What I find really insulting about the article, though, is this little gem:
Mr. Guillemette says one of the obstacles to greater mobility is the federal employment insurance system, particularly the way it provides longer periods of eligibility and lower requirements in areas with greater unemployment. Such "regionally tilted" provisions give the jobless more reason to stay in areas with fewer jobs, he argues.So, basically, it's a "big government" problem. What nonsense. I also note that this crank has missed a potential incentive for businesses to move to (or open up) in regions supported by EI in this way: namely, that there's a group of potential labourers right there who would (one would expect) willingly take on work that pays more then EI.
But, maybe we should just close all the small towns now and set up nineteenth century-styled labour camps outside all the cities? After all, the only reason one has to live anywhere is to find someone generous enough to give one a job.