Without skills, economic development stalls, inward investment disappears, and those with the skills and opportunity migrate.
What a ridiculous statement made by a clearly delusional hack. Vikas Pota is clearly one of those social leaches who profiteers off of the backs of others through insidious social schemes.
Plus, his diatribe is so long - if what he had to say was important he'd be able to squish it into an elevator pitch.
Pota clearly has everything backwards and is putting his ideology before sound economic policy.
A sound economy is based on the principles of laissez-faire capitalism; you need to get liberal arts out of the way and minimize, if not entirely eliminate social programs - except for the retarded and the like. The best social program, after all, is a job.
You don't create jobs by investing in people - that weakens their natural resolve and makes them dependent on costly welfare states. No, the real way to foster growth is to throw our youth in the deep end and make them compete for opportunity. This competition leads to low-cost jobs and, in conjunction with low taxation (easy when you've no services but security and prisons to pay for, right?) means that companies can focus more money on wealth creating and, as a result, expansion.
See, inward investment isn't the state to this nonsensical notion called society - it's corporations investing in themselves. It's like how a baby will eat when it's hungry, right? Make people hungry, make corporations hungry, and they'll all compete for the resources that exist.
Which is why this skills thing is overstated. Natural resources is the real ticket; if you got 'em, harness and sell 'em. Whether it's oil or trees, everyone else wants them and for your economy to succeed, all you really need to do is focus on carving them out and selling them off.
You don't need a ton of book-learning to cut trees or mine ore. Oil companies will pay to teach their employees whatever minimal skills they need. This is what economic efficiency looks like - spend less on the front end, focus on low-hanging fruit and have a system competitive enough that people will work harder to hear advancement.
Anyone who doesn't thrive in such a system is clearly lazy, or communist, or stupid, or a social menace. Anyone who speaks out against such a system clearly has a hidden agenda, one that presents a risk to the natural order of things.
You have to keep an eye on such people. You may need to put them in their place. Heck, you might even need to throw them in jail.
If they start organzing and fighting back, well, then you've got a real problem on your hands - not one of your own creation, clearly, because that implies people aren't rational actors able to fend for themselves. It suggests the entire frame of laissez-faire capitalism isn't compatible with actual human reality, which is ridiculous.
No, what it really means is that you have some bad people on your hands. Bad people aren't really people, they're monsters - it's okay to eliminate monsters, or to threaten them. Domination works better. In fact, if you can completely break their spirit, then they become another resource.
So you want to single out these potential risks in advance, because clearly, they're born-and-bred to be anti-economic growth. You can't do anything but remove them, but we're being efficient, so why not coral them and put them to work? No reason your societal vermin can't add value to society, right?
We're being efficient here, so of course you want a system that requires as little maintenance as possible so as to minimize your costs and maximize your profitable opportunities.
Who could possibly have a problem with that?