Datasets:
olimiemma
/
MIT-OCW-Transcripts

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
 Community
1
text
stringlengths
0
205
pay a tax that's
about 40% of your wages.
So, actually, you will lose 30%
of your salary by working
relative to sitting at home.
Guess what people do in
the Netherlands at 55?
They sit at home.
No one works after 55 in the
Netherlands on the books.
They work off the books
painting houses
and doing odd jobs.
No one works on the
books after 55.
Economics works, guys.
If you pay your guys to stay
at home, they stay at home.
Now, if you ask European
politicians, why do you have
this screwed up system?
They'll say, well, it's easy.
We want to get those old
guys out to make jobs
for the young guys.
We need to pay those old guys
to stay at home to make jobs
for the young guys.
And then you point out, have
you noticed that Europe has
higher unemployment than
American, even though we don't
do that and you do?
And that's because
you're wrong.
It doesn't work that way.
Because by paying the old guys
to sit at home, you have to
have such high taxes that no
one makes new businesses.
And so there's not jobs for
the young guys to have.
So it's true.
In theory, you've made jobs for
the young guys by leaving
the old guys at home.
But by imposing the 40% tax rate
that you've had to impose
to make it possible to pay the
old guys to sit at home,
you've killed job creation
in your country.
And, as a result, there's
not the jobs for
young guys to get.
That's a very long-winded way
of answering your question
that supply, in substance,
creates its own demand.
So more labor supply will not
necessarily cause more
unemployment.