Questions on Social Reforms in vanilla Heart of Darkness

[Nerva]

I would like to role-play the USA as a "libertarian utopia", with all political reforms except Trade Unions (outlaw them), minimal regulation, maximum factory profitability (undercut the rest of the world on production cost), Laissez-faire, etc. In another thread regarding Southern Democrats in the USA,

... all social reforms are beneficial.

Obviously, this could throw a wrench in how I'd like to role-play the USA, so let's take a look at the Social Reforms in vanilla HoD:

Minimum Wage -- increases Immigrant Attraction
Max. Workhours -- reduces factory throughput, reduces Luxury Needs, increases Immigrant Attraction
Safety Regulations -- reduces Everyday Needs, increases Factory Cost, increases Immigrant Attraction
Unemployment Subsidies -- increases Immigrant Attraction (and redistributes wealth to the unemployed)
Pensions -- increases Immigrant Attraction (and redistributes wealth to the masses)
Health Care -- increases Immigrant Attraction and Population Growth
School System -- increases Immigrant Attraction and Education Efficiency

I have a few questions about the Social Reforms in Heart of Darkness:

1) Assuming I want high Consciousness and Plurality in a modern Democracy, is it even possible to resist passing all Social Reforms -- will the POPs just keep demanding and revolting until I give in?

I see that Trade Unions increase social reform desire, so I am hoping that early in the game if I get Reactionaries in control of the Upper House long enough for them to outlaw unions, it will allow me to pick-and-choose my Social Reforms later in the game.

2) What Social Reforms do people recommend in vanilla Heart of Darkness?

I see that many of the Social Reforms have increased Immigrant Attraction as a benefit, but if I'm playing USA, I think they get huge bonuses to that already, and additional Immigrant Attraction will have less and less benefit as my share of world immigration gets higher and higher.

I want to have the lowest factory costs in the world -- that means I want no Minimum Wage or other reforms that reduce factory throughput (Max Workhours). Reforms that reduce Needs of my POPs will make them easier to please, but I'm thinking if I can drive down prices, drive up factory profitability, and lower taxes with Laissez-faire, that will make it easier for my POPs to buy their Needs.

In the case of Health Care, it has benefits to Population Growth, which is desirable -- but in the case of playing the USA, I am wondering how important the natural growth modifier is compared to the population growth from immigration.

Education is vital for a literate workforce, so I am thinking School System reform is a good idea -- but how does the cost/benefit compare to simply using the Education spending slider? In other words, let's say I get my literacy to 100% and I don't need to maximize my spending on Education any longer -- in order to maintain 100% literacy, does it cost more or less if I have School System reforms than if I just use the Education spending slider?

When it comes to Unemployment reforms, I am thinking they might discourage POPs from migrating to where the good jobs are. I want my labor market to be "liquid", not "sticky".

Reforms like Pensions, Health Care, and Unemployment do not directly decrease my factory competitiveness, but they do increase my government spending on Social Programs, and all the reforms increase my spending on Administration, which means there is either less money available for the military, or I have to raise taxes, which reduces the take-home-pay of my POPs.

So, do all Social Reforms truly give a net advantage, or only some of them (I'm thinking Health Care and School System)? And if I'm playing a Laissez-faire "libertarian utopia" Democracy with high Consciousness and Plurality, can I really pick-and-choose my Social Reforms without causing constant revolts?

