When web tells more, what work?

Have been on the web realized for over 20 years, and realization kind of surprised me to some extent. But started over two decades ago in the 90's when wanted to talk some of my amateur math ideas. As the years have gone by, have found what was really a hobby gained a visibility that I didn't for quite a time fully understand which was worth figuring out.

Like over a decade ago found out that a blog talking my math ideas was getting visitors from 125 countries/territories is how Google Analytics put it. Was stunned and then looking for other things to happen that did not. And went on with my life including working a regular job.

Have talked work much on this blog, and noted that to me work is when a person provides a service under some kind of contract to some entity.

Where acting in good faith one should provide necessary information to someone who might want to hire you, but how do you talk POTENTIALLY being known in over 100 countries to a potential employer?

Early on was not a problem as did not realize and had a job when that data was made available to me. Where were SO many questions in my mind regardless. Like was the attention real? Or did most blogs get visits from all over?

Blogs were not that old back then and so much was new. And was lucky for me that I've had more than one blog to focus my interests so could compare across them. Like here, visits were only from around a dozen countries. (It dawns on me that is still actually remarkable.)

Looking elsewhere to where people I knew of, worked with high attention levels did not help me much! And only now with much time, and as the web becomes less novel, feel like am making progress with getting better answers. And yeah, is no more easy for me to have a regular job than for any person with things that pull global attention, even though would like one! Problem is not with me, but with the implications for a business.

Wryly have noted to myself when have a bigger global footprint than an employer. Reality is that comes with a certain amount of influence.

And guess what? Is the kind of information that people get whether you give it or not. Is about being MASSIVELY public and the web tells. (Have had some weird conversations with people on that subject.)

Besides am sure there are ways to properly leverage global attention for work and income, where why should I not maximize that income? But I have to figure it out, which I say, is like working for a law degree while law is continually changing on you, where replace law with web, which is an analogy brought up in post where talked business professionalism.

Also it DOES take effort to maintain that global presence. (How does anyone do it?) There is a LOT of competition for attention in our world, and have been surprised to realize am doing things to maintain, where only more recently have felt the strain at times. Have talked some of where things stand now on this blog. But making the money has been where there is a problem still.

Have had a LOT to absorb, where now with years to ponder am appreciating much. And yeah can be hard to keep the ego in check with certain information, while the money struggles definitely help with that one. Am forced to ponder how can have so much one way, and so little another.

Feel like is helping me be a better person. May as well get something positive out of it.

Thankfully have been able to rely on community support including my status as a military veteran for help but has been challenging. Like when try to bring up the web to a government worker who then proceeds as if that information is not pertinent. Is weird.

Web is so new though. So many procedures in place were about the world that was. Now there are people like myself who are pathfinders in the new world that is, where more and more, web rules.

So am figuring out best I can, where is a struggle, so for now, what work? Remains an open question.

After over two decades on the web have learned that attention reality is what I have, and am better staying meta as needed. Sure would love to get some good explanations for important things from others, but often have found am better off, with what I figure out for myself.

Like, who else do I know as well who knows from objective sources that interest from 100+ countries is just an annual thing, held for over a decade? Um should answer that, no one.

Am stuck with me as my best information source about what it is like to be global in the web age.

Well yeah, with objective data from data providers about attention drawn to content I've put on the web like here. And yeah that is very important to emphasize, as can only know best from what am told from objective sources. Depend on that being accurate information as do people all over the globe now.


James Harris

Business of risk

There is so much risk in life where people can pool resources with businesses which will pay out when needed, up to a point, if needed. And such businesses are called insurance companies.

So strangers will take care of your needs, because you've given them money along with enough other people, if you have a problem covered under a contract, which limits liability of the strangers.

And have posted about money and limited social trust before.

Business is about limiting liability to others, while community at its best will save you with its every breath, like if your nation goes to war. The United States as a community has fought. Like with other allied nations as a community of nations more than once to save our world, and community at the highest levels has no limits. And yeah, even family should not, though reality is that is not always true.

