by winston » Tue Feb 28, 2017 7:23 am
On innovation, he said: "A long–employed worker faces a different equation. When innovation and the market system interact to produce efficiencies, many workers may be rendered unnecessary, their talents obsolete.
Some can find decent employment elsewhere; for others, that is not an option.
When low–cost competition drove shoe production to Asia, our once–prosperous Dexter operation folded, putting 1,600 employees in a small Maine town out of work. Many were past the point in life at which they could learn another trade. We lost our entire investment, which we could afford, but many workers lost a livelihood they could not replace.
The same scenario unfolded in slow–motion at our original New England textile operation, which struggled for 20 years before expiring. Many older workers at our New Bedford plant, as a poignant example, spoke Portuguese and knew little, if any, English. They had no Plan B.
The answer in such disruptions is not the restraining or outlawing of actions that increase productivity. Americans would not be living nearly as well as we do if we had mandated that 11 million people should forever be employed in farming.
The solution, rather, is a variety of safety nets aimed at providing a decent life for those who are willing to work but find their specific talents judged of small value because of market forces. (I personally favor a reformed and expanded Earned Income Tax Credit that would try to make sure America works for those willing to work.)
The price of achieving ever–increasing prosperity for the great majority of Americans should not be penury for the unfortunate."
It's all about "how much you made when you were right" & "how little you lost when you were wrong"