From: Alan_Schianni@mindlink.bc.ca (Alan Schianni)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: UIC and labour market training
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:35:23 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

> Don A. Bowman writes:
>
>
> Msg-ID: <Bv38Aq.12B@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>
> Posted: Thu, 24 Sep 1992 14:59:1
>
> Org.  : University of Waterloo
>
> Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>
> -- DELETED --
>
> :
> : 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.
>
> :
> : 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.
>
> :
> : 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.
>
> 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.
>
> :
> : 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.
>
> --
> Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca

Well its unfortunate in my view that no longer an individual can choose where
he and his family can live and enjoy a prosperous livelihood.  One has to
move to an area that either has economical momentum in terms of offering the
kinds of work desirable or headroom to facilitate such work.  Shall we all
move to the U.S.A. now or shall we wait until we've depleted all our
opportunities to advance.
I firmly believe that this philosophy is "wrong."  If government is to help
the people at all, one must concede that it is of greatest happiness to do
what one likes to do -where one likes to do it.  It is of no "greater-person"
to have to move somewhere against their choice to sustain a livelihood better
than working at a gas-pump.
Newsgroups: can.politics