Post Reply  Post Thread 
Pages (2): « First [1] 2 Next > Last »

Living Costs (part 3)

Author Message
CaiusFilimon
Member
*


Posts: 147
Words count: 26,230
Group: Basic
Joined: Jan2014
Status: Offline
Reputation: 2
Experience: 78
Glory Points: 0
Medals: 0

Post: #1
Living Costs (part 3)

For Christ's sake, has this not been patched yet?

For more than 5 years in game the net income had remained the same while living costs continued to creep up. That is after a random fall in net income too... From a net income of 3800 and living costs of 1400, the net income had fallen to 3300 and then remained there for years, while the living costs have continuously increased to 1600.

Inflation... in a country with a savings ratio of 16 FREAKING PERCENT!

Why has this not been fixed yet? I really appreciate the time some of the devmins have taken to try help me out years ago, but how is this still not fixed? How? I even made sure to not overheat the economy in the first years of the game; keept a savings ratio of over 14% for the vast majority of the state's life. Then suddenly, net income stops increasing, then starts dropping, while living costs continue to increase, as it's happened to countless states of mine.

Employment kept jumping 2/3% every tick, the GINI kept moving from 0.09 to 0.15, etc. What is happening to the game's calculations?

http://www.ars-regendi.com/staat/calcula.../show.html

This post was last modified: 12.07.2016 20:39 by CaiusFilimon.

12.07.2016 20:38
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #2
RE: Living Costs (part 3)

Don't know what the cause is, since it keeps repeating for you even though you change play styles. Still, one thing you can try is to reduce the income tax. This doesn't fix your underlying problem, your commodity index being really high compared to the average state. But you also have higher demographics.


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache

This post was last modified: 12.07.2016 21:22 by Helsworth.

12.07.2016 21:17
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MrProper
天皇
****


Posts: 3,231
Words count: 449,512
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2011
Status: Offline
Reputation: 221
Experience: 185232
Glory Points: 3847
Medals: 104

Hammerfest
Chicago
Post: #3
RE: Living Costs (part 3)

I did not follow your previous threads at that time, but just read trough them. Helsworth actually pointed out the problem in your states:

Helsworth Wrote:
Overpopulation was just my guess. But the main element which screws everything up is the safety stats.

In Ars Regendi, overpopulation is a problem. If the economy growth can not keep up with the increasing number of employees, working hours are reduced as a result and, therefore, the net income stagnates or even goes down (depends on the ratio). The reducing net income causes the security to go down as result and, voilà, that's it.


冥王星違法です
12.07.2016 21:27
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CaiusFilimon
Member
*


Posts: 147
Words count: 26,230
Group: Basic
Joined: Jan2014
Status: Offline
Reputation: 2
Experience: 78
Glory Points: 0
Medals: 0

Post: #4
RE: Living Costs (part 3)

Helsworth Wrote:
Don't know what the cause is, since it keeps repeating for you even though you change play styles. Still, one thing you can try is to reduce the income tax. This doesn't fix your underlying problem, your commodity index being really high compared to the average state. But you also have higher demographics.


My commodity index is 2.39 and the average is 1.63; is that actually high? It used to be only a slight bit above average before the net income and living costs issue arose yet again. Thanks for the reply!


MrProper Wrote:
I did not follow your previous threads at that time, but just read trough them. Helsworth actually pointed out the problem in your states:

Helsworth Wrote:
Overpopulation was just my guess. But the main element which screws everything up is the safety stats.

In Ars Regendi, overpopulation is a problem. If the economy growth can not keep up with the increasing number of employees, working hours are reduced as a result and, therefore, the net income stagnates or even goes down (depends on the ratio). The reducing net income causes the security to go down as result and, voilà, that's it.


The state, before the bug, had 2 petty offense score, 10 black market activity, 6 capital crime, 18 corruption; I don't think it was security that was the issue. Now after the bug, the security is incredibly tiny compared to the average anyway.


I have done states without high population growth; it shouldn't be the issue.

Besides, overpopulation is not an issue considering far above the average healthcare AND environment. I don't see how an increasing number of working age individuals would lead to working hours being reduced at all; I took absolutely no tasks that would make the labor market inflexible.

In fact I made sure to keep the labor market very flexible in terms of working contracts and even hour contracts or however they're called; I only imposed minimum wages.

But I really do appreciate the timely response! Is there some in built complete bias considering higher populations disastrous to an economy, regardless of how flexible the job market is and how prosperous the economy is? The GDP per capita is still significantly higher than the average (edit: nevermind. But it was almost twice higher before the bug started hitting). Besides, I know I've had states without too high a population in the past as well, where the same bug has happened.

This post was last modified: 12.07.2016 21:53 by CaiusFilimon.

