A recent social media post by Eamonn Ives has drawn attention to a significant disparity in monthly workforce layoff rates between the United States and Germany. According to Ives, "About 1 percent of the U.S. work force is laid off every month, whereas in Germany, less than 0.1 percent is," a statistic he described as "Crazy stat!" This highlights fundamental differences in the labor market philosophies and protections in the two nations.
Germany's approach to economic downturns heavily relies on internal flexibility, primarily through its "Kurzarbeit" (short-time work) scheme. This system allows companies to reduce employees' working hours, with the government subsidizing a portion of lost wages, thereby preventing mass layoffs. This strategy proved highly effective during the COVID-19 pandemic, enabling German companies to retain their workforce and leading to a moderate increase in unemployment that peaked at 4.1% in August 2020.
In contrast, the United States typically employs a system of external flexibility, characterized by "at-will" employment where employers can more readily lay off workers. During the same period of the pandemic, the U.S. saw a dramatic surge in unemployment, reaching 14.7% by April 2020. While this led to significant job losses, it was often followed by a rapid economic rebound and notable productivity gains, as businesses innovated to operate with leaner workforces.
Data from June 2025 indicates approximately 1.6 million job layoffs and discharges in the U.S., representing nearly 1% of its employed workforce. This figure aligns closely with the tweet's assertion. Economists have noted that while the U.S. model can be "brutal, almost inhumane" in its immediate impact on workers, it has been linked to higher labor productivity growth post-pandemic compared to the Euro area. Germany's focus on employment stability, while preserving jobs, has seen its productivity growth lag behind.
The stark difference in layoff rates reflects these divergent policy choices, with Germany prioritizing job retention and the U.S. favoring market flexibility, each carrying distinct economic and social consequences.