There is no such thing any more as a job for life. So we are told from time to time. Semi-state workers have been informed of this as one reason alongside share options why they should accept privatisation. "Now you have a job for life, now you don't." That statement is probably wrong on both counts.

It is assumed that if your employer is the State, or is owned by the State, you will never be laid off. But ask the former employees of Irish Shipping if they had jobs for life, or those in Irish Steel.

State workers in many countries have jobs but often go unpaid for long periods. Some state employees are on hunger strike in Moscow at present in protest against being partially unpaid for months. "The State cannot go bust, so I'll always have a job" is a dangerous conclusion. Long before a state goes bust, lots of its employees lose their livelihoods, if not their positions.

Are there any jobs for life in the private sector? Not explicitly, but most positions being create d the majority, I'd think which are still full-time permanent and may offer a pension scheme which is based on final salary at normal retirement age.

The big banks are the main examples of this. A full-time, permanent bank job is still probably as long term as any new job in most of the present semi-state companies. What of permanent employability then, that blessed state which every autonomous, worker is now supposed to aspire to as the alternative to the job for life? While it is a US idea, it has taken hold in certain sectors in Britain and here. Permanent employability sounds excellent, if you can achieve it, but it involves a fundamental paradox.

It is problematic for a number of reasons. First, how is it achieved? Conventionally, the answer is by retraining. This presumes that the required technical skills can be taught and learned. The truth is that the universe of technical skills is not really open to anyone. Age is one barrier. Learning to be a solicitor is not a realistic prospect for a 50-yearold, if one has to start as a junior solicitor somewhere. Plastering is a great skill, but there are few men who want to start the hard slog of plastering at 45, and fewer women. It is more realistic to develop technical skills than to acquire them from scratch. Non-technical skills are a better route to permanent employability, and they are more adaptable. Anyone who can sell, I imagine, will always find work. I have no numbers for it, but I'd bet there are more new lifeassurance salesmen among the mid-40 year olds than new solicitors or new plasterers. There will always be a need for people who can manage large numbers of people well.

For a person who is not so endowed, the acquisition of employable skills is more difficult. One could rely upon an employer to provide enough training to make one permanently employable. But isn't there always an incentive on employers to spend just less than sufficient to make a worker permanently employable elsewhere? The search for permanent employability is ultimately a solo effort. You must choose training and experience in areas where you guess employment will more or less always be on offer. That is a risk. And the prospective sale is of yourself, your applied skills. Anyone who is clever and daring enough to bet on the right skills and to sell one's capabilities repeatedly to new employers, is clever and daring enough to start a business. That is the ultimate in permanent employability where one is no longer employed but an employer.

So, if you stop short at starting a business and opt for permanently being an employee, in the belief that you have made yourself permanently employable, you may be selling yourself short.

Oliver O'Connor is an investment funds specialist