The Timesizing® Program
©
1999-2014 Phil Hyde, Timesizing.com, Box 117, Harvard Sq PO, Cambridge, MA 02238, USA 617-623-8080 - Previous Phase or Next Program or This Whole Program or HOMEPAGE
Phase 6+ takes us to new programs - Balancings beyond Timesizing
JUMP  to   500-year plan   or  immortality   or  TheAudience.com

There are two transitions here. Most people will be interested in the "transition in" to Timesizing. The transition in involves a haphazard private-sector stage (already started) that introduces the first phase of the five-phase public-sector stage.

A "transition out" at the end, in and beyond Phase 5, matches the "transition in" at the beginning of the Timesizing program. Timesizing points to a whole series of upgrades, successor-programs that accommodate the higher expectations it generates. Let's not make the usual naive assumption that there's only one program or step leading to Permanent Perfection. Henry George, Karl Marx and many others made that mistake and it's time we smartened up a bit. The one constant in social evolution is rising expectations (see books by U.Chicago's *Philip M. Hauser, - thanks to *Rob Firmin for the tip about this PH), and once we solve the huge problem in front, the not-as-huge problem behind it, previously hidden, looms just as large. Another reason for designing a series of programs instead of a single program is simply to avoid boredom, accommodate people's need for newness and their interest in progress.

We are constantly "operating on our own retinas" in the area of socio-economic design, so let's just list the next four programs (allowing a round century for each of the five programs gives us a 500-YEAR PLAN in total), each one parallel to Timesizing with the same five-phase program structure repeatedly mapped over onto the next strategic variable in line for balancing and adjusted to its terminology, jargon and metaphors:

  1. 2000-2100 A.D. (all dates approximate, stylized-simplified for easy remembering, can be expected to shorten in later programs as with implementation of all previous sharing techniques in human evolution):
    Timesizing balances the time dimension, that is, worktime per person. This is the program that dissolves the concentration of market-demanded working hours on fewer and fewer people as automation and robotization proceed. This program ends the coexistence of overwork and underemployment, and solves the carefully cultivated economic problem of joblessness or un(der)employment, which is the deepest contradiction and brake on Growth in current practice despite abject worship in current theory. The Timesizing Program begins dismantling the barriers to skill acquisition, also carefully cultivated in current practice despite worship of Education in current theory. Barriers include all kinds of craft distinctions, obstacles to credentialing and the generation of ingroup jargons. Timesizing is an evolutionary hurdle for humanity since it involves a number of "first's":
    1. the first time equalizing on a range instead of a point (Phase 4 sets the upper limit by the lower limit set in Phase 1),
    2. the first clear distinction between per-person (public sector, Government) and per-job (private sector, Market) variables,
    3. the first clear distinction between inflationary incentive (money motive) and deflationary incentive (job satisfaction),
    4. the first attempt to increase qualitative incentive (deflationary) to counterbalance quantitative incentive (inflationary) and thereby control inflation without curtailing growth (as by artificially raising interest rates),
      [the wealthy do so much manipulation that even though they hold everyone else to market forces, they routinely circumvent and cushion the action of market forces upon themselves in their own narrow and short-sighted self-interest - thus negating the discipline of the Market on themselves though not on anyone else - so it's not surprising that eventually their policies cumulatively amount to: Suicide, Everyone Else First - they eventually just cannot get any of the important kind of feedback, the kind that indicates needed change and adaptation, namely the Bad News.]
    5. the first major systemic step toward switching from quantitative to qualitative growth,
    6. the first use of the time dimension as a system-wide control variable and in fact, THE control variable of our lifetimes - when we're much more comfortable with time in the background,
    7. the first major move beyond social control by threatening lives or livelihoods (jobs) (beyond to social control by enforcing working hour limits and mandatory investment, to encourage working to live instead of living to work....

