How Europe Crushes Innovation (economist.com)
- Reference: 0179681156
- News link: https://slashdot.org/story/25/10/06/164204/how-europe-crushes-innovation
- Source link: https://www.economist.com/europe/2025/10/02/how-europe-crushes-innovation
New investments face delays of years as dismissed employees are gradually replaced. Olivier Coste, a former EU official turned tech entrepreneur, and economist Yann Coatanlem tracked these opaque restructuring costs and found that European firms avoid risky ventures because of them. Large companies typically finance ten risky projects where eight fail and require mass redundancies. Apple developed a self-driving car for years before abandoning the effort and firing 600 employees in 2024. The two successful projects generate profits worth many times the invested sums. This calculus works in America where failure costs remain low. In Europe the same bet becomes financially unviable.
European blue-chip firms sell products that are improved versions of what they sold in the 20th century -- turbines, shampoos, vaccines, jetliners. American star firms peddle AI chatbots, cloud computers, reusable rockets. Nvidia is worth more than the European Union's 20 biggest listed firms combined. Microsoft, Google, and Meta each fired over 10,000 staff in recent years despite thriving businesses. Satya Nadella called firing people during success the "enigma of success." Bosch and Volkswagen recently announced layoffs with timelines stretching to 2030.
[1] https://www.economist.com/europe/2025/10/02/how-europe-crushes-innovation
translation (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporations pissed that some countries don't allow them to treat human beings like cattle, or worse, "human resources".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, but what about all the innovation in slave plantations?
Re: (Score:1)
What about it?
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, slavery has been disrupted long ago. TCO was too expensive. Sub-minimum-wage employees are much cheaper with much less liability, especially if you trick them into thinking they're "gig workers."
Re:translation (Score:5, Interesting)
The pendulum does swing too far the other way in the EU though, and often it helps protect large incumbents against small innovative firms. For instance in the Netherlands, if a worker is hurt for any reason, even outside working hours (snowboarding, skydiving, juggling chainsaws), the employer is on the hook to continue to pay him for up to 2 years. During that time the worker gets 70% of his contracted wage (but never less than minimum wage).
If you're employing 1000 people, you can self ensure this risk because the averages will work out in such a large group. But if you have only 5 employees, this is not a financial risk you can take so you have to take out costly insurance against this. The obvious solution is to make society pay for this safety net that society demands... for instance by upping corporate taxes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In my European country there are various forms of employment implying different number of months. I have never seen what the Economist describes, but that probably involves a form of collective agreement. It is usually a number of months in proportion to the number of ears of employment, which means between 2 months and 6 months if you have worked more than 10 years, which is what the law states.
Re: (Score:3)
So ... corpratise the profits? But socialise the costs?
I mean it's not like the big companies (wherever based), don't do that anyway.
At a fundamental level I would say you are right. It is a human right to have decent levels of education and health care. However, that same society should demand AND GET a decent return of taxes. None of this double Irish-Dutch Luxembourg sandwich.
Re: (Score:3)
I proposed to socialize the costs but recoup them through corporate taxes. Effectively offering companies affordable insurance against worker injuries. Much more efficient than letting private insurance companies handle this, especially as they have a habit of gouging small companies.
Re: (Score:2)
> For instance in the Netherlands, if a worker is hurt for any reason, even outside working hours (snowboarding, skydiving, juggling chainsaws), the employer is on the hook to continue to pay him for up to 2 years.
Not sure about Netherlands but it's pretty common for accident insurance to be through the employer. What is not common is for insurance to cover accidents caused by negligence or recklessness. E.g. if I practice extreme sports and I get an accident doing them, my accident insurance will very likely not fully cover it unless I purchase a dedicated optional coverage plan for them, assuming it's offered.
> If you're employing 1000 people, you can self ensure this risk because the averages will work out in such a large group. But if you have only 5 employees, this is not a financial risk you can take so you have to take out costly insurance against this.
That might be an issue of regulation. Put in place standardized insurance plans that mainly take into accou
Re: (Score:2)
If a company is unable to get rid of dead weight, eventually there will be fewer companies and if this means fewer people are treated as human resources then more people will have to be treated as welfare burden.
Alternative title (Score:5, Insightful)
How Europe Protects Workers
And Privacy, Safety, Education, ...
