Larian Studios - Industry Layoffs not neccessary

[Vaelith]

I don't feel limiting the income someone can have just because they're good at it is fair. If I was that person, I'd take my business and my money to another country that doesn't rip me off in favour of lazy or unambitious people just because I worked hard and became successful. It's as if because I'm fitness-obsessed and built insane fitness and health, I had to check in every day at the gym giving up part of the benefits I gathered for myself just so people who don't care to go to the gym can be a bit fit too.

Countries that try something like this are usually quickly driven into economic ruin (happens a lot in South America) and have to resort to the so-called "corralito" so people don't just leave the sinking ship with their money, basically forcing everyone to become poor and miserable just so the nation can survive.

What would be amazing is if countries provided a base income for every registered citizen that covered the basic costs of living, and work was mostly optional, for people who want to afford different hobbies or activities. Then it would be less morally ambiguous to treat employees like unnamed NPCs, as you'd never be toying with other people's ability to feed their children.

Some European countries are already dabbing into this, albeit timidly (with heavy restrictions on who qualifies for this "social salary"), and proving it is a successful formula that actually boosts the health of the country's economy, not to mention the quality of life and health of its inhabitants.

 

[rjshae]

The pandemic created an economic discontinuity for the computer gaming business as many more people than usual stayed home to play games. That caused companies to over-invest. When it returned to equilibrium, there was a budget imbalance. I suppose the safe move was not to hire more people and wait for circumstances to return to normal, but then you wouldn't have benefited from the mini-boom.

 

[lackblogger]

I don't feel limiting the income someone can have just because they're good at it is fair. If I was that person, I'd take my business and my money to another country that doesn't rip me off in favour of lazy or unambitious people just because I worked hard and became successful. It's as if because I'm fitness-obsessed and built insane fitness and health, I had to check in every day at the gym giving up part of the benefits I gathered for myself just so people who don't care to go to the gym can be a bit fit too.

Countries that try something like this are usually quickly driven into economic ruin (happens a lot in South America) and have to resort to the so-called "corralito" so people don't just leave the sinking ship with their money, basically forcing everyone to become poor and miserable just so the nation can survive.

What would be amazing is if countries provided a base income for every registered citizen that covered the basic costs of living, and work was mostly optional, for people who want to afford different hobbies or activities. Then it would be less morally ambiguous to treat employees like unnamed NPCs, as you'd never be toying with other people's ability to feed their children.

Some European countries are already dabbing into this, albeit timidly (with heavy restrictions on who qualifies for this "social salary"), and proving it is a successful formula that actually boosts the health of the country's economy, not to mention the quality of life and health of its inhabitants.

Your 1st point is detached from the reality of why such scenarios manifest and is postulated from a position of modern detachment generally. You're 2nd point is much more interesting and something that the future may well bring forth.

I'll go into a little more detail, but try not to wall of text.

Taxes have always existed. They are not an invention of crazy leftists. Historically, if someone became rich because they were good at something, then they would be considered a threat, and would still have been 'taxed till they were poorer', in order to 'balance the power' and ensure the emperor/king/whatever was still top of the power tree. The ones who objected usually got beheaded or led their countries into brutal civil war.

Taxes were mostly raised for the sole purpose of fighting wars. The purpose of the wars was usually solely to increase the power of the emperor/king/whatever or to defend said person from invasion from their similar in a different region. Pretty much whatever avenue yo chose in life, death was lurking round every corner.

The 'crazy left', that has always existed in one form of other, simply believes taxes could be better utilized in trying to maintain peace and social cohesion. A means to reduce the chaos and continual cycle of death brought about by the natural competition of 'kingly' types.

Because 'kingly types' always become too detached from reality, too wrapped up in their own success to be able to comprehend the notion that they are still part of the community which enabled them. Every time they say "no, you cannot have some more" to one of their loyal followers, they lose another loyal follower. Successful people weren't successful because they had wealth, they were successful because they had loyal followers - which created the wealth.

The concept of social taxation is a means to separate the wealth from this form of detachment. It still allows people to attain great wealth, it merely prevents them from from turning that wealth into chaotic power. Hence the greater the wealth the greater the tax burden.

Communism muddies the waters by assuming too much control of individuals, both philosophically and physically. It is the flip-side of detached regality, it is a detached power-mad bureaucracy that simply converts a wealth hierarchy into a power hierarchy. The same thing but via a different currency of power-trade.

