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. 

Use Markets to Help the Marginalized (Before It's Too Late)

In a time of rising inflation and interest rates, governments have to come to terms not only with fiscal limitations, but also limits on their ability to assist the marginalized - at least through monetary means. As national budgets become ever more unwieldy, many protective roles for lower income groups might ultimately have to be set aside.

Some would argue, isn't this a positive, since governmental support often tends to cause more harm than good? It depends on whether the domestic markets of housing and services can evolve for a full range of income levels. In the meantime, consider the harsh realities faced by low income groups when it comes to living normal lives. These circumstance are largely due to environments which were put in place by public and private interests alike. As governments increasingly find their hands tied in terms of public assistance, will private sectors become more willing to live up to promises about free market potential? Or will private interests - along with the political left and right - instead pretend that economic and social freedoms are no longer possible?

Questions such as this are in need of valid answers, not vague posturing and excuses. In particular, when people struggle to maintain their financial responsibilities, they become ever more vulnerable to government overreach. It has seldom been difficult to correlate poorly functioning markets with authoritative and restrictive governments. Worse, it's as if societies have forgotten what market freedoms consist of. For one thing, inclusive markets are certainly not a matter of coercing lower prices from existing markets. Rather, market freedoms are about encouraging the design of new patterns and production systems which function alongside what already exists, but with simpler resource requirements and system inputs. Indeed, previously existing markets could in many instances just be recognized as market participants with preferences for serving higher income levels, for whatever reasons. 

When I think about production reform possibilities which have yet to see the light of day, sometimes I can't help but be angry such options never got the chance. If there had been good deflation in our domestic markets here in the U.S. we could have been better prepared for the extreme uncertainties of a transitioning global economy. In the past nine and a half years of this blog I've often highlighted people who've touched on these issues. Just the same, it's not easy to find individuals who are willing to commit to adaptive market evolution. Meanwhile I often find myself unable to tolerate the hypocrisy of left and right thinkers who always pretend someone else bears responsibility for what we've lost.

Instead of being cognizant of their own responsibility for free market evolution, many libertarians have stepped away from adaptive market patterns to take part in cultural battles. Small wonder that few really expect this to change anytime soon. Is it already too late to use markets to help the marginalized? Will libertarians stay focused on divisive rows and/or inconsequential details in the years to come? Why and how did we imagine libertarianism to have a ghost of a chance, if it was only about free markets for society's most powerful? As much as I wish for a better ending to this unfolding reality, alas, there are days I fear there might not be one. 

Inflation Relief Can't Address the Missing Market Divide

Despite what investors and others have hoped for, it's possible the Fed could continue with a 75 basis point increase after September. Hence some are asking, isn't the worst inflation behind us? After all, consumers seem to be fairly confident. And what of potential "fallout" from additional employment losses the Fed would impose?

Admittedly, personal perspective affects the framing of these circumstance. Even though low income groups can't readily contribute to monetary debates, many (such as myself) are even more affected by market gaps now, than was the case a year and a half earlier. Doubtless, others like me would argue for continued tightening on the part of the Fed, if they could. 

The Fed's job has become more difficult than before, since nominal income expectations started getting out of hand last fall. There's even some partiality towards higher than normal nominal income levels, but chances are these advocates don't have to worry about being priced of home ownership. Yet home ownership possibilities continue to slip away for low income groups. Unfortunately, thus far, few communities are reaching out with more forgiving accommodations in land use for manufactured housing and modular homes.

Even so, there's more at stake than missing housing markets. The higher transportation costs of missing auto production, doubtless contributes to rising income demands from low income groups. Both these in turn lead to employers paying more for the staff they are still able to hire. If these issue weren't enough, protectionism remains a structural problem for use of applied knowledge in lower income groups.

Missing markets particularly lead to losses in economic freedom for millions of individuals. It's this lack of participation in what are basic forms of production and consumption, which makes it difficult for low income groups to (productively) make their voices heard. Is it any wonder when supply side reform proves intimidating, how attempts for economic inclusion and participation get rerouted into cultural battles instead? Unfortunately, some free market proponents are migrating to these cultural battles, whenever supply side innovation for basic markets seems too daunting to pursue.

Missing markets leave unaddressed supply side issues which force the Fed to walk a fine line for appropriate monetary representation. Clearly, citizens need the inflation relief which central bankers strive to provide. Nevertheless, even the best that can be done seems hardly enough, for the Fed catches blame and undue expectations for problems that aren't their responsibility. I find it frustrating when market observers take this route as an excuse to shirk their own responsibilities. In particular, even the most appropriate inflation measures and relief can't address the missing market divide for low income groups. Only supply side production reform for domestic markets in housing and services can accomplish this! Alas, Fed responsibility for price stability does not equate to stability in basic market access. For this reason, there is only so much the Fed can do about political stability as well.

What does the Fed need to accomplish for nominal income (including hours worked) and output to maintain stable levels over time? Adhering to a stable nominal level in the present, will gradually mean less insistence and reliance on price making, beyond what originating wealth sources can fully support. In other words, societies need to practice applied knowledge in ways that no longer distort general equilibrium or lead to further income imbalances. A more rational approach is needed for knowledge based services, which provides more economic participation, not to mention economic freedoms. Granted, the Fed can't make full monetary representation possible for all comers in our dependent secondary markets. But there are ways to overcome this problem and it's time to get started.

The Fragility of Economic Momentum

Why do societies tend to label certain activities as "unproductive"? Or perhaps said another way, what's so special about "productive" endeavour? These questions matter in part, because they closely relate to sectors of the economy specific to equilibrium balance.