Re: Alternative title (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod story -1 Flamebait
Re: (Score:2)
> How Europe Protects Workers
... or:
> " How America Enslaves its Workers "
No, they got it right. (Score:3)
How well protected will European workers be in 50 years? That continent is bleeding its wealth away right now, this should be a major problem to anyone over there who cares about keeping their first world standard of living.
It's not "pro-worker" to piss all your nation's wealth away making current generations happy so that future ones don't have anything.
Race to Armageddon (Score:3, Insightful)
Some in Europe argue innovation is happening faster than humans can digest it anyhow, risking doomsday. Whether that's true or not, they cannot control nations who push tech boundaries, creating pressure to join the crazy game.
The world may be going mad, but they are not in a position to stop it.
CHeck the source (Score:5, Insightful)
The Economist.
'nuff said
Re: (Score:3)
I'd not burn their pages, as the fumes contain too much stupid.
Good! (Score:5, Interesting)
So-called 'disruptive' businesses represent profit for a few but exploitation for everybody else. The ultimate goal of society shouldn't be whiz-bang gadgets and billionaires, it should be prosperity and opportunity for all.
Re: (Score:3)
Mmmhmm. There's a meme about an illegal money laundering medium, illegal hotel, and illegal taxi company, and probably another one that slips my mind. I'd argue that in many of these the goal is to privatize profits and push the burdens to operate onto the public.
I have no objection to businesses being forced to treat their workers well, and businesses being forced to go all-in when they are trying to do something, ie, structure to do it right and to give the development team the time and resources to do
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> What do we do if not everyone attains the same outcome? Do we have to wait until the last homeless bum achieves the suburban home with two cars in every garage?
how much poison do you really need in that well. you've killed the whole village
Re: (Score:2)
> you've killed the whole village
I suggest you look at how most communal societies dealt with members refusing to do their share of the work. Go ahead. Google it*. I dare you.
*Google might not work. It has been sanitized to remove references to sites not in support of the standard narratives. Try another search site.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a really a stretch to convert "prosperity and opportunity for all" into "everyone attains the same outcome." They are not even remotely the same thing. It takes some very politicized blinders to get there.
Does the original poster even hint at "the last homeless bum achieves the suburban home with two cars in every garage? Not even close. But the last homeless bum at least should have a tiny apartment, food and medical care. That is a level of prosperity they would be grateful for and provides opportunity not available to starving, sick, desperate, and dirty individual who wouldn't be let into most buildings, never mind being allowed to apply for a job. It also mean the homeless people WITH jobs (roughly 50% of all homeless in the US) could have an apartment.
> Will we have to stop and redistribute wealth periodically to ensure this eqitable prosperity?
Yes. As has happened many times throughout history. Ideally, it would not be 18th century French style redistribution, but since we've been on a decades long path of wealth redistribution towards the already wealthy, it would be rational to just turn that around and start funneling that money back down for a few decades to even things out. The maxiimum tax rate is less than half what it was in the 1950s, and the actual tax rate amongst the wealthiest is ridiculously low. The cuts in services to low income were not necessary if the actual tax rates were fair and the laws not so skewed.
But another few decades of the path the US is on, and 18th century French redistribution will be way more likely.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Joseph Heller, an important and funny writer, now dead, and I were at a party given by a billionaire on Shelter Island.
I said, “Joe, how does it make you feel to know that our host only yesterday may have made more money than your novel ‘Catch-22’ has earned in its entire history?”
And Joe said, “I’ve got something he can never have.”
And I said, “What on earth could that be, Joe?”
And Joe said, “The knowledge that I’ve got enough.”
Re: (Score:2)
That is just the mindset of the greediest billionaire being applied to every single one of the poorest of people. And it is not even remotely close to reality.
Are there some people who would feel that way? Undoubtedly. But it is an extremely small minority that you have just amplified to everyone based on zero facts or even a slight bit of rationality.
Re: (Score:1)
> It is a really a stretch to convert "prosperity and opportunity for all" into "everyone attains the same outcome." They are not even remotely the same thing. It takes some very politicized blinders to get there.
> Does the original poster even hint at "the last homeless bum achieves the suburban home with two cars in every garage? Not even close. But the last homeless bum at least should have a tiny apartment, food and medical care. That is a level of prosperity they would be grateful for and provides opportunity not available to starving, sick, desperate, and dirty individual who wouldn't be let into most buildings, never mind being allowed to apply for a job. It also mean the homeless people WITH jobs (roughly 50% of all homeless in the US) could have an apartment.
