Priveleged jobs

Tim Colebatch writing in The Age calls for emissions trading to be delayed to protect jobs. This is a worthy sentiment on the surface, except that it's not backed up by proof. How can the assumption that emissions trading will cause a net loss in jobs be tested? Are existing jobs more important to the economy in the long term than the creation of new jobs?

Job losses cause trauma, family upheaval and stress and I'm not diminishing that or wishing it upon anyone. If unemployment was handled better in this economy then it may allow for faster innovation and adaptation. The shifting of risk onto the individual has made people more exposed to change and more vested in the status quo.

I wonder if boom times suppress innovation. Change is uncomfortable and when money is easy you don't need to engage in disruptive change to increase productivity. We should be on a war footing in tackling the risks of global warming. When pushed, necessity is the mother on invention.