Interesting that it is trying to create jobs in a sector where demand mostly outstrips supply, but specifically looks to exclude the lower growth sectors that often supply the bulk of the jobs that have gone missing in the last few years.
Not sure how you figure. The scarcity that they are targeting here is the intersect between entrepreneurs with a higher probability of success. Venture capital/angel investors follow whichever sectors offer the greatest growth / future economic value. The article does not suggest that there is any sector that is being targeted.
Would you be happier if I had said sectors instead of a sector? Or do you have in mind a sector that gets a significant amount of venture funding that also suffers from high unemployment?
Most venture also wants to see ideas that can scale well non-linearly with employee count. This leads to the few ballpark successes being pretty job light compared to their revenue. Which is better for the economy, cash hoarding and dividends or continual reinvestment in expanding into new markets?
I think there would be indirect job growth from such small ventures. Think of all the people that make your life happen everyday , so that you go to work - The local gas station, the local grocer, your fav coffee house etc
By letting such startups mushroom, you are also creating the seedlings for growth on the wider economy.