Activities considered most productive, are those which encourage further momentum and additional monetary gains. Whereas activities labeled "unproductive", regularly require other existing wealth sources for social continuity on economic terms. While some aren't convinced regarding this causation, ultimately it matters for the ability of mature economies to maintain productive economic complexity. When too many things go wrong, even the strongest economies can start to become fragile. And how can anyone really know where such tipping points exist? I believe it can't be stressed enough, how right Adam Smith was centuries earlier, to worry about the fragile nature of economic momentum. Otherwise, he might not have felt the need to describe "unproductive" activities in ways which can still offend readers of Wealth of Nations today.

Nations have always experienced political struggles regarding fiscal activity, so whatever is viewed as productive or unproductive, depends on cultural framing as well. Still: When it comes to wealth creation, "low productivity" maintenance services are necessary to preserve what people, businesses and nations build in the first place. Importantly, Adam Smith believed in the value of "unproductive" labour. For that matter he noted its worthiness in what was also a description of economic momentum: 

A man grows rich by employing a multitude of manufacturers: he grows poor, by maintaining a multitude of menial servants. The labour of the latter, however, has its value, and deserves its reward as well as the former. But the labour of the manufacturer fixes and realizes itself in some particular subject or vendible commodity, which lasts for some time at least after that labour is past. It is, as it were, a certain quantity of labour stocked and stored up to be employed, if necessary, upon some other occasion. That subject, or what is the same thing, the price of that subject, can afterwards, if necessary, put in motion a quantity of labour equal to that which had originally produced it. The labour of the menial servant, on the contrary, does not fix or realize itself in any particular subject or vendible commodity. His services generally perish in the very instant of their performance, and seldom leaves any trace or value behind them, for which an equal quantity of service could afterwards be procured.

Productivity is a macroeconomic concern, because excess resource aggregation in areas which are not direct wealth creation, can eventually pull down areas which most contribute to economic momentum. Despite the fact societies aren't directly aware of such tipping points, much depends on how populations feel in this regard. When economic momentum slows, citizens begin to feel the difficulty of getting ahead and making the most of their lives. Plus, when free markets are held back for too long, people begin to assume it is also okay to take away the freedoms of their neighbors. 

Adam Smith lived when expanding economic momentum and free markets contributed to the hopeful expectations of citizens in his time. He observed that when people felt better about their own life options, they were more willing to give consideration and respect to other citizens. 

In other words, economic dynamism made people more civilized. Whether or not our own economic times have become more fragile, we already see how people have lost some of this consideration for one another. Perhaps we could give more credit where credit is due, for the earlier freedoms we've lost in full market representation. In particular, where some forms of work are deemed "unproductive", we can assign more economic value to our own time use potential, so that ultimately, less money is necessary for those activities to take place. If we work to regain free markets for all income levels, citizens might hope again for continued progress, prosperity, and personal freedoms.

Ownership and Output in Excess Nominal Claims

Excess nominal income claims are too common in local service markets which are not discretionary. Governments and special interests alike tend to limit these options, thereby reducing effective management for both our personal obligations and physical environments. If this unfortunate circumstance weren't enough, excess claims in these areas are starting to impact monetary policy as well.

Our potential for ownership and personal responsibility are sorely compromised, when too many markets for basic life needs are narrowly defined. The markets most affected are those involving human capital, skill potential and housing. Alas, these are now mostly intended for the use of higher income groups. What's left for ownership potential, includes traditional housing (with its legal benefits of family inheritance), financial markets for the traditional capital of wealth building, and the formal institutions which now link human capital to status and monetary gain. All of these are associated with equilibrium imbalance and excess nominal claims. 

How might one think about this? What's most affected includes the framing of artificial scarcity. Recently a gap has opened between aggregate nominal income and the output of GDP. Might this gap have been induced by purposeful reduced output (artificial scarcity), while maintaining similar levels of income expectations? And how does artificial scarcity contrast with natural scarcity for such correlations? After all, when income is derived from production via natural scarcities, existing output is more likely close to what is feasible and consistent with equilibrium or GDP potential. Perhaps due in part to the contributions of production via natural scarcities, nominal income has closely mirrored aggregate output for quite some time.

I'd like to think that production reform for non traditional housing and applied human capital, could help diminish the unexpected gap between aggregate income and GDP output. Non traditional housing options and horizontal alignment for services coordination, could lead to good deflation. Eventually such reform could lead to better equilibrium balance with other sources of wealth.

Indeed we've been fortunate that equilibrium imbalance can take centuries to become a macroeconomic problem. It's interesting how Adam Smith worried about equilibrium imbalance in his framing of"productive" and "unproductive" workers (Wealth of Nations), before the closely related Baumol effect became a legitimate concern. Perhaps the fact this process took so long to evolve, is what makes it difficult to relate to in the present.

Just the same, much is at stake. We need to recognize and respond to the burdens imposed by the expectations of our domestic services markets. Should we instead elect not to change anything, even the best NGDP monetary policy scenario would eventually lead to less applied knowledge for societies in the decades to come. Excess nominal claims with no other market options, would mean a gradual loss of our capacity to fulfill the challenges of a modern economy. It's time to consider building a future on more viable and sustainable terms.

Upstream Nominal Claims Matter for Equilibrium Balance

Will the Fed successfully curtail inflation in the near future? Fortunately there have been encouraging signs of disinflation, even if the causes aren't obvious yet. However, while the Fed uses monetary policy to tame inflation, in certain respects this is a technical result. In other words, "pulling back" won't address supply side shortcomings such as the perennial inflation contributors in our secondary markets. Unfortunately, these local markets are woefully incomplete in basic respects, with housing and skilled services as the most egregious examples. Consequently, were the Fed were to pursue nominal stability and a stable growth level (as a market monetarist "best case" scenario), this would only be a partial answer - albeit the monetary one - for optimal equilibrium balance. 

