knowledge-clay

European labor regulation and European tax rates have nothing to do with each other. The former is about restrictions on how employers can treat employees. The latter is about funding a robust welfare state. For what it's worth, both are good.

> Because labor protection costs money

Labor protection does not "cost money". It is a limit on the degree to which workers can be exploited.

> Because then the question arises: What if the current way of handling labor protection in the EU (as one of many components) leads to destroying yours and everyone elses standard of living, simply because it's unaffordable?

The GDP/capita of e.g. France is 10x what it was in the 1970s. There is nothing "unaffordable" about the European social safety net, except that there are political pressures to dismantle it (right-liberals like the Economist)

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

There are commuter rails that go from NJ to NYC

Perhaps on an individual level, but on a policy level, it makes sense that the safety standards for flying are higher for flying than for driving.

> What's the back of the envelope on whether the 737 Max is more dangerous than driving?

Driving is an absurdly dangerous mode of transportation, so it’s probably not the best comparison.