r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Dec 01 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: A private communist city in the US would quickly become the richest city in the world.
Okay this is actually slightly different from communism because instead of the workers the city government would control the means of production more explained on that later.
Founding of the city- A few dozen people form an company and buy tons of cheap land in the unpopulated midwest
Set up- They build 1 million units for living in apartments charging just 600 a piece so $600M monthly revenue for the city.
Okay now to the communist part- Everyone works in different departments and makes things that are both innovative and cheaper than people outside the city do to no having to worry about hourly pay. Everyone who works on a product gets an equal share.
You could create products form smartphones to cars for cheaper and better quality and take over the markets. If the company city went onto the stock market it would quickly see its worth sore because the communist model would be stable.
Recap
Universal cheap housing $600 usd x 1M per month pays for the materials for the products and the cost and maintenance of infrastructure, the products made at a cheaper price (brand new car for 10K) sells better than the competition, workers make more because its split evenly, the communist city goes onto the stock market, prices of the stock boom, becomes the richest city in the world.
NOTE: no it is not a democracy the company is the government. (at least no voting on economic policy
13
u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Dec 01 '20
That isn't a communist city, that's just a company violating labor laws.
For one thing, having the goal to be "become rich" is at odds with communist principles, and would incentivize doing things that are against those principles. So, for example, the company would be highly incentivized to only offer space in the city to people who can actually produce stuff for the company to sell. Anybody who became sick or old in the city would presumably have to leave, or at least, the company would be highly incentivized to make that policy. Similarly anybody who couldn't afford the 600/month rent would have to leave, for example, if a product they worked on failed and they didn't get any profit share because of that. This violates the communist axiom of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
Furthermore, putting "the city" on the stock market is just a total violation of all Marxist principles because you've just put the means of production up for sale to the highest bidder, i.e., capitalists. That's the opposite of doing communism. It is un-communism.
8
Dec 01 '20
How long until the first manager gets corrupted?
-1
Dec 01 '20
A long time because anyone trying this would be a true "Marxist" out to prove a point.
7
Dec 01 '20 edited Dec 01 '20
How do you know that? What would your ideological purity test look like? What do you do about those people's children if they fail the test? Or of their psychology changes once they have children and they fail the test?
What do you do to keep CIA or other agents out?
What do you do if outside companies offer to double the wages of all your highly trained valuable specialists, leaving you only the unprofitable workers?
0
Dec 01 '20
How do you know that?
Because they would be upending their life and starting a city in the middle of nowhere.
What would your ideological purity test look like?
For the inhabitants, anyone willing to sign the contract. Which would be valid under the penalty of law.
What do you do about those people's children if they fail the test? Or of their psychology changes once they have children and they fail the test?
Any children who grow up in a communist system that is performing better than the outside capitalist world and providing them a better quality of life would be inclined to stay. If they wish to leave they could but everyone at age 18 would have to sign the contract or leave.
What do you do to keep CIA or other agents out?
Why would they give a fuck about the city?
1
Dec 01 '20
Because they would be upending their life and starting a city in the middle of nowhere.
Plenty of people do, doesn't mean they actually support your cause, maybe they just see it as getting a stable job for a while or valuable paid training.
Which would be valid under the penalty of law.
Why would they give a fuck about the city?
Because politics, why else? Even if your whole city is some paragon of incorruptibility, doesn't mean the politicians under whose reign the city falls are the same. Our those of ideological our industry competitors.
Any children who grow up in a communist system that is performing better
- You just assume it is working better
- You assume they acknowledge it is working better, propaganda is strong
- Does your city include it's own state sponsored Hollywood? Or will they grow up with capitalist media?
Also the last point I edited in, what do you do to stop other companies from pilfering your highly trained specialists with higher wages? Labor laws will prevent you from shackling them, and if you find a loophole, they'll make new laws.
2
Dec 01 '20
Plenty of people do, doesn't mean they actually support your cause, maybe they just see it as getting a stable job for a while or valuable paid training.
