> It would be an example of ruinous empathy.
Setting aside empathy, giving some thought about how we can slow the rate of change and/or cushion the fall for those affected is also in our self-interest.
As the number of people who have little left to lose grows, it destabilizes society and sets the stage for populism and revolution. Are cheap goods really so important that we're willing to leave our children to deal with another round of communism vs fascism?
Ya the point you make is one the so many of the 'only the strong survive' type miss. Maybe that person would be employed and fine, but the person that just lost everything may be willing to burn down the world.