D&D 5E 5E economics -The Peasants are revolting!

[Shadowdweller00]

Yeah, OP isn't entirely crazy as it sounds. You can find lists online of what the average income of people from the poorest countries make when converted to comparable buying power in your own country. The overwhelming majority of us first-worlders will find that such incomes wouldn't even cover rent, let alone food costs in our own respective countries. So how do people in such conditions manage to live?

In generational or communal housing; and by subsisting on food they personally grow, herd, hunt, or gather. Not by earning money as unskilled laborers and spending that money for food and shelter.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Yeah, OP isn't entirely crazy as it sounds. You can find lists online of what the average income of people from the poorest countries make when converted to comparable value in your own country. The overwhelming majority of us first-worlders will find that such incomes wouldn't even cover rent, let alone food costs in our own respective countries. So how do people in such conditions manage to live?

In generational or communal housing; and by subsisting on food they personally grow, herd, hunt, or gather. Not by earning money as unskilled laborers and spending that money for food and shelter.

While grey economy is indeed of factor, they can also rent a shelter whose price is adapted to the local market. These lists often confuse readers because they don't realize that the price of food and shelter in these countries is substantially lower than what they're used to. The GDP per capita ratio between Switzerland and Afghanistan is 250. Once you factor in the relative cost, the GDP per capita PPP ratio is only 45. And the five-fold difference isn't homogeneous, the decrease is mostly driven by lower cost of locally-produced goods and service. They might have a hard time buying products that are part of a global market, like oil, but they can afford a little more by paying for local services and goods: a dollar won't buy more iphone in Kabul than Geneva, but it will buy more organically-grown, local, intrant-free vegetables, so the PPP factor will not reflect the difference in consumption structure.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

While grey economy is indeed of factor, they can also rent a shelter whose price is adapted to the local market. These lists often confuse readers because they don't realize that the price of food and shelter in these countries is substantially lower than what they're used to. The GDP per capita ratio between Switzerland and Afghanistan is 250. Once you factor in the relative cost, the GDP per capita PPP ratio is only 45. And the five-fold difference isn't homogeneous, the decrease is mostly driven by lower cost of locally-produced goods and service. They might have a hard time buying products that are part of a global market, like oil, but they can afford a little more by paying for local services and goods: a dollar won't buy more iphone in Kabul than Geneva, but it will buy more organically-grown, local, intrant-free vegetables, so the PPP factor will not reflect the difference in consumption structure.

While it's partly my fault for using the word "value", what I intended to convey was "buying power". That is, lists that index the absolute value of the income to local costs. So, no, those aren't actually concerns - at least for what I was intending to communicate.

For example, as of...something like 15 years ago (?) the average annual LOCAL value of an average wage in Afghanistan (that is what it could buy in terms of local prices) was something on the order of $300 USD when compared to average US prices. Per YEAR. The real value of that wage by international exchange standards would have been considerably smaller.

$300 USD, even 15 years ago, was insane. It wouldn't even cover a month's rent in most places here. At least in any mid-sized or greater town.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I understand you're speaking of PPP (purchasing power parity). But even this measure is skewed by the fact that the basket of goods upon which it is calculated doesn't reflect what the local buys. It's the same with inflation: it's an average, and you can be affected more by inflation if you do not buy exactly the same type of goods than is used (for example, if gas and vegetable increase a lot, and smartphone goes down, but you don't buy smartphones and only buy gas and vegetable, your expanses will increase more than if you had bought a smartphone on top). With PPP, the measurement does work like you say, but Afghan, when converted to US-like wage, do not buy the same thing as a US household, they simply won't afford new smartphone, will have trouble buying gasoline, goods that are imported... because it's extremely expensive, but they will buy proportionally more locally-produced goods and services, which are even cheaper than the PPP modifier do reflect.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

But even this measure is skewed by the fact that the basket of goods upon which it is calculated doesn't reflect what the local buys. It's the same with inflation: it's an average, and you can be affected more by inflation if you do not buy exactly the same type of goods than is used (for example, if gas and vegetable increase a lot, and smartphone goes down, but you don't buy smartphones and only buy gas and vegetable, your expanses will increase more than if you had bought a smartphone on top).

