No I'm not, but allow me to clarify for you anyway. I'll ask you a few questions:
1. If a company of 5 employees engaged in behavior resulting in lawsuits causing it to go bankrupt, should that company not go bankrupt to save those 5 jobs?
2. If a company of 500 employees engaged in behavior resulting in lawsuits causing it to go bankrupt, should that company not go bankrupt to save those 500 jobs?
3. If a company of 141,000 employees engaged in behavior resulting in lawsuits causing it to go bankrupt, should that company not go bankrupt to save those 141,000 jobs?
Really at what point does the size of the company become large enough that you personally feel we should regard it differently because of the number of people working at that company?
Besides 141,000 is maybe 0.1% of the US working population so I assume that many more lose their jobs each month just as normal churn. Is there something worse about people who lose their jobs at the same company than if they are spread out at different companies?
1. If a company of 5 employees engaged in behavior resulting in lawsuits causing it to go bankrupt, should that company not go bankrupt to save those 5 jobs?
2. If a company of 500 employees engaged in behavior resulting in lawsuits causing it to go bankrupt, should that company not go bankrupt to save those 500 jobs?
3. If a company of 141,000 employees engaged in behavior resulting in lawsuits causing it to go bankrupt, should that company not go bankrupt to save those 141,000 jobs?
Really at what point does the size of the company become large enough that you personally feel we should regard it differently because of the number of people working at that company?
Besides 141,000 is maybe 0.1% of the US working population so I assume that many more lose their jobs each month just as normal churn. Is there something worse about people who lose their jobs at the same company than if they are spread out at different companies?