The lack of them is the leading cause of economic inequality and poor treatment of workers everywhere.

You just did exactly the same thing, so chill out.

There's little evidence that labour laws cause unemployment. This meta-analysis (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2705499) points out that minimum wage laws have little to no effect. Wider analyses (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014....) also seem to conclude that labour rights have little effect ton employment rates.

I understand that you may think I did the same thing exactly, but the point is that my words have meaning, they are not proved in my comment, but "unemployment" has a clear and distinct meaning while "economic inequality" doesn't.

Not only are they unsupported in your comment but mathewmcleod has proved them wrong with supporting evidence. My comment was to show that your statement without proof was pointless, I could say the opposite in the same way but it makes neither true. Mathewmcleod disproved your statement with attribution, feel free to do the same mine.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13550548

Is that a no I won't support my claims?

If "support" means statistics, then no, there is no valid support. All I can offer is logic. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_revenue_productivity_...

Is this (https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_principles-of-economics-...) hard to understand?

Or maybe you want something more rigorous: https://mises.org/library/theory-idle-resources-0

As if economic arguments could be proved by statistical analysis of incomplete data.

Are you seriously advocating for the return to employer abuses/neglect?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fi...

That link you just posted has nothing to do with monetary payments, you know that.

Simple common law practices should have been sufficient, after that incident, to force all companies into giving better escape conditions to its employees. Legislation was certainly the worse solution in this case.

Remember that these mighty legislators didn't prevent these deaths also, they only acted after the fact.

If you dislike the CLT and whatever happens with labour laws in Brazil right now I'm completely open to hear you about a reform but don't talk out of your ass like all labour laws are problematic, they are the core foundation on removing employer abuse as almost any employer is in a much more powerful standing than any single employee.

Stop being a Brazilian advocating for liberalism because you like to use the US as a role model... I know too many of you back there and most are completely ignorant to the problems that arises from that, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

I don't like to use the US as a role model, why do you think that? Also, how do you know I am a brazilian?

I could spend a lot of time here elaborating a reform proposal, but that would be pointless, right? You don't have the power to do the reform even if you get convinced.

It is better to just come here and state the obvious, hoping that other commenters may be interested in learning some basic economics -- not of Keynes variety, which is a separate discipline -- and accept that labour laws are mostly bad.

After we get more people convinced of it we can elaborate a politically feasible reform.