> But this means that we're ignoring the harm that was done to the people that lost their income and the disruptions that the rest of the org will experience.
As opposed to the 'benefit' that was done while they were granted income?
I'm unsure what your point is. Is a business never supposed to 'harm' its employees? They're never allowed to fire people? What is the logical conclusion of your statement? A business ought to be liable to keep their employees employed forever even if it means the business becomes unprofitable and eventually has to declare bankruptcy, resulting in the firing of all employees? Who prevents the harm then? Or is this where the magical thinking that government will make it all better using the taxes from the other companies and employees that have yet to go bankrupt despite being unable to fire anyone ever?
As opposed to the 'benefit' that was done while they were granted income?
I'm unsure what your point is. Is a business never supposed to 'harm' its employees? They're never allowed to fire people? What is the logical conclusion of your statement? A business ought to be liable to keep their employees employed forever even if it means the business becomes unprofitable and eventually has to declare bankruptcy, resulting in the firing of all employees? Who prevents the harm then? Or is this where the magical thinking that government will make it all better using the taxes from the other companies and employees that have yet to go bankrupt despite being unable to fire anyone ever?