The argument that businesses should never 'harm' their employees by laying them off is a straw man. No one is suggesting that companies be legally bound to keep

The argument that businesses should never 'harm' their employees by laying them off is a straw man. No one is suggesting that companies be legally bound to keep all employees indefinitely. However, there is a vast difference between making strategic adjustments and engaging in practices that unduly harm employees for the sake of short-term financial gains. Moreover, the U.S. government provides ample protections for companies, allowing them to restructure, refinance, or ironically even declare bankruptcy (a process I don't think you understand based on your comment) in an orderly manner to either save the business or ensure that creditors and employees are treated as fairly as possible in the event of a closure. The implication that government intervention is 'magical thinking' is a misrepresentation. Government policies are not about preventing all harm but about providing a safety net that cushions the blow for individuals while allowing the economy to remain flexible and resilient. This dual approach helps maintain a stable economic environment where businesses can make tough decisions without causing undue distress to employees. I think it's a very easy argument to make that the lack of regulation in the realm of employment has made our economy quite unstable so that a small number of people can extract more wealth. The logical extension of the argument for employee protection is not to make businesses unviable but to ensure that the economic system is equitable and that the inevitable pains of market fluctuations are not borne disproportionately by the workforce. Capitalism, supported by thoughtful government regulation, provides a framework where both businesses and employees have rights and protections, allowing for a balanced and fair economic landscape.