Who pays for social reforms?

[Taylor]

Well, who? Because in Victoria 1, it was mostly the state who payed for social reforms. In the case of for example healthcare, this is of course a good model. However for example safety regulations and legal work hours should not cost the state money, but instead the factories/capitalists (i.e. lower work hours could lower factory efficiency while higher safety regulations could increase production cost (i.e. extra cost on top of wages and input goods)).

Same kind of story for unemployment (state pays), minimum wages (factory pays) and pensions (state?).

Any commends on this?

 

[Garek Maxwell]

Someone has to make sure people comply with the law. That's where the money goes. Even today you have things like health inspectors who work for the government. People still don't follow regulations so you need someone to enforce them.

Also, it does cost money to store confiscated goods, to shut down businesses that don't comply with standards (and board up buildings or even demolish them), and a host of other things including paperwork.

 

[Taylor]

Someone has to make sure people comply with the law. That's where the money goes. Even today you have things like health inspectors who work for the government. People still don't follow regulations so you need someone to enforce them.

Also, it does cost money to store confiscated goods, to shut down businesses that don't comply with standards (and board up buildings or even demolish them), and a host of other things including paperwork.

Yes but isn't the cost of enforcing and paperwork etc. nothing compared to, say, the cost of healthcare?

 

[Nyrael]

That just means that healthcare needs to be more expensice then the mentioned reforms.

 

[Garek Maxwell]

In vicky 1, healthcare was usually more expensive. It probably could have been a more expensive though. I recall players mentioning that they often just went full healthcare as soon as possible or by the end you would do that. It should probably be very difficult to impliment full health care and afford it until maybe the end when technologies make it more feasable... or maybe do what VIP did and make all reforms progressively more expensive.

 

[Subcomandante]

Minimum wage changes the worker's share of the profits (money goes to employees, capis get less share).

Max workhours determines factory efficiency (factory makes less goods per worker).

Safety regulations are paid by the factory (maybe more maintenance costs, in which case more cement must be bought regularly, lowering profit. The money goes to cement factories)

Unemployment subsidies are paid by the state (money goes to unemployed obviously)

Pensions are paid for by the state (goes to every pop)

Healthcare is paid by for the state. Who gets the money, I don't know.

-------------

Bureaucrats get extra money, the more money, the more efficient the social reforms (and crime fighting) are.

 

[telesien]

Minimum wage changes the worker's share of the profits (money goes to employees, capis get less share).

Max workhours determines factory efficiency (factory makes less goods per worker).

Safety regulations are paid by the factory (maybe more maintenance costs, in which case more cement must be bought regularly, lowering profit. The money goes to cement factories)

Unemployment subsidies are paid by the state (money goes to unemployed obviously)

Pensions are paid for by the state (goes to every pop)

Healthcare is paid by for the state. Who gets the money, I don't know.

-------------

Bureaucrats get extra money, the more money, the more efficient the social reforms (and crime fighting) are.

That is what you think or what you got from dev diaries?

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

IIRC, they will increase administration costs, so the state will pay the cost of enforcing them, but as some reduce productivity, so does the capitalists.

 

[Subcomandante]

That is what you think or what you got from dev diaries?

This is what I think I got from the dev diaries. Things where I am not at all sure are marked by "maybe" or "I don't know".

 

[Minodrin]

Yes, some of them in Vicky 1 were pretty retarded.

Work-hour rules for example. Not only did they lower productivity (logical), on top of that they added a massive monetary cost which made no sense whatsoever. And before anyone talks about paperwork costs, why would it cost more to enforce a 12-hour workday than a 8-hour? And shouldn't these enforcing things just add a petty amount to the crime-fighting slider then?

Several of these reforms should have costs that are apparent in lower productivity and profits, not something the state pays for directly. These productivity-costs should be visible when selecting said reform too.

 

[Taylor]

Yes, some of them in Vicky 1 were pretty retarded.

Work-hour rules for example. Not only did they lower productivity (logical), on top of that they added a massive monetary cost which made no sense whatsoever. And before anyone talks about paperwork costs, why would it cost more to enforce a 12-hour workday than a 8-hour? And shouldn't these enforcing things just add a petty amount to the crime-fighting slider then?

Several of these reforms should have costs that are apparent in lower productivity and profits, not something the state pays for directly. These productivity-costs should be visible when selecting said reform too.

+1

It also makes you think more about which reforms to implement. E.g.: Don't have a lot of money? Maybe enact safety regulations (of course this might hurt the economy in the long run). Have a lot of money and don't want to hurt your economy? Enact health care. Stuff like that.

And about the enforcing cost: well yes maybe the state should pay a little, but very very little compared to the reforms that really need money from the state, like health care, pensions and unemployment subsidies.

