Incentives Matter for Time Arbitrage Potential

An important aspect of time arbitrage is the need to secure time based services, starting with those which aren't exactly top career choices. Plus, these tend to be poorly paid, particularly services for elderly assistance. And since people who work for the elderly may struggle with their own financial responsibilities, they aren't always trustworthy and reliable for the people most dependent on their care. 

Granted, it can seem the obvious solution is to ensure adequate pay for all employees, whatever job one happens to be responsible for! Unfortunately, societies have shown time and again that the notion of "livable wages" for all, isn't feasible, despite the tremendous need. My regular readers know that the fact money will continue to be insufficient incentive for such work, serves as a starting point for my own suggestions regarding markets for time value.

If we can't create markets which specifically reward time value, there may ultimately be cultural ramifications. For instance, as the costs of traditional healthcare and nursing homes continue to rise, societal expectations would increase for individuals to make undue sacrifices for their own family members. While it's understandable that existing institutions are less willing (or able) now to pay for time intensive services, we need new institutions which can do so in their stead.

When it comes to incentives for time based markets, one thing to consider is the need for autonomy, and how it revolves around ideas of fairness associated with shared responsibilities. Still, when we purposely spend time with others, those interactions often benefit from the undivided attention of both individuals involved. Indeed, this undivided attention can often be critical to services outcomes. 

Yet attention to details with its associated time related costs, is often more costly than what existing institutions can still provide. When institutions are willing to pay well for time based services, they may expect high skill knowledge providers to commit to such a degree, that burnout becomes inevitable. Even so, excessive time commitments can be burdensome whether one engages in simple skill sets or high skill activities. In time arbitrage, a full range of skill levels would be apportioned so as not to create undue time commitment burdens. A fuller sharing for all skill levels, could also bring respect to work which is now almost treated as a form of social "punishment" for those who struggle with traditional education. 

Here are just a few of the links I've come across lately which highlight the need for a better marketplace for time value. Occasionally I find myself overwhelmed at the extent of time based services needs which simply aren't being met at any skill level. Alas, as a society we have scarcely begun to address these concerns. How could anyone claim real economic progress, if societies keep trying to move forward without better means of coordination for applied knowledge and time based endeavour in general? The sooner we face the fact that money alone cannot accomplish these vital tasks, the sooner we can begin to create new free markets in time value.

How to think about better aligned incentives in this regard? We share a number of basic time commitment priorities in our lives which warrant consideration. One way to think about the processes involved is this: What services are specific individuals willing and capable of providing, so long as doing so doesn't interfere with or somehow impose on the other important facets of our lives? Recall that what anyone might be tolerant of providing in an hours time, is not the same thing as activities one prefers on a more regular basis. Yet markets which rely solely on monetary incentives, don't distinguish well for these differences in relative time preferences.  

More specifically, time arbitrage could take place in several ways. The basic form would be agreed upon time share agreements between two individuals. These commitments would  occur as close to the same time frame as possible. That said, it would not always be possible to benefit from time arbitrage on these terms. Fortunately there are also incentives that would compel individuals to commit time, for which one would hope to benefit at some point in the future.

For one, there are moments of spontaneity, in other words those occasions when people do something for others "just because". One way to think about this is "paying it forward", only this approach tends more toward monetary gifting than services. However, the voluntary actions of time arbitrage would be recorded in the same manner as other aspects of time arbitrage into a broader framework. In so doing, the initial voluntary action functions as partial economic unit which turns into a completed exchange (and its associated full economic value) once the provider accepts a voluntary action from someone which they don't need to reciprocate.  

Another important economic incentive is the natural concern for our own well being, should we become temporarily or even permanently dependent on others in some capacity. This of course also ties back to the concerns of elderly citizens mentioned above. Toward this end, time arbitrage functions as a form of social time based insurance. It's an example of partial matches we can initiate in the here and now which might not be reciprocated for a long time. Such matches could prove especially helpful during periods when we fall short on more immediate time matches with others, for instance. What particularly distinguishes social insurance from monetary insurance is its direct nature, in terms of mirroring the kinds of attention we would seek from others should we become more dependent on them. One way to broaden the potential of time arbitrage for purposes of social insurance, is to seek matches not just for one's personal needs, but also in terms of home maintenance and/or care for family members. 

There's one more consideration as well. When it comes to personal incentives, what are our greater aspirations in life? How might those aspirations change over time? Local community coordination would not be complete, if participating groups didn't make room for everyone to discover challenging work which suits their own motivations and long term goals. Recall as well, how this is the part of time arbitrage which has the potential to contribute to applied knowledge in its more complex forms. What's different in this regard, is the time arbitrage approach to knowledge sharing. 

Experiential Markets Versus Personal Management in Healthcare

Healthcare in the U.S. is a prime example of missing markets for lower income groups. Nevertheless, more than costs are at stake, since other income groups with greater access to healthcare are still dubious about its actual value. Texas ranks highest in limited healthcare access, where in recent years the uninsured are approximately 17 to 18 percent of its population. I am among them since Medicare in the U.S. (which is gradually transitioning to private insurance) is becoming more costly and less predictable for retirees - regardless of income. However, once I retired, I started setting aside money every six months in the event of future healthcare emergencies, rather than paying Medicare premiums.

For many healthcare consumers, careful budgetary responsibility means a high level of frugality regarding any kind of professional assistance. People still believe that healthcare is important, but some of what is missing now, is a matter of regretful consumer choice. How is any of this rational? Two issues in particular stand out: What have people come to expect in terms of healthcare, and how have those expectations fallen so short of the mark? Even though much healthcare dialogue is framed in terms of costs, the very nature of personal interchange in healthcare activity is crucial as well. 

Meanwhile, many individuals increasingly take a personal management approach to healthcare, in hopes of successfully addressing whatever problems might arise. While this approach can be successful, it does has good and bad aspects. The good - of course - is increased personal responsibility for one's own health prospects. The bad? Alas, there are moments in life when it's not feasible to arrive at a clear diagnosis. Worse, there are emergency situations when we are in no position to tend to ourselves without assistance from others. Yet not all nations are fully committed to this elusive ideal of mutual assistance, or even the importance of community in general. Unfortunately, both happen to be the case in the U.S. Hence we are approaching the point where there is insufficient monetary support for healthcare's existing institutions. As the reality of this starts to sink in for healthcare professionals, perhaps they will eventually try new approaches for the preservation and use of vital knowledge - at least one can hope. 

Personal healthcare management is an unalloyed plus. For one thing, consumers and patients have far more time to dedicate to preventative maintenance than do physicians. Also, there's no "one size fits all" for decision making in applied knowledge. Each individual is unique in their personal makeup and approach. Likewise, consumers can maintain personal healthcare histories, and at the very least, AI might be able to do so in the near future. After all, AI is not subject to the same time scarcity constraints as are healthcare professionals. Also, as patients age, they tend to devote much more time to healthcare self management than is generally necessary in one's younger years. In all of this however, traditional media can feel insulting when reporters and journalists stress the dangers of self diagnosis and personal care outside the attention of professional physicians.

If only personal management were enough to take care of healthcare issues. Instead, sometimes our survival depends on the help of others, even if we cannot afford it or worse, end up belittled by the processes involved. For instance, several years ago, an ambulance crew convinced my father to ride to the hospital after a bleeding episode to make sure everything was okay, only for my father to be berated by the physician who complained his time had been wasted. Instances such as this are why people think twice about help in dangerous situations, since one seldom knows whether mutual respect is feasible. People would likely feel better about mutual assistance as taxpayer obligation, had societal skill levels not become so extremely unbalanced. There will be no institutional reform, if possibilities for mutual respect aren't somehow restored. 

Finding better balance in skills levels between individuals, means finding ways to make our time value economic in markets for time based services. How do we create mutual interdependence which is also economic in nature? I get that physicians and other healthcare providers no longer have sufficient time for their patients. In all fairness to healthcare providers, healthcare today shares similar time product scarcities with other secondary markets for applied knowledge. The biggest problem in this regard, are situations which call for mutual time based interaction, yet too few groups in society are able to effectively coordinate the skills involved. Further, additional layers of management in too many instances, cannot make up for time scarcities in crucial skills. Instead, excess management often adds needless complexities and costs, not to mention lowered ability for providers and recipients to find reciprocity in their interactions.

Without direct relationships in time based assistance, societies are losing their ability to effectively manage the demand and supply of time based product in the marketplace. These losses could explain much of society's current dissatisfaction with its existing institutions. Despite this disillusionment, getting down to specifics regarding how to move forward in common purpose, is proving to be the hardest part. Neither experts or laypeople are in a suitable position to implement institutional evolution in the 21st century. 

