Couldn't the same be said for highly-leveraged workers?

What is a highly leveraged worker? Is it someone that has no savings account? If so, what does letting them fail look like to you?

To me, letting an over-leveraged worker 'fail' (starve, die, become homeless, whatever it is) is categorically different than letting an over-leveraged business fail.

To me, that's someone whose debt is too high in relation to their income. Failure to me is losing assets or credit rating. I certainly don't want to see anyone starve or go homeless, but I also am not saddened to see someone lose their new BMW when a used Hyundai would have sufficed.

BMWs are a straw-man argument. We just had one-time $1200 checks, there is discussion of more. No one is talking about buying BMWs, or servicing BMW-level expenses.

To put this in perspective, consider the monthly carry on rent+COBRA+food+honda (+ student loans). A one-time $1200 check wont go far.

Those who leased or bought BMWs arent really the subject of the conversation here, if they are relying on a $1200 check to get thru this, they are going under regardless (and possibly rightfully so if they got a luxury car rather than store a reserve/emergency fund.)

I mean, an over-leveraged business failing is gonna create over-leveraged workers failing. I don't really see the material difference, anyways.

The difference is giving money directly to the worker vs giving it to an extraction business who might give some of it to the worker. Which seems more appropriate?

Despite some court verdicts (or memes resulting from them) claiming otherwise, companies are not people and should be held to different standards.

Many companies are the sole income for one person however. I think it's easy to portray business as soulless corporations, but most business in the US are small businesses. As such, the fate of those businesses is tied to the fate of the workers, of which the owner is one.

There is a difference in how this affects the broader economy. A business failing and going through bankruptcy still generally continues to exist if the business can be profitable long term, and the shareholders lose money.