Saving jobs, or saving industries?

14 posts / 0 new
Last post
Machjo
Saving jobs, or saving industries?

It seems many equate saving jobs with saving industries. Personally, Id don't see the two to be necessarily related. For example, if the old and shrinking buggy industry falls, we can always retrain workers for new and growing car industry, which would appreciate the newly trained workers. The government could then keep the population fully employed by simply giving school vouchers to the unemployed so the unemployed could learn the skills needed for the growing industries. If we bail out the buggy industry, however, we may find ourselves having to bail it out again come next recession and the next, with the industry shrinking every time. It might be less painful in the long run to let th eindustry fall and focus on the people instead. This way the industry must revolve around people and not the other way around.

Let the buggy industry fall and help the train the unemployed instead.

Fidel

Our colonial administrators tend to defer those kinds of executive decisions to their US and corporate masters and rightwing think tanks. It's easier for them that way. DAY-O!

janfromthebruce

Machjo, I remember during the NAFTA debate there was a promise that folks who lost their jobs due to jobs going south that retraining would be offered. Did not happen.

I also remember all these pie in the sky selling features of NAFTA that we would have more money for social programs and there was a pot of honey at the end of NAFTA - Surprised

no - so personally I think there is a role for govt to play to ensuring that their are "good paying jobs" for Canadians. Personally I would like a progressive business taxation system that rewards companies who create sustainable employment, and not just create profit for the company and the banks.

Machjo

janfromthebruce wrote:

Machjo, I remember during the NAFTA debate there was a promise that folks who lost their jobs due to jobs going south that retraining would be offered. Did not happen.

 

Agreed. That does not undermine the value of free trade though, but rather the trustworthiness of the government to keep promisses. Sure we can't protect the buggy industry and need to let it fall to make space for the car industry, but we also need to offer generous college vouchers for the unemployed  to help them readjust.

 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

It was not just government making those promises, Machjo - it was the corporatist coalition that out-spent concerned Canadians more than 20-to-1 as they promoted their self-interest in selling-out our sovereignty.

JimWaterloo

Machjo, Train for what?  I am presently helping people from the auto industry get retraining and there are only so many pipe welders and gas technicians needed.  This suggestion is too simplistic.

janfromthebruce

And I agree with you Jim.

Machjo

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

It was not just government making those promises, Machjo - it was the corporatist coalition that out-spent concerned Canadians more than 20-to-1 as they promoted their self-interest in selling-out our sovereignty.

Except for the comment on soverignty, I fully agree with the above, so nothing more to say on that.

Now as for the comment about sovereignty, I do take issue with that. Mussolini tried autarky too in his 'Battle for Wheat'. Prior to his having launched that battle, Italian farmers were producing high-value products that they could export at high profit and then use some of the money to import wheat. Mussolini's blind nationalism caused him to oppose this through the 'Battle for Wheat', forcing farmers to grow more wheat so as to make the italian economy more self-sufficient. He did win the battle, but because wheat was less valuable a commodoty, the result was that the Italian farmers became poorer for it, even if it meant a more independent and sovereign Italy. In such a case, interdependence, even if it meant less sovereignty, would have been preferable to independence. I think we ought to learn from the past lessons with autarky and not go down the same road.

Machjo

JimWaterloo wrote:

Machjo, Train for what?  I am presently helping people from the auto industry get retraining and there are only so many pipe welders and gas technicians needed.  This suggestion is too simplistic.

One option could be to see what industries are growing now. If they're growing in the midst of a recession, they're bound to grow even stronger afterwards, just about when the students would graduate.

Alternatively, the government could give day care vouchers to parents of toddlers, which they could either cash in at a day care for services or for cash if the parent will care for the child at home. Why could we not give summer school vouchers too, based on the sime idea. This could help parents, especially poorer parents and single parents, while creating jobs for day care workers and teachers, possibly construction workers, electricians, etc. if new schools need to be built, etc. Or some other similar idea. At least that would be preferable to subsidizing the middle-to-upper class in their gas-guzzling car purchases.

mybabble

It all sounds good when big business and government talk of creating employment by taxing the public.  Does it work?  Can you trust big business to do the right thing?  Even if it means less profit.  Whats more the norm?  CEOs reducing man power in lieu of new acquistions or a greater return on profits.  So giving big business bigger tax breaks equates to bigger salaries for CEO's while investors get a greater return on their money.  Like I said it sounds good sort of because big business has got government to dip into the pockets of struggling Canadians.  And its said we need Hated Sales Tax to compets (HST) to compete come now with the HST this province is going to be so out of whack as BC can not compete with the rest of Canada. 

The jobs created will be by small business and med sized business given the economic climate is right and breaks come their way.  Small business is more likely to create jobs than big coporations.  Its fact not fiction what is fiction is coporations care about the voter when in truth if it meant profit or a life lost big business goes for profit.  Just ask GE for instance as coffee maker stays on shelves despite the dangers and the deaths of families and as despite the legal costs there was still a profit to be made.  Voters putting their futures and tax dollars in the hands of big coporations you guys gotta be nuts.   So want to create jobs?  Then money needs to be directed towards harding working Canadians struggling to make a buck with small business.  Thats where tax payers dollars need to go to ensure employment on their futures and not the greed of the rich as the gap between the rich and poor widens beyond belief.  It would also be helpful to get a leader in who could relate to average Canadians as opposed to big business only.  As jobs could be created if government would get business to clean up its mess it has left going for big profit.

madmax

Machjo wrote:

It seems many equate saving jobs with saving industries. Personally, Id don't see the two to be necessarily related. For example, if the old and shrinking buggy industry falls, we can always retrain workers for new and growing car industry, which would appreciate the newly trained workers. The government could then keep the population fully employed by simply giving school vouchers to the unemployed so the unemployed could learn the skills needed for the growing industries. If we bail out the buggy industry, however, we may find ourselves having to bail it out again come next recession and the next, with the industry shrinking every time. It might be less painful in the long run to let th eindustry fall and focus on the people instead. This way the industry must revolve around people and not the other way around.

Let the buggy industry fall and help the train the unemployed instead.

Saving industries is far different then saving jobs. We haven't been saving jobs for decades. We have been saving industry so that those industries can move to places with lower environmental, labour, health & saftety standards.

The governments on all three levels pay for retraining and can neither afford to retrain everyone, nor do they have open class space available to retain the masses of unemployed.

On top of that, not everyone has the situation available to engage in retraining as often job loss is an unplanned event.

Little is buggy about the industry, as the vast majority of manufacturing is in fine shape, and that is because they are choosing to uproot profitable operations in search of larger profits. 

We have highly qualified and trained people. It is why industry located in Canada particularly in Ontario. So do other nations.

The jobs of today are warehousing the products from offshore and then distributed to commercial markets. 

There is little need for highly trained people. Or to put it bluntly, there is less demand for higher skilled and more demand for lower skilled employees who will work for wages around the minimum wage.

The future lies in self employment, which is where most of the job creation occurred during this downturn as people looked to themselves for solutions and hope to manage a successful small business enterprise. Training for that exists in many facets and has for decades.

 

  

 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

...and as one of the self-employed who's just getting paid for the first time this year, allow me to say that there are distinct advantages to a regular paycheck and employment benefits.

remind remind's picture

Quote:
Alternatively, the government could give day care vouchers to parents of toddlers, which they could either cash in at a day care for services or for cash if the parent will care for the child at home. Why could we not give summer school vouchers too, based on the sime idea. This could help parents, especially poorer parents and single parents, while creating jobs for day care workers and teachers, possibly construction workers, electricians, etc. if new schools need to be built, etc.

Sounds more like a plan to subsidize homeschoolers and the fringers who think society should pay/subsidize them to  keep on having huge amounts of children.

Why on earth would there need to be schools built in your scenario, which is part of the reason, i think you are floating a ploy to fund homeschoolers and stay home moms.

People do not need to paid to keep their children home, thank you very much

Quote:
Or some other similar idea. At least that would be preferable to subsidizing the middle-to-upper class in their gas-guzzling car purchases.

Seems like you are more against the auto industry, aka unions, than subsidizing the poor, as your idea would not work for the poor, a national day care program however, would.

Machjo

remind wrote:

Quote:
Alternatively, the government could give day care vouchers to parents of toddlers, which they could either cash in at a day care for services or for cash if the parent will care for the child at home. Why could we not give summer school vouchers too, based on the sime idea. This could help parents, especially poorer parents and single parents, while creating jobs for day care workers and teachers, possibly construction workers, electricians, etc. if new schools need to be built, etc.

Sounds more like a plan to subsidize homeschoolers and the fringers who think society should pay/subsidize them to  keep on having huge amounts of children.

Why on earth would there need to be schools built in your scenario, which is part of the reason, i think you are floating a ploy to fund homeschoolers and stay home moms.

People do not need to paid to keep their children home, thank you very much

You metioned the frindges, so I assume you're referring to the religious frindges. A simple solution would be to prohibit the money going to religious schools. As for stay home moms and home schoolers, those are two different things. If we're talking about children under 5, I don't wee why a parent couldn't keep the child at home to teach him. If the concern is about subsidizing families with one working parent, then just prohibit the voucher from being cashed in for money, and only for the day care. If the parent doesn't intend to use it, then he gets no voucher.

As for over 5s, of course educaiton should be compulsory. So just say that the voucher cannot be cashed in by home schoolers. Simple as that.

Considering Canada's low birth rate though, I don't see why we wouldn't want to encourage more births anyway.

Quote:
Or some other similar idea. At least that would be preferable to subsidizing the middle-to-upper class in their gas-guzzling car purchases.

Quote:
Seems like you are more against the auto industry, aka unions, than subsidizing the poor, as your idea would not work for the poor, a national day care program however, would.

Seems we're talking past each other. I'm not against unions, but am against subsidizing select groups. How does the man who got laid off from Joe Bloggin's toy factory benefit from the subsidies to the car industry? And how do failing restaurants during the recession benefit from subsidies to the car industry? I simply believe that what applies to one must necessarily apply to all. In a just society, there ought never be subsidies to a select industry or union, etc. The government ought to always benefit all equally. Universal improvements to education and training for the unemployed and no subsidies for any industry would achieve just that. A subsidy to this or that particular group violates that principle. For example, I had my hours cut considerably during the recession, but since I wasn't in a unionized auto industry, I did not benefit from the bailout. ANd since I'm not interested in buying a car anytime soon, I did not benefit from a subsidized car purchase either. So, pray tell, how does subsidizing X but not Y conform to the basic principle of justice in your mind?

As for universal daycare, that's exactly what I was suggesting. Though a Swedish-style voucher programme, however, it could provide more freedom for parents to choose the school that would benefit them. If we wanted to limit the voucher programme to public schools or daycares only, it would still be a beneficial programme by pressuring public schools to compete with one another thus making them more responsive to parents.