The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
I see your point. On this, I do agree it is a problem. But what other leverage do employers have to ensure fair wages, treatment, and benefits?
What the **** is "fair wages, treatment and benefits"? In a market where individuals are free to sell their labor to others then their "leverage" is their ability to LEAVE. Just like their employer's "leverage" is its ability to fire them. Under quite reasonable assumptions, the employee will basically be paid his or her marginal product in this setup. That's the only definition of "fair" which doesn't seem to me to be arbitrary.
Any individual has the right to seek work with basically any employer. Their employers are not monopsonists for their labor. When a union gains the right to collectively bargain on behalf of ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO WORK FOR THAT EMPLOYER they've gained a labor monopoly on the employer. I don't see why the hell anybody would consider that "fair" to the company's shareholders, its nonunion employees, the consumers of its products OR the marginal workers who will be shut out of jobs they would have been able to get before the union drove compensation above their marginal productivity.
But an individual worker's need to work is greater than an employer's need to hire them. A company can still function with a smaller workforce or moderately less skilled employees. They may run less efficiently in this time, but they can still make a profit. They can also reduce wages, eliminate benefits, and increase working hours, knowing that the financial burden of losing their current job (either in not being able to find a new one or just the temporary time it would take to find a new one) is greater than these cut backs. Contrary to your experience, for many it is not easy to find another job quickly, and living from paycheck to paycheck only increases that difficulty.
Both systems are not fair, but if forced to choose, I tend to side with the workers.
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"
But an individual worker's need to work is greater than an employer's need to hire them.
So what? My need to eat bread is greater than the need of a given supermarket t sell it to me.
A company can still function with a smaller workforce or moderately less skilled employees.
And I can still live by getting a job at McDonald's
They can also reduce wages, eliminate benefits, and increase working hours, knowing that the financial burden of losing their current job (either in not being able to find a new one or just the temporary time it would take to find a new one) is greater than these cut backs.
If a worker quits and can't find another job paying the same amount as his current job THEN HE WAS BEING OVERPAID! The second statement here involves transactions costs. A moment of thought tells you that IT DOESN'T MATTER WHICH SIDE OF A TRANSACTION THE COSTS ARE INCURRED ON! Just like it doesn't matter who actually pays a tax (purchaser or seller). The transactions costs to BOTH employer and employee are borne in different proportions by both employer and employee, and the proportion is determined not by who pays the cost, but by the relative elasticities of labor supply and labor demand.
Both systems are not fair, but if forced to choose, I tend to side with the workers.
You still haven't told me what the **** you mean by "fair". Please define it.
My point is that in a non-union, unregulated system, the employer holds more leverage over wages than the employee and in a unionized, unregulated system, the employee does.
I think we both agree on the definition of fair ("the employee will basically be paid his or her marginal product"). We just disagree what system provides it.
For example, I don't think a governor who cuts taxes for the wealthy and then cuts wages for public workers to pay for those taxes is being fair. Nor an executive who fires employees, while giving himself a raise is being fair.
"And I can still live by getting a job at McDonald's"
Yes, but then the investment in your own capitol is wasted.
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"
The problem with using some economic models to predict behavior is that they assume people will act reasonably. However, people don't and we end up in recessions and so on. The models are nice in theory, but are not enough to formulate policy on alone.
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"
But an individual worker's need to work is greater than an employer's need to hire them.
So what? My need to eat bread is greater than the need of a given supermarket t sell it to me.
If there were a situation where 10% of the people who want to buy bread couldn't find a provider at any given time, I think supermarkets would be in a very good bargaining position.
While I agree that some unions may protect bad teachers
Is there a union that doesn't? A high profile case in DC just put dozens of terrible teachers back in classrooms, with back pay.
merit based pay won't work unless you have a system for measuring quality in education. Test-scores are not an effective method for measuring teacher quality.
Use better tests, and compare the performance of students year to year. LA Times just did a big thing using that method about a year ago. You can also use evaluations by supervisors, assuming those supervisors are themselves held accountable for performance.
Finally, if the tax payers aren't going to pay the teachers, who will?
Consumers, i.e. parents of students. Poor kids don't learn **** anyways.
That post is going to be too complicated for anybody here other than me and you. Even relatively simple micro stuff is beyond most of them. A point that relies heavily on somebody not implicitly assuming the fallacy of composition will not be taken.
Tweet
){ :|:& };:
Comment