Seems like it'll be tied to the "bureaucratic capacity" thing.
View attachment 723164
It was mentioned how, at game start, the Ottomans and the Qing have very inefficient taxation systems as well.
Apparently, different tax types will have different effects on each pop class.
It may not be as direct as what Vic2 did, but it's also more realistic.
View attachment 723163
Just my assumption, but I don't think there's a limit to how many goods you can add with the "+" button there.
They do sound a bit counterintuitive at first I'll admit, but they serve their purpose very well! The reasons a player could want to subsidize an industry is to a) keep production at maximum, and b) make sure Pops who produce that good aren't starving. Whichever your motivation is for doing it, this guarantees the employees of the building are paid a wage at least high enough to be competitive, ensuring they don't go looking for employment elsewhere even though their employer can't pay them enough. As a result, the building continues to run at full employment (assuming you have enough qualified Pops in the state to work all available jobs, of course.)More broadly, it all sounds very good - the subsidies are the only thing that sound a bit wonky (in terms of the economic goal (high production) vs the economic tool (wage subsidy)) A wages subsidy is a bit of an odd way to go about it - these are usually used to encourage business to employ marginal workers (ie, to cover the difference between their productivity and wages), than to support industries in a more general sense. From an economic perspective, production is supported by high end-prices as well - wage subsidies are a very round-about and inefficient way to get increased production. Thus, from a gameplay perspective, at first glance (ie, I've only seen the slides), wage subsidies feel less intuitive
The reasons a player could want to subsidize an industry is to a) keep production at maximum, and b) make sure Pops who produce that good aren't starving. Whichever your motivation is for doing it, this guarantees the employees of the building are paid a wage at least high enough to be competitive, ensuring they don't go looking for employment elsewhere even though their employer can't pay them enough. As a result, the building continues to run at full employment (assuming you have enough qualified Pops in the state to work all available jobs, of course.)
With the approach we've taken we achieve the exact same effect as always contributing enough money to the building to reach the equilibrium point, but with a single click per building - or indeed one click for all buildings of that type in your country.
More precisely, if the government subsidizes a building, it guarantees that workers in that factory will be paid at least a "fair wage" according to national norms (so in a country with high Standard of Living, subsidies cost more than in countries with low), and that the building at least breaks even.
Devil's advocate, and it depends on how you've got things set up (ie, if it's not setup like this, then don't worry) but if input prices plus whatever "business maintenance costs" (if any) plus subsidised wages exceed the price for the finished good
Yeah, I've banged that drum a bit. It seems like there could room for a category of buildings that produce "housing" for nominal maintenance inputs. Though the devs might not be too keen to throw another major ingredient into the soup they've been cooking for a long time.To me, at a glance, there's a glaring lack of rent.
Looks like the subsidies can cover this scenario as well. Overall it seems like the economic modelling is quite far along in development - this cake has been in the over for some time! How about a beta release next week?
So if you've overbuilt your Steel Industry to ensure your construction and motor industries are operating at peak efficiency, to the point that Coal and Iron is now super expensive while Steel is cheap, you will have to not only top up the wages of the Pops who work there to ensure they don't take jobs elsewhere, but also pick up the rest of the bill if the input goods cost more than the output revenue gained.
Iachek's quote doesn't address the issue I raised (ensuring workers get paid does not ensure a business is viable, by any stretch) - if you've got evidence they do from elsewhere, though, I'd be very interested to hear about it
I didn't quite quote enough to be clear before - but the above seems to also cover the cost of inputs if the output price is too low. I'd assume also maintenance costs if that's a thing. It seems that the goal is definitely to prop a business up exactly enough to keep it viable.
Also, totally don't want to imply you were being nasty or had silly ideas. I just happened to come across this post just a minute before seeing your other post.
Many thanks - that does sound good - so while it's called a wage subsidy, it's really an input costs subsidy (which is more-or-less what I was suggesting), in which case it's all good Iachek didn't have his "I'm a dev" tag on, and I don't have time to read every post, so didn't have time to read every post so missed it.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but I think in Vic2 there was only a resource and money cost for construction. I'm really happy that construction and transportation seem to be full-on industries with workforces in this game.