Though this is one time when solutions are not about "appropriate" credentials, even professionals tend to be criticized when they step out of their immediate domain of expertise. In this environment, how is it even possible for outsiders to be taken seriously? As it turns out, social media gives plenty of permissions for wide ranging complaints regarding why things go wrong, whatever that may be. What social media hasn't been willing to do, and what particularly disappoints me, is its lack of online promotion for suggestions as to how problems can be addressed. We simply can't can't afford to hide anymore from the specific hows of institutional change, despite the fact they are unbelievably difficult and frustrating to confront. For a while, I'd also become reluctant to write about how. But I can't hide my head in the sand any longer.

Incentives Matter for Continuous Procedural Maintenance

As economies gradually become more complex, basic structural maintenance grows more complicated also. Yet the maintenance of our lives, physical environments and knowledge structures is perceived as economic burden, and societies now lack sustainable market structure in crucial areas. During cycles of primary market dominance, societies come to rely on continuous procedural maintenance through monetary and non monetary means. Now however, some of what we've relied on for full maintenance capacity, has been lost. This is particularly true for the use of knowledge in society. 

Just the same, maintenance needs don't go away, and we need new thought processes which can recreate reliable continuance. Doing so means the transformation of our dependent (or secondary) markets, as these areas especially lack incentive to maintain societal stability through monetary compensation alone. In all this, governments are increasingly pressured to minimize fiscal burdens in the use of applied knowledge and skill. We have already seen how procedural maintenance is perceived as taxpayer burden, as political groups now seek to undo the institutions of knowledge and action with nothing sustainable to take their place.

Private enterprise also lacks incentive to make full use of applied knowledge, especially if doing so is perceived as a problem for profit maximization. This isn't good news for societies in the years ahead, since more effective use of knowledge is needed to overcome numerous obstacles to continued progress. These are just some of the reasons I've advocated for time arbitrage commitment as an economic unit of value, to supplement crucial maintenance where monetary compensation so often falls short.

Nevertheless, some reluctance on the part of governments and private enterprise, is understandable. After all, various interest groups have been notorious for creating maintenance "requirements" which are basically about profit making opportunities, instead of true systemic support. Despite the fact faux maintenance isn't often immediately obvious, it occurs routinely in the knowledge based demands of healthcare, education, finance and legal professions. As these additional costs accrue across the spectrum, it only gets more difficult for people, governments and businesses alike to preserve their efforts in society. 

Unproductive forms of economic complexity increasingly dominate our redistribution flows. If this weren't enough, the recent cultural battles leave more productive forms of economic complexity on shaky ground. Clearly, too many economic incentives haven't been well aligned for basic maintenance needs. Indeed, a major part of what makes it difficult to maintain productive economic complexity over long periods, is that societies tend to downplay the very activities which conserve valuable patterns of production. How might this be changed?

The Baumol Effect: Benefit, or Problem?

Is the Baumol effect a positive contributor to economic activity, or is its frequent description as the "Baumol Disease" more realistic?  Perhaps much depends on who and what is involved in the discussion. Timothy Lee (in a January post) explains how a negative framing can be unfortunate:  

From my perspective as a parent, it might be a bummer that child costs are rising. But my daughter's nanny probably doesn't see it that way - the Baumol effect means her income goes up.

Lee explains how productivity gains in some industries may mean higher wages in areas with a more personal focus, via time based activity. He sees this as beneficial, for humans are social beings who often value personal experiences with others over robot encounters to get things done. Indeed, time based product is subjective, which is why it can be more highly valued than products requiring more technology than labour. Personal instruction is a good example, particularly when a given subject is actively and voluntarily sought out by avid students. 

Nevertheless, a concerning issue re the Baumol effect, is its uneven equilibrium dispersion which impacts both short and long term outcomes. As it turns out, well paid and fully functioning service markets are generally limited to places where originating wealth plays a dominant role. Despite the fact many scenarios lack this level of economic complexity, it's easy to assume the societal coordination of the Baumol effect is more widespread than is actually the case. Yet anyone who spends much time outside the more prosperous regions, will notice a dearth of markets for many important skills sets and services. Since applied knowledge and its related maintenance are necessary for modern economies, places where the Baumol effect is largely missing, tend to lack social cohesion and community purpose.

Hence we need to come to terms with the Baumol effect as an incomplete societal coordinator, not really capable of generating the level of applied knowledge which is crucial for modern day economies. Granted, the Baumol effect functions as a positive where it does contribute to economic dynamism. However, time based services run the gamut from the mundane to what are far more aspirational goals. Fortunately, many people remain willing to pursue their higher aspirations on non pecuniary and even solitary terms. That said, not all that is necessary and mundane in our lives is accomplished this way, particularly when recognizable markets for time value remain missing. We need to recognize where personal freedoms are too often lost to cultural expectations - expectations where many are pressed to sacrifice the whole of their lives for mundane and necessary tasks, while others remain free to pursue broader goals or perhaps higher callings.

Consider again the fortunate nature of free market framing, which at least has created partial equilibrium compensation via the Baumol effect in today's secondary markets. Since Timothy Lee could afford to pay his daughter's nanny (who accepted this work voluntarily), that created tangible benefits not only for the nanny, but Lee's family also in terms of their own expanded time use options at home. 

Alas, it's a shame the Baumol effect is often missing in places where it is needed most. Which is why we are challenged to bring stronger economic value to a wide range of time use options. Let's face up to the fact we can't always achieve interpersonal goals through money alone. Without a broader range of economic options, societies stand to lose even more voluntary societal coordination, to what are often outdated and rigid cultural "norms".

To sum up, the Baumol effect is problematic due to what it can't readily accomplish for a majority of citizens, despite what people hoped for via monetary and fiscal policy potential. This is one of the main reasons I've promoted time arbitrage as an economic option, especially whenever the Baumol effect falls short. Let's make certain that free markets can be preserved in the meaningful use of our time, and that voluntary economic coordination remains a real possibility for the foreseeable future.

Is Time Arbitrage Feasible For Post Covid Economies?

Even though time arbitrage would be a complex undertaking (particularly for large scale versions), today's time based services are nevertheless being called into question, as post Covid realities gradually emerge. Plus there's plenty of unknowns in time based service markets which represent a wide range of knowledge, skill, and yes, physical activities as well. How will societies ultimately respond?

While problems were already evident in secondary markets such as healthcare before the pandemic, there's also recent troubles for time based services that are directly linked to originating (primary market) wealth. For instance, both manufacturers and home improvement retailers have limited incentive to compensate the time based labour involved in installations and repairs at private residences. Worse, these resulting service labour shortages are amplified by resistance among service workers who were never really keen on commuting to outlying areas in the first place! Indeed, a CEO for Whirlpool expressed concern that labour shortages may in fact be structural. Likewise, Zillow, recently had to stop purchasing homes when it struggled to secure sufficient timely labour in order to resell at a profit.

More specifically, what can be done at local levels, should time centered services become increasingly difficult to procure from a distance? Just as time arbitrage could function as a primary market substitute for some of today's secondary markets in knowledge and skill, it could also shore up missing services associated with traditional primary markets. In many instances, time arbitrage could benefit coordination patterns in local services where strength and physical stamina may be just as important as knowledge and skill. Since many manufacturers and retailers have become compromised in terms of services employment potential, they could shift towards establishing commodity and goods specific educational support for their product to local community levels. Doing so would also allow local citizens to more meaningfully incorporate home renovation and appliance maintenance needs in their (time symmetric) educational settings Even though local citizens would not be employed by home improvement manufacturers and retailers, they still have incentive to work with these firms for an outcome that would help both groups. Best, a hub and spoke (or city to country) educational approach could help recreate formal services economies where they are most needed. 

Better use of coordinated time symmetry could eventually help restore structural balance to economic conditions in general. Chances are, efforts to bring time value to the table for market outcomes, would result in greater general equilibrium representation for direct forms of wealth creation than is presently the case. After all, there's a good chance that 80 percent monetary representation for services was too much to begin with, to maintain long term economic stability. Only consider the prominent example of structural imbalance in our healthcare knowledge use patterns. Even Noah Smith recently challenged "shoveling money at overpriced service industries", hence has become one of many who wonder why governments continue to subsidize vital services purposely made scarce in the twentieth century.

Long term economic stability may well depend on whether societies are able to make time value a more important component of formal economic activity. All the more so, since many communities already struggle to provide the kinds of local services which are so beneficial for citizen outcomes. When it comes to general equilibrium dynamics, time arbitrage might at least be able to reduce the discrepancy between monetary representation for services versus traditional wealth sources, to 70 percent versus 30 percent. 

