Becky Hargrove
Time as Wealth, Chapter 2Imagine and Create the Markets We Want
Initial publication, 14 August 2020, The Intentional Marketplace,
monetaryequivalence.blogspot.com
Chapter 2 Intro
After an initial focus on time as concept, this chapter takes a closer look at what markets might become in the near future. Could work spaces and time based service provision become more responsive to the needs of both producers and consumers? Might the aspirations of individuals also be taken into account in group context? We all process and respond to knowledge differently, yet we rely on hierarchical patterns which often deem a single approach to be best.
This is occasionally problematic, since many time centered interactions are more meaningful when they can function as a two way street. In the right circumstance, the knowledge and skill we bring to social interchange, has the potential to be a unique - even experiential - form of services production. When we achieve experiential outcomes, our person to person interchange bears similarity to what we hope to gain in personal services consumption. Indeed, there are moments when the social interaction of shared time melds production and consumption into the same mental space.
Entrepreneurs who create opportunities for time to be experienced - whatever one's field of specialty - build upon what they find to be personally meaningful. Even when pandemic circumstance (such as the current COVID-19) limit shared physical proximity, many benefits of of one to one interchange could still be achieved digitally. Consider how both physical proximity and digital person to person interchange might prove more intellectually productive (not to mention mentally stimulating), than the traditional broadcast method of teacher to student interchange in classrooms. Again, the interlocked symmetry of economic time arbitrage, makes feasible more mentor/student and peer to peer relationships.
For all its efficacy in the diffusion of knowledge, there's another concerning aspect of broadcast interchange which bears mentioning here. Low income groups (of which I am a part) particularly rely on broadcast information for assistance in routine tasks and challenges. However, sometimes there are lingering questions whether people such as myself choose the "best" course of action, which can make the (necessary) self reliance in this regard a bit uncertain. More economic options for person to person interaction would go a long way to alleviate personal fears, in moments when we suspect we've missed some element of crucial information for the task at hand.
Many could benefit from economic relationships which leave ample space for a personal dimension in shared knowledge. Nevertheless, budget limitations affect the degree to which traditional firms or organizations actually have this option. Instead, they often have little choice but to trim "labour" hours wherever possible. Labour went into quotes here, since sought after social interaction is not exactly a version of work drudgery!
After all, the services markets people are naturally inclined to seek, are those which allow voluntarily engage with others on mutually agreed terms. It's when terms of social engagement are imposed from outside the relevant interaction, that time based services can resemble work people perform out of necessity rather than personal enjoyment. Hence I hope that time arbitrage helps to restore some of the more positive social interchanges which could be replaced by automation in traditional institutions.
Ultimately, it is necessary for us as individuals to take on the challenges of social reintegration. Plenty of experimentation will be required, especially to generate settings where one's personal response is welcome in knowledge centered context. There's little point in expecting other institutions to accomplish this task in our stead. Should we wait for the "appropriate" experts, policy makers or even private interests to act on our behalf, we could ultimately find ourselves with many work spaces that are devoid of meaningful interaction.
Building a "Come as You Are" Economic Platform
Many career paths and workplaces rely on the exclusivity of merit. But when is merit actually necessary for much of what we routinely seek to accomplish? Perhaps not as often as it may seem. When merit is used in ways which limit economic access, it is not always easy for societies to carry out their more basic functions. Sometimes, merit requirements are mostly an excuse for additional privilege and social exclusion. Plus this is an insidious form of inequality, since the consequent limits on our rights to production, also mean aggregate losses to economic access in general. The more obvious limits in this regard are those which affect human capital potential at a societal level.
If meritocracy to the point of exclusion and economic loss is not always necessary, how can we respond? Importantly, whether or not we choose to, could help determine the extent of economic dynamism that nations experience in the near future. Prosperity has always been more likely, when societies find the courage to extend a full range of market potential to all income levels. But the great hopes of continued progress can wither on the vine, when citizens and policy makers agree to all or nothing approaches for quality product and environmental requirements.
Granted, there are circumstance when exclusionary merit is warranted, if tasks involve such detail and preparation that extensive human capital preparation is necessary. Rather, the issue is: When is it feasible to coordinate group activity for highly skilled tasks via a broader human capital approach? All the more so, in a time of tight budgets and the reality of many communities which otherwise lack sufficient means to reimburse skilled services needed by their own citizens.
When work is focused solely on merit, many individuals end up questioning whether they can offer anything to others which holds real meaning. One result of tight supply side limits in the use of human capital, is an excessive level of professional judgement which has essentially percolated to judgmental attitudes at all levels of society. Indeed, some who excel at various tasks and skills, doubt their own level of ability and worth just the same. It's time to build a more inclusive approach for human capital, one which encourages people to have greater confidence in their own worth and ability.
