Sociology and game theory.

The use of game theory is expanding from nuclear strategies to the social sciences. And one of the users of this interesting theory is are companies. The company owners want to know. What is the point when personal benefit overruns the collective benefit? There is the possibility that some person gets a job from another company. But that thing causes the fall of the present workplace. 

The collective benefit must go ahead. The benefit of the company is the benefit of its workers. Or that is the normal way to think. But the company owners are people whose benefit is that the workgroup is optimal. When we think. About the number of workers. There are always people who are not "doing anything". The reason for that is that if the worker will not make things right. That person can kick off the company. If the workforce is minimal. There is no way to divorce workers. But if there is some kind reserve of workers. That means the divorcing worker is easier. 

But then we must realize that the worker would not have the same benefit as the company owner. The owner might want to make money. And the only reason why the employee is at the company is the product. The production requires workers. And that is the reason, why the workers are only the loss of money in the company. 

So why do we have unemployment? The companies benefit is always that there are lots of unemployed workers. That makes their ability to select workers from a large number of applicants. That large number of unemployed people makes it possible to put salaries down and the companies can say that there are thousands of applicants. 

A large number of unemployed people are not the benefit of society or the state. The state must pay the minimum payment for unemployed people that they can pay for their food and clothes. If that payment is too low. That causes increasing criminal behavior. 

The prisoner would cause other kinds of costs to society. That person requires surveillance officials. And prison guards. Those people require their payments. And that thing costs money. When we are saving money from someplace. That raises the costs of some other place. Nothing is free. 

All people want money. And there are multiple points for the money of the state. And even the largest and richest countries have limited resources. The resources that are given to someplace are away from some other place. The problem with modern politics is that people who are operating in the political field are members of some party. 

That means they are listening first to their people. And after that, they listen to others. The fact is that the benefit of the person and that person's support group can sometimes be different. This is one thing that we must realize. When we are thinking about illegal refugees from Mexico. 

Those people come to the USA swimming over the Rio Grande. We know how poor those people are. We might ask why some people want to kick them off. If we are looking at the maps where is shown the people who are against those refugees we can notice that those people are living near the border. When people who live near borders say. They are afraid, because of those refugees. 

They have the right to do that. There are always some people who are carrying drugs. And some of those people are dangerous. We are not living at the border of Mexico. And for us, that might seem ridiculous. But for people who are facing those cases that is not the same. The thing is that people who are living thousands of kilometers away from some area might have a different way to see things. 

People are reading news differently. The people who are close to the cases are seeing only negative things. The risk and the fear are the dominating effects in the news that they read. And of course, there are always people who forget to ask. "Why does somebody want to swim across the Rio Grande"? 

Why didn't those people use legal ways to cross the border? The name of the game is that every people have a different way to highlight the parts of those stories. The people who resist firearms might say. That there is only a couple of people who are carrying drugs. But the free firearms supporter might say that "those couple of guys might come to visit you". 

So who is right. Which of those people has better arguments? The answer that we will give might depend on things like do we own guns? That thing is quite expensive. And of course, we must remember that we must justify that thing to ourselves. 

When the audience is asked for callup surveys. There is always some category of how those people are selected. The game theory is the thing that determines the people who are giving answers that benefit the maker of the survey. 

If the maker of the research is the NRA (National Rifle Association) the reason for selecting people for the survey might be people who just bought firearms. Those people might want to justify buying for themselves and their friends. So those people would probably answer that they are made the right choice. The argument for buying a handgun is the will to look for protection from firearms.