A more reasonable sectoral balance could improve the long term odds of good economic complexity in our formal activities. One way to think about the processes involved, is how such efforts might ensure reliable forms of societal coordination to transfer knowledge and skill which can be understood by most citizens. Otherwise - if and when service markets become distorted - people understandably react with DIY measures instead of - for example - benefiting from healthcare services provided by others. Granted, DIY is often the most practical strategy. But done in excess, extreme self reliance might put the long term preservation and transfer of knowledge use through society, in doubt. And should too many of us end up resorting to DIY, when might the process eventually evolve into a tipping point of informal economic activity, even in places where it was never expected? Alas, informal economies have their problems (such as oppressive amounts of gang activity) and often prove difficult to change once entrenched. If we can avoid it, let's just not go there. Hopefully, societies will learn to better coordinate services so that knowledge and skill can be preserved, hence remain part of our formal economies in the foreseeable future.

Economic Integration Could Help Unify Us

After all the post election chaos, finally some relief with a change of command in Washington. Still, I know this respite could be brief, and it hardly signifies a return to normalcy. As things stand, too many budgetary issues are coming to the fore, and recent decades of structural shifts have yet to be addressed. So while Biden is a calming presence (for some of us), he's in charge of a government which is ill prepared to meet the expectations of its citizens. Unfortunately, Biden's hopes for greater unity are mostly wishful thinking - at least for now. 

For that matter - as some noted regarding the heightened inauguration security - this was no peaceful transfer of power in an ordinary sense. It may be that political unity remains out of reach, until societies become more serious about economic integration for all citizens. Importantly, what's at stake in all this, isn't about continuous cycles of additional monetary redistribution. Rather, a broader framing for market orientation is called for - one which would ultimately make less monetary redistribution necessary in the first place. 

How to think about more concise forms of economic integration? For one, such strategies would focus on the economic potential of all human capital, regardless of formal educational levels. Once a wider range of time based mutual assistance becomes horizontally aligned, skilled services would no longer be limited to urban settings and limited budgetary directives. If we can establish applied knowledge networks in communities of all kinds, aggregate time value would become a more dynamic part of our economic destinies. If we truly believe in the power of free markets, then why not give ourselves greater ability to define useful time based consumption, in line with what others hope to provide. 

More viable platforms in human potential, could increase the supply and demand of useful economic time for all citizens. Eventually, the mutual reliance of shared time would lead to greater interdependence, thereby giving people new opportunities to trust one another and become civilized again. 

Only recall how the civil societies of recent centuries, were established through a more complete representation of specific resources. Toward this end, why not make time use potential as economically viable as other forms of commodity wealth. The resource representation which our tradable sectors made possible, led to extensive societal coordination, cohesion and voluntary cooperation. Let's hope that our non tradable sectors can now take a page from these earlier positive examples. Should we refuse to put additional and unnecessary burdens on resources that are already scarce, perhaps we have a chance to reduce the "uncivil wars" of our times.

Could Healthcare Providers Reduce Our Political Turmoil?

Perhaps there is a role for healthcare providers, in addressing our ever worsening political circumstance. For one thing, much of our political polarization is due to struggles between different groups for access to high skill services. Healthcare tops this list, and its present variance in job specification, is a prime example of the widening asymmetries between skills use potential for all concerned. The millions with limited skills on offer in our workplaces are finding it more difficult as time goes on, to contribute the taxes that - regardless of party - governments find necessary in a knowledge based economy. Yet the fiscal and monetary contributions of these millions are nonetheless sought, to compensate the skills of present day knowledge providers. All citizens need a chance to participate more fully, so as to maintain the viability and sustainability of coordination systems for knowledge based economies.

As societies become ever more dependent on applied knowledge for either employment potential or simply getting things done, too many find themselves limited in their ability to help themselves or assist others. How might we bring back greater employment symmetry for the skills capacity and employment potential of all citizens? Healthcare providers could be part of the answer, especially since when it comes to sought after time based services, one person's supply is another's demand. And markets for skilled time product are more scarce than they may appear, especially in communities and regions which have been left behind. 

Nevertheless, during election cycles, politicians often make promises about services generation for their constituents that they are in no position to fulfill. In the U.S. we face a constant bombardment of television ads where political candidates insist they are the ones who can best manage healthcare access. Supposedly it's all about preserving consumer demand for appropriate "in" groups, whereas if the "wrong" candidate happens to be elected, healthcare services will be reduced or even lost for one's constituents. For instance, one recently aired commercial sought to convince viewers that should the "wrong" candidate win, more rural hospitals would shut down! Seriously, could the politically "unfortunate" outcome prove responsible for that? For anyone who has closely observed healthcare realities for decades, this sort of nonsense can make one reluctant to even show up at the polls. Yet ads such as these tend to be only mildly divisive and hurtful, in contrast with other attacks.

Sometimes I wonder, what must healthcare providers think when exposed to such ridiculous goings on every two years at election time? Clearly, in many instances it is the healthcare profession which has the ability to change our supply side dilemma for services generation and the use of helpful knowledge, not pundits and politicians. This vital supply side matter should no longer be used as political fodder for division and societal turmoil. 

I continue to hope that healthcare providers will have the courage to step forward and create effective change in the years ahead. We can all do better than this as a society. It is still possible to restore hope for the future, by reaching out to one another for integrative solutions in workplace employment and collaboration with knowledge. Let's get started, and also hope there will not be further disruption and turmoil in our nation once the elections finally come to pass. For that matter, why not place the entire concept of healing into the broader societal arena where it is so desperately needed.

The Solow Residual is on a Cultural Collision Course

Perhaps there are broader implications of mature economies which we have yet to fully explore. For instance, skills arbitrage which includes highly sought human capital, is distributed (for knowledge providers) in ways which leave little room for further inclusion. But what about intellectual activities which are sometimes more desirable for participants in work settings, than their actual (or potential) consumers? Is is logical to think of participants in the latter example as the "moochers" of economic systems? Even though others who also rely on general equilibrium redistribution are more likely to benefit from the fact their skills include high consumer demand? Or, if "moochers" were somehow disallowed in a time of stretched budgets, what would this suggest about the value - or lack thereof - for experiential services in general?

What's more, how does the Solow residual factor into these considerations? For one, redistribution for the secondary markets of knowledge provision, is also dependent on total factor productivity. Much of TFP is expressed by the Solow residual which Investopedia defines as:

The Solow residual is the portion of an economy's output growth that cannot be attributed to the accumulation of capital and labor, the factors of production. It is a measure of productivity growth that is usually referred to as total factor productivity.

Alas, progress and long term growth as defined by the Solow residual, were more reliable before the dominance of non tradable activity in services generation. Previously, when tradable sector activity comprised a greater portion of general equilibrium, societies were naturally more inclined to make room for intellectual activity - regardless of how it was applied in the marketplace.

As it turns out, more than the Solow model will be needed for wealth creation, before societies regain confidence in full market application for intellect and knowledge. Meanwhile, aggregate productivity is compromised, as high demand human capital gradually crowds out other desirable economic activities. If this weren't enough, "moocher" arguments question redistribution patterns in their entirety, on identity based terms. Arnold Kling, in "Maybe we *are* in an Atlas Shrugged" moment", responds to the recent take down of Scott Alexander's blog, and notes:

Scott Alexander, Less Wrong, and the Intellectual Dark Web occupy a sort of Galt's Gulch. They see the moochers as intellectually deficient. They are trying to uphold an old-fashioned value of scientific objectivity against the moochers' assault of oppressor-oppressed framing. 

Kling further explains his perspective:

I think of the conflict in Randian terms, as industrialists vs. moochers. The industrialists (not in the Rand sense of heavy industry but in the sense of software eating everything) take pride in having shown an ability to build something. It might be something as humble as a section of computer code that gets used. Or it might be as grand as a successful company, or two. The moochers have never built anything, and they are looking for other ways to assuage their egos and fight the zero sum game of status. The moochers have found that social justice activism is a useful weapon for lowering the status of the industrialists.

One problem with the "moocher" categorization, is that until recently, direct sources of originating wealth were easier to come by. Indeed, only a century earlier, most anyone in the U.S. could still take part! Unfortunately, as traditional forms of Solow model productivity have become ever more efficient, the places where wealth origination still takes place, continue to retreat from our personal view as a society. How many local economies are still included? Not near enough! In the aftermath of tremendous Solow model efficiency (on tradable sector terms), is it really reasonable to define millions of individuals and communities as "moocher" status? Doing so is demoralizing for average people with average intelligence, who may desire to build their lives up through physical means. It is also demoralizing for people who - on the other hand - could be happy with life as a series of meaningful experiences.

