The Role of Formal Education in Cultural Divides

What makes our formal educational institutions such a problem when it comes to long term economic stability? Unfortunately, they contribute to our cultural battles by dividing people into haves and have nots, when it comes to skill sets and access to vital information. While this is obviously a problem for citizens in mature economies, these educational divides impact lesser developed nations as well. 

For instance, when emerging economies lack sufficient wealth sources to fund high level human skill, formal education can become associated with "brain drains" or possibly even the need to escape one's country to achieve success. Hence such circumstance pose a threat to many in underdeveloped countries (alas, such as Afghanistan), where knowledge based skills are not yet a dominant factor for local economic activity. Indeed, how could "nation building" ever substitute for the economic pursuits which local citizens need to generate for themselves?

In advanced economies, cultural divides play out differently. All too often, the asymmetrical financial obligations of today's human capital, can crowd more direct wealth sources. Not surprisingly, battles over who even "deserves" access to high skill human capital, lead to social instability and polarization. This lack of long term monetary sustainability for high skill human capital, is already undermining national economies regardless of their level of economic complexity. Hopefully it is not too late to embrace a wide range of valuable human capital formation which doesn't require college degrees, familial wealth, or extensive monetary compensation for that matter. I believe it is still possible to make time use an integral source of wealth in its own right. With a little luck, our formal educational institutions may eventually recognize the need for such an approach as well. 

At the very least, nations now sense that nation building is not a reasonable option. What's more, top down "solutions" leave little room for the true potential of local knowledge and skill alongside tradable sector wealth sources. In order to bridge our cultural divides, new communities are needed, where local participants can generate sustainable sources for human capital formation. Such communities could actually function as knowledge priors, since participating group time could be coordinated symmetrically. Reciprocal time value would in turn allow new wealth to be built via knowledge and skill, without need of compensation from other forms of wealth. 

The monetary flows which exist between primary and secondary markets, affect our structural economic realities in ways that aren't always easy to understood. Let's observe more closely, the nature of existing originating wealth sources. Why do they already exist, and how might they be further augmented? Applied knowledge via coordinated time could serve as a more direct form of wealth creation, so that primary markets eventually come into better balance with dependent or secondary markets. Best, more efficient patterns for human capital formation, would make it possible to address the limitations of formal education which exacerbate our cultural divides.

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.

What We Can Do, What We Can't Do

New years are a good time to reflect on life's possibilities, especially when it comes to societal progress. Nevertheless, how do we distinguish between realistic potential, versus what is essentially wishful thinking? For example, even though the world needs a lot more mutual respect and civility, desired outcomes such as these cannot be coerced. 

And while Adam Smith and many others celebrated the free markets which so contributed to civility in recent centuries, much of this fortuitous societal coordination takes place in tradable sector activity. Still, it's not unreasonable to ask: Could our non tradable sector markets also contribute to greater civility? How might they gain their own newfound freedoms? In particular, is it feasible for the resource of our scarce time, to garner more economic and societal value in the near future? Or will vital markets for time value, remain outside our realm of direct influence?

In the twentieth century, housing and time based services were regulated in ways which reduced the degree of autonomy and control individuals held over their own destinies - particularly those with substantial income limits. If millions were to regain control via new production and consumption potential, how much civility might we all regain in the process? At the very least, we still benefit from the civility which goes hand in hand with high levels of tradable sector resource coordination. And while we will never put a stop to what's bad in the world, we could still create more good, by allowing symmetrical (hence reciprocal) coordination of time via market tested means. Time arbitrage is one entry to this realm of possibility. It is a broad spectrum approach for improving personal autonomy and self worth, with potential to bring new hope to people from all walks of life.

With additional economic value for mutually coordinated time, millions more citizens would derive a greater sense of self worth. Consider one important reason why this matters. So much in the world which is unfortunate and destructive, includes the reality of poorly defined self worth. How can we expect people to be trustworthy or unfailingly good to others, when their time use potential lacks sufficient economic value to build a normal life? Granted, not everyone would personally benefit from stronger markets for time value. Just the same, millions more would finally learn to effectively negotiate with others for their wants and needs. I believe that gaining the chance to do so, would result in fortuitous circumstance whereby people are more inclined to be kind and civil. 

Even though the passing years have given me cause to excessively dwell on what can't be done, I still believe we are not helpless to act in positive ways. Clearly, we have reason to do so, when the evening news also dwells on what we seemingly cannot remedy. While there will always be instances when no one can decipher personal motivations for violence and hatred, there will still be positive ways to respond. Sure, some market efforts are going to fail, sometimes even miserably. But I continue to believe that viable and carefully representative market platforms are the best means we have, to build a better, more inclusive future. Plus, as Ricardo Hausmann recently noted in "The Missing Link in Economic Development":

If someone is not doing something that we as a society value it might be because they can't, not because they don't want to. This weakness in economics has far-reaching implications for our understanding of economic growth and development, which is fundamentally about the social accumulation of productive capabilities.

