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?

Wants are Sometimes a More Relevant Form of Demand

When it comes to market design for low income consumption potential, perceived needs are often a logical starting point. Certainly I've emphasized needs focused design for lower income groups over the years. But what about circumstance when consumer wants are the more relevant factor? 

It's a consideration which matters when resources are not only scarce but also include experiential characteristics. Economic time commitments are a great example. Not every individual is going to seek out the kinds of knowledge and skills from people that others might happen to deem most practical. 

However, the importance of consumer choice especially holds true for energy resource options. In particular, both consumer needs and wants will determine aggregate energy demand (not to mention supply) in coming decades. Consequently, both should be factored into market and community design, so that resource scarcities can be fully accounted for. Even though we are beginning the shift from fossil fuels to electrically generated transportation, the processes involved won't always go smoothly. No one really knows yet who will remain able to travel as frequently via electric vehicles, as was possible with gas powered vehicles. What's more, energy use patterns and their fluctuations will remain important for central bankers when it comes to inflation management and economic stability. How might potential energy consumption for low income groups contribute to greater economic stability via supply side innovation? 

Community design in the near future could address such concerns. In all of this, our routine transportation offers a straightforward example. The natural consumer preference for vehicular transportation as a special activity, could contribute to positive energy use outcomes. Most everyone, regardless of income level, prefers driving for fun (such as vacations and weekend trips) over the hassles of driving to and from work. Even though it's presently difficult to translate this reality into walkable communities for higher income levels, there's been a dearth of low income community design in recent decades. Hence the good news: these missing design elements make it easier to create new communities from scratch for lower income groups. In the process, we would be able to reduce needs based (work related) automotive transportation in favour of walkable communities. Yet low income groups could strive for energy based transportation options specifically designed for the wants of experiential travel.

At an aggregate level, community design for energy wants with reduced energy needs, leaves more room for all citizens to benefit from transportation, despite impending energy scarcities. Creating walkable communities could make it feasible to better manage overall energy demand. Walkable communities can also make it easier for low income groups to maintain more efficient control over their (already) scarce time. We are fortunate indeed that it is easy to discern what holds greater personal value, in terms of energy resources for transportation. Let's follow through on that knowing, to ensure more meaningful energy consumption for all concerned in the decades to come.

Supply and Demand is Vital for Economic Time Use

Despite the fact we often try to disassociate our private lives from economic activity in general, much of our identity - not to mention self respect - results from how effectively we manage our time with others. And let's face it: much of this time management tends to occur on market based terms. Equally important, is that we live in an era when economic time factors into countless personal interactions in the circumstance in our lives. 

How might one think about this? Since people routinely seek to take part in supply and demand for mutual time priorities, life becomes difficult for those who essentially find themselves excluded from the process. Nevertheless, many institutions have reduced the degree to which most individuals are able to effectively manage competing time demands. Even though higher income levels can still hire others for time based services, most income groups lack this luxury. What's needed now is innovation which leads to freer markets, for the supply and demand of mutual time based services preferences. 

Markets for time value would benefit from a focus on local time/space coordination, in the provision of services both basic and experiential in nature. For instance, how might greater autonomy be preserved for all participants? Only consider the preferences often expressed by senior citizens who occasionally need personalized attention, but otherwise would benefit from simpler physical environments so as to remain responsible for other aspects of their lives. Indeed, elder citizens sometimes opt to choose assistance from strangers (or even robots) over family, if they are concerned about loss of autonomy and consequently, self respect.

During the twentieth century, many institutions "professionalized" to such a extent that societies could scarcely tap into the potential which all citizens hold for mutual assistance. Alas, formal schooling became the main setting where students deemed to be "responsible" enough for future meaningful employment, were separated from everyone else. How can societies maintain viability for the long term, if a core of 25 percent (core employment with benefits) is expected to somehow "take care" of the near 75 percent who end up on the short end of the social equation? Small wonder that many citizens have taken to daydreaming about somehow returning to a previous "golden age" of manufacturing work with ample pay and benefits.

In all of this, we've also lost perspective as to the kinds of mutual time preferences individuals would prefer, if given the chance. Indeed, the present dearth of settings where personal priorities are expressed and taken into account, has impacted our personal relationships as well. Clearly, people are happiest when they have real choices in the the nature and frequency of their personal interactions. This is true not only for people of normal working age, but also for young and old. Without those choices, many of us gradually forget how to even interact "normally" with others. Perhaps in the near future, we can better adapt market freedoms toward the supply and demand of personal preferences and priorities in our lives. It's certainly not too late to get started.

