Cost of Living and Governance

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by tetrahedron

We come back to the question of governance because B265 says the cost of living also includes servants at Status 1 or greater. An army of servants with wages could explain the operation of the state at Status 7 at a TL 3 level. The examples on B266 are lousy with examples of staff (particularly bodyguards for some reason) being paid out of cost of living. This is why I think high status cost of living must include the wages of staff, and thus governance.

That word you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"Governance" that is.

"https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/governance

......gves it the one word defintion of "Government" though it does go on to give several examples using it in a sentence.

In Gurps government authority is usally associated with Administrative Rank. In a real military dictatorship it might be Military Rank but that might be one of those situations where cost of a particular Rank goes up to 10pts/level and displaces general Status.

In any event it's Rank that grants legal authority. Flunkies hired using money from your Cost of Living is just a finacial transaction. Even hiring large quantites of mercenaries doesn't make you a Lord _directly_. You'd need to win the right battles and then probably use a particualrly aggressive specilization of the Politics Skill. This might even be a situation where Diplomacy doesn't always work. :)

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by tetrahedron

<snip>
So how do we justify the cost of living for status 4 and higher?

Remember the cost of living is the typical expenses for one month. If your sundries are capped at status 3 because we've maxed out the quality of common items, I'm finding the idea of spending $720 million yearly on typical expenses for Status 7 difficult to swallow. If it has to be a quirk of the system in order for GURPS to function with their wealth rules, I understand that limitation, but the above makes no sense to me.

<snip>

We come back to the question of governance because B265 says the cost of living also includes servants at Status 1 or greater. An army of servants with wages could explain the operation of the state at Status 7 at a TL 3 level. The examples on B266 are lousy with examples of staff (particularly bodyguards for some reason) being paid out of cost of living. This is why I think high status cost of living must include the wages of staff, and thus governance.

David Johnston2, your point about the difficulties of a TL 3 government are well taken. I think the answer is to accept the combination of the two. I see no problem with a king paying for his courtiers and his statues, and taking all the taxes for himself.

First, we explain the higher cost of living for Status 4+ partly as having more than just one of a given item. Second, we note that as per B265, the cost of living assumes you are at home all the time. If you aren't, the cost of food and lodging can take a big jump. Consider, a Status 3 person with a $12,000 monthly cost of living will pay $72,000 to stay at a swanky resort for a month and pay a further $14,200 if he eats three meals a day at a non-resort restaurant for that month, for a typical total expenditure of $84,200 for the month, or if he's just travelling or on vacation, he can get away with $72,000 for the month. If he stays at a luxury hotel suite (Status 2) instead, he can get away with paying $18,000 for lodging and eating at a Status 2 restaurant would drop that expense to $3,600 for the month. Third, we note that in some cases, you're 'paying for the name.' Membership in Mar-a-logo is expensive, but it's a dubious proposition that the service and accommodations are so much better than say The Royal York that they justify the additional expense. Besides the name, you're also paying for exclusiveness and you may have multiple memberships, not just in multiple resorts/clubs, but in provision for having one or more guests on a whim.

While the wages you pay your servants are normally part of your Cost of Living, they don't really explain the operation of the state at TL3. This does depend somewhat on who the state is, but let's use England as an example. I was just reading A Brief History of The English Civil Wars by John Miller and some of his points were eye-openers. The king had no standing army or police force [as guaranteed by the Magna Carta] and a miniscule professional bureaucracy. The vast majority of royal governance, especially local governance was done by unpaid local people: the parish officers, the magistrates (justices of the peace], the sheriffs and the jurors [grand jurors, who were selected by the sheriff]. Even the militia, which was replacing the nobility's military function was unpaid, (and largely untrained). That's not to say that all the king's officers, such as the Lords Lieutenant of the shire [in charge of the militia] were unpaid, but the paid servants didn't add up to being the governance of the state.