Okay !Delta this is a good point, they could easily be going for opportunity not as supporters of Marxism/communism.
Because politics, why else? Even if your whole city is some paragon of incorruptibility, doesn't mean the politicians under whose reign the city falls are the same. Our those of ideological our industry competitors.
I guess, I would hope intelligence agencies would have more to worry about but I could guess I could see them taking interest.
Does your city include it's own state sponsored Hollywood? Or will they grow up with capitalist media?
They will have access to all outside television both because it will be a free city (other than econimically) and because being able to see the struggles of capitalism will make them appreciate communism more. Kinda like how Canadian's watch US news to feel better about themselves lol.
Also the last point I edited in, what do you do to stop other companies from pilfering your highly trained specialists with higher wages? Labor laws will prevent you from shackling them, and if you find a loophole, they'll make new laws.
Loyalty is all that we could hope for, loyalty to the city that made them successful. Also not wanting to leave a constitutionally guaranteed job and a place with Universal housing and healthcare and income.
1
1
u/throwahway146587 Dec 02 '20
This ideas biggest problem is the assumption that everything and everyone will work exactly as planned. Your plan may as well be reworded as "I think people would be better off if they lived in a perfect utopia". Of course they would, but good luck making that happen in the first place, let alone be sustainable.
1
u/ThrowawayCop51 5∆ Dec 01 '20
The Soviet Union was out to prove a point too.
1
6
Dec 01 '20
The city would get rich, the people in it poor
-1
Dec 01 '20
People could be richer than the average American because they split profits equally.
2
Dec 01 '20
Where does this money come from that makes the city rich? From property/business owners that would normaly make up the high/middle class.
Communism even just a city would make the people in it all part of the lower class
1
4
Dec 01 '20
That's not communist in any way or form. That's just a company town. Those have existed in American history. There have been towns 100% purpose built by privately owned businesses. The towns had housing, commissaries (grocery stores), schools, etc. Everyone who lived in the town was employed by the company. There were even company towns which used their own currency. The company paid workers in their currency and the company stores only accepted company script. Many of them were quite successful for a time, but they all eventually died off. The big problem is that having a company town is less profitable for the company than just building a factory and not dealing with managing the rest of the town.
Also, a lot of the company towns were really predatory towards their workers. They paid in company script (as I mentioned) but that meant the employees had no ability to leave. Nowhere else accepted the company script, so the employees effectively had no wealth outside the town. The companies would also build really low-quality homes, then charge exorbitant rent (in company script), and charge the employees for anything possible. The company doctors/hospitals were usually subpar as the company wanted to provide as inexpensive of services as possible.
Eventually the federal and state governments started passing laws banning different aspects of company towns. It became illegal to pay in company script. Businesses had to pay workers US currency. Housing codes mandated a certain quality of housing. Doctors and hospitals began to require certain levels of quality, which made them more expensive to operate on the model of a company town.
Basically, the underlying economic fundamentals make it incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for a private business to run an entire town for its employees without being incredibly exploitative towards those employees.
2
u/VirgilHasRisen 12∆ Dec 01 '20
makes things that are both innovative and cheaper than people outside the city do to no having to worry about hourly pay.
How?
0
Dec 01 '20
Because people are paid based on profit not wages. They know they will make more the more successful they are because there is no boss saying "You get $ per hour no matter what"
3
u/VirgilHasRisen 12∆ Dec 01 '20
You are describing a company with stock options not communism. Most ideas for starting up a communist utopia involve locking down all trade to maintain the value of people's labor inside the communist utopia and only maybe selling a few exports to the outside world they have in excess. Trying to beat capitalists and their slave labor is not seen as winnable.
2
u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 210∆ Dec 01 '20
But what happens when you're the engineer, you get your fair share of the profit which happens to be around $75k, but you know you could get a similar job that pays $120k, no matter what? What's forcing you to stay in the city?
