| I actually feel this way about attacks on employment in general, so I'll try to give some quick context about the belief. I grew up in a lower-middle-class household. We declared bankruptcy once when I was young, and I was told to prepare to have "strangers come and take away furniture" (which, thankfully, never materialized). I never went hungry, but we did live paycheck-to-paycheck and frequently relied on the charity of our extended family to make ends meet. In short, money stress was a thing, and it was obvious from a very young age. So I consider an attack on someone's employment to be a very serious road to go down because: - Most people don't have savings, and it isn't necessarily their fault. - Not everyone has a support structure, we were immensely lucky to have wealthy and generous relatives. - 4 weeks of unemployment is plenty of time for bills to pile up if someone doesn't have savings, I've taken longer than 4 weeks to find a job every time I've looked. - COBRA is insanely expensive and may be required if, for example, a close relative is very sick. Fighting with an insurance company as an individual is immensely difficult and interrupting someone's care to have that fight can be life-threatening. - Desperation breeds poor decision making. That individual may take a pay cut or change careers and never recover. - The various social consequences of being fired can make finding a job extra difficult. Basically, I've seen my own family one fail-safe away from disaster, so its easy to imagine the bottom. In fact, that money stress from my childhood has haunted me as an adult -- even though I've never needed to worry about it from a factual standpoint. I don't have any of these concerns if the individual is obviously wealthy, and I wouldn't go so far as to say one should never try to have anyone fired. But I do personally believe the bar to do so is very high. Note: I'm not interested in convincing anyone of my point of view. Just giving context for why people think like this. |
However, if physical security is a concern that is intrinsic to job loss, then I'm not sure what the point is of saying that you're threatening "my job and my physical security", since the latter is solely a subset of the former. I think most people would interpret that statement to mean that you threatened their job and also threatened something else related to their physical security.