This question has relevance, in that it provides needed context for overall goal sets in time arbitrage coordination. Some experiential service components satisfy wants or perhaps ongoing challenges, while others satisfy basic needs. These groups would be approached quite differently, in that obvious needs would become core components of services. Think basic = core = inclusive, versus want = peripheral = exclusive.
Within this context, exclusive or unique time use formation is not arbitrarily driven out of group settings by the insistent valuations of basic services needs. This is just another way of describing how time use optimization can work. Without time use optimization, time use skills which should be basic in nature (yep, healthcare), tend to drive out exclusive forms of time use which can provide more happiness. Likewise: at a younger age, basic school core subjects tend to drive out numerous intellectual interests which students might otherwise pursue.
Even so, these "want" versus "need" designations cannot be teased out of the intangibles that represent total resource use (standard of living) settings - nor should they. Instead, services wants versus needs can be accounted for in time use aggregates, where the differences become much easier to quantify. By tracking the finite nature of (aggregate) local time use available for services as a core point of reference, services taxation becomes practically unnecessary for any knowledge use system which 1) provides education for core healthcare skills and 2) tracks time use separately from standard accounting and economic measures.
Today's post is in part a response to an article regarding happiness and experiential product: an article which I subsequently lost, even after retracing my online steps from yesterday in an attempt to find it. Darn! Normally when I come across a link that is possibly postworthy, I try to save it promptly, just in case. While experiential product was not designated as such in the article, I think of the experiential product which is capable of generating happiness, as peripheral and exclusive service product formation.
Fortunately, Tyler Cowen posted a link which also touches on the research (he calls it speculative) and it is here. Also, his reference to delayed gratification is only a partial context for experiential product, as opposed to the delayed gratification one normally thinks of regarding investment. The gist of the article was that experiential product - i.e. not a physical product but one that generates "memories" - creates more happiness than, say, waiting in line for a product which we would either 1) carry home or 2) consider a basic good.
Hmm. There's plenty of product formations (involving services time components) which make us want to pull our hair out while waiting. These wait times all too often exist, for what has become defined in recent decades as basic needs on multiple levels. Hence this kind of negative experience stands in stark contrast to pleasant experiential services which are also coordinated through timed group settings.
How might we contrast the aggravation with the positive experiential setting? Waiting in line for fast (basic or everyday) food might be classified a minor nuisance. Sometimes the wait for service help on the phone calls for a zen attitude. And all too often, waits for the doctor may feel as though a total time loss...at least bringing a book helps!
And yet, anticipating vacation or standing in line for special meals or concerts can evoke positive feelings. Yet if the wonderful meal happened every day, it wouldn't be special. Nor would anyone choose to stand in line for that special meal on a regular basis. That's why 1) exclusive experience is a peripheral gain, and 2) by recognizing basic time use needs - thus generating them in more closely spaced time units - there is still room for the peripheral pleasures which time use coordination makes possible.
So for time arbitrage, it helps to ask: what does coordinated time seek to accomplish? Is the services time in question being correlated with basic needs, or is it closer to what people seek after more basic needs have been taken care of? Does the collaboration represent exclusive or surprise elements (to generate a unique positive experience), or does it call for more inclusive service formation such as one would expect within the context of daily life?
None of this suggests that access to needed services can't provide happiness. However the happiness that results from life saving and maintenance services measures is due to gratitude, rather than the special memories of unique events. Therefore, life saving methods for both disease and accidents, would be a part of core local education for time arbitrage, in coordinated knowledge use systems for services.
Could some elements of healthcare comprise experiential service product which is closer to the happiness of exclusive settings? Absolutely - these occasional settings would actually be quite desirable in local economies. After all, individualized offerings represent unique ways for individuals to learn about healthcare options because they want to, not because they feel compelled to in a "do this or else" office setting. Retreats for alternative healthcare options - in some instances - can be just as inspiring as any vacation. This is one of many options for aspiring services entrepreneurs (individuals and teams), which could go well beyond the daily routines of local healthcare needs.
Experiential product which generates positive memories can be associated with many services. Presentation is important, and variations on presentation are only limited by one's imagination. As services entrepreneurs, individuals can propose ongoing offerings for locals which represent the intellectual challenges they most enjoy. Parts of life which are now associated with thriving economic regions and "special" cities could make any place feel special. The main ingredient? Simply the desire of local citizens, to make it happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment