• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #11 - Employment and Qualifications

DD11.png


Happy Thursday and welcome to another deep-dive into the guts of Victoria 3’s economic machinery. This week we will be talking about Pop Professions, specifically how and why Pops change Profession. While this is an automatic process, the mechanics of it is still crucial knowledge to keep in the back of your head when building your society. Perhaps you want to ensure the population in one of your states are able to take on Machinist jobs before embarking on a rapid industrialization project there, or perhaps you want to ensure you don’t accidentally enable too much social mobility in a country already prone to uprisings against their true and lawful King.

First, a quick recap. In the Pops dev diary we learned that all Pops have a Profession, which determines their social strata and influences a number of things like wages, political strength, and Interest Group affiliations. In the Buildings dev diary we learned that buildings need Pops of specific Professions to work there in order for them to produce their intended effects on the economy and society. Finally, in the Production Methods dev diary we learned that different Production Methods change the number of Profession positions available in a building. So how do Pops get assigned to these spots?

Our approach here differs a bit from previous games. Victoria 1 and 2 has the concept of a “Pop Type”, a fundamental property of Pops in those games that defines most aspects of their existence - what function they perform in society, what goods they need to survive vs. what goods they desire, what ideologies they espouse, etcetera. Pops in Victoria 2 autonomously change into other types over time depending on their finances and the various needs and aspects of the country. Providing access to luxury goods in your country permits Pops to promote more easily. Generally speaking, higher-tier Pops will provide better bonuses for your country as different Pop Types perform different functions. By manufacturing or importing special goods and educating your population you would turn your simple, backwards Pops into advanced, progressive types in ideal ratios, which maximizes these bonuses to increase your competitive advantage.

Pop Types from Victoria 2: Aristocrats, Artisans, Bureaucrats, Capitalists, Clergymen, Clerks, Craftsmen, Farmers, Laborers, Officers, Slaves, and Soldiers.
poptypes-v2.png

Victoria 3 Pops instead have Professions. These are in some ways similar to “Pop Type”, but the ideal ratios and economic functions of those Professions differ based on the building they’re employed in and the Production Methods activated. The fundamental difference between these two approaches become clear when considering the Bureaucrat Pop Type/Profession in Victoria 2 and 3. In both games, Bureaucrats increase a country’s administrative ability. But in Victoria 2 Pops promote into Bureaucrats independently in relation to the amount of administrative spending the player sets, while in Victoria 3 Pops will only become Bureaucrats if there are available Bureaucrat jobs in Government buildings, usually as a result of the player actively expanding Government Administrations.

Professions in Victoria 3: Academics, Aristocrats, Bureaucrats, Capitalists, Clergymen (temporary icon; will be changed to be more universally applicable), Clerks, Engineers, Farmers, Laborers, Machinists, Officers, Peasants, Servicemen, Shopkeepers, and Slaves.
professions-v3.png

The latter approach gives the player more control over where these job opportunities are created, and combined with Production Methods cause demographic shifts to have stronger, more localized effects that are easier to predict and understand. It’s also more flexible, permitting the same Profession to cause different effects in different Buildings given different Production Methods. So in Victoria 3 higher-paid Pops don’t by their very nature perform a more valuable societal function than lower-paid Pops - rather, each acts as a crucial part of a Production Method’s ‘recipe’. Each of these roles require the others to be effective - without enough Laborers to shovel coal the engines the Machinists maintain stay dormant, and without seamstresses to work the sewing machines the Shopkeepers don’t have any clothes to sell.

Buildings adjust their wages over time in order to achieve full employment with minimal wage costs. As employment increases, so does the Throughput - the degree by which the building consumes input goods and produces output goods. By the laws of supply and demand, this makes a building less profitable per capita the closer to full employment it gets, so at first blush it might appear irrational for a building to pay more wages just to reduce their margins. But since a “building” does not represent a single factory but rather a whole industrial sector across a large area, and we assume the individual businesses in that sector compete with each other rather than engage in cartel behavior to extort consumers, this adjustment of wages to maximize employment makes sense. However, buildings won’t increase wages due to labor competition if this would cause them to go into deficit, so there’s little point to expanding industries beyond the point where they’re profitable.