Knowledge Use as Dynamic, Integrative and Inclusive
Knowledge is a myriad of different things to different people, especially in terms of its application and experiential effects. However, the extent to which knowledge contributes dynamism to societies, depends in large part on whether citizens keep permission to engage in its use on fully economic terms. Before people can connect to others through the shared energies of intellectual and artistic passions, for instance, they need economic outlets for doing so. Otherwise, the energies involved in mastering personal challenges, tend to dissipate instead of contributing to networks which function as conduits for the diffusion of knowledge based skills.
One apt example of this unfortunate result, comes to light in how basic income is frequently promoted as a solution for limited employment possibilities. The rationale of such discussions is disheartening, when it includes an underlying assumption that money alone might somehow compensate recipients who mostly live lives of relative solitude and isolation.
While some recipients would doubtless utilize basic income to pursue personal challenges just the same, other would find the money a poor substitute for the loss of social connections and meaning in a broader societal context. Survival in a world with few social and economic connections, just isn't enough. Consequently, I believe it would be more effective to use the option of a base income level, to match hours in which people come together to share skills and intellectual challenges with one another.
Average Skill Levels Will Always Be Important
Since most people hold a wide range of skill levels, all of society could gain if markets were structured to take fuller advantage of these attributes. In particular, the growing divisions of work between higher and lower skill levels is not a good development.
Nevertheless, many assume the skills divide in present day workplaces to be inevitable. As Rob Valleta and Nathan Barlow of the San Francisco Fed note, there's already been a disappearance of jobs with mid level wage and skill distribution for some time: "This has been a sustained trend over the past few decades that extends beyond the ups and downs of the business cycle."
Imagine what life would be like for millions of citizens if they were unable to choose work paths which did not line up well with their abilities. After all, a vast majority of citizens are somewhere in the middle when it comes to distributions of skills and abilities. New markets for time value could help make the most of this fortuitous reality.
Markets Can Function More Efficiently for the Marginalized
Why aren't there more housing options for those have been marginalized in some capacity? Of late, too much zero sum thinking in regard to international trade, is also reflected in the dearth of housing markets which could effectively represent the wage capacity of lower income levels. Even though many communities maintain excessive zoning restrictions to keep out low wage earners and others on fixed incomes, there are tremendous growth opportunities in building new communities which could capitalize on the strengths of these individuals, rather than focusing on their financial weaknesses.
At the very least, some of the more egregious examples of zoning regulations are beginning to be questioned in the media and in policy circles. However, while a degree of positive housing reform could occur in the near future, small set asides for lower income levels would only make room for a fraction of these groups. Further, even the best of policies for traditional housing is but a partial solution, for those seeking economic access to prosperous regions.
One problem in accommodating housing needs for lower income levels, are the increased carrying capacity costs of today's physical infrastructure. Traditional infrastructure expenses are only exacerbated by what is necessary for automotive transportation grids, as well. Small wonder that higher income levels are preferred, given the taxation levels required to meet these forms of infrastructure.
Even though much of this framework is not amenable to change in older cities and towns, new communities could start fresh with a clean slate that includes a walkable core for the coordination of time based services activities. More flexible forms of physical infrastructure could not only lower the ongoing costs of community maintenance, but also overhead costs incurred by local businesses and other organizations.
Small Wages Can Still Create Respectful and Meaningful Lives
Why has ample monetary compensation become so necessary to live what is considered a "good life"? Especially when common sense tells us that not every employer can pay the level of wages and income associated with this designation. Not everyone is going to be able to have high wage jobs in the near future, regardless of the number of pundits and articles which focus on high wages for all as an ultimate goal. There is potential for innovation in housing, infrastructure and services which could reduce a lot of heartache and grief in this world, by making our local economies more affordable places for everyone to live.
Clearly such efforts are needed, since even the financial travails of middle class levels have become a routine part of the news cycle. Given the fact it's not feasible for everyone to have a high income job, why not take positive action on what has been evident all along? Likewise, it's not necessary to make the starting point of community life, one where a middle class income is necessary just to participate. It is entirely feasible to build a greater degree of respect and ownership potential into systems design, no matter one's income level. Often one hears that life is not just about money, and it is absolutely within our power as human beings to make good on that fact.
If we don't create good supply side options for the millions who are likely to bring home small wages for the better part of their lives, political unrest will only grow. It's time to create broader sets of economic options for our environments that are not only more cost effective, but also capable of making small wages go a lot further than they are able to extend in the present.
