3 ms·

> 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 actu

> 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?
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    > Who's paying for their retraining? Why would any one else pay for their retraining? If they can't do anything else, they drop a resume at mcDonalds - or take the same retraining offers any job centre might offer anyone else. that's what happens when you pin your career on a failing industry with no backup plan. The government didn't kill steel, why do the steel workers get better treatment than anyone else who loses their job? > Why did the private buyer deserve a subsidy to take over the company Who knows - do you? The steel workers are no different from anyone else on the dole, no more deserving. If you know of anyone willing to take over the company without subsidy, you might have a point, but there is no special treatment there. And not wasting money excessively is different from "spend[ing] as little money on actually helping people as possible".
    - vertex-four 10y ago
      > Why would any one else pay for their retraining? Because otherwise we have an entire industry's worth of people who provably want to work (or they'd be on the dole already) who very well might not be able to. > If they can't do anything else, they drop a resume at mcDonalds It's actually surprisingly difficult to get a job at McDonald's if you're not a deadbeat who has no future and has done nothing in their life. > that's what happens when you pin your career on a failing industry with no backup plan Believe it or not, not everybody is in a position to up and retrain on a whim. Some people actually have hard jobs and families and have neither time nor money to do so. > The government didn't kill steel, why do the steel workers get better treatment than anyone else who loses their job? Generally speaking, we don't lose industries very often - people can find work that's somewhat similar elsewhere. When your IT company shuts down, you'll no doubt find another IT company to work for. When we do lose industries, there's a problem in that suddenly, a whole lot of people's experience counts for nothing, and that's a special case that needs to be treated specially. > Who knows - do you? Because apparently it's more reasonable to outright give money to businesses than to people, and people defend the Government on this. > And not wasting money excessively is different from "spend[ing] as little money on actually helping people as possible". How is subsidizing an industry that can't exist on its own not "wasting money" by your measure? We could buy steel from elsewhere just fine, and obviously we were, or Tata wouldn't have exited the industry as they'd be making tons of money.
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        > Believe it or not, not everybody is in a position to up and retrain on a whim. Not everyone has to, some people diversify. I'll ask it again - why are steel workers more deserving of more than the average job centre? I'm not falling for your "deadbeat" strawman. If the IT bubble burst, and I was out of a job with no backup plan, who'd be rushing to put me ahead of any other dole recipient? > Because apparently it's more reasonable to outright give money to businesses than to people, and people defend the Government on this. You're fond of hyperbole, and now this. Yes, it is more reasonable to give it to businesses. Yes. In fact your suggestion was that the steelworkers would start businesses themselves with the money, was it not? You didn't respond to that me questioning what stops steel workers walking out the door. > How is subsidizing an industry that can't exist on its own not "wasting money" by your measure? Maybe it is, who knows; what's your the point? That if this investment is a waste, we might as well waste it some other way? I don't know how wasteful the government plan is, but it's certainly less so than you cash-in-hand scheme.

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?
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > Who's paying for their retraining? Why would any one else pay for their retraining? If they can't do anything else, they drop a resume at mcDonalds - or take the same retraining offers any job centre might offer anyone else. that's what happens when you pin your career on a failing industry with no backup plan. The government didn't kill steel, why do the steel workers get better treatment than anyone else who loses their job? > Why did the private buyer deserve a subsidy to take over the company Who knows - do you? The steel workers are no different from anyone else on the dole, no more deserving. If you know of anyone willing to take over the company without subsidy, you might have a point, but there is no special treatment there. And not wasting money excessively is different from "spend[ing] as little money on actually helping people as possible".
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    > Why would any one else pay for their retraining? Because otherwise we have an entire industry's worth of people who provably want to work (or they'd be on the dole already) who very well might not be able to. > If they can't do anything else, they drop a resume at mcDonalds It's actually surprisingly difficult to get a job at McDonald's if you're not a deadbeat who has no future and has done nothing in their life. > that's what happens when you pin your career on a failing industry with no backup plan Believe it or not, not everybody is in a position to up and retrain on a whim. Some people actually have hard jobs and families and have neither time nor money to do so. > The government didn't kill steel, why do the steel workers get better treatment than anyone else who loses their job? Generally speaking, we don't lose industries very often - people can find work that's somewhat similar elsewhere. When your IT company shuts down, you'll no doubt find another IT company to work for. When we do lose industries, there's a problem in that suddenly, a whole lot of people's experience counts for nothing, and that's a special case that needs to be treated specially. > Who knows - do you? Because apparently it's more reasonable to outright give money to businesses than to people, and people defend the Government on this. > And not wasting money excessively is different from "spend[ing] as little money on actually helping people as possible". How is subsidizing an industry that can't exist on its own not "wasting money" by your measure? We could buy steel from elsewhere just fine, and obviously we were, or Tata wouldn't have exited the industry as they'd be making tons of money.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      > Believe it or not, not everybody is in a position to up and retrain on a whim. Not everyone has to, some people diversify. I'll ask it again - why are steel workers more deserving of more than the average job centre? I'm not falling for your "deadbeat" strawman. If the IT bubble burst, and I was out of a job with no backup plan, who'd be rushing to put me ahead of any other dole recipient? > Because apparently it's more reasonable to outright give money to businesses than to people, and people defend the Government on this. You're fond of hyperbole, and now this. Yes, it is more reasonable to give it to businesses. Yes. In fact your suggestion was that the steelworkers would start businesses themselves with the money, was it not? You didn't respond to that me questioning what stops steel workers walking out the door. > How is subsidizing an industry that can't exist on its own not "wasting money" by your measure? Maybe it is, who knows; what's your the point? That if this investment is a waste, we might as well waste it some other way? I don't know how wasteful the government plan is, but it's certainly less so than you cash-in-hand scheme.