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: 54Ian, 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