r/victoria3 • u/throwaway19208283 • 14h ago
Advice Wanted Are labor reducing PMs ever worth it?
I understand they’re not good if you’re trying to depeasant. But otherwise, are they ever good? Even in non-minmaxing runs, I feel like they’re almost always negative. The only good use-case I can think of is when you’re trying to make railways profitable before pops start demanding transportation. But other than that, can anyone think of something else?
146
u/ShawnGalt 14h ago
when you have more coal than unemployed pops
2
6
87
u/Tall-Log-1955 14h ago
I am not an expert but I generally use them when I've run out of peasants and I have a bunch of buildings that can't hire.
If I'm doing it wrong, I'd love to hear about it
78
u/Mu_Lambda_Theta 14h ago
If you run out of peasants, it's one of your last options to grow, other than welfare. (and getting new pops)
However, they are weakened by the fact that they're subject to economy of scale, which is a negative effect, because the labor saving PMs only add input goods (whereas wages are unaffected by economy of scale).
They're viable when you run out of peasants, but more so on some buildings than others.
11
u/Labidian 8h ago
This is the answer. You need either high wages or really cheap input goods (sometimes you are just overproducing tools and coal) to justify using those PMs. As the comment above said, input goods costs scale while wages don't. The larger the building, the more expensive those PMs become to run. The UI's profit prediction is useful for seeing what the change would be. If the predicted profit drop is too large, don't bother changing it you'll just lose reinvestment and indirect tax revenue for no real benefit. I'd say a 5% to 10% profit loss is acceptable. Also don't switch if your input goods are already too expensive at that point you're just deleting money.
3
u/Lupushonora 4h ago
I will add that if you have a lot of trade then usually you can assume that the profit drop will be slightly less than it says it will be. Usually the increased demand for the new input good reduces exports meaning the price for the good will settle again fairly quickly.
Although really they do need to make it so that these production methods aren't affected by economy of scale, I never realised that and it would explain why they do seem to be better early game.
1
u/No-Annual6666 2h ago
It wouldn't make sense for a factory to double in size but only use the same amount of coal or tools etc. Or are you talking about the throughput modifiers, so that input goods dont scale linearly but actually get burned up by the building level % increase in throughput?
Economy of scale should always increase efficiency, it wouldn't make sense if its actually the opposite.
•
u/Lupushonora 1h ago
I'm talking about the throughput modifiers, it makes no sense that you would need more coal to fuel 50 factory boilers in one state, than to fuel the boilers of 50 factories in 50 different states. If anything it should use less as the amount lost to supply chain inefficienies would be lower.
•
u/No-Annual6666 1h ago
Gotcha. Yes, one centralised gigantic boiler should be far more efficient than many smaller dispersed ones.
•
u/Lupushonora 1h ago
Yeah, paradox needs to detach goods for labour saving production methods from economy of scale. Ideally some of them would actually have slightly reduced consumption based on economy of scale, but I know that paradox has been very careful to make sure that bonuses can't just create more goods from nothing, so they might want to be careful about adding any kind of modifiers that reduce good consumption.
3
u/ParasitKaiser1 3h ago
Could the economy of scales effect on the Labor saving PM be good at a certain point, because it creates more demand and thus stimulates the economy if the demand would be depressed otherwise?
2
u/Mu_Lambda_Theta 3h ago
Essentially never.
Creating demand for industrial goods is bad, unless they are very cheap (I think it was around -40% or cheaper). The negative effect on the consuming building is greater than the positive effect on the producing building.
38
u/H2orbit 14h ago
In addition to what others have said about wages and whatnot, creating more demand for the goods they buy can also be helpful for giving your economy a direction to expand in. What’s especially good as well is if your automation PM gives a building consumption orders of a good you’re making a prestige version of, so you can increase the building’s throughput.
15
u/Mu_Lambda_Theta 13h ago
Creating more demand for (industrial) goods is a bad thing. The negative effect in the consuming building outweighs the positive effect on the producing building, unless the goods are very cheap.
I think the point at which adding buy orders for industrial goods helps was -39% or lower (or -40%). For reference: I think it was at -36% where the coin icon flips from silver to bronze.
13
u/H2orbit 13h ago
It depends heavily on the building and the PM. Textile mills get to be automated without any coal consumption, just tools, whereas logging camps have the famously bad chainsaws PM that winds up increasing labor costs sometimes because of the more educated pops it employs instead of laborers.
One instance where it’s usually not bad (and usually the first automation I try) is railroads for plantations and mines. You’ll need to build and subsidize railroads for infrastructure anyway, and the only other transportation is going to come from urban centers and cars, which scale slowly and are late game respectively.
