Aeolus451 said:
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. |
Oh please, costs for companies have been going down worldwide since the 1980's. Campanies are playing nations against each other to get the best bargain price on their taxes. I've been hammering the point for COMPANIES WHO MAKE PROFIT. Companies that turn losses obviously need to cut somewhere. Indeed the goverment must regulate, but the competition between the countries must stop. This downward spiral is ruining public finances and you have come up with NO solutions except to carry on towards economic ruin. Of course the government shouldn't strongarm companies when it's not necessary, but companies are always in a lower position then the state. If a few companies need to be disowed because they broke their contracts, so be it.
Ford once recieved several million euros in Belgium for them to upgrade their factory. That was a made deal. One year later, Ford packed it's coffers and left abroad. In this case, the state has every right to seize assets since Ford basically stole public money while under contract.
And please, Venezuela is a poor example. Venezuela has a structural economic trade problem, not a problem caused by unionism.
Provide a decent solution, then I'd listen.
