I agree with you that it’s extremely unbalanced. However, i would say that a decent enough safety net would make most of that irrelevant. The problem is that our livelihood depend on the empathy of employers, when in reality empathy doesn’t enter into the equation.
In fact asking for employers to use empathy only makes the problem worse. Because then the ones who actually have it use it, then they are surpassed by those without it. So the world is even more slanted toward those without empathy. It also prolongs the problem by letting people ignore the problem because it’s not that bad yet.
Companies run on machine language. Legalistic policies and KPI’s are a form of machine language. There’s no empathy in that. It’s no easier to make a company act responsibly and ethically toward people than it is to make a computer do so.
If we were working for computers, we wouldn’t expect them to give us quality of life out of the kindness of their hearts, we’d define the inputs and outputs, policies etc, and create a context that manages their lack of empathy and prevents it from destroying everything
In fact asking for employers to use empathy only makes the problem worse. Because then the ones who actually have it use it, then they are surpassed by those without it. So the world is even more slanted toward those without empathy. It also prolongs the problem by letting people ignore the problem because it’s not that bad yet.
Companies run on machine language. Legalistic policies and KPI’s are a form of machine language. There’s no empathy in that. It’s no easier to make a company act responsibly and ethically toward people than it is to make a computer do so.
If we were working for computers, we wouldn’t expect them to give us quality of life out of the kindness of their hearts, we’d define the inputs and outputs, policies etc, and create a context that manages their lack of empathy and prevents it from destroying everything