I agree with Barbara, that ideally a job should be full-time, and ideally you would want to have access to employment that provides a range of benefits.
I think the better question is whether job stability is changing over time and whether jobs are mismatched to the labour force. I would argue that if you look at the data, job stability has actually been fairly stable over time. I think there is a real question about access to non-monetary benefits and the employer's role in that respect.
In terms of mismatch, I think there is a fair amount of mismatch that occurs in this country, although that happens in lots of labour markets. I think the question is more about ensuring there are appropriate access points for people at different stages in the occupational structure. There are going to be people in low-skill jobs who won't have access to a lot of things like training, versus people who are in high-skill jobs who have lots of access to training.
The question is how we break down that barrier which for whatever reason has found a person in that low-skill job. How do they move up? How do we create skill ladders over time for them to move up? I think that's the real challenge. If you look at access to training, which is a question that is very important to your review, there is a huge barrier between people who are in low-skill jobs and the access to training they have there, versus high school jobs.