I might even think the reliance on politicians, or belief in their obvious lies about such situations as decidedly childish.
The person who's quoted in the article isn't expounding on philosophy. He's just repeating a common phrase when someone loses the income to feed his family.
The full quote is the last sentence of the article:
>“Without the ability to feed my family and pay for my children and feed my children, what am I as a man?”
He wasn't defining himself in terms of his job. I think we can presume he'd feel fine if he wins the lottery and quits his job because at that point, he's still be able to feed his family without any job.
I don’t agree with it at all, mostly because too often a job looks like a toxic relationship more than anything else, meaning you as an employee are expected to be fully emotionally invested in your work, while at the same time your company can fire you in the blink of an eye and not think twice about it.
Anecdotally, the young people I know treat employment as a transaction and recognize the lip-service to all the talk about how the company is like a family for what it is: lip-service. I associate this kind of emotional investment in employment with older workers, especially ones in union jobs where employment forms one's social and political community.