4 ms·

Manufacturing output didn't actually decline, it's at the highest levels ever, it just got fully automated. The real problem under Thatcher was that no-one put

by adwf 10y ago

Manufacturing output didn't actually decline, it's at the highest levels ever, it just got fully automated. The real problem under Thatcher was that no-one put in place a decent plan for all the people losing their jobs. Take the steel industry crisis in the UK at the moment. The steel mills were having to close because they can't produce steel at a competitive price. No-one is buying. There are around 35,000 workers, and the figure for the government nationalising the industry was about £10bn. If instead, they let the foundry collapse and get sold off for pennies, they could use that £10bn to pay each and every worker over £285,000 each... That would be plenty enough to see the older people safely into retirement and a lot of the middle-aged into early retirement. The younger ones could use the money to retrain or start a business. It's a huge chunk of cash. What happened instead was they scraped together a private buyer with huge government subsidy and now people have jobs. Or at least some of them. It doesn't change the profitability of the steel... But apparently it's the job that's important, not the outcome.

Chris2048 10y ago
> That would be plenty enough to see the older people safely into retirement and a lot of the middle-aged into early retirement. The younger ones could use the money to retrain or start a business. I'm sure the rest of the country wouldn't be too happy with that - Do we all get a safety net like this? And you think young steel workers are any more likely to start viable businesses than any other young person?
- adwf 10y ago
  Of course it would never happen. Standard British crab mentality. You can waste £10bn nationalising a money losing industry for the benefit of just 35,000. But if those 35,000 were to get the equivalent cash in hand, nooooo.... The cost is the same however. And the payout plan is socially far better for the soon to be made redundant older workers. Sure the younger workers idea is a bit more sketchy - they might waste it, they might not - but it's better than just being laid off and sitting on the dole. Don't forget that this is all in just one location, without the steel mill the rest of Port Talbot will suffer also. Dole recipients don't typically have much money to spend.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    cash in hand can walk out the door, the 10bn doesn't disappear just because it's invested in steel. The cost is the same, but the purchase is apples and oranges. > it's better than just being laid off and sitting on the dole Is it? some will find new jobs. Does the average dole recipient cost net more than £285K? Why do steel workers deserve such an offer, as opposed to any dole recipient? > without the steel mill the rest of Port Talbot will suffer also Broken window fallacy. Lots of things have side effects, this is just one angle. Port Talbot needs to diversify, like any other place.
    - vertex-four 10y ago
      > Port Talbot needs to diversify, like any other place. How's it going to diversify if all the money and labour's tied up in the steel industry instead of actually being spent on diversifying? Everybody's back to working in the steel industry just as before, and it's not like any of the workers have the money or training to bring new industry to the area. Oh wait, they could've had just that.
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        I don't means it should start, I mean it should have done so in the first place. It failed to diversify. Now it has a little more time though, and the steel workers should probably work harder to get out of the industry. > bring new industry to the area What keeps them in Port Talbot if they got a handout? Why does Port Talbot deserve this money more than any other place?
        vertex-four 10y ago
        > the steel workers should probably work harder to get out of the industry Exactly how? Who's paying for their retraining? We've wound up in a situation where an industry's about to die and no systematic plan for what to do when it does - again. > Why does Port Talbot deserve this money more than any other place? Why did the private buyer deserve a subsidy to take over the company? Why wasn't the whole thing left to die, if we're thinking of a way to spend as little money on actually helping people as possible?

by adwf 10y ago

Chris2048 10y ago

> That would be plenty enough to see the older people safely into retirement and a lot of the middle-aged into early retirement. The younger ones could use the money to retrain or start a business. I'm sure the rest of the country wouldn't be too happy with that - Do we all get a safety net like this? And you think young steel workers are any more likely to start viable businesses than any other young person?

adwf 10y ago
Of course it would never happen. Standard British crab mentality. You can waste £10bn nationalising a money losing industry for the benefit of just 35,000. But if those 35,000 were to get the equivalent cash in hand, nooooo.... The cost is the same however. And the payout plan is socially far better for the soon to be made redundant older workers. Sure the younger workers idea is a bit more sketchy - they might waste it, they might not - but it's better than just being laid off and sitting on the dole. Don't forget that this is all in just one location, without the steel mill the rest of Port Talbot will suffer also. Dole recipients don't typically have much money to spend.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  cash in hand can walk out the door, the 10bn doesn't disappear just because it's invested in steel. The cost is the same, but the purchase is apples and oranges. > it's better than just being laid off and sitting on the dole Is it? some will find new jobs. Does the average dole recipient cost net more than £285K? Why do steel workers deserve such an offer, as opposed to any dole recipient? > without the steel mill the rest of Port Talbot will suffer also Broken window fallacy. Lots of things have side effects, this is just one angle. Port Talbot needs to diversify, like any other place.
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    > Port Talbot needs to diversify, like any other place. How's it going to diversify if all the money and labour's tied up in the steel industry instead of actually being spent on diversifying? Everybody's back to working in the steel industry just as before, and it's not like any of the workers have the money or training to bring new industry to the area. Oh wait, they could've had just that.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      I don't means it should start, I mean it should have done so in the first place. It failed to diversify. Now it has a little more time though, and the steel workers should probably work harder to get out of the industry. > bring new industry to the area What keeps them in Port Talbot if they got a handout? Why does Port Talbot deserve this money more than any other place?
      - vertex-four 10y ago
        > the steel workers should probably work harder to get out of the industry Exactly how? Who's paying for their retraining? We've wound up in a situation where an industry's about to die and no systematic plan for what to do when it does - again. > Why does Port Talbot deserve this money more than any other place? Why did the private buyer deserve a subsidy to take over the company? Why wasn't the whole thing left to die, if we're thinking of a way to spend as little money on actually helping people as possible?