For Young and Old Alike: Interdependence, Not Dependence
One problem resulting from demographic shifts in many nations, is that budgets are now strained by growing numbers of elderly citizens. Like today's youth, older people tend to get caught in dependency patterns which are excessive, given what people normally prefer to accomplish on their own behalf.
How might this degree of over dependence be eased? Some of it stems from an excess degree of complication in our physical environments. Not all cutting edge technology in this regard has proven beneficial! Another issue for young and old alike, are overly spread out living and working spaces in cities and towns alike - much of which directly stems from environments defined by automotive transportation. Simper economic options are needed which can address both of these problems. With environments which are easier to maneuver and maintain, both young and old would be able to tend to a wide array of daily needs via their own efforts.
Possibly the greatest contribution to simpler physical environments, would be walkable grids that make it easier for young and old to come back into shared settings with other generations during the course of the day. Routine physical proximity to others is one of the main ways for young and old alike to increase their own levels of independence.
Time arbitrage can also help to reestablish interdependence in services generation. Importantly, interdependence at a granular level, contributes to individual independence in ways which positively impact society's long term budget obligations. In other words, a full array of local services generation could function as a long term solution for excessive budgetary burdens. And since symmetric time alignment can create new sources of wealth, young and old alike could become part of the larger solution in the work spaces and markets of the future.
Solitude as Personal Choice, Not Absolute Necessity
While there is always an important place for solitude in our lives, life lived with minimal input from others should not have to be a total necessity. Increasingly this has become the case for lower income levels, as skilled time based services have increasingly become luxury goods. Indeed, this luxury designation is one of the more significant lifestyle illusions, since time is the sole resource we all equally share. Only consider as well, the extent of friendship and even marriage which tends to be based on shared forms of services consumption, rather than shared production in mutual assistance.
Without mutually shared assistance, solitude can not only result in loneliness, but also the dangers that come with facing life's uncertainties alone. Often as we age, friends and family may no longer be close by. New markets for mutual assistance could become a life saving mechanism, in lieu of institutions which aren't structured for individuals to reach out to others on voluntary terms. Arthur Brooks explains how loneliness is tearing America apart:
According to a recent large-scale survey from the health care provider Cigna, most Americans suffer from strong feelings of loneliness and a lack of significance in their relationships. Nearly half say they sometimes or always feel alone or "left out". Thirteen percent of Americans say that zero people know them well. The survey, which charts social isolation using a common measure known as the U.C.L.A. Loneliness scale, shows that loneliness is worse in each successive generation.Restoring Strong Communities
A potential best case scenario for both existing and new communities, would include current knowledge workers who are willing to participate as wealth creation starters for places which have been left behind. There is considerable organizational variance between asymmetric and symmetric time use alignment, and the latter - fortunately - would not need extensive monetary investment as a starting point. Since much investment would consist of coordinated time commitments, local communities could blossom from the beginnings that current knowledge workers provide.
New economic options are particularly important for communities which struggle unsuccessfully to maintain local services via traditional means. Many cities and towns now lack the income levels necessary to fund traditional hospitals and schools. Often in rural environs, older citizens are stranded when local services depart, and local residents have little choice but to make long commutes for medical care access. Ultimately, local forms of community organization will be necessary to create new work spaces - especially in lieu of preexisting schools, hospitals and health services which now require more money than locals can readily provide.
Many small communities also face difficult decisions ahead, regarding aging physical infrastructure. For instance, while older citizens with fixed incomes can help maintain existing systems up to a point, older communities may lack the resources to build similar traditional infrastructure, once aging systems fail. Sometimes in these instances - especially when many citizens wish to stay - existing communities might decide to start anew with simpler infrastructure options.
Something long forgotten for current generations, is how a walkable community core of olden days, required far less in the way of infrastructure costs and operational overhead, than what became "necessary" in modern times. Sarah Seo provides an apt example, in terms of labour costs: "Before the mass adoption of the car, most communities barely had a police force and citizens shared responsibility for enforcing laws."
Indeed, a centralized mixed use setting with a walkable core, could encourage local citizens to remain closer to home for a full range of ongoing activities. Should entire groups spontaneously adopt a similar approach, retail potential might once again be restored even in small towns. Otherwise, when citizens mostly experience being outdoors behind the wheel of a car, they are tempted to do the majority of their shopping in larger cities and towns. When I hear complaints about food "deserts", I recall the difficulties faced by my local grocer, which for years has tried to maintain a plentiful and fresh produce section, in a store of ambitious size for a small community. Many local citizens continue driving to larger towns for grocery shopping, just the same.
