I think this is the only publicly traded vs privately owned video on RUclips. It's very important for the player because changing from privately owned to publicly traded is a lot of click. I guess many would wonder what's the point for all the click when it seems there's so little different between the two pm.
I don't go on the subreddit very often, but it feels like every time I do there's a "pub traded does nothing" thread. I just saw one too many lol. The effects are pretty minor
I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE/MAKE CLEAR THAT THE RELATIVELY LARGE EFFECT NOTICED IN THE EXAMPLE IS LIKELY COMING FROM CONFOUNDING VARIABLES AND NOT PUBLICALLY TRADED, WHICH IS A SUBTLE EFFECT. Edit: Apologies for also messing up in a few spots re saying "employment" vs "unemployment" and such. That said, I think there is a ripple effect that contains, but is not limited to, some of the (potential) effects: -Increased IPT -Generally higher efficiency of employed pops, w/ extremely small effect -Decreased labor prices -Decreased goods produced -In the case where shortages are averted, increased goods produced -A small ability to encourage autoqueue/autobuild to build things still on privately owned -Increased Unemployment -In the case where employment is increased for inputs (ie, electricity) that can't be imported, a comparative advantage -Increased clout for industrialists -Decreased literacy (from decreased wages) -Decreased SoL -(Edit) As @dzarko55 notes, this can also lead to a better consumer goods profile on capitalists, decreasing demand for fine art specifically as it is spreading their consumption to lower SoL levels. Edit: I think these effects are also lagging, since equilibriums take a while to meet, which is why they're also difficult to observe. Also they're very small.
Before 1.2 I noticed a significant increase in the investment pool, but only when playing as very large nations, Russia, India, China. I noticed no effect when playing as medium and small sized nations.
Interesting, I'll have to have a bit of a think about this - unleass you're referring to the increase from swapping over the rural stuff, which will increase the rural IPT contribution by quite a lot, and those three have a huge rural base.
if there is a good you want a lot of but that isn't profitable to produce switch your factories for that good to privately owned so the buildings become more profitable and they employ more workers.
Use privately owned on less profitable industry to keep it competitive in industrialised provinces and use publicly traded to suppress wages of labour unions if they are becoming a hindrance in government.
It depends on how much you want to sweat the mechanic? If you don't like clicking, just swap the arable stuff. I personally swap over on everything except the arms/ammo/war machines industries, engines before the electric pm, whichever engine place is making cars, and electricity (before coal plants, but sometimes after). I'm trying to play relatively fast though - I think you can minmax more than I do, if you wanted. A fully minimaxed strategy would take into consideration massaging clout, swapping on a per state basis, and the employment level of urban centers as well. The swap on non-agrarian places is probably also bad anywhere that has really high unemployment. I might start swapping the PM back if unemployment is rampant, but I think China is kinda the only country that is like that. Maybe the East India Company as well.
The simplest heuristic is a little BEFORE it's profitable for the PMs that consume coal (this might be something like SoL13-17, but I haven't looked closely at this correlation, you swap before because it makes labor cheaper for other things), immediately for the ones that consume only tools (even if not profitable, as long as no shortage), and never for the ones that consume oil (unless oil is cheap and labor is expensive, somehow).
Thanks for this series, it is really helping me improve my game! I have a question about investment pool: in my current Brazil game, the total investment pool is zero. That's because the reinvestment is 530k, but the private sector is spending 540k on new buildings. This has been going on for a while, even though the reinvestment is growing, expenses are always growing at a faster pace. Is this a problem? My economy is skyrocketing at this point, private sector is always building a lot, so it doesn't seem to be an issue. If it is, how can I fix it? Thanks!
This is not a problem; this is ideal. You want the transfer/reinvestment to equal the contribution. It's a problem when the investment pool itself is growing, because the money is sitting in the pool not doing anything. The solution to this is adding more construction, so you can drain the pool, which is not always possible budget wise.
So from my understanding that if a business is already profitable, and that should be the end goal of all construction investments of course, then privately owned on already capitalist only buildings is probably not worth it and may even be harmful. At least while you are still building up and have peasants or unemployment to deal with. Because all you do is add more workforce to a building and then that building has to pay more wages making it less profitable. Less profitable means less investment pool actually even though you would think publicly trading would benefit the capitalist financially. But it does not. However on the flip side you will also have more high paying jobs to use all those peasants/unemployed people and have them pay taxes. But then the counter to that is that factories will still be less productive and businesses on the brink of profitability will drop wages and that means fewer taxes and a generally more stagnant economy. So yeah... tl;dr for all of this for me is that it's incredibly difficult to really gauge the actual effects on the economy. But the little tidbit shown in this video here is definitely interesting and may be a convincing argument in certain situations. But as a whole the effects of the change will probably be minimal whether they're positive or not as you said. E: Just noticed you mentioned much of this in your own comment here so... oops.
