People Futures

I don't know if the title does justice to what I am about to say. The other two I considered were "Investing in people" and "Partial Slavery".  "FDI in people" was another contender. I am not going to talk about future of people in the sense we usually do, but instead the "future" here refers to ones used in financial markets.

Labor doesn't have a future. Again I mean in the financial sense of the term to avoid any Marxist connotation. The question is what if it did? Let's say any person could sell upto "49%" stake in himself subject to investment. Just to simplify implementation, lets say income tax of the person will be used by government to pay dividends to the "share holders" and in case of death of the person, they automatically get assets of the person (bank balance, property, etc) in proportion to their shares. Further assume that these shares are traded on a stock market so that other people/corporations can trade them.

Now that we have defined the model, lets try to see if it helps us in any ways.

Obviously anyone who made investment in Amitabh Bachchan or Sachin Tendulkar or Shah Rukh Khan would be making tons of money. In theory at least some investments could be handsome.

Consider education. Let's say the retirement fund of a teacher is exclusively or at least heavily influenced by the future income tax of the students he teaches. May be even his salary. Does this gives a teacher an incentive to educate the children to best of his abilities?

Consider education again. Does an industry benefits by investing in students which will be part of its labor force tomorrow? May be industry doesn't realizes this, someone else with money does.

Consider sports other than cricket in India. If their is any possibility of someone winning a medal in Olympics and possibly signing up for brand endorsements, would someone invest in players of these games?

I don't know what would this all really mean. But I do know that people are the future of any possible future we have. May be if that future is invest-able,  some people might invest in it. If nothing else, it gives us some measure of "human capital" vs "other capital" so that at least we are clear on what we as a generation believe is the "future".  May be this brings some reality (funny that speculation is what I propose as real?)  to the over simplified model of people as commodity.

Simple solution for unemployment

There is lot of literature on the subject with many ifs and buts.  Most of it points to stimulus to revive the economy. Because I am not an economist, I don't have much say on their effectiveness.

But I do have a very simple solution to the problem.  Declare Friday as a holiday. 

How does this works? We first need to understand the reasons for unemployment.

• Companies decide to reduce production and hence need less labor.
• Companies don't need more people. So the students coming out of college don't get any jobs.
• New methods of productions increase efficiency and require less people. 

Now lets assume government  declares Friday as a  holiday.

Good things that can happen:

• Companies only have 4 days to produce whatever they were producing in five days. 
• They need to employ more people (about 20%) to meet their weekly targets. 
• They might need to invest more in infrastructure to ensure that they can have working space/ machines etc for 20% more people.
• They might even decide to pay less per person from existing salaries, but they do need to invest in infrastructure and hire more people. Less paying jobs is infinitely more better than no job.

Bad things that can happen:

• They might ask people to work more hours per day. But labor regulations and bonus for extra work might not have linear cost structure. 
• They might reduce production further and increase prices. 

I can't completely predict what will happen, but if unemployment is caused by "excess labor", then this could be simple and cost effective way for governments to artificially reduce "excess labor" from the market. BTW instead of Friday, Monday will work too. Or if possible to enforce, 20% less working hours per week per person would also yield the same result. Actually government doesn't even needs to implement it, just declare it. Assuming 40 working hours per person, government can just announce that every 2.5% increase in unemployment will result in 1 hour less working hours per week. I am sure companies will optimize everything to find out what gives them optimal results. Who knows within a decade or two we will all work couple of hours a week ;)

Opportunity for github

Sell maintenance for open source projects. It could be a yearly payment or per problem based.

• They know the people who contribute
• They also know which areas they contribute 
• They can easily know who downloads
• Pay developers for fixing the bugs or adding features.

Products

What is the total cost of a car?

• Price tag on car 
• Fuel efficiency (subject to driving conditions) * Cost of fuel * Total distance  
• Maintenance Intervals * Average Maintenance Cost 
• Insurance Costs  
• If on debt, payable interest. 

What you finally pay for owning a car is much more than the price tag. I don't know of a single portal for cars which compares this total cost. I don't even know if this data is public. 

Product Equivalence 

Cars do compete with cars, but then they do complete with motor cycles and buses and autos. So competition for car could be a good combination of motor cycle (short distance), bus (little longer) and train (much longer).  

Conditional Products 

Car insurance is needed only if you have a car and so is car maintenance. Given that most car manufacturers in India only provide maintenance  through their own car dealers, the market is monopolistic. Most spare parts are produced only by the car manufacturers and retailed only through car dealers. The point essentially was conditional products skew the free market. Samsung refrigerators need water purifier that can only be purchased from Samsung. This is where I feel we need some law that forces manufacturers to make sure that the price of all parts put together in the car is not more than the car itself. Or at least this information is public so that we can calculate the expected maintenance cost. May be I should add repairability section also.

Returnability or Repeatability

The margin on small diamonds are over 50%. So you can buy it for $1000, but when you go back to sell it, it will only fetch $500. The value of car drops by 10% as you sign the check.  We only look at "a" sale in free market, but not the second sale of the same product or third. Basically what happens to product price over lifetime, given nothing major happens in the economy. No one seems to talk about this in economics. The question really is about extent of damage that can be caused by asymmetric information in free markets. If manufacturer is forced to define "Product Lifetime" then in a free market, manufacturers should be ready to take the product back given the percentage of "Product Lifetime" used by you.  

Rentability 

Technically a house is worth some function of rent it can fetch at max to be a reasonable investment. A taxi is worth it if "total cost" + labor (driver salary) < total profit. May be some taxi service can use cars parked in office all day and give people rent.  But that apart, many things are not rentable at all. Obviously this is not applicable to food. But if something is rentable, it gives some idea of its time value, which can then be used to calculate its total value, given the life time of the product. 

Product Lifetime

Mobile phones typically last 2-3 years unless stolen. TV and refrigerators can work for 10+ years unless new technologies make them obsolete. Software has much shorter lifetime. Laptops again hardly go beyond 3. Vegetables at edible probably for a week or so, even though the production cycle takes months. Cereals last longer. Movies have few weeks at max to get even. Cars run for 5+ years easily. The reason I am talking about product lifetimes is because they are useful when talking about rentability (above). They give a better idea of the utility of the product because you can divide this number by days or months or years and see if that is good enough for your budget. This also comes into picture if you need to resale it.  

Demand Supply Curve

We have two ways of looking at how prices impact demand. In case of price increase for a product,

• People consume less of the product.
• Number of people consuming that product goes down.

When rental prices go up, people just can't rent room for less hours. They become homeless. You can't buy half an apple from the market. Or have half the education, by attending few classes. You can't buy half a car or smaller seat in a bus for less price. 

I guess their is a big problem as well as a big opportunity here. How can we make most price changes impact only people consuming less instead of some people not consuming stuff at all. If nothing else, half an education is so much better than no education at all. 

Most measures of economy use money to represent growth. But may be if we start looking at units of things, the units that can be purchased and not abstract infinitely divided units, we will start making a better sense of how economy is doing. Are these units getting cheaper or costly because people can only buy them in units. 

The demand supply curve hides this important information from us. May be we should split it up.  Or may be other way is to make everything purchasable by making it infinitely dividable. That brings up whole new circus that I will explore in another post.

One way to do that is by sharing. We share the same roads, bridges, power plants, dams, hotel rooms, restaurants. Renting is also a form of sharing. May be people can share jobs. Instead of firing people, you make them work less and pay less. 15% less hours per day = 15% less pay = 100% employment which is better than 15% unemployment. People who work in shifts can share the same house - you sleep when I work and then I work when you sleep. May be schools for poor children where they can work half of the time to pay for their own education.