As a community the nation has a duty to its citizens, while to be a business an insurance company should only pay to the limits of a contract. But what if a person is sick and still needs care?

If your insurance runs out? Then your community, if you have it, should still care for you. And when it comes to health insurance, your nation should bear the responsibility, and that is probably best paid for at the national level, but could also be at the state level in the US working together with the federal level.

If an insurance company keeps paying past the contractual limits or takes on a person already sick?

Then that insurance company is NOT acting as a business.

Here's a tweet I made recently talking a subject have discussed here before:

Under my healthcare plan ANYONE can have any health insurance provider. Health insurers direct insure only their choice. Administer others. https://t.co/05LHNDrYYV

— James Harris (@jstevh) July 13, 2017

And the tweet links back to a prior tweet where I gave a rather simple healthcare plan which could fit into 140 characters. And will post the text here:

My healthcare plan: Preventive Care--everybody, Core Care--insurables, Expected Care--not easily insured, Elder Care--quality of life at end

Where explain all in a post, from 2009: My Healthcare Plan

That insurance companies can administer insurance even if they are NOT paying from the pool paid into to handle risk is not a wild idea.

Wealthy people will have an insurance company, when they will pay if, for instance, in a car accident. The insurance company has more expertise than a wealthy person who presumably rarely gets in an accident, with handling accidents, and that expertise is worth a LOT.

There is no reason for a person to stop receiving care if they reach caps in their health insurance!!!

And politicians know it.

The government can simply pick up the tab from that point on, while the insurance company continues to handle administration.

It's a simple idea folks. Harder to do in the past because administration was very expensive too, until computers made it very manageable.

So why would such a simple idea, which I put forward in 2009, not be part of the national discussion?

I can speculate. More than likely is about TAXES and POWER.

For instance, single payer healthcare would give vastly more power to the US Government, and some seem to desire it. While others seem intent on cutting their taxes by any means possible, and somehow have figured out a way to do so with healthcare a mess.

Some may wonder about the details, like what if people refuse to pay for insurance and just wait till they are sick, knowing is guaranteed? Well I explained one way to handle with a post I called health insurance responsibility back in 2012.

But limits of liability to be a business are just a reality. Without limiting liability, insurance companies can't act as true businesses, but with it they can focus on their strengths, without people caring as they still GET care.

Do you care with your health insurance, who pays if you need care, like if you're in the hospital as long as payment is guaranteed?

So if it switches from your insurance company paying direct, to the government paying you STILL get care. And don't even have to notice as still interact with same insurance company.

Why would you? Main thing for you is to get medical treatment and get well, not worry about who pays.

Why would anyone think you would?

James Harris

Work really fascinates me

Realized have some simple concepts about work, outside of physics, and what it is. So figured should just write out to see.

To me work is when a person provides a service under some kind of contract to some entity.

So you could work for your mother by doing the dishes, and she could be said to have put you to work. Or you can work for your nation, in service to your country, at any number of tasks.

And employment to me is when you work for some entity for remuneration.

And to employ someone you establish a contract for them to work for you for some remuneration.

What fascinates me about looking at work simply is the idea of some kind of contract within its definition, which then carries over to others. But employ is a verb which I think still needs contract stated when trying to define simply. And why abstract to this level?

Because how we define work defines so much about how people give back value to their society usually in exchange for value in return, which is how you make a living. And with my idea that money is most efficient as a return on a favor, the favor of work is interesting to me as well. But are you doing your mother a favor by washing the dishes?

And contracts are a huge subject where you can have social contracts and written ones, but guess all reflect some kind of future obligation. Contracts indicate you will DO something, not that you have done something.

Whether your work can be considered to be a favor to some other entity or not is a lot about community. Having a friend favor you with a cup of coffee is great. Having a stranger do the same at a coffee shop is commerce, as you return the favor with money, which I see as a social IOU. You return the favor of the cup of coffee with money which will be used later in exchange for some other favor.

But defending your nation? Is not a favor to that nation but can be about duty, honor and country. So the nation figures out how to value employment for national defenders on a community basis and for instance in the United States, the US Congress works out how to pay soldiers in the US military.

