Good post, but makes me wonder: if the government provides extensive retraining opportunity, and the workers won’t take it (for whatever reason), is the government’s obligation fulfilled at that point? Even if 90% of the workers refuse to retrain? IOW, is the government obligated to provide displaced workers with the opportunity to adjust and continue to lead productive lives, or is it obligated to make sure that they in fact adjust and lead productive lives? If the latter, how could that possibly be accomplished with a worker who says “No. I will only work in my old job, nothing else”? If workers know that the government must make sure they in fact adjust, won’t workers be encouraged to be stubborn?
My personal feeling–which will probably come as no surprise to anyone who knows me–is that the government should provide the opportunity to adjust. I completely agree with Kyle: changes to the economy are necessary. If we refused to allow any change that put large numbers of people out of business, we’d have no cheap farming, we’d have no cars (sayonnara, horse industry), no airplanes (goodbye passenger trains–wait, there wouldn’t have been trains, because the stagecoach folks wouldn’t have allowed it), etc. It’s ridiculous to argue that if Kyle’s hypothetical AI had been invented, the government should “quash” it because it threatens the jobs of programmers. Similarly, if it’s more efficient to have programming done overseas, the government shouldn’t quash that either. Not only is it morally wrong, it won’t work because the rest of the world is too smart and too hungry for development–they’d just leave us in the dust.
And a strict libertarian would say “Too bad for those workers; you could have foreseen the problem and retrained earlier, or purchased private insurance or saved money to cushion against unforeseen events. If you’ve been getting paid more than someone else who would have done the same work, you should be glad you got overpaid for all those years and move on, rather than expecting to get overpaid for the rest of your life.” I don’t believe that. I think a responsible, reasonable government will provide assistance during large-scale economic shifts like this one. But that assistance need only be an opportunity to retrain. It doesn’t have to put you in the same job you had. It doesn’t have to mean there will be no financial hardship on you. Your industry is changing; that’s going to involve some financial pain. Lots of people go through job problems that are not their fault and totally out of their control, and you’re no more or less blameworthy than those people just because your job problems are part of an industrywide phenomenon. You’re smart folks and will be able to find other productive things to do if you want to. The government should help get you over the hump, short-term, preferably by providing money since you will be more likely to find efficient training with it than the government will if they administered a training program.
Which is basically what unemployement is, but my impression (never having been on it) is that it’s insufficient for retraining–that it will let you just scrape by on bills for a few months, but isn’t enough to also pay for retraining. So I guess I’m thinking about essentially a boost in unemployement benefits, short-term (next few years), for certain industries. Would that work? I realize it’d be a bitch to decide what industries qualify, and then to decide who does or doesn’t work in those industries. Maybe it would be more efficient to just boost the whole system short-term?
Other minor points: Dan, why is it better to dole out money over time (a system you say is good) rather than in a lump sum (a system you say is bad)?
Why is GWB saying this during an election year? I think he’s right and it’s a gutsy thing to say (although I don’t know whether he’s saying it because it needs to be said, or for some other reason). But it seems like shooting yourself in the foot when you’re facing reelection and the economy’s in a tough spot. Kerry is already all over him for this. What up?