Markets should not be so willing to devolve, into a twisted rational of what societies supposedly can't do. When they become rigid and inflexible, does anyone really wonder why capitalism gets disparaged? Why not work to ensure greater freedom for our vital domestic markets, so they might better contribute to human civility and hope for the future? Why not 2021 as the perfect place to begin? Lets turn our non tradable sectors into realms where we regain hope for what we can do as a society, instead of remaining hopelessly divided over what we can't do.

Are There Really Too Many PhD's?

Some have come to believe the talent pool for PhDs is diluted in ways that result in diminishing returns to the marketplace. Might this actually be true? Even though the argument carries a certain logic, it hardly means that societies should shift toward workplaces where knowledge is deemed less important! In particular, a majority of citizens now rely extensively on knowledge and skill, to lead meaningful and successful lives. How might society respond to a perception of "too many" advanced college graduates, given this reality? 

Alas, the "too many PhDs" argument also presents thorny issues for many who seek well compensated workplace opportunities. Recall that much of the rationale for seeking advanced degrees, is due to non tradable sector expectations of degree enhanced incomes. Even though high income levels should not be a prerequisite for basic non discretionary spending, this structural circumstance has yet to be addressed. Consequently, it's not a good idea to argue that millions shouldn't even pursue advanced degrees, so long as there are inadequate supply side mechanisms in place making it feasible to maintain financial responsibilities with anything less than advanced degrees. 

Nevertheless, I have to admit that present day general equilibrium revenue is woefully insufficient, for millions who still seek to enter well compensated workplaces. So much of this revenue is already claimed by price making in secondary markets, that the wealth creation of primary markets has also been compromised to some extent. However, what frustrated me to the point of writing this post, are group identity arguments which question intellectual aptitude and even the supposed cultural limitations of various groups. How exactly are millions of citizens expected to bear financial responsibility, if they are deemed incapable of full participation at the outset? What this essentially boils down to, is the suppression of human capital (with general equilibrium limits as excuse), in a historical moment when human capital is vital for getting things done. And too much valuable human capital output is essentially time based in nature, for anyone to logically deny entry which boosts aggregate time based output.

If there is any supposed "excessive dilution" in the provision of ideas or intellectual strategies, it is only due to the inefficiencies of a general equilibrium structure - one which never accounted for the possibility of full citizen participation in the first place. For this and of course other reasons, I continue to promote time value as a more inclusive source of wealth building, so that all citizens gain a chance to contribute to positive economic outcomes. Time arbitrage could create a durable free market context, so that personal ability and aspiration can be more fully represented. 

Again, the 21st century - in order to have real meaning - is about raising the value of all human capital - not just the opportunities of the best and the brightest. If we neglect to create time based wealth options for left behind communities, these recent rounds of anti-intellectualism and political division are likely to worsen. And anti-intellectualism is a poor substitute, for the kinds of useful and experiential knowledge which may not continue to flourish, should it remain mostly the province of experts and prosperous regions. We can make knowledge valuable in the eyes of all citizens once again, if we allow it to become part of the economic potential of all communities.

Until now, part of what has made it difficult to take definitive action, is the understandable frustration surrounding near future income limitations. While the fact we cannot raise all incomes is of course bad news, the good news is we can innovate our way to good deflation in non tradable sector activity, so that high income levels aren't necessary to live a good life. Fortunately it is within our ability as a society, to create the non tradable sector innovation which brings new spending power to small incomes. In the future, whenever money falls short of hopes and expectations, time value could be tapped as well, for the creation of durable economic outcomes. And best, we can ultimately change our perceptions, as to who is eligible for full participation in a knowledge based society. 

Could Healthcare Providers Reduce Our Political Turmoil?

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

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

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

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

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

The Economic Freedoms We Still Need

Only in retrospect is it apparent how many economic freedoms we've lost - especially in recent decades. But how to respond, as special interests and legislators alike continue to place limits on our personal agency? 

In particular, consider how we seek to participate in the economy - not just as consumers, but as producers. As producers, we get the chance to experience economic freedom via active and meaningful roles with others. Consequently, the personal agency that derives from active use of skills potential, is more important for personal identity than is sometimes recognized. 

Our active participation in society is vital to innovation possibilities in both our physical and intellectual environments. However, realizing the potential of innovation, also requires that individuals keep a full range of production rights, so that such rights are not constantly diverted to preferred groups and associations. Not only do we need to protect permissions for personal management of physical resources, but also the necessary permissions which allow us to assist others through the use and application of knowledge. 

For that matter, our extent of personal freedom as producers and consumers, affects our ability to retain knowledge. In a recent study the authors discovered that people learn more readily when the relevant material is freely chosen. Despite the fact this education comes with a given bias, the bias framing lends greater meaning to the actions we choose. Indeed, according to the study, "the learning rates were slower in the forced-choice situation than they were in the free-choice one."

The economic freedoms that individuals need in their roles as producers and consumers, are crucial if societies expect to preserve a full range of economic access for all concerned. Production rights matter for ongoing activities which are practical and necessary, but also those which are aspirational and experiential. Perhaps one of the simplest ways to think about production rights is to consider a broader context in which economic freedom is possible. The simplest approach for me in this regard, is to envision how economic freedoms could contribute to the societal processes of maintenance, building, creating, understanding and healing. 

