Independent Income at later TL stages

[Anthony]

In theoretical terms:

• Doesn't Sleep gives you 8 hours per day (240 hours per month) and costs 20.
• Less Sleep gives you 1 hour per day per level (30 hours per month) and costs 2.
• Extra Sleep gives you -1 hour per day (-30 hours per month) and costs -2.
• Slow Eater gives you -4.5 hours per day (-135 hours per month) and costs -10.

By extrapolation, one point should be worth 12-15 hours extra time per month, and conversely, a level of independent income should be equivalent to 1.5-2 days per month of wages. Assuming II is properly priced, this suggests that monthly income should be 10-14% of starting wealth. At TL 8, standard income is 13%, which is well within that range, but at TL 3 it's 70%, which is way out of range.

If we instead extrapolate from points for cash, you can normally gain 1 point for 400 hours of self-study, and would get 2 points with a teacher (but need to pay the teacher, whereas if you spend 400 hours working you only get 0.5 points in skills, suggesting that the difference (0.5-1.5 points) should be covered by money gained. Based on points for cash and going with the 1 point figure, hourly wages should be 1/4,000 starting wealth, or 4.2% in a 21 day month. The points for cash rules are sufficiently unappealing that most people don't use them, so I'm okay with a higher figure.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

TL 4 [0]; Wealth (Very Wealthy) [20]; Status 0 [0]; Reputation -3 (Living above his station; everyone above Status 0; all the time) [-7].

Starting wealth: $40,000
Starting money: $8,000
Job: Merchant; Very Wealthy; $16,000/month
Cost of Living: $12,000/month

In most settings Wealthy to Filthy Rich gives a +1 to Status.

Also Cost of living is based on Status not wealth level (B265). There is nothing in that section that indicates wealth level has any effect on Cost of Living. That is handled by the automatic status bonus that generally comes with high wealth.

For example, a Status 0 person who won the lottery or was the inheritor of a large estate and became a multimillionaire would temporally become Status 2 resulting in their $600 Cost of Living going up to $3000. It would not go up to a minimum of $6000.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

I didn't specify any wealth level or anything about the setting. All of those things are GM choice and don't need any 'rectification'.

...I don't even know what you think you're answering here, none of this connects to anything I wrote.

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

What "issues" are you imagining?

The one I specified clearly in other posts: you're inventing a superjob. It doesn't take up your time and as a bonus it implies capital ownership that can potentially be exploited for other purposes.

Since jobs are a background element that PCs don't (and indeed can't) pay for, and this job is flat out better than regular jobs, taking those other jobs rather than choosing to be a rent-collecting property owner becomes an uncompensated character handicap.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Varyon

40 hours of work, yes, but typically a 40-hour-a-week job takes up more than 40 hours each week - a 10 minute commute each way and an hour of lunch each day

This is below the resolution of GURPS. Not only does GURPS not attempt to simulate economic systems, it also does not attempt to simulate workplace policies. If your job requires 40 hours a week, mark off 40 hours and move on. GURPS is not concerned with time for lunch breaks or commuting.

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

The use of time use sheets is (per B499) an optional rule to begin with.

I didn't say, "You have to use Time Use Sheets, so there's your 40 hours"; I said the Time Use Sheets demonstrate the default assumption of job hours in GURPS.

The 40hr statement is guidance for players to assume only "if unsure". Accordingly I think it would be a mistake to consider 40 hours a working assumption.

It would be odd for the rules to establish a working assumption that defies the possibility of part-time employment, gig work, or non-traditional occupations, and in fact where the actual rules about Jobs are provided, there are no such restrictions.

It doesn't "defy" anything. The job's description (p. B516) given by the GM "should give hours..." But if your character has a job and the GM hasn't specified hours for you, the Time Use Sheet tells you to assume it's 40. Not because this number is special to the Time use Sheet, but because it's an obvious number to assume.

Nothing in the GURPS rules hinges on how many hours your job takes. The only thing that matters is how much free time it leaves you.

That passage is specifically framed as an "example" of how II could reduce your need to work,

Yes, it was an example. Did you notice that that example just happened to use 40 hours? As if that number is pretty unremarkable or something?

certainly not to established an assumption about a rule that is not stated anywhere.

