DRAFT: What You Can't Take With You

[Stormcalling]

Description:
Deaths by overwork are a known risk in the economy of @@NAME@@, but they keep happening. This problem recently came to a head when your Minister of Industry showed up on national television for a speech, collapsed partway through, and was subsequently ruled by the coroner as having suffered a stroke from overwork. At the wake of this event, various individuals have come forward with advice.

Validity:
Deaths by overwork in the economy over a threshold value

Option 1: (Capitalist economy)
@@RANDOMNAME@@, a lobbyist for a major pharmaceutical company, says, "Nobody dies of 'overwork'. It's always more specifically something like a stroke, heart attack, or suicide. The most economical solution to this problem is funding research of better drugs for maintaining the health of heart and brain. The death rate from overwork proves people are willing to work; if we provide better support for that, we can save their lives while letting them do it."
Fallout: public healthcare and industry funding are becoming hard to tell apart

Option 2: (Socialist economy)
@@RANDOMNAME@@, a pharmaceutical researcher who has lately been more known for defending the work of other researchers than for their own projects, has this to say, "Nobody dies of 'overwork'. It's always more specifically something like a stroke, heart attack, or suicide. The most economical solution to this problem is funding research of better drugs for maintaining the health of heart and brain. The death rate from overwork proves people are willing to work; if we provide better support for that, we can save their lives while letting them do it."
Fallout: state researchers are attempting to produce chemically optimized workers

Option 3: (Slavery permitted)
Your Health and Public Safety Minister responded to the incident by immediately scheduling an emergency vacation and has skipped the wake. @@HIS@@ Junior Minister of Health has this to say in @@HIS@@ absence, "If we're serious about this issue, it's absurd that we allow slavery in this country. Break the whips and let people work at their own pace!"
Fallout: the last straw for slavery was its effect on longevity

Option 4: (No slavery)
Your Health and Public Safety Minister responded to the incident by immediately scheduling an emergency vacation and has skipped the wake. @@HIS@@ Junior Minister of Health has this to say in @@HIS@@ absence, "We need to crack down on slavedriving managers in our economy. Order them retrained, fired, or at least sent on vacations like the one @@HIS@@ Tyranicalness has finally allotted @@HIMSELF@@. Let people work at their own pace!"
Fallout: the public health ministry is at war with productivity

Option 5:
"Do you know who dies of old age in most economies? Rich people!" shouts the Junior Minister of Industry, attending the wake dressed in burlap and barbed wire to prove @@HIS@@ fearless commitment to austerity. "Think about all the other causes of death. Cancer, exposure, scurvy, heart disease! It takes money to deal with these things! If it's work that's killing people, our economy is primitive, and WE MUST WORK HARDER!"
Fallout: workers seek raises to pay for work-related ailments

Option 6: (Capitalist Economy)
Your laid-back Minister for Culture @@RANDOMNAME@@ lights one of the pharmaceutical lobbyist's pamphlets on fire and holds it up in the air as @@HE@@ says, "We don't always need to fear this word 'primitive'. The problem is that our public and working spaces are ugly, stressful places to be. Throw some funding my way and I can fix this." @@HE@@ tosses the burning pamphlet in a trash bin, then flinches and runs for a fire extinguisher as the bin catches fire.
Fallout: work is still hard with pastel walls

Option 7: (Socialist Economy)
Your laid-back Minister for Culture @@RANDOMNAME@@ tries to give a shoulder massage to the junior minister as @@HE@@ says, "We don't always need to fear this word 'primitive'. The problem is that our public and working spaces are ugly, stressful places to be. Throw some funding my way and I can fix this." @@HE@@ flinches and goes off to hunt for a bandage for a fresh cut on his hand.
Fallout: dead workers are commemorated with art installations

EDIT #1: ACK, I accidentally posted before giving a title to the issue. Er, this title isn't very good... Sorry about this.
#2: Added Fallout lines.
#3: New title. New Fallouts for 6 and 7. Slight modification to Fallout 1.
#4: Accident changed to incident.

[Autonomous Cleaner Bot Cleaners]

Option 1: (Capitalist economy)
@@RANDOMNAME@@, a lobbyist for a major pharmaceutical company, says, "Nobody dies of 'overwork'. It's always more specifically something like a stroke, heart attack, or suicide. The most economical solution to this problem is funding research of better drugs for maintaining the health of heart and brain. The death rate from overwork proves people are willing to work; if we provide better support for that, we can save their lives while letting them do it."
Fallout: public healthcare and industry funding are becoming hard to tell apart

Option 2: (Socialist economy)
@@RANDOMNAME@@, a pharmaceutical researcher who has lately been more known for defending the work of other researchers than for their own projects, has this to say, "Nobody dies of 'overwork'. It's always more specifically something like a stroke, heart attack, or suicide. The most economical solution to this problem is funding research of better drugs for maintaining the health of heart and brain. The death rate from overwork proves people are willing to work; if we provide better support for that, we can save their lives while letting them do it."
Fallout: state researchers are attempting to produce chemically optimized workers

Other than changing "industry lobbyist" to "industry researcher," how are these options different? More over, how are they different in terms of capitalist vs. socialist? They make identical claims and prescribe identical solutions.

