A proposed fix for Cost of Living at higher TLs

[Alden Loveshade]

Originally Posted by Phantasm

What I originally meant was: the GURPS $ was first calculated back in '86 and has remained constant through all four editions even with consistent real world inflation.

Actually, I must disagree. Wealth works very differently in 3rd edition than in 4th edition. In earlier editions, money was intended to reflect historical (and predictions of future) currency. By 4th edition, it's a relative comparison.

(B. 27): "GURPS gives wealth and prices in “$” for convenience. The $ can stand for “dollars,” “credits,” “pennies,” or even units of barter. In a contemporary setting, $1 is a modern U.S. dollar. In other periods, $1 equates roughly with the amount of local currency needed to buy a loaf of bread or equivalent staple – not with historical U.S. dollars.

"For example, in a high medieval society, each $ might be a copper farthing. In WWII-era America, each $ would convert to $0.10 in deflated 1940s-era dollars. And in a cyberpunk world with hyperinflation, each $ might equal $1,000 in grossly devalued 2030-era dollars! The GURPS $ is a constant, however. Variations in starting wealth by TL"

(B. 514): "For the sake of convenience, GURPS prefixes all prices with a dollar sign – $ – in all settings. The GM is welcome to translate this to credits, copper farthings, Martian foomphra, or whatever he feels is appropriate to the game world...."

For example, the inflation rate in America has left the average price approximately 30% higher than in 2004. So for a modern day American campaign, I typically multiply prices by 1.3.

[Michael Thayne]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

Sure, but then you don't have so much leftover for discretionary spending. If your buddy has the same income as you, but you're spending your extra income for extra Status, well, he's spending it on adventuring gear he can use. You get the reaction bonus for Status; he gets the benefits of gear.

It all works out.

It's not a game-balance issue. It's that in reality most people spend most of their income on what GURPS calls "cost of living". If you classify jobs as struggling, average, comfortable etc. in a common-sensical way, everyone will live a level above what their status should realistically be.

Plus, there's a logical issue around cost of servants. Unless slavery or serfdom exists, most servants will be at last Status -1. At TL8, that implies an income of $1300/month. CoL for Status 2 is $1800/more than it is for Status 1 ($3000 - $1200). That implies all the non-servant things that separate Status 1 from Status 2 only cost $500/month, which seems wrong. On my proposed fix, the difference between CoL for Status 1 and Status 2 is $3,900, so the cost of a servant only accounts for 1/3 of the difference, which seems more reasonable.

[Alden Loveshade]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

It's not a game-balance issue. It's that in reality most people spend most of their income on what GURPS calls "cost of living". If you classify jobs as struggling, average, comfortable etc. in a common-sensical way, everyone will live a level above what their status should realistically be.

Plus, there's a logical issue around cost of servants. Unless slavery or serfdom exists, most servants will be at last Status -1. At TL8, that implies an income of $1300/month. CoL for Status 2 is $1800/more than it is for Status 1 ($3000 - $1200). That implies all the non-servant things that separate Status 1 from Status 2 only cost $500/month, which seems wrong. On my proposed fix, the difference between CoL for Status 1 and Status 2 is $3,900, so the cost of a servant only accounts for 1/3 of the difference, which seems more reasonable.

This is covered in detail in William H. Stoddard's GURPS Social Engineering for which I was honored to be one of the playtesters.

http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/socialengineering/

[Michael Thayne]

Originally Posted by Alden Loveshade

This is covered in detail in William H. Stoddard's GURPS Social Engineering for which I was honored to be one of the playtesters.

http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/socialengineering/

I own Social Engineering. Are you referring to the fact that living above your Status incurs an Odious Personal Habit, or something else? I submit those rules don't reflect the problem I'm describing very well. Our society is noticeably not full of people who only spend 25% of their income on "food, clothing, housing, and entertainment" but are stopped from buying a larger house (or nicer car, or boat) by social norms. In our society, those rules make sense for modeling the distain faced by minor celebrities who go crazy with their newfound wealth, and for explaining why billionaires don't live as lavishly as heads of state, but most normal people aren't expected to live below their means.

