Economy debate

[Smilesville]

The exact manner in which the government system works is neither here nor there with regards to the topic at hand - the overarching point I sought to make is that it is not an appropriate replacement for the way the script itself works. I can see the benefit it could potentially provide to a subset of businesses, yet my primary gripe is that these tend to be far too restrictive. The idea that financial solvency in a patchwork economy is the first priority is a little backwards, in my opinion. We should be more concerned with the RP a business creates rather than whether or not it can pay back its credit.

 

Unrealistic? I can acknowledge that, but I'm coming to the conclusion that a certain suspension of disbelief is required to achieve an atmosphere in which we have the optimal amount of creative freedom.

 

1 hour ago, AVRO DANKASTER said:

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.

I agree wholeheartedly, and ultimately there seem to be only two ways to rectify that particular issue - lower taxes, or remove a portion of taxes generated from the economic loop. Rather than receiving all of the road tax paid on a vehicle, for example, the government would only receive half of it for redistribution with the rationale that the other half actually goes to maintaining roads as a matter of upkeep for the city.

 

1 hour ago, AVRO DANKASTER said:

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.

I'm not sure I agree that government employees "supercharge" growth; there's nothing I've witnessed to suggest that they pay more at an establishment than any other individual. More often than not, the money ends up hoarded until the gov employee in question 1) drops a disproportionate amount on someone or something, 2) purchases a house or vehicle so obscenely expensive that the staff steps in, or 3) quits the organization, changes the name of their character, and buys whatever they so desire. The very fact that staff have to monitor the purchases of legal org employees is indicative of a problem with the levels of pay they're receiving.

 

Inflated though government salaries in the real world can be, the vast majority of hires are given the bare minimum in order to keep them from walking away. I can refer to my earlier comparison of real-world figures when I say that police officers definitely should not be receiving as much as they do.

 

I am cautiously optimistic that tax cuts will sort out some of the issues we've been having, but part of my problem also stems from the fact that those of us in positions to do so should use that authority to safeguard the economy. Rather than approving a budget based on the number of members and their activity levels and approving advances on the next budget when theirs run out, why not force them into a corner by curbing the budget and refusing to raise their spending limits? Again, tax cuts will certainly have that effect, but the problem could be remedied much sooner at the budgeting level. Hell, "we're about to pass tax cuts so we need to build up a safety net of revenue" isn't such a bad reason to start doing that either.

 

I suppose "be the change you want to see" is what I'm getting at, there.

 

1 hour ago, AVRO DANKASTER said:

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.

From multiple discussions with several individuals involve in legal organizations at many different levels, I can assure you that the vetting is minimal at best - the police department has long had issues with RP quality to the point where "robocop" is a meme. Even if they did go around spending the money as quickly as they could, I wouldn't necessarily think that to be an appropriate portrayal of their character - it's not a scenario they can win, and I understand that.

 

My suspicion is that when the paychecks drop, the issue with subpar RP will be self-correcting. That is, the primary motivating factor for the people we don't want in these organizations is the large bump in pay, and when their checks start falling in line with what everyone else on the server makes, their numbers will start to dwindle. As the primary motivating factor of the ranks becomes RP quality, this will be an attractive feature to draw in others who have misgivings about the organization(s) at present. Personally, I would love to get involved in some proper detective and/or forensics RP but the amount of nonsense and bad company I would have to endure to get there is simply not worth it.

 

1 hour ago, AVRO DANKASTER said:

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.

I have enough script cash across my characters to play out my designs comfortably, and I'm not terribly concerned with anything but maintaining a respectable level of wealth beyond that. However, the value of that wealth and relative status decreases dramatically when the disposable income of your average officer is inordinately high and there aren't many other tangible indicators of success than material wealth. It creates a perceived inflation in which the purchasing power of the cash I've made is relatively worthless when compared to that of an officer, or the sole proprietor and operator of a bar. Prices do not increase simply because an individual is from the government - they either remain low in which a legal org employee would (usually) not voluntarily pay more than is necessary, or they inflate to levels that create difficulty for someone without that level of pay. An exception would be tips, of course, but even that tends to restrict us to the same tired business tropes we've been seeing for a long time now.

 

You view government payrolls as creating primary spenders. I view them as creating an artificial aristocracy.

 

But again, the line detailing the plan about tax cuts leaves me hopeful about this exchange, and I certainly look forward to seeing these problems disappear if the solution truly is so easy.

 

1 hour ago, AVRO DANKASTER said:

 Why are the high salaries paid by GOV agencies a problem, again?

