Uranium Miners on Strike
The Issue
Workers across the nation have gone out on indefinite strike over what they claim are substandard wages in the Uranium Mining industry.
The Debate
"We are the backbone of this country, and we demand a fair wage rise!" says union leader Hope Spirit. "I don't think a 20% increase over two years is too much to ask. Unless the government forces employers to give us our due, we'll shut this whole industry down! Let's see how well Bautista's economy manages without any Uranium Mining, huh?
[Accept]
"We pay our employees very generous wages," says employer representative Dave Winters. "Especially when you consider that without us, they'd be OUT ON THE STREET. Hear that, you scumbags? OUT ON THE STREET! Anyway, my point is, if you cave in, you make our entire industry uncompetitive. You can't do that in the global marketplace. It'll hurt the whole country. The best solution, economically speaking, would be to relax industrial laws and allow us to fire troublemakers on the spot."
[Accept]
I'd say option 2 is the best for the economy in this one, but does relaxing industrial laws hurt the environment at all?
Tactical Grace
11-10-2003, 15:41
The first option will give your people lots of freedoms, in the way of Civil Rights in particular, but will seriously damage your economy.
The second option will improve your economy a bit, but will have a slight negative impact on your environment.
As always, it is about attempting to strike a balance.
EDIT: :shock: AAARGH!!! I over-wrote Corinthe's post! Damn damn damn. I'm so sorry. :oops: Crap. Reposted:
Yes, they will start to make inroades to envirementally fragile areas :cry:
I say dismissing is better, and let the market sort it out.
But the industrie is just a random name, so you don't have to worry about you envirement because of this desicion only.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
CorinThe
The getting help section! (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=help) (for all your gaming problems)http://www.nationstates.net/forum/templates/subSilver/images/whosonline.gif
The Central Pacific (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=the_central_pacific) (for The Pacific alternative.)
The first option will give your people lots of freedoms, in the way of Civil Rights in particular, but will seriously damage your economy.
The second option will improve your economy a bit, but will have a slight negative impact on your environment.
As always, it is about attempting to strike a balance.
EDIT: :shock: AAARGH!!! I over-wrote Corinthe's post! Damn damn damn. I'm so sorry. :oops: Crap. Reposted:
Yes, they will start to make inroades to envirementally fragile areas :cry:
Heheh dont they have a mod button guide for you somewhere :wink:
The first option will give your people lots of freedoms, in the way of Civil Rights in particular, but will seriously damage your economy.
The second option will improve your economy a bit, but will have a slight negative impact on your environment.
As always, it is about attempting to strike a balance.
EDIT: :shock: AAARGH!!! I over-wrote Corinthe's post! Damn damn damn. I'm so sorry. :oops: Crap. Reposted:
Yes, they will start to make inroades to envirementally fragile areas :cry:
Haha, I deleted that one, because I didn't read the question good enough :P
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
CorinThe
The getting help section! (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=help) (for all your gaming problems)http://www.nationstates.net/forum/templates/subSilver/images/whosonline.gif
The Central Pacific (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=the_central_pacific) (for The Pacific alternative.)
Tactical Grace
11-10-2003, 15:58
Haha, I deleted that one, because I didn't read the question good enough :P
Phew! I thought . . . [sigh of relief]
Haha, I deleted that one, because I didn't read the question good enough :P
Phew! I thought . . . [sigh of relief]
You're off the hook now, but I keep my eye on you :twisted:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
CorinThe
The getting help section! (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=help) (for all your gaming problems)http://www.nationstates.net/forum/templates/subSilver/images/whosonline.gif
The Central Pacific (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=the_central_pacific) (for The Pacific alternative.)
Well Bautista's environment is essentially screwed anyway, so it doesn't matter anymore for that nation anyway (although I guess I'll dismiss that issue for my nation). Also, introducing tariffs won't hurt the environment at all will it?
Tactical Grace
11-10-2003, 17:15
Also, introducing tariffs won't hurt the environment at all will it?
No, from personal experience, not at all.
HC Eredivisie
11-10-2003, 18:15
Haha, I deleted that one, because I didn't read the question good enough :P
Phew! I thought . . . [sigh of relief]
*remembers what he said to TG :roll: *
imported_Polok
11-10-2003, 19:13
I thought choosing the 2nd option damaged your economy. You would have no workers in your major industry, and thus your economy would suffer a huge blow
Tactical Grace
11-10-2003, 19:16
No, you succeed in striking fear into them. And your Civil Rights decrease correspondingly.