Found myself almost shifting from saying they work in the US Congress but of course those elected to represent the interests of their constituents are to do a service for their nation under a social contract. They get people to vote them into office with expectations they will do valuable service to the nation.

Our expectations as voters are about future work.

Looking at work simply helps me consider how to work best. But for instance, is this post work? I don't think there is a contract involved, unless am working for myself? The post definitely reflects effort, am sure. Am trying to do my best, and to communicate things I feel are important for myself and for others, maybe.

So to me, no this post isn't work. It IS fun.

It's an opportunity to share ideas others may find useful and help me clarify my own thoughts and set them down in a way meant to help freeze them in place.

Decided not to put links to other posts in this one, but it has labels: business, employment and money and can click those below to get other posts related.


James Harris

Speculation including office supply theft

One of the more remarkable things to me in American work culture for those who work in offices is routine theft of office supplies, and found myself with speculations that offer a simple explanation which trace back to what I see as wage theft, gender inequality in pay, and slavery.

To me money is a social IOU as society guarantees payback, as for instance US currency is backed by the US Government. And when employing someone is given usually in exchange for a favor, typically called labor, where works best with strangers. That means community is another area, where for instance volunteer firefighters presumably are not pay motivated, but work for their community.

With wages occurring best between strangers in non-community arenas, I think it easy to explain why pay problems can occur in more community focused occupations like police work, firefighting, teaching among others.

Communities have to figure out how to value the work, versus in other areas, as for instance your community is MUCH better off if your firefighters are less busy putting out fires than not.

And for example with the president of the United States pay is set by the US Congress, but the president doesn't need it during time in office as things needed are supplied by the people of the United States of America.

Oh yeah, and soldiers are in a community focused area. You do not volunteer for service in the US military to get rich, I would think. And wages are set in a way that is about what the community assesses as should be given, versus in direct compensation for legal services or products as favors in exchange for money.

However, in other areas pay is supposed to be about value of work received and I think there are legitimate concerns by many that often workers in non-community focused areas can simply be exploited, forced to either accept less value in return for their work, or fight relentlessly against employers who may see theft through wages as just a way of doing business.

I speculate that attitude that thievery from workers is just part of business arose in areas where slavery had existed and slaves were not paid, of course, but once institutional slavery ended, those who had been slaves were to be paid. I suggest their work was not properly valued as many were in a situation where their employers were those who had been slave-owners. Those people I doubt highly valued their work, and didn't pay properly, and as their attitude gained traction it spread throughout the United States and around the globe, until we get the modern system, which includes a known tendency to underpay women generally known as the gender pay gap.

Which to me is high level thievery, as workers in such a system can find it very difficult to force proper pay levels. And it occurs to me that some may retaliate with low level thievery, considering office supplies to at least be something.

Which is why am sure former military can be surprised in that system. For them work was separated from pay, while in the military, and no reason for hostility against a system they volunteered for and understand.

Community can be exploited too unfortunately by unscrupulous business owners. In a work environment where people are contractually providing their labor as services in exchange for pay, a ruthless employer might push a sense of community to extract beyond the contract.

In contrast for a community oriented entity, like a non-profit or the military, of course community services IS the thing. And someone unethical might lust after that ability to extract work from a sense of community, while underpaying, which is also simply theft.

Figuring out what the job is, and why then matters a lot. People who are providing service to their community are dependent on that community properly valuing their services, like military members whose pay is simply set. While people working for employers at jobs where their efforts get direct compensation, have to be sure that they are paid properly for those efforts.

People should work to make sure there is no snarl between efforts for community, like coming together for protection of your community say with sand-bagging efforts to protect against rising flood waters, and those involving work between strangers where favor should be equally exchanged, where money allows enumeration of value of a legally provided service.


James Harris

Beyond the selfish gatherers

Most would probably agree our ancestors spent much of their time focused on basics like gathering food and having sources of potable water. And throughout human history the primary activity probably was focused on just those areas, with also gaining shelter, taking care of children being high on the list but further down. And then going down the line of priorities until there was time for things like entertainment.

