Only 25% Can Support Non Tradable Sector Requirements

For centuries, the quality product of skilled craftsmen was associated with the consumption options of discretionary income. However, early in the twentieth century, quality healthcare in the U.S. - with its deep learning requirements - became the primary healthcare product option for all income levels, whether or not they had significant discretionary income. This "all or nothing" approach to skills capacity and utilization, which began in earnest even prior to the twentieth century, is gradually being reflected in our housing market offerings as well.

We're used to thinking that money for extensive deep learning requirements, can always come from "somewhere". But how true is this now, especially as governments increasingly struggle to subsidize healthcare, and healthcare insurance can scarcely remain within budget without plenty of assistance from healthy individuals? What happens to the concept of complete taxpayer obligations for government supported knowledge use, when only a quarter of the workforce has access to the core workplace positions that are the main revenue source for this organizational pattern?

Not long ago, Brink Lindsey wrote an article which particularly emphasized the core employment that actually exists in the present. Yet this core revenue, is what society has come to expect for the vast majority of today's non tradable sector requirements. He refers to "a well-educated and comfortable elite comprising 20-25 percent of Americans" which are thriving", yet outside of this group one finds "unmistakable signs of social collapse." Might the main reason for social collapse, be due to the fact that peripheral employment revenue is not deemed a worthy source of wealth creation, by our non tradable sector institutions? Given this circumstance, is it any wonder the focus instead has been on creating "livable" wages?

And I highlight 25% here as a hopeful estimate, given the 20% extent of core employment which could be the near future low end of this economic reality. As Lindsey stressed, the definition of working class has changed. Furthermore, he believes the loss of jobs these groups once performed, should be a social positive, instead of a negative.

Is it possible to bring more meaningful work, to those no longer expected to perform the mind numbing work that was once such an important part of the workplace? One can at least hope. If only a quarter of the population can support the status quo through core employment, perhaps the remaining three quarters will finally get the chance to generate new and more sustainable forms of wealth, beyond the status quo.