I didn't say they were trying to establish the assumption or that 40 hours was a rule. I pointed out one place where they told you to assume 40 hours if you were unsure, and another place where an example started with 40 hours. It's just an assumption to make if you haven't got any better information.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

What "issues" are you imagining?

Hacker-Player (HP): "My character is a grey-hat hacker who works as a Senior Security Architect for a Fortune 500 company. What Wealth level should I buy?"

GM: "Alright, that's a 40 hour a week job, with an income of *looks online* $75k-$120k per year; working for a Fortune 500 is probably on the high end, so your character is Wealthy and makes $10,000 per month. You've got $100,000 to start with. That costs [20]."

HP: "Alright, sounds good to me."

Face-Player (FP): "My character bought up some real estate right after the 2008 housing crash, and makes money off of rent. I want him to be Wealthy for [20], and I figure he makes around what HP's character does, $10,000 per month."

GM: "Well, that doesn't require you to do anything, so you'll need to buy some Independent Income. $10k/month II with a Starting Wealth of $100k costs [10]."

FP: "Oh, no, my character is active with collecting rent and hiring contractors to fix problems and all that. I mean, it's just 5 hours a week, but it's a job."

GM: "Good point, alright, that's your job then. Looks like the other characters all have 40-hour jobs, so you'll get an extra 35 hours on your weekly Time Use sheet. Keep in mind that's just for what your characters do during the week - weekends are for our adventures."


Do you see a problem with the above?

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

This is below the resolution of GURPS. Not only does GURPS not attempt to simulate economic systems, it also does not attempt to simulate workplace policies. If your job requires 40 hours a week, mark off 40 hours and move on. GURPS is not concerned with time for lunch breaks or commuting.

*shrug*
Use 40 hours in my calculations instead of 47; you aren't going to see much of a difference from what I stated. It's still a case where a job that consumes fewer hours should probably be treated as a job associated with a higher Wealth level. You seem to agree with this - I was initially responding to a poster who was implicitly suggesting that a 5-hour-a-week job (the rent-collector from my example) is perfectly fine to get the same wages as a 40-hour-a-week job (the senior security architect from my example) for a given Wealth level.

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by Rupert

The character is in play. None of those situations apply. The player wants to have the character invest money and gain an Independent Income. How much should they have to invest per point of II?

Note that there's a concrete rule example for increasing Wealth in play. It requires you to have the money for the next level of Wealth (and any extra cash for taxes, bribes, etc.). What's more, II is a social trait (like Wealth) and thus comes under the same rule, which says: "To improve social traits, you need an in-play justification in addition to the expenditure of sufficient points."

So clearly for an in-play character II is not just something that, in general, they can plonk down the points for and walk away with. The player is fine with that. I'm fine with that. What we're not fine with is the lack of guidance as to how much II should cost in dollar terms, and that as soon as you look 'under the hood' to try and price it, you discover that the CoL vs income, etc. rules go very wrong past TL4 (at best).

Sure. I agree, and if I said otherwise, it was by mistake. However, in this case none of that applies. The character does have a sum of money to invest and the player wants them to have an II. It seems like a fairly simple situation, but it turns out GURPS gives no answer to what would seem to be a simple question, and the more you dig, the worse the mess.

I did misunderstand your point. Sorry about that.

I see what you want, and I understand now what you mean by "wrong" but I do not believe there is a "simple" answer.

Sure, you could use formulas or excel to give you the present value of a regular payment given an interest rate over either an estimated lifetime duration or perpetuity, and assess the risk factor, taxes and fees, ...

But if you want to do that, then you probably shouldn't use Gurps generic CoL, jobs or starting Wealth values either.
If you take the time to research the correct interest rates and investment opportunities for the time/place, then you should also use real numbers for everything else.
Excel and a site like https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/ will be invaluable !
And at this point, I would just discard the II rules and let the player invest money "realistically", making the necessary skills rolls to see how it work.