As science and technology have increased predictability for so many humans, things have shifted and for instance in countries like the United States, where I grew up, very few people are directly working at producing food. Gathering it is as easy as going to a shopping market, which many take for granted.

I do not.

However, something else odd has happened. With money helping to fuel human civilization by allowing strangers to do favors for other strangers in exchange for a socially backed IOU we call money, human beings could move to many other things. Like today, a pedicure can be had. Theoretically a robot could someday give a pedicure, but I do wonder, what humans would want it?

If we focus on money as a way that humans interact with strangers, then there is no reason to believe human beings will not keep finding ways to employ each other, with contracts that allow limited social trust in that exchange of goods or services for remuneration.

So why so much inequity today in so many parts of the world that consider themselves well developed?

Simplest explanation will present--SOME humans apparently overly value gathering favors.

Like there are hoarders who will continue to pile up things in their living spaces for reasons that are gathering increasing study, I believe there are human beings who will gather social favors in the form of money, without regard to need. And they will do this gathering even if in so doing they destabilize society, and also do not give adequate return for the efforts of other humans.

Here I've noted the massive impact in US history of just one American who more than doubled the wages of his workers. Henry Ford managed to do something that shifted world history, and I think after him, others have been fighting a longer battle to reverse those lessons and nearly crashed the entire world economy in 2008, bringing the human story to a near stunning reversal which in the future may be seen simply as a sign of a mental illness prevalent with some not diagnosed.

Hoarding in a way that can destroy your nation? I think that qualifies as remarkable.

Why would a man fight for a billion dollars US as if his life depended on it if he already has half a billion? And convince himself his workers are worthless when without them he'd have nothing? Or that he shouldn't pay taxes at all, when without his country he would lack the ability to accrue his wealth? And then strut around like he's brilliant?

Few notice that relentless and ruthless aggregation of wealth has been promoted as a good, except to decry when it becomes the anthem of a movie. And finally maybe some were scared.

Greed is NOT good. And it never will be.

But face reality that today human beings in many areas suffer because other humans devalue their efforts, while accruing vast resources to themselves where it is dubious as to how that was deserved. Especially when you find that they view cheating as basic, lying as being smart, and have utter contempt for people who are destroyed by their behavior, when they trusted their society.

There is a basic faith I think most Americans like myself had that our country focused more on merit, gave opportunity, and valued its people. Which was shaken I think by some who were ruthless in exploitation of trust.

But that trust has gone. As a new political order begins to arise I think we will rethink how we value the efforts of strangers. How we decide who gets paid what. And realize that unlike our ancestors, desperate often for food and water, we decide our destiny in so many powerful nations.

So our communities have no excuse.

If there is plenty, yet so many are without even opportunity? Your society is corrupted, and I'm thinking you probably have people I see as parasitic lurking within your midst. Pulling resources to themselves--by any means they can without even a true enjoyment of it, as they are driven, like hoarders in ways they may not even understand.

Science will answer so many questions though. It's up to us to act on what we learn to be true.


James Harris

But what is middle class?

Working through my own explanations for important things in our world is something I enjoy doing, which I think helps my understanding. And sharing really seems to help me clarify things as if putting it out public gives more focus, and I like to think my musings useful, as long as it is clear these are opinions.

And I've posted several times recently including this recent post where I noted that years ago I also thought it a good idea to come up with ideas for a new political party with a middle class focus. But what is middle class?

To me when you talk about middle class where naturally my focus is on the United States you mean people who are not on direct government or other charitable assistance, who feel comfortable in their community, and feel in control of their lives, for the most part.

Money I think gives a certain amount of freedom.

Pushing on to wealthy I think requires that a person be able to purchase things not necessary for a comfortable life which then are luxuries.

So to me in general differences between middle class and wealthy are about scale, like a middle class household may have from two to four cars, while a wealthy man may own a dozen classic cars.