Indeed, the Fed has often emphasized how its hands are tied in terms of supply side reform possibilities. Despite the recent pullback on traditional housing loan activity, Fed members must be wondering now, who in a decision making capacity is really paying attention and ready to take action? After all, we need incremental ownership options for flexible housing and land use, before many citizens can lead more productive lives. Without such options, millions still function in their own "recessionary" economy, even as others move on. For that matter, tiny homes, manufactured homes, and modular homes are already available, but few communities remain willing to make room for lower income options. Alas, there's a relative few sad exceptions for flood prone areas which are often long distances from employment opportunities. 

While there's a growing understanding of supply side issues, supply side reform means different things to different people. Consequently we aren't ready to address how local secondary market deficiencies contribute to equilibrium imbalance. In all this, upstream nominal claims tend to define production and consumption landscapes, plus such claims are more locally supported than it appears at first glance. Upstream nominal claims come not only from profit and non profit decision makers, for the Nimby impulses of local citizens lead to surging property taxes as well - taxes for rising asset values rather than local service gains! How can the Fed keep a decent reputation indefinitely, if the constraints of artificial housing scarcity remain enforced? Yet since these claims matter for skilled services, communities often refuse newcomers who lack discretionary income for additional service costs.

In a recent post I noted the structural shift of additional nominal claims from originating wealth sources. Fortunately, some of these pressures are starting to let up, which should make the Fed's job a little easier. That said, problems of excessive expectations will remain with us. Only consider how some of those expectations might have come about in the first place. Part of the high inflation of the sixties and seventies was due to the introduction of higher costs for healthcare in general across the board - costs which could have been rationalized by increased fossil fuel wealth in the U.S. during that period. Now, imagine what might happen to those expectations should that fossil fuel wealth shift into reverse! For that matter, once the Fed finally reduced those earlier high inflation levels, recall how our healthcare institutions enforced hard limits on physician supply. Chances are this nominal structural shift was more than a coincidence. 

It's hard to imagine secondary markets giving up much ground to primary markets in terms of monetary representation, or for that matter acknowledging their dependence on originating wealth sources. But that doesn't mean new market institutions aren't possible - markets that are more free yet don't present direct challenges to the old. New sets of expectations would not include the same excessive nominal demands as the old. Instead, new institutions would make room for flexible ownership and time value as wealth. Good deflation and skilled knowledge use in local markets, could be our best chance for greater market freedom and equilibrium balance in the near future.

Too Many Market Claims on Nominal Income

I've been anxious to start writing again regularly. However, much has come to pass since posts here were frequent, and not all of it has been good. Unfortunately, our political and social circumstance have continued to deteriorate. How will I proceed? How might others proceed? 

For now I'll need to focus less on how I feel things could be improved, and more on structural explanations why our unfortunate economic reality has come about. At the very least, a better understanding what led to this impasse, might encourage warring factions to lighten up on the destructive cultural wars. Nevertheless I've lost confidence that a cultural/political peace can be achieved during the course of my own lifetime. We simply waited too long to make supply side improvements at local levels, and the consequent fighting over scarce resources - even though many were artificially induced - won't be easily eradicated.

Meanwhile, we are in danger of losing more personal, market, and political freedoms in the years to come. While a relative few still defend free markets, the majority of these seek solutions along the margins. Alas, this approach mostly accrues to those who already benefited from recent sources of prosperity. Yet societies struggle to remain free, when economic progress doesn't occur in ways which lead to gains for all of society - not just those who have already won. 

In particular, the winners have all but cancelled the game for many participants, by making too many claims on nominal income. One reason this matters, is that the Fed learned the hard way decades earlier, what would happen once it allowed too many winners to insist on their excess claims! Yet the Fed monetary policy tool is a blunt tool. Meaning, the Fed can't choose who wins and loses once the monetary limits are drawn. For that matter, governments shouldn't have to choose, either. Instead, economic inclusion and the good deflation which encourages it, should be the responsibility of millions who participate in supply side activities. Yet many supply side decision makers have instead stood by, while societies lay blame - or excess expectations - in places where they really don't belong. 

Both the pandemic and the unexpected circumstance of primary market (originating wealth) turmoil, has meant hard lessons for this writer. Like many, I had taken "efficiency" aspects of primary markets for granted. What I never realized, was the fact such efficiency can take decades to achieve, in times of general equilibrium change. Plus, oil production is so central to how our most recent equilibrium became defined, in the first place. I should have understood well before now, that primary markets would need more nominal income space as absolute necessity, for wealth origin activity to continue as before. This, in contrast to the nominal income which secondary market participants demanded, in some instances for no better reason than knowledge providers were morally worthy of the sacrifice populations "should" make. 

As it turns out, our most direct sources of wealth have little choice but to make additional claims on nominal income, instead. Until now I'd believed secondary markets would try to keep pushing originating wealth sources out of their way, for Fed handouts. Instead, cutbacks in applied knowledge as it is currently utilized, are already underway. What recently happened to some of our most important markets, is also a reminder how peak oil finally arrived, despite recent fracking gains. Yep, we worried about peak oil decades too soon. 

Going forward, I will continue to focus on the lack of overall balance in general equilibrium conditions. For now, the Fed needs to make space for primary market evolution, but that doesn't mean citizens can't find ways to further evolve the human capital of secondary markets. Recall also that housing is a bridge between primary and secondary markets, for its monetary value represents both originating wealth and services generation. The paradox of traditional housing is that too many claims on nominal income now exist, while millions continue to need housing. Yet the Fed had little choice but to pull back early, well before existing need could be met. It's time for housing to further evolve. Due to its very nature as a bridge between primary and secondary markets, housing is paramount in equilibrium balance. Housing and its associated ownership frameworks must change into more realistic forms, or societies will continue to suffer.

