[Basic] Tech Levels, Statuses, and Costs of Living

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Realistically people do have more disposable income as TL increases.

They also have more total income, and in any case, GURPS 'cost of living' is not the same thing as real-world cost of living; instead, it's real living expenses plus upkeep of position. Which, for societies that actually have such a concept, basically amounts to "continually prove that you're wealthy enough for the status you claim". Which means "spend enough that if you weren't wealthy enough, you'd be hurting", plus a healthy chunk of "keeping up with the Joneses". Both numbers are essentially a fraction of your total disposable income.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Anthony

They also have more total income,

Not the issue. As a percentage, the minimum people have to spend to get buy is a smaller proportion of the whole for TL 8 than for TL 3.

and in any case, GURPS 'cost of living' is not the same thing as real-world cost of living; instead, it's real living expenses plus upkeep of position. Which, for societies that actually have such a concept, basically amounts to "continually prove that you're wealthy enough for the status you claim".

Which becomes less and less of a thing as your tech level grows. But even at high tech levels where status is less wealth connected, you still take a hit if you shop at Walmart for your clothes if you're supposed to be a corporate big cheese.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Realistically, either CoL is not based on status at all, or CoL is equal to the amount a person of that status is assumed (by society) to be able to afford. In neither case is this constant across TLs.

In Sagatafl I'll be using Tech Level-based Lifestyles, each Lifestyle "matched" to a particular Social Status level, so basically the same as what you're suggesting.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Which becomes less and less of a thing as your tech level grows. But even at high tech levels where status is less wealth connected, you still take a hit if you shop at Walmart for your clothes if you're supposed to be a corporate big cheese.

Sure, but even if we think that percentage of income spent on upkeep is actually lower at higher tech (as opposed to just cultural and different in form; when Larry Ellison spends a hundred million dollars on World Cup racing, that's CoL), it's still not totally independent of TL.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Sure, but even if we think that percentage of income spent on upkeep is actually lower at higher tech (as opposed to just cultural and different in form; when Larry Ellison spends a hundred million dollars on World Cup racing, that's CoL), it's still not totally independent of TL.

A hundred million dollars on anything is so wildly beyond what he'd need to spend to keep people from looking at him askance for not living as befits a man of his position, that it comes solidly into the field of discretionary spending. And no it isn't totally independent of TL. Note that it is much more common for people to actually be status 0 now than it was some 600 years ago, where the majority were below "average" status.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

A hundred million dollars on anything is so wildly beyond what he'd need to spend to keep people from looking at him askance.

It's not just "keep from looking at him askance", it's "get the reaction bonus for his wealth level".

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

And no it isn't totally independent of TL. Note that it is much more common for people to actually be status 0 now than it was some 600 years ago, where the majority were below "average" status.

This is by definition false.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Anthony

It's not just "keep from looking at him askance", it's "get the reaction bonus for his wealth level".

Assuming you mean "Status level" the two things are the same.

This is by definition false.

Wrong definition.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

But even at high tech levels where status is less wealth connected, you still take a hit if you shop at Walmart for your clothes if you're supposed to be a corporate big cheese.

Historically, as sources of Status other than Wealth dry up over time, Status becomes _more_ Wealth dependent.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Historically, as sources of Status other than Wealth dry up over time, Status becomes _more_ Wealth dependent.

I don't really see how in GURPS you can have Status without material wealth, either your own wealth, or else being "kept" by someone higher up, e.g. the wife or concubine or even slave of a wealthy man.

It seems to me that in GURPS, Status is very much derived from the level of material wealth that you personally display (the whole Cost of Living thing), including in some cases a small (or huge!) retinue of followers, although it does include subtler displays such as the size and quality of home and car/mount.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

I don't really see how in GURPS you can have Status without material wealth, either your own wealth, or else being "kept" by someone higher up, e.g. the wife or concubine or even slave of a wealthy man.

It seems to me that in GURPS, Status is very much derived from the level of material wealth that you personally display (the whole Cost of Living thing), including in some cases a small (or huge!) retinue of followers, although it does include subtler displays such as the size and quality of home and car/mount.

Not sure about 'derived', but likely more like 'intertwined'. And yes, a court eunuch in China, an AI or bioroid of the megacorporate CEO, or the high-ranking telepath in the B5 Psi-corps, or the Japanese Emperor in the era when the imperial position was a golden cage, are Big People, even if they can't own much/don't have much freedom/etc.
(Or where else there were such high-Rank, high Status, yet Social Stigma positions.)