To reiterate the points above, despite no new funds entering the economic loop, they devalue the currency of everyone around them. They result in a situation in which it is impossible to portray the character they've created. They lure in individuals of sub-par quality that end up comprising a sizable portion of these orgs.

 

But the largest issue I have is that there is no comparable path to financial success.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Smilesville

[AVRO DANKASTER]

Salaries aren't an incentive program and nowhere did I state that they are. The expectation of the best possible service is supported by the fact that by paying a comparatively high salary increases the average quality of work by increasing the total amount of applicants - that permits for selectiveness while maintaining sufficient workforce figures, and that's the logic my character uses to support the current levels of expenditure.

 

On 2/13/2019 at 3:36 AM, Smilesville said:

The exact manner in which the government system works is neither here nor there with regards to the topic at hand - the overarching point I sought to make is that it is not an appropriate replacement for the way the script itself works. I can see the benefit it could potentially provide to a subset of businesses, yet my primary gripe is that these tend to be far too restrictive. The idea that financial solvency in a patchwork economy is the first priority is a little backwards, in my opinion. We should be more concerned with the RP a business creates rather than whether or not it can pay back its credit.

 

Unrealistic? I can acknowledge that, but I'm coming to the conclusion that a certain suspension of disbelief is required to achieve an atmosphere in which we have the optimal amount of creative freedom.

 

 

Here's the thing - either we're talking about a coherent economy, or we start disconnecting certain aspects of it from each other because of "creative freedom". We can't have both. The expectation of profitability for a business has to exist or nothing will make sense anymore. It's not about suspension of disbelief - it's about the core values on which we're building the economy. What you're basically hinting at - and, I'll simplify here a little - is a utopian system of enterpreneurship in which the idea itself is sufficient for your business to exist indefinitely, regardless of how good or bad you are at actually excecuting the said idea.

 

We shouldn't be focused on what RP the business generates if we're talking about the economy. Because if that's the case, we'll be falling into the trap of a centrally planned economy in which we have to determine the viability and profitability of every business idea ever, and then constantly tinker with the balance sheet of the said business for it to stay accurate and reflect the previous profitability quota. Do I need to mention how problematic that would be? And before we talk about suggesting, let's say, dividing the businesses into categories of income and addressing it that way? That's just group politics and on a purely ideological level, I disagree with it because of how detrimental to individual performance it would be.

 

What my programs do is simple and in line with my own attitude - you're free to start any business you want, and we're more than happy to be an incubator for you and cover your expenses for a set period of time. But, eventually, the execution of your idea will have to be good enough for your business to continue purely on its own merits. 

 

On top of that, you constantly seem to understate just how lenient the government is with funding for businesses. We're well aware of how difficult it is at the moment, but it does not mean we will remain inconsistent. We expect profitability. However, the credits we offer are interest-free and split into so many payments no business would ever have a problem with making them on time if they put in a modicum of effort. You'd know that if you'd pursue that path.

 

On 2/13/2019 at 3:36 AM, Smilesville said:

[...] or remove a portion of taxes generated from the economic loop. Rather than receiving all of the road tax paid on a vehicle, for example, the government would only receive half of it for redistribution with the rationale that the other half actually goes to maintaining roads as a matter of upkeep for the city.

 

 

The idea of removing part of the taxes from circulation is one of the most misguided I've ever heard. It would mean the economy would be haemorrhaging money, and given the fact the removal of server-side payment script jobs is imminent, it would eventually result in a massive decrease of money supply in circulation. Don't forget that the prices are static, and neither inflation nor deflation applies, and with the decrease in money supply, we'd eventually reach a point in which there is no longer sufficient amount of cash in circulation to purchase anything. A long-term solution which isn't sustainable can't be possibly considered sound economics. 

 

On 2/13/2019 at 3:36 AM, Smilesville said:

I'm not sure I agree that government employees "supercharge" growth; there's nothing I've witnessed to suggest that they pay more at an establishment than any other individual. More often than not, the money ends up hoarded until the gov employee in question 1) drops a disproportionate amount on someone or something, 2) purchases a house or vehicle so obscenely expensive that the staff steps in, or 3) quits the organization, changes the name of their character, and buys whatever they so desire. The very fact that staff have to monitor the purchases of legal org employees is indicative of a problem with the levels of pay they're receiving.

 

Be so kind as to not misrepresent my argument. I've said that they can supercharge it, not that they supercharge it at the moment. They don't, due to a plethora of factors, most of which aren't anywhere near the realm of economics. And,no. It's not an indication of a problem with the levels of pay, it's the indication of a general disconnect between layers of the economy AND a roleplay quality issue. High salaries they receive are warranted by the current state of the economy, and the fact the ways in which they can spend it are restricted is silly. But, it is what it is and given the said restrictions are in place, I shall use them imposed by the administration further down as an argument against the claims of actual (not perceived) devaluation caused by government employees.