 

[austrianemporer]

I would like to role-play the USA as a "libertarian utopia", with all political reforms except Trade Unions (outlaw them), minimal regulation, maximum factory profitability (undercut the rest of the world on production cost), Laissez-faire, etc. In another thread regarding Southern Democrats in the USA,


Obviously, this could throw a wrench in how I'd like to role-play the USA, so let's take a look at the Social Reforms in vanilla HoD:

Minimum Wage -- increases Immigrant Attraction
Max. Workhours -- reduces factory throughput, reduces Luxury Needs, increases Immigrant Attraction
Safety Regulations -- reduces Everyday Needs, increases Factory Cost, increases Immigrant Attraction
Unemployment Subsidies -- increases Immigrant Attraction (and redistributes wealth to the unemployed)
Pensions -- increases Immigrant Attraction (and redistributes wealth to the masses)
Health Care -- increases Immigrant Attraction and Population Growth
School System -- increases Immigrant Attraction and Education Efficiency

I have a few questions about the Social Reforms in Heart of Darkness:

1) Assuming I want high Consciousness and Plurality in a modern Democracy, is it even possible to resist passing all Social Reforms -- will the POPs just keep demanding and revolting until I give in?

I see that Trade Unions increase social reform desire, so I am hoping that early in the game if I get Reactionaries in control of the Upper House long enough for them to outlaw unions, it will allow me to pick-and-choose my Social Reforms later in the game.

2) What Social Reforms do people recommend in vanilla Heart of Darkness?

I see that many of the Social Reforms have increased Immigrant Attraction as a benefit, but if I'm playing USA, I think they get huge bonuses to that already, and additional Immigrant Attraction will have less and less benefit as my share of world immigration gets higher and higher.

I want to have the lowest factory costs in the world -- that means I want no Minimum Wage or other reforms that reduce factory throughput (Max Workhours). Reforms that reduce Needs of my POPs will make them easier to please, but I'm thinking if I can drive down prices, drive up factory profitability, and lower taxes with Laissez-faire, that will make it easier for my POPs to buy their Needs.

In the case of Health Care, it has benefits to Population Growth, which is desirable -- but in the case of playing the USA, I am wondering how important the natural growth modifier is compared to the population growth from immigration.

Education is vital for a literate workforce, so I am thinking School System reform is a good idea -- but how does the cost/benefit compare to simply using the Education spending slider? In other words, let's say I get my literacy to 100% and I don't need to maximize my spending on Education any longer -- in order to maintain 100% literacy, does it cost more or less if I have School System reforms than if I just use the Education spending slider?

When it comes to Unemployment reforms, I am thinking they might discourage POPs from migrating to where the good jobs are. I want my labor market to be "liquid", not "sticky".

Reforms like Pensions, Health Care, and Unemployment do not directly decrease my factory competitiveness, but they do increase my government spending on Social Programs, and all the reforms increase my spending on Administration, which means there is either less money available for the military, or I have to raise taxes, which reduces the take-home-pay of my POPs.

So, do all Social Reforms truly give a net advantage, or only some of them (I'm thinking Health Care and School System)? And if I'm playing a Laissez-faire "libertarian utopia" Democracy with high Consciousness and Plurality, can I really pick-and-choose my Social Reforms without causing constant revolts?

1. Impossible. If you want high consciousness (plurality doesn't matter, all plurality does is increase consciousness), better pass all the reforms your people want. Also, you should pass reforms if you want immigration. If you don't, get ready for rebel hell.

2. Schools and healthcare are the most important. Even if your playing USA, healthcare is still important. School system does not affect education spending, it affects administration spending. If you want your people to have less needs, you're going to have to pass social reforms. Extremely profitable factories give their money to capitalists, not the people working in them. You can pass reforms and not pay for it. Health care does not increase Social Spending. You cannot pick and choose.

 

[Nerva]

1) Are you saying that my POPs will eventually demand every single Social Reform be passed or they will revolt? What if I use event-decisions to push Reactionary/Conservative/Liberal ideology and repel Socialist ideology?

2) I was under the impression that factory profits are split between the Craftsmen, Clerks, and Capitalists -- indeed, the Minimum Wage drives low-margin factories out of business by mandating higher wages for Craftsmen than what the profits can provide, and high-profit factories have higher-paid Craftsmen and Clerks than low-profit factories.

 

[austrianemporer]

1) Are you saying that my POPs will eventually demand every single Social Reform be passed or they will revolt? What if I use event-decisions to push Reactionary/Conservative/Liberal ideology and repel Socialist ideology?