The last homeless bum is going to ruin the place and OD repeatedly, requiring millions of dollars over his lifetime. He's going to make the neighborhood worse to live in, sitting drinking in the nearby park while smoking while catcalling underage girls and relieving himself in the bushes. So I say to you, welcome the bums into your home with open arms and face the consequences of being around horrible people.
Re: (Score:2)
Medical care includes mental health care and addiction treatment. And you invented where I said they need to be housed in your home or a nice neighborhood, and also invented where I said there were no consequences for illegal activities. None of those things are requirements when giving a homeless person a tiny apartment, enough to eat, and medical care.
Re: (Score:2)
> It is a really a stretch to convert "prosperity and opportunity for all" into "everyone attains the same outcome."
This is true. But it's a stretch that one political side makes all the time. Search for "opportunity vs outcome" and educate yourself. do some reading. Go ahead. I dare you.
> 18th century French redistribution will be way more likely.
Study history. The French Revolution (the first one) wasn't about the aristocracy vs the poor. The poor really didn't see any benefits until long after the reign of Napoleon.
Re: (Score:2)
> This is true. But it's a stretch that one political side makes all the time.
It's a stretch that you made , in the post I replied to. It doesn't matter where you got it from, it was your claim. Don't act like it has nothing to do with you when it's pointed out for being idiotic.
> Study history. The French Revolution (the first one) wasn't about the aristocracy vs the poor. The poor really didn't see any benefits until long after the reign of Napoleon.
From the point of view of those who were at the top, there certainly was wealth redistribution. The money may have moved to the upper middle, but the money stopped flowing exclusively upward. And the poor certainly had a role in the process.
Re: (Score:2)
> But the last homeless bum at least should have a tiny apartment, food and medical care.
You're talking about a Universal Basic Income (UBI).
It would reduce or eliminate the need for quite a lot of rules, unfunded mandates such as the minimum wage, and government programs such as social security. It would shrink the government significantly. So conservatives should be on board with it, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Why should that be the goal?
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly this. As you get older, you realise that there is no 'end goal' for all this economic growth. it's not like if we can get to better innovation faster, we will all live forever in peace and prosperity. The truth is we all get old and die.
In the short time we have on this planet, there is a lot to see, do and enjoy. Our industrial societies, are truely amazing things, and its important that we all put in some effort to keep them running. Many of us get enjoyment out of being a small cog in the wheels
Re: (Score:2)
I reject your framing. To date, the net effect of "disruptive" businesses has been an overall increase in prosperity and opportunity. We are more prosperous because Ford disrupted transportation. Computers have been the most disruptive technology ever invented, and have made the world far more prosperous and created far more opportunity.
Should a company not try to invent something new if it may fail, and thus cost the people working on it their jobs?
Disruptive technology (Score:4, Interesting)
is fine if it doesn't create obscene inequalities and equally obscene psychopathic billionaires. If that's the cost of disruptive technology, I'm perfectly happy to hamper it.
Re: (Score:2)
It created cars, planes, trains, computers, phones, cellphones, TV, radio... Seems like a net gain for everyone. I couldn't care less if one guy is a thousand times better off and another is only 1% better, all I see is a net gain.
Re:Disruptive technology (Score:5, Insightful)
How about if this one guys is 1 million times better off and he uses his insane wealth to install a raging fascist in the White House who ruins everybody's lives and threatens world peace?
I can easily do without the technological disruption this one guy, and all the other guys like him, bring about.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
People are far too concerned about what someone ELSE has.
Many people could have "plenty" (however you want to define it), but as soon as they see someone with "a lot more", then all of the sudden, having "plenty" is not enough. They think it "unfair" that someone else has "a lot more" and want something done about it.
Cr-AI me a river (Score:2)
Sounds like a post written by sobbing AI agent that is disappointed that they can't exploit people the way they'd like.
People need stability (Score:5, Insightful)
Like it or not, Big Tech, but people actually value predictability and stability over disruptive technologies. Slow and steady growth, and just-the-right-amount of change is what people need to feel safe, secure and to bring up your children. Disruptive technologies are anything but.
