Earlier quoted context omitted.
The flipside is your company can't just fire you at will, which is rather nice in this day and age.
The solution to people’s income instability is government subsidy. Levying the costs of this risk on individual businesses both entrenches existing large players and disincentivizes new businesses.
The problem is that it doesn't matter who pays the cost. Let's say I live in the US where the social safety net isn't large and companies can fire me at will. Let's say I'm also competent and driven. Logically I focus on money because having a large bank account is the only safety net I can ever get. Since everyone understands the lack of a safety net trying to get large amounts of money is socially acceptable. Now lets' say I got lucky and never had to use that safety net but until one day I decide to start a business which means I will make 0 income for a year. Now I have money to cover my expenses as I try my hand at running a business. But given a strong safety net it'd be illogical to keep that much money around unless you're paranoid. You enjoy life, go on vacations, etc.
Granted, the hoarding of money and drive to greater wealth eventually leads to a capitalistic dystopias with massive wealth inequality. But you get lots of startups!