Holy Roman Empire

The general trend cannot be shaken by a few minor players, and bringing in cheap foreign labor is not that simple. Besides the support of capitalists, everyone else is opposed.

There’s no reason other than profit.

The influx of a large number of cheap foreign workers would not only impact the domestic pay scale but also affect social security. Everyone’s personal interests would be harmed, so opposition was natural.

On this issue, the Vienna Government’s stance has always been very firm. They made a clear distinction between primary and secondary concerns.

It was impossible for the interest of capitalists to overshadow the foundation of the nation. Apart from highly skilled talents, Austria did not welcome ordinary laborers.

From a national perspective, when the local populace earned income, the money still circulated within the country; however, after foreign laborers received their pay, aside from basic living expenses, the majority of their earnings flowed out of the country.

Capital outflow is certainly detrimental to national development unless there really is a labor shortage that must be filled by foreign workers; otherwise, no government would welcome it.

Austria’s shortage of labor was just a temporary shortfall in manpower due to the effects of the war. As long as capitalists halted their blind expansion, this problem would no longer exist.

Publicly introduced laborers were different from those who sneak in to work illegally. The latter constituted illegal employment and could be deported at any time; the former had signed contracts and were legally employed workers, who certainly could not be treated so harshly.

If a large number of foreign workers were to be brought in, should an economic crisis break out after the war, the domestic employment and wage system would be shattered, and the crisis would further intensify due to a vicious cycle.

The government had tried in vain to stop the capitalists’ blind expansion but, ironically, it was the shortage of labor that curbed this expansion trend, a conclusion with a slightly comedic twist.

When faced with profit, all difficulties can be overcome. If there’s a labor shortage, just poach talent. After Christmas, Austria erupted into a talent war.

To attract more workers, many businesses offered unusually favorable conditions, such as free lunch or free accommodation...

Under these circumstances, in 1880, the number of employment disputes handled by the labor inspection department hit a historic low, and class conflicts tended to ease.

The increase in labor costs also drove up business operating costs, but this minor issue was not worth mentioning in the face of war.

In a positive context, the "Golden Age" kept appearing in newspapers, and many people optimistically believed it was another boom in the capitalist economy.

The general public was unaware of the severity of the consequences, but Franz could not be careless. Prosperity brought by war would not sustain once the war ended.

While people’s incomes increased, prices were also gradually climbing. Once the war ended, this abnormal prosperity would surely not last.

When the post-war economic bubble burst and overcapacity crisis erupted, market competition became more brutal, and business profits plummeted.

Given the integrity of capitalists, lowering labor costs was an inevitable outcome when profits fell. Layoffs and salary reductions were the most common tactics.

Income decreased, but prices had already peaked; the lives of the lower class would become even more difficult, and a crisis was looming.

Had it not been for the colonies as an outlet, Franz would have lost sleep. Just thinking of the terrifying tide of unemployment sent shivers down his spine.

After much hesitation, Franz still decided to intervene in the market proactively. When the government intervenes in the market, tact must be considered, as direct involvement was not an option.

Putting down the newspaper in his hand, Franz instructed the maid, "Notify the heads of the Finance Department, the Banking Supervisory Department, and the National Bank to come for a meeting tomorrow afternoon."

"Yes, Your Majesty."

After speaking, the sound of "ring ring" rang out as the maid picked up the telephone not far away to dial.

It must be admitted that the telephone was one of the greatest inventions of the 19th century. Before this, to notify a meeting, one had to send a messenger in person, which couldn’t be done without half a day’s work.

Now, with telephone transmission, it only takes an instant. Of course, this was the Emperor’s privilege; the telephone company had provided a dedicated line, with personnel on standby 24 hours a day to ensure immediate connection.

In this age of manual switchboarding, if ordinary people wanted to make a call, they had to queue up obediently; a half-hour wait was not considered late, and it was normal to drag it out for two to three hours during peak times.

Since it was purely manual operation, minor accidents were inevitable, such as the most common error by switchboard operators causing crossed lines.

The now-popular monthly subscription calls, telephone companies are not responsible for delays in call time due to personnel errors.

No way around it, this was a tyrannical service. In those days, the telephone was a high-tech product, and the telephone company had a monopoly; take it or leave it.

No matter how problematic, the telephone was much better than the telegraph. Being able to call directly from home was far more convenient than going to a telegraph office to send a telegram.

