different approaches which Government and the Opposition take to economic policy.

Shadow Finance Minister Grant Gibbons said on Friday that Government's tax policy acted as an incentive to employers to retain lower paid employees who were not necessary to the efficient performance of a business.

Government back bencher Delaey Robinson countered that Government did not wish to see job losses, but would expect to see improved training to encourage people to use their skills to rise up.

At its starkest, the UBP's approach would result in companies cutting out all of their fat in order to be as efficient as possible. This should result in the businesses being able to deliver a product at a lower cost. Highly efficient companies of this kind help to make the economy grow, because cheaper services of this kind enable their customers to do more with the rest of their money. Buying a widget for $5 instead of $10 means that there is $5 available to hire more staff, to spend more on marketing and so on.

It is this approach which has in part led to the successful growth of the US and British economies in the last decade. It does however, come with some short term pain as fat and inefficient companies cut staff and services in order to better compete.

The PLP's approach, at least in the words of Delaey Robinson, is kinder and gentler. Under-performing staff should be kept on and trained until they can contribute fully. Thus the company trades short term cost savings for the long term benefit of a better work force later on.

This approach may have some merit as well. It ensures that employees have security as they seek to improve, it cuts social dislocation caused by job losses and it should make for a better work environment where staff are not forever wondering where the next round of job cuts will come.

But it has risks too. It assumes that employees want to improve and that companies have endless training resources. Presumably, the company must also have products which are so good that customers will be prepared to pay more for them.

A Government which makes job preservation -- as opposed to job creation -- its first priority runs the risk of subsidising inefficient and uncompetitive businesses at ever higher costs to the taxpayer.

The alternative -- allowing workers to be laid off and inefficient industries to die -- carries with it great short term pain. But progressive companies which encourage training, involvement in decision making and profit sharing for their employees can grow. In the long run, it should result in more jobs of higher quality for all.