Quality Product Isn't the Same as Rising Standards of Living

Often it appears that quality product gains and productivity gains are one and the same. However, might quality product occasionally detract from rising standards of living? Confusion about quality product as an aspect of productivity, deserves more attention than it receives. For example, recently Timothy Taylor opened a post re the productivity slowdown after 2005 with this observation: 

In the long run, a rising standard of living is all about productivity growth. When the average person in a country produces more per hour worked, then it becomes possible for the average person to consume more per hour worked.

But, how do we know when this desirable process actually occurs?  When might organizational processes to generate product quality, diminish aggregate consumer potential instead? Societies need better measuring indicators to determine how aggregate input/output requirements affect basic levels of consumption potential. Only recall how presently, many of the costs of excessive inputs for quality services are being shifted to future generations, via deferred debt and budgetary burdens. Indeed, much about our future economy, depends on the extent to which human capital contributes to exponential output gains, symmetric time coordination, or else the excessive time scarcities that today's knowledge providers have generated.

The differences in time versus exponential product designations, are vitally important for how we frame organizational capacity and the productivity which contributes to GDP representation. Nevertheless, these sectoral differences are difficult to conceptualize, because productivity is not often described in such terms. Consequently, the highly valuable yet costly product of time based services, poses undue financial societal burdens. Our lack of understanding as to the actual inputs and outputs that time scarce services involve, might consequently leave some of this future organizational capacity in doubt. 

Oddly, much of the present confusion, actually comes down to a one size fits all productivity perspective. Given the lack of more precise tradable sector and non tradable sector measures, the present combination is statistically confused as what an "average person in a country produces". Since this perspective doesn't distinguish between time centered output versus exponential forms of output, many forms of applied knowledge lack economic clarity. In particular, we still don't know approximate time increments that are expected of the average individual for the most basic aspects of non discretionary consumption. Before anyone gets sidelined by productivity factors such as leisure time or seemingly "free" consumption gains, basic non discretionary requirements are really the starting point for other productivity considerations. Plus, knowing a base level of expected consumption costs in relation to multiple income levels, provide clues how production input/output ratios matter most for consumers and producers. 

Should tradable and non tradable sectors gain more accurate forms of input/output representation, it would become simpler to think about the differences in approach these groups really need for purposes of long term productivity gains. All the more so, since when non tradable sectors focus on quality product, thus far they've inadvertently done so in ways which detract from further consumption options in the marketplace. 

Ultimately, even though quality product isn't the same as rising standards of living, that doesn't mean time based forms of product aren't important. Not only are many forms of time based product desirable, the time scarcities of production and consumption are among the most important considerations for total or multi factor productivity. Even though organizations logically seek to "save" time (via traditional productivity reductions of time/hours in relation to other inputs), there's still our personal motivation to "use" our economic time in the most significant ways possible. 

Occasionally, the best choices in this regard turn out to be experiential time spent with others. For the most part, we seek to balance the economic time we hope to gain from others, with the economic time we hope to share with them. Rather than leaving such decisions to a relative few professionals or possibly artificial intelligence, the best approach really comes down to the kinds of economic time that all citizens hope to take part in.

Excess Regulation Reduces Diversity and Inclusion

How might we respond to excessive regulation - much of which stands in the way of personal potential and greater inclusiveness? Clearly, there are regulations on the books which not only reduce our most basic life options, but are also detrimental to long term economic growth and dynamism. Once regulatory environments begin to overwhelm and economic stagnation sets in, societies pay the price in lost market opportunities and a generalized loss of willingness to continue sharing in commonly held goals.

Some of the worst offenders in regulatory excess, are those which impose arbitrary limits on our own growth potential. In a services dominant economy, that translates into tangible losses of mutual assistance and support. If we can't help one another economically, what options are really left? Or how could we possibly know, the extent to which output loss in valuable skills instead stems from a supposed lack of personal ambition? Consider the many hurdles that people are expected to overcome, before they can make a concerted effort to reach out to others on meaningful yet economic terms. Not all those regulatory hurdles in particular, were put there in good faith.

We have yet to begin the crucial task of making it simpler, for people to create real value from their own personal attributes. Meanwhile, societies are seemingly caught in fruitless and demoralizing arguments, where some insist various groups lack the fortitude or ability to do what is "necessary" to achieve success in life. 