Maintenance is the foundation which supports all the others. From an economic standpoint, sometimes we struggle to maintain economic complexity, since maintenance activities in certain respects are the least compensated of the entire group. Yet even though some maintenance activities are basic in nature, they make it possible to sustain everything else, not only in terms of knowledge and information, but also our physical realities. When we lose crucial economic freedoms at a foundational level, our personal autonomy tends to be compromised in areas of higher levels of economic complexity as well. 

As lower level economic freedoms have been lost, so too society's ability to successfully engage in the higher activities of healing and mutual understanding. Only consider how activities in this regard could otherwise bring the actions of healing to a higher order in terms of positive societal intentions. Even our abilities to build and create are being blunted, and basic healing options are in disarray. In all of this: When people insist that intentions mostly lead to negative outcomes, only recall that intentions always begin at individual and personal levels, and they are both positive and negative in nature. It is only when positive intentions are disallowed, that the inevitable negative intentions societies also hold, come to the fore and gain the upper hand. We need to revive the positive intentions which can protect our economic freedoms, while there is still time to do so.

Economic Flourishing: Make it Personal

Struggles of identify have once again come to the fore, particularly those of race and gender. One consequence of course, is that sometimes it's difficult to turn on the news without getting depressed. Yet I'd be lying if I suggested that class or gender based discrimination have never been problems for me. All the more so, whenever difficulties in maintaining steady work meant corresponding limits in personal freedom and autonomy.

Just the same: Despite how issues of inequality and social justice are often framed by politicians, activists, and others, I believe in practical solutions for complex social problems. Specifically, a strong supply side approach for production reform, could change lives for the better in ways people get to experience, rather than having to be convinced of. Let's strive for economic flourishing on real economy terms that go well beyond what money alone can accomplish. Why not create new free markets, to supplement countless local markets which have long been restrained and will continue to be so. Fortunately, it is within our ability to make economics personal in ways which matter for all citizens, not just the elite or perhaps well to do.

Don't get me wrong! Arguments for social justice are important, and perhaps some positive change may finally come from recent struggles. Nevertheless, these discussions and activities are somewhat different, from what is needed to generate positive change at a real economy level.

In particular, economists might come to recognize supply side approaches which directly benefit all citizens. While economists have studied the economy in great detail, they mostly utilize impersonal means which are consequently lacking in real economy results. Worse, the inclination of academics and pundits to emphasize what doesn't work - such as one's ideological opponent - means too few economists who are fully vested in contributing to real economy outcomes. Sadly in all this, economics is now mostly "personal" only insofar as people are angry at economic outcomes.

Make it personal by creating more positives, instead of focusing on existing negatives. This is all the more important, since social justice hardly comes down to moving existing revenues around, or some other temporary form of "inclusion". Real economic justice means ongoing economic inclusion, in terms of what human capital potential might still accomplish. We have already seen many times over, for instance, how making more revenues available for governments, is scarcely the same thing as creating real economic access for citizens from all walks of life.

We could make economics personal in ways which help to defuse identity struggles. This is particularly possible, when we refuse to constantly demean what has come before in terms of supply side structure. The real issue isn't about dismantling special interest advantages, but of creating and cultivating new markets where special interests lack incentive to tread. It's not necessary to put non tradable sector special interests on the defensive. And if we don't, we gain more chances to create new wealth and prosperity on more personal and meaningful terms.

Only recall, how much identity struggle exists because our present equilibrium needs new and stronger definitions of wealth. We can make economics personal again, by inviting all citizens to take part in wealth creation. How might individuals share their personal definitions with others? How might others respond? Each offering can better align the ones that follow. Let's get started. Why not focus on the commonalities of what we all want and hope for? We could still break free of the chains that emphasize our differences, with the unity of a productive economic response.

Fiat Money as a Framework for Human Capital

Why hasn't fiat money turned out to be a better suited tool for complete levels of economic coordination?

Much of the problem in this regard, is that skills arbitrage emerged in the 20th century as a partial equilibrium component of human capital potential. As circular economic activity became more closely aligned with time based services generation, intangible forms of wealth created additional demands on money, which had previously had been associated with originating sources of wealth. Once fiat money expanded the range of monetary representation possibilities, sectoral imbalances became more prominent. A wide range of knowledge providers used skills arbitrage for extensive price making in markets, which gradually reduced general equilibrium revenues for additional coordination in these vital areas. Alas, this process has finally reduced the aspirations of millions who once hoped to participate in the economy on similar terms. For reasons such as this, I continue to advocate for time arbitrage as means to further promote a fuller use of knowledge and skill, for all citizens.

Nevertheless, there are fairly obvious and pragmatic reasons, why social coordination patterns for the use of knowledge emerged through such limited terms of engagement. How else might societies have readily brought together widely divergent market participants, so as to live among one another and combine revenues for common public goods? By way of example, commonalities in local real estate value made it simpler for high skill service providers to maintain integrated economic relationships, with those who were directly involved in wealth generation.