Or with a home, a middle class family may want as much space as needed. While a wealthy person may occupy a huge mansion.

Yet a person with a great deal of assets--including vast amounts of money--may occupy a middle class home. And in my opinion can be functionally middle class. To me wealthy presents at the point of luxury.

The functional perspective is where I think it gets interesting, as a middle class family occupies I think that optimal place where their efforts in terms of their community are on balance greater than or equal to what they receive.

Then an impoverished state from the community perspective would mean that while a part of a community you have needs which require help from others to a degree greater than you have given by the standards of that community.

May sound convoluted but for example you may have invested a lot in the people within your community where I will not try to define that and they may readily help you as you age without it being considered a debt on your part. In that case I would say if you are comfortable then you are middle class regardless of what money is involved.

Take it from me, being impoverished means loss of comfort and control. Which is to cover when someone is deliberately uncomfortable, like out camping with limited amenities when it is by choice versus really being irritated by uncomfortable things when there is no choice. For instance one of the problems for those who are homeless can be as basic as finding a bathroom to use.

And that's it. My opinion on the middle class is not necessarily how others might see it.

Like you can check out the Wikipedia on the American middle class.

Not surprisingly I think healthy communities want people with choices, able to pursue their interests in ways that help the community, without requiring much if any assistance from others. While members of such a community will assist each other greatly providing services for each other.

So how does money change things?

In my opinion ALL that money does is allow strangers to do things for you under social contracts that limit trust needed.

For example you can go to a coffee shop and have a complete stranger make you coffee, which is a fun experience I often enjoyed. Contrast with making it for yourself or having someone in your close community like a spouse make it for you.

By limiting social trust, society allows SO much more to be done between peoples and lets them share favors with money. Which is what allows modern society to function.

Then millions can support each other in a nation.

Notice though we still have deep social trust at the larger scale of the nation.

So yes, politicians can send young people off to defend their nation knowing that some will likely be killed, which is as huge a sacrifice as these brave young people can give.


James Harris

Contemplating work, agriculture and our employment future

For most of humanity's existence, finding food occupied the bulk of human activity, and was surprised when researching this post to read that four years ago agricultural activity still accounted for 1/3 of human employment globally. But less than 2% in countries like my own, the United States:

As of 2011, the International Labour Organization states that approximately one billion people, or over 1/3 of the available work force, are employed in the global agricultural sector.

Source: Wikipedia Agriculture--Workforce

Doubt much has changed since, though guess there's a lag in someone actually figuring out such information, so will go with those figures.

Less than 2% of the workforce needed in my country for agriculture? Versus the bulk of humanity if you go far enough back? And it occurs to me that what most people call "work" has changed dramatically.

So what is work?

While I would like to call it human effort, especially difficult human effort like writing something that people find informative, I think functionally employment is needed for a useful definition, and money. So I'll say that generally when people use the word "work" when it comes to employment, they mean efforts done in some kind of socially limited contract for someone else, for some amount of money.

When you consider how societies shift as to employment it makes sense to me it's driven by: who pays whom for what?

You could find someone making lots of money restoring antique furniture, or writing, or making a lot less, restoring furniture, or yup, writing. Actually you often see people making nothing for writing. Like me here.

When people DO make money for writing it's all about the market.

The good news with this assessment is that employment in the future will be driven by what people with money need other people to do for them, and how much they monetarily value it, as well as, of course, what other people are willing to do on a limited contractual basis.

So robots will no more necessarily unemploy everyone than agricultural machinery did.

What does unemploy people?

Other people unwilling to release favors.

I came up with a favor definition for money, seeing it as merely a social IOU, which is an abstraction enumerating a favor. But if a group of people simply gather IOU's without releasing them by using them--that is, buy something or hire someone--then that system is broken.

That doesn't impact normal savings like a rainy day fund or retirement savings though as eventually the bulk of that will be released. Only a tiny percentage of people can just lock up vast sums of money indefinitely with no pressure to release that money. That is, have vast hoards of wealth which they do not need. And that doesn't include investments either, like into new businesses, as that helps drive the system. Am talking about money that is in essence simply locked away.

