> Flexible Labour law (e.g. France would be a counter-example) That's only nice on short term. Easily being able to fire people is fun, until there's too much

> Flexible Labour law (e.g. France would be a counter-example) That's only nice on short term. Easily being able to fire people is fun, until there's too much of a difference between top and low earning. Eventually it'll just lead to huge problems. You avoid loads of issues by ensuring there's not a gigantic difference between top earners and low earners. E.g. it should NOT be ok that people work multiple jobs, or can barely scrape by. IMO less inequality will eventually be better for a country; tax income could be higher, more influence as result. Similarly, if people think they have no good future, why follow things like do no crime. See e.g. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-Discussion-Notes/Issues/2016/12/31/Causes-and-Consequences-of-Income-Inequality-A-Global-Perspective-42986 https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-Discussion-Notes/I... (income increases on bottom 20% of earners result in GDP growth): > This suggests that policies need to be country specific but should focus on raising the income share of the poor, and ensuring there is no hollowing out of the middle class.