[basseq]

We've gone through a round of layoffs, and I've been thinking about the same thing.

It's not that it's too easy—it's that it's too impactful.

The real answer is social safety nets. If you want to protect people, address the root problem that your life is dependent on having an employer. Proper unemployment or UBI plus universal healthcare makes losing a job annoying ("ugh now I have to find another one") vs. terrifying.

Jack up the corporate tax rate (on revenue) to pay for it—which should be a wash after reducing the load of severance, healthcare benefits, etc. that companies are paying today.

Better worker protections like the UK/Europe are mechanisms too—notice periods, guaranteed severance, etc.—but have their own chilling effects.

This has the added benefit of reducing the barriers of entry for individuals: people are more likely to leave bad jobs or pursue their own opportunities, which in turn should drive subsequent job creation.

[user_of_the_wek]

I'm a big fan of social safety nets, but would you agree it needs to stop somewhere? I assume the people laid off here were very well compensated for their work and likely had ample opportunity to build their own reserves. A safety net should be set up in a way that it enables you to have a comfortable, but basic lifestyle. Or should society pay for the CEO's mansion's maintenance should he get fired?

[interactivecode]

yes social safety nets would be the usual way the impact/consequences are taken care of. At the same time america could also lean into the idea of the employer providing everything, in that case it would make sense for the employer to also take care of the consequences.