3 ms·

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 ha

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.