The Baumol Effect: Benefit, or Problem?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Walkable Community Can't Happen Soon Enough

If only we already had more walkable communities! While they are occasionally found in high income locations, lower income groups could especially benefit from them. After all, local walkability reduces transportation costs, which in turn makes it easier to budget for local housing options. 

One wonders whether this logic is included in billionaire Marc Lore's plans which could eventually produce a walkable city. Alas, his vision is only on the drawing board at the moment. Indeed, for anyone whose life could be enhanced by walkable community in the here and now, Lore's initial starting point of 2030 must seem a long way off. According to CNN:

The former Walmart executive last week unveiled plans for Telosa, a sustainable metropolis that he hopes to create, from scratch, in the American desert. The ambitious 150,000-acre proposal promises eco-friendly architecture, sustainable energy production and a purportedly drought-resistant water system. A so-called "15 minute city design" will allow residents to access their workplaces, schools and amenities within a quarter-hour commute of their homes.

For one thing, it's not helpful to frame these efforts as cultural battles, as Tucker Carlson recently did.  In particular, petroleum production will continue to be an important part of near future market patterns for all populations. There's no need to imagine petroleum production as mostly advantageous for rural dwellers and others who embrace the low population densities associated with automotive ownership. Hopefully, petroleum production will continue to enhance a wide range of global markets, even as other energy sources gradually come to the fore. In all of this, we can encourage free markets which represent a diverse range of population densities. If national governments are willing to remain open minded re diverse market preservation, we stand a better chance of preserving market freedoms at local and state levels as well. 

Nevertheless there's some wishful thinking in this latest city building attempt, which needs to be addressed. While "human centered" communities are a reasonable desire, who really knows what that means? Fortunately, a better understanding could be gleaned via the active discovery of individual and group time preferences, through markets for time value. Time based service markets would make it easier to discern preferences that could translate into local time and space design. A free market orientation for time value, is vitally important for any "15 minute city design" to function as intended. Otherwise, participating groups would struggle to effectively coordinate times and places for getting things done.

Mutually determined individual/group needs are key for services based markets in the 21st century. In all of this, intentional markets should not mean imposing specific group preferences on other groups with different outlooks and lifestyles. Rather, intentional markets could create better defined environments that respect personal choice, so as to broaden market possibilities for everyone.

Is Social Mobility Not as Beneficial as Equality?

Like many - especially those of us with limited means - I believe social mobility is important for personal aspirations and economic access. Of late, the Olympics has been providing some inspiring examples. However, a recent post from Chris Dillow reminds how some on the left are quick to dismiss social mobility as a real positive. Their dislike of the societal need for social mobility, is something I've never quite understood. 

In his post, Chris Dillow presents a more nuanced perspective. He's also realistic in asserting that class issues will never be completely eradicated. For that matter, despite our occasional frustrations with meritocracy, at least it functions better than earlier aristocratic norms. Dillow sums up:

The point of all this is not to say that young working class people should not be ambitious. Instead, it is to suggest that social mobility is no substitute for genuine equality.

Perhaps more discussions along these lines would be worthwhile, especially if it could reduce our constant culture wars. It would be great if class perspectives and framing, could help reduce the excessive focus on identity politics. Nevertheless, people have different images in mind, when they conceptualize "genuine equality". For one thing, I believe that income redistribution should not be a primary focus in these matters. Even if societies could somehow wave a magic wand to reduce existing inequalities via monetary means, what would we get? Especially since our most pressing inequalities tend to involve resources which are aligned with time and space. Chances are, these are the areas we need to focus on the most.

When money is envisioned as sole solution for existing inequalities, too many intangibles and unknowns are left in the picture. How much income would ever be "enough" to pay ones basic bills, for instance? For one thing, societies are often inclined to raise prices for our most basic needs whenever local income levels rise. In other words everyone gets higher prices chasing higher incomes and we're essentially in the same position as before. 

Chances are, market solutions which lead to good deflation in non tradable sectors, might prove a more tangible and practical approach. In particular, good deflation in time based services would allow a wide range of other market prices to benefit from lower operational costs as well. Like the circumstantial nature of social mobility, market solutions could create tangible rewards that give small income levels more discretionary freedom. Supply side production reforms, much as social mobility benefits, would focus on what can be accomplished in the here and now, instead of getting lost in wishful thinking.

Production reform would be incremental and specific in nature, yet it holds considerable potential to create more positive outcomes. The long struggle to make various groups responsible for the welfare of other groups, is no longer working as well as it once did. We might accomplish much more, by creating better market opportunities for aspects of life which simply haven't responded well to income redistribution. In all of this, an important path to greater equality, is the creation of viable market options for everything we connect to specific time and place.

Let's make peace with the fact that money simply can't accomplish everyone that societies might hope for. Indeed, the sooner we make that peace, the sooner we could build markets in time value which surpass the monetary limitations of present knowledge providers. Plus, the sooner we make room for housing which is not imagined as "permanence", the less expensive it will be to maintain and reconfigure these structures once the need arises to do so. Why not build a better, more agile economy where everyone benefits from good deflation in non tradable sectors? Chances are, existing inequalities would also be eased. It's time to get started. 

Addressing the Confusing Incentives of Shared Ownership

The tragedy which unfolded recently at Champlain Towers South, has also exposed some basic problems regarding shared ownership for physical properties. When it comes to shared ownership: the larger the relevant structure, and the closer its proximity to other installations, the more difficult it may be for all involved to resolve maintenance issues. 

