> but seem to be assuming that it has to be organised at town level? No. I wasn't assuming that. I'm just using a small town with a few large employers as a go

> but seem to be assuming that it has to be organised at town level? No. I wasn't assuming that. I'm just using a small town with a few large employers as a good rhetorical example. > You also mention unemployment insurance, which you seem to be implying is organised at some wider geographic level? It doesn't have to be, but the bigger the pool that's spread-out to diversify risk, the better. That's a given. > If you change your comparison to systems with the same geographic support area, the difference you point out would vanish, or not? I don't see any difference between a (hypothetical) city-wide unemployment insurance scheme vs. nationwide unemployment insurance scheme, except that in the city-wide case the risk pool is much smaller so the overall risk of the insurance fund being depleted sooner by a simple large mass-unemployment event is much higher.