As to the possibilities of time arbitrage for local services generation, local citizens need more choice in the matter than what present day institutions are able to accommodate. For example, Misti Crane explains:
The key to getting people to work together effectively could be giving them the flexibility to choose their collaborators and the comfort of working with established contacts, new research suggests.One reason why there has been so much resistance to how knowledge is utilized in current social norms, is that patterns of services generation have all but left out the voluntary contributions of individuals. It's time to create new patterns for meaningful voluntary action, so that useful applied knowledge can become part of all community life.
By far the most important link between present and future, is local economy potential to carry knowledge and skill from one generation to the next. Well established mutual time priorities could create reliable means for doing so. New communities could especially focus on improving their overall time value, to create lasting connections for the generational transfer of applied knowledge.
Markets as Understandable Reciprocal Patterns
Some of today's markets have become confusing, in ways which consequently make them difficult to appreciate. Capitalism as concept is catching heat yet again, and even neoliberalism has inexplicably become a dirty word across the political spectrum. Nevertheless, why are societies so prone to attacking what are somewhat vague characterizations, when structural problem solving offers a more productive approach?
Sometimes we forget that markets result from what is created by countless individuals over the course of time. We also should not lose sight of this reality, when it comes to current problems which stem from the broader effects of intangible product. In particular, forms of final product in which one's time is the main component, could benefit from greater simplicity. People have always naturally gravitated to markets which hold recognizable and dependable patterns of reciprocity. As humans we seek out reliability, spontaneity and civility in our ongoing affairs. Indeed, we have a greater ability to do so in formal economic context than is generally recognized.
Why is market design important in this regard? Occasionally, when people lose voluntary reciprocity via informal means, new market patterns don't necessarily arise to meet still existing demand. Unfortunately that is true today. Yet consider how social assistance often took place in the early 1800s. Jack Larkin notes how Frances Trollope recorded in her diary that when she loaned out utensils or gave foodstuffs to neighbors, their response was invariably similar: she should send for them whenever she wanted. As Larkin further noted, "They were trying to involve her in their economic web, in which kindness was far less important than maintaining patterns of reciprocal obligation." As it turns out, those patterns were important for their survival.
Mutual reciprocity is also one of the best foundations for mutual civility that we will ever have. When formal institutions take over these jobs in society's stead, people become less certain in the roles they can continue to provide for others. Perhaps this makes us more reactive to perceived differences as well. Chances are, the recent expansion in social media is not the primary cause of our extreme political reactivity.
Fortunately, we have the ability to create new institutions which can align people in their mutual wants and needs. Once individuals are better able to assume meaningful roles in the company of others, one can hope we become less reactive to perceived differences in identity. For that matter, mutual expectations in services reciprocity, could create more reasonable personal boundaries and greater mutual respect, as people learn the power of negotiation. Greater civility might prove possible, one individuals assume the double role of entrepreneur and customer in time centered production. Only recall the oft repeated phrase, "the customer is the boss", which illustrates the two way street of such interactions.
Reclaiming Supply Side Capacity via Personal Production Potential
In an economy which is increasingly knowledge based, there's more to life than simply being a consumer. Our identities are closely linked to what we produce, both for ourselves and for others. For that matter, one of the most important forms of "consumption" is the human capital investment that (hopefully) makes possible a life of meaningful knowledge based production.
However, there's a problem with the education consumption for knowledge production approach. For one, not everyone is able to successfully travel this path. A high cost human investment path is simply not broad enough, to ensure the preservation and dispersal of knowledge and skill. Further, it doesn't capture the full extent to which people are willing to commit their time to meaningful and challenging endeavour.
Even though intentional supply side limits are partly to blame, that is only part of the story. After all, why do we expect other enterprises to build or change themselves into what we want? As individuals, we are the ones who could create economic options which more fully capture personal production potential. It can be difficult to envision the economy as representative of personal aspirations and goals, when formal institutions are largely outside our realm of influence. Still, it is within our power to change that, by building new patterns for our own work space options. Reclaiming the supply side, means building new institutions which can accommodate the human capital potential we actually have.
A Service Core: What's at Stake?
Markets for time value would allow us to make services generation more tangible and less prone to excess judgement. Until now we have lacked formal means to coordinate mutual assistance, or to locally compensate individuals and groups for working together on common concerns. And even though the preservation of applied knowledge is particularly important, right now a major challenge is rediscovering meaningful relationships which transpire face to face. We have been heading in the opposite direction for far too long.
