What do you think of the mechanic where you can eliminate intra-state competition of labor?

[illseeyoudrum]

You can enforce non-productive PMs on competing buildings to make them unprofitable, therefore eliminating competition. It seems very hard to resolve mechanically but still having capitalists of another building become laborers for another is kinda exploiting the game.

I wonder if there can be a workaround for it. Under laissez faire unproductive building change may be prohibited but this has a detriment on resource industries just wanting to boom.

 

[yurcick]

What?

 

[illseeyoudrum]

So, because of the way autonomous investment works you get a lot of different buildings in single state, which compete for labor. But if you switch the production method so that it will be unprofitable in the first place, there would be no labor competition. You can allocate laborers to any building you want by making a building unprofitable / non-competitive, by changing PMs to inefficient ones.

 

[durbal]

Well, by doing so you're lowering your SOL and potentially creating radicals...I'm not sure why you'd want to do that.

 

[Sarmatian]

So, because of the way autonomous investment works you get a lot of different buildings in single state, which compete for labor. But if you switch the production method so that it will be unprofitable in the first place, there would be no labor competition. You can allocate laborers to any building you want by making a building unprofitable / non-competitive, by changing PMs to inefficient ones.

Well, if you have unemployed people or peasants, all different building will be fully staffed.

If you don't have enough workers in that state, buildings that make more money will attract most workers anyway, because they can afford higher wages.

I'm not sure what's your problem here.

 

[Sarmatian]

It sucks big way. You can't force Ottomans to release Greek or Serbian territories because Greece and Serbia already exist.

Also, sometimes AI countries can get their capital moved due to a revolution. I've had one game where I've wanted to release Czechoslovakia from Austria but couldn't because capital of the revolutionaries was Bohemia and that became the new capital after they've won.

 

[illseeyoudrum]

Well, if you have unemployed people or peasants, all different building will be fully staffed.

If you don't have enough workers in that state, buildings that make more money will attract most workers anyway, because they can afford higher wages.

I'm not sure what's your problem here.

You may want wages to be low. You may wanna discourage capitalists to not build in your economy of scale area.

Or in my case honestly every building except most profitable one employs almost no laborers and only machinists / engineers. And there is employment everywhere in the country.

 

[Sarmatian]

So, you want workers to be more evenly spread out, between more and less profitable buildings when there's a shortage of workers?

 

[illseeyoudrum]

Yes, that is my main problem. I am okay with capitalists only thinking short term. It is the labor market that is currently bugged, so I may have to resort to this strategy.

The other problems are that it is slightly exploitable regarding shepherding capitalists and it is not really laissez-faire where you can make capitalists suffer.

The SoL loss essentially doesn't matter. Capitalists will become radical but they are way too low in number. Engineers / machinists will have some radicalism but it is still too low. And if you do production change early (in benefit of economy of scale building) there are only slight problems.

I should have maybe reworded my title: "Do you think switching to less profitable production methods violate laissez faire?" but it has a mechanic side to it as well.

 

[shoebird]

I should have maybe reworded my title: "Do you think switching to less profitable production methods violate laissez faire?" but it has a mechanic side to it as well.

If that’s the question I would say not necessarily. I think the game should allow for different degrees of LF. You should be able to play LF setting taxes to the lowest level and letting all the economy to the private sector, intervene a bit for instance in some strategic industries like coal or tools, or take a more active role with higher taxes to finance investment. As any other economic law, LF is a law which depending on the circumstances you might not be able to change in a moment of need, so it should allow some degree of flexibility, IMO.

 

[Blackpony]

The next big thing should be decoupling ownership from "employment", so that the capitalist class can actually concentrate wealth properly and Ireland can have a better depiction of the absentee landlordism that afflicted it.

From another thread. This paradoxian gave the main reason for lots of problems in the economy and labor market.
Capitalist build new jobs for new capitalists and do not care about PM´s etc. In a world where ownership was splitted and they (capitalist 1) own factories in both states (high end automated and low tech pm) they get less money and might react badly to unfair treatment from countrys banning high end PM´s. Right now they do not care about their brethren (capitalist 2) "owning" deprioritized buildings with worse PM´s, build from their own money. They are quite happy, because they "own" the productive ones.