How Europe crushes innovation

EU bureaucracy and “Brussels parasitism”

• Some argue Europe isn’t “crushing innovation” so much as prioritizing bureaucratic interests, especially in Brussels, calling the setup parasitic.
• Others counter with rough budget/GDP comparisons showing EU institutions are cheap relative to US federal spending, and claim “EU bureaucracy is a money grab” is empirically weak unless you add all national administrations.
• A rebuttal notes that budget size understates regulatory power: the EU can shape large parts of member-state economies via rules without corresponding direct spending.

Labour protections vs innovation

• The article’s central claim—that high firing costs deter risky, innovative projects—gets heavy pushback.
• Critics say this conflates social achievements (job security, severance, due process) with “inefficiencies” and treats workers as disposable risk capital.
• Supporters of flexibility argue that when mass layoffs are very costly, firms avoid moonshot bets, especially in big incumbents, and that easier hiring/firing expands roles that “wouldn’t exist” under rigid rules.
• There’s disagreement over whether job protections are a major driver of Europe’s weaker tech performance; several call that “propaganda to suppress wages and rights.”

Worker welfare, wages, and quality of life

• One side claims American workers are “better off” due to higher median wages, PPP, and lower unemployment, and sees weaker labour protections as part of that success.
• Others respond that higher pay is offset by extreme housing, healthcare, and general insecurity; they’d choose European stability even at lower salaries.
• Happiness, poverty, and inequality metrics are invoked to argue Europe delivers better average life outcomes despite slower growth.
• Some insist the debate overvalues GDP and income while ignoring non-market goods (public spaces, social cohesion).

Startups, risk-taking, and the safety net

• A few note that strong protections plus good jobs can reduce individual appetite for entrepreneurial risk (“crabs in a bucket”), especially in places like the UK.
• Others argue the welfare state and safety nets actually make it safer to found startups or join risky ventures.
• Denmark’s “flexicurity” model (easy hire/fire + strong social support) is cited as a possible middle ground.

Other explanations for Europe’s innovation gap

• Several comments say the real issues are: underinvestment in R&D, fragmented capital markets, an incomplete single market, multi-language complexity, and the dominance of US tech ecosystems.
• Some point to demographic and political factors (aging electorates defending pensions, resistance to change) and globalization/offshoring pressures.
• There’s also mention that Europe excels in some domains (health/science research, certain smaller countries like Sweden) and that high-innovation countries can coexist with strong protections.

Firing difficulty and practical workarounds

• Experiences differ: some say firing in Europe is only hard if you ignore well-defined procedures; others emphasize severe costs for small struggling firms.
• Firms often respond by using body shops/consultancies, fixed-term “flex contracts,” and subsidiaries to retain numerical flexibility while avoiding politically painful layoffs.
• Critics see these as evidence that rigid laws don’t prevent precarity; they just push it into more opaque channels.

Underlying ideological clash

• Many see the piece as classic neoliberal messaging: equating “innovation” with investor returns and justifying weaker labour rights.
• Others openly state that welfare states and strong protections inevitably “kill innovation” by dulling incentives and making the state obese.
• The thread never converges: one camp prioritizes growth and adaptability; the other prioritizes security, fairness, and broad-based quality of life, and rejects the idea that mass layoff freedom should be central to innovation policy.