Of course -- just like it's more acceptable to lay off a lady! Her husband can just get a job :)
You single guys supporting your parents or supporting people you're not married to (for whatever reason) or sending money back home to help out, your families are invisible.
One could argue that someone with a spouse has a bigger safety net than a single person -- which is actually true and is a contributor to the fact that married men have higher life expectancy than single men -- but it's easier to make assumptions. I'm sure someone will read this and argue that "on average married men need the job more"; I'd like to remind them that this is so because we (society) make it that way through paying men more, expecting men to be primary breadwinners, making childcare so *&^%ing expensive that it makes sense for the lower-paid parent to stay home, spreading elder-care responsibilities unequally.... The system does have its logic: someone's got to do the work, after all!
I'm a developer who is single making a decent salary in the Bay Area, but I also have sent a significant portion of my earnings last year to family who have not faired as well in the economic downturn of the past few years.
Just because someone is single with no kids doesn't mean nobody depends on them.
>Is it somehow more acceptable to layoff someone that is single?
Both are bad, but in the first instance you cause suffering and income loss for the dependent members also (kids).
A guy can even sleep for a while in some friends house (or in his car, or under a bridge) until he gets another shot to paying the rent. A guy with three small kids, not so much.
It's certainly a much bigger deal for someone with 3 kids to lose their job than for a single person... think about the burn rate and possible consequences of running out of money.
You single guys supporting your parents or supporting people you're not married to (for whatever reason) or sending money back home to help out, your families are invisible.
One could argue that someone with a spouse has a bigger safety net than a single person -- which is actually true and is a contributor to the fact that married men have higher life expectancy than single men -- but it's easier to make assumptions. I'm sure someone will read this and argue that "on average married men need the job more"; I'd like to remind them that this is so because we (society) make it that way through paying men more, expecting men to be primary breadwinners, making childcare so *&^%ing expensive that it makes sense for the lower-paid parent to stay home, spreading elder-care responsibilities unequally.... The system does have its logic: someone's got to do the work, after all!