Beta 003: Employment Math Fix

[[violet]]

This beta fixes a math error that causes nations to skip over the range 52-62%. Instead of displaying a number in that range, nations display something in the mid to high 60s.

[Fauxia]

Why is it skipping those numbers, or would you have to shoot me if you told me that ?

Although, I kinda think there should be an unemployment stat (as in the unemployment rate), but that’s for a different thread.

[[violet]]

Why is it skipping those numbers

There's a square root in the algorithm and it needs to be performed on a number that can be negative. You can't take the square root of a negative number, so if need be, the algorithm takes the absolute value, performs the square root, then makes it negative again if necessary afterward. There's an error in this last part, so it actually checks the wrong value, causing errors when the correct number was negative but the wrongly checked number is positive. This can only occur in a particular range of values, which eventually translates out to about 52-62.

[Trotterdam]

Could you link to the beta page in each beta thread? It makes it easier to pay it a quick visit when there's a new thread.

[Austersan]

This seems like a more appropriate place to put this suggestion, so here it is.

The employment rate doesn't really make sense for a lot of countries. Employment is clearly correlated with economic strength, yet my country and many other countries have extremely unrealistic levels of unemployment and still maintain incredible economies. This goes for many nations that haven't even really invested in automation or other processes like these that could conceivably reduce employment while raising the economy.

I would suggest linking the economic rating and employment more closely, or just making employment rates more realistic.

[[violet]]

What about your current employment rate seems off? I'm not sure whether you're saying it's unrealistically low or unrealistically high.

[Alistia]

What about your current employment rate seems off? I'm not sure whether you're saying it's unrealistically low or unrealistically high.

He means low. He is in the bottom 92% for employment, yet has a great (scary good) economy.

[Merconitonitopia]

What about your current employment rate seems off? I'm not sure whether you're saying it's unrealistically low or unrealistically high.

He means low. He is in the bottom 92% for employment, yet has a great (scary good) economy.

1% inco me earners despite 29% employment here lol. similarly top 10% manufacturing (5% arms) despite 20th primitiveness and i'm pretty sure i outlawed industry a couple of times. so less than a third of my population bashing rocks together while everyone else sits around and does nothing is more productive than 99% of other countries.

[Huelistan]

Why is it skipping those numbers, or would you have to shoot me if you told me that ?

Although, I kinda think there should be an unemployment stat (as in the unemployment rate), but that’s for a different thread.

Or maybe just turning the employment rate into unemployment (ie 100-employment). That's the stat that actually matters in real life right?

And about the proposed fix, I think it'll work better, although there isn't a huge change whatsoever. Looks good, anyways.

[Kinbote-Knight]

I always get confused with the current employment stat as I'm not sure whether mine is good or bad - because I'm never sure when it drops or rises whether it's a change in the workforce or unemployment - I never know whether my employment has dropped because there are more people going to uni or retiring - as they wouldn't be in the workforce, or whether it is actually a sign that my economy (whilst very high and successful) is not translating into jobs.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

You and me both. We had a big backstage discussion about this, as lack of clarity on what the stat meant was leading to different treatments of it in issues.

The final answer is this:

The number is the percentage of human inhabitants in your nation who are in employment.

It's not the Workforce Participation Rate, despite what the graph says. It includes human non-citizens. It makes no reference to whether employment is paid or not. It doesn't include non-humans, like AI citizens or animal citizens.

Hope that helps.

[[violet]]

Also I think people sometimes misunderstand Employment by thinking higher is always better. In real life, the ideal number is moderate, signifying a nation where there's good incentives & opportunity to work, but people can choose leisure, personal pursuits, or retirement without putting their survival on the line. If Employment is very high, work is more of a life-or-death proposition, and if it's very low, it often means there's no work to be had.

[Neo Byzantium]

Seems good to me.

[Bears Armed]

The number is the percentage of human inhabitants in your nation who are in employment.

It's not the Workforce Participation Rate, despite what the graph says. It includes human non-citizens. It makes no reference to whether employment is paid or not. It doesn't include non-humans, like AI citizens or animal citizens.

And in nations whose population is primarily non-human?

[The Candy Of Bottles]

The number is the percentage of human inhabitants in your nation who are in employment.

It's not the Workforce Participation Rate, despite what the graph says. It includes human non-citizens. It makes no reference to whether employment is paid or not. It doesn't include non-humans, like AI citizens or animal citizens.

And in nations whose population is primarily non-human?

Well, I would assume that in that case you need to swap out "human" for your primary race. Gameside assumes a human citizenry anyway.

[Merconitonitopia]

The number is the percentage of human inhabitants in your nation who are in employment.

It's not the Workforce Participation Rate, despite what the graph says. It includes human non-citizens. It makes no reference to whether employment is paid or not. It doesn't include non-humans, like AI citizens or animal citizens.

And in nations whose population is primarily non-human?

not really canon in gameplay

[Yueereia]

unempolement should not paid untli they benfit the nation

[He Qixin]

I'm no adult here, but what does 52-62% got to do with square roots in employment? I still don't get it.

[Phydios]

I'm no adult here, but what does 52-62% got to do with square roots in employment? I still don't get it.

Emphasis mine.

There's a square root in the algorithm and it needs to be performed on a number that can be negative. You can't take the square root of a negative number, so if need be, the algorithm takes the absolute value, performs the square root, then makes it negative again if necessary afterward. There's an error in this last part, so it actually checks the wrong value, causing errors when the correct number was negative but the wrongly checked number is positive. This can only occur in a particular range of values, which eventually translates out to about 52-62.

[He Qixin]

Thanks!

[He Qixin]

Instead of displaying a number in that range, nations display something in the mid to high 60s.

Really?

Au contraire

[[violet]]

Hmm?

[He Qixin]

Hmm?

the nation had a value of above "mid- to high-60s".

[Leutria]

Hmm?

the nation had a value of above "mid- to high-60s".

The issue was not that nations that should show values in the 52-62 range instead showed a number in the mid to high 60s. Not that nations could not be higher. In fact, above the 60s the number were working as they should. Plus this beta has already been implemented.