> If “who is better off” isn’t a good question...
I said the American worker is better off in general. The only question I don't consider is good is, "which types of workers?" Unless your point is that some kinds of workers are better off than others? In which case, make that argument.
> “it doesn’t matter that you could be wrongfully imprisoned and separated from your children without recourse for committing no crime, but that’s OK because if it doesn’t happen you’ll make a bit more money” is detached from the reality of what matters.
You put that in quotes, but my comments have nothing whatsoever to do with that. Can you clarify what this has to do with whether a country should enact regulations which make it difficult for firms to lay off employees?
> Most individuals aren’t money-hungry ghouls who care for wealth above all, including their own personal safety and liberty.
Great. Again, what does this have to do with labor market regulations? I am not interested in debating "what matters" generally, in a "meaning of life" sort of way, unless you can connect it to labor market regulations, the discussion you entered.