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.