Another point from that book is that England wasn't oppressively taxed. (This would apply to earlier TL 3 England as well as TL 4 England.) The poor generally paid no taxes to the Crown. Aside from the declining revenues from the royal demesne, the king had only a few sources of revenue. Fines paid to his courts belonged to him (and were supposed to defray the costs of the courts), import duties (tonnage and poundage) usually voted to the king for life on his ascension to the throne (though it was not voted to either James I or Charles I), imposition (a one-time tax on real property to help pay for a war [one-time tax as used here doesn't mean it was only imposed once during a given war, but that it had to be authorized by Parliament each time it was to be collected]) and ship money (a duty the king could impose on coastal counties to [presumably] defray naval costs in time of emergency [e.g., imminent invasion, outbreaks of piracy, etc.]). One of Charles complaints was that Parliament was starving him of money.

[tetrahedron]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

That word you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Fun quote and the humor is appreciated, but I disagree. "They have very different approaches to the governance of the city." Seems to fit what I'm speaking about. But I don't want to be held down by an argument about it. Let's define governance as the acts of government in enforcing economic, legal and social control of a populace.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

In any event it's Rank that grants legal authority. Flunkies hired using money from your Cost of Living is just a finacial transaction. Even hiring large quantites of mercenaries doesn't make you a Lord _directly_. You'd need to win the right battles and then probably use a particualrly aggressive specilization of the Politics Skill. This might even be a situation where Diplomacy doesn't always work. :)

This is interesting. Perhaps I need to consider reducing upfront Status and increasing amounts of Rank with Status bumps. That needs some more consideration.

While the wages you pay your servants are normally part of your Cost of Living, they don't really explain the operation of the state at TL3. This does depend somewhat on who the state is, but let's use England as an example. I was just reading A Brief History of The English Civil Wars by John Miller and some of his points were eye-openers. The king had no standing army or police force [as guaranteed by the Magna Carta] and a miniscule professional bureaucracy. The vast majority of royal governance, especially local governance was done by unpaid local people: the parish officers, the magistrates (justices of the peace], the sheriffs and the jurors [grand jurors, who were selected by the sheriff]. Even the militia, which was replacing the nobility's military function was unpaid, (and largely untrained). That's not to say that all the king's officers, such as the Lords Lieutenant of the shire [in charge of the militia] were unpaid, but the paid servants didn't add up to being the governance of the state.

This here is the real stumbling block. I circle the square with the following reasoning:

A king at Status 7 has a cost of living of $60 million per month. I consider kingship as a job, so he makes ($700 x $100,000) 70 million per month, for a profit of 10 million. 60 million less the Status 3 CoL doesn't come to much less than 60 million, so we'll leave it alone. Besides, the king has 10 million in monthly profits to dip into for any 'extras'.

Using nobles and their management of their estate as jobs, and looking at the Status 7 CoL, we see the kingdom's government can support 8.6 Status 6 nobles ($60 million/($700*10,000) 7 million) or 85.7 Status 5 ($60 million/700,000) or 85,714 Status 1 ($60 million/700) people, or combinations therein. Within the higher CoL for Status 6 or 5, we repeat the process until we've drilled down to below Status 3. Nobles support the king in exchange for their lands, and receive those funds directly from the king's cost of living. Those underneath also use their CoL to provide for those below them, while keeping the profits of their job. It also give us a good idea of what kind of nobles and what kind of armies can be supported at certain levels and shows neatly who is dependent on whom.

I'm sure I'm missing something, which is why this thread was opened in the first place. You're all challenging me with this idea and it makes things better. Thank you for your help! I do appreciate all of your comments.

[whswhs]

What era are you thinking of? A TL6 constitutional monarch is very different from a TL4 absolute monarch or a TL3 feudal monarch. See for example the contrastive writeups of Henry VIII and Victoria in GURPS Social Engineering, which in fact I recommend to you for its discussion of wealth, rank, status, and how they trade off.

A medieval king, for example, even if he was nominally Status 7, did not have the money to pay his warband in cash. Rather, he could grant them the right to occupy certain areas of land, and to collect rents from the commoners there—in effect, he provided them with Independent Income linked to a Duty. The way you represent that is going to be different from the way you represent either the armed forces or the domestic staff of a present-day nation-state with a president.

The way to use GURPS in this regard is first to figure out who's in charge, how he supports himself, and what powers he has, and then to figure out which GURPS traits most accurately represent that.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by tetrahedron

Fun quote and the humor is appreciated, but I disagree. "They have very different approaches to the governance of the city." Seems to fit what I'm speaking about. But I don't want to be held down by an argument about it. Let's define governance as the acts of government in enforcing economic, legal and social control of a populace.

