There is of course one key issue with targeting – if underlying demand for a product is permanently lower, why would we want to keep employment in that industry instead of retraining?

If there is a temporary slump in employment in an industry, the only real reason we should intervene is if the company is liquidity constrained – and direct intervention might not make sense in that context either.

The key point I take out of it is that demand tends to vary more greatly than people’s skill sets allow for – potentially indicating that there is a smoothing role that can be filled by greater access to skill training.  Sounds like a good reason to integrate the benefit, tax, and education systems more fully:

http://www.tvhe.co.nz/2008/10/14/what-is-the-labour-market/

😉

I don’t understand what you mean – how does a lollyscramble teach us that people have different skills and abilities more than any other life experience.

Also, we always had macintosh lollies when I was at a lollyscramble, and they weren’t that exciting – if anything they were hard and hurt my teeth.