Yet much of our inability to transition to a better functioning knowledge based economy, is due to regulatory hurdles. These complicated rules of engagement make it exceedingly difficult for many people to fully engage with others in meaningful ways. Is this the best we can hope to achieve as a society? How many burdens could we be rid of, if we sought to eliminate regulations which get in the way of active and meaningful participation with others? What if we could be of use to others, without the small fortunes so often needed for full time work in a knowledge based economy? 

Chances are, our collective human capital has been limited by arbitrary regulations to a greater extent than is realized. If we continue allowing only the "best and brightest" in basic workplace responsibilities, we might be doomed to a future where diversity and inclusion are all but impossible. Let's do our best to ensure this doesn't happen. It's time to get rid of the arbitrary regulations which not only create immense holes in our social fabric, but leave many citizens unable to fulfill their own personal aspirations.

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.

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 Practical and Experiential Wealth

Ultimately, the pandemic may encourage us to think differently, about the activities we associate with either practical or experiential wealth. For instance, it certainly didn't take long to discover - in the initial rush to social distance - that defining "important" versus "unimportant" business activities was no simple task. What further complicates the present crisis, especially in terms of possible wealth loss, is the extent to which the crisis includes both practical and experiential aspects of our economic lives.

For many of us in the past month or so (here in the U.S.), cabin fever set in almost as quickly as the decision to self quarantine. As it turns out, it is the rare person who doesn't crave novel experiences on a routine basis! Many learn - especially in later years - to make up for lack of travel opportunities via the interesting "escapes" of books, movies, music and more. Still, there are moments when nothing really substitutes for getting outside and experiencing the world in the company of friends, extended family and others.

Part of what sets this period apart from earlier pandemics, is how much of our economy has evolved away from practical consumption to many activities that scarcely seem practical at all, whether or not we happen to deem them emotional "necessities". When economic life was largely centered around goods rather than services, that earlier tradable sector dominance must have also made it simpler, to financially manage the economic disturbances brought about by pandemic circumstance.

By way of example, Ian Stewart recently noted how "The impact of this crisis will be as much on intangible capital as physical assets." Alas, it may take a while before we discover whether this crisis impacts how highly invested human capital is monetarily valued. Should considerable wealth be lost, that missing income potential would likely reduce the appetite for risk - especially considering the present requirements of capital risk in our physical environments.

Some wealth losses could be averted, should we elect to structure ownership potential in more incremental and flexible ways. Some of today's regulatory requirements could be amended via settings which allow simpler forms of physical infrastructure, for both living and working needs. Simpler ownership structures would maintain countless delicate webs of valuable human connections, even when those connections can't be as compensated as fully as before. As a society, we could try to ensure that valuable risk taking isn't lost, but instead transformed in easier to manage components than what are often deemed necessary in the present.

Even before the pandemic, we were already questioning the broader societal context of our educational systems. Where are the most meaningful experiences in these learning processes? What is the real difference between practical or experiential education, in an economic sense?

Learning is all the more complex, since it tends to include practical and experiential elements. Already, online learning appears to be more useful in terms of practical settings which can readily be managed by the individual. On the other hand, the most highly motivated learning often occurs when people get the chance to forge strong personal connections with others. If nothing else, temporary mandated closings of schools and colleges alike, might speed up societal incentive to generate more face to face interaction between people, wherever it is possible to do so. After all, the services generation which societies value most, tend to be of this nature.

How might technology lend support to a future capable of preserving experiential wealth? Roger Bootle believes the pandemic will encourage additional automation and use of robots, particularly for tasks which have been interrupted by social distancing. Nevertheless, he continues to hold confidence in new avenues for employment potential:

I draw comfort from human beings' need for other human beings. There's one thing that robots and AI will never be able to be better at than other human beings: being human. I think we are going to want to interact with other human beings in our work life and in our leisure life, and that's going to create demand for all sorts of new jobs.

When thinking about technological gains at a grassroots level, consider how near future tech could augment not just consumption potential for individuals, but production potential. The difference is crucial, and it matters for anyone who would assist others, yet needs additional tech support to augment their own skill and level of applied knowledge potential. Consider how technology could free individuals, it it assumes the practical tasks, while making room for individuals to exercise their own initiative in the experiential wealth they seek to share with others.

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.