II imho is firmly in the "fast and easy" ruleset "I want to have cash every month without doing anything, and I don't care what is hidden behind the curtain."
For me, the only metric for "how much II can I purchase in play" is "How much cp do you have".
To quote the rules "If your income derives from investments, you need not specify their value" (basic p26)

But if you decide to use these "fast and easy" rules, you have a moral contract with the GM : not to break the system by playing with financial instrument it is not made to handle.

A player that buy 1 cp of II at creation and take a cash loan against it to double his wealth as soon as play start should face the wrath of the GM :)
You are mixing 2 incompatible game approach, imho.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by maximara

In most settings Wealthy to Filthy Rich gives a +1 to Status.

True, the Status 0 of that one should have cost [-5]. Thanks for the correction.

Also Cost of living is based on Status not wealth level (B265). There is nothing in that section that indicates wealth level has any effect on Cost of Living.

I did base those on Status. The impoverished aristocrat has Average Wealth and Status 4 and is living at Status 0. This is why I wrote Cost of Living $600/month. The merchant living above his station is Very Wealthy and Status 0, living at Status 3, and so his Cost of Living is $12,000/month.

Each character has a negative Reputation representing the reactions of those people who think these characters aren't living according to their stations.

For example, a Status 0 person who won the lottery or was the inheritor of a large estate and became a multimillionaire would temporally become Status 2 resulting in their $600 Cost of Living going up to $3000. It would not go up to a minimum of $6000.

No. The player of a Status 0 character who wins the lottery has a justification to increase their Wealth and/or Status if they want, but they don't have to. They could spend the money on gear. They could spend the money on living at a higher Status without actually raising their Status. They could blow the money gambling. They could stuff it in a pillow. It might get stolen.

If you spend more money on a higher Cost of Living than your Status indicates, you're not temporarily at the higher Status. People will either think you're posing, or else you'll have to keep your true Status a Secret. Having higher Status means you have more social power; just spending money for a better lifestyle doesn't equal social power. Spending bonus character points on Status represents doing those things that truly improve your social power.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Varyon

*shrug*
Use 40 hours in my calculations instead of 47; you aren't going to see much of a difference from what I stated.

I was only pointing out the numbers suggested by the text, not disagreeing with your calculations. You seemed to want a justification for the number you picked, by pointing to Low-Tech Companion 3; I was providing a more... ahem... basic justification.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Hacker-Player (HP): "My character is a grey-hat hacker who works as a Senior Security Architect for a Fortune 500 company. What Wealth level should I buy?"

GM: "Alright, that's a 40 hour a week job, with an income of *looks online* $75k-$120k per year; working for a Fortune 500 is probably on the high end, so your character is Wealthy and makes $10,000 per month. You've got $100,000 to start with. That costs [20]."

HP: "Alright, sounds good to me."

Face-Player (FP): "My character bought up some real estate right after the 2008 housing crash, and makes money off of rent. I want him to be Wealthy for [20], and I figure he makes around what HP's character does, $10,000 per month."

GM: "Well, that doesn't require you to do anything, so you'll need to buy some Independent Income. $10k/month II with a Starting Wealth of $100k costs [10]."

FP: "Oh, no, my character is active with collecting rent and hiring contractors to fix problems and all that. I mean, it's just 5 hours a week, but it's a job."

GM: "Good point, alright, that's your job then. Looks like the other characters all have 40-hour jobs, so you'll get an extra 35 hours on your weekly Time Use sheet. Keep in mind that's just for what your characters do during the week - weekends are for our adventures."


Do you see a problem with the above?

I don't see a rules problem.

I do see a potential player complaint about differential treatment but that's up to the GM to resolve or not.

Personally, if I were the GM, I would seek a more egalitarian treatment by either subsuming the lower hour job into a higher Wealth category (which would cost character points), or I would impose greater time requirements than the FP imagined.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

...I didn't say they were trying to establish the assumption or that 40 hours was a rule. I pointed out one place where they told you to assume 40 hours if you were unsure, and another place where an example started with 40 hours. It's just an assumption to make if you haven't got any better information.

Okay, no problem. I had the (apparently mistaken) impression you were offering the 40 hours as a default about what Jobs were 'supposed' to be like, when in fact it's totally up to the GM to define.