I refer you to my post #178 above. I believe the fallacy is the assumption that the relative cost of living is the same for TL5 societies as for TL8 societies.
Hans
Subsector Fleet make-up in 1105
- Thread starter Chuck Anumia
- Start date
Hans
Those numbers can't even be taken as a constant. (For example, my own household expenses are 50% food, 40% housing, 5% other, of my after-entitlements household income. Before my injury to my knee, food was about 20% of my income, housing was 65%, Misc expenses were about 10% (including vehicle maintenance and fuel), and the rest was entertainment.)
It's not uncommon for rent+utilities to run 3-4 times the food bill in Alaska. transportation often runs as much as groceries.
And I have friends in Oregon who spend as much on housing as I used to, but half as much on food, and about the same on vehicles.
I propose them as figures that are good enough for generic game background purposes. If you have knowledge of societies with different food/lodging/other stuff splits, and you have a specific fictional world that you think would correspond to such a split, by all means use them instead.
I have to say that I'm astonished to hear of a society where food and lodging take up 95% of disposable income. I've heard of cheap food/expensive lodging and vice versa, but I would think that those two budgetary item would need to leave more than 5% for clothes and other non-food necessities.
Hans
That's actually pretty typical throughout the US - at least for the lowest income segments. Lots of families in the poorest 20% of the population have effectively no disposable income after housing, food, transportation, and clothing replacement. Just about 1/5 of the population is entitled to food assistance. (cite: CNSnews.com)
Clothes and other durable non-food necessities often have to be second-hand. The non-durables are tooth care goods, soap, toilet tissue.
It's extremely common for the urban poor in the US to have no entertainment money left after bills, transportation, and non-durable necessities.
Ah, I see what's happening. I'm talking about average living while you are talking about poor living.
If you want to differentiate by income bracket cross-referenced to tech level, by all means do so. Meanwhile, I submit that my model will do for game purposes for generic societies.
Likewise for game purposes I suggest that PC expenses are assumed to average out at TL12, allowing players to pay their living expenses according to a single set of costs (Twice those listed in the CT rules for long-term expenses).
Hans
In fairness, I was discussing poor living - well, subsistence living - as a floor for the GWP, so it was fair for him to use that as a basis.
I get your point: as tech level changes, underlying assumptions change. The percentage of income spent on food in a society that depends on gas driven tractors and the vagaries of weather and soil will not be the same as in a society that can use tech to automate farming tasks, practice weather control and cheaply extend farming to more marginal lands. I tend to see that as already folded into the GNP figures that Striker provides. Aramis responds that it can be very easy to get lost in the details when we base decisions on that kind of analysis since modern experience tells us there's a wide, wide variety in living standards depending on where you are and what your circumstances are.
I feel I've moved us in a confusing direction with my argument over the TL5 GWP. I believe it's wrong. I believe very strongly that it's wrong; it violates basic principals of sociology and economics. However, it is a very minor detail affecting a tech level that does not in fact produce spaceships nor much wealth for its Imperial masters to spend on spacecraft. It's just, I have more knowledge of sociology than physics and react more viscerally when the game stomps on social sciences than when it stomps on physics. It's a button thing; it violates the willing suspension of disbelief necessary for one to sit down and play with sentient bipedal dogs and lions.
Here's the thing: the thread is about subsector fleet makeup. Drawing conclusions about subsector fleet makeup is essentially impossible without some vague idea of the economics underpinning the tax base that funds that fleet. CT canon gives us very, very little to go on when trying to understand those economics. Our best sources are a pair of wargames that weren't really intended to be drafted into that purpose and a pair of very different trade rules that were intended to provide a mouse eye view of the interstellar trade scene. Well, until someone comes up with better tools for the CT setting, we've little choice but to work with the tools we've got.
The two wargames seem to conflict, thus my early confusion as to your source for the 20% figure. However, if you look closely, they don't necessarily conflict - they're just answering different questions. Other than that seriously lamentable bit regarding the Tech Level 5 economy (I ain't backin' off, minor though the point may be), they work fine together if you assume TCS is giving you a picture of the overall economy and Striker is telling you what it would cost to import after considering both the economy and the impact of the Merchant Prince trade rules. Or at least, they work as fine as any two products can work when they really weren't intended to work together. And, that TCS starship construction cost bit does serendipitously provide an economic basis for the ships-at-a-variety-of-tech-levels bit that canon is trying to sell us; without that, we're kind of left scratching our heads.
