4 ms·

> Well, I'm saying that most every improvement to labor laws that benefit employees make it more difficult and/or more expensive to hire. Yes, and it protects

> Well, I'm saying that most every improvement to labor laws that benefit employees make it more difficult and/or more expensive to hire. Yes, and it protects those with a job and more qualified, and who pays for it is those unemployed, especially young people coming into the labor market. Strict labor laws at some point end up increasing inequality. Surprise! PS: And that's what happens in France. Inequality isn't between those making a lot and those making a little, it's between those who have a job for life, and those going from short-term contract to short-term contract for years, usually unable to rent or buy a home or a car (those usually require a CDI). Been there, seen that.

alkonaut 9y ago
> Strict labor laws at some point end up increasing inequality. Surprise! Is there a correlation you mean, between inequality (e.g. Gini) and labor laws (unsure how to measure that on a scale)? To me it seems the countries with strong labor movement in the 20th century today have lower inequality. Perhaps this is changing in the modern era - with the trend being that labor now protects the interests of the employed vs the interests of the unemployed (whereas through the 20th century it was the working people vs. the employers in a more classic Marxist setup)? That might well be the case, and I agree I see some of that. But if we don't look at the past 20 years but instead the past 120 - then I think you agree that equality today is higher where there are better workforce protection.
- Kalium 9y ago
  I don't know if it's the strength of labor laws, per se, so much as the cost difference between different categories of employment. That can probably be quantified. It could be argued that today we have a Marxist-esque class conflict between the highly-paid and highly-privileged classes of the employed (usually permanent) and the low-paid and low-privileged classes (usually temporary or contractors). Limited to the wealthier countries of the first world, mind you. It does seem to work for the US and France, where a lot of benefits are tied to employment status. It falls apart for Germany, though.

alkonaut 9y ago

> Strict labor laws at some point end up increasing inequality. Surprise! Is there a correlation you mean, between inequality (e.g. Gini) and labor laws (unsure how to measure that on a scale)? To me it seems the countries with strong labor movement in the 20th century today have lower inequality. Perhaps this is changing in the modern era - with the trend being that labor now protects the interests of the employed vs the interests of the unemployed (whereas through the 20th century it was the working people vs. the employers in a more classic Marxist setup)? That might well be the case, and I agree I see some of that. But if we don't look at the past 20 years but instead the past 120 - then I think you agree that equality today is higher where there are better workforce protection.

Kalium 9y ago
I don't know if it's the strength of labor laws, per se, so much as the cost difference between different categories of employment. That can probably be quantified. It could be argued that today we have a Marxist-esque class conflict between the highly-paid and highly-privileged classes of the employed (usually permanent) and the low-paid and low-privileged classes (usually temporary or contractors). Limited to the wealthier countries of the first world, mind you. It does seem to work for the US and France, where a lot of benefits are tied to employment status. It falls apart for Germany, though.