Our objective is to create a unit of measurement for labor such that this one true determinate of value can be related to other currencies. We will attempt to do this by defining a form of labor which, in the opinion of most rational human beings, would be ubiquitous in both supply and demand. The characteristics of this initial definition are subject to change and adaptation as criticisms and stones, and rotten tomatoes are thrown around and the subject is debated in the caldron of democracy. But the primary underpinnings for quantification seem to be simply an average of the remuneration paid to any non-varying or predictably varying ubiquitous skill set.

The initial definition of rudimentary labor as a unit of measurement in the economic system depends for its efficacy on the notion of a sovereignty. The nations of Europe that employ the euro may, in fact, be candidates for adopting a standard definition of the term that would encompass all such nations. But normally, as the term will be used in an economic sense, it is important to remain within a sovereignty where the monetary, legal, and fiscal authority all coincide and where there are societal norms for education and language. The manifestation of "rudimentary labor" may be quite different in Portugal than it would be in Sweden or in Zaire. At this point we are interested in defining the term within the sovereignty of the United States of America.

Here we simply jump feet first into the task of defining what "ubiquitous" would mean in regard to the demand for labor. And all we need do is walk out into the world (better yet to take a bus to any retail area) and open the eyes. Right away we notice there are a lot of people around that are shopping and we see a need for people to tend the retail outlets. We also make note of the fact that someone operated the bus that got us here and there was need for labor to build the road and the shops themselves. There also seems to be a need to deliver the stuff to the shops and that must have been done by truck drivers or train drivers or people using carts and donkeys. And gee, when we think about it, we just left our house or apartment and people also labored to create that structure. And all of these channels of distribution and all of this fixed capital must be maintained by painting or resurfacing, and cleaning, and installation of new or additional capital improvements. It will not matter that the economy is manufacturing based, or services based, or technology based or based on agriculture or the creation and sale of weapons of mass destruction. All of the things we have just observed are the things that will still need doing regardless of the shape or form the economy will take.

We then ask ourselves where all this "stuff" that was being "shopped" came from. And if it is a food product it was actually produced right here in the USA. We ask ourselves where the roads and the shops came from and there is no doubt they were created and maintained by our own labors. In agriculture and distribution someone had to drive the tractor that planted the seed and someone had to operate the harvester or pick the fruit. And then there was the canning or the freezing or the feed lot operation and the slaughterhouse and the like. And I focus on structures and food because these are the fundamentals that are required for life. We certainly will be much better off with good hygiene and medical care, and certainly we wish to socialize and wear "stylish" clothing. But what "Needs Doing" is primarily that which must be done to support a good standard of living. We started in the retail area because we know that there is a great deal more to the American standard of living than beans and rice. But in actual fact such markets are the unifying point of the division and specialization of labor that makes it possible for the vast number of people on this planet to survive. And the marketing and distribution of just about everything can be included in "Needs Doing". All of the tasks encompassed in the system of agriculture, manufacturing, and distribution that are not related to the design of non consumables, are part of the ubiquitous demands of what "Needs Doing".

And here we jump feet first into the task of defining what "ubiquitous" would mean in regard to the supply of labor and find that the vast majortiy of the non retired voting population of the sovereignty is qualified to address "What Actually Needs Doing" in the USA. And the reason this is so, or the reason that our economy functions as it does is due to the existence of rudimentary education in the USA. It is most certainly true that many people will graduate out of the rudimentary area of the econiomy and go on to do other things. This is partly because they will become bored with rudimentary labor, they will find such tasks to be less than comfortable, and they will seek new challenges that are more psychologically and financially rewarding. People will also seek to enrich their lives and improve their standard of living by specializing in particular skills such as carpentry or agriculture, or shop tending, or painting, or countless other trades. And as they become more adept at these trades they will be rewarded by the diminishing hours of labor they must endure so as to produce the same amount of "good" in the market. More important, however, is the fact that rudimentary labor is real labor. It is the toil and trouble work that most people don't actually want to do. It is the work that gets done because people seek to have an income. But the indisputable fact remains that because of our educational system in which rudimentary education is free and compulsory, we have a more than ample supply of people capable of performing rudimentary labor. Right away we can see why the scope is important. What many seem to miss is that in other sovereignties the level of rudimentary education will create a different level of rudimentary labor and so too a different level of economic interaction and creation of goods and a different opportunity for the distribution of wealth and goods.

It would seem that the vast majority of the jobs in what we would call the basic or root level of the US economy can be addressed by individuals with a 9 years of education or less. We all hear a lot about high school dropouts and seem to fret over it quite a bit. But it is difficult to see how the extra 3 years in high school actually do any good for anyone other than those truly interested in a liberal arts education. And even then, such education should probably be pursued by those who wish it and not forced down the gullets of those that do not. The teens are totally preoccupied with sex and with breaking out of the prison daddy has created for them. That is due to nature and has nothing to do with decaying morals or any of the rest of the stupidity normally spooned around by our fearless leaders (including daddy). If there is a need for the curriculum currently followed in high school I don't see it. The things that need to be addressed in addition to what has already been addressed in the first 9 years are probably limited to serious consideration of economics and political theory. And the reason is quite simply that these will be people are supposed to be able to govern themselves through their elected representatives. And when they enter that voting station they are supposed to be able to defend themselves from the shysters and the hucksters that currently inhabit the halls of government. Other than the necessary awareness of the political economy which seems to be purposefully omitted in the education of the young, the "trades" and the "sciences" should be matters of personal commitment rather than "enlightened leadership" and "guidance".