Economy debate

[Smilesville]

I've done just that in the past and been met with less than optimal results - while I agree that new ideas that could work for the server are generally well received, there seems to have been a push at the time to lock as many threads as possible within a short period of time. Reposting a suggestion right after it had been trashed would be in poor taste, ergo why I opened up a broader discussion to encourage new ideas in an effort to make as polished a suggestion as possible.

My initial suggestion was to reward businesses for retaining customers, not simply getting them through the door. This was refuted with the idea that struggling businesses could apply for a grant (something that doesn't address the script issues at all.) However, with a larger view of how little the GOV faction has impacted business roleplay, perhaps we can dispense with that point and have a serious conversation about changing the ways in which the GOV-bonus script rewards businesses.

 

To claim this can be done IC and denying there's a huge issue with the script is blatantly false - a dive bar with one employee (the owner) should not be the apex of what a business can be.

[Hollywood]

On 2/10/2019 at 2:24 AM, Spenser said:

I have been able to have success as a lawyer. You need to make your role play applicable to a service people want.

 

Your success largely comes (all due respect) from OOC networking via discord and prior OOC relationships with players.

 

It is very difficult to network yourself IC via grounded RP for legal civilian jobs. 

[pogoyo]

When I said that unscripted jobs do not offer wage security in the conventional sense, I meant that these sorts of jobs do not pay passively. Especially in the case of a lawyer, there is no money to be made unless the lawyer is proactive. This sort of RP is nascent to the server and most players don’t understand the intricacies that define law. They don’t know what they can sue for, what could be achieved through that lawsuit or how it becomes relevant for their character.

 

To make money in law, or in any field, it is the onus of the player to weave their idea or field into relevance. People do not always approach the law firm and say “I have a case for you.” Oftentimes, we passively observe a situation and approach the prospective client saying “This just happened to you, this is how you were violated, and here is how we can help you.” For this reason, we have actually had to put out very few advertisements. Note as well that a civil suit payout is not the only way or circumstance a lawyer may receive payment, and most of our cases were handled before court was necessary. 

 

Granted, I can see how running across scenarios that would be fit for law may be challenging or unmotivating for those RPing individual unaffiliated lawyers, because there is a degree of time investment and luck involved. The lawyer job has a passive pay of $800. Easy fix for that field, just raise it to $2,000 in recognition of the fact that the exam is challenging, many lawyers put in a great deal of work or time that isn’t reflected in the final payout, and there are few lawyers. Even with that said, I still believe that the server should not make a habit of simply raising or reallocating payments. In the real world, not everyone makes good money, and most certainly not people who fail to spot demand for their vocation. 

Edited February 12, 2019 by Spenser

[UTOPIA]

On 2/11/2019 at 2:14 AM, Smilesville said:

The government system touted as 'allowing anyone to start a business' just adds another layer of tedium to the process. While it does offer limited assistance, it most notably does not cover construction costs for a building - which happens to be the largest barrier to roleplaying a business. Rightfully so, you might say, but do we really want to punish people for trying something new? Why ask for a grant if it doesn't cover construction, and why ask for business credit if your business isn't sure to make the money back? I'm positive the community has dozens of ideas for businesses that would break up the tedium; all I'm looking for is a solution that fits more business types and lowers the barriers to entry into the market.

Starting a business requires a large amount of capital, that is why we offer credit towards construction; also remind yourself that when you have something constructed, it becomes an asset- that being said you could easily sell off the business property and receive all of the money back within an instant.

 

(Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth) 

 

Think of it this way; you have $150,000 the government gives you a grant of $200,000 towards construction... there is nothing in place to prevent one from selling the business for profit. Your net worth would shoot up to $350,000- regardless of whether you sell the business property or keep it.

 

Business credit allows you to request the money you need to start your business. (It's interest-free) Say you have $150,000, the government gives you $200,000 in credit - giving you the opportunity to start your business. Your net-worth stays the same because you haven't lost anything or gained anything, you OWN the business property but you are also in debt to the government, once you pay off the debt you owe to the government through means of running your business- your net-worth would then increase to $350,000.  