 

[HappyBanker]

Healthcare is paid by for the state. Who gets the money, I don't know.

This could be paid to poor POPs and to a smaller extent to middle POP's. In a way this a way of redistributing the wealth, which means every one gets the same but don't pay the same. At the end rich will lose from it (pay taxes with small health care value equivalent) and poor will definitly gain.

Seems a fair representation of reality for me (abstracted but fair).

 

[krieger11b]

In vicky 1, healthcare was usually more expensive. It probably could have been a more expensive though. I recall players mentioning that they often just went full healthcare as soon as possible or by the end you would do that. It should probably be very difficult to impliment full health care and afford it until maybe the end when technologies make it more feasable... or maybe do what VIP did and make all reforms progressively more expensive.

I never was able to make even remotely close to enough money to max out social reforms, the Bismarck Reforms just murdred my economy.

 

[Zelvik]

Also its questionable wheter healthcare is handled right for many countries. For example the Bismarkian reforms introduced a insurance based healthcare and pension system. And as long as there is no demographic decline or high unemployment those systems basically should finance themselves without the state having to invest any high amount of money - at least not on a regular basis. They are financed through contributions from employers and employees and should affect their share of income not that of the state - the state only is indirectly affected through lower tax income.

Which means that there are monetary incentives for POPs to support such a pension system or not. Capis, Aristocrats and high income clerks and artisans dont have anything to gain from these systems, only loose money, most others benefit from this type of system as long as they are employed.

 

[Subcomandante]

This could be paid to poor POPs and to a smaller extent to middle POP's. In a way this a way of redistributing the wealth, which means every one gets the same but don't pay the same. At the end rich will lose from it (pay taxes with small health care value equivalent) and poor will definitly gain.

Seems a fair representation of reality for me (abstracted but fair).

Health care means giving money to people for "doing health", whether those are doctors, nurses or engineers building x-ray tubes. The true "cost" to society is not money (money doesn't exist in the real physical world), but it is the work people do for health they would otherwise do for somebody/something else. Hours spent in order to fight back entropy=illness/death/age cannot be spent to transport ore to the surface.

In Vicky terms, these people would not be available to the factories or RGOs, decreasing production of goods and raw materials. If health workers are subsumed under the employee pops, their efficiency should decrease.

 

[HappyBanker]

I agree. Health do means giving money to people "doing health". However the new buraucrat pops seem to enclose those. To implement correctly your health care reforms (for they to be efficient) you will need buraucrats, and pay them. Their work is what you decribe as entropy. Thus the new systeme seems pretty realistic. To improve my previous post I would then say : all pops pay for "health" buraucrats and receive the same health bonus (population increase, small productivity gain due to beetter health...), therefore I agree that giving tto the poor pops is not a good solution.

By the way I am not sure to understand what you mean by "money doesn't exist int he rela physical world".

 

[Taylor]

By the way I am not sure to understand what you mean by "money doesn't exist int he rela physical world".

I think he means that in the end, money is not what matters to a state, but rather the goods that can be bought with it, the armies that can be paid with it, etc. This is actually also true for individuals, your money does not have any use in itself; what really matters is the actual property that you can buy with it.

Of course, money is still a very handy tool for expressing value (so this also includes work done by "health people"), and since value is transferred via the tax system to the health care system, I think it's logical to have that flow expressed in money: i.e. you tax Pops and/or goods going in or out of your country (tariffs), and from that tax you pay for health care.

 

[Subcomandante]

I agree. Health do means giving money to people "doing health". However the new buraucrat pops seem to enclose those. To implement correctly your health care reforms (for they to be efficient) you will need buraucrats, and pay them. Their work is what you decribe as entropy. Thus the new systeme seems pretty realistic. To improve my previous post I would then say : all pops pay for "health" buraucrats and receive the same health bonus (population increase, small productivity gain due to beetter health...), therefore I agree that giving tto the poor pops is not a good solution.

By the way I am not sure to understand what you mean by "money doesn't exist int he rela physical world".

I have thought about the bureaucrats too, but then health workers will end up collecting taxes and fighting crime. The good thing is that with more money for the 'crats people would wander from the "production pops" into the bureau pops, simulating the workforce drain. But at the same time, there would be an administration cost creep on top of health care costs. Also, the number of 'crats determines tax efficiency. So you have consequences all over the place.

Money only exists physically as neural circuitry in certain parts of your brain. It is an experiment in psychology: How do we convince each other to invest energy into stuff that is completely removed from what we have encoded into our DNA?

As Gordon Gekko said: "Money isn't made or lost, it's only transferred from one perception to the other, like magic. Capitalism at its finest: The illusion has become real, and the more real it becomes, the more desperately they want it."