This is really an excellent post - thanks Argo. So many points hit home - the idea of needing standard inputs and outputs to support our leviathan centralised organisations, and the way in which “ancillary” middlemen organisations essentially facilitate that.
Have you read “Markets are Eating the World” by Taylor Pearson? He takes a similar position but stays firmly in the economic space where you expand into social/personal
Frankly, no, I see microtransactions/work fractionation as doing exactly the opposite. The smaller each individual unit of work is, the more standard it must be to fit into the larger picture and make something - anything - useful.
What you might want is a more bespoke or particularist kind of work standards - specific to an area, a brand name, or the individual commissioning the work. More people doing their own thing in the backyard, too.
Ah ok - that's interesting. I never thought of it that way - I made the assumption that that microtransactions might facilitate bespokeness that you mention in your second point.
Never considered how it may actually lead to the opposite due to the need for standardisation.
Now that I think about it - Substack is a prime example. It allows "microtransacations" - but these are pretty standardised, and most blogs look visually similar too, and substack and stripe taking a cut
Perfect example - Stripe doesn't operate in my country, so I can't set up paid even if I wanted to.
What really facilitiates that kind of bespoke production is just no-questions-asked e-wallets making it possible for people to transfer super conveniently and with no trust issues. :)
It's ironic that inefficiency is the very reason we are going to lose most of our streamlined control systems. Example #1 is the payroll model. It adds so much expense and red tape to hiring labor that a lucrative black market is created. Now, we have all these temp agencies, who are middlemen that make it pseudo-legal to hire non-citizen labor. This is also too expensive compared to the easy and natural alternative. There is no police force equipped or funded for enforcement of labor crimes happening on a system wide scale. This makes laws look ridiculous, doesn't it? I'm waiting for insurance to fail completely, and the abandonment of the income-tax payroll model will be part and parcel of that. Perhaps there is another legal way to organize labor (under consultancy)?
It's odd, but I think it only makes sense because of scale. Big fixed systems like those described are less expensive on a per-head basis but more expensive as a whole - only because they can grow that big. The word of a job offer might need to cross county, town, state, or even national borders - which also entails expenses.
Easiest example would be that of a solo contractor-entrepreneur who does one-person jobs for residential homes. If he decides to hire out some of his jobs to an apprentice, he needs to charge more (assuming the same wage/job rate, he needs to make a profit). They'll likely be outcompeted by individuals doing what he used to do, so they need to take on the responsibility of finding bigger contracts or underserved markets to make it back.
On your point on the partnership model like a consultancy or an accounting firm, a limited partnership could work. The issue becomes - who will administrate the partnership, and how will everyone make sure that everyone else gets their fair share? Works fine with ten people - harder with a hundred, impossible with a thousand.
On your point about temp agencies as a law dodge - they are, and that's the point. They're a centralized law dodge that is tolerated both because the law doesn't allow people to live the way they want to AND because it's an income-generating business for those who can swing it. Laws exist as moats, over which can be lain drawbridges that charge a toll, like traffic cop ticket commissions or national government resource extraction permits.
The important part is that things are brought into the system and "controllable" rather than being a black market or uncontrollable phenomenon that drains public resources (law enforcement ain't free). In a way you can see it as an arbitrary cost in exchange for risk-taking with the promise of an opportunity to make a large revenue through higher barriers to entry.
That's breaking down now, however - these systems were built with the promise of growth, which as we are finding out, has a limit. Once they have to downsize, they have problems - the cost structure of less expensive per head and more expensive in aggregate means you need bigger markets, which, as we are finding out, is NOT a given.
This is really an excellent post - thanks Argo. So many points hit home - the idea of needing standard inputs and outputs to support our leviathan centralised organisations, and the way in which “ancillary” middlemen organisations essentially facilitate that.
Have you read “Markets are Eating the World” by Taylor Pearson? He takes a similar position but stays firmly in the economic space where you expand into social/personal
No, but no surprises there. Hand a gamer a consistent system, and the first thing he finds are the exploits.
I find a lot of gamers in high finance, likely for that reason.
True - lots of rent seeking going on.
Do you think that micro transactions/fractionation of work will reduce the burgeoning middlemen class?
Frankly, no, I see microtransactions/work fractionation as doing exactly the opposite. The smaller each individual unit of work is, the more standard it must be to fit into the larger picture and make something - anything - useful.
What you might want is a more bespoke or particularist kind of work standards - specific to an area, a brand name, or the individual commissioning the work. More people doing their own thing in the backyard, too.
Ah ok - that's interesting. I never thought of it that way - I made the assumption that that microtransactions might facilitate bespokeness that you mention in your second point.
Never considered how it may actually lead to the opposite due to the need for standardisation.
Now that I think about it - Substack is a prime example. It allows "microtransacations" - but these are pretty standardised, and most blogs look visually similar too, and substack and stripe taking a cut
Perfect example - Stripe doesn't operate in my country, so I can't set up paid even if I wanted to.
What really facilitiates that kind of bespoke production is just no-questions-asked e-wallets making it possible for people to transfer super conveniently and with no trust issues. :)
It's ironic that inefficiency is the very reason we are going to lose most of our streamlined control systems. Example #1 is the payroll model. It adds so much expense and red tape to hiring labor that a lucrative black market is created. Now, we have all these temp agencies, who are middlemen that make it pseudo-legal to hire non-citizen labor. This is also too expensive compared to the easy and natural alternative. There is no police force equipped or funded for enforcement of labor crimes happening on a system wide scale. This makes laws look ridiculous, doesn't it? I'm waiting for insurance to fail completely, and the abandonment of the income-tax payroll model will be part and parcel of that. Perhaps there is another legal way to organize labor (under consultancy)?
It's odd, but I think it only makes sense because of scale. Big fixed systems like those described are less expensive on a per-head basis but more expensive as a whole - only because they can grow that big. The word of a job offer might need to cross county, town, state, or even national borders - which also entails expenses.
Easiest example would be that of a solo contractor-entrepreneur who does one-person jobs for residential homes. If he decides to hire out some of his jobs to an apprentice, he needs to charge more (assuming the same wage/job rate, he needs to make a profit). They'll likely be outcompeted by individuals doing what he used to do, so they need to take on the responsibility of finding bigger contracts or underserved markets to make it back.
On your point on the partnership model like a consultancy or an accounting firm, a limited partnership could work. The issue becomes - who will administrate the partnership, and how will everyone make sure that everyone else gets their fair share? Works fine with ten people - harder with a hundred, impossible with a thousand.
On your point about temp agencies as a law dodge - they are, and that's the point. They're a centralized law dodge that is tolerated both because the law doesn't allow people to live the way they want to AND because it's an income-generating business for those who can swing it. Laws exist as moats, over which can be lain drawbridges that charge a toll, like traffic cop ticket commissions or national government resource extraction permits.
The important part is that things are brought into the system and "controllable" rather than being a black market or uncontrollable phenomenon that drains public resources (law enforcement ain't free). In a way you can see it as an arbitrary cost in exchange for risk-taking with the promise of an opportunity to make a large revenue through higher barriers to entry.
That's breaking down now, however - these systems were built with the promise of growth, which as we are finding out, has a limit. Once they have to downsize, they have problems - the cost structure of less expensive per head and more expensive in aggregate means you need bigger markets, which, as we are finding out, is NOT a given.