I'm not the OP of the comment you're responding to but...
I think it is unethical to take away the livelihood of someone if the only reason you are doing it is to add even more zeros to your already fat bank account.
But the only reason a business hires employees is to make more money. We are not employed out of charity. Can we complain that greed compels them to fire us when it also compels them to hire us in the first place?
Also, you are assuming the only one being rewarded by layoffs are executives. As someone dutifully putting away money for retirement in a 401k, I am the primary beneficiary of such layoffs in their stock prices(assuming the company is publicly traded). Should I feel guilty that my greed has caused layoffs?
Of course not, not anymore than you should feel guilty for investing in tobacco companies. If causing others suffering is really so bad, it would be illegal right? /s
Their livelihood is already gone. They have nothing productive to do. It is far more ethical to let them go and secure productive employment elsewhere so that they may have some dignity rather than to pay them to do nothing.
"I think it is unethical to take away the livelihood of someone if the only reason you are doing it is to add even more zeros to your already fat bank account."
Even if one would agree to judge things within your frame, i.e. employee's share vs. employer's, you still have a moral dilemma with allocating resources wisely. Judging from their past income spending practice, employees will most likely consume, whereas employers will most likely invest. I hardly see any reason against supporting the later kind of players.
I think it is unethical to take away the livelihood of someone if the only reason you are doing it is to add even more zeros to your already fat bank account.