Ren'Py The Fixer [v0.3.3.17] [Sam_Tail]

[MAKE DEEPFAKES]

You can spend 12 hours a day 7 days a week stuck in your office ensuring the masses have housing and entertainment, but still people will call you a parasite. What a world.

 

[Joe Steel]

Rent seeking behavior doesn't add economic value. From an economic standpoint it's basically the same as extortion. Since it's government enforced you can't even really say it's capitalist either.

The "rent" in the term rent-seeking does not refer to payments in accordance with a contract, but rather the manipulation of political rules in order to increase income without increasing value. There is no political authority in the game (as far as we yet know) that is controlling property rental values and so could be manipulated for rent-seeking purposes. That Oskar charges rent does not make him a rent-seeker in the economic sense, but rather an landlord.

 

[fblurblblarghl]

The "rent" in the term rent-seeking does not refer to payments in accordance with a contract, but rather the manipulation of political rules in order to increase income without increasing value. There is no political authority in the game (as far as we yet know) that is controlling property rental values and so could be manipulated for rent-seeking purposes. That Oskar charges rent does not make him a rent-seeker in the economic sense, but rather an landlord.

We also haven't seen him actually add any value. It depends a lot on things that haven't been elaborated upon yet in the game. Given the current available information I haven't seen any reason to assume he does add any value. He doesn't seem like a handy man, so he's probably not performing maintenance, and the neighborhood where Sammy lives (or at least the park next to it) is one of the few places where there seem to be guard patrols, so I doubt he is the one keeping out squatters/burglers. At best he might be a middleman for whatever companies provide the water/power, but that's still not any value he's really providing if he is also preventing the tenants from dealing with them directly.

 

[Penitensary]

The above discussion in exactly why it'd be a good idea to implement a choice for Sammy to either kill Oskar or help him out

 

[souldead341]

We also haven't seen him actually add any value. It depends a lot on things that haven't been elaborated upon yet in the game. Given the current available information I haven't seen any reason to assume he does add any value. He doesn't seem like a handy man, so he's probably not performing maintenance, and the neighborhood where Sammy lives (or at least the park next to it) is one of the few places where there seem to be guard patrols, so I doubt he is the one keeping out squatters/burglers. At best he might be a middleman for whatever companies provide the water/power, but that's still not any value he's really providing if he is also preventing the tenants from dealing with them directly.

The value is actually having a building that people want to live in. If you own something that people want / need, charging them rent isn't "rent seeking behavior" in and of itself. Also, the owner of a property can add / have value by being the person to hire and manage things like the maintenance, cleaning, exc.

Rent seeking behavior is more like protection rackets, where you pay someone to not bother you or when you have to bribe someone to get them to actually do their job (meaning like paying a police officer to actually stop a burglar in your house). So, if there's ever a thing in the game where Oliver refuses to fix things without extra payments, then you'd have a point. Also, just because we don't actively see Oliver fixing things in the game doesn't mean it's not happening, just that it's not in yet or a focus of the game.

 

[fblurblblarghl]

The value is actually having a building that people want to live in. If you own something that people want / need, charging them rent isn't "rent seeking behavior" in and of itself. Also, the owner of a property can add / have value by being the person to hire and manage things like the maintenance, cleaning, exc.

Rent seeking behavior is more like protection rackets, where you pay someone to not bother you or when you have to bribe someone to get them to actually do their job (meaning like paying a police officer to actually stop a burglar in your house). So, if there's ever a thing in the game where Oliver refuses to fix things without extra payments, then you'd have a point. Also, just because we don't actively see Oliver fixing things in the game doesn't mean it's not happening, just that it's not in yet or a focus of the game.

We aren't actually disagreeing I think, it just hinges on our differing interpretations of the information at hand. You seem to think he probably is fixing things and providing value, I don't, although I do acknowledge that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Also we have no real contract with him, he simply asserted unilaterally that Sammy must pay rent to him or be thrown out.

 

[Joe Steel]

We also haven't seen him actually add any value. It depends a lot on things that haven't been elaborated upon yet in the game. Given the current available information I haven't seen any reason to assume he does add any value. He doesn't seem like a handy man, so he's probably not performing maintenance, and the neighborhood where Sammy lives (or at least the park next to it) is one of the few places where there seem to be guard patrols, so I doubt he is the one keeping out squatters/burglers. At best he might be a middleman for whatever companies provide the water/power, but that's still not any value he's really providing if he is also preventing the tenants from dealing with them directly.