Yeah, ok, that's a fair point.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Yeah, OP isn't entirely crazy as it sounds. You can find lists online of what the average income of people from the poorest countries make when converted to comparable buying power in your own country.

That's why I (original poster) didn't say anything about the specifics of what is acquired and only stayed with the relative descriptions baked into Lifestyles. I actually appreciate the Lifestyle Expense mechanism as it let's you abstract it all away without needing an "Aurora's Whole Realm Catalog" that details everything under creation.

I prefer if "income" doesn't come entirely in coin. A skilled artisan earning 2gp/day in a noble's household really only sees 1gp/day in coin after the noble provides room, board and access to services like cobblers, tailors, etc (aka "Lifestyle Expenses"). Or it could be a cottage and workshop with the community providing annual stipends of meat, grains and wine (aka Lifestyle Expenses).

To revisit my original post of "the peasants should be on the edge of revolt" is that all unskilled laborers have a "Poor" lifestyle which is "a sufficient, though probably unpleasant, experience. ... You benefit from some legal protections, but you still have to contend with violence, crime, and disease. People at this lifestyle level tend to be unskilled laborers". That last bit is essentially a tautology, confirming that the unskilled at best are living a "sufficient" existence but is likely "unpleasant". The aspect of violence, crime & disease means they likely lead short lives and have a high mortality.

I suppose some kind of demographics on what percentage of a population qualify as unskilled could change the overall instability. Are unskilled 50% of the total populace? Or just 50% of urban areas? The latter would mean only ~5-10% of the total population would be prone to revolt.

If farming tools had been added to the tools, it would be a clear matter but as it is, nothing differentiates peasant farmers from unskilled workers.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

In our world, unskilled workers aren't totally unskilled, they'd count as scholars for the sake of being literate. Unskilled workers are people whose set of skills are so common they don't count as rare, so I think it's an argument to support the idea that farm laborers are mostly unskilled workers. The inequality is baked in the system, to the point that many peasants should be better off as slaves rather than free, impoverished men. Which is, historically, the exact reason slavery disappeared in the East Roman Empire: the richest landowners realized they were economically better off with serfs for unskilled labor. So I don't think it's unrealistic to have the 2sp a day be the wage that most people will ever get. 90% of the rural population and probably 60% of the urban population was "unskilled".

I'd however, take exception with the violence & crime part. Disease is a major part of life and epidemic killed many people so it's certainly intended, but I feel the violence & crime part apply mostly to adventurers. Much like their cost structure will be different, travelers will generally enjoy less protection. So they are ideal targets for violence, while locals are certainly not tougher, but could be avenged by their relatives, so they are riskier targets than some traveler sleeping in front of the door of a local temple. Also, law enforcement might care more about locals being robbed than a random stranger they won't ever see again reporting he was robbed in the woods.

Also, I kind of like the idea that peasants are just a bad winter aways from mass starvation (unless living in a world where magic is plentiful). They really needs adventurers to protect them. Would'nt you be more moved to help a village where the elders are coming to you saying "please protect us from the dragon, we have amassed all our riches and we can build you a shed, or give you two large hams and a wheel of cheese that we will miss this winter but don't worry we'll still have some bread some it's OK..." or "kill that dragon and I'll give you 14,543 gp taken off the emergency tax fund..."

Also, a 1:10 difference between unskilled and skilled labor doesn't strike me as extraordinary compared to the income inequalities present in Western Europe in the middle ages up to the age of Enlightenment (it went downhill with the 19th centry...). A mason or carpenter in England, mid 14th century, would earn roughly 8 times the wage of a porter, messenger or stable hand (but generally manservants would be fed and sheltered as you pointed out). And they were not the top of the qualified workers, it would go up with the specific trade and the risk taken.

The setting implied by the price list is indeed quite grim by our current standards.

Also, I wouldn't be keen on separating too much the economy for the NPCs and the economy for PCs. While most NPC activity can be abstracted away by virtue of the PC not looking, so they are in a quantum state, the price for wages is PC-facing. A PC can hire a hireling, unskilled, for 2 sp a day. That's the rule. So any normal player in my group will be tempted to do the experiment of hiring him for a whole year, in order to do the unskilled task of lugging their stuff. They will be able to look at the NPC all the time, having to survive on these 2 sp a day. "How can he eat? What? Does he provide for his family?". And suddenly the NPC spending (and whether he dies, can feed his child and so on) become totally observable by the players.