Re: (Score:1)
Which is why initial iPhone sales were so poor? Why nobody ran out to buy a home computer, color TV, black and white TV, or radio? And of course, why most people still ride horses to the store.
Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn't, by any chance, be Sally, are you?
Re: People need stability (Score:2)
I think you're misunderstand the term "disruptive technology". Well-thought, gradual progress and change is good. But big tech, however, are highly dependent on their stakeholders and their expectation to constantly deliver money. This money comes from continuous growth which is very difficult to achieve these days because the market is extremely saturated with goods and services of all kinds; most of what we truly need has already been developed and monetised. That's why big tech talk about disruptive tech
Re: (Score:2)
Huh, didn't mean for that to post AC.
Re: (Score:3)
Nvidia is therefore a bubble. This article is complaining that Europe is an obstacle to further bubble inflation.
No amount of Nvidia etching IP onto wafers is worthy of a 4.6 TRILLION market cap - bigger than the 4.2 Trillion market cap of the ENTIRE name-brand pharmaceutical industry.
Re: Huge problem (Score:1)
Sssshhh, don't pop it !
Re: (Score:3)
The problem that Europe's top 20 are worth less than Nvidia can't just be hand waved away by claiming a bubble. Nvidia is certainly over valued right now but it's not that over valued. That is an absolutely insane amount.
This isn't just a thing with one US company either, this graphic does a good job illustrating the problem [1]https://www.reddit.com/r/neoli... [reddit.com] (we have 100 million less people then Europe too!). Europe has just gotten awful at creating wealth and if this is left unchecked it will eventually co
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/1h6f5qq/us_and_eu_companies_that_are_worth_more_than_10/
How's the general prosperity? (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't talk about productivity or innovation, talk about the general, widespread, median prosperity? Can Germany afford good schools, are kids going hungry in France? These are the measures I care about.
You're talking about measures that INVESTORS care about, and I'm not one.
I just read a dissertation by Terry Chu, a doctoral candidate in Toronto; it was about how different the COVID infection rates were in districts that read mainly Chinese media, and our media. Far worse for us. It turns out the Chinese media mainly wrote about COVID as a public health problem, a risk to life. The main Toronto papers mostly wrote about the *economic* problem, the risk to money-making.
This is another case of writing about "risks to money", not "risks to the population".
Re: (Score:1)
> You're talking about measures that INVESTORS care about, and I'm not one.
That is a shame that you are in the rent paying class. The easiest way through life is to start young with nothing, spend less than you make and eventually own assets. You might start with a car rather than renting one (or borrowing money for one) all though cars are very bad investments. You might then start funding a 401k (in the USA) and start putting assets away for retirement in HORROR stocks and bonds of companies. You may want to stop paying rent and purchase your own home. Finally you may final
Re: (Score:2)
You have a thousand advantages that didn't exist in 1967.
Re: (Score:1)
should be no problem bringing back those pre-1980 tax rates, housing costs and pension systems then right?
[1]https://www.pewresearch.org/so... [pewresearch.org]
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say the likely scenario is that the person actually buys stuff but doesn't consider the stuff an 'investment'. I bought a house to live in, not to turn it around for a profit.
To the extent people are 'investors' in things like 401k, they may not be 'active' investors and would just as much prefer something like a massive expansion of social security instead of letting investment companies play with their money. Or to the extent they do want to 'invest', they actually want to contribute to the potential
Re: How's the general prosperity? (Score:3)
This is probably the most out of touch comment I've ever seen. The average person lives paycheck to paycheck through no fault or shortsightedness of their own. They didn't have the same advantages as you. And if you were born in their shoes, you'd be just as stuck despite how clever you think you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Will Germany continue to be able to provide good schools if businesses fail and take the tax base with them?
How dreadful (Score:1)
I mean, when I got let go from my contract in '01, I got my seven months... and meanwhile, it was the pop of the tech bubble, and the job markets were flooded. By the time I ran out of the *far* shorter unemployment than we used to have earlier in the 20th century, I got "you're not fresh".
I wound up losing my house. But innovation, sure...
And what is actually more valuable to us? (Score:5, Insightful)
"turbines, shampoos, vaccines, jetliners. American star firms peddle AI chatbots, cloud computers, reusable rockets." I can't help but ask, "which are actually more important?/sociall useful?" I often think about when the last really important, indisputably life-improving big invention was made. I know this is very subjective, but personally, as a 43 year old, the Internet seemed like it was going to improve all of our lives but the last 20 years have shown that it really doesn't. So much tech out of Silicon Valley seems designed to improve efficiency at work... but not really improve our lives.