Sammy thinks that he adds value, as she pays him for it. The evidence in the game that he adds value is that we can have Sammy go into a bedroom, go take a shower, watch TV, etc. All of those things have value, and all are added by Oskar.

 

[fblurblblarghl]

Sammy thinks that he adds value, as she pays him for it. The evidence in the game that he adds value is that we can have Sammy go into a bedroom, go take a shower, watch TV, etc. All of those things have value, and all are added by Oskar.

Not preventing access to something doesn't add value to it, he isn't enabling access to anything that would become unavailable were he no longer there. The things you mentioned having value don't get their value from Oskar, so he is not adding value.

 

[ChesseKun]

The above discussion in exactly why it'd be a good idea to implement a choice for Sammy to either kill Oskar or help him out

kill him take over and open your casino with blackjack and hookers.

 

[MAKE DEEPFAKES]

Not preventing access to something doesn't add value to it, he isn't enabling access to anything that would become unavailable were he no longer there. The things you mentioned having value don't get their value from Oskar, so he is not adding value.

So this except unironically?

 

[Penitensary]

kill him take over and open your casino with blackjack and hookers.

Well yeah, if you decide to help Oskar get rid of the gangsters and then stab him in the back to become the kingpin of the Residential District...

 

[Joe Steel]

Not preventing access to something doesn't add value to it, he isn't enabling access to anything that would become unavailable were he no longer there. The things you mentioned having value don't get their value from Oskar, so he is not adding value.

If someone pays for it, it has value (in economic terms). Having access to something has value; I cannot imagine why you think otherwise.

But this is getting way of-topic, so I will leave the argument there.

 

[Mommysbuttslut]

If someone pays for it, it has value (in economic terms). Having access to something has value; I cannot imagine why you think otherwise.

But this is getting way of-topic, so I will leave the argument there.

Value's made at the point of production. Someone putting the labour into making the television creates value. Someone creating the labour to generate the electricity to power it creates value. Someone putting the tv in their living room and charging people to watch it does not create value because there's no transformative labour occurring. Landlords don't create value, they exploit it.

 

[MAKE DEEPFAKES]

Value's made at the point of production. Someone putting the labour into making the television creates value. Someone creating the labour to generate the electricity to power it creates value. Someone putting the tv in their living room and charging people to watch it does not create value because there's no transformative labour occurring. Landlords don't create value, they exploit it.

So there is value in a TV that just sits in a factory warehouse? And anyone who would want to do the administrative work required for that TV to get to someone who would use it is just a rent-seeking exploiter? I sure am glad you're not in charge of the economy.

 

[Penitensary]

Value's made at the point of production. Someone putting the labour into making the television creates value. Someone creating the labour to generate the electricity to power it creates value. Someone putting the tv in their living room and charging people to watch it does not create value because there's no transformative labour occurring. Landlords don't create value, they exploit it.

I feel you may be omitting services in there.

The landlord is in most cases the one performing major repairs and maintenance on the building (minor problems are usually left up to the tenant) and considering the state of the apartments it is fairly clear that Oskar (and his father before him) are indeed keeping the place maintained. Rent goes towards creating a buffer fund for these major repairs, dealing with whatever property fees may still exist as well as Oskar's living expenses in order for him to be available during a good portion of the day in order for his tenants to bring up issues to him.

While it is true that in the world of the Fixer, there is no law forcing someone to pay rent for staying in an apartment, by your own logic Sammy is exploiting the bar she works at because she does not handle processing the orders and just carries existing stuff to and from customers.

 

[Mommysbuttslut]

And anyone who would want to do the administrative work required for that TV to get to someone who would use it is just a rent-seeking exploiter?

Administrative work isn't transformative labour so it doesn't create value. Assuming it's productive it's still important work to get the TV out to customers to use. So an administrator who works in front of the computer, on the phones and in the warehouse getting items shipped out so they can be sold and the labourers be paid isn't exploitive, they deserve a fair share of the surplus value. Some dude who sits on a piece of land, does nothing with it and charges people to use it is not offering anything of productive or transformative value.
Way to ignore the entire point of what I did say to insert an irrelevant scenario that has nothing to do with what I said though.

I feel you may be omitting services in there.

The landlord is in most cases the one performing major repairs and maintenance on the building (minor problems are usually left up to the tenant) and considering the state of the apartments it is fairly clear that Oskar (and his father before him) are indeed keeping the place maintained. Rent goes towards creating a buffer fund for these major repairs, dealing with whatever property fees may still exist as well as Oskar's living expenses in order for him to be available during a good portion of the day in order for his tenants to bring up issues to him.