12.07.2016 21:46
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CaiusFilimon
Member
*


Posts: 147
Words count: 26,230
Group: Basic
Joined: Jan2014
Status: Offline
Reputation: 2
Experience: 78
Glory Points: 0
Medals: 0

Post: #5
RE: Living Costs (part 3)

The actual bug started after the entire game I had an unemployment rate of 0.32/0.34. There were no issues enacted to force companies to hire more employees; as I said before, all labor market issues I solved were those keeping the state out of the business of contract negotiation, other than good workplace health standards and health insurance, as well as high minimum wages and profit (and loss) sharing (which actually jumped the net income by 300 which was very impressive).

Do the calculations break after a certain population level? Or at least whenever there is high population growth? This was a perfect state; what a waste.
It clearly seems pretty buggy. And I can't seem to make the attachment I uploaded show. But the demographcis part of the state shows the average US state as having 74,846,625,924 people starved to death.

This post was last modified: 13.07.2016 15:59 by CaiusFilimon.

13.07.2016 15:56
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lord Alexander
Comrade
*


Posts: 1,586
Words count: 238,210
Group: Basic
Joined: Feb2009
Status: Offline
Reputation: 61
Experience: 616
Glory Points: 146
Medals: 4

Post: #6
RE: Living Costs (part 3)

CaiusFilimon Wrote:
But the demographcis part of the state shows the average US state as having 74,846,625,924 people starved to death.

The values for Average state in this specific Quarter are bugged. Just advance your state for one or two Quarters and the values for Average state will return to norm.

13.07.2016 20:58
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MrProper
天皇
****


Posts: 3,231
Words count: 449,512
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2011
Status: Offline
Reputation: 221
Experience: 185232
Glory Points: 3847
Medals: 104

Hammerfest
Chicago
Post: #7
RE: Living Costs (part 3)

As a follow up on my previous message:
I may have been slighlty mistaken about the labour time - they look fine in most of CaiusFilimon states and my observation of reducing labour times in combination with decreasing net income might be related to 'old states' with high automation.

In order to support my claim that the high population is responsible for the effect that can be seen in CaiusFilimon's states, I went trough the list of all his states (the 5 active states visible in the sidebar and 5 more in his state history) and checked for states were the net income was not twice as high as the cost of living. Obviously, states who are above this ratio are still in a good situation.

In 4 of those 10 states, the ratio of average net income divided by costs of living was below '2'. The second value I took into consideration was the population. In difference to some extrem values one occasionally sees elsewhere, I assume that the median of the average state is quite reliable. One could compare of course with a 'fresh' state, but that would not consider the age of the individual state. And here the result:

State | Template | Income Ratio: Average Net Income divided by Costs of Living -> Higher values are better | Population Ratio: Population divided by the median of the average state
It has to be noted that those states are not all based on the same template (which reduces the comparibility), but the tendancy should be quite clear.

It is up to debate whether or not this implementation makes sense. However, I think it can be partially justified by the job market being flooded with young, motivated teenager, willing to sacrifice income as long as they get a job, while older employees are willing to accept cuts of their income so that they do not loose their job in turn.

As stated before, the security (when not related to immigrants) starts decreasing when average net income reduces, since the people will do everything to get more money. This applies in particular for that part of the population that earns less than the actual costs of living ...


冥王星違法です

This post was last modified: 27.07.2016 09:05 by MrProper.

13.07.2016 23:13
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CaiusFilimon
Member
*


Posts: 147
Words count: 26,230
Group: Basic
Joined: Jan2014
Status: Offline
Reputation: 2
Experience: 78
Glory Points: 0
Medals: 0

Post: #8
RE: Living Costs (part 3)

MrProper Wrote:
As a follow up on my previous message:
I may have been slighlty mistaken about the labour time - they look fine in most of CaiusFilimon states and my observation of reducing labour times in combination with decreasing net income might be related to 'old states' with high automation.

In order to support my claim that the high population is responsible for the effect that can be seen in CaiusFilimon's states, I went trough the list of all his states (the 5 active states visible in the sidebar and 5 more in his state history) and checked for states were the net income was not twice as high as the cost of living. Obviously, states who are above this ratio are still in a good situation.

In 4 of those 10 states, the ratio of average net income divided by costs of living was below '2'. The second value I took into consideration was the population. In difference to some extrem values one occasionally sees elsewhere, I assume that the median of the average state is quite reliable. One could compare of course with a 'fresh' state, but that would not consider the age of the individual state. And here the result:

State | Template | Income Ratio: Average Net Income divided by Costs of Living | Population Ratio: Population divided by the median of the average state
It has to be noted that those states are not all based on the same template (which reduces the comparibility), but the tendancy should be quite clear.