Only now is it apparent these earlier processes are not enough, to fully sustain a modern day knowledge based economy. How might we address the fact that fiat monetary systems - in and of themselves - aren't sufficient to maintain widespread integration of skills and services for all concerned? Even though skills arbitrage never was a long term solution for complete economic integration, it could still function far more effectively if time arbitrage could function alongside it, without unduly expanding what general equilibrium revenue is capable of. Time arbitrage could create a new measure of economic value which in turn would lead to more horizontally aligned workplaces. New patterns such as these could effectively disperse applied knowledge beyond what price making and skills arbitrage has achieved in a system where money is the sole determinant of economic value.

Also, time arbitrage as a horizontally aligned system, would not demand so much monetarily as to further compromise what central bankers can reasonably accomplish. Time as a valid unit of measure, could compel us to more closely examine how intangible wealth sometimes distorts monetary roles, particularly when money is expected to function as the sole source of economic value.

Time value as directly generated wealth, could allow a majority of human capital to eventually flourish. Economic time options are all the more important, now that fiat monetary systems face too many competing demands for citizens to fully take part in the economy. By allowing time to function as a more precise form of economic value, fiat systems might eventually benefit from greater economic stability, as well. Ultimately, we can have higher hopes for a brighter future, by defining wealth creation in economic terms which go beyond what money can buy.

When Monetary Representation Becomes Fragile

Can monetary policy retain a stable and relatively constant level (near to mid term), given the uncertainties of the pandemic? Since this most recent recession began with extensive supply side disruptions - subsequently impacting aggregate demand - no one knows for certain. However, even though the Fed has yet to adopt NGDPLT, the Mercatus center has created a new measure called the NGDP Gap, which among other things will highlight nominal income stability. This new measure could help people determine how closely the Fed adheres to representing economic activity without undue gaps or changes in valuation.

Nevertheless, overall monetary representation may remain somewhat fragile in the years ahead, even if central bankers adhere to an optimal course. Only consider how prior to the pandemic, monetary policy became compromised by structurally uneven equilibrium coordination between tradable and non tradable sectors. The latter is more prone to price making than the former. Plus, they represent human capital in highly different ways which have yet to be fully accounted for. By way of example, the marginal revolution which is so important to tradable sector activity, is less a determinant of economic outcomes in non tradable sector activity. Ultimately, better defined economic roles are needed for all human capital, before non tradable sector activity ceases to detract from equilibrium balance and optimal monetary representation.

Extensive price making in non tradable sectors tends to compromise aggregate output, which in turn makes it difficult to align aggregate output with a stable nominal income trajectory. Since price taking involves better coordination of all resource capacity, it has proven simpler for monetary policy to represent tradable sector output, during long periods of relative tradable sector dominance. However, once general equilibrium is dominated by price making outcomes, assets tend to experience additional pressure as well. As asset values rise, some become convinced that monetary policy is too "loose", even though this actually may not be the case. Rather, when full economic participation is limited to subsets of given populations, the consequent output reductions impose higher prices elsewhere, thus making it appear to some that monetary policy has become too expansionary. In short, monetary policy may struggle to contribute to optimal aggregate output, once price making becomes dominant in general equilibrium.

Fortunately, this sectoral imbalance could be addressed through a broader interpretation of human potential in the marketplace - one which includes more price taking for time value in equilibrium context. By bringing greater economic value to all human capital potential, we could also do much to stabilize monetary representation. A better representation of aggregate time value, would make it simpler for a level nominal target to serve as a reliable snapshot or historical memory of economic value. Toward this end, the adaptation of time use potential as a valid economic unit, might help to restore money to its vital role in defined economic wealth and value.

Further, time use as an expression of economic value, creates more space for a wide range of maintenance functions which otherwise become limited in mature economies, as budgets are strained by competing objectives. Time arbitrage would not only preserve time value for society as a whole, it could contribute to maintenance activities involving a broad spectrum of knowledge and skill, so as to better preserve already existing wealth.

Education: Let's Restore Local Community Threads

Much of today's formal K-12 education, takes place quite separately from the lives of local citizens. Alas, this reality adds to the financial burdens of many small communities, where local citizens support public schools through lifelong property taxes. Even though local taxation sometimes leads to impressive school buildings and well prepared students, local circles of sustainability can still be broken, when students need to go elsewhere to put their skills to good use. What of the locals who may never gain the chance to meet these young people? What does society lose, when neither local citizens or students can benefit from what either group learns in life? How can a society sustain itself for the long run, when its knowledge based institutions seek monetary support to survive, but neglect to tap a vast abundance of human capital potential, so that all might thrive?

Clearly, our time value needs to be a greater part of the wealth equation for human capital. We could work to restore valuable community connections, especially those which promote the use of knowledge and skill for markets which otherwise tend to be in short supply. Enhancing the services productivity of all citizens is important, and all communities deserve active roles in today's knowledge based economy. Fortunately, it is within our power to realign local education, so that everyone might benefit from learning processes. Already we are seeing in a time of pandemic, how many knowledge centered institutions will struggle if they depend solely on taxation and redistribution, in the foreseeable future. Why not tap into the vast pools of human capital potential which are waiting to be unleashed?