While it is true that in the world of the Fixer, there is no law forcing someone to pay rent for staying in an apartment, by your own logic Sammy is exploiting the bar she works at because she does not handle processing the orders and just carries existing stuff to and from customers.

In most cases. What does Oscar actively do though? Facilitate utilities and that's it. There's no evidence he's performing active maintenance. He isn't cleaning, Sammy's optionally doing that. So he's provided a 1 time service of furnishing, has set up the utilities which Sammy could've done herself, and he gets Sammy to clean the place. He isn't actively doing anything to earn these residuals. There's no service he provides that couldn't have been performed with a housing coop of Sammy and the other renters other than exploiting the land usage.

Sammy doesn't get paid by the bar, she's paid entirely in tips for her service. People pay her as they feel her service is worth to them. If anything Sammy's being exploited by the bar for free labour in exchange for tip revenue.

 

[International]

So there is value in a TV that just sits in a factory warehouse? And anyone who would want to do the administrative work required for that TV to get to someone who would use it is just a rent-seeking exploiter? I sure am glad you're not in charge of the economy.

Labor of logistics is still adding value to that TV. It takes effort to move it from one place to another.

A rock in the ground only has value once it is extracted and moved to where it can be refined or looked it. if you paid someone for that rock while it's in the ground, that person is extracting rent on that rock, because they did nothing to increase the value of that rock. You could have gotten that rock yourself just the same without them.

Once it has been mined and refined, it has the invested labor from the mining, prospecting to find it, mechanics and assemblers who made and maintained the machines used to extract the move the rock, the labor used to create and extract the fuel and infrastructure needed to power those machines, the food and farm labor to feed all these people, etc, etc. At no point when you're adding up the effort invested into that rock do you add 'person who owned the land and charged rent' or 'landlord who charged rent' because they added nothing to the process, yet they inserted themselves into the chain to increase the cost without increasing the value.

 

[Penitensary]

In most cases. What does Oscar actively do though? Facilitate utilities and that's it. There's no evidence he's performing active maintenance. He isn't cleaning, Sammy's optionally doing that. So he's provided a 1 time service of furnishing, has set up the utilities which Sammy could've done herself, and he gets Sammy to clean the place. He isn't actively doing anything to earn these residuals. There's no service he provides that couldn't have been performed with a housing coop of Sammy and the other renters other than exploiting the land usage.

Sammy doesn't get paid by the bar, she's paid entirely in tips for her service. People pay her as they feel her service is worth to them. If anything Sammy's being exploited by the bar for free labour in exchange for tip revenue.

But the point still stands that she isn't producing anything with her efforts, except maybe cum stains on the floor. She's providing a service, certainly, by receiving payment for doing something so the people she's doing it for won't have to go through the effort of doing it themselves...

...Which is exactly what Oskar is doing. In case of a major repair Sammy notifies Oskar, who then seeks out a contractor and makes arrangements, rather than Sammy having to put her effort in over a week or two, then negotiating with her flatmates to put enough money together to repair it (which is harder if only a few apartments are impacted by the necessary repair) leading to arguments and, eventually, a breakdown of negotiations and the place looking like Haven a few years down the line. That is what you pay for and, unlike bar work, it is a previously agreed upon sum rather than 'whatever they feel like'.

By your logic, you are being exploited by 9-1-1 operators because a portion of your taxes is going towards paying them, despite them not producing anything and you personally haven't had to call them in the past couple of months. But they are there when you need them, and it is that availability as a service that you are paying them for.

 

[Mommysbuttslut]

But the point still stands that she isn't producing anything with her efforts, except maybe cum stains on the floor. She's providing a service, certainly, by receiving payment for doing something so the people she's doing it for won't have to go through the effort of doing it themselves...

...Which is exactly what Oskar is doing. In case of a major repair Sammy notifies Oskar, who then seeks out a contractor and makes arrangements, rather than Sammy having to put her effort in over a week or two, then negotiating with her flatmates to put enough money together to repair it (which is harder if only a few apartments are impacted by the necessary repair) leading to arguments and, eventually, a breakdown of negotiations and the place looking like Haven a few years down the line. That is what you pay for and, unlike bar work, it is a previously agreed upon sum rather than 'whatever they feel like'.

