Populations that include transients

[Vladika]

... from an official U.S. government source.​

I for one am always impressed by government data...:rofl:

And we all know just how far we can trust our government.:devil:​

 

[McPerth]

[m;]Bordering politics. Please, don't keep that way[/m;]

 

[silversides207]

For "short", I would define that as a person present in an area for less than one month, with no dependents accompanying him/her.

For "long term" transients, I would view that as similar to military personnel assigned to a military base for an extended period, where dependents accompany them and they place a burden on local services, such as schools, hospitals, water and sewage treatment and disposal, police, fire, etc.

For determining a planet's production capability, or for trade purposes, the population is that which is permanently on the planet, and will not depart.

For an asteroid belt, you could easily have 3 different figures for population.

For Mithril, you would show a "long term transient" population exponent of 2 to 3, and a permanent population of Zero, that is assuming that no independent prospectors have slipped in.

 

[McPerth]

For "short", I would define that as a person present in an area for less than one month, with no dependents accompanying him/her.

For "long term" transients, I would view that as similar to military personnel assigned to a military base for an extended period, where dependents accompany them and they place a burden on local services, such as schools, hospitals, water and sewage treatment and disposal, police, fire, etc.

For determining a planet's production capability, or for trade purposes, the population is that which is permanently on the planet, and will not depart.

For an asteroid belt, you could easily have 3 different figures for population.

For Mithril, you would show a "long term transient" population exponent of 2 to 3, and a permanent population of Zero, that is assuming that no independent prospectors have slipped in.

The best definition I've read to now. TY

 

[rancke]

The description of population score says nothing one way or the other about transients. It say 'X inhabitants'.

From the definition of inhabitant ("one that occupies a particular place regularly, routinely, or for a period of time <inhabitants of large cities>" [Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary] I would say that some transients would count as inhabitants and some wouldn't. It seems to me to boil down to what one considers to be a period of time long enough to count. Civil status has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Unfortunately, the standard defintion of 'inhabitant' cannot (IMO) be strecthed to cover one sort of transient that I think ought to be counted: The virtual resident, so to speak. By which I mean the tourist that only stays for a week is obviously not an inhabitant. But taken together with the 51 other tourists per year that replaces him one after another, theyt make up one 'virtual inhabitant'. Someone that shopkeepers and hospitals can count on as being there, with money to spend and accidents to be cured, year in and year out.

In short, I think that anyone that leaves the "economic footprint" of one person should be counted as one inhabitant. Even if he's actually 52 1/52 of a person.


Hans

 

[Vladika]

The virtual resident, so to speak. By which I mean the tourist that only stays for a week is obviously not an inhabitant. But taken together with the 51 other tourists per year that replaces him one after another, theyt make up one 'virtual inhabitant'. Someone that shopkeepers and hospitals can count on as being there, with money to spend and accidents to be cured, year in and year out.

Be that as it may, I think that anyone that leaves the "economic footprint" of one person should be counted as one inhabitant. Even if he's actually 52 1/52 of a person.


Hans

Very good point! Kind of like a "time share" in a way. I like it.

 

[silversides207]

The best definition I've read to now. TY

Hmmm, one of the Old Guard agrees with me. That is not a good sign.

 

[BytePro]

Unlike permanent residents, tourists bring in outside money with regards to income. For economic purposes that would normally be considered a separate population count.

Historically population counts are commonly done for taxation purposes and to establish political representation. A count alone is pretty useless as an economic metric, as wealth is also needed to ascertain anything. Hence, census information includes not only a head count, but other information pertaining to economic aspects - such as income and profession.

There is no one size fits all in the RW, nor in Traveller. That level of detail is just simply not supported by a few digits in a UWP.

 

[rancke]

There is no one size fits all in the RW, nor in Traveller. That level of detail is just simply not supported by a few digits in a UWP.

And so we return to the question of just what it is the Scouts is trying to accomplish when they come up with the few digits that make up a UWP. For what purpose and for whose benefit do they calculate the population of a world and how do they go about it?


Hans

 

[McPerth]

Unlike permanent residents, tourists bring in outside money with regards to income. For economic purposes that would normally be considered a separate population count.

Sure, but for infrastructure, services and trade needs they must be accounted, and here I must admit Hans has a good point...

 

[silversides207]

And so we return to the question of just what it is the Scouts is trying to accomplish when they come up with the few digits that make up a UWP. For what purpose and for whose benefit do they calculate the population of a world and how do they go about it?