2) I was under the impression that factory profits are split between the Craftsmen, Clerks, and Capitalists -- indeed, the Minimum Wage drives low-margin factories out of business by mandating higher wages for Craftsmen than what the profits can provide, and high-profit factories have higher-paid Craftsmen and Clerks than low-profit factories.

1. Yep. It is not enough to "repel" socialist ideology.

2. Yeah, the profits are split but a super profitable factory gives capitalists a large majority of the profits. Sorry I was somewhat confusing. Minimum wage does drive unprofitable and low profitable factories out of business but they would go out of business anyways.

 

[Nerva]

What about using Suppression Points? I can't find any information on them in the wiki, and the A House Divided manual only briefly mentions that you can use them to disband a movement, but if the movement appears again it will be more "radical" (I assume they meant militant).

 

[austrianemporer]

What about using Suppression Points? I can't find any information on them in the wiki, and the A House Divided manual only briefly mentions that you can use them to disband a movement, but if the movement appears again it will be more "radical" (I assume they meant militant).

Radical means radical or whatever it means. I forgot the name. But if you suppress it and it come back, it causes greater militancy amongst the people.

 

[Nerva]

Can I just keep suppressing the reform movements?

In particular, I am curious if I can get Reactionaries in control of the Upper House and outlaw unions, that will reduce the desire for Social Reforms, although I assume there will be movements to legalize Trade Unions again, but I'm curious if could stonewall them on that front with Suppression Points, or possibly just shoot the bastards when they rise up.

You said that "repelling" Socialist ideology will do nothing to stop movements for Social Reforms -- am I right in thinking that it is issues-based, and those social issues are driven by increasing proportions of Craftsmen and Clerks as my economy industrializes? Is that anything I can influence when I call elections, or are those events strictly related to the policies of the various political parties, not reforms?

 

[austrianemporer]

Can I just keep suppressing the reform movements?

In particular, I am curious if I can get Reactionaries in control of the Upper House and outlaw unions, that will reduce the desire for Social Reforms, although I assume there will be movements to legalize Trade Unions again, but I'm curious if could stonewall them on that front with Suppression Points, or possibly just shoot the bastards when they rise up.

You said that "repelling" Socialist ideology will do nothing to stop movements for Social Reforms -- am I right in thinking that it is issues-based, and those social issues are driven by increasing proportions of Craftsmen and Clerks as my economy industrializes? Is that anything I can influence when I call elections, or are those events strictly related to the policies of the various political parties, not reforms?

When I want to establish a viable dictatorship, I cut back on reforms as fast as possible. Then I initiate a non- harmful reform such as trade unions then I outlaw that as soon as I can. So on so forth, that way movements disappear for decades. Yep, issue based and class based. I think it has something to do with industrialization. What do you mean influence and events?

 

[Nerva]

I was referring to the pop-ups you get when an election is underway, that have up to 5 options to choose from, to push voters in a particular state in a particular direction on a particular subject, although now that I look at it more closely, it seems those questions are strictly related to policy options, to encourage/discourage voting for a particular party. I also see other events pop up from time to time related to issues, but I'm not sure if there are any that give me an option for reducing the desire for particular social reforms.

I'm a bit confused by the grammar of what you were saying about dictatorship, reforms, and trade unions. Are you saying that the key to stopping and rolling back social reforms is to get rid of trade unions first? I see that full trade unions give +30% Social Reform Desire, so my thinking was that if I could somehow get Reactionaries in control of the Upper House, I could outlaw unions, which would increase my suppression points and eliminate the +30% effect. Then all I would have to do is suppress trade union movements, rather than suppress a multitude of social movements.

