Initially, arguments for symmetric time value might not make sense to my new readers. Indeed: given the vast differences between individual abilities and aptitudes, arguments against equal time compensation can be more compelling in some respects. Fortunately, local organizational capacity would help to smooth out the differences that matter most, in conjunction with applied technology and "just in time" knowledge use.
Lest anyone mistake my argument for symmetric compensation as somehow better than asymmetric compensation, that's not the point. The combination of symmetric and asymmetric time value, would eventually make a more complete marketplace possible for services formation. Symmetric time value could provide additional employment capacity, and considerable social benefit. Even though the job market has recently improved, many individuals would still welcome the options that symmetric time value could provide.
Symmetric time value would address present day imbalances in labor force participation, which have resulted from both government and supply side constraints. Not only has labor force participation declined in recent years, but also the knowledge use component of labor value, which began its descent in the new century. Symmetric time value would help to reverse the decline in labor force participation, and in knowledge use as a work based option, as well.
Even though knowledge use is central to wealth creation, the asymmetric compensation which is representative of varying skill levels, makes it necessary to reimburse knowledge from preexisting forms of wealth. Consequently, skills, time value and knowledge application need to be reimbursed as budget responsibilities, instead of the wealth contributors they could otherwise represent. This limits their use in aggregate, which has in turn become increasingly reflected in monetary policy.
Since organizations only have so much room for asymmetric time value in their budgets, time and knowledge value tend to be approached as given amounts of stock, instead of ongoing economic flow. The need for symmetric time value actually began prior to the new century, but was held at bay, so long as it remained possible to increase asset value as an alternative. Only when it became more difficult to increase asset value (aggregates) in the face of declining labor force participation, did knowledge use as a constant become less certain, in work patterns and services formation.
While technology allows institutions to treat time value as stock (rather than flow), patents and other forms of knowledge protection provide the same function. Even though these protections supposedly exist to encourage innovation, paradoxically they serve to decrease the compensated time based interaction which could lead to more innovation. Consequently, knowledge duplication takes precedence over knowledge evolution wherever possible. Just the same, time and knowledge value still need to be able to exist as flow, in order for economies to maintain economic stability over time. This is where the overall benefit of symmetric time value, would matter most.
Not only would symmetric time value preserve applied knowledge use in broader settings, it would also preserve the integrity of applied time value, as central to economic activity. In the past, direct interaction with resource use, meant that time value as economic flow was taken for granted. Now that many production functions have become centralized, people need more direct interaction with one another, in part to make up for the lack of interaction with other aspects of production .
Because time arbitrage would coordinate time value equally, symmetric time value can generate new wealth in aggregate. Groups would only face limits to growth, to the degree they fall (internally) short of service production options. Even though symmetric time value would prove useful in the immediate sense of budget relief, that would only be a beginning. Eventually, these forms of local coordination could improve the outlook for long term growth, and create a stronger growth trajectory, as well.