C-141. Work, jobs and the R-transform

We could, and will, talk about R-work and R-jobs for R-entities. But first we need to use the leverage of the R-transform (C-111). This because jobs are now so much a captive of the imbalance (XI) and impoverished interdependency (C-71) between Valuation, V, and Realization, R (C-122). (Being played out now, for example, in the U.S. in its income inequality [economy/polity>1] and its electoral imbalance [the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision].)

To improve the interdependency of economy and polity --- and improve the “jobs” problem (e.g., employment, compensation) more emphasis needs to be placed on strengthening Realization (App. XIX; C-80)… in terms of capability development and technological (tools and procedures) development.* The behavioral problem needs attention along with attendant situational problems (I), this in light of the poorly solved and unsolved problems that limit our quality of life (0).

We are not going to effectively strengthen Realization, its many internal interdependencies and its interdependency with Valuation, if we fail to introduce considerations of consequentiality throughout our step making (VI-XI: Requisites and imperatives [behavioral principles applicable before the fact, AT and IN the Frontier: C-118] and step taking (C-11, C-16: Control foci; process consequentiality).

The R-transform (C-111) stands ready, however, to guide our efforts to discern all the work that is required … and, in interdependency with Valuation, provide a better assessment of value in addition to its points TO productive work assignments.

Realization is work. It does not come easily. Help is needed (App. I), perhaps even more for needed capabilities than for needed capacities. (See VI: control need/control capability.**) “Service jobs” speak to this. But our lack of a complete and accurate sense of needed functionality (NF) -- where Realization begins, and which NF never ends (C-115), has led us to an incomplete and biased employment picture. (Consider, for example, the huge imbalance of the emphasis on learning over knowing in educational practice … to the distress of more than their potential interdependence (XI). [For example: An “Adopt plus decision making” metastrategy for the behavioral problem may be overemphasized relative to Adapt and Adept … when all should find contributions to make, separately and interdependently.] Some observers even deem learning and knowing to be synonyms – this because they enjoy a functional, if not pragmatic, equivalence in their personal step taking.

Much (too much?) current employment depends on recent technological inventions. (Vocational education focuses on these late-stage functionalities [C-97].) Successive technologies each hold promise. But how much and how well are we doing to produce technologies for the functionalities still needed? (E.g., see App. XXI re questioning.) Note, for example, the resources (and jobs) that go into coping with behavioral dysfunction. Too late? (Realization of Realization, an R-sense, should come early [C-128].) Not relevant enough? (What do you want to be able to do today? Or tomorrow?)

* In principle, “work” and “job” should be synonymous. That they are not is obvious. A technology for a close monitoring, to improve their orchestration, would be helpful. Broken and crippled interdependencies need detection along with the imbalances. Because the latter contribute to the former (C-71), we need an improvement over the “x/y>1” measure (C-120). A later comment (C-148) introduces such a measure, giving emphasis to the extent of the imbalance – and thus the breakage and crippling effects of that imbalance (e.g., as in V/R>2 or even 3 … where “2” and “3” represent sigma values, of standard deviations from the mean).

** ”Capability” is commonly used conceptually (as is “ability”) to stand for a combination of capacity and capability, thereby confounding them (VI; C-124). This is unfortunate, for it masks their interdependency, which depends on their being independent (XI). The notion that capability is no more than a manifestation of capacity (e.g., a “talent”: see C-97) mistakes the role and potential consequentiality of step making and taking in history – especially human history. It also throws a blanket over the needed distinction between the change-relevant phenomena of evolution and development (C-121).

(c) 2016 R. F. Carter