Kaizen
21 Feb 2025 00:38
Link
I'm a returning player who last played in 2017. I see a lot has changed since then. Something I've noticed while looking around at very large countries ( 200+ million population ) a large number seem to have 200+ health index.
According to documentation 140 is the max welfare index a country can achieve. So in terms of welfare alone, health beyond 140 wouldn't increase welfare. I understand that having more hospitals would decrease deathrates overall. However, it also would increase the % of population over the age of 65 which directly results to more social security payments while having a lower % of population in the workforce.
I'm assuming the reason why a lot of presidents keep a higher health index would be to lessen the degree of population decline in large countries. However from past experience this just leads to stagnation of new workers, as the aging population has a decreased % of population below 24 years old. They also have a lower % of population within the fertile age brackets. This long term causes the problem ( average age of population, population decline, and worker shortages ) to just become even worse over time.
When I played before I've experimented with purposefully keeping a prolonged low health index, around 80 or less. Short term this would cause massive population decline, but once the average age of population is around 34 years or lower and increasing health back up to around 120-130, even in large countries. I would experience a population boom with a much lower cost in health and social security. This would last for months. Multiple game decades. While also having a sufficient supply of new workers to replace retirees. The only downside financially would be a higher cost of education.
Basically I'm just trying to understand the main reasoning for having a higher health index, when both cost of health and social security payments are often the largest expenses a country has, decreasing profitability. Maybe it's more beneficial now that countries seem to be able to grow much larger naturally now than back when I played in the mid 2010s.
According to documentation 140 is the max welfare index a country can achieve. So in terms of welfare alone, health beyond 140 wouldn't increase welfare. I understand that having more hospitals would decrease deathrates overall. However, it also would increase the % of population over the age of 65 which directly results to more social security payments while having a lower % of population in the workforce.
I'm assuming the reason why a lot of presidents keep a higher health index would be to lessen the degree of population decline in large countries. However from past experience this just leads to stagnation of new workers, as the aging population has a decreased % of population below 24 years old. They also have a lower % of population within the fertile age brackets. This long term causes the problem ( average age of population, population decline, and worker shortages ) to just become even worse over time.
When I played before I've experimented with purposefully keeping a prolonged low health index, around 80 or less. Short term this would cause massive population decline, but once the average age of population is around 34 years or lower and increasing health back up to around 120-130, even in large countries. I would experience a population boom with a much lower cost in health and social security. This would last for months. Multiple game decades. While also having a sufficient supply of new workers to replace retirees. The only downside financially would be a higher cost of education.
Basically I'm just trying to understand the main reasoning for having a higher health index, when both cost of health and social security payments are often the largest expenses a country has, decreasing profitability. Maybe it's more beneficial now that countries seem to be able to grow much larger naturally now than back when I played in the mid 2010s.