I think you a missing a point: the citizen does not plan to work for the government. The Free Citizen wishes to attain that high paying position via PRIVATE industry.
Neither the Private Industry NOR Government is required to guarantee an "outcome" -- especially since no contract has been signed or consented to.
The person in question can certainly find work in ancillary and or related fields within sectors of the American Economy; the person can also choose to travel to work in other countries.
This has been going on in the medical fields for a long time.
You're thinking along the lines of the world owing a free person, making personal decisions some type of guaranteed outcome.
You a lawyer?
What the polls show is that "middle-calss" voters are increasingly looking to the government to limit the most severe downsides of typical personal economic histories, for example to provide insurance against catastrophic health care costs during periods of unemployment.
Conservatives have the choice of arguing against such protections on principle, or attempting to formulate plans which attempt to limit the social and economy downsides of such programs.
IMO, if conservatives limit their policy options to explaining to someone who is facing bankrupcy as a result of non-discterionary medical expenses - while the person who worked net to them for twenty years but was lucky enough to escape the layoff is still insured - that (for example) it's their own fault because they could not immediately find work offering insurance, conservatives have no reason to complain that voters are attracted to liberal politicians with other options on offer.
You a lawyer?
No. Nor is my livelihood at risk from "off-shoring".