Time arbitrage, with its reciprocal patterns of wealth generation, could provide opportunities for young learners to engage with many local citizens, particularly during their high school years. With a little luck, this approach might help heal some of today's political divisions. Plus, on a practical note, time arbitrage could lead to meaningful economic interchange, in years when students especially need resources that prepare them for adult responsibilities.

The recent COVID-19 pandemic also illustrates how students might assist others in the here and now. In particular, better communication systems are needed in small communities, so that all citizens can stay informed and up to date. One would think not much time would be necessary, before students could get digital versions of (yesterday's) local newspapers up and running. Such efforts could be readily coordinated without need for advertising revenue to keep the processes going. One immediate gain from such a project, is that small communities would be able to compile statistics about the effects of COVID-19 locally. In the meantime, they often have to rely on guesstimates according to big city statistics, for their own public health management options.

Ultimately, learning processes could be coordinated with larger cities, so that small communities become able to create a broad array of healthcare provisions. One possible pandemic response, might be for healthcare providers whose work is on temporary pause, to work with local citizens and students for the creation of local testing options and other vital assistance for those affected by COVID-19. Even though this would be a short term response, it nonetheless suggests future frameworks, by which prosperous areas might reach out to areas that were already left behind, prior to the pandemic. Given the chance, smaller communities might finally be able to realign local education, toward more productive and beneficial ends.

Knowledge Preservation In a Time of Pandemic

Many are understandably focused on the short term effects of COVID-19, and what needs to be done in the here and now. However, even though it's not easy to pause and reflect on broader concerns, there are possible long term effects of the pandemic which likewise deserve a careful response.

In particular, this pandemic exposes the fragile nature of how societies currently manage and reimburse their most important knowledge providers. History has made evident, how some pandemics culminate in events which undermine such systems. Skills arbitrage as the sole means of knowledge provision and application, is less sustainable over the long run than it may appear. All the more so, since compensation for these skills is compromised through over reliance on debt arrangements. Too many currently provided services, include vague expectations of reimbursement later in time from future generations. But what if something about this arrangement, should radically change? For instance, suppose future generations lack a sufficient level of income to fulfill yesterday's promises?

Whenever substantial levels of societal wealth are lost, pandemics tend to impact how people organize their lives at basic levels of operational capacity. These losses are only exacerbated whenever applied knowledge is too closely held in high density populations, as is currently the case in our productive regions. If the economic patterns of major cities are disrupted, productive capacity becomes all the more important elsewhere, to ensure that vital threads of current information and applied knowledge can continue. We need to ensure that knowledge and skill can be encouraged and maintained via a full range of population densities and intellectual abilities. The more places and settings where skills capacity is fully tapped, the better prepared civilizations could become, to face moments of crisis and uncertainty.

Clearly, we should no longer rationalize that it is somehow reasonable, to limit the use of valued knowledge and skill to areas of high population densities. But how to begin the vital task of reinvigorating small communities? Even though I've long argued for time arbitrage as a way to do so, admittedly a part of me is now overwhelmed by current events. I find myself wishing "if only" such processes had been put into motion earlier, so the preservation of already existing human capital, might also be a simpler matter.

Alas, I did not realize how the need for new knowledge use patterns, would become particularly relevant during my own lifetime. Like many others, I feel as though being swept along in a vast tide of change - one which makes me question my own ability to return safely to shore this time. And like many, I'm not certain whether it is still feasible to craft a fully effective response, or to safely bypass the political battles now occurring. If only new patterns of wealth creation had already been pursued in earnest! Dare we still hope that much of our wealth is not lost in the years to come? Can our most productive areas still reach out to other regions, in hopes of lifting them up?

Meanwhile, society continues moving in the opposite direction, as exemplified by additional closings of rural hospitals. As it turns out, hospitals - despite their institutional importance - are exceedingly fragile in economic terms. If we are to deal successfully with the present crisis, we also need for healthcare to transition from the fragility of skills arbitrage, to the open ended and simpler nature of time arbitrage. Time arbitrage would not attempt to offer "perfect" solutions. Rather, it would seek to remain present for all concerned. In time arbitrage, patients could hopefully express what they need from others, and perhaps gain a real chance of being taken seriously. Sometimes, when illness strikes, it's not so much survival which is at stake, but rather finding the most peaceful way possible to overcome one's fear of the unknown. Each of us as patients deserves in moments of fear, not to have to face those moments completely alone.

Healthcare could be envisioned as a most basic element of organizational potential, for all citizens of community. Healthcare provision in all its countless variations, deserves to be part of the reciprocity of mutual assistance. Such assistance could eventually be paid in the real time of people who are alive today, instead of future generations which deserve better than to be saddled with debt obligations of a past which never really belonged to them. We can build meaningful ways to be with others in their moments of greatest need, and yet do so without bankrupting anyone or anything. It's time to build anew, starting with more flexible versions of rural hospital organizational patterns.

