By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Aeolus451 on 21 June 2017
Edit Thread
WolfpackN64 said:
Aeolus451 said:

It's the choice of a government to subsidize and it depends on their agreement with the company. If a company breaks their agreement, pull any further funding. It's that simple.

If a company moves some of their production to another area, it doesn't give you the right to steal any of their money for whatever stupid reason you try to justify it. If you want them to bring their jobs back, incentivize it by reducing their costs of operating there however you can til you tilt the balance. That doesn't mean decrease their taxes but increase the cost of worker benefits  or up minium wage to where it negates the reduced taxes. It's simple math for the most part. How much does it cost to operate a 5000 employee factory in China compared to California or Ohio. If you can't decrease the costs enough to bring back jobs then they are gone til ya can. Again, you have no right to take any money from them that you didn't earn or because they're being a smart business. 

So your solution to bring companies back is to raise costs by increasing minimum wage or workers benifits? That seems very contradictory to your earlier statements. You're seriously defending the companies here and not the workers? If companies get state subsidies and decide to pull out, the state can recompense itself. And it can do so because the state has the monopoly on violence. I'm willing to go that far. Companies should have a bit of morals concerning their workers, if not, it should be enforced.

Did you not read what I wrote or were you unable to understand it? 

"If you want them to bring their jobs back, incentivize it by reducing their costs of operating there however you can til you tilt the balance. That doesn't mean decrease their taxes but increase the cost of worker benefits or up minium wage to where it negates the reduced taxes."

I'm defending what is right. Picking a side based on feelings or who is percieved as more of a victim is idiotic. Companies are owned by people too and they are entitled to what they earn with their company. If workers want jobs then the cost of their job to their employer can't negate the money the company would make with having that person as a employee. A company can't help it if a government keeps increasing it's costs to the point that the company can no longer operate within the borders of that country or area. It has no obligation to provide jobs or anything to anyone. It has no contract with the people because it was not elected by anyone to serve the people.  Companies are not branches of the government. It's up to the government to create and sustain an stable environment so that businesses can operate, provide services and make money in exchange for those services. People are employed in this way.  

In regards to subsidies. It depends entirely on what was agreed upon between the government and company. It's extremely situational and I disagree with the idea that a government should use force to make a company to do anything. You know what happens when a country tries to strongarm or force a company to do anything, it pulls out. Just look at what's happening in Venezuela.