Employees are hired into available jobs from the pool of Pops that already exist in the state, but unless they’re unemployed these Pops will already have a job somewhere doing something else. Pops can be hired under two conditions: first, they must be offered a measurably higher wage than the wage they’re currently getting from their current employment. Second, unless they already work as the required Profession in another building, they must also meet the Qualifications of that Profession to change into it.

These Steel Mills don’t pay as well as the Arms Industries, but they do seem to offer better terms than the Textile Mills and resource industries in the same state - with the notable exception of Fishing Wharves, who also need Machinists to service their trawlers.
steel-mills-hiring.PNG

Wages are set by individual buildings in response to market conditions. A building that is losing money will decrease wages until it’s back in the black. A building that has open jobs it can’t seem to fill will raise wages until it either fills the necessary positions or runs out of excess profits. As a result, different buildings in the same state will compete for the available workforce. What this means in practice is that a large population with the necessary Qualifications to perform all the jobs being created in the state will keep wages depressed and profits high. Only when industries are large or advanced enough that they need to compete with each other for a limited pool of qualified workers are wages forced to rise. This rise in wages also comes with increased consumption, which increases demand for goods and services that some of the same buildings may profit from in the end.

A Pop’s Qualifications measure how many of its workforce qualify for certain Professions, and updates monthly depending on how well their current properties match up to the expectations of the Profession in question. For example, at least a basic education level is required to become a Machinist while a much higher one is required to become an Engineer. Conversely, the ability to become an Aristocrat is less about education and more about social class and wealth. Buildings won’t hire Pops who don’t meet the Qualifications for the Profession in question.

These 981 Machinists qualify to become Engineers at a rate of 4.08 per month. Their Literacy is nothing to write home about but they at least meet the cut-off of 20%, aren’t starving to death, and benefit substantially from already working in an adjacent field. All factors and numbers are work-in-progress.
machinist-quals.PNG

If some Paper Mills required more Engineers and this Pop was being considered, only the amount of qualified Engineers they’ve accumulated so far could be hired. Currently that is only 85 (not shown). If those 85 were all hired, this Pop would then end up with only 896 members left in the workforce of which 0 now qualify to become Engineers. Since all recently hired Engineers used to be Machinists, all 85 retain their Machinist Qualifications. Furthermore, if 512 members of this Pop qualified to be Farmers before the hire (52%), of the 85 of them who were newly promoted to Engineers, 44 of these new Engineers are also qualified to become Farmers.

To be considered for a “job” as Aristocrat a Pop must have at least moderate Wealth, and the more Wealth they have the faster they will develop this potential. Unlike many other jobs Literacy is not a requirement for being accepted into the aristocracy, but an education does make it easier. Bureaucrats and Officers have an easier time becoming Aristocrats than other members of society, while Pops who suffer discrimination on account of their culture have a much harder time. Finally, if a Pop does not meet the minimum Wealth requirement, they actually devolve any prior potential for becoming Aristocrats. This means that down-and-out former nobles robbed of their land and forced to go unemployed or (perish the thought) become a wage laborer will - over time - lose their ability to return to their former social class. All factors and numbers are work-in-progress.
officers-quals.PNG

Like all Pop attributes, Qualifications follow the Pops as they split, merge, move between buildings, migrate, and die. If you had previously developed a lot of potential Bureaucrats in your country but ran into budgetary problems and had to shut down your schools, over time those Pops who have already developed the Qualifications to become Bureaucrats will die off and not be replaced by newly educated ones. If your Capitalists in a given state had been underpaying their local discriminated employees to the degree that nobody gained the Qualifications to take over for them, and then some of those Capitalists move away to operate a newly opened Iron Mine in the next state over, rather than promoting some of the local discriminated Laborers to the newly opened jobs they will simply leave the spots open (and the mines underproducing) until some qualified Capitalists move in from elsewhere to take over.

Qualifications are entirely moddable by simply providing the computational factors that should go into determining how the value develops each month. If you want to make a mod to split up the Clergymen Profession into individual variants for each Religion in the game, you could make the Imam Profession dependent on the Pop being Sunni or Shi’ite. If you wanted Aristocrat Qualification development to be highly dependent on the amount of unproductive Arable Land in the state the Pop lives in, you could do that. An event option or Decision that makes it faster and easier to educate Engineers but harder to educate Officers for the next 10 years? Absolutely.

A breakdown of all Pops in Lower Egypt that qualify to become Engineers. Of course, any openings will be offered to existing Engineers first, and not all of the remaining qualified Pops would actually be interested in the job - though if it was lucrative enough, perhaps some Aristocrats on a failing Subsistence Farm would consider a career change.
potential-engineers.PNG

The intent of Qualifications is to signal to a player what capacity for employment they have available among any subset of their population. They cannot, for example, conquer a state filled with under-educated people they also legally discriminate against and expect to immediately build up a cutting-edge manufacturing- and trade center there. These efforts will be throttled by their inability to employ the locals into highly qualified positions, meaning they have to wait for members of their already qualified workforce to migrate there from the old country to take on any high-status positions created for them. But by building out their education system, paying Bureaucracy to extend their administrative reach to the new state through incorporation, and changing their Laws to extend citizenship to these new residents, they can start to build this capacity also in the locals.

In summary, Qualifications is the mechanism by which access to education and your stance on discrimination - in addition to many other factors - impact your ability to expand different parts of your society. It is also the mechanism that sorts Pops logically into the economic (and thereby political) niches you carve out as you expand, ensuring your laws and economic conditions inform the social mobility of Pops based on who they are. It’s quite subtle, and you might not even notice it’s there - until you run into the challenges caused by rapid industrialization, mass migration, conquests, colonization, and other drastic population shifts.

That is all for this week! Next Thursday we will finally get into how all this economic activity translates into revenue streams for you, when Martin presents the mechanics governing the Treasury and national debt.
 
  • 219Like
  • 137Love
  • 19
  • 12
  • 2
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Where does it say that?

here:

and without seamstresses to work the sewing machines the Shopkeepers don’t have any clothes to sell.

it's clear who are the shopkeepers, but the seamstresses/tailors are left out.

the distinction between shopkeepers and artisans is important because they really had different agendas. shopkeepers were freetraders and artisans were protectionists.

there is the possibility of labourers = artisans, which again doesn't work. a coal miner had nothing to say about the tariffs, and also the skill of artisans was way higher than say the skill of a lumberjack.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I think a bar graph would be very useful in visualizing the distribution of pops in a state to the different professions. The “machinist” column for example would display the number of currently employed machinists, as well as the total number of pops of other professions qualified as machinists (in a lighter color let’s say).
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
it's clear who are the shopkeepers, but the seamstresses/tailors are left out.

the distinction between shopkeepers and artisans is important because they really had different agendas. shopkeepers were freetraders and artisans were protectionists.

So a certain profession can play different roles in the production process depending on the building and the production process. I think the clothing industry at the start would have shopkeeper-owned businesses where they employ some labourers to do the simple work and also do the fine tailoring themselves - the shopkeeper is the tailor and the labourer is the seamstress. I think the shopkeeper's role in this case is pretty close to the artisan's role in V2. Later on, shopkeepers might not own the businesses, and mechanised production can produce normal clothing without their input, and they are relegated to producing only the luxury clothes.

