> In fact, one thing we could do is make sure that all jobs should be perpetual. If someone hires you, they can't stop paying you until they die or declare bankruptcy. This is sure to be good for workers

You jest, but that's pretty much South Korea if this video (and my interpretation of it) is to be believed: https://youtu.be/pjjhrwVYPE8

For those not interested in watching 30 mins of this, long story short, it doesn't bode well. They do have some other circumstances going on in addition though.

> One of the ideal things that companies can do is not hire people

This, but unironically. Companies that make money without hiring anyone provide the most "value".

Simultaneously we should stop calling business owners "job creators". They're actually "job minimizers". They only hire people when there's no other choice.

My only problem with this is: Some of my best people are those that "I gave them a chance." I'd only hire perfect people from my tribe if I had to have them forever.

It’s not unethical to lay someone off

Mandated perpetual employment is bad for workers because the company will be extremely reluctant to hire and take on such an open-ended liability.

Oracle has record revenue and has for many years in a row. Laying people off is a result of mismanagement and not because they can't afford to keep them. In an ideal world I believe we'd have human centered employment instead of profit centered, and while I know that's unlikely to happen, it doesn't mean we can't criticize profit centered

Termination will take on a while different meaning of this turns out to come true on some Black Mirror future.