Personal Production as a Human Right

Markets can't really be considered free, if too many of us aren't being recognized as active contributors to supply side processes. How so? Where once our economic efforts were largely connected with physical production, our economic priorities now are more likely to be associated with time based product. In this context, our time is more important at an experiential level for all concerned, than was the case when most product assumed forms separate from ourselves. Clearly, we face a quickly evolving set of economic circumstance which needs a careful response. Today's services dominance suggests we reexamine whether we are actively contributing to positive personal outcomes - not to mention outcomes which are as voluntary as possible.

Nevertheless, there is considerable confusion about the shift to services production. Presently, many assume only certain forms of human capital need apply for participation on economic terms. Some organizations arbitrage skill so as to manage time based services in ways that are poorly aligned with what providers and recipients prefer. Further, many aspects of personal skill which are important for the applied knowledge of modern economies, are off limits to those who don't complete formal educational processes that involve extensive monetary investment.

As tradable sectors continue to reduce their employment needs, time based services will be a logical transition for many in the coming decades. However, important time based services are presently arbitraged between individuals and the impersonal interface of public or private enterprise, rather than voluntary personal negotiation. Alas, this approach has unfortunately contributed to losses of personal autonomy. When people lose the ability to play active roles in production and consumption which involves extensive personal interaction, they may be forfeiting certain aspects of human dignity and respect in the process. Even though such losses may be more subtle than many of the human rights highlighted in recent centuries, they are still quite important in terms of well being and happiness.

Why haven't more individuals taken a stand in terms of personal production rights? For some, the trade offs can be reasoned away, due to a dynamic consumer economy of material abundance. Among the many benefits of a fortuitous tradable sector history, a wide array of luxuries have essentially been transformed into "necessities".

However, look more closely, and one realizes that skilled time based services have not followed a similar path, nor are they are likely to do so in their present organizational form. Yet non tradable sector requirements have conditioned citizens - especially in recent decades - to accept a wide array of time based services as absolute societal necessities. Otherwise, governments may not have been as willing to bear the burdens of redistribution now required to reimburse skilled services. Nor do the burdens fall solely on governments. Services costs are built into business obligations, just as the costs of applied knowledge compel citizens to seek higher paying employment, than the economy is able to create for all concerned.

If we can reclaim our own capacity to produce as a human right, eventually we would be able to bring down some of these costs and burdens. Clearly, the ways in which we all need to be able to produce for ourselves and others, are important not only for well being, but also human survival. Given the relatively recent historical emphasis on human rights in general, especially those of a political nature, perhaps it isn't surprising that societies have yet to deeply consider economic rights. For that matter, production reform potential for applied knowledge, is just part of the production reform societies need, to bring costs of living back in line with future income - hence revenue - realities. In particular, production rights would also extend to our contributions to the physical environments we live in, as well. Fortunately, we can start anew with organizational patterns for production reform which - instead of adding societal burdens - might ultimately relieve them.

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.

Does the Baumol Effect Impact Long Term Growth?

What might the Baumol effect suggest for continued future prosperity? Kudos to Eric Helland and Alex Tabarrok for exploring this issue in "Why Are the Prices So D*mn High?". Tabarrok has been following up with a series of explanatory Marginal Revolution posts as well. For instance, in "The Baumol Effect" he notes the growing cost differential between education and cars:

Yet the rising costs in the education sector are simply a reflection of increased productivity in the car sector. Thus, another deep lesson of the Baumol effect is that to understand why costs in the stagnant sector are rising, we must look away from the stagnating sector and toward the progressive sector.

Regular readers may recall that even though the correlation isn't perfect, I generally refer to "stagnating" sectors as non tradable, and "progressive" sectors as tradable. Tradable sectors benefit from a degree of mobility which often allows them to escape cost constraints imposed by various forms of NIMBYism and many other factors which inhibit innovation. Whereas non tradable sectors haven't been as fortunate, due in part due to the fixed nature of their connections to time and space. Thus far, it's been difficult to try radically new approaches for building components in municipal settings which have long relied on centuries old physical infrastructure. Likewise, professional services remain burdened with societal expectations regarding the inputs supposedly necessary for quality product.

Helland and Tabarrok particularly focus on services generation. Healthcare, along with professional services such as legal, accounting and other business services, " increased in price by a factor of more than three since 1950." Their findings are apt illustrations as well, how stagnant sectors reflect the aggregate wealth generating capacity of general equilibrium. By way of example, statistics for long run trends showed that

The growth rate of healthcare expenditures per capita has declined because the growth rate of GDP per capita has declined.