Re: (Score:2)
If foreign turbine makers keep innovating and EU companies are still making the same old turbines, people will stop buying the EU's turbines.
Re: (Score:1)
"AI chatbots" improve medical diagnoses, make legal help affordable to those who need it, complement education, etc.
"cloud computers" connect the world, making this critical communications infrastructure available everywhere, while reducing redundancy (better for the environment).
"reusable rockets" will make humanity a multiple planetary species, and this increase in redundancy might be what we need to pass through the Great Filter.
It's debatable which are more important and socially useful, but I'm g
Re: (Score:2)
> "reusable rockets" will make humanity a multiple planetary species, and this increase in redundancy might be what we need to pass through the Great Filter.
Is that you, Elon? Did you mix Ambien with red wine, again?
Innovation??? (Score:1)
Are these "innovations" like social networks or AI beneficial? Because if they are not, and everyday that passes the first one is more horrible and the second more stupid, why we have to have them and sustain crazy billionares?
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, how about innovations like smartphones? Apple innovated, Google innovated, Nokia and Erickson did.... what? Right, they failed to innovate, and people lost their jobs.
I'm Extremely Ambivalent About This (Score:4, Insightful)
A big part of me hates how many companies treat their workers as expendable, and European laws do a much better job of protecting workers' rights than in the U.S. However, I've seen the other side of the spectrum have some positive benefits as well. The company I work for hires many people, sometimes without even having a particular role in mind for that person. The primary goal is to find as much talent as possible and provide an environment that can find their strengths and foster the growth of their skills. This strategy has led to numerous people being hired without a specific role in mind and subsequently working their way up within the company, although many more have washed out along the way. However, if it was far more difficult to let go of unproductive people, our hiring process would likely drop to the absolute minimum and I can't imagine our teams would have nearly as much talent. I imagine there's got to be some middle ground that can improve workers' rights while allowing companies to be nimble and flexible.
GDP versus standard of living (Score:3)
Canada has a much higher standard of living than America and a much lower GDP.
I don't care what my country's GDP is if I don't see any of it. It doesn't matter how big the pie is if my slice requires an electron microscope to measure.
Re: (Score:2)
Who are the big European cellphone manufacturers? ASML is important, but if Europe's economy rests on it and Airbus, how long can that last?
European companies vs. American companies (Score:2)
> ``European blue-chip firms sell products that are improved versions of what they sold in the 20th century -- turbines, shampoos, vaccines, jetliners. American star firms peddle AI chatbots, cloud computers, reusable rockets. Nvidia is worth more than the European Union's 20 biggest listed firms combined. Microsoft, Google, and Meta each fired over 10,000 staff in recent years despite thriving businesses.''
Perversely, Wall Street rewards those companies that lay off employees by the thousands. Not so much
At least in Germany it's different (Score:2)
I mean Germany got less innovative as the social system got torn down.
I think the main issue is strategic support for companies. While in the US you have a huge military sector which supports companies which then see civil markets for their military goods (think of integrated circuits) the German stategy was always to ask the leading companies what thy think we should support.
That's why, for example, we got things like Teletex. A sort of "end-to-end" e-mail system that works without servers over the circuit
not working people 996 hurts profits! (Score:2)
not working people 996 hurts profits!
Re: (Score:2)
That Chinese thing that nobody brought up because it isn't relevant?
Funding, funding, funding. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are all the giant US tech companies concentrated in Silicon Valley and Seattle instead of being spread evenly throughout the country? Because Silicon Valley and Seattle is where all the tech investors are. The success of tech startups depends almost entirely on investor funding. And what do EU tech startups lack the most? You guessed it, investor funding. EU tech companies have to earn money for their growth the hard way because European investors are almost as risk-averse as the banks. Loosening labor regulations will do exactly nothing to improve access to funding.
Re: (Score:3)
Well obviously! But the simple fact will be that there won't be a new position for everyone. Redeploy as many as you can, but in the end, they were hired to do some new thing that failed and there won't be anywhere else in the company for them to go.
