Apptech wrote:
>>> Teaching employees basic literacy skills is definitely
>>> not the
>>> company's responsibility
>
> And why not?

Because it's stupid and ineffcient. Kind of like using a crescent wrench to 
drive in nails. Or asking you and your neighbors to provide your own garbage 
collection and police services.

> If whoever wrote that (and I can guess but don't know)(and
> many think it) also thinks that tax is theft and should be
> minimised or abolished, then whose responsibility is it?

I wrote that, but I do not recall ever saying that "tax is theft".

> If industry needs basically literacy skills in its employees
> then it is responsible for helping fund the training. As
> there may be debate as to how this is achieved prospective
> employees could be given a voucher to hand to would be
> employers so they can fund the training. Stupid idea? You
> bet! :-). But hopefully some sort of point is made. Basic
> education benefits the nation as a whole, and individuals
> benefit from their own education (of course). But it IS also
> an employer's responsibility to pick up part of the tab, or
> to shut up about the quality that they get and just pick the
> eyes out of what is available.

Russell, you yourself do not like it when people make straw man of your 
ideas.

The benefits of education is a positive externality, which is subject to the 
free rider problem, so it makes sense for the government to spend taxpayer 
dollars on education (how much, and in what form is another question). 
Therefore I agree that the industry is responsible for the education of the 
workforce, in the sense that it should pay taxes that the government then 
spends on educating the workforce.

However, what I meant was that it is NOT the responsibility of each 
*individual* company to teach basic literacy to its employees during the 
lunch break.

Vitaliy 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist