Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Symmetric Compensation as an Economic Option

In other words: I don't suggest symmetric compensation as a repudiation of the status quo, but as a counterpart to equilibrium conditions which are more tightly defined than generally realized. Symmetric compensation would allow individuals within specific groups, to coordinate time value in ways that allow an additional level of economic access. Best: the process for doing so, would take place as new wealth generation.

Symmetric compensation includes room enough for meaningful coordination of multiple skills levels. This could prove particularly helpful, if the asymmetric compensation which individuals seek on merit based terms is in short supply, for whatever reason. The equilibrium constraints of asymmetric compensation are a major concern for me. Yet I'm still trying to develop a simpler language, for those who aren't economically inclined, why I believe purposeful economic responses are so vitally important in the first place.

It's imperative that I learn to do so, for this project might eventually fizzle out if I don't gain sufficient clarity for the average layperson who comes across my work. Books such as "Thinking Like Your Editor" (2002) by Susan Rabiner and Alred Fortunato, are apt reminders of what is at stake. The authors stress the importance, of knowing who your audience consists of. And just because something is compelling to authors, is not necessarily enough to make it compelling to others.

Some may recall that last year I began organizing material more closely, for a series which will eventually be located on the sidebar of the blog. Since the beginning of this blog I've worked on material that is actually intended for several audiences. Hopefully, the divisions for (eventual) book material will help with those designations.

One conversation last year in regard to audience considerations, essentially came down to this: why did I believe it was so difficult to access important services? After all, if I was willing to take the effort, plenty of marketplace options were already available. Those same options for time based services were also available to others, as well. Why was I making economic access, appear to be such a difficult process?

To the extent services can be available (at least in some areas), my challengers were right. If I wanted or needed something enough to go the extra mile, chances were I could find a way to make it happen. Indeed, a similar rationale applies for one's personal efforts in securing work. If one wants employment "badly" enough, the determination to do so, can be apparent to others. Hence the different economic approach I've suggested, sometimes appears as though an affront to systems already in place.

Yet it is not my intent at all, to deride or dismiss what exists now. When I envision existing work and service options as a constrained equilibrium, my framing doesn't quite make sense, to those who live and work in these demanding environments on a daily basis. One mostly finds the clues of constrained equilibrium, in governments whose citizens are becoming less inclined to share either jobs or services with anyone they perceive to be "outsiders" in some important respect. Consequently, the political framing often becomes construed as politicians who "don't have enough humanity", to maintain even the basic sets of knowledge use one expects to find in a civil society.

I don't disparage the fact that gaining success and "the good things in life" takes tremendous effort. Personal diligence and stamina are most deserving of societal reward, and we celebrate those who are successful for good reason. Nevertheless, people can be quick to assume that those who fall behind, just didn't want success enough to really try. Sometimes that's true. But how often does this assumption arbitrarily condemn those who don't make the cut?

After all, the result may not be one of isolation for a day or a year, but possibly a lifetime. Basic income, even if it should one day prove feasible for large nations, would be a lousy consolation prize for those who would have preferred real connections to life challenges. Indeed, basic income would come to symbolize a door permanently closed, because it became too difficult to envision economic opportunity for a full range of aptitude and skill potential..

Just the same, no one should be expected to rely solely on symmetric compensation, if such methods prove inadequate for personal aspiration. Everyone deserves the chance at a merit based asymmetric income, wherever such an approach is possible. Rather: the bigger concern is one of a lack of economic choice outside the constraints of a too narrowly defined equilibrium. A lack of economic options, could become associated with permanent societal divergence in intellect and ability. That's one "natural experiment" we can only hope will not play out, for much longer.

And it could, if tomorrow's automation taps mostly the highest skilled individuals, while abandoning others to low skill "leftover" jobs. There's no reason for such a dystopian reality, if knowledge can remain integrated across all levels of skill and ability. This is what symmetric compensation could make possible, so that patterns in knowledge use do not diverge any wider than necessary, in the long run.

No comments:

Post a Comment