 

On 2/13/2019 at 3:36 AM, Smilesville said:

I am cautiously optimistic that tax cuts will sort out some of the issues we've been having, but part of my problem also stems from the fact that those of us in positions to do so should use that authority to safeguard the economy. Rather than approving a budget based on the number of members and their activity levels and approving advances on the next budget when theirs run out, why not force them into a corner by curbing the budget and refusing to raise their spending limits? Again, tax cuts will certainly have that effect, but the problem could be remedied much sooner at the budgeting level. Hell, "we're about to pass tax cuts so we need to build up a safety net of revenue" isn't such a bad reason to start doing that either.

 

I suppose "be the change you want to see" is what I'm getting at, there.

 

I'm sorry, but it's not the first time you bring this up, so I feel like I need to be brusque. You don't know how the city budgets are handled and you've never made any effort to contact us about what we, as the office of the mayor, do with the budget requests we receive from the departments.

 

I can't possibly take your argument seriously if all you do is create a strawman and misrepresent the reality.

 

On 2/13/2019 at 3:36 AM, Smilesville said:

From multiple discussions with several individuals involve in legal organizations at many different levels, I can assure you that the vetting is minimal at best - the police department has long had issues with RP quality to the point where "robocop" is a meme. Even if they did go around spending the money as quickly as they could, I wouldn't necessarily think that to be an appropriate portrayal of their character - it's not a scenario they can win, and I understand that.

 

What you bring up about the "robocop" meme. How's that anything beyond a roleplay quality issue? How do you expect an economy change to improve roleplay quality? It goes the other way around, positive change in roleplay quality improves the economy.

 

 

On 2/13/2019 at 3:36 AM, Smilesville said:

My suspicion is that when the paychecks drop, the issue with subpar RP will be self-correcting. That is, the primary motivating factor for the people we don't want in these organizations is the large bump in pay, and when their checks start falling in line with what everyone else on the server makes, their numbers will start to dwindle. As the primary motivating factor of the ranks becomes RP quality, this will be an attractive feature to draw in others who have misgivings about the organization(s) at present. Personally, I would love to get involved in some proper detective and/or forensics RP but the amount of nonsense and bad company I would have to endure to get there is simply not worth it.

 

I'll humour your claim that a decrease in government salaries will improve the roleplay quality. The end result will be a pool of people who know how to spend their money "better" - that is, supporting your local businessess - but have less of it to go about. 

 

That said, I disagree with your claim. People do not join the government agencies for money - they do so because of the streamlined roleplay experience it provides. You don't have to worry about creating your own roleplay when the whole server population does it for you, every day. We're talking about the OOC level here, of course. On an IC level, I maintain that high salaries bring in more applicants, which in turn permits for selectiveness.

 

On 2/13/2019 at 3:36 AM, Smilesville said:

You view government payrolls as creating primary spenders. I view them as creating an artificial aristocracy.

 

Arguing semantics is such a pointless endeavour. They have money that they can spend, and they got it from the government - hence, primary spender. 

On 2/13/2019 at 3:36 AM, Smilesville said:

But again, the line detailing the plan about tax cuts leaves me hopeful about this exchange, and I certainly look forward to seeing these problems disappear if the solution truly is so easy.

 

I don't recall saying there's anything easy about fixing it. Tax cuts will translate into lower government spending, which in turn can translate into lower salaries. None of which addresses the lack of spending, the fixed prices and unlimited supply conundrum, the lack of proportion between acquisition price for perishables and more expensive assets and all the other of dozens of economical inconsistencies GTA:W has generated over its lifespan.

 

Tax cuts alone will not fix the economy. That's why I've said your thread isn't about fixing the economy, it's only about lowering the government salaries because your perception of social status isn't what you'd like it to be due to how high they are at the moment. I'm solving your problem, not fixing the economy. You will no longer feel that the wealth you've accumulated is somehow worth less because fewer people will have the means to live the way your character does. 

 

On 2/13/2019 at 3:36 AM, Smilesville said:

To reiterate the points above, despite no new funds entering the economic loop, they devalue the currency of everyone around them. They result in a situation in which it is impossible to portray the character they've created. They lure in individuals of sub-par quality that end up comprising a sizable portion of these orgs.

