Positive growth is too often relegated to the most desirable income equilibrium, which can create a one dimensional economy. These are the planned forms of housing and accompanying infrastructure which everyone takes for granted. And yet, some means of living and working in this equilibrium, do not match up well with the options that many actually have. As a result, further growth is constrained, or else takes the form of negative externalities such as privately owned prisons, "wars" on anything deemed "evil", and other unfortunate attempts at generating social and/or political stability.
Who doesn't want to be part of the "regular" equilibrium? That's perfectly normal. But why make life more difficult than necessary, for those who don't experience the same degree of success? Why should governments or private industry take advantage of the ones who don't have the income to "properly" belong?
Incomes are always going to vary wildly, yet too many rules and regulations pretend as though it were otherwise. This especially holds true for arbitrary services settings supposedly for "all", some of which look more like mini Taj Mahals than anything else. Far better, to have more than one "normal" equilibrium for services, businesses and asset flows, where human efforts to "belong" can actually remain within reach.
How to envision more positive forms of growth? A good way to bypass a lot of Nimbyism and exclusivity, is to start from scratch in ways that do not directly compete with the already existing equilibrium. This would allow innovative, desirable and respectable living and working options for lower income potential. Just the coordinated effort to build on existing aggregate income, is a strengthening factor. Nothing about the choices involved need be "flimsy" or of a temporary nature, and
antifragile concepts can be integrated into the designs.
Doubtless, new community settings would not be completely welcome. After all, they would pose challenges for the reigning status quo which often says conform or somehow disappear. Even so, new settings would be far better than the limited economic growth realities of the present. Much of today's missing growth is also the marketplace which has been disallowed. No one needs to argue that existing systems are somehow blameworthy. Rather, it is about allowing alternative concepts to exist alongside them.
Communities which generate knowledge use structures, can create inclusive investment and services through internal means, as part of the process. In some instances these new communities could be located near the cities which otherwise have little room for lower income levels. Indeed, this nearby access could assist some municipalities in their struggles with higher income demands that are due to lack of local shelter. Some city businesses which need lower income level workers, might offer assistance in locating land outside cities for these new communities.
One advantage of allowing lower income levels to become a part of planning, is that they can assist in design for a variety of mobility patterns which do not require the use of automobiles on a daily basis for work needs. Just the fact of not needing to own a car, means that individuals would be able to set aside a greater proportion of income to commit to the transportation options which new local communities could generate. What's more, the fact that their transportation taxes are involved, would mean their direct votes for transportation options would be included as well.
A built in transportation tax budget could be a specific part of local taxation which makes more sense than - say - lifetime taxes for schools. Why? Because citizens will be utilizing local transportation patterns - whatever they consist of, even
walking trails -
for the full course of their lifetimes.
I'm not arguing against support of local education. However, I do think that education of all kinds needs to quit offering false promises regarding economic inclusion. False promises would not be so bad, if school attendance and its property taxation were not mandatory! If citizens are to stay committed to public education, education as a whole needs to complete the circle for local citizen participation on economic terms. Particularly since citizens are expected to pay school taxes for the full length of their lives. Apologies if I sound grouchy: the local school just flattened a decades old pecan grove walking trail two days ago, only weeks before the pecans were ready. Some of us old timers are really going to miss that pleasant spot.
Building components for new communities can start with a solid infrastructure core and grid. This grid could connect to the flexible components for living and working, which can also be taken down, reconfigured, bought and sold as needed. Hence an infrastructural core for both business and residential options might include solid cores to store valuables in the event of hurricanes and tornadoes, depending on location. Another necessary element would be lightning rods, throughout the grids,
While the solid building core could be traditional structures i.e. tornado shelters and the like, the flexible components which are part of the same grids, can be continually adapted to technological innovation. For instance, technology could readily provide spatial elements so that the portable walls become screens for whatever world one might imagine themselves to be in. During months of dreary weather, "armchair" travelers could become treadmill travelers, as interior walls become walking landscapes for whatever place one would travel if they could.
In terms of solidity, by far the greatest antifragile measures for new community settings, would be the knowledge systems for production and services formations. Because knowledge use would not be separated into single representations or "pretend use" settings, voluntary group efforts can eventually build cumulative wealth formations which would not be easily broken.
Doing so, could also provide more economic complexity, precisely where it is needed most. All too often, branches of knowledge which can seem so full in the right economic settings, can elsewhere seem as though sparse branches with scarcely any "leaves", at all. Perhaps knowledge use could be tended to as relatively small, yet unique trees in many local settings. The full sets of leaves which would be the result, would be worth far more than the stunted trunks and branches which too often comprise local offerings. Just because resources appear as though limited at local levels, does not mean they cannot be readily coordinated for more immersive experiences in sights, sounds and knowledge use than is now the case.