Which is to say: until such time as the powers that be give us something intended for the job, these will work tolerably well for the task of figuring out subsector fleet resources in someone's TU.
Fair enough.
I likewise think that it's folded into the GNP figures that Striker provides. And I'm suggesting that this is TOO simplified and providing a reasonably uncomplicated amendment.
One thing to keep in mind is that the GWP tables seem to include a value judgement, if that's the word I want, about the exchange value of low-tech economies. I don't think the writers actually believed that at TL4 people produced no value at all and that TL 0-3 people produced negative values (as an extrapolation of the per capita income tables would result in). I think they just assume that whatever is produced at TL 1-4 has too little exchange value to be worth anything at all in terms of export credits. Obvious a simplification. In the same way, perhaps TL5 productivity is degraded by currency exchange considerations.
Hans
Last edited:
With typical income distributions ( gini coefficients ~.3 to .6; the modern day earth as a whole is ~.71 ), fully two thirds of the population will make less than the GDP per capita with most making far less.
The earth's GDP per capita as a whole is about $12,500......
For the non-statistician, the gini coefficient measures inequality in a frequency distribution. Think of income distribution as a half parabolic curve on a graph: it starts at the bottom at one end, goes up slow - almost horizontal - but gets steeper as it goes farther to the right until it's almost vertical. Now draw a line between the lowest point and the highest point; if the curve followed that line, the gini would be 0 and income distribution's pretty even (and it wouldn't be a parabolic curve, but that's a semantic thing). The farther the curve gets from that line, the higher gini gets and the more extreme the income inequality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
(Another way to look at it is to think of it as measuring how wealthy the middle class is, since the middle class by definition occupies some middle point between the two extremes. A high gini means a steep curve means the middle class has less wealth than it would were income distributed more evenly. A low gini means a relatively wealthy middle class, when compared to the two extremes.)
A very low coefficient means there is very little inequality. A very high coefficient means there is very high income inequality. South Africa, for example, has a gini coefficient greater than 0.60, indicating that wealth is concentrated among very few. Sweden's gini coefficient is down around or under 0.25, indicating more equal distribution of wealth. The U.S. is currently midway between the two, with a gini coefficient somewhere in the mid 40's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
I do not find a source claiming a worldwide GINI close to 70; where are you getting that?
http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/hot-topics/worldinequality.aspx
It's an interesting tool if you want a simple number to describe a given world's income extremes - if you want to be able to know at a glance whether a world is Sweden-like with a wealthy middle class or impoverished with wealth concentrated among the oligarchs. However, there's nothing in the game to do that, so you're pretty well on your own - though an idea that comes to mind is to tap the law level and government level and fashion some sort of table from that, since greater income extremes tend to lead to more authoritarian government as the powerful try to keep a lid on things.
I'm not sure that it applies to the current discussion since a tech level alone isn't going to give you any clue as to the gini coefficient. Drawing on modern Earth as an example only has limited utility since we have nothing like cultures with entire planets at their disposal isolated from each other by weeks of space flight. However, it's a fascinating idea for adding another quick way to make the cultures players encounter more varied.
Actually, no, the economics issues are a fundamental part of the issue of subsector fleet funding.
What's a "pit"? And are you specifically objecting to the gini thing or generally to the overal discussion of economics?
I like the gini thing, but I agree it's not really necessary for figuring out how much money a world has available for the Emperor to tap into. As to the larger economic discussion, I'm not sure how we can discuss the Imperial fleet's funding without knowing how much funding is there, and I don't see a way to figure that out without some discussion of the overall money picture.
I like the gini thing, but I agree it's not really necessary for figuring out how much money a world has available for the Emperor to tap into. As to the larger economic discussion, I'm not sure how we can discuss the Imperial fleet's funding without knowing how much funding is there, and I don't see a way to figure that out without some discussion of the overall money picture.
The spin-off discussion was how two different economic rules fit together, one concerned the GWPs that are taxed to provide military budgets, but the other was the canonical costs of various social levels (Starvation, subsistence, average, and good, not SL 1, 2, 3, ...). The conclusion was that they didn't fit together.
Hans
I think an economic discussion adds a lot of value. Perhaps somewhere else on its own thread. Every world economy is different. It's an 11,000 topic discussion that might be summarized in a formula.
