Consumer Goods - Living Standards

[Manfredofanes]

Hi,

I've been watching the Utopia Space Starfish gameplay and there was one thing that hit me hard. Idea of consumer goods is great, but living standards are a bit worrying.

Lets say I am playing collectivists - nice and pretty, give more tax have more social housing as the state controls everything and everything is for the state.

But when I would like to play a capitalist utopia with free society... well. They are unhappy because I am not giving them a new car? Wait a minute, you guys are fanatics of individualism and want something from the state or you are crying?

Stellaris so far was a great game with balance between left-right economy, now it looks grim.

Is there anything that I've just missed when watching and checking diary?

 

[Mackus]

Hi,

I've been watching the Utopia Space Starfish gameplay and there was one thing that hit me hard. Idea of consumer goods is great, but living standards are a bit worrying.

Lets say I am playing collectivists - nice and pretty, give more tax have more social housing as the state controls everything and everything is for the state.

But when I would like to play a capitalist utopia with free society... well. They are unhappy because I am not giving them a new car? Wait a minute, you guys are fanatics of individualism and want something from the state or you are crying?

Stellaris so far was a great game with balance between left-right economy, now it looks grim.

Is there anything that I've just missed when watching and checking diary?

This wasn't commented on by devs, but I interpreted it as such:
- die hard Stalinist planned economy: living standard is what your local commissar assigns you according to directive from central committee.
- die hard Randian free market economy: living standards is what people have left after they paid taxes government levied to fund armed forces and police.
- mixed economy - living standards are mixture of government social services you received and what you have left after you paid your taxes.


In other words, your capitalist utopia pops aren't pissed off because you didn't gave them free cars, but because you taxed them so much they cannot afford cars.

 

[Manfredofanes]

- die hard Randian free market economy: living standards is what people have left after they paid taxes government levied to fund armed forces and police.

That would need a change in descriptions to be interpreted that way. "Utopian Abundance - we cannot realistically remove every want by providing for every need. But we can try."
It is clearly stating that the state is doing that crap.

Other than that interpretation is fine, here is whatever left. But still I will be very sad capitalist pressing a button with total welfare system when the only thing I want is free market.

 

[Horror In The Deep]

But when I would like to play a capitalist utopia with free society... well. They are unhappy because I am not giving them a new car? Wait a minute, you guys are fanatics of individualism and want something from the state or you are crying?

You forget about the whole "Collectivist-Individualist ethos devision will be replaced by Autoritarist-Egalitarist.
https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/798482000403382272

And It was said somewhere(through don`t remember where) , it was made in part because they (devs) understood that existing devision is based false connection between desire for equal society and libertarian economy

 

[Mackus]

That would need a change in descriptions to be interpreted that way. "Utopian Abundance - we cannot realistically remove every want by providing for every need. But we can try."
It is clearly stating that the state is doing that crap.

Other than that interpretation is fine, here is whatever left. But still I will be very sad capitalist pressing a button with total welfare system when the only thing I want is free market.

Well, individualism was democracy+vague freedom, but it is reworked in 1.5 into egalitarianism, which seems to be democracy+startrek socialism. It makes sense that utopian "welfare state" standards are available only to egalitarians. If you RP capitalist, don't pick egalitarian ethics.

 

[Me_]

This wasn't commented on by devs, but I interpreted it as such:
- die hard Stalinist planned economy: living standard is what your local commissar assigns you according to directive from central committee.
- die hard Randian free market economy: living standards is what people have left after they paid taxes government levied to fund armed forces and police.
- mixed economy - living standards are mixture of government social services you received and what you have left after you paid your taxes.


In other words, your capitalist utopia pops aren't pissed off because you didn't gave them free cars, but because you taxed them so much they cannot afford cars.

That interpretation does not work, because mixed economy would have higher taxes than free economy (communist dream is somewhat impossible to compare, as it would have 100% or more effective tax rate but would not use "taxes" per say).

 

[masteriw]

You should not analyze Stellaris ethos choices in light of modern human politics and ideologies.
Individualistic ethos doesn't necessarily mean "randian free market" nor collectivism means socialism.
Individualistic represents more or less how current human ethics behave. And a lot of humans would like that the state gave them a new car.

 

[Mackus]

That interpretation does not work, because mixed economy would have higher taxes than free economy (communist dream is somewhat impossible to compare, as it would have 100% or more effective tax rate but would not use "taxes" per say).