Trust is also essential for mutual assistance, but we can't regain it if we don't keep reaching out to others on a regular basis. It's going to take time to rebuild trust, especially when citizens struggle to get along, due in part to extreme variance in income levels. In particular, some who lack any opportunities to work with others through personal relationships, will occasionally have to start from scratch. Trust has also been compromised in services settings where hierarchies largely dictate the rules of social engagement. This is particularly so in formal schooling institutions where students lack ability to take responsibility for learning processes and social relationships.
Building a Stronger Growth Trajectory
Some question the need for further growth, and reason whether it makes more sense to slow down GDP growth altogether: "Don't people already have enough stuff?" For one thing, perceptions regarding limits to growth could have unforeseen consequences for nations which have yet to achieve broad prosperity. To some degree, the structural problems which are problematic for advanced economies, are the same as what emerging economies face in the years ahead as well. In all of this, economies have long since moved past roles of simply creating "stuff". And the newer wealth creation roles are the ones which will now require a closer look.
As a market monetarist, I also agree with those who emphasize the need for a stronger growth trajectory. However, much depends on how we go about achieving this important component of long term economic stability. Even though nations have long relied on higher growth levels to achieve further social integration, this process is no longer as straightforward as it once was.
Recall as well, how tradable sector activity has been the main contributor to increased prosperity and gains in equality in recent centuries. Now that services sector activity is dominant, we need our non tradable sectors to become positive forces for reductions in inequality as well. One way to achieve such a goal, is to integrate how time based services transpire in communities of all kinds. Hence the real issues for continued growth aren't so much about physical products, but in assets for group centered ownership, and the services which are essential to our daily lives.
Moving Beyond the Inefficiencies and Limits of Taxation
Just as no single institution can be all things to all people, redistribution via centralized sources is proving inadequate, for what are now increasingly diverse and complex societies. Yet how does one know, when redistribution ceases to represent the needs of citizens? And how to proceed from this reality? How do we organize resource capacity which is more representative of all citizens?
Even though partisan gridlock and overstretched budgetary commitments are abundantly evident, they highlight what no longer functions as intended, instead of what might potentially work. When we don't do anything about gridlock, we face the danger of losing valuable markets, despite the fact there is insufficient organizational capacity for the markets which remain. We as individuals, in times of political gridlock, are becoming the ones who have to determine what is feasible and realistic for all concerned. Ultimately, we need to coordinate our daily activities in ways which don't exacerbate fiscal burdens, for they are getting in the way of what we hope to achieve as a society.
Taxation has become inefficient in part because redistribution is lost to activities which are either unnecessarily complex, or because they define services, asset and infrastructure requirements in ways that are unnecessarily rigid and costly. Consequently, many of us find that the time we are expected to provide for societal commitments, is never enough to fulfill what is required.
This, in spite of the fact that time is our most scarce resource! We should not make the mistake of brushing these concerns aside as "debt we owe to ourselves". If we do, our policy networks - instead of functioning alongside our accomplishments as individuals - might instead break down completely. In all of this, it's not that taxation and redistribution are "bad". Only that taxation and redistribution can't be all things to all people. These fiscal tools especially won't support the level of applied knowledge that the majority of citizens seek to be a part of.
If we make the mistake of assuming governments can take care of societal issues on our behalf, massive quantities of fiscal resources could be squandered in a vast supply side thicket where possibilities never see the light of day. Creating the markets we want, also involves reclaiming responsibility for supply side realities which have fallen far short of their potential.
Cheerleaders for Seemingly Irrational Product
When we match our time symmetrically with others, mutual reciprocity not only gives us a chance to interact as peers, the purchase of time via time allows us to generate new services wealth at the outset. With this internally matched approach there's also an unexpected bonus, as it places us in a position to become cheerleaders for subject matter which otherwise might seem irrational or - at the very least - not basic enough to be routinely offered in standard formats or curriculum.
What gives would be group participants a chance to manage the process successfully? As participants gradually make decisions to commit in mutual contributions, a continuum or internally generated services market begins to take shape. Since the organizational process is able to break its dependence on outside funding or redistribution, groups become free to make time based services offerings as complete and comprehensive as possible.
Consequently, each group learns to exercise its own judgement (via votes in personal time commitments) for what qualifies as production potential. The result is direct democracy in action for services generation. However, with a caveat: These (monetarily compensated) processes would not be applied to time product associated with illegality, black markets or a cult like focus on certain subjects. Rather, applied knowledge use could be likened to the allure of a well tended bookstore, stocked to the brim with useful and challenging subject matter.
