Rival and non rival time value exists in a number of dimensions, which also depend on the resource and activity flows a given equilibrium can represent. For instance, time aggregates of late have been randomly utilized, as institutions continue to hire individuals in rival capacities. This definition of time value has in fact been logical, in that it evolved from earlier non rival settings. Local group coordination had been spontaneous and mutually time dependent. However, those earlier forms of coordination existed in relation to resource sets of a more physical nature, compared with the present.
In that earlier context, non rival time had not yet been defined - and regimented - by twentieth century institutions. As technology made it easier to define divisions of labor, time aggregates moved from internal valuation towards externally valuations. Of course the paradox in this regard is that increased productivity is gradually whittling away at the need for rival time in multiple economic settings. Even though rival time use still functions reasonably well for prosperous cities and regions, lower density environments never fully adjusted to the externally defined coordination of city environments.
Economic growth in recent centuries has greatly benefited from rival time use, even as this structure also relied on informally organized non rival time use in multiple capacities. While those earlier support systems of informal time coordination have dwindled, they were never monetarily compensated to begin with, and replacements for non rival time coordination will need monetary compensation.
For knowledge use systems, most time value - particularly for ongoing service maintenance functions - would exist in a non rival capacity. Labor force participation could be restored without the need to draw on output from rival production. Because matched time makes it possible to gauge new output which needs no reimbursement or resource smoothing, non rival time also acts as a easy to measure source of new time based wealth.
What exceptions would exist for rival time value in knowledge use systems? One exception is difficult work which would likely require more hourly compensation than a knowledge use services base would offer. Otherwise, there might be few takers for dangerous or monotonous work, in environments which provide stability and context for knowledge based challenges. Do other situations call for asymmetric - or more substantial compensation?
Consider the kinds of activities which would serve as "growth starters" for new knowledge structures. While many of these can emerge internally through matched time arbitrage, there would also be times when new knowledge sets would be sought from elsewhere and need more group support than matched time arbitrage can provide, for local training processes. Because these would contribute to more local economic complexity and diversity, the extra compensation required would be absorbed fairly quickly within local group structures. Extra compensation only becomes problematic when it requires an uncertain degree of separately existing resources for ongoing maintenance functions in knowledge use.
By way of example, consider how rival time value contributes to wealth creation processes in organizational capacity for tradable goods. Many compensated (rival) skills sets exist in association with tradable goods while product continues to emerge in the marketplace. One can compare this process to the foundation that compensated rival time value would provide, for additions to existing knowledge use structures. Even though higher compensation for rival time value is of a temporary nature, it often generates an expanded marketplace for a given product...despite the fact increased market share is anyone's guess.
Only consider what happens to long term compensation for rival time value, when it is not capable of providing increased marketplace share and/or product. For high skill services, time value is often the primary product component. As a result, additional compensation is regularly needed from other resources to reimburse rival skills as time value, even though there are insufficient gains in marketplace formation. Over time, this becomes a growing coordination imbalance, which slowly chips away at other existing forms of wealth and institutional responsibility.
Even though staked claims for rival time value are not always problematic in emerging equilibrium, they can cause major headaches in a mature equilibrium. The resulting imbalance also makes it more difficult to ensure appropriate monetary representation for populations as a whole. The ensuing confusion also means that citizens become less inclined to trust governments at the national levels where services coordination for monetary transmission also takes place.
Asymmetric monetary compensation for rival time value, can eventually create imbalances for nominal income. It matters not whether those imbalances occur through fiscal activity, hidden subsidies or extended patent protection. To summarize, it's not that compensated rival time value isn't desirable. Rather, time management applications which don't generate marketplace gains, can create imbalance when rival time value is asymmetrically compensated over the long term. When too many skills sets for time based product are compensated as rival goods, political strife also results. In these circumstance, representative democracy often gets used to short circuit the rival time value that is desired by opposing factions.
The impulse to maintain time value as rival is understandable. Just the same, this process is beginning to take a toll on many who - as a result - have become convinced that their time has too little value to count in the world for their own needs or aspirations. Monetary representation needs to be better understood by all citizens, and monetary representation also needs to remain firmly attached to the potential value of time use aggregates as a whole. Even though monetary representation for all is such a basic argument, the fact it is scarcely understood, is responsible for much of the societal unrest of the present.