I think the economic fortunes of the shopkeepers will take a dive with industrialisation and foreign competition. They start out owning the means of production but lose that to capitalists. They start out as the elite labour force in production but lose that to engineers, machinists, capitalists. The only way they can maintain their position is by not letting the industry modernise and not letting cheaper foreign good in. So at least at the beginning, I think this maps fairly well to artisans.

However, I think you are right that it's not a great fit overall, because shopkeepers also crop up in lots of other contexts where their interests would be different. So maybe the game should introduce an artisan profession that controls production of manufactured goods at the start and restrict shopkeepers to the more commercial/service stuff. Not sure.

Edit: One thing would be if the shopkeeper pops could adjust their IG support based on their circumstances. So shopkeepers owning low-tech manufacturing industries would support an IG dedicated to blocking imports and preventing capitalists from taking over their industries. Shopkeeper pops employed in urban centers providing services could support a different pattern of IGs.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
there was a reason why artisans were important enough to appear in victoria 2, and there is no justification to remove them.

the lack of artisans is paradox saying that:
- carpenters and lumberjacks are the same people (artisans are labourers)
- tailors and peddlers are the same people (artisans are shopkeepers)

here is the artisan's war, a civil war in Colombia: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_civil_colombiana_de_1854
 
  • 8
  • 1Like
Reactions:
here:



it's clear who are the shopkeepers, but the seamstresses/tailors are left out.

the distinction between shopkeepers and artisans is important because they really had different agendas. shopkeepers were freetraders and artisans were protectionists.

there is the possibility of labourers = artisans, which again doesn't work. a coal miner had nothing to say about the tariffs, and also the skill of artisans was way higher than say the skill of a lumberjack.

If we were modelling EU era and shopkeepers represent merchants, then artisans are absolutely not in the same category. Artisans and merchants were often at odds. Merchants leveraged their financial advantage in the putting out system to keep artisans at poverty level wages. In places where merchants were politically powerful, they implemented policies designed to keep artisans from gaining financial strength (limits on the number of craftsmen that could work for a master craftsman) and vice versa. It isn't that hard to understand. The artisan made the thing; the merchant sold the thing. If the artisan was in control of the relationship and could charge a lot, then it hurt merchant profits. I mean, when merchants lost control over organized artisan guilds in cities, they fled to the countryside to try and find cheap labor with cottage industry/putting out system.

If we want to say capitalist = merchant and shopkeeper = artisan, then okay. Just replace shopkeeper with artisan when the context is appropriate.

However, capitalist cannot be a new thing and both merchant and artisan are both under shopkeeper. Nope.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
If we were modelling EU era and shopkeepers represent merchants, then artisans are absolutely not in the same category. Artisans and merchants were often at odds. Merchants leveraged their financial advantage in the putting out system to keep artisans at poverty level wages. In places where merchants were politically powerful, they implemented policies designed to keep artisans from gaining financial strength (limits on the number of craftsmen that could work for a master craftsman) and vice versa. It isn't that hard to understand. The artisan made the thing; the merchant sold the thing. If the artisan was in control of the relationship and could charge a lot, then it hurt merchant profits. I mean, when merchants lost control over organized artisan guilds in cities, they fled to the countryside to try and find cheap labor with cottage industry/putting out system.

If we want to say capitalist = merchant and shopkeeper = artisan, then okay. Just replace shopkeeper with artisan when the context is appropriate.

However, capitalist cannot be a new thing and both merchant and artisan are both under shopkeeper. Nope.
in victoria 3 artisans has been removed without justification.

which immediately removes all the civil wars provoked by the tariffs.

I don't see anything good about it.
 
  • 11
  • 1
Reactions:
Good catch! Factors and values are very work-in-progress, and the impact from current Profession is indeed inflated at the moment compared to where it should be.
Having said that, it's not necessarily the case that having Wealth 20 means that every point of Wealth provides 0.1 to the algorithm. In the case of Aristocrats, the algorithm currently looks like this:
- requires Wealth > 10 to be positive at all, otherwise reduce by -2
- add ( Wealth - 10 ) / 5
- add literacy rate
- if Officers or Bureaucrats, multiply the current tally by 5 (this is the part that will be nerfed, likely to 2 or 3)
- if not culturally accepted, reduce by 90%

So a well-to-do, culturally accepted Clerk with Wealth 40 and Literacy 80% would gain a base factor of +6.8 to their Aristocrat Qualifications, which is a very respectable figure without already being one of the two preferred types.