These are just a few reasons, why we need to redefine what wealth origination actually consists of, in the time based terms which all of society could still utilize for productive and meaningful lives. Until we do, we may end up pointing fingers at society's supposed "losers", while investing in "special" human capital which only continues its collision course with the global redistribution patterns of today's wealth.

Notes on Personal Reciprocity vs Social Reciprocity

Between keeping up with developments re COVID-19, and efforts to clarify my own perceptions in regard to reciprocity, I deleted more material in the last post than was actually kept. So today I'll try again, to explore relevant differences between (what could be considered) personal and social reciprocity.

Free markets are often described as voluntary forms of exchange. Even so, too many time based economic interactions, are not as spontaneous and voluntary as they could be. When it comes to other forms of product, prices can usually do a good job of representing and coordinating the voluntary actions of individuals and groups. It's when final product contains substantial time based and experiential components, that people face too many obstacles in what they might otherwise create or provide for one another. Money is a tremendous price and signal, but it could perform even better, if mutual time preferences could also function as prices, signals, and stores of economic value.

Many activities take place either through the personal reciprocity of individuals, or the social reciprocity of groups. While personal exchange allows individuals to negotiate for common purposes, social reciprocity seeks to build bridges and common "middle ground", as well. Since beginning this project, I've tended to focus more on personal reciprocity, than social reciprocity. However the reality is they are equally important, for they often need to function simultaneously in many social circumstance. Even as personal reciprocity creates starting points between individuals, it's the larger group context of social reciprocity which encourages a cohesive and constructive whole. In other words: When minds "think alike" in terms of aspirations and personal commitments, individual daily contributions in this context, are more likely to create circles of social sustainability.

Both social and personal reciprocity require understandable social patterns which are voluntary and not forced. People are far more likely to continue reaching out to other individuals, once it becomes obvious their efforts will generally not be in vain. What's more, societies and their institutions cannot expect immediate family members to assume too much personal reciprocity in the form of internal family roles. When this occurs, human capital potential is limited, as is also the potential of group interactions as a whole.

Plus, when individual family members have plenty of options in group settings for time based services provision, each family member stands a better chance of maintaining their personal autonomy and self respect. Indeed, family relationships tend to be more positive and supportive, so long as all family members have ample opportunity to benefit from the personal reciprocity and social reciprocity of group settings. We often observe this now in the services generation of high income communities, for instance. The more possibilities each individual holds for time arbitrage, the less the chance that everyday interactions will be of a forced nature.

How might we create reliable patterns for mutual reciprocity which are more voluntary in nature than present day institutions?  Skills arbitrage - for all its monetary value - has proven insufficient for the generation of services, knowledge, and personal autonomy which societies aspire to, particularly during times of economic uncertainty. Time arbitrage could ultimately tap into more sources of human capital, than skills arbitrage is capable of. Eventually, time arbitrage could lead to sustainable forms of services generation, which take place via common and easy to understand frameworks.

In order to function effectively, time arbitrage would include recognizable elements of both personal and social reciprocity. As to the latter, new communities could be established, where common interests could be pursued as a long term continuum for the maintenance and care of applied knowledge. Best, these new sources of human capital could rely on internal organizational patterns to generate new wealth. Indeed, one might dare hope, that when societies falter for any reason, such communities would serve as repositories of human potential, economic integration, and long term economic stability. In these settings, personal reciprocity could become the base which is strong enough for the larger goals of social reciprocity.

Mutual Reciprocity Could Alleviate Fragile Systems

One of the main issues many communities now face, is the fact that neighbors who live in close proximity to one another, lack reliable methods for mutual assistance on a regular basis. What were once common and spontaneous forms of social reciprocity, have gradually been supplanted by formal service roles. However, these more recent patterns of social and economic organization, feature "empty spots" which are exacerbated by unfortunate events such as the COVID-19 threat. Regular readers are familiar with my advocacy for time arbitrage. I remain convinced that a marketplace for time value, could help to fill empty areas where there are now few roadmaps for mutual reciprocity.

In the months ahead, attempts to control the spread of COVID-19 will doubtless add more burdens to healthcare and financial systems alike. Ultimately, societies are going to need more than centralized patterns of knowledge and skill, to bring productive agglomeration in services to areas where it is needed most. How might we build a stronger economic context, for time based services at local levels? After all, decentralized patterns for the use of applied knowledge and skill, could help restore personal autonomy to average citizens. Plus, local patterns for skilled services generation, would make it simpler for all individuals to assist one another, during all kinds of public emergencies.

Healthcare providers already struggle with the limited capacity of present day healthcare systems. The U.S. in particular, is ill prepared to fully respond to widespread health threats. For example, self quarantine might become an important strategy, since little additional hospital capacity exists if millions become seriously ill at once. It would not take much, for a pandemic to overwhelm what our present systems can realistically provide.

Another way to think about what is possible for local services coordination, is the integration of lifetime education with local strategies for applied knowledge. Only consider what could be gained, if local property taxes were redirected to support local educational efforts which augment the possibilities of informed mutual assistance. Fortunately, there are viable ways to create stronger knowledge use systems. Long term commitments to the time value of all citizens, would help address the systems fragility of our times.

Jobs as a Form of Societal Permission

How might artificial intelligence affect employment prospects in the near future? Answers may partly depend on how AI impacts the aggregate output of tradable and non tradable sector activity. Essentially, we may gain more societal permissions for employment, so long as we ensure that aggregate output is not compromised.

And while AI is beneficial for non tradable sectors, in certain crucial monetary respects it is better positioned to increase output in tradable sector activity. After all, tradable sectors don't face the limiting factor of time scarcity in final product. One can only hope that tradable sector potential does not become overly suppressed in the near future by the excessive market demands (price making) of today's non tradable sectors.

AI can only improve aggregate output in non tradable sector activity up to a point. Even though AI can augment time value in non tradable sector time based product, it more often does so for specific or individual efforts, rather than general worker participation. Since these (historically early) patterns of AI are occurring in restricted knowledge environments, AI tends to exacerbate income variance in non tradable sector activity, instead of contributing to greater knowledge dispersion in society.

At first glance, one might expect the professional work of knowledge providers in non tradable sectors, to be among the safest jobs in the near future. Nevertheless, market availability in these areas will still require societal permission in the form of reliable general equilibrium revenue flows. This being the case, many professionals may ultimately have less control over their management of job creation, than they would prefer. At some point, budgetary restrictions could "require" more use of AI to substitute for human capital, even though knowledge providers understandably prefer otherwise.

When considering whether AI contributes to or detracts from job creation, it helps to determine whether the relevant activity provides an initial wealth source which can utilize immediate resource reciprocity. This organizational approach doesn't require redistribution or long term debt formation, plus any budgetary restrictions it creates are mostly immediate and short term. Today's tradable sectors are the most dependable sources of initial wealth generation. Given this priority market position, they should continue to serve as reliable job creation, so long as markets maintain a steady growth trajectory.

Alas, some secondary or non tradable sector market formation is not only heavily reliant on redistribution, but also on the ability of governments to fulfill competing responsibilities without substantial disruption. Eventually, due in part to extensive price making, these forms of knowledge production could suffer losses of aggregate output, even in conditions of carefully calibrated growth trajectories. While many time based services still appear as though steady sources of employment, some of the most highly compensated employment could be disrupted by budgetary issues in the near future.

Fortunately, there are new organizational possibilities for societal permission in skilled time based services. An important difference in future capacity, however, is that full monetary compensation for the time product of knowledge providers, will not always be possible. Despite this reality, time arbitrage could make it feasible for participating groups to coordinate time based services. Advance planning towards this end, would also lessen the negative impact of income losses for all concerned.

Participating groups could especially step up quality workplace possibilities, by giving AI "permission" to assist individuals in the creation of quality time based product. One could readily imagine today's AI assistance for professionals as a starting point, since the real potential for societal gain is in raising the skills ability of all individuals in their workplaces. Even though AI can't multiply existing time scarcities, it can improve the aggregate time value of those who take part in services generation. Let's bring workplace permissions within reach of all individuals who would provide mutual assistance.

The "Greener Pastures" of Market Flexibility

With the advent of NIMBYism and protected knowledge sources, we sometimes forget how earlier forms of market flexibility made it easier for individuals to move more freely from place to place. How might we recreate "greener pastures" for new economic opportunities, especially for those with the greatest incentive to put them to good use?

The mid twentieth century U.S. economy was a time of considerable market flexibility, which helps explain some of the nostalgia surrounding this period. Clearly, its tradable sector dominance also contributed to social mobility. What were relatively flexible organizational patterns and divisions of labour in particular, helped local environments adapt to changing economic and social circumstance. Small business production was extensive, and it made feasible a wide range of wealth creation diversity. Even the smallest and most isolated of communities were often able to create their own roles, in what was an open and dynamic domestic economy.

