Prior to the widespread use of money, people coordinated for time scarcities through their personal relation to existing resource capacity. Eventually, skills sets became more closely associated with monetary value rather than time or (other) resource value. However, this process (initially) occurred through asymmetric compensation, which gradually made it more difficult for groups to locally coordinate knowledge based activity.
Meanwhile, many skills sets (rather than time value) came to be thought of as private property, but this mindset also made it more difficult to achieve knowledge dispersal through those earlier means of social coordination. Much of the existing wealth of the present, greatly benefited from what had been more spontaneous forms of knowledge dispersal. As economies grew more complex, more skills sets gradually took on private property boundaries of their own. Individuals were increasingly expected to invest for what became chances of access to this new form of private property, rather than for knowledge use as a natural outcome of personal efforts.
This also made it more difficult to coordinate one's time investments with actual time use preferences. Time use coordination in personal and social circumstance, came to be directly correlated with whether one's time already had recognizable value on economic terms. As skills sets were increasingly disallowed in the marketplace unless one had social "clearance" for them, it became more difficult for the marginalized to improve their lot in life, and also for valuable knowledge use to play an active role in economic progress.
Before time value (in relation to resources) gave way to the designation of specific skills sets as private property, personal time use options included recognizable boundaries which backed one's ability to negotiate with others. Today, cultural expectations have grown more confused - not just in the sense of recognizable assistance in local group settings, but also in terms of time based coordination and expectations for family activities.
A marketplace for time value, would restore the authentication of one's personal time use options at an economic level. This would recreate more respectable boundaries for time use options, and allow individuals to more effectively negotiate for mutual assistance in all capacities of life. This is especially important for lower income individuals, who remain much too dependent on now fragmented forms of cultural expectations.
Too many of the earlier means by which individuals once assisted one another have disappeared, even as labor force participation has continued to decline. In turn, many individuals - in spite of attempting to follow rules that once provided economic inclusion - find themselves unable to prosper. Not having sufficient means of economic interaction is dangerous. After all, making oneself useful in the world, is the best way to protect both identity and survival. How many have witnessed this instinctual knowing even in the eyes of children, who are too often turned down in their attempts to assist adults with life's challenges?
When asymmetric compensation is the only way to reward time and skill, this process eventually leads to excessive replicative knowledge product and other bots, to do our thinking for us. I'm not sure humans are genetically wired to accept such dystopian results. It would be far better to face up to technological concerns while economic conditions still remain at a (relative) high point. Otherwise, the desire of many to escape technological realities they don't feel connected to, could mean the possibility of losing valuable knowledge and economic gains.
In a marketplace for time value, competition for mutually held time scarcities, would also set group coordination processes into motion. Those who develop high skill sets would be sought out, and the knowledge that their time is scarce, would impel local groups to prepare more of the desired skills capacity which individuals would gradually seek through the course of their lives. While this process would begin with pragmatic services needs, it would gradually generate stronger economic complexity, as local groups seek out more experiential forms of knowledge product. Today, experiential product remains held back, as societies struggle with a still growing burden of asymmetric compensation for practical product needs.
Might individuals "waste" their time potential in these settings? A certain quote applies, which if understood, would impel individuals to prepare for the long run. "Be picky with who you invest your time in. Wasted time is worse than wasted money." A marketplace for time value, would clarify this reality in ways that go well beyond the partially confused incentives of asymmetric compensation.