And yeah, this algorithm is really hard to parse and we don't really expect players to keep these figures in their head - this breakdown is more for auditing purposes than gameplay purposes. If the player wants to ensure they gain more Qualifications for Aristocrats in their population, they should look at the Aristocrat description which will explain the factors in more comprehensible terms, like "Potential rises with Wealth and to a lesser degree by Literacy".
This misconception would be fixed if the bonus from being a specific profession before would be changed from being additive to being multiplicative.
Same for the culture. Add a x0.1 and a x5 instead of the additive bonuses to make it clearer.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Within guilds, shopkeepers are masters and laborers are apprentices/journeyman. The former own the business but also do more advanced labor, like producing luxury variants of clothes as seen in the screenshot.

Shopkeepers also provide Services in urban centers even in post-guild economies, just as laborers can do different jobs as well.

That’s how I view it, anyway.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
However, buildings won’t increase wages due to labor competition if this would cause them to go into deficit, so there’s little point to expanding industries beyond the point where they’re profitable.
Is there a way to force industries to produce beyond the point where they would normally be profitable, such as during wartime or to meet an urgent demand.
 
The latter would be cool but there's so many moving parts already - floating wages for each individual Profession in each building is the stuff of designer nightmares. Maybe one day!
I totally get the challenges but I do think this would be interesting if you're able to find a way to make it work.

I work in tech and see this happen very clearly with widening wage gap between software engineers compared to non-technical support staff (despite IMO said staff still being very important)
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Within guilds, shopkeepers are masters and laborers are apprentices/journeyman. The former own the business but also do more advanced labor, like producing luxury variants of clothes as seen in the screenshot.

Shopkeepers also provide Services in urban centers even in post-guild economies, just as laborers can do different jobs as well.

That’s how I view it, anyway.

Yeah, I think the issue is that the system is trying to model different economic eras at the same time (because country's economies are in different places in the game).

In the end, they had to choose an era.

If all of the countries were EU era, then you have a merchant POP type and an artisan POP type. Done. Easy.

If all of the countries were industrial/guild era, capitalist makes sense and a catchall name for people who provide services in urban centers. In the end, they chose shopkeeper. Was it the best choice? No idea.

So, what do you do? Have a merchant/artisan POP that slowly decreases in numbers as a country advances through economic eras? They could have done that.

Or pick between either merchant or capitalist for the "financial" side of business and artisan or shopkeeper for the "good/service" side of the business. Since the era is synonymous with industrialization, I don't blame them for going with the more modern terms.

However, shopkeeper = artisan is definitely one of the bigger stretches when you try to wrap your head around it and I think the developers are going to need to continue to remind people of that.

All tha said, I am fine with capitalist = merchant and shopkeeper = artisan. As long as those are correct. If so, there definitely should be capitalists in countries that have EU era economies to model merchants. Just saying.

One quibble with the above - assuming a laborer is an unskilled profession, a journeyman is definitely not a laborer. Apprentices could be laborers though. ;)
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Is there a way to force industries to produce beyond the point where they would normally be profitable, such as during wartime or to meet an urgent demand.
I know subsidies are going to be a thing and would expect that even the most non-interventionist would do so in the outbreak of war.

Might be a good UX to make it easy to ensure that factories of military products can all be subsidized in the event of war too!
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Yeah, I think the issue is that the system is trying to model different economic eras at the same time (because country's economies are in different places in the game).

In the end, they had to choose an era.

If all of the countries were EU era, then you have a merchant POP type and an artisan POP type. Done. Easy.