Chances are, today's sticky domestic markets are a bigger problem for social mobility than is generally recognized. While social mobility is more often described as realizing income gains over time, our ability to move about freely as needed without accruing excessive costs or personal risks, is likely just as important. How much social mobility is negatively impacted, by the rigid requirements of non tradable sectors? Especially since these sectors tend to set the rules for economic participation in general. Even though tradable sector factory closings are an obvious hardship, citizens of hard hit regions face additional long term difficulties, when they try to start over in new environs only to find the costs of economic engagement beyond their reach. Unfortunately, non tradable sector rigidity is shutting off too many economic opportunities in domestic markets.

An interesting way to think about these issues, is the nature of risk taking in light of current market barriers. How so? Presently it is not uncommon, to hear that people aren't as willing to invest or take risks as was once the case. Yet this supposed lack of desire to invest further for continued economic progress, links economic stagnation with an assumed unwillingness on everyone's part. But why expect millions who are basically satisfied with their lives, to be the primary risk takers in society?

Plenty of individuals who are willing to assume risks and invest in new possibilities, aren't being noticed. Paradoxically, many who seek greener pastures are derided for doing so. Supposedly they aren't the ones to be pursuing better realities! Perhaps instead of expecting the already successful to do the heavy lifting of innovation and furthering progress, we might ask them instead to have more patience with others who aren't quite as content with present circumstance. We might discover how people who are content with their gains, could become more willing to make room for others who wish to create successes in their lives as well. In many instances, it simply isn't necessary for everyone to struggle with competing platforms and goals in the same physical locations. No one need force extensive market changes on those who understandably resist, when new spaces could be freed instead, for greener pastures of economic opportunity.

What's the Point in Work With Limited Pay?

For some - regardless of past earnings - this question may appear to have a simple answer. There isn't! Yet plenty of work we perceive as either enticing or necessary, takes place via no monetary compensation to speak of. How to think about this reality?

What encourages us to choose the work we are willing to do, regardless of compensation? After all, much more is at stake than a "fat" paycheck. By way of example, voluntary work we deem desirable, may either contain the internal reward of intellectual challenge, or represent our sense of duty to others. For that matter, work of a seemingly mundane nature is worthwhile, since daily chores and routines play important roles in maintaining our connections to our environments. Some will likewise sacrifice reliable paychecks to work on autonomous terms, particularly since doing so makes it simpler to juggle competing responsibilities.

Nevertheless, we find most aspects of work more meaningful, if we aren't constantly having to worry about keeping a roof over our heads and food in our pantries. Should low pay work appear insufficient for meeting basic needs, some will refuse to work for others on those terms. And yet there's plenty of work needing to be done, which for the most part can only be paid poorly. Consequently, progressives and conservatives alike are discussing the possibility of creating either "living" wages, or else wage subsidies as government support for employees (via their employers).

Even though I'm pessimistic as to whether either approach is actually feasible, I'm an optimist about the possibility of creating local environments which better reflect low to mid range wage capacity. Supply side innovation for our non tradable sectors, could create greater personal security and stability, for those whose primary work only gains minimal monetary compensation.

So: Consider the range of work possibilities we might consider for ourselves if we don't also have to worry about keeping a roof over our head, and food in our pantry. Would relative financial stability change our mental framework as to what is possible?

Regardless of automation and AI, modern day economies are likely to need a full range of skills complexity in the near future. That said, a lot of employment options may not pay quite so handsomely as before. One problem in this regard is that existing municipal government budgets may become stretched to the breaking point - an event would lead to knock on effects elsewhere in the economy as well. Even though millions continue to seek high compensation for personal levels of high skill, the reality is many budgets will come up short for this human capital approach. Indeed, while lower skill work has been displaced to some degree by automation, AI is a more recent technological development which could impact high skill levels, especially if it becomes utilized in response to budgetary limitations.

Eventually, more cities and communities are going to need to redirect extensive resource capacity to basic elements of infrastructure maintenance. Hopefully, this will encourage the creation of infrastructure and services which don't cost so much to operate and maintain in the first place! Once we have more local settings which are easier to maintain, more individuals may ultimately find value in pursuing intellectual endeavour which does not necessarily come with a large paycheck, or a pension for that matter.

Another consideration, is that the twentieth century redefined how we perceive many non pecuniary obligations to others. These cultural shifts are quite substantial and are still having ramifications. One reason a marketplace for time value is needed, is to restore important forms of mutual assistance which have essentially fallen by the wayside. Also, the use of skills arbitrage for widespread employment, has contributed to increasing physical distance from friends and families as we age. Time arbitrage - given its encouragement of physical proximity for economic activity - could help restore mutual assistance in ways which allow us to rebuild trust locally.

Should people refuse to work for "peanuts", often there are good reasons why. Fortunately, we can create new forms of institutional means which make it more worthwhile to do so. One important aspect of these processes is greater economic security, via innovation for more affordable local environments. Plus, we commit to a restoration of personal workplace autonomy, for participating individuals. Why so? Only recall that one's ability to personally manage workplace circumstance, is a major reason why people are often willing to work for less money. And even though making room for the personal autonomy of others would include occasional inconveniences on our part, only recall how much we appreciate it, when others extend to us, the same privilege of personal autonomy.

When is Hierarchical Structure a Good Approach?

When do hierarchies contribute to getting tasks accomplished more effectively? This is an important consideration for time arbitrage, which would mostly function via horizontal divisions of labour in relatively flat organizational patterns. Many participants in these processes - regardless of age - would assume active responsibility for the services they seek to create and provide. Often, one's limits in this regard would stem from what other individuals are willing to accept, rather than what institutions refuse to allow in terms of skills provisions and access.

Some aspects of our working lives don't particularly benefit from hierarchical patterns of organization. All the more so, when vertically aligned decision making imposes unnecessary costs and makes it needlessly complicated to get anything done. Fortunately, a wide array of time based services could adapt to a simpler framing which encourages internally managed decision making. Our present day services institutions use hierarchical approaches in part since vertical structure makes it easier to price make for additional income. However, the price making which often comes with hierarchies, discourages the price taking that is full societal time based coordination and participation. Yet it's the latter which encourages people to reach out to others for the full course of their lives. Without such encouragement, the constant permissions process of meritocracy can lead many to believe they are "unworthy" to take part in even basic forms of mutual assistance!

Meritocracy also gets in the way of natural expression. Ideally, an important takeaway for many forms of time based product, would be how participants perceive the experience. Nevertheless, when these activities are institutionally (externally) defined, there's little consideration for the actual circumstance which individuals may face. This inability to take unique factors into account, can detract from the shared experiences of providers and recipients. How much freedom do they have to manage and create a services experience, in the interactions of institutionally defined time based product? If these services could be offered on simpler terms, free markets would more closely represent what individuals actually want to create and provide for one another, as freely participating agents.

On the other hand, there's an entirely different set of organizational considerations, if divisions of labour contribute to final product which is clearly delineated from human input. By way of example, we find strong rationale for externally defined divisions of labour in tradable sector activity, since its final product is the sum of many different - yet specific - actions. Without divisions of labour standardization in such instances, final product could not serve its functional purpose. Hence tradable sector final product is likely to be composed of many different divisions of labour which benefit from external and possibly hierarchical coordination.

Even though time arbitrage could provide many opportunities for non hierarchical patterns of organization, there are still occasions when hierarchical organization could be efficient and even desirable in these settings. For instance, externally defined divisions of labour can be useful to define skills expectations in local projects which are seldom needed. Some skills sets may not be needed locally, to an extent they can be readily included in the local educational patterns of time arbitrage.

Another rationale for hierarchical organization is when multiple participants may be new to local coordination processes. In these instances, communities may not have had time to contribute to local learning opportunities which would simplify egalitarian approaches to mutual assistance. Nevertheless, many hierarchical requirements for services generation need not be ongoing. After all, most individuals hope to assume more autonomous roles in their working relationships, once they become familiar with the needs, expectations and aspirations of their own participating groups.

There are also hierarchical considerations for workplace teams, since team members frequently contribute specific skill sets to the outcomes of group endeavour. Healthcare in particular developed a team approach in the 20th century. However, while healthcare team based price making has functioned reasonably well for higher income levels, it hardly suffices for lower income levels. By way of example, if Medicare in the U.S. were extended to all citizens, the present healthcare system would be quickly bankrupted! A better approach would be to allow lower income levels to adopt knowledge use systems which allow them to internalize educational alignments for mutual assistance. Time arbitrage could ultimately create means for participating low income groups to meet a wide array of healthcare activities.

