4 ms·

France also makes it very hard to fire a worker, which means hiring carries more risk. That then leads to one of the highest youth unemployment rates in the Eur

France also makes it very hard to fire a worker, which means hiring carries more risk. That then leads to one of the highest youth unemployment rates in the Eurozone of around 20%. The US unemployment rates, both youth and overall, are about half of France rates. Sticky job movement causes friction in both directions, like most sticky economic variables.

foepys 8y ago
Germany also has strong labor laws and has a youth unemployment rate of about 7.7% with the lowest overall unemployment rate in the EU and second to lowest in the world. Your argument is not valid.
- ChrisLomont 8y ago
  It's not my argument, it OECD economist reports. Also, Germany laws are not France laws; comparing them is not valid. Here [1] is a well cited paper showing from theory and empirically that gains in labor do result in unemployment. From the abstract: "Tight hiring and firing rules and military conscription most clearly seem to have adverse effects". Here's [2] a slightly older one addressing France and Germany in particular, showing what I claimed. France is not Germany; your comparison is invalid. Here's [3] another heavily cited, more recent paper, that pulls France out in particular. From the abstract: "Heavier regulation of labor is associated with lower labor force participation and higher unemployment, especially of the young." There's plenty more papers with the same results. Use Google scholar to find them. You can dislike the results, but ignoring the result and claiming they are not real simply hurts more people through ignoring evidence, thereby avoiding correct solutions to the problems. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147596708000772 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014759670... [2] https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.11.3.37 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.11.3.37 [3] https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/119/4/1339/1851075 https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/119/4/1339/185...
  - krageon 8y ago
    He's not ignoring you, he's just disputing the results of the research as stated. You are claiming better worker protection = higher unemployment. Clearly it has been demonstrated this is not true. What is also not true is the converse; one is not required for the other. You can then of course claim "but it is true, because these studies still say so!" but that doesn't make it an established thing. It is a hypothesis that some people have tested and found to be true. Other people did not. I would say this makes it at best uncertain whether or not it is the case.
    - ChrisLomont 8y ago
      >You are claiming better worker protection = higher unemployment. When normalizing across other variables, this is consistent with the econ literature. >Clearly it has been demonstrated this is not true. Cite that it's clearly not true. I don't think it's been clearly shown these have correlation 0 or negative. >one is not required for the other. No one has claimed that. >but that doesn't make it an established thing Nothing is ever established to the certainty for enough nitpickers. But when the majority of literature of experts leans in one direction, it's safe to bet that their majority opinion is most likely the truth. Sometimes that is overturned, but the majority of expert consensus opinions remain correct. Do you think that making it hard to fire workers makes it more or less risky on the part of an employer to hire a new worker? If more risky, then how is this offset in hiring? Employers and markets are not wholly stupid.

foepys 8y ago

Germany also has strong labor laws and has a youth unemployment rate of about 7.7% with the lowest overall unemployment rate in the EU and second to lowest in the world. Your argument is not valid.

ChrisLomont 8y ago
It's not my argument, it OECD economist reports. Also, Germany laws are not France laws; comparing them is not valid. Here [1] is a well cited paper showing from theory and empirically that gains in labor do result in unemployment. From the abstract: "Tight hiring and firing rules and military conscription most clearly seem to have adverse effects". Here's [2] a slightly older one addressing France and Germany in particular, showing what I claimed. France is not Germany; your comparison is invalid. Here's [3] another heavily cited, more recent paper, that pulls France out in particular. From the abstract: "Heavier regulation of labor is associated with lower labor force participation and higher unemployment, especially of the young." There's plenty more papers with the same results. Use Google scholar to find them. You can dislike the results, but ignoring the result and claiming they are not real simply hurts more people through ignoring evidence, thereby avoiding correct solutions to the problems. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147596708000772 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014759670... [2] https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.11.3.37 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.11.3.37 [3] https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/119/4/1339/1851075 https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/119/4/1339/185...
- krageon 8y ago
  He's not ignoring you, he's just disputing the results of the research as stated. You are claiming better worker protection = higher unemployment. Clearly it has been demonstrated this is not true. What is also not true is the converse; one is not required for the other. You can then of course claim "but it is true, because these studies still say so!" but that doesn't make it an established thing. It is a hypothesis that some people have tested and found to be true. Other people did not. I would say this makes it at best uncertain whether or not it is the case.
  - ChrisLomont 8y ago
    >You are claiming better worker protection = higher unemployment. When normalizing across other variables, this is consistent with the econ literature. >Clearly it has been demonstrated this is not true. Cite that it's clearly not true. I don't think it's been clearly shown these have correlation 0 or negative. >one is not required for the other. No one has claimed that. >but that doesn't make it an established thing Nothing is ever established to the certainty for enough nitpickers. But when the majority of literature of experts leans in one direction, it's safe to bet that their majority opinion is most likely the truth. Sometimes that is overturned, but the majority of expert consensus opinions remain correct. Do you think that making it hard to fire workers makes it more or less risky on the part of an employer to hire a new worker? If more risky, then how is this offset in hiring? Employers and markets are not wholly stupid.