Tyler Cowan thinks that the Jacob Hacker book, The Great Risk Shift, evolves into a weak treatment of what Tyler considers to be the relevant Issues. The main argument of the Book, as defined by Cowan, remains "American incomes has been growing steadily riskier." I can agree with the intent of the Book, but not with the actuality of American incomes growing riskier.
Study of the article of Hacker’s linked by Tyler brings on the Quote:

The title of the project, "The Privatization of Risk" (Hacker 2004), is meant to capture two linked trends in the management of economic risk in the United States. The first is the contemporary celebration of the private sector as the first and best means of dealing with problems of all kinds. This enthusiasm for private-sector solutions is nothing new. In the United States, the belief that private commercial institutions should deal with economic risks goes way back, and is deeply rooted in our political culture and in the framework of social policies that have arisen in our nation (Hacker 2002). Yet today the enthusiasm for the private sector is joined with a sometimes unbridled faith that new technologies and new attitudes have finally "solved" the problems of risk management that once bedeviled private insurers and financial institutions. In this ascendant credo, not only should the private sector manage major risks; it can do it better than it ever has—and, needless to say, better than government ever could.

Hacker is correct in assuming risk is a social condition, but the assumption that the Private Sector provide the best mileau for risk management ignores the actual involvement of Government in those Private Sector solutions. Business investment and involvement would not be so risk-free without Government involvement in risk management. Business can reduce Tax assessments, forward and backward, with any incurred losses. The new Bankruptcy laws, State and Federal, hold American Households strictly accountable, but continue the venue of removing business management risk by wide salvation of Business assets under Bankruptcy. Courts further the process with denial of contracted Labor rights, while rigidly upholding the rights of Investors and Debt Carriers; though invariably, it is Labor which bears the greatest real (v. nominal) risk. Truly, Business has sloughed risk off upon American Households by shedding Contractual commitments and forcing higher Consumer prices.

Also check the link on Tyler’s site to Arnold Kling. Here again We hear about dastardly Government protection of Households, and the threat to Business enterprise; this time by granting protection to the Households. This despite rigorous Bankruptcy restriction for personal income, unless of course, it is Investment losses; here, poor victimized Investors can find removal of current Taxes, recoup previous Tax payments, and have deductions for future Taxation. We have not even entered into the realm of 401(k)s, Koughs, IRAs, etc., and the huge advantage of altering Income risk to Investment risk. lgl