Oooookay, couple of things here: Here in Portugal you just need a Just Cause to fire someone immediately. You can fire someone at any time, you just have to give them a 30 day notice in advance. Your videos are brilliant, and I've been learning so much from them! But I think this one was a bit too biased. Please confirm that, and thank you.
Hey Joao! Thanks so much for the nice note and good question. We actually do mention that Portugal requires "Just Cause" to fire someone but that, at least according to the regulation, proving "Just Cause" appears to be pretty cumbersome and difficult; we mention some of the steps for proving "Just Cause" in our video. See the regulation here: www.ilo.org/dyn/eplex/termmain.showCountry?p_lang=es&p_country_id=13 Perhaps it's not as difficult in practice as it appears on paper. Happy to continue the conversation over email- please reach out at support AT mruniversity.com!
It's the same in Poland. If an employer wants to fire an employee than he/she can do it any time and no particular reason is needed. The notice period depends on the type of the contract and the period of time that the employee worked for the employer prior to firing (it varies from 3 days to 3 months). If both sides mutually agree to part away immediately, there is no notice period at all.
the idea that people stay on unemployment benefits for the fun of it is insulting and degrading. People in the United States are DYING of unemployment and lack of benefits- think of the THOUSANDS who die yearly bc they cannot afford their medication or healthcare, which are tied up in employment. but what a good thing it is that the labour market is "flexible" enough to kick these people off of their health insurance!
To be fair, the video never said it was a good thing that that the long-term unemployment is lower in the USA. Just saying. Other than that, I agree with oyu.
Economics isn't perfect. It relies on models and assumptions so it can not take into account every single individual person that may be on unemployment benefits. Economists are forced to make certain assumptions in order to come to predictions about how unemployment rates will change such as "less generous unemployment benefits tend to lead to more people finding jobs". Economics isn't perfect and know one can ever know exactly what will happen to the economy or employment rates, but the models that economists use are close representations.
Nobody said it was for the fun of it. It's simple data. Some people, when given unemployment benefits, choose to coast on it. This is a commentary on precisely nothing, and simply explains one of many aspects of unemployment lengths.
Norway has a large of non labor rigidity related factors that reduce unemployment. Real data has lots of noise, and of course you have 1 example which has a large amount of that noise pointing in 1 direction. Norway happens to be that example
Each of these countries mentioned also have comprehensive, government-sponsored health care and unemployment benefits for their citizens - just sayin'...
Also quality of life is vastly superior in developed countries than in developing countries, meaning a stable carreer plan can pay off very favourably for high skill workers
Sorry to keep bothering you, but you kinda just defined the frictional factors of unemployment out of the population structure. To properly validate your hypotheses, wouldn't we need to compare them against "null" hypotheses based on the distribution of frictional unemployment factors within the different countries' populations (e.g. skill level, skill match, (re)location issues, job satisfaction, proportion entering the workforce for the first time, etc.)? Slightly imperfect because these "frictional distributions" and structural issues are probably intertwined, but if you're going to propose a country take a "drug"-i.e. a policy that has some negative "side effects" for workers-you have to compare it to a "placebo." Also, how might other structural issues other than your hypotheses about rigidity of employment and benefits? Couldn't help but notice that as you move up the figure you provided from low to high long term unemployment, there's a pretty stark transition between countries that either are or aren't in the Euro area. If I had the unenviable task of trying to make sense of this data, I would try to see if something changed starting around 1999 to get an idea of whether a potential underlying issue was related to wanting to join the currency union, or is a product of it. Finally, how comparable are unemployment statistics between countries? And even if they're directly comparable, shouldn't we be careful to make sure that, for example, unemployed Canadian workers aren't on average "more easily discourage" than Belgian workers? The structural issue you pointed out with certain countries providing much better unemployment benefits could potentially lead to different rates of discouragement, which we wouldn't want to confuse with labor force participation. Not saying that's the case, but I'd want to have it shown that it's not.
This is an educational video explaining the concept of structural unemployment. Economists are aware that society is much more complicated than "a flexible market means less unemployment which means society is better." However, a flexible market equating to less unemployment is a fact supported by data. What we do with that is not for economists to answer. There is no economic model to represent quality of life. As evidenced by the video, many European governments and citizens alike have made choices that may not be the most beneficial to this specific aspect of the economy, but are beneficial to the lives of the people living there. However, make no mistake, the people making those policies understood these economic principles and designed them in ways to not devastate their economies as a whole.
I didn't wanna see the video till the end because labor regulations ARE a good thing, you cant just lost your job because the employer just wants, it needs to have a cause and you need to be paid when you are unemployed, how are you going to eat and pay the bills if you receive just 30% of what you used to receive every month? OMG
The singel key factor for the unemployment is that europe has mass immigration. Mass immigration of poor or even non educated people that makes a problem in the housing market, labor market and the entire economy, this in turn leads to much higher crime rate and so on and so on. That is why the system is failing.
1) Refugees make up much less than 1% pf european population. 2) There were no refigees in 90s but structural unemployment was there. 3) USA has much more immigrants and illegal immigrants per capita.
This video is a great example of how wrong and dangerous are the questions answered by market capitalism. No surprise that the video is about labour. Market capitalism treats labour - human capital - as a highly negotiable resource, much more negotiable (we could also say disposable) than physical resources. If a firm is at loss, they don't even dream to stop paying the bills. But they often lay-off people to lower their costs. The apotheosis of this video is the dichotomy insiders/outsiders: apparently, the employed are the enemy for unemployed. Sure. First, they throw us crumbles, then they enjoy watching us fighting with each other. And they also reassure us that this is the way to be... Chapeau to your nerve. Economic growth is not an answer that makes everyone happy. Economic growth is especially good for the richest part of the population, it keeps increasing income inequality and nonetheless, capitalism supporters think that it must be achieved at every cost. As I said, hat off to your nerve.
I had never thought about the labor laws and how they can really effect the unemployment. I do agree that the lower the UE benefits will look to get back to work quicker.
It's funny to see how people get irritated and start labeling the video as "biased", "wrong", etc. just because it's different from their opinions, although most of them cannot even make a relevant point. 😆
The US must be a paradise for employees then, right? No health care, no paid holidays, no maternity leave and the fear of getting unemployed at any time. I enjoy the videos of this channel, but this is one is extremely biased.
I have never had this problem, coming from someone who has worked multiple types of jobs and moved to 4 different states. The only thing that prevents you from any benefits is whether you're full-time or part-time and even then, there are ways around that if you apply, but you have to read the fine print (which most people don't even bother to because we like to be spoon fed). Also, companies require you stay for a minimum amount of time so people don't start taking advantage. I'm no business owner and don't speak for one but as an employee, it sounds like you're just bitter.