As Marc Andreessen recently noted, "We're all necessary, and we can all contribute to building." Should we embrace the mindset of crafting stronger realities, we also gain the ability to create long term solutions which can benefit governments as well. We might finally be able to offer our governments a viable path to address the debt burdens they have already accumulated. Living with one another on reciprocal terms in the here and now, is no small matter. Let's get started. Again, we are all in this together.

Mutual Reciprocity Could Alleviate Fragile Systems

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

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

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

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

Exit, Voice, and Skills Arbitrage

What benefit can we expect to gain, if we elect to exit malfunctioning economic circumstance, should it become difficult to express voice or loyalty in these environments? In a recent post, Tim Harford explains that while exit remains an option for citizens in mature economies, many feel more constrained in this regard than was once the case. Hence he asks, "What should we do when things go wrong?"

Typically, we think of exit and voice as complementary. Your complaints will be taken more seriously if you can credibly threaten to leave, as anyone who has called to cancel a mobile phone contract can attest. But sometimes exit can silence voice.

Unfortunately, as Harford also notes, one's ability to exit isn't particularly threatening to political parties, "especially not the hardliners who would rather lose than compromise." Alas, when "extremists are delighted" and "moderates quit in disgust", political paralysis is often the result.

The political nature of exit, voice, and loyalty, tends to affect the market potential of nations as well. For instance, since U.S. healthcare is such a commanding portion of GDP, one can forget these markets were constructed so as to intentionally leave market potential incomplete. Just as politicians lack concern for citizens who choose exit over voice, so too the special interests that prefer human capital requirements to restrict market capacity. Even though much of healthcare market exit is far from obvious, there's one important exception. In recent years stories have emerged regarding people in public places who are clearly in need of emergency care, yet they refuse ambulances and assistance to ensure they do not experience financial difficulties afterward.

Skills arbitrage has become one of the main mechanisms responsible for encouraging market exit. Where once people arbitraged their time for mutual assistance, some are more likely now to arbitrage skill sets in highly specific ways that require extensive human capital investment. However, the time based services markets which have resulted, are not near as efficient as one might expect. As "the best of the best" become the last ones standing in formal assistance roles, more citizens become resigned to abandoning services which they no longer have permission to actively provide for themselves or others.

Again, it also helps to consider skills arbitrage roles in the general equilibrium circumstance of national governments. Large nations in particular struggle to coordinate the skills arbitrage of knowledge providers, since only so much of any nation's wealth can be redirected towards full monetary compensation for human capital.

For purposes of general equilibrium, skills arbitrage has largely cornered value in exchange activities, at least for now. Even so, this need not prevent a reemergence of value in use healthcare in the form of time arbitrage. New organizational capacity could make it feasible for participating groups to build much needed skills, as formal value in use economic settings. Defined equilibrium options could help restore a fuller use of knowledge and skill in society. Even though skills arbitrage sometimes results in extensive market exit, time arbitrage might provide ways to ensure that citizens don't continue exiting healthcare markets - especially in moments when they need them most.

Does Cooperation Lead to Greater Inequality?

In a recent Marginal Revolution post, Tyler Cowen appreciates "the virtues of greater cooperation" but adds, "Be careful what you wish for!" In some respects, it appears that more cooperation among participating groups could actually lead to greater levels of inequality. For instance, Cowen noted how high skilled individuals gain more benefits from mutual cooperation, than those who utilize lower skill levels in the workplace. Another oft cited example of late, are growing levels of inequality between different firms. How might one think about this conundrum? Could cooperation turn out to be just another expression for the wealth capture of collusion, or the exclusive nature of tribalism?

Fortunately, mutual coordination is too basic a human survival instinct, to be associated solely with either positive or negative outcomes. Plus, the references in Tyer Cowen's post were somewhat broad, in that his examples were more indicative of correlation than causation.

Nevertheless, when it comes to apparent inequalities, much depends on the extent to which specific resource coordination can disperse beyond directly participating groups. And since our time is naturally scarce, so too is time based product. Indeed, the only way to multiply high skill markets for time based services generation, is to invite more participants to the process. Otherwise, mutual cooperation in supply side chains which are limited by design, will only continue to exacerbate existing inequalities.

Until now, tradable sector dominance has proven far more capable of spreading wealth in societies, than has been the case for non tradable sector time based services. However, with time as a component of economic value alongside money, this problematic sectoral imbalance could ultimately be addressed. Time arbitrage would also be able to address the human capital investment problem by greatly lowering its costs. Presently, high human capital investment costs have become difficult for society to carry, since many time based services are reimbursed via debt and tax based redistribution.

Granted, the coordination potential of time arbitrage can't change the underlying problems of limited non tradable sector revenue. After all, the scarcity of time based product translates into aggregate output limits for these activities as well. What time arbitrage could create, however, is greater accessibility to services marketplaces in terms of production and consumption. One reason this ultimately matters so much for existing inequalities, is that millions now need a high income level just to access basic - yet vital - skilled services. In short, there are organizational means whereby mutual cooperation could create greater equality for all skill levels, once time value gains validity alongside monetary value.

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.

Potential Monetary Characteristics For Time Value

Is time value capable of assuming economic functions similar in nature to what money provides? More specifically, how could local defined equilibrium make it feasible for time value to serve as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and also as a store of value?

Granted, time value has long been considered too variable to serve as a standard unit, especially given the extremes of individual abilities in open economies. However, in the last century there have been extensive price making claims on time value, in relation to the revenue sources it depends upon. When prior monetary claims include production rights for knowledge use, the process exacerbates already existing differences in personal aptitude. This arbitrary skills polarization only makes it more difficult for different groups to effectively coordinate time based services with one another. We need economic options which broaden services markets by restoring skills capacities in a closer range, so that modern day economies can benefit citizens regardless of income level.

Unlike tradable sector markets where the wealth representation of resource capacity is obvious, market capacity in non tradable sector activity relies on wealth claims which lack immediate reciprocity. Consequently, many present day services sector costs are actually being shifted towards future generations. Time as an economic unit of value, via symmetric alignment and coordination, could eventually resolve more services provision costs in the present. Hopefully, once time value gains monetary characteristics, it will generate non tradable sector market capacity which goes well beyond the present price making demands on general equilibrium revenue.

First, time arbitrage would play an active role. Voluntarily matched time preferences would create new supply and demand in services markets, on price taking terms. Matched time is the initial activity which allows time arbitrage to function as a local medium of exchange. Eventually, once a given group becomes established, the debt cancelling function (time purchasing time), allows time arbitrage to become monetarily and institutionally backed. Since this mutual employment process functions as a source of wealth origination, it not only creates additional resource capacity, but greater economic inclusion as well.

Time arbitrage as a unit of account, would also serve as a record keeping device with a long term storytelling component. As a unit of account, time arbitrage would not only generate a history (or continuum) for group activity, these records include pricing signals which allow mutually held priorities to function more effectively. Unit of account storytelling suggests learning opportunities which occasionally extend beyond local participants, to others who might become part of the process as well.

For time arbitrage, the store of value function may prove most useful for the benefits of recorded time insurance which accrues in one's own lifetime, rather than what goes into a recorded group continuum. A store of value option could help individuals reserve future commitments in simple skills from the group by initially providing their own. In particular, the more time one gives to those in need of assistance who presently can't reciprocate, the more one might gain assurance of the same, at a later point in life.

This is a more direct approach to coordination potential, than what is presently available in markets for time based services. All too often, insurance offerings or perhaps informal commitments from others for life needs, leave us hoping for more personal attention than what is realistically feasible. Further, many who wish to better their lives in the present, understandably set their sights higher than simple services provision for others. This reality occasionally creates trust issues for those who are mostly left with simple services options, instead of choosing them willingly. Time insurance for simple service offerings would make it easier for all concerned, to continue pursuing meaningful challenges in other aspects of life and mutual employment opportunities.

Monetary characteristics for time value, could help restore growth on terms which few can really argue against. After all, time use potential is one of the few natural resources which is clearly underutilized in modern day economies! Even if monetary framing for time value seems as though a technical approach, it still provides a key which could open an entirely new realm of possibilities, for inclusive and accessible services generation.

Markets Could "Find a Way" for Services

In a post for Econlib, "The Market Finds a Way", Scott Sumner states:

Experts often warn that we are soon going to run out of a natural resource. If so, then we might expect an increase in price which encourages conservation.

What if the impulse to conserve comes well before the price rises? Consider how markets for time value in high skill services, essentially took this approach in the 20th century. Still, even though augmented time value (which includes extensive human capital investment) can be priced at a premium, many forms of time value haven't been factored into the same general equilibrium equation. Consequently, supply side conservation of special skills capacity, may come at the expense of supply side potential for markets as a whole. Clearly, some disequilibrium circumstance is due to artificial scarcity, which may ultimately result in an incomplete market equilibrium for time value.

Presently, the resource potential of aggregate time value appears less promising than should be the case. For many individuals, the total value of their employment potential (working time hours) is insufficient to compensate the service product they may need from existing service markets. These limits in coordination capacity have meant unnecessary production losses and arbitrary supply side limits for markets as a whole. Given the growing demand for high skill services, immigration controls are now the latest prominent "conservation" efforts. As fully compensated time value becomes hoarded by the relative few, more nations are convinced that the time value of millions is insufficient to make their potential contributions worthwhile.

On the other hand, natural resource capacity other than time value is more likely to experience conservation efforts after periods of marketplace abundance and accessible pricing. Time as resource has suffered from imposed artificial scarcities to such a degree, it's difficult to contemplate the fact of its real scarcity for all concerned. Hence the confusing framing of actual resource potential for time value, makes it difficult to build dialogue for a more realistic approach to human capital and applied knowledge conservation.