This is interesting. Perhaps I need to consider reducing upfront Status and increasing amounts of Rank with Status bumps. That needs some more consideration.

This here is the real stumbling block. I circle the square with the following reasoning:

A king at Status 7 has a cost of living of $60 million per month. I consider kingship as a job, so he makes ($700 x $100,000) 70 million per month, for a profit of 10 million. 60 million less the Status 3 CoL doesn't come to much less than 60 million, so we'll leave it alone. Besides, the king has 10 million in monthly profits to dip into for any 'extras'.

Using nobles and their management of their estate as jobs, and looking at the Status 7 CoL, we see the kingdom's government can support 8.6 Status 6 nobles ($60 million/($700*10,000) 7 million) or 85.7 Status 5 ($60 million/700,000) or 85,714 Status 1 ($60 million/700) people, or combinations therein. Within the higher CoL for Status 6 or 5, we repeat the process until we've drilled down to below Status 3. Nobles support the king in exchange for their lands, and receive those funds directly from the king's cost of living. Those underneath also use their CoL to provide for those below them, while keeping the profits of their job. It also give us a good idea of what kind of nobles and what kind of armies can be supported at certain levels and shows neatly who is dependent on whom.

I'm sure I'm missing something, which is why this thread was opened in the first place. You're all challenging me with this idea and it makes things better. Thank you for your help! I do appreciate all of your comments.

There are at least a couple of points being missed. (Again, this is based on England, the continent is different.) First, at the lowest level, the primary source of wealth from your "job" is what you bring in from your demesne, the land that you haven't farmed out to tenants. You get some rent from your tenants but the "big money" is the free labour they provide for your demesne. Some tenants, such as the baker and the miller will provide you with some cash money but it's not going to be a lot, think on the order of $40 a year from each. The second thing is that these jobs are closer to freelance/ on commission jobs than they are to fixed wages. If the crops are bad or there's loco weed in the pasture or a fire burns down the woodlot, everybody's income is affected.

Rather than treat the king's income as $700 (Typical Average Monthly Pay @ TL 3) [B517] times 100,000 (Monthly Pay Multiplier for Multimillionaire 3, which is typically Status 7 Wealth) [B517], the king needs to make his job roll each month, getting $70,000,000 only if he makes the roll exactly and gaining or losing 10% or $7,000,000 times the Margin of Success or Failure. Critical successes and failures are a bit different (see B516).

If you want to get really miserable about it, take it down however many levels you're comfortable with and, aside from the income from the Royal Demense, the king (and his subordinate nobles), can only draw on what's available. If he has three dukes and one has $7,000,000 (made his job roll exactly), one has $6,100,000 (blew his job roll by -9) and one has $7,200,000 (made his job roll by 2), the king only has $10,150,000 to draw on this month. Yes, theoretically, he could try for a $20,300,000 cash grab this month, but he's not that dumb. Even trying to siphon off half of his dukes' profits is iffy, but trying to take more than half is pretty close to a guaranteed revolt, so the king has to keep it in reason. And he's going to end up contributing at least $450,000, maybe even closer to $900,000 to the relief of the duke who blew his job roll so badly.

[tetrahedron]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

[snip] the primary source of wealth from your "job" is what you bring in from your demesne, the land that you haven't farmed out to tenants. You get some rent from your tenants but the "big money" is the free labour they provide for your demesne.

I hear what you are saying here but am ok with abstraction at this level. The king owns $60 million worth of land. He gives you $12,000 worth of land out of that $60 million. You work the land or have tenants do it (whatever the status quo you select). Your CoL is covered by the land income. The job roll takes care of the ups and downs of the farmer's, and landlord's, plight.

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

If you want to get really miserable about it, take it down however many levels you're comfortable with and, aside from the income from the Royal Demense, the king (and his subordinate nobles), can only draw on what's available. If he has three dukes and one has $7,000,000 (made his job roll exactly), one has $6,100,000 (blew his job roll by -9) and one has $7,200,000 (made his job roll by 2), the king only has $10,150,000 to draw on this month. Yes, theoretically, he could try for a $20,300,000 cash grab this month, but he's not that dumb. Even trying to siphon off half of his dukes' profits is iffy, but trying to take more than half is pretty close to a guaranteed revolt, so the king has to keep it in reason. And he's going to end up contributing at least $450,000, maybe even closer to $900,000 to the relief of the duke who blew his job roll so badly.