 

The devaluation claim is inaccurate and doesn't take into account how this server economy is currently designed. How do they devalue the currency of people around them if they are restricted on what properties can purchase, and there is no scarcity of supply for anything except properties, prices for which are predetermined by the administrators and heavily regulated afterwards? Moreover, nearly all other prices on the server are STATIC, which is another fact inconsistent with your statement, as if the prices always remain the same, the purchasing power of one dollar is not decreased regardless of the amount of currency in circulation. It's only about the perception - which you've highlighted before, but for some reason strayed away from here.

 

On 2/13/2019 at 3:36 AM, Smilesville said:

But the largest issue I have is that there is no comparable path to financial success.

Why is it an issue?

 

 

There is one - solo ownership of a mainstream, script-crutch supported business. Which is fucking stupid and I hate every second of it. It shouldn't be the place of the script to determine the profitability of the business, but the players. But, oh well. The circumstances are what they are, and it was considered to be an essential part of the economy. That's besides the point.

 

 

There's one point on which I agree with you - the economy, at the moment, isn't what it should be, and requires a lot of work across nearly all aspects of it. But the things suggested in this thread are so far out from what I consider a valid economic policy that most of them aren't even wrong.

 

The real problem here is the fact that regardless of what we do with the government salaries, there are far more pressing roleplay quality issues among our community. All niche businesses will fail as there are no customers to compete for and all other businesses will optimize to make the best use of whatever script crutch we throw out there because of misguided economy "ideas" brought up in threads like this. It's detrimental to roleplay to involve the script patchworks. Period.

Edited February 15, 2019 by AVRO DANKASTER

[Smilesville]

5 hours ago, AVRO DANKASTER said:

Salaries aren't an incentive program and nowhere did I state that they are. The expectation of the best possible service is supported by the fact that by paying a comparatively high salary increases the average quality of work by increasing the total amount of applicants - that permits for selectiveness while maintaining sufficient workforce figures, and that's the logic my character uses to support the current levels of expenditure.

The fact that salaries are an incentive program is self-evident; in a true economy your assertion might be correct, but you neglect to factor in limits of the talent pool. In other words, increasing pay does not automatically assure the quality of the candidates for the position - and again, vetting for these organizations is extremely poor or nonexistent. Sufficient workforce figures could be maintained at much lower funding levels, and if blowing out the budget isn't resulting in higher quality candidates, why do it? And I believe we have our answer here:

17 hours ago, AVRO DANKASTER said:

[...] the current state of the economy favours another group that happens to not be you.

I have been tame on this point, but "the economy" isn't favoring a group - you are favoring a group. This is self-aggrandizing nonsense in which you deign to determine that government employees should comprise a class of primary spenders. This is so far removed from reality as to create the ridiculous scenarios I'd outlined earlier. The economy isn't just "broken." It's nonexistent outside the relationships of suppliers to everyone else.

5 hours ago, AVRO DANKASTER said:

What you're basically hinting at - and, I'll simplify here a little - is a utopian system of enterpreneurship in which the idea itself is sufficient for your business to exist indefinitely, regardless of how good or bad you are at actually excecuting the said idea. [...] We shouldn't be focused on what RP the business generates if we're talking about the economy. Because if that's the case, we'll be falling into the trap of a centrally planned economy in which we have to determine the viability and profitability of every business idea ever, and then constantly tinker with the balance sheet of the said business for it to stay accurate and reflect the previous profitability quota.

You're wildly mischaracterizing what I want to see - which is a lower barrier to entry for new businesses. The new regulations for construction businesses is a step in the right direction, but how does this relate to reduction in legal organization salaries at all? If someone wants to pour endless hours into a business that generates no profit, well, that's their decision to make - that's hardly utopian. Generating good RP is the first priority of the server, even over the economy - and so if it has to be slightly unrealistic with regards to the ease of starting a business? So be it.

 

Before you explode with accusations of COMMUNISM, I would encourage you to take the entirety of my statement at face value and stop making wild extrapolations. Literally none of what you've just said has been what I've suggested, so I'll summarize my problems succinctly:

1. The income of legal organizations is out of proportion with the server and with reality.
2. The script encourages the same mundane business models (bars.)
3. The government programs cannot address issues with the script.

That's it. That's the totality of the issues I have. Any point I've ever made in this thread has been extrapolating one of these points or proposing a solution for it. So what are our solutions?

1. Reduce the paychecks of legal organization members.
2. Rework the script of the entry fee to remove the thousand dollar bonuses you receive per person and find a way to incentivize behavior that the server itself wishes to incentivize - RP. I proposed scaling profits based on how many people remained within a business for a period of time - you told me the government programs would remove the need to fix the script. It has not, by any stretch of the imagination.
3. Don't pretend the government programs can fix the script.

