Can manpower be modelled better?

[Cardus]

Cardus, you are being dense. We have this little thing called "productivity per worker." So say that Hans, Franz, and Hank all produce 80 Reichmarks of widgets per hour in 1938. So in 1938, Germany is getting 240 Reichmarks out of these three guys.

By the end of the war, Hans and Hank are dead, but the advances in mechanization and industrial technology has increased the productivity per worker to 300 Reichmarks per hour so Germany's total production can still increase since Franz is still there plugging away.

There is the positive factor of increasing productivity allowing for a single worker to produce more stuff, and that is counter balanced by the drain on the workforce by the army.

For most nations of WW2, increasing productivity due to technology and rapidly dropping unemployment outweighed the manpower drain so net production went up.

Well finally someone that got it

 

[Porkman]

Well finally someone that got it

I actually agree entirely with FOARP. If Hans and Hank were still alive at the end of the war, Germany's production would have gone up to 900.

Manpower losses negatively affect industry, but it's outweighed by the advances in productivity.

Part of the reason America had such a big post war boom was that we got all of the productivity gains + an intact workforce.

 

[Jazumir]

1 on map MP = 10,000 people

Province A has 1,000,000 inhabitants = 100MP.

Province A is part of country C, in with mediocre agricultural techs and established standards (à la Vicky-mechanized-mining-events) of the region (B) it is part of require 15% of the population to work in the field and food processing sector, in order to feed the other 85%.

Further MP is deduced for ressource gathering operations, numbers depending on amount of ressources and techs and regional standards, again. Say another 15% for the case of A.

So, on the provincial level, we come out at 70MP. This number gets combined with the those of the other provinces of B, as an aggregate of the regional MP, from which IC requirements are then deduced. B has 4 provinces, all like A, making for 280 MP at this point, and 20 IC, requiring 10MP each to run perfectly: 280 - 200 = 80... 80 / 4 = 20. In other words: Each of the four provinces has 20MP left from its 100MP base.

The sum of regions is taken and devided by the total raw MP (those 100MP of A and all other provinces) to find the avaiable percentage. If it is lower than what the current drafting law allows, it is the number of avaiable MP to be displayed - if it is higher, than the raw-MP-sum * current max-draft rate is (law acts as a cap to maximum).

The number can be pushed below zero - that´s when it starts to hurt your economy. When it does get negative, MP is taken from the industry sector first hurting production effeciency (nationwide should suffice), until some ressource linked conditions prevail for some time (surpluses and stocks), resulting in MP being taken from ressource gathering, hurting that. As last resort, if everything else is already strapped, MP will taken from the agricultural sector, but that can only be sporadic, as it sends dissent through the roof in no time. Some algorythm takes care of from which sector to take how many MPs, along the rough lines just layed out.

This makes any collapse because of manpower issues more like wading through quicksand, rather than hitting a brick wall.

-----

Edit - the same stuff in other words, mostly:

4 sectors, in this order: Agriculture, Ressources (maybe subdevided), Industry, Military. Each MP is either employed in one of these, or in the pool (which models not only unemployed but also, well, let´s say, non-essential jobs). Each sector has an effeciency based on how ´fully stocked´ with MP it is. If the pool - whose sum with the military sector is capped by the draft law in relation to your total population - hits zero, the game will start taking MP from the other sectors.

The player should have some control over the sector it takes the MP from (thinking of priorities like those in the espionage tab of HoI3), but it should work automatically mostly.

 

[FOARP]

This makes any collapse because of manpower issues more like wading through quicksand, rather than hitting a brick wall.

That's the kind of effect I'm looking for. The sudden manpower-collapse Germany experiences in HOI3, normally in 1942-43, is totally unrealistic.

 

[Cardus]

I actually agree entirely with FOARP. If Hans and Hank were still alive at the end of the war, Germany's production would have gone up to 900.

Manpower losses negatively affect industry, but it's outweighed by the advances in productivity.

This is the point. The net effect is still positive. So

if you don't model correctly production you cannot establish any link with manpower.