It is up to debate whether or not this implementation makes sense. However, I think it can be partially justified by the job market being flooded with young, motivated teenager, willing to sacrifice income as long as they get a job, while older employees are willing to accept cuts of their income so that they do not loose their job in turn.

As stated before, the security (when not related to immigrants) starts decreasing when average net income reduces, since the people will do everything to get more money. This applies in particular for that part of the population that earns less than the actual costs of living ...


Thank you very much for that; in terms of the ratios it really does seem utterly clear that population growth would be the culprit. While it is great to, after years, finally understand what was causing the issues, it is still a bit disheartening to know that all of those states were doomed from the beginning, every time...

In terms of the reasoning behind the changes in net income and living costs, those could be said to be interesting theories. However, at the same time, the latest state also had issues passed to enforce huge minimum wages, as well as a minimum of 3% wage increases a year.

Furthermore, my latest state, CaiusGF, only has 30million more employable persons than the average state. Considering that before the death spiral happened the GDP per capita was already almost twice the average, especially considering the huge population, I really do not think that a 30 million difference in employable people, over DECADES should cause such a horrible death spiral.

For one, when the death spiral started hitting, the population of employable people was likely above the average by even less than 30milion as it hit a while before the current quarter of the state.

Likewise, with the given much larger population but not much higher employable population, there should be great increases in aggregate demand in the economy without much pressure on the labor market. This would of course lead to corporations wanting to increase their own production capacities to soak up all of that extra demand, trying to take advantage of gaining footholds in the expanding markets. Expanding production capacities would of course also lead to many more workplaces being opened up.

Considering the immensely valuable currency, which must have been 2$:1 before the spiral started hitting, the state was likely exporting a very large amount of goods and services, showing clear foreign demand for goods, and thus another source of aggregate demand from the said exports. Thus, there should be plenty of workplaces. The issues where in-built obsolition was strictly forbidden with very harsh fines and imprisonment of the managers, as well as the issue where very strict quality standards were employed would likely mean a lot of foreign demand for CaiusGF goods as well.

And it should definitely be noted that I could see the unemployment only very suddenly start increasing, when the net income started stagnating and living costs inexplicably going up. It went, gradually, from 0.30/32% to 6% in but a few quarters for no reason, whiling living costs were increasing and net income was stagnating. Then net income started falling as well.

I do not think there is much of a logical explanation for what happened (at the very least) to my latest state, at least not in terms of the population. A population growth of less than 3%, especially natural growth (as I made sure to not allow many immigrants in as all of my former states did allow everyone in) cannot possibly cause such a catastrophic collapse in an extremely healthy economy.

This post was last modified: 15.07.2016 20:58 by CaiusFilimon.

15.07.2016 20:56
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #9
RE: Living Costs (part 3)

There may be some big changes happening behind the scenes which leads to bugs, a snowball effect of sorts. Overpopulation, while no doubt is considerable stress upon output, should show up in the value of his currency. But his currency is uber strong. At any rate, it's not a plausible result in my opinion. Then again, you can achieve crazy stuff with the USA template state - so the 'realism ship' has already sailed.


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache
16.07.2016 00:11
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CaiusFilimon
Member
*


Posts: 147
Words count: 26,230
Group: Basic
Joined: Jan2014
Status: Offline
Reputation: 2
Experience: 78
Glory Points: 0
Medals: 0

Post: #10
RE: Living Costs (part 3)

Helsworth Wrote:
There may be some big changes happening behind the scenes which leads to bugs, a snowball effect of sorts. Overpopulation, while no doubt is considerable stress upon output, should show up in the value of his currency. But his currency is uber strong. At any rate, it's not a plausible result in my opinion. Then again, you can achieve crazy stuff with the USA template state - so the 'realism ship' has already sailed.


Big changes? That would be interesting.

Although, really, these changes would have had to be going on for 3 years considering I've been wasting money on tickless states for around that amount of time.

Also, how is 480mil with a pop density of 50 overpopulation? And how does a larger population put stress on output exactly? Considering the high automation and very high education level and the very strong currency?

17.07.2016 11:17
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Pages (2): « First [1] 2 Next > Last »
Post Reply  Post Thread 

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Living Costs.. Part 4 CaiusFilimon 28 4,025 16.11.2016 06:59
Last Post: yangusbeef
  Living Costs (part 2) CaiusFilimon 63 7,166 07.08.2015 21:00
Last Post: Helsworth
  Living Costs CaiusFilimonG 53 9,156 31.07.2015 11:38
Last Post: CaiusFilimon
  Living Costs and Net Income... again CaiusGFilimon 10 2,082 24.04.2015 10:29
Last Post: Malone

View a Printable Version
Send this Thread to a Friend
Subscribe to this Thread | Add Thread to Favorites

Forum Jump: