Vickynomics Panel

[lachek]

If in Vic3 we only get a few options like "Tax more the poor" or "Tax more the rich" I'm going to be very dissapointed

Then you will assuredly not be disappointed

 

[za3tarani]

From the Q&A on discord.
View attachment 722877

yeh, i read the discord QnA after writing that comment. still, they didn't answer it directly... i hope there will be transp cost and time.

 

[Axe99]

Many thanks MagnusPDX - very exciting A couple of thoughts on the slides:

• On subsidies, the most common form of subsidy isn't for wages, but rather the end-price of goods (as I think, iirc, could be set in Vicky 2). 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 as well (and making a complex economic system as intuitive as possible is good ). I totally understand if you want to move away from Vicky 2 where the price was set, but you could make it a "20% top-up of sales price" type of end-price subsidy, that would be both simple and intuitive?
• "Dividends tax" seems a bit of a strange name for a tax at this level of abstraction (as I expect in-game it represents far more than just the taxation of dividends - there are far more ways than just dividends to extract profit from a company/partnership/etc; Depending on what it does represent "capital tax", "profits tax" and similar might be more intuitive?
• Love that there's a merchant marine However, is it possible to use other countries' merchant marines as well? Norway, for example, in the 1930s had the world's fourth largest merchant marine, and it wasn't just carrying goods for Norway. Britain's merchant marine carried goods for oodles of different countries in the 19th century.
• Mutually beneficial vs aggressive trade routes seem a little odd at first glance, but that might just be way it's phrased. Could potentially mean a bunch of things, depending on what angle's being taken.
• Economic system slide looks wonderful

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)) - and that might just be a misunderstanding based on the slide (or my brain throwing a shoe - my economics are fairly solid, but it's a big discipline and there's plenty I'm not familiar with). Reeeaaallllly looking forward to it - best of luck to the devs for ongoing development, and can't wait to hear more

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.

This sounds pretty cool - great to see it in there

 

[Erilaz]

To me, at a glance, there's a glaring lack of rent.

"After needs are fulfilled any leftover money builds Wealth and Standard of Living"

There seems to be no housing factored into the "needs" of the pops. In reality much of the "leftover money" would be swallowed by rent, and thus go to landowners.

Following on the same theme, there appears to be no option for a property tax or a land tax.

 

[Tennou No Kamikaze]

Oh, that's lovely. Thank you very much for that!

 

[Tennou No Kamikaze]

May we also have the art presentation?

 

[UBERWASP]

What about stockpiles? Does anyone know anything about embargo and stockpile mechanisms?

 

[lachek]

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

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.)

If we had instead put a slider on state subsidies for the output goods, effectively paying the building more for producing those goods, there would be a certain equilibrium on this slider where the net balance of the building is sufficient to not decrease Pop wage. Any setting below this could still cause the building to bleed employees which will reduce goods production, while any setting above it would just lead to profits being pocketed by the building owners. While the latter is a pretty cool effect - state intervention effectively leading to subsidized Capitalists - it's also a bit exploity and terribly micromanagey. As goods prices fluctuate the equilibrium point will change along with it, requiring constant maintenance, potentially in every state where that building can be found.

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.

 

[Axe99]

Many thanks for your reply Iachek I'm not sure how easy it is, but at some stage it might be cool for the Vicky 3 devs to get "dev post" settings, so your posts have a different background colour, and we can see in threads that you've posted - as I reckon I'm on a pretty safe bet if I suggested there were many, many people interested in what the devs have to share In terms of the above comments, please

Also - one other thing - don't forget coasts worked very much like rivers in terms of infrastructure for getting products to markets - the British or Italian coasts, or Japanese and Chinese as well. Water was the key, as ships travelling on water are a very low-cost way to transport goods around. Whether it was salty or not eas less of an issue Wonderful to read rivers already in the mix, and as with anything I'll suggest (this probably won't be the last thing, unless you tell me to be quiet ) please only pay any attention to it if it resonates at your end.

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.)

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 (of finished good plus required return on investment, if this is greater than zero - or, for the business, if it falls below the opportunity cost of using the capital elsewhere), wouldn't the production still stop (but people could stay employed, just only on the subsidy part of the wage subsidy - not unlike the furlough scheme in Britain during the current pandemic)?

If this may be an issue, in terms of production subsidies, the "cost plus" approach could potentially be another angle (ie, guaranteeing producers a price for their goods of their costs plus X per cent - I've seen 10 per cent more than once). In the real world, this can be a bit problematic, as it can encourage cooking of the books to increase costs, but as long as you didn't train your AI to be dodgy accountants and/or inflate wages because of this, it could still provide a "one-click" solution to ensuring increased production without leading to the business having wage subsidies but still going out of business because other costs mean it can't compete effectively (which is actually not uncommon at all IRL).

Then, in terms of supporting the working pops, more direct initiatives like lower taxes, minimum wages, or direct delivery of goods/funds, and unemployment benefits (income tax offsets are probably a bit modern for the Vicky timeframe, although I've no idea of the history of the idea) can ensure that the working pops don't miss out.

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.

Definitely don't get me wrong - I'm a huge fan of moving away from the good production price sliders The implementation of things looks far more elegant than Vicky 2

 

[Sarmatian]

I really like the possibility of different goods being able to fulfill the needs.

How will pops decide which one to buy? Always cheapest or will they try to get a bit of everything if their income is above a certain threshold?

 

[Atomcreator]

This. Looks. Brilliant.

 

[EntropyAvatar]

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

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?

 

[EntropyAvatar]

To me, at a glance, there's a glaring lack of rent.

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.

 

[Axe99]

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?

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 agree the economic modelling looks fairly solid in most cases (although there may be a few gaps that could make the simulation a bit wonky - but it could just be we haven't seen them yet), and the UI/gameplay loop in general looks very good. My comments aren't trying to be 'nasty', just raising potential issues now as it's easier to solve things earlier than later I've got both training and experience (two decades of it) in the field of economics, as well as a general interest in economic history (although a far greater interest in naval history ), although that doesn't mean my ideas aren't silly!

 

[EntropyAvatar]

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.

 

[Axe99]

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.

 

[EntropyAvatar]

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.

No worries - I missed it the first time as well. Though now that I look at the quote again, I see that is mentions having cheap steel so your construction industry operates at peak efficiency. Whenever they call something an industry, I think it has a workforce and payments for goods, etc. I guess in this case the construction industry would generate some construction good that gets consumed by buildings in progress.

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.

 

[AlknicTeos]

I hope there is then also an electricty infrastructure, which buy coal, oil, etc.. and sell power. But also another ressource: Land (ownage). At begin in the most countries aristocrats would own them. Or pay the railroad corporations with land, they make accessable ( as they did for the transcontinental railroad in USA ). So, that land also has a price. And also homes. It might be a simple abstraction buy purchasing goods like wood, concrete, etc. , but houses is something that builds slowly.
Anyway, I would be ready for the next dev diary

edit: and of course the greedy banking sector as services

 

[Axe99]

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.

I'm pretty sure you're right - there were steamships that could be built, but they were input goods for warships, and for transporting armies - going from memory, transport was 'free', and having a transport cost (and, in particular, having a very high transport cost for land-based transport pre-railways, and even a relatively high one after railways for bulk goods) will make it much more natural to transport goods by water - and even intra-continental trade during the period relied heavily on waterborne transport in many cases even after the advent of deep railroad infrastructures. It's definitely sounding like a step up, and I'm super-excited for the game

 

[Lorehead]

This looks great! One thing that does have me scratching my head is the kinds of taxes. They’re not as abstracted as in Vicky 1 or 2, but they’re not historically-accurate, either. Could this system represent, for example, the Russian Empire earning most of its revenue from its monopoly on hard liquor, then wiping out that source of income by declaring prohibition at the start of the Great War? Or tariffs, including or excluding food? Wealth or property tax? The land-value tax Henry George proposed? (Hey, if anarchist communes are in the game ...?)