I really do want to get miserable about it. What you wrote above warms that GURPS part of me. I could really dig a game which addresses these sorts of things. Duke needs relief? Plots!!

Originally Posted by Whswhs

What era are you thinking of? A TL6 constitutional monarch is very different from a TL4 absolute monarch or a TL3 feudal monarch. See for example the contrastive writeups of Henry VIII and Victoria in GURPS Social Engineering, which in fact I recommend to you for its discussion of wealth, rank, status, and how they trade off.

A medieval king, for example, even if he was nominally Status 7, did not have the money to pay his warband in cash. Rather, he could grant them the right to occupy certain areas of land, and to collect rents from the commoners there—in effect, he provided them with Independent Income linked to a Duty. The way you represent that is going to be different from the way you represent either the armed forces or the domestic staff of a present-day nation-state with a president.

TL3. I've been through Social Engineering and it's given some good food for thought, but I really feel I'm onto something here. The medieval king handing out lands I see as a direct equivalent to the king handing out 'money' from his CoL. This could be represented by Independent Income linked to Duty. That makes sense and can be used with my idea. Your Independent Income comes from land your liege provides and your liege's Independent Income comes from their liege.

What I was trying to suss out with ya'll was the percentage of CoL which should go to paying people to enact governance over the population. It sounds like my cap at Status 3 has gone over like a lead balloon and there is considerable support for Status 7 to pay Status 7 CoL in addition to the needs of their kingdom. That's a little more messy than I'd like...

Hmmm... ok, thank you.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by tetrahedron

d there is considerable support for Status 7 to pay Status 7 CoL in addition to the needs of their kingdom. That's a little more messy than I'd like...

Give your TL3 King Administrative rank 7 and Military Rank 7. Those each contribute 3 levels of Status. Then give him at least Wealthy and he gets 1 more from that. He then has Status 7 but paid no pts for that directly.

With his Ranks subsidizing his CoL by 6 levels he only has to pay for a Status 1 CoL out of his own pocket. You can give him Independant Income to cover that if you like.

Most of his CoL is made up of bennies from his position like having multiple castles to live in. But he doesn't have a pile of cash (Gurps $) to spend even in theory. He has a web of civil and military power. He can make decrees and call up the levies but he pays for neither.

[gruundehn]

A medieval monarch was the government. Every government employee was a servant of the monarch or the servant of a servant. The office titles of the English government reflect this. There was no separate distinction of personal and government as far as the King was concerned. The King had vast estates because those estates were expected to pay for everything from the military to the judicial to the cooks to the servants cleaning the bedroom. It was all personal expense for the King.

[tetrahedron]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Give your TL3 King Administrative rank 7 and Military Rank 7. Those each contribute 3 levels of Status. Then give him at least Wealthy and he gets 1 more from that. He then has Status 7 but paid no pts for that directly.

With his Ranks subsidizing his CoL by 6 levels he only has to pay for a Status 1 CoL out of his own pocket. You can give him Independant Income to cover that if you like.

Most of his CoL is made up of bennies from his position like having multiple castles to live in. But he doesn't have a pile of cash (Gurps $) to spend even in theory. He has a web of civil and military power. He can make decrees and call up the levies but he pays for neither.

Indeed. Our excellent discussions have swayed me my ideas of CoL are best addressed in tandum with your comments regarding Administration and Military rank. Best of all worlds.

[jason taylor]

Much of what we are talking about is a misnomer. It is not about "cost of living". Ivan Vorpatril has a very good LIFE. Because he really does not care about anything except living, and of course his personal loyalty to his loved ones and to Barrayar which has nothing to do with how he lives. He only occasionally needs to play the Vor.

A lot of what we are talking about is the cost of ostentation. Gregor has to host expensive feasts to lubricate politics. He has to maintain the Imperial Residence. In fact he has to do a whole lot of Imperial things that Ivan does not have to do simply because Ivan's only public duties are "nepotistically appointed operations officer" and to be fair he is rather good at them. But there is a limit to how far Ivan is expected to impress his Admiral let alone his mother. And given his success with women apparently he is doing pretty fine on a low budget.