A certain amount of hierarchical structure would also come into play, for the start up community design of knowledge use systems. Importantly, organizers would want to ensure that community designs aren't needlessly divided between opposing visions of the good life. Everyone's time is scarce, and time arbitrage would include time commitments as a component of local community taxation. Hence opposing visions could quickly get in the way of local aggregate time use possibilities. System co-founders would not be doing their job, if they don't work to ensure that diverse community designs are feasible which reflect the full range of what individual groups hope to create.

Once a given community design is determined, local grid and infrastructure patterns would reflect the main services lifestyle preferences, via a walkable core. From here, more flexible lifestyle and transportation options would begin to define community peripheries. Once these physical aspects of community design are in place, walkable town centers would become a welcoming place for people of all ages, in free markets which represent true services freedom of expression.

Many Services Need Better Market Coordination

In spite of regular reminders to improve our skill sets as we go through life; the fact remains, as Karen Weese notes in "America's Fastest Growing Jobs Don't Pay a Living Wage", that some jobs don't translate into fully compensated human capital. How to think about this paradox?

For example, a community worker discovered in one locale that women were mostly working full time with wages at approximately $24,000 a year. Alas, even though this sounds like reasonable wages to old folk like me, it's not sufficient to cover much more than basic bills in many instances. How on earth do these individuals successfully coordinate their services with those of others? And since many of these women worked as home health aides and personal care aides, they were actually seeking assistance in the form of uniforms or scrubs. Ouch, these don't cost much. I priced them at $10 at the local Dollar General after reading the above linked article, and that's when they're not on sale. Weese continues:

Over the next 10 years the occupations with the most job growth in America will not be the techy jobs that most of us think of as the jobs of the future, like, say, solar-panel technicians or software engineers. Instead, they'll be the jobs held by the women in Hyde-Miller's community center neighborhood: home health aide and personal care aide. More than one million new aides will be needed over the next decade, in addition to the 3.2 millions already in the field, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Wednesday. What's more, six of the 10 occupations providing the most new jobs over the next decade will pay less than $27,000 a year. That's more than 15 million people, working hard at jobs that simply don't pay the bills.

There's another problem regarding this reality which is not always taken into account. She asks: What about those who do gain the needed education to exit this kind of work, for better wages? More to the point: what if everybody did so? Who would be left to tend to those who are in need of additional assistance from others?

Like many, Karen Weese argues for higher wages for low skill work, which is understandable. Nevertheless, even when workers benefit from nominal gains, those gains are temporary. Only the real economy can create the supply side conditions which make multiple wage levels relevant. As a quick aside: Without production reforms, UBI could become a particularly thorny taxpayer burden, as its recipients find themselves in similar circumstance to today's low skill wage levels. All the more so, if UBI or perhaps government guaranteed work is implemented as means for policy makers to relieve themselves of time based service responsibilities. One can only hope, they might see to it that new service market options are in place first.

More progress can be made, by creating better services coordination and innovating our way out of the present hurdles of today's building and infrastructure requirements. A more pragmatic approach is needed - one capable of creating good deflation for a wide array of non tradable sector product and services. Only after new equilibrium is explored, would societies find it realistic to build knowledge use systems which don't fully compensate at the expected monetary levels of the present.

Fortunately, there are ways that basic skills sets can be shared with more challenging skills sets, for all concerned. Besides the normal voluntary matching of time arbitrage, time based service product could also be coordinated via local community "service taxes". Another useful approach would be time value insurance, which creates market space for individuals to "pay it forward" for those who can't reciprocate. For instance, should someone stop and do yard work for an elderly person on a hot summer day (does he really need to be out there pushing that mower?), their activity would also become part of a local public record, ensuring someone remembers to do the same for them, later on.

When we purchase insurance essentially of a social nature via money, the results are not always efficient, particularly when what we really seek is the time and attention of others. By way of example, in the U.S. we are encouraged to wait as long as possible, to tap into the insurance of Social Security. And while Social Security is primarily a matter of monetary security, the Medicare aspect of this form of social insurance, is mostly about access to the time of others when we need it most.

Here's the problem. Even though Social Security can no longer be taken at 65 without penalties, we still need to start monthly payments for Medicare at age 65, regardless. And if we don't, there's a ten percent penalty for monthly Medicare payments which grows an additional ten percent each year. How is one supposed to come out ahead by delaying their Social Security as long as possible (when they don't have other sources of income), if the previously required Medicare time frame still applies? The head scratching discrepancy between Social Security and Medicare requirements, makes all too evident the fact that money does not represent our aggregate time value as well as one might imagine.

Time arbitrage could help create markets for time value, which are more direct, representative and efficient, than what money is currently able to provide. There are ways to create better coordination, for vital and useful services of all kinds. We just need to begin the process of exploration, to discover what is possible.

Wealth Can't Be Built On Merit Alone

What makes meritocracy such a long term problem for societal organization? If merit remains the primary workplace option, skills differences among citizens will eventually be magnified in ways which make democracies more fragile than is already the case. I've promoted time arbitrage in part because it could contribute to workplace participation without the present political impulse to sort groups differently, based on prior privilege or the lack thereof.

Granted: To a certain extent, merit based organizational patterns - despite their exclusivity - are logical for getting things done. If institutions can fully compensate employees for their expertise, problem solving on these terms can be quite efficient. When national wealth benefits from extensive use of scale, public and private interests will abundantly reward specialists who - in turn - pay dearly for their human capital investment requirements.

The problem? Dependent markets not only get lots of things done via already existing wealth, extensive price making is also part of the equation. For instance, the Baumol effect includes large percentages of non tradable sector activity at high skill levels. However, this largely rival form of knowledge dispersion can only generate economic dynamism up to a point. Indeed, the barriers to modern economy access are already apparent, for the productive agglomeration of today's knowledge based economy is centered in a relative few prosperous regions. Are we really ready as a society, to impose drastic limits to wealth on these terms?

In the past, "special" locations for skill sorting and applied knowledge weren't so problematic, since millions remained actively engaged in activities where extensive amounts of price taking were also important for social cooperation and economic cohesion. In many of these settings, competition tended to be more pure and transparent. Communities and cities didn't need total integration with high skill knowledge in order to generate prosperity. Now they do. All the same, those who were left behind, will need stronger organizational patterns that utilize the skills capacity which is already in their midst. Fortunately, this also means rediscovering the wealth creation potential of price taking, instead of trying for yet another share of the price making pie - given the claims it has already endured.

Productive agglomeration will need to be conceptualized differently, so that more skills potential might be tapped in time arbitrage context. Since considerable revenue potential has already been apportioned to price making, groups will need to start anew, with price taking mechanisms that allow time value to function as wealth, alongside money. Otherwise, the long term dangers of sorting for skill on price making terms, will only become more evident in the near future.

Supply and Demand Still Determine Equilibrium

Supply and demand are conceptual basics not only in microeconomics, but also for economic activity at the macroeconomic level. However, Raj Chetty recently returned to Harvard with a different introductory approach in mind, than what Greg Mankiw has taught. Mankiw's basic emphasis and textbook contributions have likewise been utilized by other universities for some time. Interestingly enough, Chetty also aims to make his course a model for other schools. An article for Vox by Dylan Matthews, explains:

The courses could hardly be more different. Chetty has made his name as an empirical economist, working with a small army of colleagues and research assistants to try to get real-world findings with relevance to major political questions. And he's focused on the roots and consequences of economic and racial inequality...

There's little discussion of supply and demand curves, of producer or consumer surplus, or other elementary concepts introduced in classes like Econ 10. There is no textbook, only a set of empirical papers. The material is relatively cutting-edge. Of the 12 papers students are required to read, 11 were released in 2010 or after. Half of the assigned papers were released in 2017 or 2018. Chetty co-authored a third of them.

Is econ 101 broken across the university system, as some now believe? Granted, students aren't being well prepared for a world in which markets do frequently fail. But what if markets function poorly because they have gradually become less complete, not "broken"? If so, it would seem that supply and demand remain as relevant as ever.

If introductory economics students aren't acquainted with the basics of supply and demand in the near future, it may only become more difficult for the average individual to envision the less than optimal trade offs between sectors which are presently occurring at system wide levels. Lack of understanding in this regard, further inhibits the potential of public policy responses as well. Given this reality, a stronger emphasis on supply and demand is needed, not less. Already, non tradable sector dominance has considerably altered how many aspects of supply and demand play out in the marketplace as a whole.

What also encouraged me to write this post was a recent conversation between Tyler Cowen and Ezekiel Emanuel. Their discussion provides an apt example of supply and demand dynamics in general equilibrium, for high quality services which are dependent on other sources of wealth origination. When Tyler Cowen pressed him on physician shortages, Ezekiel Emanuel noted the existing human capital investment burden, and why it's better to task shift going forward instead of adding more doctors:

once you train a doctor, it's basically a million dollars or more.

