Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!perelgut
From: perelgut@utcsrgv.UUCP (Stephen Perelgut)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Job transfer, not job creation
Message-ID: <5025@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-Aug-84 08:38:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.5025
Posted: Fri Aug 10 08:38:31 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 10-Aug-84 10:46:41 EDT
References: <5010@utcsrgv.UUCP>, <2032@utcsstat.UUCP>
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 54



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.
-- 


Stephen Perelgut  Computer Systems Research Institute    University of Toronto