The collapsed economy cannot support the masses of people actively seeking employment. There have been hundreds upon thousands of terminations within large and small, public and private businesses alike. But I’m not here to feed you statistics and lecture you about the irresponsibility of loan officers and bank CEOs.

Just kidding. But I will provide some new perspective.

Now more than ever, individuals are facing termination due to internal financial issues. The masses are battling the wildfire of economic turmoil at the mercy of upper management that is struggling just to keep their own positions secure.

What are the typical criteria for firing an employee? Assessing productivity, consistency and strategy would appear to be the most effective ways to judge if an employee is vital or expendable.

So if a television personality has one bad day and accidentally lets it ‘slip’ that she believes that the homosexuality rate among middle-aged women generally belonging to the Baby Boomer generation is rising because men are ignorant fools who can only appreciate the fruit borne by young women, should she be fired? (The answer is yes; Elisabeth Hasselbeck should be fired from ‘The View.’)

Just kidding.

Elisabeth Hasselbeck should be fired for demonstrating a complete and utter misunderstanding of political and social issues, but she shouldn’t be punished for making one outrageous claim.

As a society, we are too quick to judge. The act of terminating someone’s employment is far from simple. With one clich√É©, overused tagline, you are depriving someone of a certain quality of life. Health care, financial security and dignity ‘ gone in seconds.

The modern world presents a catch to the firing game. With terminating one person comes a web of cause and effect, complications resulting from layers upon layers of past irresponsibility and failure. With terminating a husband comes terminating a wife, a child, a puppy.

Does this present employers with a new set of criteria to follow?

Considering the effects of joblessness on a person’s spouse, children and equity introduce a new opportunity for discrimination. Individual freedom to choose a life of monogamy or independence should not be punished, or rewarded.

The process of writing this column has been enlightening. It is clear that there is no realistic or unbiased fashion of weighing in the personal effects of termination. Still, it is important to realize that firing someone not only makes an impact on a business, but on the individual too.

I do not imagine that stripping someone of his or her financial and intellectual self-respect is a gratifying or pleasurable task (unless you are a soulless, corporate robot with a Grinch-sized heart and a knack for devising schemes of professional degradation), and I also imagine that it often accompanies heartbreak, even if it is just a hairline fracture.

Popular culture made firing an employee into a betting game, devoid of emotion or consequence. Think about Donald Trump’s approach on ‘The Apprentice.’ But current events have revealed its true nature: a symbol of failure and insecurity.