Importantly, the internal reciprocity of matched time places these groups in an originating marketplace position. From this vantage point, what observers might think of consequent results is less likely to derail what participating groups choose to create. Hence each group's ability to cheerlead for what outside observers might not find practical. Part of economic freedom, is acknowledging the incredible variance of supply and demand in time based product, for we are all unique individuals. Or, put another way, the beauty of a product is in the eye of the beholder.
Broader Platforms for Intellectual Challenges
Meaningful dialogue shouldn't just be the domain of those with advanced college degrees. Only consider for instance, that millions of individuals also regularly engage in internet discussions, who nonetheless lack college degrees. New economic platforms could make it easier for such individuals to form working relationships with others, based on mutual interests and challenges. Broader markets for time value could bring new aspects of applied and experiential knowledge into the realm of citizen engagement.
New start up communities could also provide opportunities for individuals who either seek intellectual challenges from the group, or else simply seek a supportive and conducive environment in which to work on one's intellectual challenges. In these instances, participants would be able to live among others who currently benefit from having lower living expenses while making extensive time commitments to their own personal projects. One could think of such environments as "life on pause", while making the necessary time commitments for human capital investment. Plus there's the additional trust element of safety in numbers, given the common interests that make it possible to live on basic means - in some respects like the close densities of one's college years.
Experiential Product and the Search for Happiness
Is it possible to measure happiness as a component of economic activity? One important aspect of time arbitrage, is that its experiential nature is highlighted by the individuals involved. It's the fact both provider and recipient have the ability to contribute to the interaction, which may increase the happiness potential of economic outcomes. While no one measures happiness directly, time arbitrage makes it easier to examine the subjective processes which relate to time based experience. Both our ability to exercise time management, and our ability to personally negotiate desired terms with others, contributes to the autonomy and self worth which make happiness more likely.
Happiness is particularly connected to one's self respect. Consider why this matters for the economic option of symmetric alignment. Asymmetric alignment means the relationship of time based product is more likely to be one sided, which can feel demeaning if each individual's perspective isn't at least acknowledged.
That said, life does not always give us a chance to function in a peer to peer capacity with others. Yet it's easy to forget how much each of us values engaging with others on relatively equal footing. Alas, we still lack the economic settings which make this a viable economic option in most instances. What symmetric alignment could provide, is a chance for individuals and groups to gradually build workplace settings in which individuals are able to move closer towards the mutual respect of peer to peer working relationships.
Flexible Density Logistics for Property Ownership
One thing missing from present day ownership patterns, is our ability to select housing in ways which directly correlate with our planned activities with others in the near term. Even though much of housing value corresponds with potential business and social relationship possibilities, traditional home ownership is understandably focused on monetary factors and long term geographical considerations. However, these considerations often collide with what individuals need (or want) to do in the short term, particularly during changing circumstance in the course of their lives.
Fortunately, it is feasible to create institutions which more closely correlate property ownership with shifting lifetime patterns. Flexible ownership could not only maintain a lifetime "spot" in one's originating community, it could also generate mobility between communities that function with similar ownership frameworks. Hence property owners could readily shift among different communities for shared activities over the course of a lifetime. In particular, changes could be aligned with local adaptation in services provision, via calendared services schedules.
What about physical aspects of the process? Two in particular stand out: The community infrastructure level and the ownership level. The former of course involves the "heavy lifting" of less frequent community beginnings and relocation. Even though this physical infrastructure has flexible characteristics, it would still require heavy machinery to put into place and afterward to take apart as needed. Once physical infrastructure is positioned, it creates a functioning utility grid to which individual owners can first attach their basic building components. While heavy machinery and community assistance would be required for some of these "starter" components, other aspects of building component assembly would often be simple enough for individuals to assemble on their own.
In other words, even though infrastructure grids would be built in ways that secure them to local environments, they could still be transported to new locations, should a given location prove temporary or otherwise not needed long term. Not only would this be a useful ownership option for times in life when individuals don't need a big house and yard, it could be useful as well for individuals and families in transition times when storms and natural disasters sometimes mean long waits before new traditional housing options once again become available. Flexible infrastructure and building components are also important in that otherwise, people who are interested in creating new services markets, may be too far spread out geographically to take part in the walkable density frameworks that would work best.
The Group Time Continuum as "Compound Interest"
Part of what has been disappointing in slow growth economies, is the fact that lower interest levels make it more difficult for compound interest to "work its magic" for many savers. While there is still some confusion as to why the 21st century is taking shape as a low interest rate century, there's a good chance the relative dominance of service sector activity, contributes to the case.
What can be done, especially when money is less able to provide savings for one's retirement than was the case only decades earlier? Again, service sector dominance means more of the economy is structured in ways which - due to connections to space and time, don't as readily scale in ways that translate into higher interest rates.