If your motivation is truly to help create an economy that both mirrors reality and encourages creativity, by all means, provide short, succinct, alternative solutions to the problems above. If your motivation is to maintain government paychecks so you and your buddies can buy planes the moment you quit government service, kindly stop posting.

 

I'd like to actually play today, so I'll summarize my remaining points as short as I can.

 

6 hours ago, AVRO DANKASTER said:

The idea of removing part of the taxes from circulation is one of the most misguided I've ever heard. It would mean the economy would be haemorrhaging money, and given the fact the removal of server-side payment script jobs is imminent, it would eventually result in a massive decrease of money supply in circulation. Don't forget that the prices are static, and neither inflation nor deflation applies, and with the decrease in money supply, we'd eventually reach a point in which there is no longer sufficient amount of cash in circulation to purchase anything. A long-term solution which isn't sustainable can't be possibly considered sound economics. 

We've been inflated for a long time. We can trickle money and lower script prices until things come in line with reality.

 

6 hours ago, AVRO DANKASTER said:

It's not an indication of a problem with the levels of pay, it's the indication of a general disconnect between layers of the economy AND a roleplay quality issue. High salaries they receive are warranted by the current state of the economy, and the fact the ways in which they can spend it is silly. But, it is what it is and given they are in place, I shall use the restrictions imposed by the administration further down as an argument against the claims of actual (not perceived) devaluation caused by government employees. 

Roleplay quality should not automatically translate to an increased paycheck. "It is what it is" is not an acceptable answer from someone in place to change it. Of course the devaluation is perceived.

 

6 hours ago, AVRO DANKASTER said:

I'm sorry, but it's not the first time you bring this up, so I feel like I need to be brusque. You don't know how the city budgets are handled and you've never made any effort to contact us about what we, as the office of the mayor, do with the budget requests we receive from the departments. 

Then explain how my assertion is incorrect rather than saying "you don't know because you weren't there."

 

6 hours ago, AVRO DANKASTER said:

People do not join the government agencies for money - they do so because of the streamlined roleplay experience it provides. You don't have to worry about creating your own roleplay when the whole server population does it for you, every day. We're talking about the OOC level here, of course. On an IC level, I maintain that high salaries bring in more applicants, which in turn permits for selectiveness.

A sizable plurality, perhaps even the majority, join for the paychecks - IC and OOC. If you disagree, limit budgets and see how fast they leave.

 

6 hours ago, AVRO DANKASTER said:

The devaluation claim is inaccurate and doesn't take into account how this server economy is currently designed. How do they devalue the currency of people around them if they are restricted on what properties can purchase, and there is no scarcity of supply for anything except properties, prices for which are predetermined by the administrators and heavily regulated afterwards? Moreover, nearly all other prices on the server are STATIC, which is another fact inconsistent with your statement, as if the prices always remain the same, the purchasing power of one dollar is not decreased regardless of the amount of currency in circulation. It's only about the perception - which you've highlighted before, but for some reason strayed away from here.

Prices for properties are not "heavily regulated afterwards." The devaluation is perceptive, not absolute - most evident in the amounts people request for properties.

 

6 hours ago, AVRO DANKASTER said:

Why is it [it, being that there's no financially viable path comparable to being in a legal organization] an issue?

Because it's wildly unrealistic and self-perpetuating by the people making the decisions.

 

6 hours ago, AVRO DANKASTER said:

It shouldn't be the place of the script to determine the profitability of the business, but the players. But, oh well. The circumstances are what they are, and it was considered to be an essential part of the economy. That's besides the point. 

You fix that by having the script recognize when players are "choosing" a business.

 

6 hours ago, AVRO DANKASTER said:

The real problem here is the fact that regardless of what we do with the government salaries, there are far more pressing roleplay quality issues among our community. All niche businesses will fail as there are no customers to compete for and all other businesses will optimize to make the best use of whatever script crutch we throw out there because of misguided economy "ideas" brought up in threads like this. It's detrimental to roleplay to involve the script patchworks. Period. 

The script is a tool. Use the tool to encourage behavior you want and discourage behavior you don't. Metaphorically, you can't build a house without people, but you also can't build a house without tools - we need both, not one or the other.

[AVRO DANKASTER]

1 hour ago, Smilesville said:

he fact that salaries are an incentive program is self-evident; in a true economy your assertion might be correct, but you neglect to factor in limits of the talent pool. In other words, increasing pay does not automatically assure the quality of the candidates for the position - and again, vetting for these organizations is extremely poor or nonexistent. Sufficient workforce figures could be maintained at much lower funding levels, and if blowing out the budget isn't resulting in higher quality candidates, why do it? And I believe we have our answer here:

You're addressing an IC argument in an OOC manner? Why?