 

[austrianemporer]

I was referring to the pop-ups you get when an election is underway, that have up to 5 options to choose from, to push voters in a particular state in a particular direction on a particular subject, although now that I look at it more closely, it seems those questions are strictly related to policy options, to encourage/discourage voting for a particular party. I also see other events pop up from time to time related to issues, but I'm not sure if there are any that give me an option for reducing the desire for particular social reforms.

I'm a bit confused by the grammar of what you were saying about dictatorship, reforms, and trade unions. Are you saying that the key to stopping and rolling back social reforms is to get rid of trade unions first? I see that full trade unions give +30% Social Reform Desire, so my thinking was that if I could somehow get Reactionaries in control of the Upper House, I could outlaw unions, which would increase my suppression points and eliminate the +30% effect. Then all I would have to do is suppress trade union movements, rather than suppress a multitude of social movements.

There would still be a multitude of social movements. They are just less common. Its is not the key but it is beneficial. However, why would you want to get rid of social reforms? They are all good!

 

[Nerva]

I guess I still don't quite understand why you say the vanilla Social Reforms "are all good."

Health Care and School System, I agree, make sense. But Max Workhours decreases factory throughput, which hurts competitiveness. Unemployment Subsidies lessen the incentive for POPs to move or promote/demote -- and that reduces the efficiency of your economy. Why bother with Pensions, when lower taxes on the poor should have the same effect?

And all the Social Reforms increase Administration cost and require more Bureaucrats -- those POPs could be producing something useful.

Is it the increase in Immigrant Attraction that you like? The USA already gets substantial bonuses to that, and there are diminishing returns because there are only so many POPs choosing to emigrate. Besides, in POPs of Darkness mod, I can use NF's to boost my share of immigrants as needed.

 

[austrianemporer]

I guess I still don't quite understand why you say the vanilla Social Reforms "are all good."

Health Care and School System, I agree, make sense. But Max Workhours decreases factory throughput, which hurts competitiveness. Unemployment Subsidies lessen the incentive for POPs to move or promote/demote -- and that reduces the efficiency of your economy. Why bother with Pensions, when lower taxes on the poor should have the same effect?

And all the Social Reforms increase Administration cost and require more Bureaucrats -- those POPs could be producing something useful.

Is it the increase in Immigrant Attraction that you like? The USA already gets substantial bonuses to that, and there are diminishing returns because there are only so many POPs choosing to emigrate. Besides, in POPs of Darkness mod, I can use NF's to boost my share of immigrants as needed.

You can't change broken NF's, NF's only cause internal immigration. The increase in immigrant attraction can still give you more immigrants. Which is extremely useful.

You don't have to fund pensions and unemployment subsidies. Less workhours decrease consumer goods needs making your people happier and less likely to rebel. The cost to throughput is fine. THroughput runs both ways, it can either bankrupt a factory by making it need more goods to produce more which can mean that the factory can't get enough of that good or it floods the market withs its good lowering overall price or factory throughput allows you to make more profitable factories. It depends. Social reforms only increase need for bureaucrats if I am correct. Anyways, if you fund the administration, you already have a bunch of extra bureaucrats lying around so it doesn't matter that you need more bureaucrats.

 

[Nerva]

NF's don't affect Immigrant Attraction in vanilla HoD, but they give +20% to Immigrant Attraction in the POPs of Darkness mod -- I've been thoroughly testing the mechanics of it in a couple dozen test games (instead of starting a new real game yet) and have verified that the Encourage Immigration NF does work in POPs of Darkness for increasing the share of immigrants the USA gets. I have found that using 2 NF's has more impact than using 1, and that using them in states with more provinces and with higher LR provinces has more benefit than using them in smaller states with low LR provinces. And all else being equal, it doesn't matter if you use them on States, Colonies, or Protectorates, even though the immigrants always go to states. So the best states to use them in the USA at the start of the game are New York (9 provinces, with one having 50 LR) and Illinois (6 provinces, with one having 45 LR). Vanilla HoD, however, as you say, has no NF bonus to Immigrant Attraction.