Should we be concerned? They claim that "The Baumol effect explains a slowing rate of productivity growth and the reason the Baumol effect will decline", and continue:

The price of services relative to goods has been rising because productivity in services has increased more slowly than productivity in goods. At the same time, the services sector has been growing as a share of the economy. In 1950, for example, services accounted for approximately 60 percent of the economy, measured as a share of either GDP or employment. In 2018, services accounted for approximately 80 percent of the economy...Because society is moving more resources into lower-productivity sectors, the inevitable result is slowing net productivity growth. 

However, what if this is actually a positive outcome?

Even though shifting resources to services is slowing down the rate of productivity growth, the shift itself is not a bad thing. Over the past 60 years, consumers have used their higher incomes to buy relatively more services than goods. It is unfortunate that productivity is not increasing faster in services, but faster productivity growth is good only if it increases consumer satisfaction. Shifting resources to the service sector increases consumer satisfaction even if it reduces productivity growth. There is nothing wrong with a future world in which consumers spend most of their income on live musical performances. 

Dietrich Vollrath is another economist who isn't alarmed by these developments, and he refers to the recent slowdown in productivity as "optimal stagnation". As it turns out, he's in the process of publishing a book entitled Optimal Stagnation: Why Slower Economic Growth is a Sign of Success. Given the extent to which tradable sector activity has cut costs for centuries already, perhaps one might reasonably ask, how much do standards of living really need to improve?

Nevertheless, it doesn't hurt to question whether this is a stable reality since - unlike tradable sector markets which create something for everyone - non tradable sector options are now mostly geared for middle to higher income levels. Plus, the lack of options for those with low wages isn't just about consumption opportunities, but in particular those of personal production. Areas lacking in economic complexity, especially illustrate this reality. Not only are they hard pressed for the revenue required to build new traditional housing, but also that of traditional services generation. And since economic activity in general has assumed a lower gear, there are relatively fewer city jobs for rural residents, who in the not so distant past, tended to spend their most productive employment years in prosperous cities and regions.

Indeed, more communities in the near future might start to find themselves in similar circumstance. After all, since the Baumol effect only extends so far in a low growth economy, more citizens will need to accept lower wage employment than the revenue sources many municipalities and governments actually need, to maintain today's services and traditional infrastructure patterns.

Granted, a reduced Baumol effect might prove mostly benign. That said, many real economy adjustments are needed which have not yet even begun to take place. Of course, as Helland and Tabarrok stressed, quality product is a good thing. Who wouldn't want the luxury of experiential goods and services that are well within reach of one's income?

Even so, no one should expect an economy which remains essentially incomplete at low income levels, to be enough. In recent centuries, societies have standardized many product specifications which have improved standards of living across the board. Now it is feasible to also standardize time units, so that quality services might ultimately be generated for all income levels. It is feasible to standardize basic flexible building components, so that settings for life and work might easily be arranged and rearranged as needed. With a little luck, services professionals and municipalities won't stand in the way of the low wage millions who now need to create their own organizational patterns for services generation - not to mention entirely new industries in physical building components and infrastructure.

GDP and the Reciprocal Volunteerism Factor

Volunteer activities are important for any community. Yet many take forms which make them impractical to designate as formal transactions that include monetary compensation as a part of GDP.

That said, there are important exceptions which might gain validation in the near future. From a wealth creation perspective, the greatest economic significance of social interchange is due to specific voluntary transactions between individuals which can be directly reciprocated. After all, these activities may contribute to the personal welfare of both participants, since both are included in the identity enhancement process of voluntary provision.

The most beneficial social exchange for economic purposes, consists of two participating sides in specific and timely transactions. By way of example: While the positive nature of "pay it forward" processes could be loosely considered a two sided voluntary exchange, its tendency in groups is infrequent in nature, while providers and recipients are not directly reciprocal. This helps explain as well another name for paying it forward: "random acts of kindness". Consequently, paying it forward may not occur frequently enough to strengthen trust or group cohesion. What's needed are regular and ongoing patterns of reciprocal volunteerism, for mutual assistance to become a replicative and spontaneous process.

Many who have felt powerless at some point in their lives, instinctively understand the value of mutually agreed upon negotiation for the supply and demand of time based services. Well designed platforms for services supply and demand, could help individuals go beyond efforts they might normally expend for their own families and friends. People especially need such patterns when they lack employment which encourages negotiation and social interchange in the workplace. Yet too much of this activity has been assigned to rigidly formal patterns in present day institutions. When specialists and professionals do most of the negotiating on behalf of the average individual, there are few remaining possibilities for voluntary reciprocity, or the identity reinforcing nature of mutual assistance which keeps us civil and humane.

What about forms of volunteerism which continue to function best informally - especially insofar as GDP is concerned? When we volunteer to help someone without a request on their part, we also (generally) don't expect them to reciprocate. While our assistance may still have positive results, random services supply without expectations on the part of recipients, can make it difficult to discern whether group social circumstance are positively evolving over time.

Also, domestic responsibilities in the home tend not to be the best candidates for the measure of GDP. Indeed, much of this activity revolves around personal preferences for spending time in one's own home environment. In other words, while work is certainly involved, it is generally of a much freer nature than most workplace norms, even to the extent of functioning as a form of positive experiential product. Fortunately, home for most individuals, at least during many stages of life, continues to be the main place where people actually have the most freedom to do as one wishes. The better part of home obligations today are choices, rather than absolute necessities.

Nevertheless: As more aspects of production continue to shift towards automation and technological support, societies will need to reconsider the relatively informal terms by which neighbors might provide voluntary services for one another. For that matter, the more that mutual assistance is spread among as many participants as possible, the less likely that anyone ends up taken for granted in such exchanges. It's easier for everyone concerned, when maintaining one's self respect is feasible in services exchange. Only recall that when individuals lack social norms re reciprocating for assistance, many will refuse to ask or accept - sometimes even if they are in dire need.

Another factor in terms of potential reciprocity, involves economic options such as guaranteed jobs or a basic income. Guaranteed jobs present problems in terms of external decision making as to what "needs" to be done, or what is "worthy" of being done. Without adequate input and negotiation on the part of all participants, guaranteed jobs miss the point. For instance, when external decision making determines the jobs provided, few are going to be willing to give up their own meaningful work, just so that others might have employment.

Likewise, some assume that a basic income could allow recipients to "do their own thing". Alas, while this approach could help in the short term for unexpected emergencies, long term it would be little more than an existential path to despair. Being expected to "do "one's own thing" indefinitely, is still social isolation, with little hope of returning to meaningful interaction with others. Indeed, the basic income approach would mean the least amount of group alignment among all possible economic options, in terms of local supply and demand for mutual assistance.

Granted, it would take considerable effort to decipher the supply and demand possibilities which individuals might seek to voluntarily provide one another. But once such processes are set into motion, the rewards could eventually prove worth the effort, for it would give individuals the chance to rediscover their natural inclinations for mutual exchange.

Build New Realities That Reflect Where We Are

And by extension, what society already has, not to mention previous accomplishments on the part of individuals and groups alike. Continued economic prosperity need not be as difficult as some are inclined to make it out to be.

Ultimately, our economic settings are about much more than participation and contributions at the cutting edge of applied knowledge. For that matter, the biggest part of our working lives is composed of what we've already learned and done - albeit in new contexts. How might we ensure that the profits from the the cutting edge don't always have to be redirected for the ongoing maintenance of utilitarian knowledge and skill? If shared workplace activities are to be sustained wherever people choose to live, those activities need to contribute more directly to wealth creation. New organizational methods which combine workplaces in more accessible settings, could help ensure we remain able to pursue our life objectives and intellectual challenges well into the future.

Alongside the new knowledge of cutting edge endeavour, we also all have the good fortune to be "standing on the shoulders of giants". It's this wealth of preexisting knowledge and skill, which could revitalize so many communities that lack the ability to contribute at the level our most prosperous regions now experience. The earlier efforts of untold millions who came before us, hold plenty of relevance for what we continue to pursue in the here and now.

What's more, much of what we've already accomplished as individuals, could often be useful to others as they pursue their own paths in life. How might we make our own self improvement efforts more relevant to others on economic terms? Economic inclusion is not about forcing everyone to certain forms of skill and ability which present institutions may not even need, it's about exploring the possibilities of what we already have. Further investments in human capital for what we assume workplaces might need, aren't necessarily the human capital others would seek from us in a better aligned economic framework.