Many who have paid close attention to these events in Surfside Florida, are at least gaining a better understanding re complexities in shared ownership responsibilities. As it turns out, when maintenance delays accumulate exponentially, the situation will sometimes prove impossible to successfully resolve. For instance, in the case of Champlain South, due in part to "extensive concrete deterioration and corrosion of reinforcement", Morabito Consultants indicated it would not be able to perform some much needed remediation that had been deemed necessary. There were also questions in this October 2020 assessment, whether full repairs might negatively impact nearby structural features. 

Hence Champlain Towers South became "a catastrophe in slow motion". An article from CNN discusses some of the relevant ownership issues:

The disaster appears to have exposed some of the limitations of condo associations, which are made up of condominium owners with a vested interest in the property but that seldom possess much expertise in structural engineering. And it has raised questions about whether other residential structures could be at risk in Miami-Dade County, where sea levels are rising, the salty air is corrosive and nearly two-thirds of all commercial, condo and apartment buildings are as old or older than the 40-year old edifice that went down.

Granted, the collapse doesn't necessarily mean excessive risk elsewhere, since much also depends on the degree of ongoing maintenance. Nevertheless, as Peter Dyga, the president of Associated Builders and Contractors noted,

We're probably going to overreact. But it's understandable--people want a level of assurance that their building is safe.

It's being said this is a "wake up call on many fronts" - one which basically translates into more laws, regulations and building inspections. But might this be our only societal response? How will additional regulations accomplish what is truly needed in this instance? Already, the condo residents were quite aware of ongoing problems due in part to regulations already on the books, not to mention ongoing inspections. Chances are, the main problem was finding a "meeting of the minds" in a timely manner. Of course, what would have been timely, given the extensive concrete issues?

These shared ownership issues are problematic in much of housing in general. Only considered for instance, how shared family ownership in single family housing (which may be further undermined by family law rigidity), often results in extensive housing deterioration. Clearly, the difficulty of achieving "meetings of the minds" can mean maintenance breakdowns for shared ownership in every capacity imaginable. 

For one thing, proactive market frameworks are needed which leave more room for individual decision making as to ongoing maintenance. In other words, more promotion of home ownership specifically for individuals. However, this post is primarily about problems in shared ownership and how they might be addressed. Perhaps the best possibility is a "meeting of the minds" in free market building innovation, to reduce need for intensive long term maintenance, altogether. Only consider that when ongoing maintenance is neglected, that often leads to a costly "starting from scratch" at some point. 

Meanwhile, we've been learning some hard lessons about basic 20th century innovations. Concrete maintenance is beginning to emerging as an important issue. Equally important however, are the long term maintenance problems of today's plumbing and electrical systems. Even though 20th century plumbing brought tremendous gains in health and public sanitation, much of it was constructed in ways which pose additional stressors for buildings of all kinds. Some of what is becoming obsolete, is not easy to remove and replace without compromising structural integrity. Equally important, is how the fact plumbing pipes and electrical wiring were installed behind walls and interiors, makes it difficult for lower income groups or (many) senior citizens to participate in basic maintenance responsibilities. 

Even when monies are available for extensive renovations in older structures, it sometimes proves impossible for people to live normal lives (in place) in these buildings, once extensive maintenance needs arise. For example, consider how even the desire of condo owners in Champlain South to keep their pool in use, is one factor which made complete renovations impossible. It's not difficult to extrapolate this example to deterioration in older homes that are continuously lived in and essentially co-owned by multiple family members, once electrical and plumbing systems near the end of their useful lives. Often when completely new beginnings are required for these systems - especially if they have otherwise damaged the buildings in some capacity - it may prove impractical to live in the affected buildings for at least a full year.

Ultimately, greater flexibility is needed. It's time to design external home components for plumbing and electrical which can be changed out as needed, so we won't routinely have to take jackhammers or axes to "permanent" building fixtures. Doing so is almost always a major inconvenience! As it turns out, much of our so called building permanence since the 20th century has been largely an illusion, especially in a time of climate change. The need for greater building component flexibility should be obvious to everyone by now, since the short life cycles of plumbing and electrical systems in interior walls are becoming more evident by the day -  let alone what occurs when concrete and steel are exposed to the elements! Let's build in the future, so that both interior and exterior mini-demolitions will become less necessary - likewise the major demolitions that can be such a relief, once failed notions of permanence get out of hand.

Frozen Foods Brought Economic and Cultural Change

As it turns out, frozen foods came with unanticipated effects which are still relevant. Once electrification transformed factory production, it also made widespread refrigeration feasible, which ultimately led to frozen foods manufacture. A quick Google search further elaborates:

During the 1940s, the volume of frozen foods available to consumers boomed. It wasn't until the 1950s, though, that the first frozen ready meals hit the shelves in the United States.

Once frozen meals made their way into our homes, the production based expectations of our interpersonal relationships began to dramatically shift. Not only did time use patterns change among those primarily responsible for kitchen duties, but also other family members - particularly for families with limited incomes. Even now, frozen foods in the form of prepared meals, remain one of the simplest cost effective ways to "save time" in the course of a day. 

However one trade-off in these recent changes, is that many processed frozen foods aren't necessarily healthy! Even so, frozen foods are valuable production and consumption options, since they promote personal autonomy by freeing more time for daily routines. Further, the trade-off decisions involved for optimal health versus time saving convenience, are a reminder how personal health involves more time based commitments, than today's healthcare systems can readily provide. 

There was also a cultural trade-off, in terms of the ambivalence surrounding what women could accomplish with their newfound freedom from domestic responsibilities. How might gender relationships change, once women experienced new lifestyle options? 