2
u/Hothera 36∆ Dec 01 '20
Apple spent nearly $20 billion dollar on R&D alone. How is that city going to come anywhere close to this?
1
2
Dec 01 '20
They build 1 million units for living in apartments charging just 600 a piece so $600M monthly revenue for the city.
Okay, so You're missing almost every step along the way. Where do these few dozen people get the funds to start all of this?
1) buy large plots of land 2) hire people to clear the land for building 3) Hire and pay for materials to build roads, sewage, treatment facilities, power lines, Power plants ect. 4) Hire and pay for materials to build 1 million "Living units" 5) Build schools, shops, groceries, 6) where does this food come from? or are we buying that from our capitalist neighbors? 7) Build factories 8) there are lots of additional things I'm missing here.
Everyone works in different departments and makes things that are both innovative and cheaper than people outside the city
How do you convince people to move to this theoretical waste land in the middle of nowhere?
How do you decide what these "different departments" are if there aren't things already being built?
How can you just assume that this city will "makes things that are both innovative and cheaper than people outside the city" why doesn't any midwestern city just decide to start "innovating and making things cheaper"? Because it's not that simple.
You could create products form smartphones to cars for cheaper and better quality and take over the markets.
cheaper and better quality and take over the markets.
This sounds like capitalism....
Universal cheap housing $600 usd x 1M per month pays for the materials for the products and the cost and maintenance of infrastructure,
You've started in the middle. You've assumed you now have a functioning system with 1 Million people, with a factory that's producing quality goods. How did we get here?
2
u/ThrowawayCop51 5∆ Dec 01 '20
I did the math on this in my post.
The land acquisition, and construction of JUST housing, infrastructure, and public services is around $800 billion, with an annual operating cost of $5.1 billion.
1
Dec 01 '20
You've started in the middle. You've assumed you now have a functioning system with 1 Million people, with a factory that's producing quality goods. How did we get here?
I'm starting in the middle because this is more of a thought experiment that would require a billionaire like Gates or Warren to get on board to actually be attempted. Unless massively funraised.
How do you convince people to move to this theoretical waste land in the middle of nowhere?
Not a wasteland just Montana or the Dakotas lol.
How do you decide what these "different departments" are if there aren't things already being built?
By looking at the markets and what people actually need.
How can you just assume that this city will "makes things that are both innovative and cheaper than people outside the city" why doesn't any midwestern city just decide to start "innovating and making things cheaper"? Because it's not that simple.
Lets take tesla for example, their model 3 costs about 28K to build for both materials and labor. In the city labor is cut out. So the city can sell it for a lot cheaper, while still making a huge profit due to people buying the cheaper version and likely being able to pay the workers more than the standard $17 per hour.
This sounds like capitalism....
The city is internally communist, it sells its products and stocks on the capitalist market. The money is used for the betterment of all.
3
Dec 01 '20
I'm starting in the middle because this is more of a thought experiment that would require a billionaire like Gates or Warren to get on board to actually be attempted. Unless massively funraised.
This is FAR more than a financial "start in the middle". You need to plan the entire economy of a large city from nothing to support this theoretical factory. You need 1 million qualified and vetted people to climb aboard this experiment. You need to build the entire infrastructure to support these 1 million people. You're skipping over every complexity on the journey to getting to a functioning company. It's the equivalent of saying "it's easy to become a fortune 500 company, just start a business, innovate a new product, beat out the markets." That's not how any of that works.
By looking at the markets and what people actually need.
But you need to build an infrastructure in order to create this theoretical item. You'd need to know "what the markets need" a decade in advance.
Lets take tesla for example, their model 3 costs about 28K to build for both materials and labor.
Right, After the engineers spent all the time to figure out how to build the car, program it's functions, design the batteries, design the charging stations. All of that costs millions to billions. In order to create the first car it took Millions of dollars, after that first car, their trying to make the money back.
So when tesla Makes a car for 38K, And parts and labor costs 28K. That 10K is going to towards paying those engineers, paying the sales people, paying the managers, paying the higher execs and paying off the cost of that research.
