42 replies to this topic

[Verneph]

This is such an awful idea that I don't even know where to begin.

1. So you're fighting unemployment by forcing companies to fire people? Yea, that's like fighting deforestation by lighting the damned forest on fire.

2. I don't really understand what is so damned wrong with global corporations. God forbid someone have a good idea and invest properly to make money. Capitalism is apparently a bad thing to these people.

3. Okay seriously, there's already a job shortage. What the hell are you thinking?

4. "Why wouldn't he agree if it meant the the best thing for the human race as a whole?"  -For one, it's China. They have a significant track record for "not caring", if you catch my drift. For two, it isn't the best thing for the human race as a whole because not everyone would agree to such an asinine idea. Some people actually like having the freedom to choose outside of a tightly nit group of 2,000. The more I hear about this, the more it sounds really close to Communism, and if you want to know why that doesn't work then go talk to the former Soviet Union.

[Order66]

... but if you attach the name to whatever agenda they are trying to push and don't think too hard, then you will think they are trying to help the poor. Kind of like Obama's bill is referred to as a jobs bill, even though it will never create any jobs.

[BlindMessiah]

Verneph, on 04 November 2011 - 07:50 PM, said:

This is such an awful idea that I don't even know where to begin.

1. So you're fighting unemployment by forcing companies to fire people? Yea, that's like fighting deforestation by lighting the damned forest on fire.

Not advocating the idea, but I don't think this would affect unemployment. Forcing companies out of a market will just cause other companies to move in. I think there would roughly be the same amount of employment. I could be wrong if someone has any sort of business or economics expertise who knows all the repercussions but it seems like it would be break even on this front to me.

With that said, there are a ton of other problems with the idea.

[MstrMsn]

BlindMessiah, on 05 November 2011 - 04:22 AM, said:

Not advocating the idea, but I don't think this would affect unemployment. Forcing companies out of a market will just cause other companies to move in. I think there would roughly be the same amount of employment. I could be wrong if someone has any sort of business or economics expertise who knows all the repercussions but it seems like it would be break even on this front to me.

With that said, there are a ton of other problems with the idea.

That's assuming that there are other companies that are capable of doing this. And with unemployment being the way it is, it doesn't look like it.

Also, on the off chance there were companies able to move in, they'd already be staffed. They'd have to be, in order to be able make any such move. Which means that the massive unemployment will still be there.

[F3SS]

ninjadude, on 24 October 2011 - 06:52 PM, said:

Sorry but that kind of career path ended about 10 years ago. Talk to any outplacement firm.

That career path is only over if you choose not to ascend past customer service and telephone answering type of positions. If that's your choice then your career path would be sealed with or without outsourcing. You choose your own fate.

tailormaneinafog, on 28 October 2011 - 09:31 AM, said:

That's quite a negative view of the chinese system imo. You could equally say that western political infighting every 4 years is an absolute joke which hampers real progress for humanity and hides the aweful truth of inequality.

So wrong...there is nothing worse than career politicians and policy makers. The longer they're around the more corrupt and out of touch they become. That's why the American pioneers said screw the king. That's why dictators are hated and sometimes overthrown.


And without these big companies we wouldn't have cheap and easily available tv's, cars, grocery stores, computers and isp's that bring us to this very forum. I see so many things wrong with your "idea" that I need to stop because I can't think of how to say it all in one flowing rational post.
I have a solution for you. MOVE TO CHINA if it's so great. Please do and tell us how it's going assuming you are allowed to access this free thinking web site.

[RingFenceTheCity]

Thanks for the replies. It's worth remembering that this a long forward looking initiative which is intended *not* to be a significant tax for existing companies and so wouldn't change their immediate corporate strategies. An extremely low rate of tax per employee would be initially instigated with the intention of a very gradual increase over 50 years. I envisage a global increase in overall productivity with this ideology.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

tailormaneinafog, on 07 November 2011 - 01:25 PM, said:

Thanks for the replies. It's worth remembering that this a long forward looking initiative which is intended *not* to be a significant tax for existing companies and so wouldn't change their immediate corporate strategies. An extremely low rate of tax per employee would be initially instigated with the intention of a very gradual increase over 50 years. I envisage a global increase in overall productivity with this ideology.

Yeap, productivity will go up when the workforces go down.
Please go back to your slightly saner theories about Manbearpigs/Hyraxes in the crypto section.

[RingFenceTheCity]

Wearer of Hats, on 15 November 2011 - 10:15 AM, said:

Yeap, productivity will go up when the workforces go down.
Please go back to your slightly saner theories about Manbearpigs/Hyraxes in the crypto section.

