First off, adults use capital letters. I know it’s hard but it’s a basic part of our language. I would respect you and your arguments more if you used them. Second, your idea is as naive as your writing is poor. The issue with AA was that accounting doesn’t provide a lot of bounce and recover space for people whose firms go belly up in the way that AA did. A social safety net has precisely zero to do with the loss of a lot of dreams.
If you read more you’d know that (and you would use capitals).
and I might respect your opinions if they weren't couched in vapid complaints over the formatting of casual online intercourse. nobody with an argument of substance starts off with a complaint on the casing of someone's statement.
if true, your claim of the inability of the financial worker sector to absorb masses of workers dumped from a company going under due to fraud committed by the company sounds like exactly something that a social safety net would assist with, giving the workers a larger space to safely transition from one position to another.
an emotional appeal to insist on allowing a company engaged in criminal acts to persist because it might have a negative impact on those working for it isn't logical. if the company valued its employees, it shouldn't have engaged in fraud and been folded under as it deserved.