[scc]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

I own Social Engineering. Are you referring to the fact that living above your Status incurs an Odious Personal Habit, or something else? I submit those rules don't reflect the problem I'm describing very well. Our society is noticeably not full of people who only spend 25% of their income on "food, clothing, housing, and entertainment" but are stopped from buying a larger house (or nicer car, or boat) by social norms. In our society, those rules make sense for modeling the distain faced by minor celebrities who go crazy with their newfound wealth, and for explaining why billionaires don't live as lavishly as heads of state, but most normal people aren't expected to live below their means.

The problem this that a lot of people in the US only get paid as if they're Status -1 or -2, despite them being Status 0.

[Michael Thayne]

Originally Posted by scc

The problem this that a lot of people in the US only get paid as if they're Status -1 or -2, despite them being Status 0.

I think this approach is pretty counter-intuitive, and it doesn't even work under RAW. As written, Status -1 job can actually support Status 1 at TL8. But a Status -2 job can't even support Status 0.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

It's that in reality most people spend most of their income on what GURPS calls "cost of living".

That depends entirely on your situation.

"To calculate how much money a character has for discretionary use each month, subtract his cost of living and that of noncontributing dependents from his monthly pay."

When I was a bachelor, I basically had an Average job and was living at Status 0 — and I had no debt and was saving money. Assuming that I have a completely average-paying job, then according to GURPS I made $2,000 beyond my cost of living each month.

Now I've got a non-working wife and two children, the same job, and I'm still living at Status 0 — and I've got debt and can't really save anything. According to GURPS I make $200 beyond our combined cost of living each month.

Sounds about right.

[Michael Thayne]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

That depends entirely on your situation.

"To calculate how much money a character has for discretionary use each month, subtract his cost of living and that of noncontributing dependents from his monthly pay."

When I was a bachelor, I basically had an Average job and was living at Status 0 — and I had no debt and was saving money. Assuming that I have a completely average-paying job, then according to GURPS I made $2,000 beyond my cost of living each month.

Now I've got a non-working wife and two children, the same job, and I'm still living at Status 0 — and I've got debt and can't really save anything. According to GURPS I make $200 beyond our combined cost of living each month.

Sounds about right.

I missed this rule, but applying it consistently has strange effects in the opposite direction, at low TLs. Simply put, it becomes very hard to support a family at low TLs, particularly families as large as families used to be. Sure child labor used to be more common, but what "job" does a noble's son have?

EDIT: Did the math, and for reference using the job descriptions in Banestorm for "freelance wizard" or "healer", which are supposed to be rare skills, those jobs actually put you in abject poverty (Status -2) if you have a large family. Sure life in the middle ages was rough, but I don't think it's supposed to be that rough.

[maximara]

A quick and dirty way is to use the CPI Inflation Calculator which will adjust the Basic set figures to present totals.

So that $2,100 per-month, if you are generous and assume 2008, is about $2,526 in 2018. If you assume 1986 as the base then it jumps to nearly $4,806 in 2018.

The whole thing falls to pieces when you factor in local differences. $2,100 even in 2018 would be above average in Las Cruces, NM and yet be "poor" in New York City.

[Anthony]

A fairly realistic way of handling cost of living is to say something like 'to live like a person of wealth level X at TL Y, pay x% of starting wealth for that wealth level and TL'. x is probably in the 5-10% range.

Based on the rules for points for cash, and the rules for learning, 200 hours of work should get you 10% of starting wealth, which makes starting wealth and annual income roughly equal. If you take that as a rule, a 5% rule works okay at higher TLs. It doesn't work quite right at lower TLs, because food costs don't change that fast with TL, so it results in a too low number; maybe 5% + $50.