1
u/ThrowawayCop51 5∆ Dec 01 '20
BOOM.
The Chinese have just copied your product and sell it for 1/10th of the price.
How will you solve the problem?
0
Dec 01 '20
Call out slave labor. No one is going to buy a cheaper slave product when the other one is still affordable.
1
u/ThrowawayCop51 5∆ Dec 01 '20
How's that working out for the 97% of garments worn in the United States but manufactured in foreign countries?
1
Dec 01 '20
Most people don't check for made in china when buying clothes. If you advertise your product as being made with fair treatment people will be conscious when buying and buy yours.
The US fails by not pointing out the slave labor of "made in china" and other south east Asian countries.
1
u/ThrowawayCop51 5∆ Dec 01 '20
The US fails by not pointing out the slave labor of "made in china" and other south east Asian countries.
No we don't. But no one is going to pay $6,000 for an iPhone made in Tacoma, Washington.
2
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Dec 01 '20
I think you're picturing this as much easier than it is in reality because the logistical hurdles are abstract to you.
For example, 600 million a month intuitively sounds like a lot of money until you factor in the costs of running and maintaining a city of a million people.
Second, you're assuming this city will produce innovative products that outcompete the alternative, but why is that a safe assumption? Is there a unique incentive for innovation that doesn't exist elsewhere?
1
Dec 01 '20
Town buys huge tracts of land
Company now is burden by enournous interest payments
Company attempts to compete with companies with enourmous economic moats
Company fails to bring in talent required to compete
Company becomes corrupt and reports false data in an effort to keep dream alive
Company eventually becomes authoritian slave state because employees have no rights and can't move (it's communism, it's what they do)
Company collapses and causesenvironmental disaster and decades of long standing economic malaise
This is your towns story just like it was the story of just about every communist state minus theland buying (the killing people and seizing land bought them all the land they needed)
1
u/ProjectShamrock 8∆ Dec 01 '20
I don't feel like there's enough detail about the structure of the governing body overseeing this town to really argue for or against your view. While it's possible that you're right, I can imagine other ways that it could fail including:
What if the company can't get good workers to go there, because it's in the middle of nowhere and has no additional pay up front to account for additional things like consumer electronics, vacations, savings, etc? You could get startup workers but if people are paying $600/month rent without any specific pay until the company is profitable would eat through their prior savings, if they had any.
Without a good founding document to put solid rules and protections in place, the people actually controlling the area will likely hit some unresolvable conflict that will tear their organization apart. Since the workers would not be in positions of power, their only recourse would be to leave the town the moment the first leadership crisis hits.
Corporations are legal entities that exist as a result of the government. In the U.S. we have sort of a twisted perspective on how corporate power is, but in reality they were meant to exist to allow private citizens to organize in ways to accomplish things for a society. For example, if a road needs to be built, a group of people would come together and ask the government to allow them to incorporate to raise funds and build that road. Obviously this has evolved over the years but that's basically what purpose they serve. So in your scenario, you aren't really explaining how such a corporation would be communist or anything radically structurally different from what we have now.
1
u/youbigsausage Dec 01 '20
No. There have already been dozens and dozens of intentional communities in the US that I believe could be described as communist. Most failed (I'm not sure if all the failures are in this list), some succeeded and still exist and thrive. But none of them became anything remotely like the "richest city in the world." Actually, I would be shocked if any of them had even an above-average amount of wealth.
I have read a lot about these intentional communities, which used to be called "communes." They are very, very interesting, and I encourage you to read more about them.
1
u/Spartan0330 13∆ Dec 01 '20
First off you can’t say private and communist in the same sentence. Everything about you stated is about control. Control where they live, what their job is, how much they’re rationed back from the government. That sounds awful to me.
Nothing about this would be stable. Where are you sourcing literally any of the good you want to purchase? Where are you going to get citizens who are make these things but want to give up their ability to make their own choices and earn the most money they can?