Socialism is the happy middle that only gets destroyed when the misguided extremes are able to propagate. The extremes being individuals who can only process extreme cynicism, who believe any system is inherently corrupt and the only way to proceed is to go full-self-interest, aka: blind short-sightedness.

The struggle is eternal, it doesn't ever end, because the struggle is with human nature itself.

Hence, your 2nd point, the latest idea to try and restructure the chaos via a universal living wage. Which is an excellent idea. The problem being, some people, well many people in fact, are incredibly unintelligent, and what you would be doing is simply providing a cash pot for unsavory people to have a permanent source of stolen wealth. Landlords would just raise rent to accommodate the new level, retailers would increase prices to whatever they could maximize from it, and you'd be forever in an inflationary battle to prevent those on the lowest wage from being fully exploited.

Like socialism, it could only really work if people, the majority of people, were 'into' the 'spirit' of the exercise. And you would likely require state-intervention on price control and the like. It wouldn't be long before you're so close to regular socialism that you might as well have simply tried to perfect normal, current socialism rather than try to reinvent the wheel for the umpteenth time.

 

[largh]

Taxes have always existed.

Yeah, didn't someone say that only two things in this world are certain: death and taxes. A bit exaggerated, I guess the major difference between capitalism and socialism is where you channel these tax benefits. If the aim is to give them back to the people, it's called socialism, if the money are given to the military, world-conquering and the rich, it's called capitalism. It appears that the American public is still brainwashed by their Cold War governments to think socialism does not work. Just look at the Nordic countries. They top the happiest countries in the world list and not all of us are lazy even if we have to pay shitloads of taxes to give away to the society (and could potentially survive by not working).

 

[Redglyph]

We've had a mixed economy with a significant (if not dominant, at times) socialist component for decades, and that's the case for other European countries. It's heavier on taxes, but at least there aren't as many people starving in the street, and the system is much more flexible to most categories of people. Companies can't do whatever they wish, either.

 

[Morrandir]

Yeah, didn't someone say that only two things in this world are certain: death and taxes.

Yep, more correct and (recent is): Death, taxes and Harry Kane scoring against Arsenal.

 

[Morrandir]

We've had a mixed economy with a significant (if not dominant, at times) socialist component for decades, and that's the case for other European countries. It's heavier on taxes, but at least there aren't as many people starving in the street, and the system is much more flexible to most categories of people. Companies can't do whatever they wish, either.

Yep, but also the US has a "socialist component". I just checke OECD data for 2022 for social spending as % of GDP. The US spends more than some European countries. I have no idea why welfare/social security still doesn't seem to work in the US.
Also public infrastructure (streets) is build with public funds and then used by everyone for free. That's also "socialist". In a pure capitalism streets would be owned privately and everyone would have to pay for using them (like partially in Italy where ~85% of the highways/autostradas are privately owned).
So it's not black and white.

 

[bjon045]

I daresay it is not outside the realms of possibility that it may be perceived by some that this thread could maybe possibly be getting slightly off tangent?

Is the point supposed to be that Larian is going to have a harder time to restructure than companies in the US?

 

[Redglyph]

Yep, but also the US has a "socialist component". I just checke OECD data for 2022 for social spending as % of GDP. The US spends more than some European countries. I have no idea why welfare/social security still doesn't seem to work in the US.

That's what the taxes are for. I think there must always be some of that component, as history has shown that communism / capitalism extremes don't work. I don't know why it doesn't work, though does it really work anywhere?

We have heavier taxes here, so there's a better support; that could be one major difference. Also, I don't think they have the same constraints when they lay off people, for example. Here, dismissal notices and compensations really make companies think twice before doing it, though the trend has changed recently to allow for more mobility (in Belgium).

 

[Redglyph]

I daresay it is not outside the realms of possibility that it may be perceived by some that this thread could maybe possibly be getting slightly off tangent?

Is the point supposed to be that Larian is going to have a harder time to restructure than companies in the US?

As I understand it, the point is comparing why companies lay off people in different companies / parts of the world, since Larian's head of publishing (who has decidedly a lot of things to say recently) think it could have been avoided.

So I think we're still on track, even if that looks like looking across the borders of the core topic.

 

[Carnifex]

I guess it also depends on what you consider socialist. Like me, for example, medical care for all citizens isn't remotely socialist imo, it's the basic tenant of good, decent government. And yes, apologies if this strayed a bit off the subject.

 

[Morrandir]

Yeah, the terms capitalism and socialism get thrown around a lot without most of the people (including me) understanding what they actually mean.