If all of the countries were industrial/guild era, capitalist makes sense and a catchall name for people who provide services in urban centers. In the end, they chose shopkeeper. Was it the best choice? No idea.

So, what do you do? Have a merchant/artisan POP that slowly decreases in numbers as a country advances through economic eras? They could have done that.

Or pick between either merchant or capitalist for the "financial" side of business and artisan or shopkeeper for the "good/service" side of the business. Since the era is synonymous with industrialization, I don't blame them for going with the more modern terms.

However, shopkeeper = artisan is definitely one of the bigger stretches when you try to wrap your head around it and I think the developers are going to need to continue to remind people of that.

All tha said, I am fine with capitalist = merchant and shopkeeper = artisan. As long as those are correct. If so, there definitely should be capitalists in countries that have EU era economies to model merchants. Just saying.

One quibble with the above - assuming a laborer is an unskilled profession, a journeyman is definitely not a laborer. Apprentices could be laborers though. ;)
I think you might be getting too hung up on the "shop" part of shopkeeper. They aren't necessarily buying and selling things. They run a small business (shop). It might produce luxury clothes, or it might be a hotel.
 
  • 8
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Is there a way to force industries to produce beyond the point where they would normally be profitable, such as during wartime or to meet an urgent demand.
Subsidise the industry and it will try to go to full employment. So I could see building up armaments industries but in normal times they are at a fraction of employment. If you think war is approaching, start subsidising and they should draw in workers from other industries and start to reach full potential.
 
Will there ever be periods of mass unemployment? Say, a recession or even a depression happens. Or will it just be more everyone is mostly employed, but their wages are a lot lower (and they're pissed about it)? Thanks!
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I think you might be getting too hung up on the "shop" part of shopkeeper. They aren't necessarily buying and selling things. They run a small business (shop). It might produce luxury clothes, or it might be a hotel.
Right, but it isn't just going to be me. It is going to be a lot of people. They see shopkeeper and they don't think of a carpenter.

Even though a carpenter does call the place where they build things the "shop" (at least, that is true in my experience). A "shop"keeper. That makes me chuckle. I actually dig that, but I think it is going to be confusing for a fair number of folks. No one would ever call a hotel "the shop" though, so it breaks down there.

I think they/us/we are just going to need to be continually reminded that shopkeeper = artisan. Shopkeeper is a catchall term for a bunch of different skill based craft/service employments - carpenter, metal worker, goldsmith, hair stylist, toymaker, grocer, butcher, innkeeper/hosteler, etc. Basically, anything that would have fallen under a craft guild during the EU era plus more modern equivalents (dentist? what else? edit: they had dentists during the EU era...).
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I think you might be getting too hung up on the "shop" part of shopkeeper. They aren't necessarily buying and selling things. They run a small business (shop). It might produce luxury clothes, or it might be a hotel.
or they just sell goods, which then makes no sense because artisans are interested always in high tariffs. those new "shopkeepers" will be interested in low tariffs.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
Aristocrats work on subsistence farms, that’s new. Do Production Methods change this? Are there subsistence farms like in say the US that don’t employ them?
They don't work on them, they own them. Assuming based on the tooltips provided, subsistence farms employ two types of pops, aristocrats and peasants (likely slaves as well). And it is likely that there is no way to change the production methods of your subsistence farms because they are just filler buildings, or like your extra building slots in something like hoi4. Since the goal is to generally get out of the subsistence farms and into industrialization over the course of the game, it is likely that aristocrats and peasants (and, again, slaves) are your worst types of pop. What you likely want are aristocrats to get educated and become capitalists while peasants and slaves to, first be free so they can economically migrate, and second to become laborers or farmers in a sugar plantation or an iron mine that you build. Maybe later on they can get an education and become something better (except that one peasant who promoted to engineer in the steel mills in the first tool tip, he is a straight badass).
 
  • 1
Reactions: