[Shivatron]

You make reasonable and just points. However, while I agree with everything you have to say, surely the solution is not to legislate the existence of your notional worker's factory -- as the subject proposal would likely do for the coal power industry.

One would hope that the public would demand reasonable severance, assistance for relocation and retraining, et cetera, so that change becomes less dauntless. To reiterate the second point in this thread, history has shown that "digging in" is usually the exact opposite of what should be done.

[kelnos]

> surely the solution is not to legislate the existence of your notional worker's factory

It's not the solution, but it definitely is a solution.

Imagine you're a coal miner in Wyoming. You have two choices:

1. Get your local elected officials (who have tons of other constituents in the same boat as you) to put together some anti-competitive legislation that lets you keep your job.

2. You move to a new place, possibly with gov't assistance, uprooting your nuclear family, likely leaving your extended family behind (who you've lived near all your life), to do the same job, but probably for less because the supply of such jobs is shrinking but the demand is still high.

3. You spend several years retraining for a new job, living off gov't handouts while you're unable to work. After you're done, you still have trouble because everyone else is retraining for a pool of jobs that hasn't gotten any larger. (Remember, a lot of these places are one-industry towns and counties. If one industry goes away, you don't have much else to do.)

If I were in that situation, I would love to say that I would automatically jump at the chance for #3, or at least #2, but #1 is so so so much better for me and my family.

You do the math, and you don't have a lot of savings, and #2 and #3, if they even occur to you, sound really really scary: "I might lose my house and be unable to feed my family" kind of scary. So you do the only rational thing you can in that position: #1.

> One would hope that the public would demand reasonable severance, assistance for relocation and retraining, et cetera

Unlikely. Public sentiment -- especially of the kinds of people who live in rural areas that are most hit with problems like this -- are very much against gov't assistance for retraining (or, even "worse", gov't-mandated assistance from the former employer). Remember, these are people who believe in the American Dream so much: you work hard, and you succeed. Getting a gov't handout is dirty to a lot of these people. Allowing other people to benefit from such handouts is even worse.

> To reiterate the second point in this thread, history has shown that "digging in" is usually the exact opposite of what should be done.

You seem to be under the misconception that people tend to do what is best for the community (and even themselves) over the long term, when the short term looks scary. That... just usually isn't the case.

I'm not saying any of this is right, or ideal, or efficient, or long-term sustainable... but it's how it is. Some people don't have the time or resources to see or plan long enough into the future to make the right call in situations like this.

[tormeh]

Of course, the true answer is that, if you're not already in a big job market/city, you have to move and retrain. The total number of jobs, btw, does not shrink when jobs disappear. Those savings from the job that went away goes somewhere - usually more consumption - and a new job is created somewhere else. Often it's not in the same place, and neither does it require the same skills, but that's life. The government has to help people move and retrain; the alternative is dirt-poor towns full of welfare recipients. I've seen it and it's not pretty, even when the welfare is generous.