Formal aspects of human capital investment in particular are being questioned, as the bar for social and economic inclusion continues to be pushed ever upward. Today's definitions of quality product tend to come with assumptions that our already existing attributes are somehow "never enough" to take part in society as we are now. Still, when our time value is only allowed as exclusive quality product, even the most routine of services based activities are expected to transpire on these terms. In the process, societies end up budgeting for these forms of quality product in ways that further exclude those who don't meet the qualifications as they presently exist.

For these reasons and more, I sometimes find myself overwhelmed by posts and articles which call for higher wages as supposedly the most important guarantor of continued prosperity. Granted, substantial wage increases have been with us for a long time. But how much of these wage increases were actually derived from the output gains which resulted from centuries of tradable sector dominance? Is it not time to design environments which more accurately reflect the forms of resource capacity we presently hold? Because much of that capacity is now more closely aligned with the experiential nature of scarce time based product, instead of the output gains associated with tradable sector activity.

What prompted this post was an article from Daron Acemoglu for Project Syndicate, which left me somewhat deflated. In "Where Do Good Jobs Come From?", he writes:

Historically, no known human society has created shared prosperity purely through redistribution. Prosperity comes from creating jobs that pay decent wages. And it is good jobs, not redistribution, that provide people with purpose and meaning. 

Articles such as this seem to come with underlying assumptions. One would expect that wages "must" go ever higher for all concerned, so that we as taxpayers might continue covering the ever increasing costs of our governments and maintenance of our environments. It won't be easy to dissuade these high cost expectations for the sum total of our living and working environments, even though ever higher wages are only feasible up to a point, especially now. Plus, these expectations stemmed from centuries of tradable sector dominance which made extensive and costly forms of building capacity/infrastructure possible in the first place.

How can we build more flexible environments which are more responsive and better suited to changes in output scale, during times of non tradable sector dominance? Today, continued progress depends on a better alignment of overhead costs and gains from scale in applied time, alongside what money can contribute in terms of ongoing output. Much of this process means creating physical infrastructure and building components on more lightweight and flexible terms. By way of example, walkable communities will definitely need to include building elements for living and working needs which are transportable by means other than automobiles and trucks.

Fortunately, it is also within our ability to create good work with meaning, even when such work does not come with well compensated salaries. Importantly, however, meaning is subjective. What is fulfilling to one person might just be an aggravation to the next, and selection processes need to be more closely aligned with individual preferences. Time arbitrage in particular, should always be a voluntary process for flexible forms of work association.

In his article, Daron Acemoglu noted that "no known human society has created shared prosperity purely through redistribution". I would add that redistribution isn't just about money, because we can't redistribute applied knowledge from those whose time based product is among our most scarce resources. The only way that knowledge can be increased in society is through active dispersal via time increments - not just via education but in terms of actual use and economic validity. As to the latter, increased participation is necessary, if it is to happen.

Economic inclusion means less judgement as to what is "supposed" to take place in time based experiential product. Indeed, if we can come to terms with this possibility, there could consequently be less emphasis on lifetime education as means to survive a demanding society, and more emphasis on lifetime learning as one of many ways to meaningfully live in a society. With a little luck, this approach could lead to communities which accept widely diverse levels of knowledge and skill as valid paths to economic participation. Let's build stronger economic realities based on what we have already become.

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.

Notes on Time as a Unit of Measure

Time as an economic unit of measure, could bring needed clarity to the now mysterious nature of what the real economy actually consists of. Healthcare is a notorious example, how difficult it has become to determine productivity and long term growth potential. In a recent post, Scott Sumner also stressed that the intangible nature of healthcare is just one factor which distorts the utility of RGDP measure:

...NGDP is at least an order of magnitude more clearly defined and more easily measured  than RGDP.

Even the term "real" has been somewhat of a misnomer in the measure of GDP. At a lecture for the Bennett Institute, Diane Coyle highlighted an explanation given by Thomas Schelling:

What we call "real" magnitudes are not completely real, only the money magnitudes are real. The "real" ones are hypothetical.

Despite their centrality to economic activity, statistics such as RGDP and NGDP are only useful up to a point. Hence Sumner also emphasized:

Most importantly, don't ask any statistic to do more than it can. 

At the very least, NGDP is simpler because it is the monetary expression. In the above linked lecture, Coyle explains how the real economy might be envisioned:

The philosophical base of GDP is utilitarianism. It measures current period flows of income, consumption, investment and trade. Assets contribute to economic welfare only when the services they provide are consumed.