Hans

Basically, they are trying to come up with an order-of-magnitude estimate of the population of a given planet or asteroid belt, based on whatever data that they can get from the local population and/or government/governments. It is up to the Game Master to furnish the additional level of detail as to what that estimate means.

 

[rancke]

Basically, they are trying to come up with an order-of-magnitude estimate of the population of a given planet or asteroid belt, based on whatever data that they can get from the local population and/or government/governments. It is up to the Game Master to furnish the additional level of detail as to what that estimate means.

Yes, but why are they trying to come up with an estimate of the population[*]? Who do they think is going to use the information and for what purpose? What criteria do they use to determine who belongs to the population and who doesn't?

[*] A tenth of an order-of-magnitude estimation, what with the population multiplier. Though some world descriptions include population counts with down-to-the-single-digit figures.​

I think (I hope ) that we can all agree that if someone was born there and seems to have every intention of dying there, he's part of the population and that if he came in this afternoon on a starship and will be leaving again next week, he's not. The meat of various debates over the years has always been where to draw the line in between those two extremes. And for that we need to figure out what the Scouts consider to be population.


Hans

 

[BytePro]

And so we return to the question of just what it is the Scouts is trying to accomplish when they come up with the few digits that make up a UWP. For what purpose and for whose benefit do they calculate the population of a world and how do they go about it?


Hans

Well stated.

IMO the Scouts do a lot more than just log a UWP of a mainworld. The UWP is just a very high level summary of statistics, nothing more.

Ala the information provided at http://www.census.gov/popclock/ - its primary purpose is for crude observations, trending and largely academic in nature.

To me, the Scout surveys are akin to a government sponsored 'atlas' of known space (er, Atlas of the Imperium). Regards the UWP the atlas contains travel, geographic, social and technical coding. Note that it contains no economic coding. (Major oversite, IMO).

While there is obviously a relationship between sophonts and economics, pinning it to the pop digit is stupid, IMO (ala Trillion Credit Squadron or whatever sources). In the RW we may come up with simple ratios for high level analysis, but bottom line is that X number of people has no definable correlation with Y amount of financial wealth, nor Z type of economy... there are a lot, lot more factors than just a head count. Any figures such as average income and per capita expenses already have financial numbers to work with - the UWP does not provide such.

So - why do Scouts record a Pop code? Well, because that is their mandate. Someone wanted a statistic to play with. It has its gross uses in analysis and in justifying things. Ala this system is heavily populated, they need more attention (facilities, military, etc.). Or, this system's mainworld has water and a good atmo and little population - why?

Just as in RL, government mandates and missions for government agencies usually lack specific details. In other words, the Scouts may have been tasked with recording Population, without a specific definition as to what that statistic would really represent. That is exactly what I would expect given the difficulty and complexity of surveying a population of an entire world (much less system). In most cases the Scouts would take the most expedient means of counting and verification. Typically this would amount to taking any information provided by locals - which may or may not include transient workers, visitors, indigenous sophots, whoever they count as citizens vs. non-citizens or non-entities (like undocumented workers or indentured servants). Also, politically, it might often be expedient for the Scouts to not question or verify such figures. The Scouts may not want to get into an argument with the Sector Duke (or whatever the title) or a megacorp.

 

[McPerth]

Yes, but why are they trying to come up with an estimate of the population[*]? Who do they think is going to use the information and for what purpose? What criteria do they use to determine who belongs to the population and who doesn't?

[*] A tenth of an order-of-magnitude estimation, what with the population multiplier. Though some world descriptions include population counts with down-to-the-single-digit figures.​

I think (I hope ) that we can all agree that if someone was born there and seems to have every intention of dying there, he's part of the population and that if he came in this afternoon on a starship and will be leaving again next week, he's not. The meat of various debates over the years has always been where to draw the line in between those two extremes. And for that we need to figure out what the Scouts consider to be population.


Hans

You touch many interesting points here. Let me give an example:

Godknowswhere C867???-? is a paradisiac planet held as reserve, so imigration visa is quite difficult to have.

It's about 8000 permanent residents constitute a self governed by assembly (gov 2) agricultural enclave that mostly feeds a turistic ressort (starport included) where about 20000 personnel (with about 60000 dependents) hired for 4 years tours of duty (with reenlist possibility for more tan one term, and occasional permit to trully settling on planet) live in the management quarters (gov 1) care for the average 130000-150000 guests that use to be in short vacation.