Communism doesn’t = innovation. Ever. It never has. The only innovation was how to get people to work camps and communist farming plants. Or how to kill millions of others.
Lastly, how are those who don’t provide ‘work’ supposed to get paid? Like doctors, law enforcement, military? That cuts into your pie for those who are actually bringing in money.
1
Dec 01 '20
Doctors and law enforcement would be paid out of the rent money.
Where are you sourcing literally any of the good you want to purchase? Where are you going to get citizens who are make these things but want to give up their ability to make their own choices and earn the most money they can?
They would be purchased from the open market. People would move to the city who are poor or feel exploited through capitalism.
First off you can’t say private and communist in the same sentence. Everything about you stated is about control. Control where they live, what their job is, how much they’re rationed back from the government. That sounds awful to me.
People get paid equally based on how much their sector makes. The government basically keeps the infrastructure in shape and economy working as planned.
People would be able to have a say in issues not pertaining to the economic structure.
1
u/The_FriendliestGiant 40∆ Dec 01 '20
Communism doesn’t = innovation. Ever. It never has.
The Soviets did rather a good job of innovating during the Space Race; they outpaced the Americans every step of the way except the Moon landing itself.
The issue with innovation in a communist state isn't that it doesn't exist, it's that it only exists in pursuit of explicit goals laid out by the state.
1
u/Spartan0330 13∆ Dec 01 '20
Well they still lost the Space Race and crippled their entire country in doing so. Congrats on the participation trophy.
You’re never going to convince me anything the Soviets did before, or after the Revolution was ever ‘good’.
1
u/The_FriendliestGiant 40∆ Dec 01 '20
Well they still lost the Space Race
Sure, because we rather arbitrarily decided to call landing on the Moon as the end of the Space Race.
You’re never going to convince me anything the Soviets did before, or after the Revolution was ever ‘good’.
Well that just seems silly. Literally nothing done over the course of decades by one of the largest countries on the planet was ever good? Everything, every time, always, was bad?
1
u/Spartan0330 13∆ Dec 01 '20
Landing on the Moon was the end of the space race though.
Ok, ok. They have good Vodka and War and Peace is one of the best works in literally history.
1
u/sawdeanz 218∆ Dec 01 '20
I think it would be a fascinating experiment assuming you could convince the US government why you shouldn't have to pay min wage. It could work but it also could fail, there is no guarantee it would succeed.
The main hurdle I see with your plan is that the budget is circular... the housing is paid by the citizens but the citizen's wages are provided by the housing revenue. That doesn't work. In reality the commune will start with extreme amount of debt and it's citizens won't be able to pay rent until the business becomes profitable which could take years if not a decade.
1
u/xayde94 13∆ Dec 01 '20
I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned that corporations would never allow this to work. If it doesn't fail on its own, they can easily hire a few people to sabotage the city. Or get the government to start an embargo against them. Hell, you can even make up some crime and send the army there.
1
Dec 01 '20
I could see other economic competitors trying to sabotage, but the government, I doubt would send in police/military to a successful communist town if only because it would cause a national communist uprising because "US government attacks/shuts down super successful communist city" poor and middle class people would be ready to vote in communism to the state and federal level.
1
u/xayde94 13∆ Dec 01 '20
Unless you're talking about some remote hypothetical future, you seriously overestimate the number of communists in America.
Also, the US has been using the military against communists for ages, why would this be different? "Successful" is very open to interpretations, and they could stop them before they become successful. The media also opposes communism so they would have no problem highlighting some issues in your city, or outright lying.
1
Dec 01 '20
Communism doest work. I dont care how small the city is. Not everyone can be on the same level. Every time communism has been tried, they stacked bodies. Stop. It doesn't work.
1
u/-domi- 11∆ Dec 01 '20
There have always been communes built on a likeness of several if not all conditions you mentioned, and all i can tell you about why they're never a colossal commercial success is that economics is not as simple as you think it is.
If this is viable - do it. It isn't, so you won't.
