[willcipriano]

The people downvoting you are suffering from a sort of survivorship bias. Sure, now you'd like the comfort of knowing your employer would have to pay you a ton of money if they laid you off, but what if you were somebody who was recently laid off looking for a job and people were reluctant to hire beacuse of this requirement? It's not clear to me that it's a net win, from my perspective I'd rather be able to easily replace my employer as opposed to them paying me for a few months.

A strong labor market has been effective in rasing the real incomes of the bottom 25% or so over the past few years, it's entirely possible that a weaker labor market with stronger workers protections would've been less effective at doing so leaving the very poor worse off.

[rybosworld]

> A strong labor market has been effective in rasing the real incomes of the bottom 25% or so over the past few years

Source?

[jfghi]

Gaslight handwavy talking point

[mym1990]

Not really the source and not specific to the bottom 25(but the bottom 50), based on this graph(https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBLB50107) we can see net worth going up quite dramatically. If you look at pretty much any metric of capital(https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release/tables?rid=453&eid=81366...), it has been rising for the bottom 50. How much of that is attributed to income vs government stimulus is unclear.

[bcrosby95]

That chart basically mirrors real estate prices.

[andrekandre]

  > A strong labor market has been effective in rasing the real incomes of the bottom 25% or so over the past few years

do you mean the increase in demand/jobs we had after the initial covid lockdowns + wfh?

is it possible that strong labor market was due to increased demand from the stimulus checks?