People who somehow gather favors without ever releasing them, end the system, for those favors.

So vast concentrations of stagnant wealth may reflect a flaw in the abstraction of the monetary system, and apparently lead to vastly higher unemployment, presumably because fewer people are able to pay other people to do things for them.

What people do for each other on a limited social contract seems to expand as possibility expands, if unconstrained. Which is what happened as agriculture dwindled as the bulk employer and you can see the vast array of jobs available today.

So then I can postulate that unemployment is actually an indicator of a problem in the flows of the monetary system. It reveals it. Fascinating.

That's not really intuitive. But IS consistent with prior ideas, as I considered how Henry Ford greatly helped the global economy.

And it really is kind of odd, as I'm saying that those who give favors doing things for others, and receive the social IOU that we call money in return, if they don't allow others to do them favors and hand them money in compensation at a high enough level, they shut down the monetary flow for those favors. It's kind of an odd thing to contemplate.

So there can be a hitch in the monetary system. Vast sums of abstracted favors can be received by some entities which not releasing them back, constrain job creation.

Good news though is that even in a totally automated society people can be fully employed--finding things that strangers can do for each other on a limited contractual basis.

So each of us simply must find things we wish to do, which someone wants done, to establish limited social contracts which both parties find agreeable, to get to a monetary exchange. Yeah, people will keep doing that indefinitely.


James Harris

Money, trust, and politics

It surprised me recently to realize it had only been about three and a half years since putting up publicly my own ideas for a political party. Seems longer. And it is fascinating to contemplate how quickly the creative excitement faded after talking to just a few people.

Turned out I gained #1 in web search--which has sense faded--rather quickly, which means I had a conversation starter and actually remember just one conversation in an Irish bar where it's so much fun to talk politics! And was talking with a nice Irish couple, as yup, plenty of Irish hanging out there, and we were mentioning things a political party should have. And I was so excited as we kind of mutually came to the same conclusions, and then I mentioned my search. They could do it on their smartphone. They did. And I got smiles.

Of course later I'm like, wait a minute, what if? What if I DID come up with a new political party which went on to become the dominant party in the United States of America?

Was one of my favorite hangouts, now closed. Picture from 2008.

With money in politics a big deal, I can gleefully state years later there's no money thrown my way. Core Middle Party is an idea of mine, without an infrastructure, and NO money whatsoever. But of course money is a big deal so I figured it out, and came to the conclusion that our monetary system depends on and benefits from limited social trust.

Money means you only have to trust that person in a transaction, so much.

Money lets you get a lot done without the deep social trust had between close friends, family, and close community.

So money enables modern civilization. Without it, we'd all need to live in small villages.

But limited social trust only goes so far. That person you pay is only obligated to the limits of the contract, which may be stated, written, or implied.

Which is why we don't like bought politicians.

Whether we, the people, like it or not, the people have to have deep trust in political leaders who are trusted with leading the nation in its defense against all enemies foreign or domestic. They can literally agree to the sending of our young people to die on missions necessary for our defense as a nation.

There must be a deep social trust for modern society to function.

But if a politician is actually money-focused then he can be bought by the highest bidder. All you need is enough money.

Turns out you can see if money is corrupting your politics easily: politicians get rich.

Thought it was hard? Why?

Have you seen many people just fall into wealth without doing anything for it?

Duh.

It doesn't work that way. People don't just make you rich for the fun of it, in general. And people don't just happen to get rich by accident.

And you know? Our modern society rewards money-focused people who can give so much in their pursuit of riches.

So you can say that modern society needs money-focused people.

We just don't need them in politics.

Yeah, some people get vast wealth forced upon them, but I think that's a small club.

Usually, you have to try to make money to get money. Believe me, I know.

Politicians dedicated to public service don't have time or inclination to get wealthy.

Yes, it can happen anyway. You can get lucky, like winning the lottery. Or have a great investment firm, but it's not like it would be important to you, you know? After all, what could it possibly represent that is better than community? Service?

