>Doesn't matter, there would be someone else who does hire.

But not as many as there would have been otherwise. It doesn't take a big change in labor surplus to lower wages for everyone.

>Or you thing jobs would dissapear if people dont have a cushy road to business success?

Yes, jobs disappear as it gets harder to fire people. That's what I've been trying to explain to you. That's why you don't want to make it hard to fire people - it's bad for everyone, but it's especially bad for employees.

>Yes, jobs disappear as it gets harder to fire people. That's what I've been trying to explain to you. That's why you don't want to make it hard to fire people - it's bad for everyone, but it's especially bad for employees.

Well, that's a laissez faire doctrine for the benefit employers. In my experience (and it's a European perspective) it's not true in practice.

When employers can fire more easily they just take advantage of that to create a climate where they threaten employees to work more (unpaid overtime, lower wages etc) -- so that they have to employ less people to do the same jobs. It's a give an inch, they will take a mile situation.

>Well, that's a laissez faire doctrine for the benefit employers. In my experience (and it's a European perspective) it's not true in practice.

I don't think that's true. For most countries in Europe unemployment is high in the best of times.

The countries with corporatist labor systems (non-militant, union/employer consensus decision making) typically have low unemployment and strong economies. Examples: Germany and the Nordics.

I'm skeptical of those unemployment numbers. Germany, for example, has a worker retraining program for the unemployed. Which is great, as far as it goes. But you don't count as unemployed as long as you're retraining, so it hides the true number of people who don't have a job.