So, how to rate it?

1. pop 3 (multiple 8) gov 2 (permanent population)
2. pop 4 (multiple 8) gov 1 (long term ressort employes and dependents)
3. pop 5 (multiple 1) gov 0 (the tourists)

IMHO:

As for census for the assembly, and trade generating (cargoes) first option.

As for dependent services (child care, supermarkets, etc), seccond option.

As for trade needs, taxes and most services needs (hospitals, pólice, sewerage, etc) third option.

What option will IISS take? Anyone's guess.

(and if you want, we can add complexity by talking about Law levels and TLs )

 

[mike wightman]

Has anyone mentioned the introductory adventure and the rules contained therein?

A bit sparse but basically the last three digits can be wrong, and can be deliberately obfuscated by a world government.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

whoever they count as citizens vs. non-citizens or non-entities (like undocumented workers or indentured servants).

Interesting thought: a world where only the elite count. The only folks who have rights and count for representation or any other reason are those upper crust of folks. Everyone else counts less than cattle as far as they are concerned. Now, if you have, say, 9 million of the elites, and 10 billion of the "non-entities", what's your Pop code? 6 or A?

 

[Vladika]

Has anyone mentioned the introductory adventure and the rules contained therein?

A bit sparse but basically the last three digits can be wrong, and can be deliberately obfuscated by a world government.

Not sure if that has come up on this thread.

Very good point though. At times there are very good reasons for those numbers to be either wrong, or deliberately altered to conceal other things best not inquired into or scrutinized.

 

[Vladika]

1. pop 3 (multiple 8) gov 2 (permanent population)
2. pop 4 (multiple 8) gov 1 (long term ressort employes and dependents)
3. pop 5 (multiple 1) gov 0 (the tourists)

IMHO:

As for census for the assembly, and trade generating (cargoes) first option.

As for dependent services (child care, supermarkets, etc), seccond option.

As for trade needs, taxes and most services needs (hospitals, pólice, sewerage, etc) third option.

What option will IISS take? Anyone's guess.

(and if you want, we can add complexity by talking about Law levels and TLs )

I believe the IISS would go for the first as that is the world's basic permanent numbers. I do believe that there would be an addendum added to the more detailed writeup. Down and dirty, No 1.

For planing purposes you are dead on with your 2nd and 3rd lines of observation.

I live, not to very far from, Bar Harbor Maine. The population triples during the three month tourist season and, within a couple of hours, can double again with cruise ship traffic.

 

[rancke]

In a way, I've nothing whatsoever against the "solution" that 'the UWPs can be rubbish, so feel free to ignore them'. I've certainly seen enough official world writeups where I've said "But if that's the way that things really are, why the ding-dong blazes don't the UWP go xxx-x instead of yyy-y!?!" to make such a viewpoint arguable.

Nevertheless, I must confess that to really work for me, I'd like an explanation why the ding-dong blazes the Scouts are reporting wrong UWPs. But I'd rather there was a tradition that overly strange UWPs can be ignored by someone doing a writeup than a tradition that even the strangest UWPs must be explained.

Anyway, if the UWPs can be rubbish, I submit that the trade rules are in dire need of being augmented with rules, guidelines, and suggestions for spotting and handling worlds where the UWPs are... shall we sat, misleading?


Hans

 

[rancke]

Interesting thought: a world where only the elite count. The only folks who have rights and count for representation or any other reason are those upper crust of folks. Everyone else counts less than cattle as far as they are concerned. Now, if you have, say, 9 million of the elites, and 10 billion of the "non-entities", what's your Pop code? 6 or A?

A. Or 6.

This reminds me of Rio in the Spinward Marches. Various previously published UWP listings gave Rio a population level of 6 and a population multiplier of 2. Behind the Claw claimed that the population was 1.1 billion, and unlike most of the discrepant figures in BtC, this one was never errata'ed. So I sat down and tried to come up with a population of 1.1 billion that was also a representative democracy with 2-3 million voters. You can see the result here.

As Thomas so rightly mentions on the page of meta-information, the most official version of the UWP for Rio (the T5 Second Survey data) returns the population level of Rio to 2 million. But then, we all know that the UWPs can be total rubbish, right?


Hans