 

1 hour ago, Smilesville said:

I have been tame on this point, but "the economy" isn't favoring a group - you are favoring a group. This is self-aggrandizing nonsense in which you deign to determine that government employees should comprise a class of primary spenders. This is so far removed from reality as to create the ridiculous scenarios I'd outlined earlier. The economy isn't just "broken." It's nonexistent outside the relationships of suppliers to everyone else.

What decision have I made to favour the group? The economy favours the group of people within the active cycle. Currently, there's only one active cycle - which is between the taxes and the government payrolls. That's by design that's in place for far longer than I am. The people in that cycle are the primary spenders - which would not be an issue if their expenditure didn't return back to me as tax and/or was frozen on their accounts, but instead was used to support the tertiary economy. Which is an issue, first and foremost, of LOW ROLEPLAY QUALITY. Not economics. 

 

1 hour ago, Smilesville said:

You're wildly mischaracterizing what I want to see - which is a lower barrier to entry for new businesses. The new regulations for construction businesses is a step in the right direction, but how does this relate to reduction in legal organization salaries at all? If someone wants to pour endless hours into a business that generates no profit, well, that's their decision to make - that's hardly utopian. Generating good RP is the first priority of the server, even over the economy - and so if it has to be slightly unrealistic with regards to the ease of starting a business? So be it.

I'm not mischaracterizing anything, what you're asking for is continuous support for businesses for which there is otherwise no interest because of the perceived "RP value" they bring to the table. And I disagree with that concept.

 

I don't understand what your problem is here. You can create any business that you want and its creation will be supported financially by the government for a fair period of time (months, most often), during which you're supposed to spark enough interest among the players for them to make use of your services. If your business generated no interest, why should it exist? What roleplay does it generate? It's the lack of a culture of spending to support the projects people like that's the problem. Not the economy.

 

Lowering legal organisation salaries only reduces the total amount of money your potential customers can spend during any given period of time.

1 hour ago, Smilesville said:

Before you explode with accusations of COMMUNISM, I would encourage you to take the entirety of my statement at face value and stop making wild extrapolations. Literally none of what you've just said has been what I've suggested, so I'll summarize my problems succinctly:

1. The income of legal organizations is out of proportion with the server and with reality.
2. The script encourages the same mundane business models (bars.)
3. The government programs cannot address issues with the script.

That's it. That's the totality of the issues I have. Any point I've ever made in this thread has been extrapolating one of these points or proposing a solution for it. So what are our solutions?

1. The income of legal organisations equals the taxes we collect. If we can afford to pay the salaries from the amount we're collecting, the salaries are in line with the economy of the server.

 

They aren't in line with the reality, because if they were, we'd be forced to consider salaries of roughly $900 to $1000 /a week/ to be the gold standard, and I haven't noticed anyone advocating for the slowing down of the pace of the server that much.

 

2. and 3. The script encourages them by paying them fees for customer visits regardless of whether the customer was satisfied, used the services within or anything else. And I've already stated that I find this idea incredibly dumb. And no, I can't address that issue because I lack the access to the backend which would permit me to take away the script payments from the businesses that have received it.

 

1 hour ago, Smilesville said:

• Reduce the paychecks of legal organization members.
• Rework the script of the entry fee to remove the thousand dollar bonuses you receive per person and find a way to incentivize behavior that the server itself wishes to incentivize - RP. I proposed scaling profits based on how many people remained within a business for a period of time - you told me the government programs would remove the need to fix the script. It has not, by any stretch of the imagination.
• Don't pretend the government programs can fix the script.

Reduction of the paychecks doesn't result in anything but a change of perception of what is considered "wealthy" on the server. Don't pretend it fixes any root cause of the issues with the current economy.

 

Reworking the script - no. Work with the players instead. Choice, not coercion. Otherwise, again, we fall into the trap of a centrally planned economy.

 

The government programs are in place specifically to decrease the start-up costs of the businesses, and they do that job exceptionally well.

1 hour ago, Smilesville said:

We've been inflated for a long time. We can trickle money and lower script prices until things come in line with reality.

By trickling money out we shrink the economy as a whole which would result in less room for businesses to operate. I thought you wanted more of businesses to be able to operate freely. Also, no. I don't recall the prices changing that much since the start of the server.