The best of us, get what they aim to achieve. Your focus determines your direction.

And if you are community focused, there your most proud accomplishments will be found.

Someday I wonder if I'll face hard questions about money. But regardless have calmed down a lot about many things. Like the best thing about my story of the Irish couple was that we were chatting along easily enough about politics and agreeing.

Consensus is a wonderful thing, as it's not really about my ideas after all. I very deliberately went in search of our best American ideas. And maybe the best thing isn't whether or not those lead to a new political party or not, but that we remember.

Our politics will be ok, eventually. After all, it's not like you can hide when money is your focus, and plenty of people want better.

It doesn't take many conversations to figure out the politics that people want from their best selves either.

So I know I'm not alone.


James Harris

Money and limited social trust

Been pondering the subject of money for many reasons and realized recently that we tend to NOT use money for plenty of things where deep trust is important, like personal relationships, but find it most useful in areas where trust needs to be limited.

For example in many civilized countries you can meet a stranger, have them sign a written contract, give them some money, and expect that person to do very important things for you, without fear.

That trust in the situation is backed by the machinery of your society, which will work very hard to ensure that such transactions can take place, for the good of the society. You do need a business trust that the person will fulfill the contract--but it is a limited social trust.

In contrast if I meet a nice lady, and we fall in love, there is a deep trust. And there is no written contract in the world that can cover all the bases, so most people go with simple vows in a public wedding.

That trust is so deep that society expects a couple in love to care enough to die for each other if necessary, which is as deep a level of trust as you can get. It is then, unlimited trust. Pick the wrong person for unlimited trust and God help you. (Though it occurs to me should add, wealthy often rely on a prenuptial agreement as well.)

So money is most effective in areas where people need limited trust, and means you can do work for someone, say, in the state of Georgia, USA, and get a promise of value in return in the form of scraps of paper called money, which you can use just about anywhere in the world you might travel as long as US dollars can be exchanged for local currency or are accepted.

That is a HUGE thing which allows the world economy to function, as money allows people to trust each other, even complete strangers, in a way that is limited versus the potentially unlimited trust of members within your community.

So for instance firefighters are willing to give their lives in defense of their community as are soldiers, and we wouldn't even think of allowing that to depend on monetary reward! While the best people willing to do it, wouldn't either. So there is a deep social trust involved.

In contrast, we happily give money in limited social trust situation, where contracts of various kinds specify exactly where those limits might be! And in society there are written contracts and verbal ones, as well as socially understood ones, so for instance, if you go into a store, and make a purchase you don't have to sign a contract to have legal protections.

Why emphasize these basic points? Because the web has created seemingly muddled situations where people can do things of great importance to community, with very little or NO money in return.

And others get very wealthy, where it can seem very unfair.

However, consider that person who does things for others for the benefit of humanity, versus that guy who maybe becomes a billionaire looking out mostly for himself, whom would you rather be?

Different people may have different answers.

Better might be to be that billionaire who does things for others for the benefit of humanity, but really, how many do you think there are?

And how many billionaires can there be? But how many can do their best for the benefit of humanity?

Each of us can ask ourselves questions, and see how it shifts how we look at people in our world.

Like can you imagine if firefighters arrived at a burning house and started a bidding war for how much you'd be willing to pay before they put out the fire?

Or what if top US Army generals informed you that pay up, or defend yourself?

And what if--what if our military leaders were the wealthiest people in our society as they made you pay for what your life is worth before they would defend you?

Would you give control of nuclear weapons to such people?

I wouldn't. Bad enough anyone has such weapons, but think of how much worse things could be, if the people controlling them cared only about money, and God help you if you didn't pay them what your life was worth to you.

Seem like too much? Well those things are out there whether you like it or not, or think about it or not, and there are people who control them. It matters what kind of people they are.

Throughout human history I think MOST people have figured these kinds of things out on their own, after all, deep social trust has been around as long as humanity, while money is a recent invention. But lately I think there has been quite a bit of advertising pushing the notion that money is what truly matters. People with lots of money kind of have a lot of ability to push things on others you may have noticed.