  2. 2100-2200 A.D.: When the employment (and skill) deconcentration of the Timesizing Program has raised expectations above what it can satisfy, we then, using the structure of the same five phases we used in the Timesizing Program, start on the money dimensions, of which there are three: flowing money or income per person, standing money or wealth per person, and potential money or credit per person. Balancing the first of the three, income per person, solves the first and most accessible kind of poverty, income-poverty.
    Here's how the five Timesizing phases map onto the income dimension in an Income-sizing Program:
    Phase 1. A referendum focuses the public on their now top-priority problem, gets their current sensitivity to it and their preferred rate of solution: "Any non-privately supported person who has earned less than (X) $___ per month for over the last (Y) $___ months is income-poor and should trigger an adjustment in the automatic reinvestment threshold (ART) or income line.
    The ART should be adjusted against the income-poverty rate starting at level (Z) a. $1B/mon. or b. $100m/mon. or c. $10m/mon. or d. $1m/mon. or e. $100k/mon. and adjust at a velocity of (V) p. 10%/yr. or q. 25%/yr. or r. 50%/yr. or s. 75%/yr. or t. 90%/yr.
    Phase 2. Any corporate compensation over the ART shall be reinvested in income-targeted jobs (and on-the-job training, OJT, if needed) or taxed 100% to be reinvested by the government Agency for the Fine-Tuning of the Job Market in those jobs (+/- training). Note that it is this income-targeting (re)investment (overtime-targeting in the initial Timesizing Program) that makes this approach less arbitrary-capricious and more natural and market-oriented than any known alternatives, especially the ridiculously artificial "Give Half Our Money Away" approach of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett in the news today (8/05/2010). Such mega-charity always ends up "taking coals to Newcastle" in the sense of giving megabucks to megacharities that are set up to receive them - ergo, no deconcentration or faster circulation - and where they inject megabucks into poverty situations, hooboy, the distortions that ensue! Do they ask themselves how to do this organically? Nope. Insufficient imagination-dedication and mucho unclear on the concept of revving the economy by revving currency circulation by decoagulating the black hole of money in the top brackets. Can they find anything like Timesizing and its successors by holding competitions? Nope. The judges have no mental categories capable of recognizing Timesizing-level programs-potentials-visions, so the judges always pick "winners" that are more familiar-recognizable to themselves - and therefore relatively trivial.
    Phase 3. Any individual income over the ART shall be reinvested in income-targeted jobs (and on-the-job training, OJT, if needed) or taxed 100% to be reinvested by the government Agency for the Fine-Tuning of the Job Market in those jobs (+/- training).
    Phase 4. The ART shall vary inversely with the income-poverty rate at the referendum-set level (from Phase 1).
    Phase 5. If the income ART is coming down too fast for comfort or intelligent management, the affected public is given the option of shifting the pressure for further income-poverty resolution to a population variable, based on a menu of any that are still not designed for sustainable self-balancing; in order (all): imports, offshore outsourcings, immigrants, births.
    Phase 6. When the income ART is played out (ie: has raised sensitivity and expectations it cannot fulfil), the affected public is given the option of moving on, using the same five phases, to the Weathsizing Program.

  3. 2200-2300 A.D.: Then we balance standing money or wealth per person in the Wealthsizing Program, which obsoletes poverty in the ordinary sense. (Each program facilitates the transfer of marketable skills at increasingly exacting levels.)
    Here's how the five Timesizing phases map onto the wealth dimension in a Wealthsizing Program:
    Phase 1. A referendum focuses the public on their now top-priority problem, gets their current sensitivity to it and their preferred rate of solution: "Any non-privately supported person who has a net worth of less than (X) $___ for over the last (Y) $___ year(s) is poor and should trigger an adjustment in the automatic reinvestment threshold (ART) or wealth line.
    The ART should be adjusted against the poverty rate starting at level (Z) a. $50B or b. $25B or c. $10B or d. $1B or e. $100m and adjust at a velocity of (V) p. 10%/yr. or q. 25%/yr. or r. 50%/yr. or s. 75%/yr. or t. 90%/yr.
    Phase 2. Any corporate compensation over the ART shall be reinvested in wealth-targeted jobs (and on-the-job training, OJT, if needed) or taxed 100% to be reinvested by the government Agency for the Fine-Tuning of the Job Market in those jobs (+/- training).
    Phase 3. Any individual wealth over the ART shall be reinvested in wealth-targeted jobs (and on-the-job training, OJT, if needed) or taxed 100% to be reinvested by the government Agency for the Fine-Tuning of the Job Market in those jobs (+/- training).
    Phase 4. The ART shall vary inversely with the poverty rate at the referendum-set level (from Phase 1).
    Phase 5. If the wealth ART is coming down too fast for comfort or intelligent management, the affected public is given the option of shifting the pressure for further poverty resolution to a population variable, based on a menu of any that are still not designed for sustainable self-balancing; in order (all): imports, offshore outsourcings, immigrants, births.
    Phase 6. When the wealth ART is played out (ie: has raised sensitivity and expectations it cannot fulfil), the affected public is given the option of moving on, using the same five phases, to the Credit-sizing Program.