Other comments say it all (Score:3)
TFA talks about why companies cannot innovate in Europe because of over regulation and every top comment is âoehereâ(TM)s why thatâ(TM)s a good thingâ.
Your 6 months off a year and 3 year resignation periods may seem great but what youâ(TM)re really doing is mortgaging your childrenâ(TM)s future for your own convenience. They will grow up in a poorer, less dynamic Europe with fewer opportunities. Innovators leave Europe for bluer skies. Anyone can look at a the GDP charts of the last 15 years and see whatâ(TM)s happening.
Do we need innovation? (Score:3)
I think we need stability more than innovation. We need our devices to be stable and long lasting more than anything else. We need a stable income with the knowledge that we wont get let go at the drop of a hat. Sounds like Europe is more on the side of the people than they are on the disrupting and unstable corporations.
This is rage bait (Score:4, Insightful)
This article was simply posted to increase engagement with /. readers by making us angry. There is no attempt to engage in good faith
Yeah that's not innovation (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate crap like this, and this is my explanation.
Large companies are not innovative, large companies suck little companies dry. Compare the dot com bubble with the AI bubble. In the dot com bubble we had thousands of small companies riding the wave. Of course a very large chunk of them went under. In the AI bubble we have a few big companies and that's it. How is that better for innovation? The only really new company is Open AI. Nvidia, Microsoft, Google, Facebook are all borg companies where innovation goes to die.
Steve Jobs was never afraid to kill off cash cows if something more innovative comes along. The companies I mentioned are not willing. Chinese companies have figured out how to run these models on less hardware. Yet American companies keep talking billions upon billions. They do so so that no little company would ever challenge them.
Take for example Musk and Optimus vs Unitree Robots. Unitree has a video where it shows a robot that can be knocked down and it gets up without problems. Musk to counter shows a robot with power lines that can do a simple kata. GIVE ME A BREAK! This is the best American engineering can do?
So to critique European innovation is yet another tactic by American "innovation" companies to try and make things go their way. BTW what the article fails to mention is that labor costs quite a bit more in America, than Europe. I am talking about high tech labor.
Re: (Score:2)
Successful large companies start out as successful small companies driving innovation though. You say as much in your own post.
Europe isn't getting those small companies which is why it isn't getting the large ones. Notice the lack of major companies produced in the last 50 years as illustrated in the graphics in this article [1]https://geekway.substack.com/p... [substack.com] . They're in a state of economic stagnation which is bad for their long term prosperity.
[1] https://geekway.substack.com/p/a-visualization-of-europes-non-bubbly
And yet... (Score:2)
And yet, I know French workers that were able to bootstrap their own businesses in part thanks to the generous severance packages they got from their former employers.
Define "innovation" (Score:1)
They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.
Wildly misguided... (Score:1)
European here, lived in 3 different European countries and now in the US. And no, the costs of shedding employees is not the reason why there is a lack of innovation in Europe.
First of all the numbers they display are wildly hyperbole, so much they could be hypergolic propellant for rockets. True, there are higher costs of shedding employees, but not by the margin posted by the authors.
The actual reason, is far simpler: there is a substantially less appetite for risk from the banking and inversion side than
Re: (Score:2)
Generally, when someone says something is "that simple", it's anything but "that simple".
Cope (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like a bunch of exploitative cope. Shedding workers != innovation
Private companies (Score:2)
In Europe, most of the biggest companies are privately held.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you contesting the explanation in the article? That innovation is risky, with most projects failing and the associated workers being let go?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not? I automate more and more within my system, what I used to do by hand and then hired someone to keep doing by hand and then hired a developer to automate no longer needs to be done by hand, why should I not be able to enjoy the results of this innovation, which means cutting cost and delivering the same value with automation?
Innovation is not necessarily in inventing a new engine, it is quite possibly just another batch job.
Re: (Score:2)
You are literally the "They took our Jerbs!" people from Family Guy.
[1]https://youtu.be/APo2p4-WXsc?t... [youtu.be]
[1] https://youtu.be/APo2p4-WXsc?t=87
Re: (Score:2)
That's a South Park gag, not Family Guy.
Re: (Score:2)
To me this seems like an AI written article and not something of value.
What really stifles innovation isn't employee rotation but the huge amount of paperwork to even put a product on the market. Add to it the recycling fees that every product has to bear. Etc. etc....