> If you can acknowledge that you're in a more secure position, why then argue for the treatment of those less fortunate based on the security that's been afforded to you by your particular set of circumstances?

If society thinks there should be a safety net, and I agree, then society should take responsibility in the form of insuring that safety net is available. I have no problem with company funded, state run unemployment insurance, I think that the idea of your health insurance being tied to your job is asinine, etc.

But at what point is it the individuals responsibility to save money for a rainy day?

But why should it be on the company?

> The economy consists of more than just developers. Unemployment spiked in 2008 and many people were unable to find work after having been fired.

And what were the companies suppose to do (like the one I worked for) that ran out of money? Most people that tying your health insurance to your company is ass backwards. So why tie more of your livelihood to your company?

> But at what point is it the individuals responsibility to save money for a rainy day?

It depends on what you mean by a rainy day. I don't think I'd judge most people too harshly in our current system. Circumstances can change in ways that an individual probably won't or can't foresee. Housing and other living expenses have grown to the point that a low wage worker can barely support themselves in many cities.

Personally I'd like to reach a point where society provides enough for a comfortable existence e.g. shelter, food, safety, healthcare, and a small disposable income for hobbies/leisure. At that point I think most people would be in a position where walking away from abusive employer is an actual option and not a punishing risk.

> But why should it be on the company?

It wouldn't need to be if social safety nets were strong enough. As it stands, losing your job has a much bigger impact on an employee than the employer.

Even with appropriate safety nets I think a case could still be made for discouraging companies from firing people lightly and requiring the effects to be cushioned due to the amount of upheaval finding a new job can cause both financially and socially.

> And what were the companies suppose to do (like the one I worked for) that ran out of money? Most people that tying your health insurance to your company is ass backwards. So why tie more of your livelihood to your company?

I view it as a failure of our current system that employee obligations aren't first in line when a company has to be liquidated. The employer/employee relationship is nominally one where the employee accepts a reduction in risk in exchange for giving up some of the value of your labour. Bankruptcy law in many places doesn't seem to respect this.

> Even with appropriate safety nets I think a case could still be made for discouraging companies from firing people lightly and requiring the effects to be cushioned due to the amount of upheaval finding a new job can cause both financially and socially.

In the US, there is no stigma to losing your job via a reduction in force. As far as financially, I don’t have any moral objection to unemployment insurance being higher if we as a society choose for it to be higher.

> I view it as a failure of our current system that employee obligations aren't first in line when a company has to be liquidated

The VC funded company I worked for literal had no money when it was bought out for pennies. I was one of the people doing pitch decks to potential acquirers and in the room for the technical interviews with them.

Don’t get me wrong, this was 2012 and everyone from developers to tech support found a job quickly and we had plenty of warning.

The eventual acquirer laid almost everyone off immediately with a 1 month severance pay.

> In the US, there is no stigma to losing your job via a reduction in force

Sorry, I could have been more clear here. I meant the loss of social relationships either at the company or by potentially having to move neighbourhood/city.

> The VC funded company I worked for literal had no money when it was bought out for pennies. I was one of the people doing pitch decks to potential acquirers and in the room for the technical interviews with them.

Most companies have at least some assets when they wind down. Putting employee obligations first simply means that any value derived from the liquidation is first used to settle that debt rather than other creditors.

If there were unpaid wages, then at some point the people running that company continued requiring their employees' labour despite knowing they couldn't keep their end of the contract. Some exceptions might be justifiable for smaller companies but I think we're far too lenient on people who knowingly steal from employees.

Most tech workers can deal with unpaid wages but I've seen it happen to bar and restaurant workers that aren't in as secure a position. The owners wind down the company and leave wages unpaid while immediately creating a new one in the same unit.

> Sorry, I could have been more clear here. I meant the loss of social relationships either at the company or by potentially having to move neighbourhood/city.

Are you really going to put the onus on private companies to ensure that no one ever has to move from their hometown?

> Most companies have at least some assets when they wind down. Putting employee obligations first simply means that any value derived from the liquidation is first used to settle that debt rather than other creditors

A software companies only assets are the software and maybe a few laptops. These days many don’t even have servers.

Don’t get me wrong, we were guaranteed by our backers that we would be paid for every hour we worked and they kept their promise.

> Are you really going to put the onus on private companies to ensure that no one ever has to move from their hometown?

Not at all. I do think companies should be prevented from firing people without generous severance and/or good reason.

If there was a good social safety net then I'd be open to that being relaxed a bit.

> A software companies only assets are the software and maybe a few laptops. These days many don’t even have servers.

There's also IP but I think that's missing the point. Getting paid something is better than nothing and many companies do have assets that would cover some/all of their outstanding payroll. At the moment, as far as I'm aware, employee payroll is fairly far down the list of creditors. I believe it should be first.

> Don’t get me wrong, we were guaranteed by our backers that we would be paid for every hour we worked and they kept their promise.

I'm glad your backers treated you and your colleagues generously. My preference is usually to bake in desired outcomes like this rather than relying on individual generosity.

> Not at all. I do think companies should be prevented from firing people without generous severance and/or good reason

It’s not a good reason that “we don’t have the money” or “we decided that our horse and buggy manufacturing division is no longer the direction we are going”?

A company is not a charity. The purpose of a company is to sell things at profit and they hire you with an understanding of exchanging labor for money.

> I'm glad your backers treated you and your colleagues generously. My preference is usually to bake in desired outcomes like this rather than relying on individual generosity.

So are you going to force investors to keep funding companies when they run out of money?