Yes, it works. You ignored government provided social and welfare services that I mentioned.
If you assume, that for the sake of simplicity government waste and corruption are ignored in Stellaris, you can say those state services are worthy of the tax money, and taxpayers break even.
Actual RL effectiveness of economic systems is not represented in-game, or slavery would make no sense in SF setting, nor would "lifestock" policy.

 

[Manfredofanes]

You should not analyze Stellaris ethos choices in light of modern human politics and ideologies.
Individualistic ethos doesn't necessarily mean "randian free market" nor collectivism means socialism.
Individualistic represents more or less how current human ethics behave. And a lot of humans would like that the state gave them a new car.

How can I analyse phrase "Social Welfare" used in Utopia's Living Standards.
And going further to Individualism description used in game "Community is a means to an end, not the end itself. Only by empowering the individual to reach their maximum potential do we achieve true freedom. Freedom of thought, of speech, of movement, of trade."

Also you guys are talking about taxes. I don't have option how or if to implement taxes on my pops. Space State is just taking the goods that they've created. And Utopia is just giving us idea that they actually not only eat food but also use some goods. The problem is that it has been introduced from only one stand.

Production of goods -> State taking 99% of it -> welfare programs -> happy pops

There is nothing to change that 99% to 10%, for example, that would make pops happy.
Basically the only happiness they can achieve is by state taking and giving.

 

[Mackus]

Production of goods -> State taking 99% of it -> welfare programs -> happy pops

No. Nowhere in the game does it state that there is planned economy. We see and construct buildings on tiles, but this is just abstraction. There is no need for pops to constructing mines from their own savings like in Victoria 2. We are shown only those parts of economy that are relevant to building ships and research. Our mineral and energy reserves, and all buildings, aren't necessarily just what government owns, but includes most stuff that is being part of the economy.

If you RP planned economy: living standards are governmental handouts.
If you RP market economy: living standards are tax rates.
If you RP mixed economy: living standards are mixture of above.

Also you guys are talking about taxes. I don't have option how or if to implement taxes on my pops.

See above. Nothing in game contradicts my interpretation. But is seems as if you're dead set on: "I will interpret game in a way that'll make it make least sense to me from economic POV and make me unhappy to play it".

 

[masteriw]

How can I analyse phrase "Social Welfare" used in Utopia's Living Standards.
And going further to Individualism description used in game "Community is a means to an end, not the end itself. Only by empowering the individual to reach their maximum potential do we achieve true freedom. Freedom of thought, of speech, of movement, of trade."

Also you guys are talking about taxes. I don't have option how or if to implement taxes on my pops. Space State is just taking the goods that they've created. And Utopia is just giving us idea that they actually not only eat food but also use some goods. The problem is that it has been introduced from only one stand.

Production of goods -> State taking 99% of it -> welfare programs -> happy pops

There is nothing to change that 99% to 10%, for example, that would make pops happy.
Basically the only happiness they can achieve is by state taking and giving.

That's because the game's economy is simplistic to the point of not having any distinction between private and public sectors.
The individualism text is just flavor. It is still more or less meant to depict human ethos regarding our contemporary values.
Even in communism the "community" is still "a means to an end". It is meant to end the "oppression" the "bourgeoisie" inflicts on the "working class", so every individual can be "free from capitalism" regardless of "class membership".
Stellaris Individualism is the foundation upon all current human ideologies are built on. No modern human ideology claims you have to literally sacrifice some people for the greater good of the community, for example. Slavery is universally considered oppressive, etc.

 

[Subcomandante]

And even that is too much read into it imo. Collectivism can also be interpreted as capitalism, with slaves as the masses of underpaid workers, who are blacklisted if they protest. Ethos really doesn't matter at all. As does the level of living standards as an indicator for ideology. It is all too abstract.

A capitalist system that works for everyone: No authoritarian policies, high living standards. A capitalism that only works for parts of the population: Authoritarian, slavery with high standards for the unenslaved and low standards for the "enslaved". An egalitarian system where a relatively large amount of resources go into the military, science and infrastructure expansion: Low living standards for the pops, more power for the elite leaders, who can be called capitalists or elected but corrupt politicians, or communists out on a massive space industrialization spree. You can define it every which way.

 

[Dr. B]

Is it easier to harness the power of a sun, than to create a perfect society?