For the 1105 Subsector Fleet, specifications for the fleet have been put in place under canon. Some individuals have even laid out their specs own on other threads which is perfectly understandable. All we need to know is the cost of operations of said "subsector fleet" as specified in canon. Based are probably provided by Naval Facilities, of some sort.
Carlobrand,
The "pit" is a group of threads for COTI members specifically for real world day-to-day discussions where personal viewpoints may be shared.
For the 1105 Subsector Fleet, specifications for the fleet have been put in place under canon. Some individuals have even laid out their specs own on other threads which is perfectly understandable. All we need to know is the cost of operations of said "subsector fleet" as specified in canon. Based are probably provided by Naval Facilities, of some sort.
Carlobrand,
The "pit" is a group of threads for COTI members specifically for real world day-to-day discussions where personal viewpoints may be shared.
Various papers by Branco Milanovic at WorldBank.org
I've also posted elsewhere a paper that discusses the effects of technology and direct foreign investment, such as is probably practiced by megacorps, for example, on Gini values and income distribution.
I'll re-post the link here.
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/imfer/journal/v61/n2/full/imfer20137a.html
While this info won't really affect a world's GWP, it may affect the government spending which may have an effect of military spending; inequality is very often at the root of social unrest ( which, ironically, may be an excuse for increased military spending ).
Now, would the Imperium enforce a minimum standard for equality at some level to ensure a certain level of trade, or would it let world's do as they please in this respect regardless of how it may affect civil stability ( civil wars are bad for trade, overall ).
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
Arms dealers seem to do very well.
In times of "win or die" conflict each faction will spend any amount they can get their hands on to survive. If we compare WW2 To a planetary "civil war" we can see what will happen in terms of resource development, social change on both governmental levels as well as populous, etc.
Germany alone would be an example of extracting any and all of everything to further a war effort. Slave labor, synthetic fuels even extracting alcohol from bakery chimneys.
On a galactic scale anyone will move to fill a vacuum resulting from conflict.
My food & housing costs made over 95% of my basic net income in the late 80's, when the housing market crashed and interest rates were sky high. These days housing is minimal since the mortgage was paid off and food is still over 50%, but I like dining out.
Regards
David
salochin999
SOC-13
Interesting food for thought. If I had a conceptual budget of 64 ships for a sub-sector fleet I'd make it
assuming
1) a "ship of the line" type battle fleet
2) frigates as the battle fleet's recon
3) the fighting ships off load some of their needed cargo space into tenders that are part of the battle fleet
4) squadrons of 8
then I'd have two half fleets made up of
2 x squadrons of battleships
1 x squadron of frigates
1/2 squadron of tenders
with one half fleet at the sub-sector capital and the other on patrol (but only along the main trade routes between the major worlds of the sub-sector). That would be a total of 56 ships including 32 monster dreadnoughts.
The last 8 would be a squadron of cruisers who patrol singly or in pairs including the minor systems and deal with pirates, smugglers etc. The cruisers wouldn't need to be big as they'd only need to be able to defeat pirates and would likely be the only Imperial Navy ships a minor world might ever see.
Lastly a few squadrons of mothballed merchant escort ships to be crewed by reservists in time of war.
assuming
1) a "ship of the line" type battle fleet
2) frigates as the battle fleet's recon
3) the fighting ships off load some of their needed cargo space into tenders that are part of the battle fleet
4) squadrons of 8
then I'd have two half fleets made up of
2 x squadrons of battleships
1 x squadron of frigates
1/2 squadron of tenders
with one half fleet at the sub-sector capital and the other on patrol (but only along the main trade routes between the major worlds of the sub-sector). That would be a total of 56 ships including 32 monster dreadnoughts.
The last 8 would be a squadron of cruisers who patrol singly or in pairs including the minor systems and deal with pirates, smugglers etc. The cruisers wouldn't need to be big as they'd only need to be able to defeat pirates and would likely be the only Imperial Navy ships a minor world might ever see.
Lastly a few squadrons of mothballed merchant escort ships to be crewed by reservists in time of war.
For the Imperium it's not 64 ships. It's 64 (62½) major ships (battleships and cruisers) PLUS the undefined number of escorts and auxiliaries needed to support their operation.
Hans
salochin999
SOC-13
ah right
