NationStates

I am seriously baffled by the results of this issue that I have just answered recently. The story is that there was Something
About women dressing more promiscuous and then of course I picked the option where men had
more control over their women. But out of nowhere, income equality skyrocketed and it turns out that the option that I picked made my nation
into a socialist hellhole. Seriously how did my option decrease economic freedom?

Talatorrum wrote:I am seriously baffled by the results of this issue that I have just answered recently. The story is that there was Something
About women dressing more promiscuous and then of course I picked the option where men had
more control over their women. But out of nowhere, income equality skyrocketed and it turns out that the option that I picked made my nation
into a socialist hellhole. Seriously how did my option decrease economic freedom?

Wrong. Your nation does not have the Socialism policy: https://www.nationstates.net/nation=tal ... l=policies

The New California Republic wrote:

Talatorrum wrote:I am seriously baffled by the results of this issue that I have just answered recently. The story is that there was Something
About women dressing more promiscuous and then of course I picked the option where men had
more control over their women. But out of nowhere, income equality skyrocketed and it turns out that the option that I picked made my nation
into a socialist hellhole. Seriously how did my option decrease economic freedom?

Wrong. Your nation does not have the Socialism policy: https://www.nationstates.net/nation=tal ... l=policies

Yeah. But it is still way too stupid for me that such an option has these results.

Arguably "socialism" isn't the hellhole part, but opinions aside, your wealth gaps were enormous prior to this change, and still are. Income equality "skyrocketed" from 0.13 to 0.25. Personally I'm not too familiar with how exactly the game works, but it seems likely that because your wealth gaps and economic freedom were so high, what would usually be a fairly minor decrease ended up being a lot more impactful. As for why economic freedom would decrease at all, I'm not too sure about what exactly the contents of the issue were so I can't really give a proper answer on that. Maybe it heavily restricted the economic freedom of women specifically, which ended up in an overall decrease.

Khoronzon wrote:Arguably "socialism" isn't the hellhole part, but opinions aside, your wealth gaps were enormous prior to this change, and still are. Income equality "skyrocketed" from 0.13 to 0.25.

there is a vast disparity between incomes, with the richest 10% of citizens earning 1,524,337 per year while the poor average 3,880, a ratio of 392 to 1.

Yeah, that level of income inequality doesn't scream "socialist" to me. This entire thing is a storm in a teacup methinks.

I'm not an expert on forum rules, but I don't think this should go in Regional Gameplaying.

Talatorrum wrote:Yeah. But it is still way too stupid for me that such an option has these results.

Unless you say which issue it was, then I cannot really comment any further.

Restricting women from participating in the economy decreases economic freedom. Decreasing economic freedom increases income equality.
I agree that it should have had the opposite results, but it hardly made you into a socialist hellhole - you're nowhere near socialist, and your nation was a hellhole long before that issue if these stats are anything to go by.

The New California Republic wrote:

Talatorrum wrote:Yeah. But it is still way too stupid for me that such an option has these results.

Unless you say which issue it was, then I cannot really comment any further.

Issue No.
593

I'm glad this is an issue question because otherwise the thread name had me concerned.

hmm

Talatorrum wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Unless you say which issue it was, then I cannot really comment any further.

Issue No.
593

Just chalk it up to experience. The effects of the issue are negligible.

The New California Republic wrote:

Talatorrum wrote:Issue No.
593

Just chalk it up to experience. The effects of the issue are negligible.

Negligible wouldn't be the right
word for what it did to my stats.

Talatorrum wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Just chalk it up to experience. The effects of the issue are negligible.

Negligible wouldn't be the right
word for what it did to my stats.

Khoronzon wrote:Income equality "skyrocketed" from 0.13 to 0.25.

I stand by what I said: the effects were negligible.

The New California Republic wrote:

Talatorrum wrote:Negligible wouldn't be the right
word for what it did to my stats.

Khoronzon wrote:Income equality "skyrocketed" from 0.13 to 0.25.

I stand by what I said: the effects were negligible.

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=tal ... censusid=4 does show a more dramatic change, perhaps he's getting at that.

Saciu wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:
I stand by what I said: the effects were negligible.

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=tal ... censusid=4 does show a more dramatic change, perhaps he's getting at that.

But then again it looks like the stat hasn't been at the high level for very long, only since the 20th of November, so it'd be easily fixed when answering further issues.

The logic behind this result shouldn't Even be taken seriously since the issues's outcome literally says that fathers should have the right to sell their daughters to whomever they choose.


Seriously the autocorrection is so inefficient

Talatorrum wrote:The logic behind this result shouldn't Even be tanken seriously since the issues's outcome literally says that fathers have the right to sell their daughter to whomever they choose.

There's a certain amount of "reading between the lines" needed when answering issues.

Talatorrum wrote:The logic behind this result shouldn't Even be taken seriously since the issues's outcome literally says that fathers should have the right to sell their daughters to whomever they choose.