That's quite a societal burden! And since today's healthcare is organized as a market which is dependent on general equilibrium dynamics, adding more doctors would only drive up the cost for all concerned, in ways which subtract other aspects of general equilibrium potential. Yet even though the supply side would appear relatively more adequate, this general equilibrium dependence on a limited revenue pie, dilutes salary potential. In other words, a lose lose scenario. Hence Emanuel adds:

Medicine is a classic case of supply-induced demand. Doctors write orders, and they have a certain income in mind, and they will do things to get to a certain income, and especially on the margins, where what's called unnecessary care, or low value care.

He would like to see more tasks assigned to other health professionals, even as physicians remain in control of the outcomes. That said, hierarchy is vitally important for how healthcare is currently structured. Which means the desire of physicians as a group to maintain control over both income and the processes of patient diagnosis and response, could make task shifting somewhat difficult. This poses a problem, given recent changes in demographics and also healthcare losses in regions without sufficient economic activity.

In the meantime, worsening budgetary realities for healthcare compensation, suggest a different approach is needed for applied knowledge in general. In recent years I've suggested the horizontal patterns of time arbitrage, which would make it feasible for services to more directly align as wealth creation, rather than budgetary burden. Symmetric organization of time as an economic unit, could also make it feasible to integrate healthcare with other high skill services activities via deep learning AI.

Even though we don't yet know, whether more physician supply might be deemed "necessary", the real issue for many physicians is to be able to preserve human capital investment in its current form. Indeed, a horizontally aligned knowledge use system would likely pose less of a threat from without, than the internal reforms of traditional healthcare that could make it difficult to preserve the integrity of human capital value for physicians today. When services markets such as healthcare are dependent on other sources of wealth, societies can only generate supply side high quality human capital, up to a point. I remain convinced that since this point has basically been reached, given today's low growth economy, it's time to pursue more direct means, for the continuation and preservation of high skill knowledge in the 21st century.

Centralization, Economic Freedom, and the Skills Divide

To what extent could individuals still govern themselves, in contrast with how nations tend to be envisioned as "governing ourselves"? This question has become increasingly complex and important, as societies rely more than ever on knowledge to get things done.

Self governance was a simpler option for example, when property owners could still eke out a living from a productive plot of land. Whereas much of today's production involves high levels of knowledge and skill, not to mention levels of social coordination which go well beyond familial responsibilities. In a world economy increasingly dominated by knowledge and skill, does that mean it is no longer realistic to conceive of economic freedom as meaningful choice in interaction among individuals?

Too many time based services have been unnecessarily subjected to losses of economic freedom, via forms of external organizational control which reduce the possibility of meaningful interaction. But unlike many forms of final product, time based services tend to be experiential in nature, which often suggests they could be effectively managed and negotiated by the individuals who voluntarily choose to take part. Time based product is different from the specifications of tradable sector product, in that it often assumes snowflake forms. Indeed, this particularly holds true when we are young and still actively engaged in educational processes. Without real possibilities for mutual voluntary services association, people can end up experiencing difficulties establishing healthy boundaries, mutual respect, and trust as they go through their lives.

Over time, divisions of labour for time based services have become restricted in ways which not only inhibit total factor productivity, but also limit the nature of how providers and recipients could otherwise experience the personal exchange. Put simply, externally defined divisions of labour make more sense for the precise qualities needed in tradable product, than for the experiential nature of time based services. What's more, the non tradable sector divide in skills use potential, has been perpetuated by liberals and conservatives alike.

Perhaps these implicit agreements among professionals affect economic conditions in ways not always considered. Pierre Lemieux provides some interesting context in "Lessons and Challenges in The Limits to Liberty" where he takes a closer look at James Buchanan's Limits to Liberty (1975). For instance, Lemieux noted Buchanan's support of individualism in the latter's quote "each man counts for one, and that is that", and then continues:

It follows that individual liberty is a value and that the social system should be based on unanimous consent. Any limit to liberty must thus be consented to by each and every individual.

Alas, where do we observe this presumed liberty in action, given the lack of freedom so many now experience in the use of their own time, especially in relation to the time of others? If we do not believe that a diverse range of services could be freely chosen and provided, how can we really believe in free markets in the 21st century? How much of the present fiscal budgetary dilemma is due to our governments ensuring services markets remain as unfree as possible, on behalf of the interests they protect?

Not surprisingly, it turns out there are limits to the freedoms which James Buchanan believed to be possible. For one, Lemieux emphasized how Buchanan argued in favour of government provision for public goods as a social or constitutional contract. Yet what's different in this instance, is Buchanan's reasoning for doing so. As it turns out, his beliefs regarding personal aptitude and ability also factor into his proposed economic outcomes.

In contrast to other contractarian theorists, Buchanan does not assume equality in terms of resource utilization or personal capabilities. From this it follows that some minimum of welfare state may therefore be necessary. Private and public goods both depend in part on the rules of the economic game, whereby freedom is mostly agreeing to take part in what is already proposed, or refusing to do so. It's easy to imagine that sometimes the state needs to intervene when people refuse. Doing so costs money. Hence this quote from Buchanan:

The dividing line between private and public goods depends, in part, on how the property rights of persons are defined.

The twentieth century gave rise to many domestic forms of applied knowledge protectionism, long before the tradable sector protectionism which arose more recently. Essentially, knowledge and skill has also been made rival in non tradable sector circumstance, in part because protected knowledge has to do the heavy lifting of meeting the organizational costs of quality product and costly real estate. And with the giving to special interests of these exclusive production rights, comes the rationale for a welfare state as well. Hence conservatives and progressive alike, would tend to view welfare as means to reduce public rebellion or even revolution. Indeed, I recall an instance among friends in a local welfare office decades earlier, where local progressives expressed the rationale of public assistance exactly in these terms.

Again, Buchanan is hardly alone in assuming relatively permanent differences in aptitude and human potential at the outset. After all, many progressive arguments for government job guarantees or some form of "living" wage, contain the same underlying assumptions regarding how workplace conditions and skills requirements "should" consequently be defined. Nevertheless these assumptions blatantly disregard the potential for mutual reciprocity and well being, when societies allow as many as possible to pursue full engagement and meaningful interaction.

A limited welfare state is desirable for societies to protect the old and the weak. That said, there are millions who actively resist remaining weak. Some of the latter I might either respect or fear. But I don't find welfare states acceptable on the rationale of keeping out those who could potentially thrive but presumed too dumb or weak for society to allow to take part. Social and economic exclusion is not going to work in a knowledge based economy, especially when many forms of production and former employment are tended to by technology and automation. Let's don't create permanent skills divides between groups. That's a recipe for disaster. Doing so would not only prevent millions from assisting one another, but also incline some among these groups to rebel in a thousand ways that no government can prevent.

When is Technology Relevant in GDP Data?

Even though technology can appear mysterious in terms of GDP measure, there's actually a simple way to consider how tech gains particularly matter for aggregate output and productivity - especially if the product in question has become "free" for consumers. Technology holds an accountable position for productivity gains in GDP data, when tech contributes to reductions in non discretionary costs for both individuals and organizations. When this in fact occurs, individuals and organizations alike experience more economic options and opportunities for commitments than were previously possible.

While prices represent what people are willing to pay for tangible market product, prices can be misleading when they involve the intangible costs of getting things done, particularly when non tradable sector activity is responsible for those costs. In many respects, non discretionary costs lack the voluntary nature of other market decisions, and assuming those costs may lead to other transactions and commitments being (involuntarily) set aside. For any measured time frame in aggregate, many consumers, firms and organizations simultaneously make discretionary or non discretionary decisions which ripple out like waves across a pond. These ripples become cumulative institutional effects which - in the circumstance of excessive non discretionary obligations - can also reduce the clarity of aggregate output as data for GDP.

The most important technological potential of our time, could ultimately reduce the cumulative damage of non discretionary burdens which have settled like layers of sediment across many institutions. Just the same this possibility is not yet on the horizon, despite the fact some optimists believe the problem could actually be with GDP calculations. Hence I respectfully disagree with Tim Worstall's reasoning in "From Facebook to Skype, GDP is not keeping up with technology":

The most obvious answer is that the data has been counted wrong - that has long been my contention. 

Worstall believes we need to make amends in the measure of GDP, to address "low GDP growth in the middle of a technological revolution." But unfortunately, some of the apps he references could actually be making more demands on economic time priorities and overhead costs, than functioning as labour or time savers. Arnold Kling recently noted the problem of overhead costs that apply for labour not associated with traditional production:

Production labor can be incrementally increased or decreased as needed. But overhead labor is not adjusted strictly according to sales volume.

