How much do I save by letting migration "move" POPs as opposed to resettlement?

[Secret Master]

After an intense game as a hive mind recently, I'm beginning to wonder whether resettlement is all its cracked up to be. While unemployment is a problem, the energy credit cost of moving POPs isn't exactly free. At one point, I was moving 10-20 POPs a month thanks to absurdly fast POP growth and planets in dire need of labor (ringworlds and Fen Habbanis). I'm wondering when it is and is not worth it to resettle POPs around.

For example, unemployed hive mind POPs will still kind of generate minerals. But they are a drag on amenities and housing, and can cause crime if too many are on the same planet.

For authoritarians and slavers, you can move a ton of POPs around if you need to fill planets (and having thrall worlds is more or less the entire point of their existence). But aside from opening slots, you still are essentially paying several months worth of POP income to move them to a new planet on your own. They get to work instantly, but they are paying off the cost of their move.

Then there's the issue with caps on migration. Since the actual POPs aren't moving, and instead it's POP growth that is modified, it's possible to more or less lose POPs if you have too few target planets for the excess migration you have from breeder worlds.

Robot production can be stopped with no ill effects. Just turn off the jobs/bulldoze the robot construction facilities; you don't even need the edict.

And then there's habitats.

I am not entirely sure what is the threshold for resettling a POP as opposed to just letting it migrate on its own when playing an empire that allows resettlement. I mean, obviously, if you have piles of energy credits that need to be used, it's no big deal. But those energy credits could be used to do something else, so even then there is an opportunity cost.

Does anyone have a firm grasp of this in 2.2.5?

 

[Blurb]

It's important to understand that migration does not move pops, but only moves pop growth, meaning those unemployed pops will stay unemployed until someone intervenes.
As for the actual cost of resettlement, consider it as an investment; initial price of resettlement paid back over time by the fruits of the pop's labour. For judging which sectors will benefit from governors, I assume all employed pops produce a base value equivalent to 4 energy credits. If you apply the same assumption in this scenario, you'll find that it takes 25 months for resettlement to reach its break-even point (assuming no resettlement cost modifiers).

Edit:
Alternatively, you can consider the cost of resettlement as a sort of "pop growth upkeep": a monthly expense paid to maintain pop growth. In this case, the base could would be dependent on both pop growth speed and resettlement cost. At base values, you're looking at 100 energy every 33 months (the time it takes to grow a pop), roughly 3 energy per month for every planet that needs resettling. If the alternative is declaring population controls and stopping pop growth, then 3 energy/month is cheap.

 

[Dustman]

Selling some pops on market will pay for migration of several other. Sure, you loose bit of that growth but save on energy. Quick planet grab plus instant pop mod for extra traits giving money and you're settled. For Hives you can actually stop growth completely if you want, but it's not the most efficient, since extra 30 pops yearly by late early games can give you quite a bit.

 

[Secret Master]

For Hives you can actually stop growth completely if you want, but it's not the most efficient, since extra 30 pops yearly by late early games can give you quite a bit.

Exactly. When filling up ringworlds or Fen Habbanis, that extra growth matters.

If the alternative is declaring population controls and stopping pop growth, then 3 energy/month is cheap.

That's worth considering.