Same with these:

Option 6: (Capitalist Economy)
Your laid-back Minister for Culture @@RANDOMNAME@@ lights one of the pharmaceutical lobbyist's pamphlets on fire and holds it up in the air as @@HE@@ says, "We don't always need to fear this word 'primitive'. The problem is that our public and working spaces are ugly, stressful places to be. Throw some funding my way and I can fix this." @@HE@@ tosses the burning pamphlet in a trash bin, then flinches and runs for a fire extinguisher as the bin catches fire.
Fallout: work is still hard with pastel walls

Option 7: (Socialist Economy)
Your laid-back Minister for Culture @@RANDOMNAME@@ tries to give a shoulder massage to the junior minister as @@HE@@ says, "We don't always need to fear this word 'primitive'. The problem is that our public and working spaces are ugly, stressful places to be. Throw some funding my way and I can fix this." @@HE@@ flinches and goes off to hunt for a bandage for a fresh cut on his hand.
Fallout: dead workers are commemorated with art installations[/box]

They are apparently supposed to be capitalist vs. socialist, but they again blame "overwork" on exactly the same problems, and prescribe exactly the same solution. Also, what does "we don't always need to fear this word 'primitive'" mean in these contexts?

I would recommend reworking this issue to have a total of three options:

1) Capitalist -- "Overwork is/isnt' a problem because..." some capitalist economic reasoning.
2) Socialist -- "Overwork is/isn't a problem because..." some socialist economic reasoning.
3) Crazy third option -- "Quit crying you crying crybabies because..." something suitably insane.

Get those three down solid, then we'll see if any more options are needed.

[The Sherpa Empire]

Validity:
Deaths by overwork in the economy over a threshold value

Is this tracked as a stat? If it is, I must be more of a bleeding-heart liberal than I thought to never see it on any of my puppets.

Other than changing "industry lobbyist" to "industry researcher," how are these options different? More over, how are they different in terms of capitalist vs. socialist? They make identical claims and prescribe identical solutions.

Changing the speaker's title is a legitimate reason to use capitalist/socialist doppelgangers.

On the other hand...

Same with these:

Option 6: (Capitalist Economy)
Your laid-back Minister for Culture @@RANDOMNAME@@ lights one of the pharmaceutical lobbyist's pamphlets on fire and holds it up in the air as @@HE@@ says, "We don't always need to fear this word 'primitive'. The problem is that our public and working spaces are ugly, stressful places to be. Throw some funding my way and I can fix this." @@HE@@ tosses the burning pamphlet in a trash bin, then flinches and runs for a fire extinguisher as the bin catches fire.
Fallout: work is still hard with pastel walls

Option 7: (Socialist Economy)
Your laid-back Minister for Culture @@RANDOMNAME@@ tries to give a shoulder massage to the junior minister as @@HE@@ says, "We don't always need to fear this word 'primitive'. The problem is that our public and working spaces are ugly, stressful places to be. Throw some funding my way and I can fix this." @@HE@@ flinches and goes off to hunt for a bandage for a fresh cut on his hand.
Fallout: dead workers are commemorated with art installations[/box]

They are apparently supposed to be capitalist vs. socialist, but they again blame "overwork" on exactly the same problems, and prescribe exactly the same solution.

I agree that these two don't really work.

The reason for the doppelganger seems to be that the reference to the pharmaceutical lobbyist does not make sense unless you got the option with the lobbyist in it, but I think the solution to that is to simply not write about burning the lobbyist's pamphlets. It's not immediately obvious to me why he is doing that anyway.

Also, what does "we don't always need to fear this word 'primitive'" mean in these contexts?

Also this. ^

The option could generally be clearer about what is being proposed. Yeah, the minister wants more funding, but specifically what is he going to do with it?

In options 3 and 4, you refer to "the accident," but that's an odd choice of words to describe a guy having a stroke.

[Stormcalling]

Fixed accident to incident. That was definitely an error on my part.

Not fearing primitive responses in this case refers to that the technological solutions put forward are so questionable that just trying to make the environment more humane would work better. I like 6 better because it trashes on both technological solutions (that's why he's burning the pamphlet) while turn 7 only criticizes one of them, though I agree neither is clear on what the proposal is. 6/7 would have been more clear if I hadn't thought I was being too wordy; I was especially worried about wordiness with the first one, since the guy was holding a burning piece of paper while presenting his idea. I'll think about how to write it correctly. The culture minister in 7 should spend a few more words proposing something specific. Any suggestions for what the cultural minister could suggest with brevity for 6?

