For advertisement

Sample

5/29/2006

is the crusade to destroy jobs over?

Fairness in treating the people fairly, allowing people to have a decent means of livelihood, choosing whatever profession they are comfortable with. Not everyone can become a prime minister or an engineer. There will be people who are good enough as a driver or as a hawker or an insurance agent. The govt has a responsibility to create jobs at all levels for the people. The last thing the govt should do is to destroy jobs. Jackson Tai and Tan Kin Lian have openly criticised the lack of a level playing field and big organisations like banks could muscle their way and destroy jobs of self employed. Unfair competition at all levels must be stopped. And decision makers must be genuine and sincere and not say one thing and do another, adopting unfair methods while putting up a front of fairness. The earlier the unfair trading acts or fair competition acts be introduced the better for the smaller guys. There is a need to hang a few heads to ensure a level playing field for all and sundry. The govt should free up the market and allow the proliferation of individual enterprises to grow, allow more free wheelings and dealings, setting the people free to put their talents to the fullest to help themselves. No need or lesser comcare or charity from the govt.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

The govt operates within the parameters of today's globalised world. No govt can guarantee its people that they'll be able to create jobs for everyone anymore. They are also at the mercy of the market forces of demand and supply.

redbean said...

i agree that govt may not be able to create jobs. but over the years i have seen and hear of jobs intentionally threatened of being wipe out in certain industries.

would the govt stay on the side of saving the jobs or on the side of management to wipe out jobs?

a simple example is the insurance and housing businesses where transactions can be done through the internet. or even the driverless lrt. jobs were made redundant and people who could be gainfully employed found themselves out of jobs.

this is not creating jobs but allowing jobs to go. when alternatives are available, not a big issue. but when jobs are scarce, many will have problems being gainfully employed, leading to hardship and social problems.

there must be a balance between automation, computerisation and employment. each will lead to different kinds of problems.

when jobs are abundant, it is good to upgrade jobs and work processes. but when alternatives are not available, blindly pushing to go online can be quite wicked when many breadwinners will find themselves jobless.

there are people and lives who need to work and live.

Anonymous said...

So, are you saying that we should tolerate inefficiencies even when a better way of doing things exist, all in the name of preserving jobs ?

redbean said...

the two are not exclusive. it is a delicate balance between efficiency and employment for the people. that is where the headache comes. it is easy to take either extreme position, go for efficiency and ignore the problems of unemployment or go for employement and ignore inefficiency.

why do we have to pay top talents top dollars if decision making is so simple. just get a computer to do the job according to the programme.

in politics or in govt, there are many conflicting forces tugging at the same time and solutions are never a clear cut yes or no. often a solution is a compromise one to take care of different interests.