What was perhaps not widely recognized, is that women were only a part of this changed cultural equation. For one, frozen foods manufacture has given real benefits to men insofar as their own preferences for meals. Equally important is how young, old, and disabled individuals became able to assume more central and often desired roles in kitchen responsibilities. Nevertheless, some of us still love to cook from scratch, even though due to market evolution, cooking is no longer highly valued as a practical skill. Basically that means we end up having to eat more of the leftovers ourselves!

Consider what these changed realities also suggest, regarding other domestic burdens many still face. In particular, some individuals with limited income, lack the stamina to fully maintain dwellings which have yet to benefit from new technology. Only imagine, how innovation in building design and manufacture, might one day alter this unfortunate reality. Once individuals with limited means become better able to take care of needed renovations, their non economic time value would also be improved. Granted, frozen foods manufacture reduced non economic time value for many women. Hopefully these individuals (and countless others) can one day regain value for their non economic time, so as to master their environments with less need of expensive services and other assistance.   

In all of this, technological advances have changed social expectations and there's no going back to earlier cultural realities. This is relevant for both the right and left. Indeed, consider how many individuals of both sexes come to prefer cooking for one, to the compromises involved in routinely sharing meals with others. Likewise, some forget that a truly healthy diet includes more hours in the kitchen than what might be possible. Perhaps these are moments when one can at least cut some fruit and cook some fresh vegetables on the stove, to go with that prepared frozen entree which only needs to be briefly heated in the microwave. 

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.

The Importance of Economic Sustainability

April 22nd was the anniversary of Earth Day (beginning in 1970) which emphasizes environmental restoration and sustainability. However, this global acknowledgement reminds me that some aspects of sustainability get emphasized over others which are seldom noted. In particular - despite ongoing efforts to achieve financial and monetary stability as well - why has economic sustainability not received more attention?

After all, citizens need to be able to manage their own lives effectively, before they turn their attention to the physical care of their environments - at least insofar as sustainability is generally presented in the media. If sustainability dialogue focuses on anti growth or perhaps anti capitalism, then why do so many proposed environmental "solutions" end up costing more money than the poor can afford? Plus: paradoxically, the poor actually contribute to earth's resource preservation in many instances, since they have little choice but to limit their own consumption. 

Perhaps economic sustainability has not been considered, since instead of government dictates, it involves market centered options which lead to fewer financial burdens for low income levels. Unfortunately, when domestic providers prefer to keep consumption costs high, this results in an upward price spiral, as citizens respond by demanding ever rising wages to meet non discretionary costs. If this weren't enough, groups which lack the political power to demand "living" wages, also lack the ability to garner respect from society for the work they do. 

Let's reduce the spiral of ever rising wage demands, by bringing non tradable sector markets - especially time based services and basic housing components - within reach of all citizens. Once production reform becomes a reality, we will all benefit from the process. The road to greater stability in economic systems, is one which creates a more open version of market potential than is currently taking place.

Fortunately, there are many ways to make domestic innovation and production reform feasible. Should municipalities prove hesitant to make room for walkable options, why not create new communities which integrate walkable elements in the core of their design. When cities and towns won't address zoning and regulations which limit housing, create new communities that are willing to build flexible forms of housing and work spaces. And most of all, build new communities which actively engage in a full range of time based services generation. Make sure all residents are included in local calendars for work, play, and more, during the course of every year. 

All these elements might add up to a sustainable future, one where high income levels are no longer necessary to live a good and meaningful life. Once we create viable market options which don't require excess use of earth's resources in the first place, sustainability might finally be envisioned in broader terms.

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.

The Freedom to Build, to Be, Yet Also Destroy

Since personal freedom includes elements of both creation and destruction, the freedoms that societies may hope to preserve are becoming more complicated. By way of example, not all innovations are the same. Some innovations which are oft described as societal improvements, nevertheless don't provide unalloyed benefits to all concerned. This particularly holds, when someone intentionally builds products specifically intended for destruction.

For that matter, in contrast with weapons meant to kill, the destructive urges of today's "cancel culture" are relatively benign by comparison. Am I wrong in suggesting that the cancel culture of the left, mostly lacks the violent tendencies of certain wannabe authoritarians on the right? While the political right is understandably frustrated with the cancel culture of the left, I doubt they are actually as afraid of extreme violence from the left (at least presently), as some pretend to be. 

Plus, when it comes to ideology, so long as mental capacity is engaged in actions which aren't overwhelmed by emotion, one at least hopes for less violence in political outcomes. Sometimes these realities are blurred though, when ideology becomes a convenient excuse for acting out, due to some form of massive grudge against various elements of society. There are additional dangers as well, should those in power actively seek support from people whose emotions clearly run counter to logical thought processes. 

Should politicians seek out future votes based on emotions rather than logic and rational thinking, we stand to lose even more of our freedoms. If politics mostly becomes a matter of besting one's perceived enemies, societies will pay the price through even more losses of personal and market based freedoms. Has Washington forgotten that markets still offer society's best potential for successful pursuits in creativity, imagination, identity, and the nature of our physical environments? Or, perhaps too many of these once free markets have already been reserved for the elite. If so, the additional result is more fuel for the fires of destruction. How many more would decide to act out in anger, should they continue to lack the legal ability to build a meaningful destiny? This is certainly a question worth asking in the U.S. given the realities of our gun culture. 

Chances are, we might still reduce the societal impulse to destroy, by restoring rights to personal identity and allowing citizens to build lives on more sustainable terms. Only consider why it has become so important to focus on careful market solutions, as Republicans now question the freedom of businesses to express their own political opinions. Imagine the good that could result, by making room in our markets for stronger production rights which focus on positive aspects of identity and freedom. 