 

1 hour ago, Smilesville said:

Roleplay quality should not automatically translate to an increased paycheck. "It is what it is" is not an acceptable answer from someone in place to change it. Of course the devaluation is perceived.

Perhaps you should take a second or two more to think over your response, then. "It is what it is" is a reference to the fact there are admin restrictions in place.

 

I've specifically stated that the high salaries are the result of high government income and that the low roleplay quality is an issue because the high salaries aren't utilized by the employees as the should. Nowhere did I say that high roleplay quality translates into a higher paycheck. What I've said is that higher roleplay quality translates into positive economic trends as people are more aware to how important it is for them to support other roleplayers with their spending.

 

1 hour ago, Smilesville said:

Then explain how my assertion is incorrect rather than saying "you don't know because you weren't there."

The requests I receive cover the needs of the department, the current rosters, and planned spending for the period in question. The actual budgets are planned accordingly to the department position quotas and certified lists we've determined while entering the office. All other expenditures are limited and require full breakdown of reasoning behind it, fleet maintenance figures have been determined through observation of fuel expenditures over a period of time, any civil liability payments trigger immediate re-review of the IA proceedings, and many, many more steps like that which permit me to examine and determine every unit of appropriation for the period in question. 

 

1 hour ago, Smilesville said:

A sizable plurality, perhaps even the majority, join for the paychecks - IC and OOC. If you disagree, limit budgets and see how fast they leave.

The budgets are limited. You're asking for a paycheck reduction, and I'm not touching that until the administration is done with their revamp.

 

1 hour ago, Smilesville said:

Because it's wildly unrealistic and self-perpetuating by the people making the decisions.

It's not unrealistic from an economic point of view. It's not my role to enforce roleplay standards all across the server, it's to utilize the government resources to the best of my ability and develop a working government administration which can be the bedrock of the legal roleplay on the server.

 

1 hour ago, Smilesville said:

You fix that by having the script recognize when players are "choosing" a business.

You fix that by encouraging players to make a decision and transfer the funds to the business they support.

 

1 hour ago, Smilesville said:

The script is a tool. Use the tool to encourage behavior you want and discourage behavior you don't. Metaphorically, you can't build a house without people, but you also can't build a house without tools - we need both, not one or the other.

I'd much rather encourage the behaviour I want by convincing the player population that it is beneficial for everyone to do so rather than coercing them to do something through the script. Roleplay has always been about the freedom of doing what you want, and what you're suggesting goes against that. Hence, the fundamental disagreement. 

Edited February 13, 2019 by AVRO DANKASTER

[Velora]

9 hours ago, AVRO DANKASTER said:

 

When shall we expect jobs within Gov to open up. so that we all can take part in the incentives?

[AVRO DANKASTER]

4 minutes ago, Velora said:

When shall we expect jobs within Gov to open up. so that we all can take part in the incentives?

The Public Works Department was hiring just last week, the Bureau of Public Transit will be in the upcoming week or two. I'll resume hiring for the remainder of the departments after I fully establish the legal grounds for their operation through the new charter and ordinance. 

 

Meanwhile, I encourage you to simply send in your resume to the directors of the departments you're interested in as a proactive way of getting your character's name into the conversation.

Edited February 13, 2019 by AVRO DANKASTER

[iAMTemple]

* Cough* I'm still owed $625,000 for my business start up with government credit and it's been 3 months *Cough*

Edited February 13, 2019 by ALT2

[AVRO DANKASTER]

35 minutes ago, ALT2 said:

* Cough* I'm still owed $625,000 for my business start up with government credit and it's been 3 months *Cough*

Are you sure you've sent the documents we've asked for?

 

Edit: I've checked, and no. Beyond the initial $125,000 we've released for the first stage of construction based on your application, we've received no additional documentation regarding the construction process, hence the funds weren't released.

 

 

Edited February 13, 2019 by AVRO DANKASTER

[Smilesville]

31 minutes ago, AVRO DANKASTER said:

You're addressing an IC argument in an OOC manner? Why? 

There is no IC argument I am addressing in an OOC manner. Your decision to blow out the budget every month is an OOC issue at heart due to the fact that the income is generated by the OOC tax script.

32 minutes ago, AVRO DANKASTER said:

What decision have I made to favour the group? The economy favours the group of people within the active cycle. Currently, there's only one active cycle - which is between the taxes and the government payrolls. That's by design that's in place for far longer than I am. The people in that cycle are the primary spenders - which would not be an issue if their expenditure didn't return back to me as tax and/or was frozen on their accounts, but instead was used to support the tertiary economy. Which is an issue, first and foremost, of LOW ROLEPLAY QUALITY. Not economics.  