It's fortunate we don't have to measure asset wealth as a component of the real economy, especially since asset wealth from previous time periods can be quite misleading in terms of revenue flow potential. Plus, at a time when tradable sector activity often requires less capital or overhead to achieve profits, much more capital than what is actually necessary is often required, before vital time based services are even implemented. Healthcare and education in particular are burdened by extensive regulations which create additional overhead costs. And because of the centrality of healthcare, its additional costs become burdens throughout the entire economy.

Importantly, overhead costs tend to overwhelm the revenue capacity these requirements actually make possible, in non tradable sector time based services. Further taxation, redistribution, and debt have carried the burdens wherever revenue potential leaves off. Perhaps this partly explains why services product remains poorly measured. Again, Diane Coyle:

The industrial and occupational classifications provide startling detail on manufacturing industry and almost none on the services that make up four fifths of the modern economy.

This level of services dominance makes it clear that services generation could benefit from a stronger, yet simpler statistical and organizational approach. In Scott Sumners's post, the debate on the growing mystery of what healthcare is supposed to even accomplish, continued in the comments section. For instance, how does one determine the value of prolonging life as long as possible, when doctors suggest treatments for incurable forms of cancer?

Let's say you "prove" that cancer treatment adds 4 months to a lifespan. Is that good? How do we determine if it's good? Do we use revealed preference? Utilitarian measures? And if it is good, how do we determine "how good". What is the value of four extra months when suffering from cancer. I'm willing to believe the benefit might be huge or tiny. I just don't know. There are lots of imponderables here.

When we try to decipher healthcare in ways which aren't specifically market related, the mystery only seems to deepen. Part of the problem is that so many aspects of healing and well being - prior to the professionalism of the twentieth century - were extremely diverse and multi-faceted. These conceptual universes and their associated activities were shared by average citizens, which meant the inclusion of diverse levels of skill, knowledge and approach. Too much of practical value was gradually stripped away, in the ongoing attempts to professionalize what were previously basic aspects of human life and mutual assistance, not to mention personal curiosity and intellectual challenges. Much of this was gradually and reluctantly surrendered to others who were better positioned in society, yet it has never been an easy matter to convey to others how such losses actually felt.

One can only imagine: For many students and practitioners of life, how must it have impacted their daily existence? To take for granted an active participation with others in intriguing aspects of applied knowledge, only to face an ever growing pressure to stop doing so, once the practices of applied knowledge were reserved for far away prosperous cities and distant buildings with seemingly impenetrable walls. A light which had long illuminated human imagination and motivation, assumed a more limited and somehow physical presence, in hallowed halls which many would be students of life would never have the chance to see.

Time as a unit of measure, could provide ways to restore what were once informal means of mutual assistance and personal challenge, but in a much needed economic framework. Time as measure, could become like a vase to once again hold the potential of applied knowledge for average citizens wherever they may happen to live, or regardless of their current level of resource capacity.

Various aspects of healing are just one part of life which could benefit from a statistic which records how people ultimately choose to coordinate their time priorities and preferences over extended periods. While some suggest new statistics which measure factors such as happiness and well being, those potential measures are mostly envisioned as alternatives to GDP. Whereas economic measure of time value could be more practical, for the new statistic would instead make room for shared experiences as an additional component of GDP. How much happiness and well being might even ultimately be derived through such a statistic, as millions of individuals finally regain freedom, personal autonomy, and meaningful challenges in their economic lives?

A primary reason for adopting time as a unit of measure, is that doing so allows us to record and build upon what we experience in shared interactions with others. GDP classification for time arbitrage could be expressed via roles such as coaching, mentoring, mutual corroboration, etc., instead of more specific aspects of applied knowledge and skill which are closely associated with professional time based product. When assistance takes place on voluntary terms, these informal - yet economic - roles could allow individuals and groups alike to benefit from assets being utilized in other capacities as well. When assets provide multiple contexts, more services output can be derived via greatly reduced overhead costs.

Ultimately, everyone needs better means to manage their own time scarcities, than what presently exist. When time isn't actually counted or measured as a valid economic component, too much time value potential is unseen, unappreciated, and consequently lost. As Diane Coyle emphasized, "we see what we count and not the other way around." Adopting time arbitrage as a means of measure, makes it possible to tap vast reservoirs of hidden wealth, in the form of human capital. Of course, these are just a few of the reasons doing so could prove worthwhile. There are doubtless many more.

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.