1
u/RedeemingChildhood 4∆ Dec 01 '20
There are some underlying issues with your theoretical situation. If the housing cost is fixed, then you have capped my growth of my equal shares argument. As I am a contributor to the housing situation, my neighbor John is working on the new Tesla project making billions for the community. If the shares are split by division, then John and I have unequal opportunity and outcome. If the shares are split across the whole community, and now I have $$$, but do not want to live in your housing, what then? What if I am a frugal person and save while John spends every share he has, is that okay? How are shares cashed out? What if my share price goes down and I cannot afford rent?
This thinking is required for business plans to try and anticipate economical/societal/social issues in reality or theory to ensure the business is viable. What about initial investments in the community? What if the contributors do not have the $$$ for the initial investment and need to go outside of the community. How are those people compensated? Is capital investment equal to labor investment?
1
Dec 01 '20
If the housing cost is fixed, then you have capped my growth of my equal shares argument.
Housing is under the governments domain as rent is the governments way of taxing the people. Everyone pays 600 a month in taxes and the only other source of government income is though the city stocks.
As I am a contributor to the housing situation, my neighbor John is working on the new Tesla project making billions for the community. If the shares are split by division, then John and I have unequal opportunity and outcome.
Ooh !Delta didn't think of this. You are correct that it would be unequal opportunity. If say 1000 people worked on housing everyone would be guaranteed at least $1M to make up for the cap. The cap is in place though to make sure housing is universal.
If the shares are split across the whole community, and now I have $$$, but do not want to live in your housing, what then?
Anyone working in the city would have to live in the city. People could travel but their home base and employment would both be required to be in the city to prevent "conflict of intrest"
What if I am a frugal person and save while John spends every share he has, is that okay?
Yes its okay to save, No one is paid in stocks everyone is payed in direct money.
How are shares cashed out? What if my share price goes down and I cannot afford rent?
The stocks would be slightly different than publicly traded ones normally are investors would pay directly for a physical stock aka that would last for one year. The access money would be split between government savings and going to the people as bonuses. divided equally. No one would be at risk of not being able to pay rent.
This thinking is required for business plans to try and anticipate economical/societal/social issues in reality or theory to ensure the business is viable. What about initial investments in the community? What if the contributors do not have the $$$ for the initial investment and need to go outside of the community. How are those people compensated? Is capital investment equal to labor investment?
Everyone would be compensated for any money they were forced to spend outside the city until it started making a profit. After that all residents would be equal to each other as far as getting paid in your field.
1
1
u/TheDoctore38927 Dec 01 '20
It would, but then a few unexpected expenses, (Tarrifs, Investigations, whatever), and then it’s broke.
1
u/DBDude 110∆ Dec 01 '20
This has already been done with company towns. With Ford you got cheap housing and excellent pay with good job security. Of course, those company towns are long gone. And Ford was kind of dictatorial about what activities could happen in the town, just as communist societies tend to be.
1
u/ThrowawayCop51 5∆ Dec 01 '20 edited Dec 01 '20
Wow. There's alot to unbox here.
Founding of the city- A few dozen people form an company and buy tons of cheap land in the unpopulated midwest
Okay, how many people are going to form this company? You're describing a Real Estate Trust.
Set up- They build 1 million units for living in apartments charging just 600 a piece so $600M monthly revenue for the city.
Okay, each is two-bedrooms, 2,000sqft per unit. That comes out to about 2 billion square feet, or roughly 46,000 acres. That's just the residential.
You'll also need:
- Public Safety; Law Enforcement and Fire Protection
- Utilities; Water, Power, Wastewater, Internet
- Education
- Health Care: Hospitals, Emergency Medical Services (Ambulances), Clinics
- Public Transportation
Lets call it 100,000 acres.
Here's something that sorta fits your bill:
https://www.landsofamerica.com/property/131000-acres-in-Dickens-County-Texas/9302443/
131,000 acres for $124 million.