Seriously the autocorrection is so inefficient

Meh. When you answered the issue, the jump from 0.13 to 0.25 must have shown up as an almost 100% increase.
But 0.25 is still super-low (see https://www.nationstates.net/nation=tal ... 33?world=1)

If I buy two lottery tickets instead of one, my chance of winning goes up by about 100% (say, from 1 in 14 million to 1 in 7 million). I'm still not likely to win though. It's just the way that the change is represented.

Talatorrum wrote:The logic behind this result shouldn't Even be taken seriously since the issues's outcome literally says that fathers should have the right to sell their daughters to whomever they choose.


Seriously the autocorrection is so inefficient

Perhaps poor fathers are selling their daughters to rich people.

Talatorrum wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Just chalk it up to experience. The effects of the issue are negligible.

Negligible wouldn't be the right
word for what it did to my stats.

You’re going to have to say which option you chose if you want help here.

Talatorrum wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Unless you say which issue it was, then I cannot really comment any further.

Issue No.
593

In future, if you receive unusual effects from an issue, please come to this thread.

When making any report, we need:

• The name/number of the issue
• The option picked
• The effect you find unusual
• The nation (if not this one)
• The date (if not today)

As I'm here, however:

You do not have the Socialism policy.

Income equality rose due to a quirk of secondary stats (stats that we do not directly control, that change due to a mix of the stats put in -- that are correct -- interacting with your own nation). The economic simulation is incredibly complicated.

As for the decreased economic freedom: you confined half of the population to their homes, not allowing them to leave without permission of a male relative (in fact, forcing women and girls to "obey their husbands or male relatives in all things"). That's going to prevent them earning a living or participating in the free market.

It's all working as intended.

Fauxia wrote:

Talatorrum wrote:Negligible wouldn't be the right
word for what it did to my stats.

You’re going to have to say which option you chose if you want help here.

I have posted the issue number in this thread. You can search the issue number on the NSindex

4 The nation allows marriage. “Since when have we let the women of this country determine its morality?” rages traditionalist @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, his wife and daughters standing behind him in fearful silence. “A woman’s nakedness is for her husband to behold, and for none other. All women should be forced to cover themselves head-to-toe while in public, and should not venture out of the home without permission. They should obey their husbands or male relatives in all things, including their clothing choices.” …fathers are free to sell their daughters to whomever they choose.
here
incase you can't figure it out yourself


Another thing that I find completely unbelievable is that almost everyone seems to insist that lowering womens worker rights
increases wealth equality. Do you believe that if it wasn't allowed for almost 50% of my nation's population to leave the house that my nation's income equality would rise or do you believe it would plummet? If theoretically 50% percent of my population didn't get any income (excluding slavery for a second) do you seriously believe that there would be more equality in this wonderful empire of mine.

Saciu wrote:

Talatorrum wrote:The logic behind this result shouldn't Even be taken seriously since the issues's outcome literally says that fathers should have the right to sell their daughters to whomever they choose.


Seriously the autocorrection is so inefficient

Perhaps poor fathers are selling their daughters to rich people.

I wouldn't find it plausible that a nobleman would want to buy a peasant's daughter for a significantly high prise.

Talatorrum wrote:

Fauxia wrote:You’re going to have to say which option you chose if you want help here.

I have posted the issue number in this thread. You can search the issue number on the NSindex

4 The nation allows marriage. “Since when have we let the women of this country determine its morality?” rages traditionalist @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, his wife and daughters standing behind him in fearful silence. “A woman’s nakedness is for her husband to behold, and for none other. All women should be forced to cover themselves head-to-toe while in public, and should not venture out of the home without permission. They should obey their husbands or male relatives in all things, including their clothing choices.” …fathers are free to sell their daughters to whomever they choose.
here
incase you can't figure it out yourself


Another thing that I find completely unbelievable is that almost everyone seems to insist that lowering womens worker rights
increases wealth equality. Do you believe that if it wasn't allowed for almost 50% of my nation's population to leave the house that my nation's income equality would rise or do you believe it would plummet? If theoretically 50% percent of my population didn't get any income (excluding slavery for a second) do you seriously believe that there would be more equality in this wonderful empire of mine.

Saciu wrote:Perhaps poor fathers are selling their daughters to rich people.

I wouldn't find it plausible that a nobleman would want to buy a peasant's daughter for a significantly high prise.

I never said it was a significantly high price.

NationStates issues have exaggerated options with exaggerated results, consumed by an often even more exaggerated player-base. More at 6!

---

---

Talatorrum wrote:Another thing that I find completely unbelievable is that almost everyone seems to insist that lowering womens worker rights increases wealth equality. Do you believe that if it wasn't allowed for almost 50% of my nation's population to leave the house that my nation's income equality would rise or do you believe it would plummet? If theoretically 50% percent of my population didn't get any income (excluding slavery for a second) do you seriously believe that there would be more equality in this wonderful empire of mine.

Perhaps "lack of an income" is not included in the measure of "equality of incomes?" Also, as all jobs struggle to adapt to a sudden shortage of workers, the lower end of wages would have to rise significantly. It's a workers' market at that point.