1 on map MP = 10,000 people

Province A has 1,000,000 inhabitants = 100MP.

Province A is part of country C, in with mediocre agricultural techs and established standards (à la Vicky-mechanized-mining-events) of the region (B) it is part of require 15% of the population to work in the field and food processing sector, in order to feed the other 85%.

Further MP is deduced for ressource gathering operations, numbers depending on amount of ressources and techs and regional standards, again. Say another 15% for the case of A.

So, on the provincial level, we come out at 70MP. This number gets combined with the those of the other provinces of B, as an aggregate of the regional MP, from which IC requirements are then deduced. B has 4 provinces, all like A, making for 280 MP at this point, and 20 IC, requiring 10MP each to run perfectly: 280 - 200 = 80... 80 / 4 = 20. In other words: Each of the four provinces has 20MP left from its 100MP base.

This is a static model. For producing the same stuff you might need much less workers.

 

[Jazumir]

[...]
This is a static model. For producing the same stuff you might need much less workers.

The 10MP needed per IC is not supposed to be calculated on the regional level for no reason: It is of course supposed to be subject to modifiers, such as how long the region has produced a certain type of equipment or whatever the HoI4 model will be like. Thus, yeah, you could free up MP, by getting bombed (and not bothering to rebuild that factory) or simply producing more effecienctly.

Edit - rambling on:

The average penalty over all sectors induced by lack of work force is then taken, given a buffer (say 20%) and used as a base to also affect the quality of your new troops and reinforcements. That´s when ineffeciency threatens to turn into a death-spiral.

 

[Cardus]

The 10MP needed per IC is not supposed to be calculated on the regional level for no reason: It is of course supposed to be subject to modifiers, such as how long the region has produced a certain type of equipment or whatever the HoI4 model will be like. Thus, yeah, you could free up MP, by getting bombed (and not bothering to rebuild that factory) or simply producing more effecienctly.

Ok so then you need to have a model for production. Once you got it then you would be able to assess the required MP. Please note that most of the increase of productivity is from NEW factories as new means of productions meant a complete overhaul of the organization of labor. This implies the production model in HOI should change as it is not true that the same factory can produce very different goods. At least there is a need for new machinery (with no much gain of productivity). In both cases (old organization but new machinery or new plants with new machinery) some time was required for production.

EDIT

Edit - rambling on:

The average penalty over all sectors induced by lack of work force is then taken, given a buffer (say 20%) and used as a base to also affect the quality of your new troops and reinforcements. That´s when ineffeciency threatens to turn into a death-spiral.

Come on! This is just out of common sense and rule of thumb.
I thought the discussion made a progress from there. Please don't ramble.

 

[Jazumir]

Uh? Are you asking wether there should be a re-tooling time for a region to switch from producing one item to producing another? Hm - why not?

EDIT:

As for the production system of HoI4, i could imagine that we´d be getting something like this:

- Factories are located in regions, not provinces, and will produce equipment, which adds to an equipment pool (i think this much is confirmed?)

- You click on a factory icon of a region and some sort of panel opens, not too remote from the industry tab of Vicky, probably a bit smaller, with lines representing factories, not states, listing them (=IC) present in the region and what they produce, how much of it and how many MPs are employed in each. I can imagine, we could have specific factories closed down, by firing every one working there (or just some - in, say, 10% increments), and thus free up some manpower in a controlled fashion, at least, if our form of government allows something like that.

 

[Cardus]

Uh? Are you asking wether there should be a re-tooling time for a region to switch from producing one item to producing another? Hm - why not?

Yes, it was a very clever idea from AOD and I understood that it will be embedded in HOI4

Regarding this

Part of the reason America had such a big post war boom was that we got all of the productivity gains + an intact workforce.

You are wrong as the USA economy dropped from the peak in 1944 and stagnated until 1950

See this http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-inflation-adjusted/table

As I said it is unwise to build models on common sense

 

[FOARP]

You are wrong as the USA economy dropped from the peak in 1944 and stagnated until 1950

See this http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-inflation-adjusted/table

As I said it is unwise to build models on common sense

Errr . . . yeah, the fall between the size of the US economy at the end of 1944 and the end of 1945 wouldn't have had anything at all to do with the Allied governments slashing a whole load of contracts for arms after Germany surrendered in May '45 and then even more after the Japanese surrendered in August '45, would it? Or is this just too much common sense?