If a business is not profitable, it doesn't make too much a difference. Although, someone pointed out in a comment this morning that it affects the consumption profile of the upper strata in a favorable way, making them consume less fine art and more other goods (like transportation and services). The business is not made LESS profitable if it's already profitable (dividends are just split more ways), it just decreases the equilibrium employment if it's not. The taxes is one of the points in the negative column. I think it's offset by encouraging migration by driving unemployment in industries that aren't very efficient anyway. Notably, decreased supply in the market is going ot make industries in other states producing the same good more profitable as well. A lot of ripple effects, that (I believe) are small and/or difficult to observe. Yeah, I mostly made this vid not because I think the effects are huge (though I think they're meaningful, if small) but because I was tired of seeing "pub traded does nothing" whenever I visit the v3 subreddit, which is not all that often lol.
The best reason against using it is that more capitalists mean that there are less workers. Also because those fat capitalist pigs procreate way less as they tend to have a way higher sol than 20 it means they will also produce lesd workers in the future...
The PM doesn't decrease workers, but there are proportionally less workers yeah. Higher SoL pops increase pop growth rate though. But it might have a slight negative effect because it drives unemployment, which drives overall SoL down.
I think this is the only publicly traded vs privately owned video on RUclips. It's very important for the player because changing from privately owned to publicly traded is a lot of click. I guess many would wonder what's the point for all the click when it seems there's so little different between the two pm.
I don't go on the subreddit very often, but it feels like every time I do there's a "pub traded does nothing" thread. I just saw one too many lol. The effects are pretty minor
Thanks for your deep tutorials, it's always a pleasure to watch (and to play with those enlightments)!
Glad you like them!
I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE/MAKE CLEAR THAT THE RELATIVELY LARGE EFFECT NOTICED IN THE EXAMPLE IS LIKELY COMING FROM CONFOUNDING VARIABLES AND NOT PUBLICALLY TRADED, WHICH IS A SUBTLE EFFECT. Edit: Apologies for also messing up in a few spots re saying "employment" vs "unemployment" and such.
That said, I think there is a ripple effect that contains, but is not limited to, some of the (potential) effects:
-Increased IPT
-Generally higher efficiency of employed pops, w/ extremely small effect
-Decreased labor prices
-Decreased goods produced
-In the case where shortages are averted, increased goods produced
-A small ability to encourage autoqueue/autobuild to build things still on privately owned
-Increased Unemployment
-In the case where employment is increased for inputs (ie, electricity) that can't be imported, a comparative advantage
-Increased clout for industrialists
-Decreased literacy (from decreased wages)
-Decreased SoL
-(Edit) As @dzarko55 notes, this can also lead to a better consumer goods profile on capitalists, decreasing demand for fine art specifically as it is spreading their consumption to lower SoL levels.
Edit: I think these effects are also lagging, since equilibriums take a while to meet, which is why they're also difficult to observe. Also they're very small.
How the hell am I first.
I like the pros and cons of all the methods. Could you Make a video on?
@@deanlighter5873 ramming speed!
@@rollando2000 of all the PMs, or all the factors that this one might influence?
I like publicly traded because it means I have more capitalists with a slightly lower SOL, which gives a slightly more reasonable demand for fine art
This is an excellent point! I'd pin it if I didn't want the qualifying statement I already pinned up there
I added an edit including this in the pinned comment.
Great breakdown. Thanks for the info.
Glad it was helpful!
Before 1.2 I noticed a significant increase in the investment pool, but only when playing as very large nations, Russia, India, China. I noticed no effect when playing as medium and small sized nations.
Interesting, I'll have to have a bit of a think about this - unleass you're referring to the increase from swapping over the rural stuff, which will increase the rural IPT contribution by quite a lot, and those three have a huge rural base.
Thanks for the shorter form content! Much more succinct
You bet! Trying to get them much shorter
Ok.. so how does this change our play style?
if there is a good you want a lot of but that isn't profitable to produce switch your factories for that good to privately owned so the buildings become more profitable and they employ more workers.
privately owned should also be used on non agri buildings whenever there is a labor shortage.
Use privately owned on less profitable industry to keep it competitive in industrialised provinces and use publicly traded to suppress wages of labour unions if they are becoming a hindrance in government.