It's time to support stronger production rights for all citizens, especially in terms of skill potential and innovative simple housing forms. Perhaps if more of our positive freedoms are restored, people will eventually become less inclined to act out their negative freedoms. When future innovation is discussed, much more is at stake than improvements at the margin. The innovations which matter most, have potential to improve the outcomes of average citizens in average places. Why not encourage the human impulse to build anew, in more positive ways.

Time Based Product and the Profit/Productivity Conundrum

When it comes to service organizations, an investment approach such as private equity can sometimes lead to problems, if personal time is an important component of final product. All the more so in healthcare, should patients need individualized attention for successful outcomes. How might we respond, if and when profit gains result in less personal time with patients in particular? 

For example, a recent NBER working paper, "Does private equity investment in healthcare benefit patients?" highlights the issue of patient neglect. In the abstract, the researchers note how

Our estimates show that PE ownership increases the short-term mortality of Medicare patients by 10%, implying 20,150 lives lost due to PE ownership over our twelve-year sample period. This is accompanied by declines in other areas of patient well-being, such as lower mobility, while taxpayer spending per patient episode increases by 11%. 

An article from Vox further elaborates:

The researchers studied patients who stayed at a skilled nursing facility after an acute episode at a hospital, looking at deaths that fell within the 90-day period after they left the nursing home. They found that going to a private equity-owned nursing home increased mortality for patients by 10 percent against the overall average.

As it turns out, the result was more pronounced for patients who were relatively healthier, since sicker patients benefited from time based regiments deemed too necessary for targeted reductions. Whereas other services appeared more amenable to time adjustments. So private equity changes

include a reduction in staffing, which prior research has found is the most important factor in quality of care. Overall staffing shrinks by 1.4 percent, the study found, but more directly, private equity acquisitions lead to cuts in the number of hours that front-line nurses spend per day providing basic services to patients. Those services, such as bed turning or infection prevention aren't medically intrusive, but they can be critical to health outcomes.

The researchers noted an increase in the use of psychotics which could have substituted for personalized care as well. This study is certainly getting attention, for instance Matthew Yglesias referenced it as an example of meritocracy issues in a recent post. He stresses how smart people may be inclined to do "bad things":

Why do private equity takeovers kill so many people? It's not because the Wall Street boys are dimwitted. Their job is to look for companies that, for whatever reason, are not managed in a way that maximizes shareholder value...There's a lot more you could say about this story looking specifically at the lens of nursing home operations. But I'm interested in meritocracy. And the point here is that things can go awry not despite, but because smart people are in charge.

Indeed, it is easy to frame the unfortunate circumstance of nursing homes as a morality play, and there are countless other time relevant service examples which can be told in similar fashion. However, getting caught in these stories, instead of finding positive ways to respond, ultimately depresses us all. 

Why not try a more dispassionate view in the form of a total equilibrium perspective? Money cannot be expected to accomplish all things equally well, for everyone involved. More specifically, unsettling things will occur when money occasionally fails in its coordination tasks for time based services generation. Again, I can't stress enough that money is problematic when it is expected to remain the sole representation of economic value. For that matter, should we elect to create valid service markets for a full range of personal time potential, people would gain more opportunities to meet the needs of their loved ones, when existing organizational capacity does prove inadequate. And family members would not have to shoulder the entire load of caring for loved ones (outside the time limits of today's services institutions), once community members can freely participate in local platforms for services generation.

By no means would time arbitrage supplant existing meritocracies and their associative hierarchies. Rather, horizontally aligned communities would work alongside meritocratic organizations, meanwhile reinforcing the positives which merit based hierarchies do hold.

Could Time Arbitrage Stabilize Medium Term Growth?

Many have spoken of the need to build new growth and employment strategies, for even our medium term economic reality is somewhat uncertain. I remain convinced that time arbitrage could ultimately contribute to economic stability, in part due to its advantages as a continuum for local services generation.

Symmetric alignment for the time based coordination of local communities, could add to wealth in the here and now. What's more, locally generated time arbitrage would gradually reduce the need for the future fiscal obligations so many services now require. Since decentralized markets for time value would evolve as direct sources of wealth, they could create positive long term effects in terms of total factor productivity gains. 

In particular, time arbitrage may prove advantageous for medium term gains by stabilizing workplace participation for those who engage in person to person service offerings. As things currently stand, technology is beginning to replace the digital tasks which many came to rely on during the pandemic. And while pandemic circumstance initially led to losses in lower income employment (due to social distancing), continuing technology gains will ultimately result in losses of higher wage work, also. Recently, Bryan Walsh of Axios noted that software bots are "learning" to perform tasks previously assigned to office workers. He adds: 

Bots can make digital work more efficient by taking on onerous and repetitive white-collar tasks, but the better they get, the more competition they pose to skilled workers who might have thought themselves exempt from the job-disrupting effects of automation.

What's at stake in this development are continued efficiency gains, and why they are often deemed not just desirable but necessary. Granted, the efficiencies of earlier automation tended to be more closely associated with tradable sector activity. Over the decades - as these processes unfolded - the wealth gains of automation meant that "excess" tradable sector workers could subsequently find work in areas of non tradable sector activity. All the more so, due to additional wealth in circulation via exponential levels of tradable sector output.  

Nevertheless, eventually there would be no escape from the sectoral wealth shifts which eventually transpired. As the overall balance of GDP representation shifted from tradable sectors to non tradable sectors, it gradually became more difficult for tradable sector redistribution to support non tradable activity, given the compensatory claims the latter tended to require - especially when its organizational patterns were hierarchical in nature. 

Even so, much of today's non tradable sector endeavour is just as important for productive economic complexity, as what occurs in tradable sector activity. Unfortunately, many nations no longer have the full range of monetary flexibility they once had, for preserving the applied knowledge which modern economies need. Consequently, the challenge is to recreate more of this vital work on direct and reciprocal terms which are less hierarchical or costly to sustain. Time arbitrage is one way in which we might eventually make this possible. 