  4. 2300-2400 A.D.: Then we balance potential money or credit per person, which obsoletes bankruptcy.
    Aliases would be creditability or reliability or character or reputation or one-dimensional superficial trust. Here's how the five Timesizing phases map onto the credit dimension in a Credit-sizing Program:
    Phase 1. A referendum focuses the public on their now top-priority problem, gets their current sensitivity to it and their preferred rate of solution: "Any non-privately supported person who has had credit of less than (X) $___ for over the last (Y) $___ year(s) is credit-poor and should trigger an adjustment in the automatic reinvestment threshold (ART) or credit line.
    The ART should be adjusted against the credit-poverty rate starting at level (Z) a. $50B or b. $25B or c. $10B or d. $1B or e. $100m and adjust at a velocity of (V) p. 10%/yr. or q. 25%/yr. or r. 50%/yr. or s. 75%/yr. or t. 90%/yr.
    Phase 2. Any corporate compensation over the ART shall be reinvested in credit-targeted jobs (and on-the-job training, OJT, if needed) or taxed 100% to be reinvested by the government Agency for the Fine-Tuning of the Job Market in those jobs (+/- training).
    Phase 3. Any individual credit over the ART shall be reinvested in credit-targeted jobs (and on-the-job training, OJT, if needed) or taxed 100% to be reinvested by the government Agency for the Fine-Tuning of the Job Market in those jobs (+/- training).
    Phase 4. The ART shall vary inversely with the credit-poverty rate at the referendum-set level (from Phase 1).
    Phase 5. If the credit ART is coming down too fast for comfort or intelligent management, the affected public is given the option of shifting the pressure for further credit-poverty resolution to a population variable, based on a menu of any that are not yet designed for sustainable self-balancing; in order (all): imports, offshore outsourcings, immigrants, births.
    Phase 6. When the credit ART is played out (ie: has raised sensitivity and expectations it cannot fulfil), the affected public is given the option of moving on, using the same five phases, to balance disparities in less familiar variables, difficult for us to imagine today, which then become problematic, such as a Celebrity-sizing Program.
    Hereafter, it's all shades of power and influence, ultimately disciplined by ecology, the science of loooong-term balance and continuity.

  5. 2400-2500 A.D.: Then we balance celebrity per person (potential credit). Aliases would be: name-dropability, personality or multi-dimensional superficial trust, such as one gets just by running for politics without winning, or being a movie-star look-alike, or having a million "like's" etc. on Facebook etc., as engineered by, eg: TheAudience.com - hey, aren't like's better than bitcoins? - by mapping over the same five Timesizing program phases.

  6. 2500-2600 A.D.: Then we balance venerability or renown or real fame or bedazzlement or (real) awesomeness or authority. Other aliases would be: multi-dimensional suspended-questioning/-skepticism/-scientism trust or livelihood-threatening, e.g., Lincoln, Archbishop of Canterbury, Queen Elizabeth I and II, by mapping over the same five Timesizing program phases.
  7. 2600-2700 A.D.: Then we balance reverence or worship or adoration or faith ("the substance of things unseen" = prima-facie contradiction). Other aliases would be: absolutism, ultimate dependence, life&death-holding, trust/belief/faith based on number of people agreeing with a private revelation, e.g., Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, the Pope, charismatic/powerful claimants often exploited by religionists and aristocrats from Elmer Gantry to the Curia to religious schools to The Wealthy...) by mapping over the same five Timesizing program phases.
  8. 2700-2800 A.D.: Then we balance belief and doubt. Other aliases would be: questioning or scientism or skepticism or cynicism or trust/belief/faith based on number of people agreeing with a public, repeatable-experiment revelation/discovery, e.g., scientific paradigms as in Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolution. Aliases would be referenceability, citedness, authoritativeness... by mapping over the same five Timesizing program phases. This program disciplines and brings back down to Earth all of human vanity and pretentiousness and egocentrism and anthropocentrism and isolationism, by the simple universal necessity of continuity, mediated by the ultimate science, ecology, the science of human-nature balance and very very long-term human survival, and so naturally, of course, by Mother Nature...enwrapping Gaia...orbiting Sol...(orbiting Sirius?)...orbiting Galaxy's (alias MilkyWay's) central "black hole," orbiting? the local galaxy-cluster's center...
And thereafter, we balance whatever disparity-prone variables come up, despite unfamiliarity today as problems, such as further degrees of "potential potentiality." "into the sunset" - or rather, toward the explosion (super-nova-ing) of the Sun, our star, by which time we gotta be safely outa here (this solar system) in accordance with the most basic law of the Universe and of reality = Continue!...
...children?... - but it's all continuability Q: need run the negatives/opposites explicitly also? like 'credit unworthiness' (as in 'deadbeat'), as had to do flowing & standing money separate? prob not cuz new controlled ranges take care of, and remember the opposite dimensions just run thru a parallel series in the opposite direction (energyXtardicity'= momentumXtardicity"= massXsparsity= volumeXlowth= areaXnarrowth= lineXshortth= speck)
--> You get the drift...the process may involve an infinite series of variables. If we simplistically budget a century for each of these programs, we're looking 500 years into the future at this point, not based on quantitative mathematical projections but on qualitative linguistic projections which can break through the 10-50 year limit on quantitative projections. But observing the very long-term tendency of major human sharing mechanisms to start slowly and gradually speed up (see our Football of Time), we can bet that earlier programs will take longer and later programs shorter amounts of time.

