CDC Getting Pushed Around by US VPrez

[Guitar's Cry]

All advances in science and engineering have led to greater over all employment opportunities.
It is the inflexibility and lack of skills that prevent people who are using previous technologies to advance with these changes.
Change is inevitable.
Education and training needs to be continuous throughout everyone's careers.

Businesses need to embrace new advances or they fail, and their workers become redundant.

And this is also why we need social safety nets to provide assistance for people who are transitioning between jobs as technology changes--if the industry leaders themselves are unwilling to adapt and provide it themselves.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

And this is also why we need social safety nets to provide assistance for people who are transitioning between jobs as technology changes--if the industry leaders themselves are unwilling to adapt and provide it themselves.

Industries need to transition themselves in the face of new technology.
Their failure and bankruptcy rate, is proportional to their unwillingness to do so.
They carry their workers with them, either way.
It is in the interest for businesses to keep up with and invest in new technology.
those that do not understand this fail.
I have worked for two companies that failed. in each case I moved on before the event.
Too many people simply bury their heads in the sand and trust that things will be fine... and ignore the obvious.
In those circumstances it never is.

Workers at all levels need to be mobile and ready for change. If a company will not keep up... they need to move on.
There is always a short period when a company is transitioning to new technology when it is looking to take on new staff, and is in the process of training existing staff for new roles. This is the time to up-sticks and join them.

Employees need to look after their own employability by training and education, few companies invest enough in this.
Companies that do not, should be taxed or levied, so as to train up willing staff in public institutions, in their own time.

Some countries are far better at doing this than others. Over recent years the far east. has perhaps invested the most in Education and Training for advanced skills.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Industries need to transition themselves in the face of new technology.
Their failure and bankruptcy rate, is proportional to their unwillingness to do so.
They carry their workers with them, either way.
It is in the interest for businesses to keep up with and invest in new technology.
those that do not understand this fail.
I have worked for two companies that failed. in each case I moved on before the event.
Too many people simply bury their heads in the sand and trust that things will be fine... and ignore the obvious.
In those circumstances it never is.

Workers at all levels need to be mobile and ready for change. If a company will not keep up... they need to move on.
There is always a short period when a company is transitioning to new technology when it is looking to take on new staff, and is in the process of training existing staff for new roles. This is the time to up-sticks and join them.

Employees need to look after their own employability by training and education, few companies invest enough in this.
Companies that do not, should be taxed or levied, so as to train up willing staff in public institutions, in their own time.

Some countries are far better at doing this than others. Over recent years the far east. has perhaps invested the most in Education and Training for advanced skills.

I agree with the industries needing to adapt on their own, but for employees, particularly the lower end employees, I think there should be social nets to help when the industry goes under to help with training, moving, living, and whatever other expenses may occur. This is because, particularly in rural areas, these things may not be available or within the person's means.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I agree with the industries needing to adapt on their own, but for employees, particularly the lower end employees, I think there should be social nets to help when the industry goes under to help with training, moving, living, and whatever other expenses may occur. This is because, particularly in rural areas, these things may not be available or within the person's means.

Absolutely and in most advanced countries this is the case, however of recent years the trend seems to be for the governments to do as little as possible. The idea of real social support seems to have been contracted out, so as to provide as little as possible at the lowest possible cost.

Where possible the onus of support should be firmly on the Employers to keep their employees trained up to modern standards., or retrain them in new skills.

Government agencies should set the standard for such education and training, and police its implementation.
Unemployment support is a separate issue , but would be less needed if employees were adequately trained. as companies would be less likely to fail and employees would be more readily employable.

 

[Brickjectivity]

And this is also why we need social safety nets to provide assistance for people who are transitioning between jobs as technology changes--if the industry leaders themselves are unwilling to adapt and provide it themselves.

I have to agree. I don't want socialism, but I do want some decent welfare and re-education allotments. Can we do it without the government seizing property and stuff? Yes, with changes in tax code as long as it results in more income by means of more working getting done, more innovation and more investment. I don't think this can be managed properly under the current red/blue administration. Maybe it can, but if there is any contestation by corporate interests or absolutely any tax pains for those then it will be sunk. Its got to be paid for by the middle class alone, or they'll sink it.