But that's not necessarily a bad thing. We need modern society.

Modern societies can push things that I say are about limited social trust as that is required for them to function, so they need you to plunk down your hard earned cash and buy something. That helps fuel the vastness of modern human enterprise which has done so much for so many. But there must be a balance. Most of us also treasure deep trust, and the unlimited nature that can make it terrifying, but without it...well go back to that part about firefighters.

We are so very lucky to have people who will put their lives on the line for us and yes they should be well paid, but money is not the reason.

Whether you accept it or not, I'm certain that deep social trust will define how well your life is lived, while limited social trust through the invention of money, helps your society to function, but will never guarantee you the best that life has to offer.

So yeah, sorry, but you can produce something of tremendous value to VAST numbers of human beings who will thank your commitment to community, and not pay you anything at all, as it's not about money then.

The most important things in life are about our humanity.


James Harris

Innovation potential of PBV concept

A little while back I introduced an idea I call Pay Back Value, or PBV for short, which gives the Web one more pay model--pay after. 

May seem strange but you do that all the time, like at restaurants or the barber. What would you do if your barber asked you to pay upfront? 

Why do people think that's the only way to pay on the web? It's kind of bizarre in a way that people do!!! Do you know of any other way to pay on the web but upfront? 

It's even worse with subscriptions as you're paying upfront well in advance!!! For a newspaper with a subscription you pay for papers not even created yet. 

But there is this other way to pay that we use all the time. Now I'm going to expand the concept with an innovation to it, which is to have a PBV corporation, and have PBV votes.

So there could be this mega corporation called PayBackValue.com, and you sign up to it, and it gives website owners the option of putting a PBV button on their site, with a link beneath it explaining that PBV is just a way to pay after you consume, like at a restaurant. 

So, maybe you'd have 25 cents, below which is a PBV button, below which is a link that might say: "What is PBV?" The PBV value is set by the website owner, though the PBV corporation may suggest prices, or give continual guidance on proper price given demand. 

But what if PBV really takes off and some website that doesn't have it, wants it? 

Well assuming a PBV base of members are setup--people who have signed up for PBV, which requires they give a way to pay like a credit card--why not give them the option to vote on whether or not the website should be included? 

So a potential website might get a "PBV Test" button, where PBV users could vote as to whether or not they see value in the site itself and might actually pay at it, and if the site, say, didn't get 2/3 saying they might, then it'd be rejected for membership in the PBV network. 

Hmmm...that also gives the option of letting PBV members vote on sites currently in the PBV network, but wait! That's dumb. They're already voting if they are paying, so each pay is a vote. 

But if revenue suddenly dropped at a site, it could end up with a "PBV Test" button (in the terms of agreement in the contract with the PBV corporation), and PBV users could then vote it out of the network, or let it stay.  

Wow. Lots of options for users here! The PBV corporation would, of course, give users access to a report showing their expenditures, on what sites, etc. which could even break things down in various ways to give them insight into their own web valuing behavior. 

Web site owners might really be surprised by something like PBV as well, as what if you have TONS of visitors by traditional measures, but find out from PBV that most don't think your site has content worth paying for? 

Another site with far fewer visitors might make much more money from PBV, while advertising would only give pennies. It could be a quality differentiator on the web. I increasingly believe that hypothetical company will be here some day. 

After all, there is a pay model that many people use every day that is not on the web for some bizarre reason which is to pay after. 

Here's a weird tidbit to leave you with: you buy a newspaper upfront, right? Can you imagine having to pay, say, $1000 US to walk into a grocery store, and be able to fill one grocery cart with whatever you wanted, paying upfront there as well? Oh, $1000 too much? What if they said, $100, but you have to walk past all these signs with ads on them? Ever consider that the pay upfront with ads model is actually kind of strange? Would you pay $100 upfront to walk into a grocery store and fill one cart? 

What I call PBV is simply more like what you actually do: go into the store, take possession of what you want, and pay after, not before. James Harris