Cyclical government investment?

[Machjo]

I've noticed tht whenever a car plant, bank, or other big corporation is in need, the government is so fas to bail it out, which naturally benefits the management and shareholders of the company (not likely to be poor), its workers (who are at least employed and possibly well paid), and its customers (who can at least afford to buy its products or services) via subsidized services.

Meanwhile, the unemployed who would like to work get no help at all. Helping those who don't really need help while neglecting the rest seems counterproductive in trying to narrow the class divide in the country. While there is a case to make for no government intervention at all, it would seem that should we decide that government intervene, that it help those who need the help the most, and not those who don't.

Let's say, instead of bailing out big corporations, that the government simply invested in skills training for the unemployed, it would still benefit the big companies indirectly by providing them with easier access to skilled labour. However, it would also give the newly trained unemployed an edge over the already employed in new industries (after all, we all know that an already employed person is looked on more favourably by potential employers than the unemployed, contributing to the catch-22 the unemployed sometimes find themselves in, needing a job to get a job).

Now sure it would then make it more difficult for the already employed to compete with the unemployed trained in the newest technologies, thus risking that they lose their jobs come next recession. But should that happen, then it would be their turn to get any skills training funded by the government, thus always ensuring that the most needy get benefit from the funding, rather than just promoting the catch 22 and the class divide.

Why is it that governments are always more interested in bailing out the rich than the poor?

 

[lone wolf]

Bailing out the poor might be considered socialism to money-mouths and there would be no end to the whining at the Club about that....

 

[Machjo]

Bailing out the poor might be considered socialism to money-mouths and there would be no end to the whining at the Club about that....

Well then I see no point in taking taxes from the rich to then bail out the rich. If that`s the case, that`s just like private insurance. In that case, cut taxes and stop bailing out the rich; they can afford their own insurance if that`s the case.

Government involvment in the economy should only serve where the private sector can`t. Providing skills training for the poor is not profitable to the private sector even if society as a whole does, and so that`s something that may beed government invovlement. As for bailing out big companies, why not just cut taxes on them instead if all we``ll do is take their money and give it back to them anywayÉ Seems a little buraucratic for nothing in my opinion.

In short, I figure if you always invest in the poorest as far as skills training goes, then as they work their way into the workforce, then the next batch of the least educated becomes unemployed, having their turn at that investment, thus always pushing skills up throughout the workforce, thus natrually attracting investment from companies in need of skilled labour.

 

[lone wolf]

Call centres and fast-food outlets need skilled labour? I'd say investment to keep at least some high-paying industry from moving offshore is probably worth the effort. From what I read of the events, the "bail-out" was offered, not requested. Mayhaps there's another story?

 

[Machjo]

Call centres and fast-food outlets need skilled labour? I'd say investment to keep at least some high-paying industry from moving offshore is probably worth the effort. From what I read of the events, the "bail-out" was offered and not requested. Mayhaps there's another story?

If our workforce isn`t skilled, then we`ll attract call-centre investment. If it`s skilled, then higher-end industries will come.

I remember right after NAFTA, many Canadian and US companies moved to Mexico to benefit from the cheap labour. Many had to move back though once they realized it was more expensive to train all the unskilled labour than was worthwhile.