Labour and related personal time priorities function so differently in non tradable sector activity, that these intangible organizational processes have skewed our understanding of productivity. Yet how does any society continue to meaningfully coordinate divisions of labour, or clarify ongoing productivity gains, if aggregate output can no longer be accounted for in relation to overall costs? Due in part to how many professionals derive profit, our non tradable sectors lack the incentive to utilize technology for productivity gains, with the general exception of reducing or occasionally eliminating lower levels of the hierarchy in time based services.

By way of example for the latter instance, technology created productivity gains in the early nineties which could be readily observed. I was just one of many office workers during this time who reluctantly let go of governmental employment, due to the new software programs which made it feasible for attorneys in my workplace to assume activities which previously had been carried out by office assistants. While productivity gains such as these were associated with private enterprise, the fact local and state governments were also able to reduce overhead costs (even if only temporarily), doubtless contributed to Washington's balanced budget during the Clinton administration. Truly, this was a time when digital technology became quite relevant to GDP data.

Why has it proven so difficult to realize similar productivity gains today? One reason is that recent technological innovations actually threaten the organizational structure of today's non tradable sectors. It's one thing to apply automation which increases output in traditional production or services which readily scale, but altogether another to contemplate deep learning which in crucial respects can undermine the logic of extensive human capital investment. Especially when that investment augments the fixed scarcity of professional time value, for time based product.

Not only does AI seem to suggest that some professional human capital costs aren't "necessary", but 3D manufacture could eventually upend the rationale for much of traditional manufacture as well. However, traditional building methods are the bread and butter of countless local developers, in what is still one of the main wealth building activities for any community which continues to have an economic pulse. Yet as long as traditional development holds sway in most quarters, it will determine the nature of local economic activity which is even still feasible, despite what citizens would like to create if they had the chance to do so.

One of the main reasons for economic uncertainty, is that we still have no idea how our existing non tradable sectors will respond to the recent array of cutting edge technological possibilities. Even though the potential for productivity gains is extensive, it nonetheless comes with mind boggling cultural ramifications. Sometimes civilizations are able to coexist with new innovations alongside traditional systems, and sometimes they are not. In the meantime, no one can really pretend the crucial elements have come together for the best optimal economic outcomes, because technology. Again: In order for technology to make substantial contributions to productivity gains, its impact would contribute to overall cost reductions which improve the systems capacity of entire supply chains which coexist with applied knowledge production. Alas, free apps such as Skype and Facebook weren't made for this challenge.

Update on a Busy Writing Schedule

Regular readers have probably noticed I've not had much time for blogging recently. However it's mostly due to a good reason: I'm in the process of finalizing material, for the first book of a series which will also eventually become part of the blog sidebar. This past August, I'd begun settling into a schedule of wrapping up chapter material each month, before continuing to the next chapter. Of course as it turned out, the third chapter ran three weeks longer than expected - given my self imposed deadline! Hopefully that won't happen too often, so I'll still have time for blogging, and particularly so the initial part of this extended writing project will be complete (finally!) by summer's end of 2019.

There'll be eight chapters in the first book and they should be ready for their last edit (prior to this initial publication) by late spring. Once Time as Wealth is complete, I'll be able to set my sights on some pressing macroeconomic concerns which are the main focus for the second book. Afterward, the third book will describe a potential institution which - alongside for profit endeavour (physical building and infrastructure components) - would support a time/generational continuum for mutual employment and knowledge preservation. In particular, an institutional structure is needed which can address the widespread structural dilemma which is also a result of the Baumol effect. Meanwhile, here's a few highlights from Time as Wealth.

1) The Untapped Potential of Time Value
Many discussions re time as wealth, understandably focus on the reality of personal time scarcities in relation to institutions which already exist. But what if it were possible to position our economic time value within a context of institutional adaptation? Importantly, a marketplace for time value, would mean greater monetary equivalence for all time use potential. This approach would help compensate for the fact nominal wages may be slow to adjust upward, during historical periods of service sector dominance. Indeed: The tradable sector dominance of our recent past, was likely a greater contributor to relative income equality than is generally recognized. That relative loss in tradable sector output - hence relative wage loss - is a recipe for political fragility. Gains in aggregate time value could  help restore a rising standard of living, and bring a new dimension to productivity as well.

2) Imagine and Create the Markets We Want
How might a well defined marketplace for time value, actually benefit society? For one, there is a growing zero sum mentality in the political arena, which has been exacerbated by the exclusivity and polarization of today's non tradable sectors. By taking all time use potential into account, more inclusive and less polarized workplaces would eventually take shape. What makes greater inclusion feasible, is that mutual reciprocity creates wealth at the outset, instead of having to demand resource capacity from elsewhere. Reciprocal wealth building, means new economic options that go well beyond the skills exclusivity of many present day workplaces.

3) From Skills Arbitrage to Time Arbitrage
Is it possible to differentiate how we value the overall use of our time, from how we came to define the value of skills investments in 20th century workplaces? All too often, the commitments of our skills priorities have meant giving short shrift to other time priorities and responsibilities. In some respects, time arbitrage could prove a more flexible means of services coordination, than skills arbitrage. Time arbitrage could tap the use of knowledge in non rival ways which help to preserve the spread of knowledge throughout society. Not only could time arbitrage restore our capacity to manage the time necessary for personal commitments, it could allow local groups to coordinate a broader range of skill sets than is presently possible.

4) Autonomy, Personal Agency and Economic Freedom
Governments and private industry alike, have long been complicit in mutual agreements which reduce our economic freedoms. How can a society expect to preserve political freedom, without economic freedom? Nevertheless, the freedom to produce is not as prominent among supporters of free markets as one might expect. Much of the usurpation of knowledge production rights in particular, took place well before wealth came to be strongly associated with knowledge. Indeed, the dialogue of victimization likely emerged in part due to a lack of understanding, how production rights have slowly but surely been lost. Production rights are an important part of our potential happiness and satisfaction in life, in that they make autonomy and personal agency a viable option for society as a whole.

5) From Divisions of Labour to Mutual Time Priorities
Not only do we need to closely examine future possibilities for time management, we also need to take a broader perspective regarding the rationality of mutually held time commitments. While tradable sector activity continued to dominate, time management was often a secondary concern, given the obvious demands of these kinds of organizational activity. However, non tradable sector organization has not been near as efficient, or as complete in terms of production potential. Possibly the best way to think about regaining efficiency for time based services product, is to envision the process as one of mutual employment for mutually held time priorities.

6) A Place in the Sun for Students of Life
How did our personal enjoyment of experiential and practical knowledge, become so lost in the demands of formal education? If that weren't enough: Formalized education has made it exceedingly difficult for average citizens without college degrees, to participate in some of the most important issues of our times. It is said we need to vote if we want a good societal outcome. Nevertheless, there's little in the political area which actually addresses the most pressing issues of the day. And many vital issues - instead of being worked out at a societal level - are inexplicably "roped off" for educational papers and high level discussions. Let's create more meaningful roles which include economic context, for students of life with an avid interest in lifelong learning, yet little means by which to share that passion in productive ways with others.

7) Building a Continuum for Knowledge Preservation
Even though generational wisdom may appear irrelevant or outdated, there is hidden fragility in the systems of our times. Knowledge tends to utilized in ways which don't necessarily carry a reliable continuum or momentum. Important information may actually be lost at times, in part due to how its use is organizationally structured. How might societies reduce this risk? An important aspect of this conundrum, is a wall of separation between schools and workplaces which prevent students from taking active roles in the economic and civic lives of their communities. Even though social and economic mobility will always be important, more communities need the economic option of being able to play direct roles in the knowledge preservation and utilization processes they have supported for so long, via formal education.

8) An Overview for a New Institutional Role
A new institution is needed, which can productively respond to the fact that time value scales differently from other forms of value. Time based product is vitally important in multiple aspects of our lives, especially since it contains an experiential nature which cannot be replicated in any other way. Nevertheless, the only way to make time based product truly efficient, is to provide an economic dimension in which time can directly function in relation to itself. Knowledge and human value would be able to scale up in this arrangement, so as to compensate for the fact this system wouldn't directly capture full monetary representation. Participants would generate the monetary equivalence of real wage value, through their creation of service options which otherwise would not be possible.

There's another important aspect of monetary equivalence in this arrangement. Each participant would build lifetime ownership in both local building components and physical infrastructure, and have ownership options as well in the manufacture of these components which are sold globally. This active citizen shareholding position, would make it possible for central banks to indirectly represent the labour of these groups (which otherwise couldn't function as a liquid asset), via their share of ownership in the for profit role of the equilibrium corporation.