Monday, June 8, 2015

Equal Time Value is Not "Fair"!

...even so, utilizing time coordination equally could provide a way forward for economic stability. Otherwise, there are not enough clear alternatives for moving ahead, which could maintain the knowledge use and services that populations need. How much weight do arguments against equal compensation for time value actually hold? Equal time compensation is clearly not "fair" to those whose skills are better in some capacity by a wide margin. Why should anyone who is clearly more skilled than others, have to settle for not being (directly) compensated as such?

It depends on the demand for the time based services in question, their centrality to any system, and whether system wide responsibility for those services exists as a result of centrality. Healthcare relies on numerous sources of wealth which are unspecified as to what is demanded from other resource distributions. The problem now lies in the uncertainty of the compensation process, as state level government budgets are beginning to falter. According to the New York Times:
In some states, lawmakers have gone into overtime with unresolved special sessions and threats of widespread layoffs...Many of the legislatures that are struggling with budgets can point to external forces, including slow economic recoveries and rising health care costs for their woes.
Governments are now making harsh budget choices. Already existing healthcare obligations - which include hard limits on compensated high skill positions - are taking a toll on available monies across general equilibrium. Were it not for the growing budget demands of current healthcare structures even as services continue to be cut back, governments might not have been so blindsided by the slowdown in overall growth. Slow growth which contains hidden services and time aggregate imbalances, can threaten the stability of any low growth trajectory. Already, the effects of these circumstance are spilling over into the political arena.

How to respond? When still prosperous governments are no longer in a position to be able to assist populations in their entirely, it is time for those populations to generate further means to assist themselves. Even so, this means addressing the special interests, whose charge was previously to define how economic activity was "supposed" to occur. However, supply side interventions need not take place through shaming perspectives. If at all possible, the task is one of humble requests to move ahead, with the common goal of preserving the best civilization has to offer.

If structural issues can be dealt with at this level, knowledge use still holds a valuable role in the way forward. Granted: not everyone who assumes the mantle of responsibility, will appear as though capable in the same sense as what today's institutions require. Why should someone who is clearly more capable than others in their own midst, have to settle for the same base time compensation as others, in a knowledge use system?

The challenge is to make sure that everyone can strive to fill the potential demand which exists in any given marketplace. It is better to provide group incentives for this objective with clearly designated resources separate from time, through local shared investment settings which are well understood by the participants involved. Without local decentralization options, the stewardship of vast resource pools which nations also attempt to manage for time based compensation (on top of existing obligations), may only decline. If specific resource sets can be locally generated to support group based services coordination, the decision to apportion time use equally, becomes more viable as a "fair" option.

Equal time value is not "fair", but what about life is fair? In life and in economics, there are always tradeoffs. Hence the question becomes, which tradeoffs provide the greatest benefits for the situation at hand? Some skill sets are always going to appear as though vastly "better" than others. Just the same, the current structure for high skill compensation, makes demands on a vast pool of resource capacity which has continuously been tapped in all areas of life. The continued viability of that existing worldwide pool of resources is now so uncertain, that the long term growth trajectories of central banks have been negatively affected.

What's more, today's high skill sets cannot be compensated through direct means, but must be "purchased" through other prior existing wealth. That means human capital is engaged in a constant struggle, to tap into preexisting knowledge use networks. Possibly the best reward of equal time coordination, would be the new wealth which becomes possible - the real, tangible wealth of human capital. In other words, the higher aspirations which individuals hold, could be directly generated through monetary and cooperative means, instead of constantly waiting in hope for support from elsewhere. Perhaps this would be the best reward, of all.

No comments:

Post a Comment