[Window Land]

Validity:
Deaths by overwork in the economy over a threshold value

Is this tracked as a stat? If it is, I must be more of a bleeding-heart liberal than I thought to never see it on any of my puppets.

Yes, it is, one of my puppets had over half of its deaths by work.

[Australian rePublic]

What about an option for full automation?

[Autonomous Cleaner Bot Cleaners]

Changing the speaker's title is a legitimate reason to use capitalist/socialist doppelgangers.

I guess I'm simply not sure why there need to be distinct speakers for options that are otherwise basically identical. If the capitalist and socialist identify precisely the same problem, and propose the same solution word for word...well, there's really only one option there.

[The Sherpa Empire]

Changing the speaker's title is a legitimate reason to use capitalist/socialist doppelgangers.

I guess I'm simply not sure why there need to be distinct speakers for options that are otherwise basically identical. If the capitalist and socialist identify precisely the same problem, and propose the same solution word for word...well, there's really only one option there.

Yeah, it is one option with two versions.

Nobody would get both versions because the validities are mutually exclusive. Everyone who receives the issue would see one or the other, but not both.

[Autonomous Cleaner Bot Cleaners]

Yeah, it is one option with two versions.

[The Sherpa Empire]

There are issues in the game that do this sort of thing, having capitalist/socialist versions of the same option. I'm not sure what the big deal is.

[Autonomous Cleaner Bot Cleaners]

There are issues in the game that do this sort of thing, having capitalist/socialist versions of the same option. I'm not sure what the big deal is.

The deal is that the options in questions are word-for-word identical. There are no "versions." Just one option, except that one speaker is a "pharmaceutical lobbyist" and the other is a "pharmaceutical researcher." There is nothing inherently "capitalist" about lobbyists, nor "socialist" about researchers. They are interchangeable.

I suppose I'm confused because as currently written, the issue intends to present different options for capitalist vs. socialist nations by presenting precisely the same option for each:

Option 1: (Capitalist economy)
@@RANDOMNAME@@, a lobbyist for a major pharmaceutical company, says, "Nobody dies of 'overwork'. It's always more specifically something like a stroke, heart attack, or suicide. The most economical solution to this problem is funding research of better drugs for maintaining the health of heart and brain. The death rate from overwork proves people are willing to work; if we provide better support for that, we can save their lives while letting them do it."

Option 2: (Socialist economy)
@@RANDOMNAME@@, a pharmaceutical researcher who has lately been more known for defending the work of other researchers than for their own projects, has this to say, "Nobody dies of 'overwork'. It's always more specifically something like a stroke, heart attack, or suicide. The most economical solution to this problem is funding research of better drugs for maintaining the health of heart and brain. The death rate from overwork proves people are willing to work; if we provide better support for that, we can save their lives while letting them do it."

If there's no fundamental difference in problem perception or policy prescription between capitalists and socialists for this particular dilemma (... ), then there's no reason to complicate the issue with all these option conditions.

At the very least, I'm trying to imagine any but an extremely small subset of "socialists" arguing something like "nobody dies of overwork." Um, what? The entire history of socialism, labor unions, and general workers' agitation is cemented into the foundational claim that the workers' bones are being ground into dust for the benefit of the employing class.

I suppose if option 2 is meant to be capturing some sort of Stalinist gulag hellscape (a.k.a. illiberal/state capitalism, according to a whole host of socialists), then the speaker ought to be someone other than a generic altruistic researcher. And the speech might include more about working for the glorious victory of the working class, no matter how much of the working class may or may not be sold as bonemeal by the time we're finished comrades! etc. etc.

So, perhaps something more like this:

[option capitalism] Nobody dies of overwork, says evil CEO, we just need to make more stronger coffee to get things done...
[option capitalism] People can die of overwork, says benevolent turtleneck CEO, and workplace safety and vacations promote productivity and profits...
[option socialism] Nobody dies of overwork, says gulag recreational activities director, we just need to electrify all the chairs and pants pockets to discourage malingering...
[option socialism] People can die of overwork, says anarchist freegan dumpster diver, and we could overthrow these statist pigs and take direct control and also are you going to eat that?...
[option obviously correct let the AI/robots do everything] <-- That.

[The Sherpa Empire]

There are issues in the game that do this sort of thing, having capitalist/socialist versions of the same option. I'm not sure what the big deal is.

The deal is that the options in questions are word-for-word identical. There are no "versions." Just one option, except that one speaker is a "pharmaceutical lobbyist" and the other is a "pharmaceutical researcher." There is nothing inherently "capitalist" about lobbyists, nor "socialist" about researchers. They are interchangeable.

There are existing issues that have doppelgangers with only small differences.

If you think there's a way to make the options better, then OK. But you're acting like this is an error that needs to be corrected rather than just a place that the writing could be spiced up, and you're being needlessly pushy about it.