If you want better service, upgrade to VIP. This was Franz’s idea, copied from the great Penguin Empire; if you want to improve call quality, then ante up!

As long as you pay, you can even customize a 24-hour dedicated line. Unless there’s a special case, a connection is guaranteed within five minutes.

As for complaints from ordinary users about poor service quality, that could only be met with an apology. In the age of manual switchboarding, there was simply no way to talk about service quality.

```

We can’t blame the telephone company for treating customers differently, as they are simply driven by necessity. Telephones, being a luxury, are beyond the reach of ordinary people, with even the majority of the middle class finding them unaffordable.

As the newspapers say, "If you want to know if someone is wealthy, just see if they have a telephone in their home."

The wealthiest families are invariably VIP users of the telephone company, with anyone who can afford a telephone classed as middle class or above.

The entry fee of five hundred Divine Shield and the minimum monthly fee of thirty Divine Shield immediately eliminate the average person from the market.

Don’t complain about the price; considering the cost of setting up nationwide coverage, the telephone company is actually taking a loss to gain market share.

If it weren’t for the aim of capturing the market, it’s likely that, like many European nations, telephones would be exclusive to major cities.

The high fees are essentially funding the research and development of new technologies; the monopoly is both a reward for innovators and a sad reality.

Lacking core technology leads to patent licensing fees, steep infrastructure costs, and bleak profit margins; these challenges are too great for most businesses to handle.

In a context of continual losses and distant profit prospects, speaking of antitrust is essentially nonsensical.

Morally grandstanding is easy, but what about solving the problem? It’s simple to break a monopoly, but what then?

If companies see no profit in sight, they lose motivation, stop investing in new tech, and the consequences are far worse than monopoly.

Each era has its own characteristics and what’s most suitable is best. Alleged monopolies stifle technological progress, but that’s relative; monopolies have also driven technological advancements.

Of course, this is limited to technology. The premise is harnessing innovative science to dominate the market and achieve a monopolistic position.

Even in later ages, monopolistic groups still abound, relying on their technological edge. There’s no helping it; competitors who don’t measure up fail in the marketplace.

We cannot halt technological progress in the name of antitrust, waiting around for competitors to catch up.

The issue of side effects is not currently within Franz’s considerations. One can’t stop eating for fear of choking to death.

Let future generations handle these problems; for now, one must strive to climb the technological tree and stand out in this cutthroat era.

…

Finance Minister Karl, "Your Majesty, we’re in a period of rapid economic growth; tightening the money supply suddenly could easily disrupt the market."

It’s no wonder Karl is worried, for in an era of free economy the government rarely intervenes in the market, let alone knows how to do so.

Attempting something unprecedented and momentous, it’s normal for anyone to harbor doubts.

Franz shook his head, "We aren’t directly tightening the money supply, we just need to standardize loan approval and issuance to ensure the security of depositors’ funds."

The same action, framed differently, can lead to a different outcome.

Direct and forceful government intervention, or ordering banks to restrict lending, would certainly face severe backlash. Yet, if intervention is framed as loan approval regulation, the story changes.

The latter is one of the government’s functions. Protecting depositors’ funds is a noble cause; no one can oppose it.

While regulating loans, some with incomplete procedures or forged information will naturally fail approval.

These loans often carry high risk. Stopping their issuance not only effectively tightens the money supply but also protects depositors’ funds.

It might not be apparent now, but once a crisis hits, every extra Divine Shield in cash could be a lifeline for the banks.

Franz certainly doesn’t want to see domestic banks fail en masse, forcing the government to clean up the mess and plunge the finances into deep debt.

Banking Regulatory Commissioner Alex, "Your Majesty, we still lack the legal basis in this area; the government hasn’t explicitly defined the scope of supervision over commercial lending.

If we intervene blindly, without clear standards, it could lead to abuse of power and have severe consequences."

Since the suppression of the March Revolution, the Austrian Government has embarked on a path of legal reform. The legislative committee has been busy for thirty years and still isn’t completely detailed.

Many issues are only addressed after they arise, and Franz is used to patching things up. Building a legal system is an ongoing process of refinement; achieving perfection in one step is unrealistic.

"I will speak with the legislative committee about this problem. You all coordinate and collect more cases to develop detailed implementation rules as soon as possible.

Imperfections can be gradually rectified later. We’ll fix the loopholes one by one; this is a long-term task."

…

```