Are you deliberately ignoring the concept of power imbalance and wide spectrum on which it occurs?

All of those examples you cited are drastically different types of relationships, set in very different contexts, that absolutely deserve different terms of engagement.

>Do we now hate the rich so much that we want to impose that burden on them when they pay someone

I don't even know how to parse this. We're talking about companies of a certain size. I guess we have fully stopped pretending they are anything other than an appendage of the wealthy class, and have no other responsibilities to society.

That power imbalance mainly exists if you don't save any money and/or live in an area with only a couple of employment options in your field and can't move. If you save up enough money to take a couple years off, there's no power imbalance.

i agree with you but you do realize what you’re saying right? the vast majority of people will never have 150k+ in liquid capital they can tap in to if they don’t like their job

Um no fault divorce (even without a co-respondent etc) is in fact fairly recent

Indeed and most liberal-minded people think it was a good change.

One does not need to be married to afford shelter/clothing/food.

One must have income or wealth, however.

> One must have income or wealth, however.

That doesn’t mean the last company that they happened to work for owes them these things.

If you think people should be entitled to food and shelter, fine. But it should be provided by the state, not by a private business that was unlucky enough to make a bad hiring decision.

(And in fact, the state does provide various forms of welfare including unemployment insurance. I’d be in favor of increasing those.)

The only claim here is that companies should demonstrate just cause for firing!

The horror!