4 ms·

> 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 th

> 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.
- vertex-four 10y ago
  > 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? At the very least I wouldn't be saying it's a great idea to spend billions of dollars propping up your job when nobody wants your company's services at a price the company can afford to provide them at, and if we have to spend billions of dollars, we might as well spend it on retraining people. > Yes, it is more reasonable to give it to businesses. Wait, precisely why? What's the upside of propping up unprofitable businesses? There's basically two - ensuring that the industry stays in the country, and jobs. Ignoring the first due to it being nearly impossible to put a price on it without knowing what our trade risks re other countries producing steel are, why do we care so much about jobs that we're willing to spend money keeping them around? Well, the answer is that it's essentially welfare that we force people to work to get. > 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? If this investment's primary goal is to keep people in jobs, then we might as well provide people with the ability to move into jobs that the economy actually requires, instead of ones which it's categorically stated that it doesn't require.

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.

vertex-four 10y ago
> 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? At the very least I wouldn't be saying it's a great idea to spend billions of dollars propping up your job when nobody wants your company's services at a price the company can afford to provide them at, and if we have to spend billions of dollars, we might as well spend it on retraining people. > Yes, it is more reasonable to give it to businesses. Wait, precisely why? What's the upside of propping up unprofitable businesses? There's basically two - ensuring that the industry stays in the country, and jobs. Ignoring the first due to it being nearly impossible to put a price on it without knowing what our trade risks re other countries producing steel are, why do we care so much about jobs that we're willing to spend money keeping them around? Well, the answer is that it's essentially welfare that we force people to work to get. > 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? If this investment's primary goal is to keep people in jobs, then we might as well provide people with the ability to move into jobs that the economy actually requires, instead of ones which it's categorically stated that it doesn't require.