The Miners....

SKILORD · March 6, 2003, 10:21

They're striking, and making threats, but i don't want to order my companies about, so I'm not really sure what to do, so I'll ask the more experienced heads, which is better for the economy? Should I bully the corporations into paying the workers, or should I give them leave to fire the strikers?

Giovanni Wine · March 6, 2003, 10:33

If I were you, I would allow the miners a higher wage, because that means that the miners will be able with the new moneys to spend more, and this will create new market for your other corporations, and such, and on the long run it will give you a better economy, or ate least I doubt it will do any harm.

Allowing corporations to fire workers on the spot would just create a masse of homeless people, which may attempt a rebelion against your regime

Or at least, that's my point of view

Saluti

Datajack Franit · March 6, 2003, 12:20

Workers are silly peasants but still they are people, so give them a decent wage and you'll feel better for improving the lives of imaginary people

SKILORD · March 6, 2003, 14:54

yeah, i'll do that, I'd rather take a middle road, but I can't.

Thnx for the advice.

GeneralTacticus · March 7, 2003, 02:54

I don't know how mcuh effect ti has on your economy, but I do know that the last time I had the issue, I came down on the side of business, and it resulted in a huge drop in the rate, which may appeal to you...

Guardian · March 7, 2003, 04:35

I tend to dismiss this issue because frankly, neither option sits well with me. I feel that forcing companies to increase wages by 20% over two years is a bit "over the top", while I'm definitely not going to allow anybody to fire people without good reason. If Guardinia was a real country, I'd try to arrange something in between. Since I can't do this in the game, I prefer not to follow either recommendation.

DarkCloud · March 7, 2003, 23:20

Quote:

If I were you, I would allow the miners a higher wage, because that means that the miners will be able with the new moneys to spend more, and this will create new market for your other corporations, and such, and on the long run it will give you a better economy, or ate least I doubt it will do any harm.

They won't spend their wages- they will merely squander and save. The poor have no need for wealth.

Quote:

Allowing corporations to fire workers on the spot would just create a masse of homeless people, which may attempt a rebelion against your regime

No, you just replace the greedy infidels with people who actually need the wage.

They will work regardless of your wage- as long as you have a large enough and well paid police force, they can do nothing to oppose you!

GeneralTacticus · March 7, 2003, 23:25

Quote:

They won't spend their wages- they will merely squander and save. The poor have no need for wealth.

Actually, even if they "squander" of "save" it, they're sitll helping the economy; if they spend it, they've generated revenue for the people they "squandered" it on, and if they save it, they allow the banks to invest it.

Giovanni Wine · March 8, 2003, 10:05

I don't think so, poor people ask for higher wages because they need those money, and they need the money becayse they need to buy something.

A good economy needs money to go around, not to stay in just one place, cause it is the people who are already rich who do not spend it, because they already have everything and do not need to spend or invest, people who are not rich need to buy things, and they need money for it.

Saluti

GeneralTacticus · March 8, 2003, 19:04

Actually, rich people do invest - they invest in companies to make themselves more rich, or they just keep the money in the bank for the interest, in which case the bank invests it.

DarkCloud · March 9, 2003, 20:52

Quote:

Actually, even if they "squander" of "save" it, they're sitll helping the economy; if they spend it, they've generated revenue for the people they "squandered" it on, and if they save it, they allow the banks to invest it.

No, because if they keep the money, then they probably won't invest it, fearing things such as bank collapse ,etc in their quaint ways.

They do not have the capital to buy bonds, anyway, and help your government... rich people can buy bonds.

GeneralTacticus · March 9, 2003, 20:57

You really need to give your people some basic grounding in economics... it works wonders for getting them to make sensible decisions.

DarkCloud · March 9, 2003, 22:58

Ah, but Poda, head of the senate thinks that it would be a waste of money to educate the poor... In Iguana Fire, we export our poor, tired, weak, and infirm to other, nearby nations... or set them adrift on the sea to die. It has been that way for 100 years, and it has got Iguana Fire to where it is today... 135th out of 151 nicest

GeneralTacticus · March 9, 2003, 22:59

Why would it be a waste of money to educate them? Do you consider it a waste of money to make your population more productive?

SKILORD · March 10, 2003, 00:02

I educated them, if it calms you down tacitus.

GeneralTacticus · March 10, 2003, 00:05

I'm not angry, just somewhat curious as to how education can be considered a waste of money...

EDIT:

that should read 'not angry'.

SKILORD · March 10, 2003, 00:08

That's not my opinion General, you'd have to take that up with Dark Cloud. We have already worked out our Socio-Ideological differences.

GeneralTacticus · March 10, 2003, 00:12

I know, I wasn't talking to you.

Guardian · March 10, 2003, 09:22

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud
In Iguana Fire, we export our poor, tired, weak, and infirm to other, nearby nations... or set them adrift on the sea to die.

Guardinian naval forces are on the way...

Drogue · March 10, 2003, 10:06

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
You really need to give your people some basic grounding in economics... it works wonders for getting them to make sensible decisions.

Actually, most economists argue that a saving money is damaging to the economy. As Galbraith said, te role of a consumer is to consume rather than to invest. Money that is saved is not necessarily invested, neither is money invested by banks necessarily money that has been saved by people. Look at Japan for a real world example, one of the main reasons Japan's economy is so damaged is because the people save their money instead of spending it.

Quote:

, just somewhat curious as to how education can be considered a waste of money...

It has been said by wiser men than me that the education of the masses is the dumbing down of education. If you educate only the elite, then you can educate them easier, quicker, more thoroughly, cheaper and to a higher standard. However most people prefer the O.K. education of the many above the better education of the few.

GeneralTacticus · March 11, 2003, 02:27

Quote:

Actually, most economists argue that a saving money is damaging to the economy. As Galbraith said, te role of a consumer is to consume rather than to invest. Money that is saved is not necessarily invested, neither is money invested by banks necessarily money that has been saved by people. Look at Japan for a real world example, one of the main reasons Japan's economy is so damaged is because the people save their money instead of spending it.

Well, either investing or spending it is better than keeping it under the bed because you're afraid the bank will fail, no?

Quote:

It has been said by wiser men than me that the education of the masses is the dumbing down of education. If you educate only the elite, then you can educate them easier, quicker, more thoroughly, cheaper and to a higher standard. However most people prefer the O.K. education of the many above the better education of the few.

And for good reason.