One way to think about addressing this problem, is to consider alternative means for achieving scale, given the fact money is less able to do the job for compound interest at an aggregate level. Since savers have relied on compound interest to purchase more time based services as they age, and given the demographic issues many nations now face, more attention could be given to time value as a way to achieve compound interest, via greater skills capacity in the population as a whole. Otherwise, skills capacity may ultimately be limited, if populations rely solely on money as a way to build and maintain high skills capacity.
Even though time centered processes of skills development would build slowly, it helps to recall that compound interest has always built up slowly for that matter - at least in the initial stages. And like the compound interest of money, once a reliable continuum is established for the integration of learning with workplace capacity, the rewards could eventually pay off handsomely. This is just one more reason why time arbitrage would be a worthy goal.
As traditional production has achieved - at least temporarily - ultimate scale potential in so many areas of life, it's almost as if our world is trying to tell us it's time to learn how to scale up, via the possibilities of the mind. Oliver Waters notes that "economic wealth is what we do, not some imaginary distribution of money". We have scarcely tapped the possibilities of knowledge, which are too often neglected or forgotten in the pursuit of growth. Waters also explains how "Despite intuitive claims to the contrary, infinite economic growth is not just possible - it's essential for human flourishing." Indeed, this is just as true today as it ever was.
Responsive Markets as Part of a Transitioning Process
As it becomes more difficult for governments and private interests to directly fund applied knowledge, one economic option is utilizing knowledge in group contexts which gradually accrue more value over time. Time as a formal economic unit of measure, would also serve as a form of reciprocal insurance for those who would otherwise lack access to high skill services. Eventually, time arbitrage could help relieve some of the burden money now faces of "being all things to all people". Money as the sole economic means of getting things done, turns out to be a particularly difficult challenge during historical periods of high income variance.
There would be a cumulative knowledge gain effect, from using mutual employment to achieve more output in time based product. And even though symmetric time utilization for employment doesn't advance productivity in an immediate sense (productivity traditionally means reducing time/labour in relation to output), it advances total factor productivity, by requiring less formal education for workplace know how at general equilibrium levels. In other words, societies do not need to reimburse these groups since the resource capacity which accrues to gains in human capital, is internalized.
If nations can transition towards a broader use of knowledge in society, aging demographics would not pose so many problems for governmental budgetary burdens. More dispersed methods for services generation would especially make it easier for citizens who find themselves more dependent on time based services as they age. Knowledge related work options in more communities would certainly makes it easier for older citizens to continue working, since physically repetitive work can impair health well before it makes sense to retire. The option of employment via knowledge based endeavour, is all the more important for older citizens, as nations find it necessary to raise the age at which retirement payments are feasible.
Some believe that future economic activity shouldn't even be about capitalism. But capitalism is vital for future prosperity, especially insofar as tradable sector activity has built, and continues to build, a lasting and worthy economic foundation for all nations. A best case scenario would be one which gives capitalism a chance to effectively transition into human capitalism, with minimal disturbance.
In order for human capital to become better integrated with existing economic systems, it needs to become more accessible not only for those who wish to provide experiential product, but also for those who seek experiential product as recipients. One way to think about possibilities in this regard, is to recall what the self interest of capitalism represents: our hopes and dreams for a positive future.
Why has it been so difficult to move forward with a broader economic perspective? Part of the problem is that citizens are being torn between opposing political narratives. Even as some insist there is nothing wrong with the economy, others assume it is beyond the possibility of salvaging. Neither narrative serves as a suitable starting point for a productive response, to the deep structural changes of recent decades.
Even if necessity is the mother of invention, a creative response won't be enough, should governments flounder too long. It's the continued economic strength of the present, which gives hope we might create anew alongside familiar structural foundations. If we are careful and fortunate, perhaps we won't have to lose too much prosperity in the years ahead. The economic dynamism of the present, means there are opportunities to preserve the good, even as we determine how to lay new foundations. The political struggles of the present are not helpful because they focus on further struggles over an existing pie. Imagining and creating the markets we want, mean creating a bigger pie altogether.
Restoring Demand for a Broad Range of Skill Sets
Skill levels have become increasingly polarized in the modern day workplace. However, hidden in the statistics, is the fact not only have mid range skill levels been reduced, there's a chance that high level skills have gradually been reduced below market potential as well. But how does one really know? After all, this reasoning is similar to the unsolvable mystery of aggregate output potential from the economic losses of the Great Recession. What's really left when we're already two decades into a new century, is whether one believes in the importance of advocating for greater output potential. And by extension, increased market demand for a broader range of skill sets in the workplace.