Some points to bear in mind about these disparity-balancing programs are:

The series of dimensions and balancings gets, from our limited 21st-century view, increasingly vague and rarified, but then, we're still at a barbaric stage in the evolution of intelligent life where it's "right" and "smart" to randomly throw hundreds and thousands of people out of their livelihoods (as when we call mass layoffs not merely "downsizing," but "smartsizing" and "rightsizing") on the basis of some demented notion of "efficiency"! With such a definition of efficiency, the sooner each economy shrinks its workforce (and therefore, simultaneously, its consumer base) to a single unit, the more "efficient" it is. As Sismondi riffs in a c.1820 letter to Ricardo, "Indeed? Wealth is everything, men are absolutely nothing? What, is wealth itself only something in relation to taxes? In truth then, there is nothing more to wish for than that the king, remaining alone on the island, by constantly turning a crank, might produce, through automata, all the output of England." Since an economy cannot exist with only one producer-consumer, this is tantamount to saying that the sooner an economy self-destructs, the better. By extension, the sooner after cell division or hatching or birth each life form commits suicide, the more "efficient" it is. Not so. An economy's existence depends on a balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces, same as a moon, planet, star, superstar, or "black hole" megastar....

For the sake of envisioning and prediction, we schematize the whole Timesizing program as five 10-year private-sector phases followed by the five 10-year public-sector phases, making for a nice round 100-year program. Then each of the next dimensions to be balanced can use the same 5-phase program as Timesizing, in the same private, then public sector order, and the same 50+50 year time estimate. In the event, earlier programs will take longer and later programs will take shorter and shorter as we get used to this method of accelerated progress in the most critical and meaningful dimensions.

Of course the neat-sounding estimate of 10 years per phase is just for convenience, because social evolution is never so neat. In practice, even within each balancing program, the earlier private-sector stage is likely to be longer that the later public sector stage because the public education task in each program is daunting, and each whole program requires that we get ordinary people thinking about what amounts to, for them, economic science fiction (sci fi). And some indication of the inherent difficulty of that project is provided by considering how rare economic sci fi is. The whole Star Trek series of TV series had maybe two episodes focused on economics - the 2-part "Past Tense" episode of Deep Space 9 and the episode about unionizing Quark's bar. Once when Phil emailed a Star Trek producer {Rick Berman) once to broach the subject, he was ridiculed. This from somebody who presumably prides himself on his imagination. Ha! All that most sci fi writers and producers ever came up with is evermore technological whizbang - and war. And we called this "imagination." It's nothing but disgraceful and embarrassing.

The important thing here is to articulate and stress the principles, which is to repeat the some of the same things over and over again in the hopes they will sink in:

The private-sector stage is based on two things - econometric models and working models, such as these working models.

Quick Reference. The 5 phases of the public-sector stage of the Timesizing program (bear in mind there's a long private-sector stage preceding that) are:
1. Referendums, to broadly define unemployment and set target rates
2. Corporate overtime tax with an exemption for OJT and hiring
3. Individual workoholic tax with an exemption for mentoring and employing
4. Making the workweek vary inversely with unemployment, newly defined to include welfare, disability, homelessness, prisons, forced part time and self employment...
5. If the workweek gets too low too fast, shifting the pressure to imports, immigrants, or births

6.=new 1. If the public doesn't want to squeeze imports immigrants or births, we move on to the next program, "Paysizing," and go through the same private and public sector stages of 5 phases apiece with "income and poverty" instead of "employment and joblessness".

For more details, see our campaign piece alias social-software manual, Timesizing, Not Downsizing, which is available from *Amazon.com online.

Questions, comments, feedback? Phone 617-623-8080 (Boston) or email us.


Return to Top | Return to Home Page