 

[Cardus]

Errr . . . yeah, the fall between the size of the US economy at the end of 1944 and the end of 1945 wouldn't have had anything at all to do with the Allied governments slashing a whole load of contracts for arms after Germany surrendered in May '45 and then even more after the Japanese surrendered in August '45, would it? Or is this just too much common sense?

According to the common sense the demobilization equals to more manpower which in turn implies more production

In fact this is the statement

Part of the reason America had such a big post war boom was that we got all of the productivity gains + an intact workforce.

Instead there was no boom but a drop and a stagnation

 

[Bullfrog]

Errr . . . yeah, the fall between the size of the US economy at the end of 1944 and the end of 1945 wouldn't have had anything at all to do with the Allied governments slashing a whole load of contracts for arms after Germany surrendered in May '45 and then even more after the Japanese surrendered in August '45, would it? Or is this just too much common sense?

That would be GNP, I think. A loss of GDP would be obvious though, along the same lines. As government spending decreased, naturally so would GDP.

 

[Cardus]

That would be GNP, I think. A loss of GDP would be obvious though, along the same lines. As government spending decreased, naturally so would GDP.

Right and why the USA reduced public spending? Because the public debt was skyrocketing. This is something well represented in Victoria which I hope HOI4 will borrow from.

 

[Vainglory]

Instead there was no boom but a drop and a stagnation

There was a postwar economic boom in the USA, it's a historically documented fact. That said, there would also be a GDP drop at the end of the war. A fall in GDP and economic growth aren't actually mutually exclusive when you consider what both of those mean.

GDP measures spending, not income. It doesn't care what your economy is putting out, only what you are spending, so you can have a deeply troubled economy that looks good measured by GDP. In the case of the wartime USA, most of the spending is going toward areas that do not enrich people in any sense of the word. The average person is worse off despite this increased spending: the economy is directed to the war effort so they don't get new shoes, new clothes, they cannot get petrol for the car, nor tyres for it, food choices are dramatically constrained, new buildings aren't being erected, nor old ones properly maintained, et et et. All the extra production is going into guns and bombs and planes and ships and uniforms and C rations and tanks and offensives to capture the steppes of Russia.

When the war ends it shifts back to making dresses, new houses, new cars, radios, refrigerators, more food choices, the list goes on and on. So you are materially better off. And in the case of the postwar USA, they were getting better off materially faster than they were prior to the war or in later eras. Hence a boom. The Depression had kept most peoples' material wealth rather low during the '30s, and through to the war's outbreak. The war itself didn't allow for growth in material items. But with the postwar redirection of the economy, suddenly they catch up on everything from the Depression and War. The sudden release of economic controls will cause inflation it's true, but at the same time, the growth in productivity (and employment) is causing deflation in many areas. Looking at GDP figures will obscure all of this.

This is why Paul Krugman wants to declare war on Mars - because it would boost GDP. The catch is, boosting GDP doesn't necessarily lead to better material living standards.

 

[Cardus]

There was a postwar economic boom in the USA, it's a historically documented fact.

Yes if opinions are before facts

You are wrong as the USA economy dropped from the peak in 1944 and stagnated until 1950

See this http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-inflation-adjusted/table

As I said it is unwise to build models on common sense

GDP measures spending, not income.

Only? See this

The monetary value of all the finished goods and services produced within a country's borders in a specific time period

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gdp.asp

 

[Secret Master]

My assumption has always been is that the "post-war boom" refers to "post-1950" because it took that long just to get real trade resumed across the world, and to get some damage repaired in Europe (since, without Europe being repaired, there's not as much economic activity, and thus not as many people to buy and sell products). The GDP data seems to back this up.

