And the actual time that individuals hold in relation to one another, has tremendous value which can't be expressed when time is compensated asymmetrically. Multiple incentives still exist (beyond money in these circumstance) to work towards one's personal "best" in relation to others. Whenever it isn't possible to match time with existing services
Rival time value - in terms of time based product - has faced a double exclusionary circumstance in general (or primary) equilibrium. First, there is the matter of arbitrary limits on knowledge use, in time aggregate terms. This reduces the numbers for services practitioners who are available to the public as a whole. Then, the matter of one's personal limits, in the hours of a day that are actually available for the wants and needs of others.
Harsh limitations re the creation of time based product have not been adequately considered, in relation to the abundance of tradable product formation throughout the world. One way to think about this is the difficulties which the U.S. military face, in accessing adequate healthcare. That double limitation on time based product is the only explanation for insufficient healthcare, given existing military budgets in relation to other budgets. How so? This quote from Malala Yousafzai regarding education, provides some perspective:
If the whole world stopped spending money on military for just 8 days, we could provide 12 years of free quality education to every child on the planet.Many in the U.S. are used to thinking that 1) services formation would be adequate if only services weren't given to the "wrong" people, and 2) services already in place are not "affordable" for anyone's budgets. If services were thought of in terms of potential wealth creation, both of these points would be moot - which fortunately could stop a lot of political bickering in its tracks. If someone were to even make an informal tally of the times that individuals give up on needed services access, the result would be astounding. Why have people convinced themselves that desirable forms of product - particularly in a time of vast knowledge use potential - are not possible?
Another important aspect of (equally compensated) matched time is the ability to "back" one's ideas with mutual assistance. The point is not to pay another local for their specific talent through the shared system, but to seek out other forms of economic activity with them because of their unique status in this regard. By way of example, writers, artists and musicians might provide various services for one another. This would be an option, if and when individuals are in the midst of projects which don't offer the opportunity to promote one's personal challenges directly to the community. Neighbors could provide indirect idea or personal project "backing", through their willingness to provide (time arbitrage compensated) assistance for one another in other ongoing aspects of daily life.
The benefit in this, is that ideas and projects would not necessarily have to be diminished in either political or ideological context, in order for societies to support them. Knowledge use through indirect support settings would also be non rival, because time value is being compensated instead of specific forms or applications of knowledge. No one is pressured to assign societal value to ideas or projects at the outset, which allows more potential innovation to flourish. This gives new ideas a better chance than might otherwise be the case. Generally, new ideas emerge in a society when individuals have other means of support which are not specifically related to the work at hand. This form of local community support, would make it possible for more forms of innovation to find useful context in daily life.