I don't agree with the view which states that flexibility and security are mutually exclusive.  This article, while at least superficially agreeing with me, simply sounds like pandering, though.  It's a common problem in small-"d" democratic politics: "Let's not and say we did" -- that is, put forth a policy that allegedly meets both objectives when, in reality, it accomplishes nothing and makes the situation even worse.  You can have a flexible labor market without allowing the losers' lives to fall apart, but to pretend as though it doesn't require very difficult and, in many (if not most) cases, unpopular choices is foolish.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!