Unemployment and utopian abundance

[Strangedane]

You're running off on a crazy tangent.

The point is that any for any level of consumer goods (being emperor is not a consumer good) that an employed worker/specialist could get in a non-UA society, a UA society offers more, even to citizens who are sitting on their asses fapping to porn all day and doing nothing "productive".

So even in a utopian abundance society there will be things you can only gain by corruption and/or crime?
Seems like we have a reason for crime right there. Employment or not though.

And while I might have gone off the crazy tangent the simple premise still stands.
Even if the state could provide near infinite "rolls" to everyone, there still might be someone who wanted MORE than others, for no other reason than having it.
Crime would be the easy option. Maybe even the ONLY option in the utopian abundance society.

 

[powerofvoid]

So even in a utopian abundance society there will be things you can only gain by corruption and/or crime?
Seems like we have a reason for crime right there. Employment or not though.

And while I might have gone off the crazy tangent the simple premise still stands.
Even if the state could provide near infinite "rolls" to everyone, there still might be someone who wanted MORE than others, for no other reason than having it.
Crime would be the easy option. Maybe even the ONLY option in the utopian abundance society.

As you mentioned, these have nothing to do with unemployment, thus unemployment should logically not contribute to crime in a UA society. (Pop happiness or a corrupt governor or an active criminal syndicate, sure, in a similar manner to any other planet, but not unemployment)

 

[Strangedane]

As you mentioned, these have nothing to do with unemployment, thus unemployment should logically not contribute to crime in a UA society. (Pop happiness or a corrupt governor or an active criminal syndicate, sure, in a similar manner to any other planet, but not unemployment)

Ok, sure. The unemployment causing even more crime than the forced "equality" is illogical, but until utopian abundance gets some nepotism/corruption events or the like, it's the only current mechanic in the game to even hint at the fact that some people want more than others.
I wouldn't give crime "in a similar manner to any other planet" though, because that makes no sense. The usual desperation/survival scenario does not fit, but simple greed will.
Best option from my point of view would be to have utopian abundance cause a bit of crime in itself, and then not penalize further for unemployment, but not getting crime at all while under UA would be silly and really strange.
Optimally it would be based on the traits of the species living under UA, but that is probably asking too much.
A conformist, pacifist pop probably wouldn't generate much, if any crime under UA, while a deviant, authoritarian might be bombing government buildings producing MORE crime than under other living standards.

 

[powerofvoid]

Ok, sure. The unemployment causing even more crime than the forced "equality" is illogical, but until utopian abundance gets some nepotism/corruption events or the like, it's the only current mechanic in the game to even hint at the fact that some people want more than others.
I wouldn't give crime "in a similar manner to any other planet" though, because that makes no sense. The usual desperation/survival scenario does not fit, but simple greed will.
Best option from my point of view would be to have utopian abundance cause a bit of crime in itself, and then not penalize further for unemployment, but not getting crime at all while under UA would be silly and really strange.
Optimally it would be based on the traits of the species living under UA, but that is probably asking too much.
A conformist, pacifist pop probably wouldn't generate much, if any crime under UA, while a deviant, authoritarian might be bombing government buildings producing MORE crime than under other living standards.

Why would utopian abundance generate more crime, corruption, and nepotism than any other living standard?

Its downside is that it's phenomenally expensive just running as intended, which is why other countries use things like "Social Welfare" and "Shared Burdens" and "Decent Conditions" and "Basic subsistence".

EDIT: Oh, right: it might also make authoritarian pops unhappy, which makes them generate additional crime. But crime from unhappiness is already a mechanic which affects every living standard, separate from unemployment.

 

[Strangedane]

Why would utopian abundance generate more crime, corruption, and nepotism than any other living standard?

Not more crime, just crime from different sources than other living standards. Overall you should probably end with less crime than other living standards. Assuming you're not forcing "equality" on the authoritarian, deviants, who come from a long proud line of slavers.
Scarcity and survival won't be the driving factors for crime, it will be political agendas and avarice that breaks the ground for organized crime to spring up, not the other way around.