Sometimes the best way to overcome the problems of market limitations - whatever their cause - is to simply create a new approach for production, altogether. In the above linked post, Scott Sumner goes on to note how aquaculture proved to be much more than a response to high prices, since it also created market solutions for the seemingly intractable problem of overfished oceans:

In many cases, however, that price increase unleashes a new and unforeseen alternative supply. Consider the fishing industry which used to rely on fish caught in the ocean.

He then highlights a graph showing that while capture production peaked in the mid-1990's, there was a considerable rise which was completely attributable to aquaculture. The difference? Capture production was slightly less than 100 m tonnes in 2015, while aquaculture increased total production for that year to approximately 175 m tonnes.

One can also imagine "fish caught in the ocean" as comparable to current service provision expectations in general equilibrium budgets. Many of these "overfished" expectations for applied knowledge are in need of a more concise, locally organized approach. Since aquaculture exemplifies a locally managed setting, it can be likened to a defined equilibrium, much the same as human capital with a potential for local development.

Like aquaculture, time arbitrage could build new resource capacity which exists independently of what the "ocean" (general equilibrium) continues to supply. And like aquaculture, time arbitrage might ensure that more human capital resources become part of the harvest. After all, when time resources are already scarce to begin with, why should aggregate time value become even more scarce due to human capital potential which is still being thrown overboard? With a little luck, markets could still find a better way for the future of services generation.

Wealth Can't Be Built On Merit Alone

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

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

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

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

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

Is Targeting Productivity a Good Idea?

Would it be reasonable for the Bank of England to have a productivity target alongside its inflation target? Probably not. In response to a recent report which suggests a productivity growth target of 3% per annum, Frances Coppola offers explanations why attempting to target productivity in this matter could present problems:

This target is extremely challenging. A footnote in the report notes that labour productivity growth since 1950 has averaged 2.4%, and describes the proposed uplift of .06% above this average as a "small increase". Forgive me, but an increase of 25% in the rate of change is not by any stretch of the imagination "small". It's an absolute whopping hike, particularly when you take into account the fact that in the 1950s and 60s the labour force was much smaller due to lower immigration and female participation, and the UK was rebuilding after WWII. In a mature economy which is 80% services and which has nearly full employment of both men and women, that 3% target looks well-nigh impossible. 

There was also lack of clarity in the report, what aspects of productivity might actually be targeted, hence Coppola noted labour, capital, and multi-factor productivity as possibilities. What about capital, for instance?

The fact that the rate of return of capital has been falling for the best part of forty years could suggest that capital is not being deployed efficiently. 

However: Recall that as returns on capital have fallen, the services component of the economy has been rising, and has only recently stabilized at present levels in mature economies. Chances are the decades long shift in dominance between tradable and non tradable sector activity, holds considerable meaning for how capital potential translates into marketplace realities. After all, time based services in particular face not only natural scarcities but also artificially imposed scarcities, which further limits aggregate output for applied knowledge. Since much of today's capital investment is closely linked with human capital investment, non tradable sector output includes higher levels of professional income, rather than tradable sector profits which tend to be more widely dispersed among key staff, employees and shareholders.

There's probably little that central bankers can do directly, to encourage productivity gains. It's up to participants in the real economy to make this happen, and differences in organizational capacity will also be needed before significant productivity changes are likely for some non tradable sectors. In any event, central bankers aren't well positioned to positively impact present levels via productivity targets.

Alas, mature economies do need productivity gains in the near future, if living standards are to continue improving for future generations. But what can be done? Presently, a non linear approach might be necessary, which is another way of saying much of the low hanging fruit for productivity potential has already been picked, via more obvious linear means.

Any non linear approach would also benefit from a broader framing re general equilibrium dynamics. Toward this end, aggregate output potential can be considered through a total factor (or multi-factor) productivity lens. For instance, how much of today's time based product in non tradable sectors could be likened to a knowledge production factory?

Once we envision inputs and outputs on these terms, one problem quickly comes into focus. Unlike the direct alignments of tradable sector supply chains, many non tradable sector inputs which could translate into applied knowledge settings, are mostly haphazard and partial. Processes of learning in this regard, presently extend across a wide range of diverse institutions which are only indirectly linked to other institutions, if at all. Plus, it's difficult to discern what supply and demand for time based product might actually consist of, since much of the alignment is from individuals to multiple institutions, instead of individuals to individuals in group settings with a knowledge continuum.

Consequently, inputs which hold potential for use at most skill levels, greatly outnumber the outputs which are actually gleaned from the time based product of these supply chains. Imagine the problems this would create for the supply side chains of tradable sector activity, if only a mere fraction of their intermediate processes were useful to other parts of the supply chain!

Just as tradable sector activity has often combined many separate activities into long term knowledge continuum, an institution is needed which can perform a similar function for diverse high skill services in the present. Fortunately, it's possible to turn many aspects of formal education and human capital investment into input which could simultaneously function as output. Instead of attempting to target productivity in an effort to achieve long term growth gains, why not turn time value into an economic measure which provides greater focus for input, even as output is simultaneously increased. Time value as resource reciprocity could ultimately mean more productivity gains, than has been possible thus far with the input/output imbalance of today's high skill non tradable sectors.

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.