Quote from post #18:

Quote

Not advocating the idea, but I don't think this would affect unemployment. Forcing companies out of a market will just cause other companies to move in. I think there would roughly be the same amount of employment. I could be wrong if someone has any sort of business or economics expertise who knows all the repercussions but it seems like it would be break even on this front to me.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

You're forgetting things like copyright law. Company X has 100,000 employees and the copyright on Object Z and a monopoly on the market for things like Object Z (there are Object Z lookalikes and so forth, but Company X dominates that market). In this grand scheme, company X is reduced to 2,000 employees and a copyright on Object Z leaving 98,000 employees unemployed and unable to enter the market in a competitive manner because all they know is Object Z and anything that gets too close to the proprietary properties of Object Z gets Company X's freelance lawyers (all 2,000 of them) on their case shutting them out of the industry. Look at the stouch between Apple and Toshiba (I think it's Toshiba, I'm having a brain fart) over tablets and their operating systems. One is LITERALLY barring the sale of the other's products here in Australia all because of possible infringement of propitiatory copyright. So the net result is Company X is still the market dominator but now needs to pay less employees thus their profits go up. Noone can get into the market because they're a monopoly with clever lawyers so that nearly 100,000 people out of work with nowhere in their industry to go to just from one company.

[RingFenceTheCity]

It's a very slow transition over generations, i.e. there would be *no* immediate redundancies as a consequence of the proposal.

[Mr Right Wing]

Halloween78, on 24 October 2011 - 03:04 PM, said:

People spend lifetimes working to build these companies from the ground up. Employees work for years and years to make their way up through the company just for the chance to make the type of decision that you think you can just dictate out of the blue. Sorry but that's beyond nonsense.

The US economy is a Globalist one so I dont see how limiting their staff to 2000 each will do anything but destroy the American economy. They should introduce a financial transactions tax to limit Globalism instead.

That will shrink the profits of Globalist businesses over time but generate far more in returns from tax on Chinese imports. It will also balance imports/exports.

[RingFenceTheCity]

Mr Right Wing, on 17 November 2011 - 11:19 AM, said:

The US economy is a Globalist one so I dont see how limiting their staff to 2000 each will do anything but destroy the American economy. They should introduce a financial transactions tax to limit Globalism instead.

That will shrink the profits of Globalist businesses over time but generate far more in returns from tax on Chinese imports. It will also balance imports/exports.

I still think that an exponential tax on mega-businesses is essential to balance the reality of 'money-makes-money'. A transactions tax won't alter the great differences in size of these conglomerates compared to smaller local or starter companies.

[rashore]

I don't think limiting companies to 2000 employees would be such a good idea. Take for instance GM. They have over 200,000 employees all over the place. They added 2,500 employees to Detroit earlier this year. My link And that is just one plant that makes vehicles. I can't imagine how GM would be able to produce the amount of vehicles they need to with only 2,000 people in the entire company. And be able to have enough employees to make replacement parts too.
Or Del Monte foods has around 40,000 employees- how could that affect part of the food chain if several plants had to shut down so only 2,000 workers are working? What about all the farmers that supply the produce- would they be counted as employees, or freelance contractors?
There are health care systems that go over the 2,000 employee mark- should they fire doctors, records keepers, desk staff, cleaning staff?

[Taun]

Would this rediculous plan be attached to the governments also?... Do you really want the FAA (for example) to be resticted to 2000 employees?  Out of which you have to have En-Route Air traffic controllers, the tech staff to support them, Tower Controllers, The tech staff to support them (a crew for each air port larger than a cow pasture landing strip), flight safety people, etc?.... WOuld you privitise it and make each air port a seperate Flight Control 'Company'?... People would be dying in droves....


The poster mentioned that 'other companies would move in'...  from where? Everyone is unemployed remember?... No start up capitol...

10,000,000 different companies... 10,000,000 different standards... total chaos....

[RingFenceTheCity]

Taun, on 17 November 2011 - 05:45 PM, said:

Would this rediculous plan be attached to the governments also?... Do you really want the FAA (for example) to be resticted to 2000 employees?  Out of which you have to have En-Route Air traffic controllers, the tech staff to support them, Tower Controllers, The tech staff to support them (a crew for each air port larger than a cow pasture landing strip), flight safety people, etc?.... WOuld you privitise it and make each air port a seperate Flight Control 'Company'?... People would be dying in droves....


The poster mentioned that 'other companies would move in'...  from where? Everyone is unemployed remember?... No start up capitol...

10,000,000 different companies... 10,000,000 different standards... total chaos....

The airport staff would be simply divided into tighter more technical groups of 2000 specialist staff. The flight safety crew for example, would be sub-contracted to a similar sized company. The same with baggage handlers, taxi facilities, canteen provisions, retail stores or anything else you can think of.