 

[powerofvoid]

Not more crime, just crime from different sources than other living standards. Overall you should probably end with less crime than other living standards. Assuming you're not forcing "equality" on the authoritarian, deviants, who come from a long proud line of slavers.
Scarcity and survival won't be the driving factors for crime, it will be political agendas and avarice that breaks the ground for organized crime to spring up, not the other way around.

... why is this different from other living standards?

EDIT: Or rather, why would any of these things not show up with other living standards?

 

[Strangedane]

... why is this different from other living standards?

EDIT: Or rather, why would any of these things not show up with other living standards?

In other societies you wouldn't be FORCED into crime to have more than others.
You could get a better job, work more hours, work several jobs.
Under UA the only way to "get ahead" is crime.
So while it could show up in other societies, it would be an outlier on the crime charts, while in the UA society it would be the main criminal driving point.

That is the difference.

 

[powerofvoid]

In other societies you wouldn't be FORCED into crime to have more than others.
You could get a better job, work more hours, work several jobs.
Under UA the only way to "get ahead" is crime.
So while it could show up in other societies, it would be an outlier on the crime charts, while in the UA society it would be the main criminal driving point.

That is the difference.

If I have a bag of M&Ms, there are usually a variety of colors. If I remove all of the non-red M&Ms, all of a sudden the bag contains entirely red M&Ms.

This process does not increase the number of red M&Ms in the bag.

 

[AlanC9]

I'm still a bit confused. Under UA, what would having "more" even look like? More what, exactly?

 

[powerofvoid]

I'm still a bit confused. Under UA, what would having "more" even look like? More what, exactly?

Having "more" would be achieved, not by having more than you could otherwise, but by making others have less.

It's the sort of thing authoritarian pops like.

 

[Acheron]

IMHO, with Utopian living standards, POPs should demote FASTER, because they get the same living standard anyway, so there is less reason for them to avoid becoming trapped in a lower strata.

 

[powerofvoid]

IMHO, with Utopian living standards, POPs should demote FASTER, because they get the same living standard anyway, so there is less reason for them to avoid becoming trapped in a lower strata.

Instead of the normal demotion system, they should evaluate some metric of job satisfaction based on ethics and other things, and potentially just decide to be unemployed at a particular stratum.

e.g.: if I mod a trait that gives +20 worker happiness, and have UA on pops with that trait, then they might decide to be unemployed workers instead of doing a specialist or ruler job.

They might also have preferences based on what they're actually good at.

e.g.: If I have a modded trait that gives a malus to crystal production, then they might refuse crystal-mining jobs or crystal-synthesizing jobs.

 

[Acheron]

Instead of the normal demotion system, they should evaluate some metric of job satisfaction based on ethics and other things, and potentially just decide to be unemployed at a particular stratum.

e.g.: if I mod a trait that gives +20 worker happiness, and have UA on pops with that trait, then they might decide to be unemployed workers instead of doing a specialist or ruler job.

They might also have preferences based on what they're actually good at.

e.g.: If I have a modded trait that gives a malus to crystal production, then they might refuse crystal-mining jobs or crystal-synthesizing jobs.

POPs refusing to work kinda opens a can of worms IMHO. And things like job satisfaction might be too detailed for a game of Stellaris scope. Though I am of course all for POPs migrating to a job they are best suited for.

 

[powerofvoid]

POPs refusing to work kinda opens a can of worms IMHO. And things like job satisfaction might be too detailed for a game of Stellaris scope. Though I am of course all for POPs migrating to a job they are best suited for.

The penalty would need to be pretty bad for them to actually refuse, though less bad to refuse a crystal synthesizer job (which costs resources) than to refuse a miner job (which usually won't, unless you do something like planet_miners_minerals_produces_add = -1... )

 

[Acheron]

The penalty would need to be pretty bad for them to actually refuse, though less bad to refuse a crystal synthesizer job (which costs resources) than to refuse a miner job (which usually won't, unless you do something like planet_miners_minerals_produces_add = -1... )

But... crystal miners also make resources, the crystals.