No, you're comparing a hypothetical service to a material service. Sammy isn't exploiting the bar because the bar doesn't pay her. She's paid entirely through tips. If the customers didn't want Sammy getting the beers for them then they wouldn't tip her, along with optional services rendered. The only mildly exploitive aspect of Sammy's work is when she's selling her underwear for a profit. The rest of it is not.
There's another difference. It's a reasonable expectation that someone could call a contractor when something in their house breaks. It's not a reasonable expectation that someone could go behind a bar they don't own and pour themself a pint. If the amount they're paying in rent is enough to cover any maintenance costs then they're perfectly capable of assuming any maintenance costs in lieu of rent. Oskar is providing nothing in your example, he's taking their money to do what they could do themselves and pocketing the difference.

By your logic, you are being exploited by 9-1-1 operators because a portion of your taxes is going towards paying them, despite them not producing anything and you personally haven't had to call them in the past couple of months. But they are there when you need them, and it is that availability as a service that you are paying them for.

Administrative work isn't transformative labour so it doesn't create value. Assuming it's productive it's still important work to get the TV out to customers to use. So an administrator who works in front of the computer, on the phones and in the warehouse getting items shipped out so they can be sold and the labourers be paid isn't exploitive, they deserve a fair share of the surplus value. Some dude who sits on a piece of land, does nothing with it and charges people to use it is not offering anything of productive or transformative value.

Read above. Not all labour needs to be transformative for it to provide value if it enables transformative labour to continue and or facilitates its compensation. The miniscule tax load of 911 operators was well worth it when my dad needed an ambulance for a heart attack a couple years ago. The tax load that paid for the doctors and hospital was well worth it when he had to stay there for a few weeks feeding and housing him, when they gave him a battery of tests and when they operated on him for a grand total of $60 for only the ambulance. Care workers provide value by enabling transformative labour to exist. Without them we'd lose a worker every time one of them got seriously ill. Oscar does not provide that service, he does nothing that his tenants are perfectly capable of doing themselves. My dad couldn't have marched into a hospital on his own and performed his own open heart surgery.

 

[Penitensary]

No, you're comparing a hypothetical service to a material service. Sammy isn't exploiting the bar because the bar doesn't pay her. She's paid entirely through tips. If the customers didn't want Sammy getting the beers for them then they wouldn't tip her, along with optional services rendered. The only mildly exploitive aspect of Sammy's work is when she's selling her underwear for a profit. The rest of it is not.
There's another difference. It's a reasonable expectation that someone could call a contractor when something in their house breaks. It's not a reasonable expectation that someone could go behind a bar they don't own and pour themself a pint. If the amount they're paying in rent is enough to cover any maintenance costs then they're perfectly capable of assuming any maintenance costs in lieu of rent. Oskar is providing nothing in your example, he's taking their money to do what they could do themselves and pocketing the difference.

He is not providing anything noticeable because, ingame, nothing in your apartment breaks down. It is not a plot point that a window breaks or the central heating stops working or there's a gas leak somewhere and you need to go to Oskar to arrange to fix it, but that does not mean he would refuse to do anything when these events might take place. My old boss used to rent out apartments above his store, he got money every month but when a roof started leaking he had to arrange for someone to go and fix it, not his tenants.

Sam_Tail is planning to expand Oskar in future versions, but as it is it's a difference in assumptions: Oskar doesn't (yet) do anything noticeable, and while your assumption is that that means he is unwilling to do anything, mine is that it is too early to say as a situation where he might need to step in hasn't happened yet. To be fair, when Sammy can't afford rent his first reaction is not to yell at her or threaten to toss her out, but to give an alternative where she can work off her rent through compensatory labor, be it cleaning or casino work. And these remain optional, he doesn't call in a couple of gangsters to drag Sammy kicking and screaming to the casino in a leotard, the choice to accept is ultimately yours so i'm giving him the benefit of the doubt based on his character so far.

Read above. Not all labour needs to be transformative for it to provide value if it enables transformative labour to continue and or facilitates its compensation. The miniscule tax load of 911 operators was well worth it when my dad needed an ambulance for a heart attack a couple years ago. The tax load that paid for the doctors and hospital was well worth it when he had to stay there for a few weeks feeding and housing him, when they gave him a battery of tests and when they operated on him for a grand total of $60 for only the ambulance. Care workers provide value by enabling transformative labour to exist. Without them we'd lose a worker every time one of them got seriously ill. Oscar does not provide that service, he does nothing that his tenants are perfectly capable of doing themselves. My dad couldn't have marched into a hospital on his own and performed his own open heart surgery.

Glad to hear your father's doing okay.

My point is though, administrative work does add value to a product, even through something as basic as customer support. Landlord is not technically a job, but that does not mean they don't do anything worth being compensated for. You'd have a point if he was a loanshark (someone that uses money to generate more money) though.