Increased efficiencies will always be a necessary component of getting things effectively done. And there is much efficiency to be gained through symmetric alignment which balances human capital inputs and outputs for time based service product. With symmetric time alignment, societies will eventually face fewer financial burdens which stem from the excess input requirements of human capital, in relation to time based services output. Time will always be our most scarce and precious resource. We can all realize productivity gains, by aligning our time with others in ways which make it simpler to meet markets for supply and demand in time based services generation.

Reimbursed Mutual Assistance > UBI or Guaranteed Job Programs

What if some form of universal basic income were to become a reality? Alas, should traditional employment decline in the near future, UBI is not a practical long term solution, especially given the nature of present day fiscal obligations. At most, UBI might serve as a stopgap measure, should a wide array of employment sources dry up simultaneously due to technological change. 

Chances are, UBI would also prove somewhat demoralizing, since many recipients would lose valuable opportunities for economic and social connections with others. Not only is a UBI approach likely to reduce our chances of greater economic integration, it could further polarize an already divided society - especially in terms of knowledge use and meaningful participation. 

Small communities in particular need proactive solutions for economic dynamism and long term potential, instead of compensation for basically being forgotten or left behind. Toward this end, compensation in the form of monetary reimbursement for voluntary mutual assistance, would be more practical than policy choices that don't address widespread social isolation. What's more, mutual assistance could be symmetrically aligned (via matched or reciprocal time) so as to create new wealth instead of additional demands on fiscal policy. Indeed, what could be better than creating internal rewards for our natural inclination as humans, to come together in order to get things done? 

Compensated or reimbursed mutual assistance at local levels, is also a better solution for many than guaranteed job programs. Unlike government generated work which often requires participants to relocate, compensated mutual assistance would allow local communities to create new job opportunities and workplace responsibilities in their own midst. And rather than attempting to fulfill the wants and needs of governments, the time arbitrage of mutual assistance would allow people to create entirely new local markets - markets which are responsive to shared individual wants and needs. 

Reimbursed mutual assistance contains other advantages as well. For instance, it could lead to the local creation of knowledge based services - services which otherwise tend to be difficult to access via hourly wages alone. Fortunately, the supply side approach of reimbursed mutual assistance would bring additional value to our collective time, so as to make it capable of meeting a full range of basic needs. Eventually, better coordination of time value could lead to greater community trust as well. This is especially needed in the U.S. where a substantial degree of trust has been eroded away.

New patterns of mutual assistance could lead to more voluntary and spontaneous forms of association than are now common in many time based service activities. As individual groups structure their combined efforts to build a shared continuum of activity, they gradually create new wealth which approximates what is often possible through more traditional forms of employment. In a time when advancing technology makes near future work potential less certain, people can breathe easier once viable replacements create new sources of normalcy and stability for all concerned.

Extensive Price Making is an Equilibrium Outlier

Even though many of us take extensive price making for granted in time based services, this set of circumstance is actually an equilibrium outlier among many nations. For instance, history provides ample evidence that systems of knowledge centered agglomeration which depend on other sources of wealth, can be quite fragile in the long run. All too often, when citizens can't utilize knowledge via non hierarchical means, they end up missing basic or critical steps which could help them achieve daily goals. Worse, they lack any viable patterns of participation in the institutions which bear responsibility for continued knowledge preservation. 

Since direct reciprocity has only become more difficult for services generation - especially during the 20th century - societies increasingly rely on asymmetric participation, production and consumption for a wide array of knowledge based activity. Alas, this approach has led to sectoral imbalances and accumulating debt loads. Much in the way of applied knowledge is publicly supported. However, this means that much of today's day high skill activities are financial obligations for future citizens, rather than market based production and consumption options for people who need them now. Despite the fact this set of affairs can't continue indefinitely, we still lack any Plan B which could stabilize and lessen budgetary burdens many nations face for knowledge based needs. Perhaps it's the fact no Plan B is being actively discussed, which encourages major political parties to completely ignore the possibility of imposed austerity and hardship in the near future.

A major challenge in all this, is to once again relearn how to use knowledge and skill through more directly reciprocated patterns. Not only would symmetric time use mean greater market participation for all citizens, reciprocal time matching can create more immediate wealth, thereby lessening the perceived need for governmental redistribution of all kinds. Time arbitrage is a viable Plan B which would build a more complete framework for time use potential in local community groupings. The local adaptation of production and consumption settings for knowledge, could ultimately transform communities which otherwise find themselves left out of knowledge production and consumption in urban markets.

The group time of local mutual assistance would function as a form of internalized market pricing. Since the majority of time use potential becomes accounted for in a market context, time begins to function as a valid price taking mechanism for participating groups. Likewise, being able to price take makes good deflation possible for services generation, such as extensive price taking in tradable sector activity has led to good deflation in countless forms of resource capacity.  

Consider how defined equilibrium settings can gradually restore sectoral balance by allowing participants to coordinate time more fully. Importantly, this market option makes time based services more sustainable over the long run. Meanwhile, however, the U.S. may be experiencing even more political polarization than other nations, since healthcare price making is more extensive than what generally occurs in most nations. Indeed, our healthcare organizational capacity actually makes U.S. healthcare more of an outlier, in relation to other mature economies. This extreme dependence on national support also helps to explain why it is often so difficult for both the production and consumption of healthcare in the U.S. to remain in a sustainable position, possibly even for the medium term. While price making is always an understandable urge, fortunately we can recreate market options which make room for the more sustainable practice of price taking, in the use of highly valued skill and knowledge.