Economic Settings vs the Realities of the 75%

Who are the 75%? These are essentially the individuals whose paid work tends to fall short of meeting the expected general equilibrium costs for housing, transportation, and healthcare. At issue is the fact that over time, all of these costs need to be met to effectively participate in the workplace. Today's core income structure in particular, which generally provides full time work (with benefits) for college graduates, is the approximately 25 percent of the population which can meet these responsibilities. A lack of flexibility in non tradable sector setting requirements, has only made it more difficult to match the aspirations of employers and employees, across a full range of skills.

Just the same, there's still a lot of wishful thinking, in that too many municipalities and governments continue to plan budgets as though a much larger percentage of their populations held core workplace responsibilities. As Brink Lindsey recently wrote, regarding the core workforce which has tightened since the new century:

Outside a well-educated and comfortable elite comprising 20-25 percent of Americans, we see unmistakable signs of social collapse.

As the reader may note, I'm also being generous in the assumption that 25 percent of populations can easily afford today's general equilibrium expectations. What if the problem of inadequate workplace revenue for infrastructural maintenance, could be met via more college graduates? Existing businesses can't just readily add more core workplace compensation, because more personal ability becomes available for hiring potential. By way of example, the Economist writes:

So far, university degrees have been a reliable proxy for skill but this may change as artificial intelligence starts taking away jobs from white-collar workers. Projections from America's Bureau of Labour Statistics show that four of the five fastest growing occupations in the country involve personal care; none of these jobs requires a bachelor's degree.

There are three primary issues at stake, regarding future potential matches between individuals, communities, and workplace expectations: housing, transportation, and healthcare costs. Let's consider how these structural elements are currently playing out. As it turns out, the first two have been simpler to subject to external design than the latter, hence new corporate municipal structure is most likely to focus on basic reduced non tradable sector costs for housing and transportation which also make it possible to hire sufficient employees without extensive compensation.

Nevertheless, these arrangements to reduce costs for future employees, may still carry the unspoken assumption that already existing supply side healthcare will also expand to meet their needs. Hence new community design stops short at the third non tradable sector element.

How do these recent corporate efforts for new community, compare with citizen led initiatives for small community formation? While spontaneous citizen led initiatives may seem insignificant (compared with corporate design); again, insufficient local healthcare, presents the same institutional barrier.

None of these new community groups - large or small - have been able to effectively change the costs or access of their healthcare outcomes. After the flower children of an earlier era (60s and 70s) moved into rural areas, many of them returned to the cities, once they realized their offspring lacked access to local doctors. Recently retired like minded individuals who seek cooperative living patterns, face similar problems now. These groups come together, yet once a participant begins to need more than simple healthcare assistance, is compelled to return to the already strained service networks which neither national or state governments have been able to effectively coordinate. Whether new community is large or small, the lack of healthcare as an integral component of system design, is a major inhibitor to new community options.

Spontaneous community becomes most viable, when local participants can directly contribute to new production potential. In the present, the greatest opportunity for doing so, exists in time based knowledge product. The equilibrium corporate structure, by focusing on healthcare production alongside more focused design for housing assets and transportation needs, could provide means for today's 75 percent to meet their basic responsibilities. One might say that current corporate efforts to streamline transportation and housing, are two thirds of the way to better equilibrium definition. By making time based services production a part of local non tradable sector formation, the 75 percent could make it to the goal line.