This new screen was a mad idea I had yesterday. Allows drill down into the income of every voter showing how policies and situations have affected a voters disposable income. Many numbers are not final obviously. You like?
There are dots on left border - are they unemployed people (no income, or at least no official income)?
Dots on right border are probably so rich, that their income is runaway - they use money to make money (savings in bank, stock markets and such).
Since voter is 1/2000th of population - richest voter represents top 0.05%
What does equality simulation actually represents by the way?
Max equality would mean thin line here.
It seems to be more upward social mobility strength.
Some needs of poorest people are subsidized by state.
Also there is poverty simulation - seems to be downward social mobility strength at least for poor income class.
When I tried mostly capitalist approach it was middling here, even with social welfare (no public housing/healthcare/education/pensions).
This is not 100% finished, as numbers need balancing, and I need to introduce mitigating effects on some income groups etc…but this screen is close to final now.
There is private and state housing income change - seems like state housing lower cost of private housing effectively.
Also there is no Wealthy membership (24% poor, and 76% middle income).
Or is it now sliding scale: 100% poor - no or minimum defined income.
100% middle income: Middle level of defined incomes.
100% wealthy: Max defined income.
By the way are those incomes monthly or yearly or quarterly?
Also there should be inflation, if you increase median income too fast, inflation could effectively lower incomes.
Higher incomes would mean higher GDP, as consumption is part of it too.
I guess Median and Average income simulation could be used by this.
Also post policy changes contain effects of simulations, most likely situations too and probably events/dilemmas.
Yup, post-policy is basically now and pre-policy is basically how the voter was born, where everyone is arranged in a normal distribution.
The selected voter is 24% poor, and 76% middle income, so they are basically at the lower range of middle income where things start to overlap (This is to avoid cliff-edge effects).
In this example state housing exists, but is not maximum, so people are still using private housing. We can think of it as 2 effects, the base cost of private housing, offset by the housing price pressure (downwards) by some subsidized state housing.
Now everyone’s income will be affected by Debt Crisis situation, since almost everyone has some Middle class membership.
How distribution will look, if you enable all policies raising income and disable all policies lowering income?
Or if you enable all policies lowering income to max and disable ones raising it?
How Income class simulations are done now?
Or were those removed? I don’t see them on screenshot.
So income membership is like this:
> 90% Poor - Extreme Poverty (at this point all income goes to survival)
> 75% Poor - Poverty
> 50% Poor - Poor
> 25% Poor - Lower Middle Class
< 25% Poor or < 25% Wealthy - Middle Class (Modest, safe and nice life)
> 25% Wealthy - Higher Middle Class
> 50% Wealthy - Wealthy
> 75% Wealthy - Filthy Rich
> 90% Wealthy - Multimillionaire (at this point almost all income goes for fun and savings and investment)
Equality, Poverty simulations and Extreme Poverty situation should be influenced by income distribution.
Equality - variance of income distribution
Poverty - amount of >75% Poor people
Extreme Poverty - amount of >90% Poor people
Business confidence could be influenced by amount of >50% Wealthy people.
Indeed, we currently measure inequality and poverty as distinct entities like anything else, but really they could be both derived from this data… This will need some tweaking during early access I think.
Can income affect voter’s happiness?
Lowest income would have -100% happiness influence, while highest income would be +100% influence.
Happiness bounds could have different values.
This would simulate poor people complaining about their low incomes in general.
Since in real world happiness is tied to logarithm of income/wealth among other things, in game it could depend like x^1/2 or x^1/3
So now cliff effects are accounted for.
Voter has a% Middle class and b% Wealthy (or Poor) class membership.
Policy X changes middle class income by X% and Wealthy (or Poor) income by Y%.
Effective change of income is aX+bY from policy, right?
Also Wealthy and Poor are separate wealth classes and share Middle class together.
Income is from 0 to 1. Pure middle class would be 0.5.
0 - 0.333 would be Poor, 0.333 - 0.667 would be Middle Class and 0.667 - 1 would be Wealthy voter.
This way those voters could be split up to separate classes.
So voter with less than 33.3% Poor or Wealthy membership is Middle class.
Yup, there are no cliff edges any more, voters slide in a soft fashion between income groups. Reagrding happiness, its true what you say, but dont forget that what we care about is theoretically not voters happiness in the pure sense, but their satisfaction with government.
I’m sure there are income levels where a higher tax burden makes zero real impact on your quality of lfie or genuine happiness, but people are still likely for the most part to react badly to paying more tax, partly because it can be seen as punitive, or an implication that they do not deserve the money.