 

[Xeviat]

In real life, we have unskilled labor. Yet, I'd expect "unskilled" laborers to be pretty competent compared to their D&D counterparts (they know how to read and write, if anything). It could be they are trained at a level where any chump can pick up the job and become as efficient in a very short time (like if your job is to shovel dirt, I am pretty sure you don't need a lot of training to be a dirt-shoveler, even if your ability to read and write could make you scribe). It could also be people changing line of work. Yes, they were trained in some useful skill, like being a farmer. Yet there is an industrial revolution and mining jobs are appearing in droves, you become a miner, but you're an unskilled miner, despite being skilled in the ways of farming. I think the "unskilled" hireling is simply someone who has no useful skill pertaining to the task at hand. An archmage could be an unskilled hireling as he doesn't know how to handle your horse. In most case, an archmage wouldn't take that job, but imagine if the weave is not working because in the FR someone killed the goddess of magic again.... and he needs to make end meet while the situation is resolved?

That's a good way to look at it. Unskilled laborer can just be "unskilled in the line of work available", which is a real economic truth.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

If farming tools had been added to the tools, it would be a clear matter but as it is, nothing differentiates peasant farmers from unskilled workers.

I would say that it's important to keep in mind that farming tools (and presumably an appropriate proficiency) would certainly be expected to exist in your average fantasy-medieval setting; as would a fair number of others skills and tool proficiencies that aren't listed in the books. I would imagine that they're not listed in the PHB on account of not being very useful for adventurers. Farming isn't really something you can do for a few extra coins during your off week between adventures. It's simple enough to add them in or subsume tasks into other skills (say Nature, Survival, or Herbalism Kit proficiencies) if a PC wants to try it. It may not be standardized across games, but the game settings frequently aren't anyway. Or at least have significant variations between campaigns and DMs, even in established settings like Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Eberron

The base ruleset doesn't go into the minutiae of how a gameworld works; and probably shouldn't. It may be an interesting thing to consider from a world-building standpoint, but text and design space devoted to such details would mean that other game mechanics and options suffer.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

I prefer if "income" doesn't come entirely in coin. A skilled artisan earning 2gp/day in a noble's household really only sees 1gp/day in coin after the noble provides room, board and access to services like cobblers, tailors, etc (aka "Lifestyle Expenses"). Or it could be a cottage and workshop with the community providing annual stipends of meat, grains and wine (aka Lifestyle Expenses).

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

To revisit my original post of "the peasants should be on the edge of revolt" is that all unskilled laborers have a "Poor" lifestyle which is "a sufficient, though probably unpleasant, experience. ... You benefit from some legal protections, but you still have to contend with violence, crime, and disease. People at this lifestyle level tend to be unskilled laborers". That last bit is essentially a tautology, confirming that the unskilled at best are living a "sufficient" existence but is likely "unpleasant". The aspect of violence, crime & disease means they likely lead short lives and have a high mortality.

Eh... there's a fair bit of variation in the games I run. "Peasant" isn't exactly a high-paying or prestigious occupation on the whole, but there are certainly times and locations where one can find prosperous farmers. Kind of depends what else is happening in the world. Also one can have crop types that are pretty valuable...cough spices, coca leaves, French vineyards.

I'm presently running an Eberron campaign that has largely centered around eastern Breland near the Mournland - a place hit recently by a terrible magical cataclysm. I decided that farmland in eastern Breland was arid and marginal (cf Oklahoma dust bowl) even before horrible blights and diseases started coming out of the ruined lands. People there are desperate. Contrast Aundaire - another country far from the site of magical contamination. Also, lush, green and populated by lots of individuals possessing useful magical skills. Farmers there are quite well off, considering that problems elsewhere in the world have created an increased demand for food.

I suppose some kind of demographics on what percentage of a population qualify as unskilled could change the overall instability. Are unskilled 50% of the total populace? Or just 50% of urban areas? The latter would mean only ~5-10% of the total population would be prone to revolt.

This seems pretty setting-specific.