 

Starting a business is a RISK! but can also be very rewarding! 

 

On 2/11/2019 at 1:39 PM, Smilesville said:

My initial suggestion was to reward businesses for retaining customers, not simply getting them through the door. This was refuted with the idea that struggling businesses could apply for a grant (something that doesn't address the script issues at all.) However, with a larger view of how little the GOV faction has impacted business roleplay, perhaps we can dispense with that point and have a serious conversation about changing the ways in which the GOV-bonus script rewards businesses.

  

To claim this can be done IC and denying there's a huge issue with the script is blatantly false - a dive bar with one employee (the owner) should not be the apex of what a business can be.

 

 

I don't think it is responsible for one uninvolved in government financial proceedings to assume that government doesn't impact business roleplay, we often have meetings with people who request grants and credit- and advise them in ways to build their businesses. The government visits businesses and licenses them- usually also advertising the grant & credit system in the process, giving business owners a means to gain capital.

 

If you want to run a business for financial success, there are a number of trade secrets that can be applied. We often give businesses large grants for marketing, employment and advertising. ( The government gave you $80,000 dollars for this. ) You can't blame your lack of success on a program that offers business owners the opportunity to expand, innovate and create unique roleplay experiences. The government business program was designed to elicit equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome...

 

"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again!"

Edited February 12, 2019 by Coogo

[Smilesville]

1 hour ago, Coogo said:

Starting a business requires a large amount of capital, that is why we offer credit towards construction; also remind yourself that when you have something constructed, it becomes an asset- that being said you could easily sell off the business property and receive all of the money back within an instant. 

 

(Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth) 

 

Think of it this way; you have $150,000 the government gives you a grant of $200,000 towards construction... there is nothing in place to prevent one from selling the business for profit. Your net worth would shoot up to $350,000- regardless of whether you sell the business property or keep it.

 

Business credit allows you to request the money you need to start your business. (It's interest-free) Say you have $150,000, the government gives you $200,000 in credit - giving you the opportunity to start your business. Your net-worth stays the same because you haven't lost anything or gained anything, you OWN the business property but you are also in debt to the government, once you pay off the debt you owe to the government through means of running your business- your net-worth would then increase to $350,000.  

 

Starting a business is a RISK! but can also be very rewarding! 

 

The value of the building is the base cost quoted to you by PM in your request. Government grants do not cover the cost of construction. Having to come up with the remainder of the cash required to start up the business is money in your pocket regardless, which is why most opt to simply keep that cash rather than use it to create RP. Let's take the math of the building I bought, for example.

 

$120,000 is the value of the building. $200,000 is what I was required to pay to create it, due to the lack of any appreciable construction alternative. The result is that my net worth decreased by $80,000 for having the temerity to start a business, and the government offered nothing towards the construction costs (and even explicitly stated they would not be covering that cost.) If we factor in the grant money I did get, my net worth evens out - as if I had simply done nothing at all.

 

Your argument regarding business credit really only holds if one expects to make that script cash back - ergo why we only see bars and night clubs. The government system does nothing to encourage innovation, and does nothing to assist in the actual startup of any business that does not adhere to the narrow standards by which it can benefit from the government entry fee bonus, and I doubt you could provide an example of another sort of business that could generate that kind of income.

 

That, and I doubt the credit program is simply going to wait forever to be repaid.

 

1 hour ago, Coogo said:

I don't think it is responsible for one uninvolved in government financial proceedings to assume that government doesn't impact business roleplay, we often have meetings with people who request grants and credit- and advise them in ways to build their businesses. The government visits businesses and licenses them- usually also advertising the grant & credit system in the process, giving business owners a means to gain capital.

 

If you want to run a business for financial success, there are a number of trade secrets that can be applied. We often give businesses large grants for marketing, employment and advertising. ( The government gave you $80,000 dollars for this. ) You can't blame your lack of success on a program that offers business owners the opportunity to expand, innovate and create unique roleplay experiences. The government business program was designed to elicit equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome...

 

Nor do I believe one so deeply entrenched in the government financial proceedings to have an entirely unbiased view of the situation. You cite the number I received from my own grant request, then undercut your own argument with the false claim that government grants cover construction costs. At no point during the grant process was I ever contacted about a meeting, so if they actually take place, how are these people chosen? The only trade secrets I've seen you and others like you employ is an OOC network. There is nothing remotely unique about what the government programs help start up and seems to do little to impact the business sphere in any meaningful way. No amount of text formatting and empty platitudes can change that fact.

 

The business script rewards a very particular style of business, and that needs to be fixed, not glossed over with a patchwork IC program that pretends to be the solution.

Edited February 12, 2019 by Smilesville

[UTOPIA]

Just now, Smilesville said:

$120,000 is the value of the building. $200,000 is what I was required to pay to create it, due to the lack of any appreciable construction alternative. The result is that my net worth decreased by $80,000 for having the temerity to start a business, and the government offered nothing towards the construction costs (and even explicitly stated they would not be covering that cost.) If we factor in the grant money I did get, my net worth evens out - as if I had simply done nothing at all.

 

That, and I doubt the credit program is simply going to wait forever to be repaid.

 

 

The credit program doesn't "wait forever to be repaid", you create a payment plan with the government. You were given eighty thousand dollars towards marketing, advertising, etc. But you decided to use that money to pay off your construction fees. My point still stands, that you could have used the credit system to purchase your property. Many businesses take on debts to make a profit in the long haul.

 

Alternatively, you could have leased an office- that would have been a cheap short-term alternative. 

 

As for the construction alternative, that is up to the invisible hand that guides the market, the only thing you can do to change that is to promote an alternative or create one. (Competition) I agree,  construction companies can easily acquire and potentially maintain a monopoly, (which is happening at the moment, but good on them for finding out a great way to make money!) but that is only up to the market to fix.

 

8 minutes ago, Smilesville said:

Nor do I believe one so deeply entrenched in the government financial proceedings to have an entirely unbiased view of the situation. You cite the number I received from my own grant request, then undercut your own argument with the false claim that government grants cover construction costs. The only trade secrets I've seen you and others like you employ is an OOC network. There is nothing remotely unique about what the government programs help start up and seems to do little to impact the business sphere in any meaningful way. No amount of text formatting and empty platitudes can change that fact.

 

 

There is no reason for me to have a biased view of the situation, the government provides a service to business owners who need capital, whether that be through loans or grants. I didn't claim that government grants cover construction costs, I was advocating for the credit system throughout my argument, and insisting that it is worth utilizing.

 

As for this accusation of some sort of OOC network, that "OOC" network would be Facebrowser, we advertise our services to people through face browser and that is how people acquire our services and find out that we even exist, it's about notoriety and fame. That is what in the business world one would call "marketing & advertising." I won't tell you how we make business as lawyers, because it is a trade secret- all of it is handled in-game, however.  You can't just sit in your office waiting for someone to give you a call, being a lawyer on an RP-server requires a lot of footwork, in the past I have roleplayed as a psychiatrist and have reaped great rewards from doing that as well, it's just a matter of marketing and acquiring a consistent base of patrons. You will know that you have successfully marketed yourself and your business when people recognize you as "the lawyer". On occasion, I will sit in the police station and offer my services as a public defender, even if I can't help them in the instance- they know who I am and they are my target market, people who need lawyers. Not even a week ago I had success as a public defender and reaped a ten thousand dollar reward from that, we took a police officer's case who wanted to sue over an action he deemed unfair against him... the opportunity is there, you need to seize it. 

[Smilesville]

Just now, Coogo said:

I didn't claim that government grants cover construction costs,

But you literally did in your example.

1 hour ago, Coogo said:

Think of it this way; you have $150,000 the government gives you a grant of $200,000 towards construction[...]

If you can't even use an example that's in line with what happens on the server... you don't have much of a point to make.

 

4 minutes ago, Coogo said:

The credit program doesn't "wait forever to be repaid", you create a payment plan with the government. You were given eighty thousand dollars towards marketing, advertising, etc. But you decided to use that money to pay off your construction fees. My point still stands, that you could have used the credit system to purchase your property. Many businesses take on debts to make a profit in the long haul. 

 

Alternatively, you could have leased an office- that would have been a cheap short-term alternative.  

 

As for the construction alternative, that is up to the invisible hand that guides the market, the only thing you can do to change that is to promote an alternative or create one. (Competition) I agree,  construction companies can easily acquire and potentially maintain a monopoly, (which is happening at the moment, but good on them for finding out a great way to make money!) but that is only up to the market to fix. 

I am not going to make arguments unique to my business situation to address the status of the server as a whole; you clearly have no idea how much capital I have to work with, the sort of business I am running, or where my RP is going with that character - an attitude that seems to reflect in your entire argument. You take a small example with limited information and apply it to the entire server. If we truly have no problem as you seem to allege, why are there dozens of people (of many diverse IC backgrounds) in the earlier pages of this thread who say that we do? By your logic, they've all got to be losers who don't know the trade secrets of the market. Sorry, but that argument is asinine.

 

I don't think anyone would be happy to see someone buy up 80% of the properties on the server and sell them at inflated prices - that would be such an egregious offense as to warrant people quitting the server, which is why we have an additional tax for properties owned beyond the second. This is an appropriate script-oriented solution to an IC problem. If the construction situation is well and good, why is staff intervening to fix it with OOC regulations surrounding exactly what you can and cannot bid? Because sometimes, these situations warrant outside forces to preserve the atmosphere of the server. This is one of those times.

16 minutes ago, Coogo said:

There is no reason for me to have a biased view of the situation, the government provides a service to business owners who need capital, whether that be through loans or grants. I didn't claim that government grants cover construction costs, I was advocating for the credit system throughout my argument, and insisting that it is worth utilizing. 

You're biased because your character Leon French is involved with it, you earn a hefty $2,500 paycheck every hour on the hour, and the position does not seem to come with many responsibilities at all. In fact, the entirety of the inspection schedule for every single licensing employee is marked as "TBD." Are you claiming that this has absolutely no impact on your view of the program, warped as it is?

 

18 minutes ago, Coogo said:

As for this accusation of some sort of OOC network, that "OOC" network would be Facebrowser, we advertise our services to people through face browser and that is how people acquire our services and find out that we even exist, it's about notoriety and fame. That is what in the business world one would call "marketing & advertising." I won't tell you how we make business as lawyers, because it is a trade secret-

You can't explain it because it's formed through the OOC network mentioned earlier and hide behind the idea of a "trade secret." Or am I to understand that in the 14 minutes after obtaining your BAR license on Dean Bell, you managed to establish contracts with two different individuals and request their criminal records? Are you actually going to claim that your interactions with those characters on Coogan Browning has no bearing on what Dean Bell is now doing? I'll spare the general public the details I've already brought to the attention of the appropriate individuals, but the point remains that you cannot name a business (apart from your borderline OOC legal philandering) that can keep up with a bar owned and operated by a single individual.

 

Only a change to the script can fix that.

[UTOPIA]

35 minutes ago, Smilesville said:

But you literally did in your example.

If you can't even use an example that's in line with what happens on the server... you don't have much of a point to make.

 

In the initial example I provided, I was outlining why it wouldn't work, and why it is sensible to utilize the credit system. I'll explain in more simple terms again how you can calculate your net worth, as you didn't seem to grasp it.

 

If you have a $30,000 car but maintain $70,000 in student debt while role-playing on the Internet, you would maintain a negative worth of $40,000 due to liabilities.

 

39 minutes ago, Smilesville said:

By your logic, they've all got to be losers who don't know the trade secrets of the market. Sorry, but that argument is asinine.

 

You said it, not me! ?

[AVRO DANKASTER]

Alright. Let's clarify a few things first.

 

We fund the construction costs through the credits program.  I don't recall being asked about what our definition of construction costs is, but it does feel like there are a few misconceptions regarding it in place already. The definition of "construction costs" we use is the grand total quote provided and includes materials, labour and overheads. It does not mean the price set by property management and I don't recall ever stating that it does.

 

We run all construction (and existing property acquisitions) through the credits program for a simple reason - should a business fail, we can utilize the leasing agency to have the building reused by another person. Another project. I see no reason to permit people whose business endeavour failed to keep their property. And by taking the property, we effectively erase the liability of the original requesting party towards the government. No harm, no foul.

 

The grants are specifically in place to cover advertising costs, initial hiring, minor fleet adjustments, all perishables and running costs of the business so you can take your idea and run with it. The credits are in place to cover all major purchases - construction or existing property, vehicles, you name it. Again - we use the credits whenever the asset purchased can be reused by another person at a later date should the initial requester's project fail.

 

We're quite open-handed with the program funds, and I don't think I ever dismissed anyone coming to us with a question, be that IC or OOC.

 

 

 

Now, to the core argument. There are major issues as far as the design of the economy goes. How the prices of perishables are out of proportion compared to more expensive purchases, for example. A lack of coherent economic thought throughout the process is clear to me - as I've said in another thread, most of the economy changes seem like patchwork, reactionary efforts to circumstances frowned upon by the administration rather than the implementation of a plan. Which resulted in an overtaxed population which supports the current level of government salaries.

 

However, what is absolutely essential to understand here is the fact that no "new" money enters the system. It does not increase the total supply of money on the server. It is not "printing money". It's redistributing it, and at the moment, too much of it is being redistributed.

 

 

This is what you should be starting this thread with. The root cause of the problem. That's why our first order of business after rewriting the lost City Charter is an ordinance that constitutes tax cuts all across the board. It's not that the salaries are too high, it's the fact that we, as the government, can afford to pay the salaries that high. We can pay high salaries, so we do. It's the logical thing to do from an IC point of view to spend as much as we can to provide the best possible service - and again, not a single budget request was actually approved in full without a comprehensive summary and reasoning behind it. Hell, government employees which earn a lot can become clients of local businesses and supercharge the economic growth of the city.

 

Here's how I see it - government payrolls create a layer of primary spenders. Taxes converted into salaries, which are in hands of people who are most often vetted both IC and OOC and encouraged to roleplay fleshed-out characters, which, I hope, includes the modicum of selflessness as far as the spending patterns and support of roleplay goes. In the perfect world, all of the people paid by the government would be the first-in-line customers of all local businesses. But, often enough, they are not - and here's where I see one of the areas where we can improve. That's a problem of... well. Subpar roleplay ability of some of the people in question, really. Even though there are limitations in place as to what they can and can not buy, they can't turn them into happy-go-lucky customers they could be. There's a lot of work to be done in this area.

 

It's not "Fixing The Economy" that this thread is addressing. It addresses the perceived unfairness of the system because the current state of the economy favours another group that happens to not be you. But, if you look at it from a point of view of an economist, by decreasing the government salaries, all you do is removing money out of the pockets of your potential clients without putting it back into yours.

 

 

Focus on the actual root cause. Discussing how to address the symptoms is counterproductive and boring. 

 

 

And to wrap it up: the main post just takes it at face value for some reason, so here's a question: Why are the high salaries paid by GOV agencies a problem, again?

 

Edited February 13, 2019 by AVRO DANKASTER

[Velora]

1 hour ago, AVRO DANKASTER said:

 It's not that the salaries are too high, it's the fact that we, as the government, can afford to pay the salaries that high. We can pay high salaries, so we do. It's the logical thing to do from an IC point of view to spend as much as we can to provide the best possible service

 

Strange, I didn't realize that government workers worked on an incentive program. Surely most are paid salary, the same thing no matter the service they provide?

 

Can you explain this again? I don't really feel like "we can therefore we should" is a good thing.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Velora