 

[Pseudopod]

So in a utopian abundance society, the first guy who wants to be emperor of the galaxy simply gets the title, and supreme control of the utopian abundance society?
I think not.
Resources are NOT infinite, and by your definition, as soon as someone wants complete sole control of the state they get it?
Assuming infinite resources even under utopian abundance is delusional at best.

Those rolls could represent anything from political power to actual physical military power.

There will always be someone who wants it all, does he get it?

Being emperor is not a material good. Utopian abundance refers to material goods. The pop-ups we get about unemployment refer to "desperate" people. Are you seriously suggesting that thousands, no, millions are desperate to become emperor because they are unemployed? But if they have a working class job, they somehow do not desire to be emperor to such an extent that they'd turn to crime? Wouldn't these people who are desperate to become emperors of the galaxy all be ultra criminal no matter how many jobs there are available? None of them fulfill their desires, after all.

I'm not sure if we're thinking on the same scale here. How many pops do you think a single criminal pop on a planet represents? Even a few thousand sociopathic individuals who turn to crime to become "emperor of the universe" would not even register as a single pop on a planet.

 

[AlanC9]

Having "more" would be achieved, not by having more than you could otherwise, but by making others have less.

It's the sort of thing authoritarian pops like.

But could that work? Steal something and the guy just replicates another one. If you want to hurt somebody, might as well just beat him up. He'll hurt longer.

Political crime is another matter.. Or theft of artworks, which by definition are non-replicable.

 

[Strangedane]

If I have a bag of M&Ms, there are usually a variety of colors. If I remove all of the non-red M&Ms, all of a sudden the bag contains entirely red M&Ms.

This process does not increase the number of red M&Ms in the bag.

Normally 90% of the red M&Ms have a full time job in middle management, as law-enforcement, or other sort of jobs that allows them to feel superior economically or socially.
The last 10% are already criminal, because they are the kind of people who want more than others.
Under UA those 90% is forced into crime to have that same feeling of economic superiority.

Are you really saying you do not think that these people will not exist in a UA society?
The school bullies. Jackass bosses. Powerdrunk cops. Corrupt politicians.
Some people just want to be ahead or to see other people have less.

And while there aren't more of them, as you correctly say, under UA they have no other option than crime to get their sense of superiority.
You're completely ignoring my line of reasoning with absolutely no arguments.

I'm not sure if we're thinking on the same scale here. How many pops do you think a single criminal pop on a planet represents? Even a few thousand sociopathic individuals who turn to crime to become "emperor of the universe" would not even register as a single pop on a planet.

You realize pops are unnumbered to allow imagination to take hold?
In any given society they might be anything from 1 individual to 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 individuals.

A few thousand people might litterally be the entire population of a galaxy spanning empire.

 

[powerofvoid]

Normally 90% of the red M&Ms have a full time job in middle management, as law-enforcement, or other sort of jobs that allows them to feel superior economically or socially.
The last 10% are already criminal, because they are the kind of people who want more than others.
Under UA those 90% is forced into crime to have that same feeling of economic superiority.

Are you really saying you do not think that these people will not exist in a UA society?
The school bullies. Jackass bosses. Powerdrunk cops. Corrupt politicians.
Some people just want to be ahead or to see other people have less.

And while there aren't more of them, as you correctly say, under UA they have no other option than crime to get their sense of superiority.
You're completely ignoring my line of reasoning with absolutely no arguments.

If my society is actually egalitarian, then if they were abusing their power over others in those positions, they were already criminals, and if what they're doing wouldn't have been an abuse of power in those positions, why would it suddenly be criminal when they're unemployed?

 

[Strangedane]

If my society is actually egalitarian, then if they were abusing their power over others in those positions, they were already criminals, and if what they're doing wouldn't have been an abuse of power in those positions, why would it suddenly be criminal when they're unemployed?

But they weren't abusing those powers.
They used their higher income and social status to lord over what they saw as lesser people.
Then UA came along and equalized them with those they felt superior to.

The only way back into a position of superiority would be through crime.

You're again ignoring what I'm actually saying, and then putting words into my mouth. Classy.