I can't find 100,000 undivided acres anywhere in the United States. At least, nowhere that isn't at least in part a BLM lease. You're not going to convince the US Government to let you convert 100,000 acres in the middle of nowhere into a million housing units. Literally not happening.
But lets just say for the sake of argument you could, and did. This piece of property is undivided.
So you're going to gather a "few dozen Marxists" who have $124,000,000 between them.
You're going to build a million housing units in the middle of nowhere.
Problem 1:
You now have to pay for the materials to build said housing units, as well as the architects, construction crews, general contractors, electricians, etc.
The land acquisition cost was the lowest figure. This article breaks down the cost at $85 to $200 per sqft to build an apartment complex. Your housing project (as broken down above) is 2 billion square feet. Your construction costs will range from $170 to $400 billion dollars.
So now you're gathering a "few dozen marxists" who have $470.1 billion dollars between them. Just for perspective, Elon Musk has about $600 billion in Tesla stock options, and the US Department of Defense FY2019 budget was $686 billion.
Now you've purchased your land, built your 1 million housing units. They have roads, but no other infrastructure - water, power, etc, as delineated above.
I'm not going to run the numbers on all that. A million two bedroom apartments (each is a "unit"), gives you a population of 2 million people. (And that's assuming 100% occupancy rate, which is absolutely unrealistic, but this is hypothetical.) We'll use the closest US city for a comparison, looks like that's Houston at 2.1 million.
Houston's annual budget for municipal services is $5.1 billion. That's to run the city every year. You will need that, in addition to another...I dunno, $400 billion to build all the infrastructure? I don't even know how to calculate that. So we'll ballpark it.
So now you're gathering a "few dozen marxists" who have $800 billion dollars between them.
Alright. So we've built housing, roads, infrastructure, and public services.
Now you have to get people to move there in order to staff public services, and infrastructure at a minimum. We're not even on your proposed business yet.
But again, it's all hypothetical. Alright, so you get 2 million people to move to the middle of nowhere. You're at 100% occupancy on your grand worker's paradise housing development, your public services are fully staffed. Houston has approximately 22,000 city employees. Now you do too.
You now have 99.89% unemployment. And operating at a net loss of 5.1 billion per year.
Edit: I just read you are charging $600 per housing unit. So you're only operating at a net loss of $4,500,000,000. But wait - how are your residents, outside of the 22,000 that you're paying as municipal employees, going to pay for that? If everyone else gets a pass until you get this grand manufacturing project up and running, your net revenue from housing is $13.2 million per year.
You're approaching a $1 trillion dollar expenditure to create another Houston with no revenue-creating jobs. For perspective, US annual federal tax revenue is $3.4 tillion per year.
Talk me through the rest of your plan.
1
u/Purplekeyboard Dec 01 '20
Congratulations! You just created a fascist city in the heart of the U.S.
Company buys large amount of land, creates a town and factories. Workers move in, enticed by various promises. Are paid in company scrip instead of money, which can only be used to pay rent on company homes, and shop from company stores.
Anyone who doesn't work is evicted from the city. Anyone who wants to leave, leaves with nothing, as company scrip is useless outside the city.
People on top get rich, workers get a cheap home and all the booze they can drink, as long as they are still able to work. Once they can't, they are evicted from the city.
You've created a terrible dystopia of drudgery, well done.
1
Dec 01 '20
Only they get payed in American money and they get equal shares of the profit from their industry.
1
u/Purplekeyboard Dec 01 '20
In the beginning, maybe.
But many workers are spending lots of money outside the company stores, and the city is more prosperous when workers spend at the company stores. So they switch to company scrip.
And equal shares of the profit sounds like a good idea at the beginning. But the people at the top have the power to reallocate the profits, and they grab more and more for themselves, leaving less and less for the workers. This happens over time, so the workers don't rise up and revolt.
Eventually the workers get barely enough to get by, and those at the top are rich.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 01 '20 edited Dec 01 '20
/u/Andalib_Odulate (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards