From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: UIC and labour market training
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 06:06:20 GMT

In article <Bv38Aq.12B@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>: 
>: Well considering we still have interprovincial trade barriers which
>: impede the free flow of goods, services, and the the ability of a
>: Canadian to the ability to make a living anywhere, do you seriously
>: think training is going to be portable?
>
>How can training not be portable? If I know how to operate a forklift in
>Ontario, I can do it in BC. Programming a SUN in Newfoundland is the same as
>in Alberta.

as others have pointed out, forklift operators are probably certified by some
union in that province, and anyone else would have to go through some
recertification program. 

Aren't you comforted by the fact that it's easier to send truck frieght from
Quebec down to the USA, then back up to Manitoba in order to get it from
Quebec to BC? (this is due to differing truck trailor length regulations).

>
>: 
>: The whole UI system and it's progressive evolution is going to be
>: undermined by the agreement on labour-training.  Poor provinces
>: have no money to pay for training.  UI will be forced to be purely
>: a benefit program, and federal UI spending in poor provinces will
>: only be benefit-related, not training-related, so it will be difficult
>: to upgrade the skills and training of the workforce in poor provinces,
>: which in the global economy will lead to even more unemployment.
>
>If the unemployment in these "poor" provinces persists, there will be a
>population shift to the "richer" provinces, where the population will get
>training. Many of these people will then move back home, taking their
>training with them. But its not lack of training that's keeping provinces like
>Newfoundland poor -- its lack of diversification. Newfoundlander's are
>willing and able to learn new technologies and new skills, but there is no
>need since there is little industry.

There isn't enough incentive for people to move out of Newfoundland etc.
UI is mostly benefits, and retraining isn't focused on marketable skills.
UI in Canada often just keeps people going between seasonal, intermittent
work, and then back to UI. The cycle just repeats. For example:
when Canada was having boom times just 2 years ago, unemployment in Ontario
was around 5%, BC Alberta aroun 6-7%. During some of the best economic
growth, Newfoundland had double digit unemployment. Why? There were enough
make work programs, people could coast, since Ontario, ALberta, BC were
paying out more money in taxes than they received in services. Ontario's
hit the skids now.. who's going to pay now so the poor provinces can receive
benefits?

For some good analysis, check out The Economist's last couple of issues.
The analysis shows that UI should be a little harsher on people, since
people will go back to work much quicker. Currently UI programs let
people coast on benefits. By the time their UI benefits run out, they
are caught in the UI trap. The longer they are out of work, the less
chance they will ever find permanent work. After 1-2 years unemployment,
almost no-one goes back to work. As they put it: "A sharp shock" coupled
with SPECIFIC training in areas with demand, and possible relocation too.
Many "training" programs have no relation to mareketable job skills.
They are make work projects.
>
>: 
>: Meanwhile the rich provinces will want to patriate their UI funds
>: to pay for training, and will slowly see the UI contributions of
>: their workers going into a blackhole, paying for the benefits of
>: an increasingly unskilled and untrained workforce in the poorer
>: provinces, because those provinces have no money to pay for training.
>
>Money spent within Canada is not a "blackhole". It benefits us all. $100
>million on job-creation in BC is as good as $100 million in New Brunswick.
>The people who get better jobs will earn more, pay more tax, stimulate the
>economy. This leads to increased federal funds, increased federal transfers,
>etc. 

You assume that the money should be spent in the first place! The trickle
down effect of spending would happen anyway, and since the government 
doesn't spend according to rational market forces, but according to
pandering instead, the spending will me inefficient. It will probably end
up in the hands of civil servants too. IF they are going to invest, it
should be in places that have potential, or a proven track record.
$100M on a bogus project will take $100M away from a good one, the result
is that not only is $100M poorly spent, but the benefits from $100M well
spent are lost forever!
>
>We can't keep looking at the country as a group of sealed provinces. The
>fact is that many people from BC work in Ontario. Many people from
>Newfoundland work in Alberta. People from Manitoba work in Nova Scotia.

and as long as we are a nation, goods services and people should be able
to flow freely. That doesn't mean other provinces are obligated to 
fund cronically poor performing provinces.
>
>: The concept of UI in the new economic reality has to be the linking
>: of benefits and training...when they take that chunk out of your
>: paycheck, the purpose of that tax is not only to ease the transition between
>: different jobs, (which in the new reality will happen several times
>: to a person over their lifetime), but to train you for that new job,
>: since low-skilled jobs just aren't going to be available.  UI as
>: a benefit program alone was possible when low-skilled jobs were
>: available, but they no longer will be, and every job change will\
>: require training...
>
>Agreed.

True, but you'd think people would have noticed that long term good
jobs are the result of the training *they* choose. As much as our
education system sucks rocks, people can still slog it out if they
want to. People end up choosing jobs with short term rewards, and just
don't think about the future. Then govt and people who've made good
career choices end up picking up the pieces. The govt. needs to do a
better job, but so do the people dropping out of high-school.

>
>--
>Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  Just another "Enemy of Canada"
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  Say NO/NON to Constitutional
 Electrical Engineering                 |  hegemony and fear-mongering
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca                     |  by politicians/scum.
________________________________________|_________________________________