| Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - 06:53 am |
The Special Clinics are sponsored by CEO Controlled Corporations. Therefore you are able to rehabilitate 40% of the number of workers you have in CEO Controlled Corporations. The maximum number of the disabled that can be rehabilitated is also limited to 50% of all disabled workers.
why can the country not fund special clinics themselves? also why base the ammount of workers who can be rehabilitated on ceo corps in the country?
i purpose remove the word ceo from the clauses, and then lower the number of workers (%) who can be rehabilitated to accomodate more workers from non ceo countroled corperations being rehabilitated. (the new % would have to be calculated to make it comperable and i am not sure on how it would be calculated)
it has a standing bias in favour of using ceo controled corperations. i purpose this one could and should be equalized for countries who would prefer not use ceo countroled corperations.
(wether you dissagree with my strategy or not im trying to setup a society in my country and this is an major obstacle standing in the way. If you don't like the idea can you answer the questions i have asked above)
| Thursday, April 19, 2012 - 11:11 pm |
That's just one of several things the game managers do to give CEOs an advantage over presidents in running corporations. If they didn't do various things like this to give private corporations an advantage over state-run corporations, every president in simcountry would probably expel CEOs and create an entirely state-run economy. Then, if there were not very many C3s available, it would be very difficult to play the game at all as a CEO, because there would be very few countries where you could set up corporations, with most of the player controlled countries having entirely state-run economies. The various advantages which simcountry gives to private corporations as opposed to state-run corporations ensure that even without a corporate tax, private corporations are STILL more profitable for a country than are state-run corporations. This encourages that presidents always have a motivation to attract private enterprise, and ensures that CEOs always have a place to do business, like in my country.
| Tuesday, May 15, 2012 - 08:29 pm |
That suggestion is 100% justifiably accurate. Countries definately have more at stake then CEO's when dealing with the overall wellbeing of a country. I have an enterprise and I could care less if any of the presidents use the back to work schools or special clinics.
As for the incentive thing, very true, but very wrong. Pick a different incentive, CEO's pick c3's (so they don't have to wait) or their own countries that does little to mobilize a work force. The current incentive is already clear country resources used, add that with the ability to nationalize a corp, or have a more experienced person help manage your employment deficiencies and there you go. BUT THIS should happen even if you need to have a special investment to do so, and if countries don't want enterprise corps in their country, add an incentive of maybe a forced production contract in which enterprises must sell a % of products to the country for market value. <-that's just a remedy to incentive not crucial for my own personal approval of the suggestion.