Maybe Obama’s apprenticeship’s were in the solar panel industry and completely paid for by us taxpayers. President Trump’s will be in the industries that need productive workers and paid for by the companies themselves. If regulations that make such apprenticeships too expensive are loosened, the programs can skyrocket.
Just because the federal government promotes or encourages something does not mean the federal government should pay for it.
The article implies that the number of apprenticeships offered depends on the amount of government spending.
However, this concept which is as old as the hills, is a time honored way of providing free education by the best teachers in return for free labor.
This is a win-win idea that would be a naturally occurring phenomenon in the economy, if not for the union protective labor laws which discourage it.
Rather than pushing it with government subsidies, Trump is showing us that we need to repeal pro-union labor laws which view apprenticeship as a threat to their propped up rates.
Trump is right again; the return of apprenticeships does not depend on government spending, it depends on deregulation.
Smart guy.
bkmk
Most of the apprentices I hired worked out of the union hall. I see no need for taxpayer funding. Many of the contractors I worked with complained about their inability to attract apprentices. It can be hard work and difficult to find people willing to accept the working conditions.
Over time a lot of them wear out physically. The better ones will become foremen and not have to work so hard.
Skilled trade shortages have been expected by the industries for at least 20 years. The best way to remedy the problems would be to force people to work for welfare. Or, hire people to do work Americans don’t want to do.
I might watch just to see what “with nearly the same budget” might mean to the editor that wrote this headline.
Trump wants to create 5 million new apprenticeships over the next five years, which would be almost 10 times the total that exist now. But the money he has appropriated to apprenticeships is roughly the same as it was under Obama. The budget for fiscal 2016 appropriated $90 million for apprenticeships; that number is set to increase only to $95 million as part of Congress' omnibus budget for 2017.....The federal funding is for oversight. The apprentice is employed and payed by the company he works for. Why do the feds need more money to babysit a program that that should run itself? For that matter why does this have anything to do with the Federal Government? There isn't one word about certified apprenticeships in the US Constitution.
Mike Rowe of Dirty Jobs fame will be thrilled.
This is a wonderful system that works well in Switzerland. Universities were never meant for getting jobs, other than a very few professions.
Conveniently DID NOT specify the partnership of PRIVATE and PUBLIC support for this program. The majority of the costs will be borne by the companies who take part in the program, costing the government much less than the government footing the entire bill. In the past, the waste and “lost” billions would have paid for much more. I m o sick of cherry picking by so called “journalists.”
MSNBC can’t quite wrap its head around the concept that things don’t always have to be governmentfunded.
Any guesses on what the money was actually spent on/diverted to?