ian@utcsstat.UUCP (Ian F. Darwin) (08/10/84)
Why not unveil another plan similar to one already implemented
in Ontario? Namely, for every NEW position created for a young
person (why restrict???) the government will foot 33% of the cost
for up to 3 years. This creates new jobs (by definition) and it
allows companies a fairly cheap form of apprenticeship. Someone
Sorry to disagree, Stephen, when you're trying to be constructive.
But you've touched on one of my favorite(?) sore points.
Government programs do not `create' jobs, they merely transfer them,
because the government has no power to create wealth, and it is wealth
which makes jobs possible. Now the government can CERTAINLY create
paper money, but that is not at all the same thing as wealth. The
government's only way of getting at real wealth is by confiscating
it. When this is done by private individuals or groups, it's called
robbery. When the government does it, it's called taxation.
When I take goods from one person and give it to another, I haven't
created any wealth. And when the government takes a few dollars from
each person in the country and gives it to some politically-connected
pseudo-business operation, they haven't created any wealth either.
This is practised on a large scale, and if the individuals had all spent
(or banked!) all the same money, the same jobs would have been
made available. Probably more jobs, in fact, given the fact that
private enterprise usually manages to get things done with a less
graft and corruption.
--
Ian Darwin, Toronto
{ihnp4|decvax}!utcsstat!ianperelgut@utcsrgv.UUCP (Stephen Perelgut) (08/10/84)
<Oooops, a debate in the making> Ian, I will agree with the theory of conservation of wealth but not with the conclusions you have drawn from it. There are two aspects of the issue: the government using "created wealth" to create jobs; and the jobs would have been there otherwise. The government has many purposes. One is to collect small amounts of relatively unused wealth until it has a critical mass of wealth. This is then used to get a reaction. This is one example. Much of the wealth that will be used is claimed to be coming from other programs or from taxes. If it comes from other programs there is no complaint since it is obviously going to be used at least as well in this "Job Creation Scheme". If it comes from taxes, it will represent a small amount from each individual and business. Certainly not enough to generate even one new job on its own. With a "kindly, wise" central governing body, this newly collected critical mass can be applied to create jobs where industry needs the extra help but cannot afford the cost of training. Hopefully the government will direct all the funds toward creating jobs that will be self-sustaining once the cost of training/apprenticeship has been paid. I can only point to the Ontario program as one successful venture along these lines. The above should also point out why I think the jobs would not have been there without a supportive program. Companies cannot afford the start-up costs of bringing a potential employee "up to speed." If the costs are discounted by 1/3 there might be a few companies that would be willing to try. At least for the sake of good community relations and positive publicity. Once a position exists and a person has been trained for it, there is some hope that some of these positions will be kept. Since the person in the position has been trained at 1/3 off, the company is more productive and thus makes a greater profit so that there are more jobs. Since wealth isn't conservable, this means we are either getting more efficiency for our limited wealth resources, or that we are accumulating wealth through improved balance of trade. Take your pick. Sorry to ramble a bit, but I didn't really have time for a carefully editted response that would also be timely. -- <Who would you vote for? The attractive young man in the Blue suit who is lying to you and not doing a good job of it, the attractive older man in the Pinstripes who can't tell new from old, or the unattractive old man who would take all your money and give it away with no visible return??? Personally, I say we should have a write-in campaign for Mary-Lou Finlay!> Stephen Perelgut Computer Systems Research Institute University of Toronto
mnh@utcsrgv.UUCP (Mark N. Hume) (08/10/84)
Certainly when the government acts as if it were the private sector, that is with Crown corporations, it has the same ability to create wealth as does the private sector.