So you made the decision to kick the can down the road because "that was in place for far longer than I am." No government in the history of the world has ever only spent money on employee paychecks, and that's part of what a tax bleed is designed to simulate - the purchase of expendable materials for the upkeep of roads, for instance. Until a point in time comes that the economy becomes closed circle, having only cash influx without a cash drain will inevitably result in the ridiculousness you get so defensive about.

 

If we want to take this to the logical extreme, the entire government system is an OOC construct that was installed because someone, somewhere thought we needed it. Where did taxes go before that? The original purpose of the tax system was to offset the capital generated by the script to keep a relative balance - and the very existence of the government faction throws that balance out the window.

 

The quality of roleplay has no bearing on how the script brings in tax revenue. What it sounds like you're saying is "if only everyone would spontaneously roleplay better, then this would be fixed." You can throw away that little pipe dream now; the best we can do is encourage people to act in a realistic manner by providing them a scripted incentive to do so.

46 minutes ago, AVRO DANKASTER said:

1. The income of legal organisations equals the taxes we collect. If we can afford to pay the salaries from the amount we're collecting, the salaries are in line with the economy of the server. 

  

They aren't in line with the reality, because if they were, we'd be forced to consider salaries of roughly $900 to $1000 /a week/ to be the gold standard, and I haven't noticed anyone advocating for the slowing down of the pace of the server that much. 

But that's not what I said, is it? I said their incomes were out of proportion - specifically, in relation to other incomes on the server.

 

I'd be fine with slowing the server down that much. I'll say this - that would make adding new scripted items for purchase much easier to transpose from their real-life counterparts.

50 minutes ago, AVRO DANKASTER said:

Reduction of the paychecks doesn't result in anything but a change of perception of what is considered "wealthy" on the server. Don't pretend it fixes any root cause of the issues with the current economy.

 

Reworking the script - no. Work with the players instead. Choice, not coercion. Otherwise, again, we fall into the trap of a centrally planned economy.

 

The government programs are in place specifically to decrease the start-up costs of the businesses, and they do that job exceptionally well.

Reduction of the paychecks result in a system much more in line with the rest of the server - specifically, that people have roughly equivalent income levels and have to budget to purchase the things they want. It doesn't fix economic issues, it fixes people issues.

 

How can you say in the same breath that you find the script in question "incredibly dumb" and then not want to fix it?

 

Lenient or no, that money has to be paid back. It sounds like covering construction under grants could solve both of your issues of "we have too much money to spend" and "we want to help businesses" at the same time, but you prefer instead to inflate paychecks. Why, if not for the sake of hand picking winners and losers in the economy?

58 minutes ago, AVRO DANKASTER said:

By trickling money out we shrink the economy as a whole which would result in less room for businesses to operate. I thought you wanted more of businesses to be able to operate freely. Also, no. I don't recall the prices changing that much since the start of the server. 

Combating inflation is not equivalent to shrinking the economy. A house in Venezuela is not worth more than a mansion in the United States simply because the former costs a greater number of bolivars to purchase than a mansion would dollars.

 

I remember people being upset at the notion of a $50 beer. Now, that's practically half price. Of course the prices have changed - perhaps not through script items, but items of adjustable cost most certainly have.

 

1 hour ago, AVRO DANKASTER said:

I've specifically stated that the high salaries are the result of high government income and that the low roleplay quality is an issue because the high salaries aren't utilized by the employees as the should. Nowhere did I say that high roleplay quality translates into a higher paycheck. What I've said is that higher roleplay quality translates into positive economic trends as people are more aware to how important it is for them to support other roleplayers with their spending. 

Have you considered that, perhaps, the low quality of roleplay isn't that employees aren't spending their exorbitant salaries on expensive things, but because the individual responsible for the budget doesn't care that he's paying them many times over their actual market value? The legal org members who're actually decent roleplayers just ignore that bank account number and go on as they always have without expensive cars or spending exorbitantly. Your rationale for keeping things the way they are anticipates that the recipients of those paychecks will spend them in a fashion unsuitable for their character, thereby lowering the quality of play for each of these individuals - and the organization as a whole.

 

If you were playing an officer, I guarantee you that the mentality of "if I have all this money in my bank account, so I may as well spend it" would not be tolerated. We have evidence of this; plenty of players have been reprimanded for it.

 

If you truly believe that it's acceptable for a beat cop to have the most expensive vehicles on the server, I'm wasting my time explaining the rest of this.

[iAMTemple]

Loving this thread so far

Edited February 13, 2019 by ALT2