be broken, and there may be older
choices that may not make sense because you weren't around when the choice was
made.

Candidates with short-term employment backgrounds aren't a _problem_ , per se.
We want you to be a long-term employee because you _like_ it at our company
and want to contribute to something meaningfully. We don't want to be a short-
term _paycheque_ job.

~~~
strlen
Why not just _ask_ the candidate what makes this job different from the
previous ones?

If the answer is something along the lines of "I'll want to gain knowledge of
and practical experience with C++, but the previous jobs wouldn't let me work
in anything besides Java and scripting languages", it's good indication that
are looking for a long-term home and _not_ just a higher salary.

------
j_baker
I don't necessarily disagree with the thesis of this post, but this seems a
bit of a tangent. Was Calcanis _really_ advocating the French model? More than
likely he was just venting over high turnover.

~~~
strlen
When there's high turn over at a company, it's almost always the fault of
management. There's a great Russian proverb: don't blame the mirror if your
face is ugly. When your employees are leaving after a few _months_ , the one
at fault is _you_ , not professionals in other companies staying a few _years_
on the job.