From what I've read, Social Reforms increase the required % Bureaucrats to achieve 100% Administrative Efficiency. So if you need 1% with no reforms to get 100% efficiency, you need more than 1% with reforms to get 100% efficiency.

Looking at the game files for vanilla HoD, I see that most Social Reforms have attributes for "administrative_multiplier", which is 0 if there is no reform of that type, and increases by 1 for each level of reform. This is true for Minimum Wage (up to +4), Max Workhours (up to +4), Safety Regulations (up to +4), Health Care (up to +4), and School System (up to +3). I presume the multipliers are additive, so enacting all reforms would apparently result in an "administrative_multiplier" of +19, implying that you'll need 1% + 19% = 20% Bureaucrats to get 100% administrative efficiency -- that is in the ballpark of typical social spending as a % of GDP in today's first-world countries, so it makes sense. So, those Social Reforms require not only higher taxes to fund Administrative Spending, but also use 19% more of your POPs for Bureacrats instead of being "productive" types. I'm not sure if there's a literacy requirement for Bureaucrats, but if there is, it means if you have less than 100% literacy, you are "skimming the cream" of your workforce off to be Bureaucrats. So there is a hidden "opportunity cost" for those reforms, because those POPs could be producing goods or serving in the military. This is why I don't like them in particular, and would only recommend the Health Care and School System reforms. If someone has a savegame where all their reforms are enacted and they have 100% Administrative Efficiency, perhaps they could verify my 20% Bureaucrats number is a correct interpretation of the game files.

There is no "administrative_multiplier" for Unemployment Subsidies and Pensions, but both of those have direct benefit costs that must be paid by the Social Spending slider, while the other Social Reforms do not. So those Social Reforms require higher taxes to pay for them, but they don't use POPs to administrate them. Indeed, the higher taxes to pay for the Social Spending slider are returned to your POPs as benefits, so the net effect on their discretionary income is probably small, but you still get the bonus for Immigrant Attraction. I still don't like Unemployment Subsidies because they discourage POPs from finding the best jobs, but it looks like Pensions are a good idea.

 

[austrianemporer]

NF's don't affect Immigrant Attraction in vanilla HoD, but they give +20% to Immigrant Attraction in the POPs of Darkness mod -- I've been thoroughly testing the mechanics of it in a couple dozen test games (instead of starting a new real game yet) and have verified that the Encourage Immigration NF does work in POPs of Darkness for increasing the share of immigrants the USA gets. I have found that using 2 NF's has more impact than using 1, and that using them in states with more provinces and with higher LR provinces has more benefit than using them in smaller states with low LR provinces. And all else being equal, it doesn't matter if you use them on States, Colonies, or Protectorates, even though the immigrants always go to states. So the best states to use them in the USA at the start of the game are New York (9 provinces, with one having 50 LR) and Illinois (6 provinces, with one having 45 LR). Vanilla HoD, however, as you say, has no NF bonus to Immigrant Attraction.

From what I've read, Social Reforms increase the required % Bureaucrats to achieve 100% Administrative Efficiency. So if you need 1% with no reforms to get 100% efficiency, you need more than 1% with reforms to get 100% efficiency.

Looking at the game files for vanilla HoD, I see that most Social Reforms have attributes for "administrative_multiplier", which is 0 if there is no reform of that type, and increases by 1 for each level of reform. This is true for Minimum Wage (up to +4), Max Workhours (up to +4), Safety Regulations (up to +4), Health Care (up to +4), and School System (up to +3). I presume the multipliers are additive, so enacting all reforms would apparently result in an "administrative_multiplier" of +19, implying that you'll need 1% + 19% = 20% Bureaucrats to get 100% administrative efficiency -- that is in the ballpark of typical social spending as a % of GDP in today's first-world countries, so it makes sense. So, those Social Reforms require not only higher taxes to fund Administrative Spending, but also use 19% more of your POPs for Bureacrats instead of being "productive" types. I'm not sure if there's a literacy requirement for Bureaucrats, but if there is, it means if you have less than 100% literacy, you are "skimming the cream" of your workforce off to be Bureaucrats. So there is a hidden "opportunity cost" for those reforms, because those POPs could be producing goods or serving in the military. This is why I don't like them in particular, and would only recommend the Health Care and School System reforms. If someone has a savegame where all their reforms are enacted and they have 100% Administrative Efficiency, perhaps they could verify my 20% Bureaucrats number is a correct interpretation of the game files.

