Cost of Living and Governance

[Apollonian]

Originally Posted by tetrahedron

Anaraxes, I believe you might be missing the point of my question or else I am simply not understanding what you are trying to communicate.

The example out of the Core book says a person with Status 1 may enjoy the benefits of Status 7 while only paying for Status 1 cost of living (CoL). The government picks up the rest. Where you seem to have a misunderstanding of my question is in your comment that high Status isn't just paying for personal consumption. I am looking for just that personal consumption, separated out of the CoL for Status 7 because you are right - there are a lot more people and things covered under the CoL than just personal consumption.

Also, I respectfully disagree with you regarding it not being worth worrying about. I am trying to run realm management and my group is interested in knowing how much money their House budgets hold for civic improvements, warfare and mercenaries, and a whole host of other items. The pyramid articles provide a way to tally what the land can supply in terms of income. I want to put that to work in combination with the CoL and Job rules.

I see the point made about Pulling Rank but I want more crunch than 'the organization provides assistance on x roll' because the PCs themselves will be controlling the organization.

Finally, Social Engineering has great information on pages 19 and 20, particularly the Styling box, but I can't get my head around some of the pricing. Status 7 is CF 99,999. A $500 broadsword becomes $49,999,500 when made for a monarch? I have a hard time with that. However it does appear to keep in step with the CoL and Jobs mechanics, which is important to me, so I may have to accept that the monarch does spend $60,000,000 on personal consumption alone. Just doesn't seem right however.

Great discussion so far everyone!

I think part of the problem here is that at TL3 - since that's what you put down in the OP, instead of the TL8 everyone seems to be nattering on about - the difference between the monarch and the government can be very hazy indeed. Let us suppose the monarch owns the palace. It's his. By definition. Does he personally consume it all? Well, no, but his servants use it to serve him. That service includes what we'd now call governance - arranging taxes, military purposes, etc.

Look at it another way. Suppose we have a trader of the same period and of great wealth. How much of his CoL goes into his trading business and how much is consumed by him personally? He employs servants, dancers, and other staff; he employs agents and factors to conduct business; he owns ships and caravans. At any point, any one of those things can cross the line from part of his business to his own personal consumption, or back again.

Anyway, my answer would be: As much of the monarch's cost of living goes to governance as needs to, or he ceases to be a monarch. How much that is depends on the political system, situation, and his own skill at politics, finance, and war. A border prince on the edge of the Orclands might spend most of his COL on military power; a decadent baron in the heart of the capital might burn most of his on elaborate parties (that also prop up the connections that keep him in power).

[tetrahedron]

I'd like to resurrect this topic. B266 states a status 7 or 8 person pay for a full wardrobe at table levels but when buying one outfit you treat higher status than 3 as status 3.

If cost of living makes an exception in clothing for people with high status, is it reasonable to extrapolate a status 8 person would pay status 3 cost of living with the remainder of the cost of living going to the employment and maintenance of a government?

We need to consider the B265 example however. I'm with the author regarding a status 1 person enjoying the perks of status 7 but with the state paying the difference. The the last sentence says a person wanting to live in a presidential style must pay status 7 cost of living. That doesn't directly conflict with B266 but it's not exactly clear.

What do you think?

T

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by tetrahedron

I'd like to resurrect this topic. B266 states a status 7 or 8 person pay for a full wardrobe at table levels but when buying one outfit you treat higher status than 3 as status 3.

If cost of living makes an exception in clothing for people with high status, is it reasonable to extrapolate a status 8 person would pay status 3 cost of living with the remainder of the cost of living going to the employment and maintenance of a government?

We need to consider the B265 example however. I'm with the author regarding a status 1 person enjoying the perks of status 7 but with the state paying the difference. The the last sentence says a person wanting to live in a presidential style must pay status 7 cost of living. That doesn't directly conflict with B266 but it's not exactly clear.

What do you think?

T

I think it's very clear. The only reason you can pay Status 3 (or Status 2, if a man and the TL is 5 or higher) costs for one set of clothing is because the clothing (as opposed to jewelry) tops out at Status 3 (and is conservative enough that only someone with Fashion Sense readily can tell the difference between a Status 2 and Status 3 set of male clothing) and at higher than Status 3, you simply have more sets of outfits. It is a specific exception and therefore it is unreasonable to try to extrapolate it as a general aspect of being status 8, particularly if you try to apply it outside a high tech world.

The only time it would make sense to use it as an extrapolation would be in a case where the item in question tops out before reaching the Status involved. For example, if individual cars topped out at Status 5 and a person of Status 7 simply had multiple cars, it would make sense in that case to say that to make a sudden purchase of one car, a status 7 person only needs to pay the cost of a Status 5 car, but his cost of living pays the full amount of Status 7 for his cars because he is assumed to own multiple cars.

Likewise the example on B265 is clear. If you're Status 1 Joe Blow from Kokomo and get elected Status 7 President of the U.S.A., the government will pick up the tab for the difference between your normal Cost of Living and the Cost of Living of your elected office. It doesn't note this, but that's a feature of being the U.S. President. It wouldn't apply in a country where being Status 7 President of the planet Mongo is an elective office but you're expected to be able to be president out of your own pocket and the government doesn't pick up the tab for the difference. OTOH, if you're Status 5 Bill Gates, you can live in the same style as the President of the United States, but you're not filling a position where the government has a vested interest in keeping you from looking shabby, so you have to pay for everything associated with your lifestyle out of your own pocket.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by tetrahedron

I'd like to resurrect this topic. B266 states a status 7 or 8 person pay for a full wardrobe at table levels but when buying one outfit you treat higher status than 3 as status 3.

If cost of living makes an exception in clothing for people with high status, is it reasonable to extrapolate a status 8 person would pay status 3 cost of living with the remainder of the cost of living going to the employment and maintenance of a government?

T

Things don't extrapolate that way. While there's a limit to the amount a high status person can spend on a single outfit without looking downright ridiculous by the standards of most cultures it would not be surprising for status consciousness to require never being seen in public in the same outfit twice just as in modern times flying commercial is simply not done for a head of state of a major power.

And there's a real problem in a TL 3 culture in separating personal living expenses from governmental expenses. State dinners are important to the business of government. But they also feed the Emperor. The Imperial Palace contains important functionaries and their offices. But it's also the Emperor's house. The Emperor can't take a vacation without a figurative army of attendants and an actual army of guardsmen. In modern times heads of states have a lot of these covered by their state because they have imputed status from rank but at TL 3 the Emperor actually personally owns all that stuff and pays for those events. It's his money when he erects statues of himself all over the country even if he's getting it from taxing hte people.

[dcarson]

Some googling shows that for the 2014 Oscar awards Cate Blanchett if you include dress, shoes, jewelry etc. was wearing over $18 million. The dress was only $100,000 of that. Mens clothing in the current day is cheaper but the most expensive custom suit maker has a $75,000 suit.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by dcarson

Some googling shows that for the 2014 Oscar awards Cate Blanchett if you include dress, shoes, jewelry etc. was wearing over $18 million. t.

I was not including jewelry. There's really no upper limit for jewelry.

[dcarson]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

I was not including jewelry. There's really no upper limit for jewelry.

True, that's why I mentioned separately the dress cost. And for that kind of dress and event there is a good possibility that it will never be worn to another event. But if she spends half that on less prestigious events and has 4-5 a year that's $200,000 a year for clothing. Men are cheaper you can wear the same suit many times. But for a high status family going through a quarter million a year between parent s and older kids is not unbelievable.

[AlexanderHowl]

Well, we should also remember that GURPS $ are 1985 $, not 2018 $, and the 1985 $ possessed the same purchasing power as 2018 $2.20 (or more, depending on your definition). In many ways, the USA is not that much wealthier than we were in 1985, median household income is actually lower when adjusted for inflation, it is just that our money is worth only 45% so we think that we are doing better.

[TGLS]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Well, we should also remember that GURPS $ are 1985 $, not 2018 $

A couple things to keep in mind about that argument:
1) While cost of living was mostly the same between 3e and 4e, there were some changes, mainly on the higher end of the scale.
2) The numbers don't even pass the smell test in 1985. HUD statistics indicate that the monthly housing costs in 1985 were about $670. This doesn't fit with the cost of living listed at all.

The only conclusion you can draw is that GURPS $ is GURPS $. Using current catalogs and their prices can be done, but may need tweaking to match the smell test.

[tetrahedron]

Wonderful discussion. Your comments about the reason for the limitation of fashion were happily received. I just noted food is also limited up to status 3. We also find it in accommodations. Everywhere we look, typical costs do not exceed status 3. 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.

That was a great comment about Cate Blanchett. I know a lot of those items are on loan but that pricing has helped to ground me.

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.