 

[Cardus]

My assumption has always been is that the "post-war boom" refers to "post-1950" because it took that long just to get real trade resumed across the world, and to get some damage repaired in Europe (since, without Europe being repaired, there's not as much economic activity, and thus not as many people to buy and sell products). The GDP data seems to back this up.

Maybe there was the feeling of a boom in the USA but not because soldiers went back home and automatically the production skyrocketed thanks to this additional manpower but because before the war there was the great depression. USA economy, thanks to the war, went back on track.

 

[Vainglory]

Yes if opinions are before facts

Did you even read my post? GDP is a very poor indicator of economic welfare. Yes there was a fall in GDP. If you think GDP is the economy then sure, there's an economic downturn.

Except that as GDP fell a staggering 19% (see Angus Maddison's figures) people were better off when measured by other indicators. The fall between 1945 and 1946 is even bigger than the fall from 1929 to 1930 when measured by GDP... why do none of the books written about this period (eg, Jackson's Crabgrass Frontier) mention this sudden economic implosion, worse than the onset of the Great Depression? Weren't newly demobilized soldiers wandering the streets, begging for scraps of food? Were the indigent so numerous they built tent cities ringing the major economic centers? Odd how this entire episode has vanished, as though by Stalinist censorship...

The answer is because GDP is a really bad metric and there was no actual economic collapse. Nor did the war bring the US out of the Depression.

 

[Cardus]

Did you even read my post? GDP is a very poor indicator of economic welfare.

Yes I read it

GDP measures spending, not income.

Gross domestic product (GDP) is the market value of all officially recognized final goods and services produced within a country in a year, or other given period of time. GDP per capita is often considered an indicator of a country's standard of living.[2][3]

Under economic theory, GDP per capita exactly equals the gross domestic income

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product

Except that as GDP fell a staggering 19% (see Angus Maddison's figures) people were better off when measured by other indicators. The fall between 1945 and 1946 is even bigger than the fall from 1929 to 1930 when measured by GDP... why do none of the books written about this period (eg, Jackson's Crabgrass Frontier) mention this sudden economic implosion, worse than the onset of the Great Depression? Weren't newly demobilized soldiers wandering the streets, begging for scraps of food? Were the indigent so numerous they built tent cities ringing the major economic centers? Odd how this entire episode has vanished, as though by Stalinist censorship...

The answer is because GDP is a really bad metric and there was no actual economic collapse. Nor did the war bring the US out of the Depression.

I never mentioned collapse

My assumption has always been is that the "post-war boom" refers to "post-1950" because it took that long just to get real trade resumed across the world, and to get some damage repaired in Europe (since, without Europe being repaired, there's not as much economic activity, and thus not as many people to buy and sell products). The GDP data seems to back this up.

To SecretMaster I replied this

Maybe there was the feeling of a boom in the USA but not because soldiers went back home and automatically the production skyrocketed thanks to this additional manpower but because before the war there was the great depression. USA economy, thanks to the war, went back on track.

 

[Vainglory]

I never mentioned collapse

But there was a collapse. Both Angus Maddison's figures and your own link show a catastrophic drop in GDP. If you're not going with what GDP says then what are you saying?

And GDP does not measure income regardless of what Wikipedia says. It measures final output of selected goods and services... which is really a measure of what's been spent (and arguably not even that given what it doesn't select for measurement), not what's been produced. Any unfinished products aren't measured, which distorts the picture. The clearest example I ever saw of this was the government handing $950 cheques to a large part of the population in 2008 in response to a quarter of declining GDP. The next quarter, no decline, technical recession avoided. Yet no company put on new workers or invested in new capacity, and productivity did not increase, so how did the cash hand out produce growth? Answer: it doesn't. It just boosts consumer spending (purchasing items that aren't even necessarily made in that year so production =! spending) which makes GDP rise. Other metrics expose this flaw... hence why Keynesians love GDP. A country borrowing money to boost spending increases its GDP, even if the value of what that country produces is falling. GDP measures spending and assumes spending = income, as the Cato article says, the same as assuming if we totaled a person's expenses for a month we'd have their monthly income. That's not true.

I'm willing to concede this may be too esoteric for HoI discussion and this is becoming simply a political debate.