Part of the confusion regarding aggregate output potential, could stem from how employment finally recovered after the Great Recession (at least prior to COVID-19). While it is routinely emphasized that many jobs don't pay high wages, what might account for this? More to the point, has demand for high level skill decreased in the 21st century, relative to the 20th century? Back in 2013 when I began blogging, a study came out which made this claim. In a paper for the NBER, the authors argued that at the turn of the century, high skills demand underwent a reversal:
Many researchers have documented a strong, ongoing increase in the demand for skills in the decades leading up to 2000. In this paper, we document a decline in that demand in the years since 2000, even as the supply of highly educated workers continues to grow. We go on to show that, in response to this demand reversal, high-skill workers have moved down the occupational ladder and have begun to perform jobs traditionally performed by lower-skill workers. This de-skilling process, in turn, results in high-skill workers pushing low-skill workers even further down the occupational ladder and, to some degree, out of the labor force altogether.In the years since this paper was written, the main evidence of limited skills demand has played out mostly as a cultural struggle for greater economic inclusion. But why hasn't there been closer attention to how and why changes in skills demand actually came about? After all, this is what ultimately determines who will get work in the near future which comes with full levels of monetary compensation.
When it comes to imagining the markets we want, how would we choose, if we knew it either came down to meaningful work, or meaningful pay? Much of the process I have illustrated in this chapter, is a thought experiment for people who would choose meaningful work. Just the same, we live in a society which does not always make it easy to take on meaningful work if it does not also come with commensurate pay. For this reason, I continue to highlight the need to create living environments which make it possible to live a good life, even when the meaningful work choice is the only option.
NOTES
Average Skill Levels Will Always Be Important
Valleta, Rob and Barlow, Nathan, San Francisco Federal Reserve Board Economic Letter, 10 September 2018.
Solitude as Personal Choice, Not Absolute Necessity
Brooks, Arthur C, 'How loneliness is tearing America apart', American Enterprise Institute, 24 November 2018, also published in The New York Times.
Steverman, Ben, 'Americans Face a Greater Risk of Dying Alone', Bloomberg, 9 October 2017.
How much political anger is really a result of extreme loneliness? Sasse, Ben, Them: Why We Hate Each Other - And How to Heal, (New York, NY: Macmillan, 2018).
Restoring Strong Communities
Tribble, Sarah Jane, 'Have Cancer, Must Travel: Patients Left in Lurch After Town's Hospital Closes', NPR, 29 June 2019.
Seo, Sarah A, Policing the Open Road: How Cars Transformed American Freedom, Harvard University Press, April 2019.
Crane, Misti, 'Want people to work together? Familiarity, ability to pick partners could be key', Phys.org, 16 January 2018, The Ohio State University. Crane also cites a study from David Melamed, Ashley Harrell, and Brent Simpson, "Cooperation, Clustering, and Assortative Mixing in Dynamic Networks"
Markets as Understandable Reciprocal Patterns
Larkin, Jack, The Reshaping of Everyday Life:1790-1840, page 37, (New York, NY: Harperperennial, 1989)
The Group Time Continuum as "Compound Interest"
Waters, Oliver, 'The Strange Necessity of Infinite Economic Growth', Medium, 13 November 2018
Restoring Demand for a Broader Range of Skill Sets
Beaudry, Paul, and Green, David A, and Sand, Benjamin M, 'The Great Reversal in the Demand for Skill and Cognitive Tasks', The National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper 18901, March 2013.
Tribble, Sarah Jane, 'Have Cancer, Must Travel: Patients Left in Lurch After Town's Hospital Closes', NPR, 29 June 2019.
Seo, Sarah A, Policing the Open Road: How Cars Transformed American Freedom, Harvard University Press, April 2019.
Crane, Misti, 'Want people to work together? Familiarity, ability to pick partners could be key', Phys.org, 16 January 2018, The Ohio State University. Crane also cites a study from David Melamed, Ashley Harrell, and Brent Simpson, "Cooperation, Clustering, and Assortative Mixing in Dynamic Networks"
Markets as Understandable Reciprocal Patterns
Larkin, Jack, The Reshaping of Everyday Life:1790-1840, page 37, (New York, NY: Harperperennial, 1989)
The Group Time Continuum as "Compound Interest"
Waters, Oliver, 'The Strange Necessity of Infinite Economic Growth', Medium, 13 November 2018
Restoring Demand for a Broader Range of Skill Sets
Beaudry, Paul, and Green, David A, and Sand, Benjamin M, 'The Great Reversal in the Demand for Skill and Cognitive Tasks', The National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper 18901, March 2013.