It depends on how much you want to sweat the mechanic? If you don't like clicking, just swap the arable stuff. I personally swap over on everything except the arms/ammo/war machines industries, engines before the electric pm, whichever engine place is making cars, and electricity (before coal plants, but sometimes after). I'm trying to play relatively fast though - I think you can minmax more than I do, if you wanted. A fully minimaxed strategy would take into consideration massaging clout, swapping on a per state basis, and the employment level of urban centers as well.
The swap on non-agrarian places is probably also bad anywhere that has really high unemployment. I might start swapping the PM back if unemployment is rampant, but I think China is kinda the only country that is like that. Maybe the East India Company as well.
I always switch everything to privately owned. What's the incentive not to?
Hey, can you make a video about when should I switch to Production Methods that reduce laborers?
A reply with a quick brief would help a lot
When you start running low on workers or wanna boost profitability per worker.
@@josejaimes-ramos1546 Alternatively, if you'd rather not have the lower tier of worker.
The simplest heuristic is a little BEFORE it's profitable for the PMs that consume coal (this might be something like SoL13-17, but I haven't looked closely at this correlation, you swap before because it makes labor cheaper for other things), immediately for the ones that consume only tools (even if not profitable, as long as no shortage), and never for the ones that consume oil (unless oil is cheap and labor is expensive, somehow).
Thankfully while playing my beloved Austria I never have a lack of workers and I don't have to play with this
You might be underbuilding then my friend. I've been really wanting to do an Austria run though!
Thanks for this series, it is really helping me improve my game! I have a question about investment pool: in my current Brazil game, the total investment pool is zero. That's because the reinvestment is 530k, but the private sector is spending 540k on new buildings. This has been going on for a while, even though the reinvestment is growing, expenses are always growing at a faster pace. Is this a problem? My economy is skyrocketing at this point, private sector is always building a lot, so it doesn't seem to be an issue. If it is, how can I fix it? Thanks!
This is not a problem; this is ideal. You want the transfer/reinvestment to equal the contribution.
It's a problem when the investment pool itself is growing, because the money is sitting in the pool not doing anything. The solution to this is adding more construction, so you can drain the pool, which is not always possible budget wise.
So from my understanding that if a business is already profitable, and that should be the end goal of all construction investments of course, then privately owned on already capitalist only buildings is probably not worth it and may even be harmful. At least while you are still building up and have peasants or unemployment to deal with. Because all you do is add more workforce to a building and then that building has to pay more wages making it less profitable. Less profitable means less investment pool actually even though you would think publicly trading would benefit the capitalist financially. But it does not. However on the flip side you will also have more high paying jobs to use all those peasants/unemployed people and have them pay taxes. But then the counter to that is that factories will still be less productive and businesses on the brink of profitability will drop wages and that means fewer taxes and a generally more stagnant economy.
So yeah... tl;dr for all of this for me is that it's incredibly difficult to really gauge the actual effects on the economy. But the little tidbit shown in this video here is definitely interesting and may be a convincing argument in certain situations. But as a whole the effects of the change will probably be minimal whether they're positive or not as you said.
E: Just noticed you mentioned much of this in your own comment here so... oops.
If a business is not profitable, it doesn't make too much a difference. Although, someone pointed out in a comment this morning that it affects the consumption profile of the upper strata in a favorable way, making them consume less fine art and more other goods (like transportation and services). The business is not made LESS profitable if it's already profitable (dividends are just split more ways), it just decreases the equilibrium employment if it's not.
The taxes is one of the points in the negative column. I think it's offset by encouraging migration by driving unemployment in industries that aren't very efficient anyway. Notably, decreased supply in the market is going ot make industries in other states producing the same good more profitable as well. A lot of ripple effects, that (I believe) are small and/or difficult to observe.
Yeah, I mostly made this vid not because I think the effects are huge (though I think they're meaningful, if small) but because I was tired of seeing "pub traded does nothing" whenever I visit the v3 subreddit, which is not all that often lol.
music was a bit loud, but otherwise great info, thanks!
Sorry about that, I just realized that part of it is my increasing the volume on my headphones messes with the balance (I think, I'm no obs wizard)
What does PMs mean?
Production Method
The best reason against using it is that more capitalists mean that there are less workers. Also because those fat capitalist pigs procreate way less as they tend to have a way higher sol than 20 it means they will also produce lesd workers in the future...
The PM doesn't decrease workers, but there are proportionally less workers yeah.
Higher SoL pops increase pop growth rate though. But it might have a slight negative effect because it drives unemployment, which drives overall SoL down.