There is no "administrative_multiplier" for Unemployment Subsidies and Pensions, but both of those have direct benefit costs that must be paid by the Social Spending slider, while the other Social Reforms do not. So those Social Reforms require higher taxes to pay for them, but they don't use POPs to administrate them. Indeed, the higher taxes to pay for the Social Spending slider are returned to your POPs as benefits, so the net effect on their discretionary income is probably small, but you still get the bonus for Immigrant Attraction. I still don't like Unemployment Subsidies because they discourage POPs from finding the best jobs, but it looks like Pensions are a good idea.

If that is your opinion, what are you asking me for?

 

[Nerva]

I'm always looking for better ideas than mine.

It looks like I was incorrect on my "administrative_multiplier" calculations -- the tooltip for Administrative Efficiency on the Budget screen makes it clear the value is divided by 10 when calculating the required Bureaucrats. So with max reforms, it would be 1% + 1.9% = 2.9% instead of 20%.

 

[MajorHeartfire]

The POPs in vanilla are not smart enough to discern the benefit between "low taxes, no pensions, low minimum wage" and "high taxes, max pensions, max minimum wage." They simply want reforms. Although, POPs are partially driven by their ability to purchase goods - and as such, lower taxes can slow down their reform desire.

As such, libertarianism is not a model of governance that can be accurately created in Victoria. Further complicating the issue, when pops don't get what they want, they don't march or strike, or hold rallies - they rebel.

I feel your pain here, but Paradox modeled the base game to essentially force you to play a slowly liberalizing state that can maintain some elements of conservative liberalism, but not libertarianism. The processing power required to make POPs think in depth enough to realize that a lower minimum wage might not be so bad as long as you also have lower taxes is just not something I believe modern games are capable of yet. Plus, you would have to simulate that for billions of POPs around the world.

 

[Nerva]

Well, it isn't all that unrealistic to have POPs push for a minimum wage no matter what their circumstances are -- humans are greedy, regardless of social class, and will always want a better deal than what they're currently getting -- that's what happened in real life in the USA. But it does bother me that POPs will ultimately want EVERY SINGLE REFORM enacted or they will REBEL -- in real life, there are differences between the USA, the UK, France, and Germany when it comes to social programs, but you don't see rebellions in the USA because they don't have every social perk that Germans get.

It does seem to me though, that their level of agitation could be modeled to reflect the state of their economic situation -- if libertarianism is putting a chicken in every pot, they may not care if they get a state-funded pension.

 

[MajorHeartfire]

I am not entirely sure computers have the processing power to fully do that - I believe that all POPs are based off the same model of person. It's not realistic, and the decision to rebel if they don't get something they want really bothers me, and is certainly not something that would happen on such a large scale in the US.

That being said, I would love to see any kind of attempt to make the population more content with the current government if "everything is ok." I'm not sure if that is something that can be modded or not.

Proabably something for another topic...

 

[Nerva]

The odds of rebellion should be significantly reduced if the POPs in question have representation -- that's why modern democracies are more stable than dictatorships -- even if people don't get what they want after voting, they don't resort to violence.

 

[austrianemporer]

The odds of rebellion should be significantly reduced if the POPs in question have representation -- that's why modern democracies are more stable than dictatorships -- even if people don't get what they want after voting, they don't resort to violence.

It depends on the structure and support of the background. China is far more stable than Iraq when China is a dictatorship while Iraq is a modern democracy.