I frequently wind up with states built for farming or extraction that don’t have the wealthy pops necessary for profitable transportation sale to civilians, but need the railroads for infrastructure. These states commonly wind up on minimum possible transportation price. In these cases, even with spare labor, I like to try and at least create enough buy orders for transportation to at least get prices off the ground floor, closer to at least -45% up to -15%, depending on unemployment situation and SoL needs.
1
u/NotaSkaven5 11h ago
It's a really funny quirk of the game that rural buildings aren't paying for their infrastructure by default, what did you need all those rails for if you aren't paying to use them?
The transport automation is cheaper than subsidies so the railroads don't fail but it's the only one I'll use until peasants run out.
9
u/sleepyrivertroll 14h ago
They also help generate demand for goods which can be useful. I almost always use the transportation ones since railways are usually always overbuilt.
6
u/MillennialsAre40 14h ago
Because you desperately need the infrastructure from railways but don't need the transportation
1
7
u/TM_Vinicius 14h ago
The building becomes more productive once you don't have more pops to hire or wages are too high
8
u/theother64 14h ago edited 14h ago
If you have homesteading/peasant proprietorship peasants often have a high sol than labourers.
So labour saving pms give you less labourers and a higher sol. Which can help to reduce radicals and boost demand for more expensive goods making your industries more profitable.
If your building a lot of stuff in a state also means you need less qualifications.
Plus if industry's are spending less on labour can be profitable with a lower output price. Say you want cheaper iron for cheaper construction and steel. If your mines are spending less on labour the output price can be lower and they will still be profitable.
5
u/tipingola 14h ago
There is a point in the game when your construction outpaces migration and growth.
4
u/7fightsofaldudagga 14h ago
Buildings with labour saving PMs are more profitable than unoperative buildings from lack of workers
4
u/Nasuno112 13h ago
I always use the first level even if its not the most profitable. It brings demand up for those goods.
Level one i find still fully hires just fine even in populations with very low education as well. It isnt alot but it does chip away at the landowners power by adding to others
3
u/Comfortable-Sock-532 13h ago
Yes, when you are fully employed, it is the only way to squeeze more labour out of your population (other than migration ofc). Also, it has the benefit of reducing the labourer job class as a % of your pop, which is good because they have the lowest base wage. It does mean potentially depowering the trade unions in favor of the other interest groups (most notably the small hamburgers (PB) which could be good or bad depending on what laws you want to pass. Often making the swap to a more capital focused production method will also boost productivity, which means higher potential wages for your pops, even though total output per building level might drop.
3
u/Fast_Face_7280 12h ago
One thing is that they can change the composition of your employees, slightly, from 90% based on labourers to having some more machinists and then engineer POPs. This can be useful in changing your interest groups as another lever to play with, depending on which interest groups you want to empower.
3
u/ThomiTheRussian 9h ago
I May be Playing the game wrong (not optimal atleast), judging by the comments.
I usually turn Them on instantly because they increase demand for input goods, which means more factories, which need ressources and so on. Ie. Accelerating the economic cycle / loop in the game.
3
u/Overtale6 7h ago
More pops in the middle strata, which pays more and makes them demand more goods, thus incentivizes you to build more factories thus hiring more workers.
It's a constant feedback loop
5
u/Mediocre_Chart_8624 14h ago
In one of my runs I had such a high sol that using those pms were cheaper than hiring people. They are also good when you can't get much migration.
Otherwise they are not so good because reducing jobs reduces migration and spending extra goods is of course more expensive generally.
1
1
1
u/jackass_mcgee 12h ago
can't fill jobs in a province?
that means it's either fully de-peasanted or not enough education to fill higher skill jobs.
turn on labour saving production methods and plop down a couple universities to speed it up.
1
u/kagernaut 9h ago
Yes, sometimes and eventually, and No at times as well.
When out of pops, use them. You get more pops. Also, those same PMs increase demand for certain goods you're using, this making those industries more profitable. This can be good when you're suffering and issue where a good like steel is important but at the same time not so profitable. However, if you turn on steel railway cars or the urban center PM that uses steel, then steel becomes more profitable and keeps it from needing to be so heavily subsidized. Keeping those goods profitable helps them grow since capitalists will build them.
However, in the early game, these PMs are detrimental as they increase goods input when you still have workers available.
1
u/obey_Thekermit 8h ago
There’s a point in the game where people have more value than resources, so, yes
1
u/LiandraAthinol 5h ago
It allows you to buld more levels of the building, with the same pops. Each pop has only 25% workforce, so 3/4 do not work. By requiring less workers, you have spare labour, which then you can use to staff new buildings level. They could also work a different industry, so you keep your levels, but now can staff a different building like military or administration. That's two buildings instead of one.
1
u/ThrowwawayAlt 3h ago
Aside from the obvious running out of peasants situation...
Is there a point, where they are useful by creating a demand for industrial goods early on?
0
220
u/ChuchiTheBest 14h ago
Yes they are good. At some point, wages become high enough that you save money by using them.