24 Person Cohorts
- 2 Phases.
- First is 12 good candidates as adopted children of OSE. With exit at 6, 12, 24 months, and light exit at 48, and 96 months. Equivalent to college and doctoral levels but actually dedicated to integrated problemsolving.
- 4 builder-teachers. Deep understanding of the build process with capacity to run a team of continually expanding size up to Dunbar. 12 section leaders under each.
- These guys do full time build. Rapid growth opportunities.
- 20/20 designer/manager/ecologist tracks. All can rise to executive capacity.
- You set your pay scale. Everyone starts at the factory floor.
- Builder is $20-25/hr starting, with fast growth potential - you set your pay scale over time. With great power comes great responsibilityapplies to everyone, puts the onus of clarity, initiative, empowerment on the participant
- Designer/manager/OSE - all same curriculum, until OSE school teaches values and possibility (state of art + unsolved issues)
- All our tracks are beyond research, action research, R&D - onto Collaborative Execution Research. We do group projects, solving Pressing World Issues as the norm. First 10 years max, unless progress is sooner, is solving housing. This endeavor is huge, as it includes RE, ag, microfavtories, home economics.
- School starts with Socratic dialogue in values, method, defining human progress, defining state of art, defining possibilities, defining unsolved problems, how to learn, mental models, antifragility, Maslow, Flow, sublimation, and finally the possibility of abundance mindset based on effective production and humanity. Up to Level 6 leadership. Technology is secondary. Once you can produce, once you demonstrate ability to perform in this framework, demonstrated by theoretical understanding and ability to formulate a Collaborative Execution Research project, you move on and we start on the technical skills. This is all predicated upon 20/20 break. Builders can sign up also, but that would be on top of their build work or it's effective delegation.
- 3 month enterprise program. Includes full build understanding of integrated build process and how such a process yield advantage, and how to understand out blueprints to make this process useful by adapting it as needed. This helps us disseminate the practice and have others validate the techniques. Significant risk of defectors, though.
- The risk of having paying entrepreneurs, without picking up culture, is freeloading. Freeloading is good, if it is not parasitic. Parasitic means that profit margins disappear to fund next developments, the integrated Product Design becomes harder if there is less ecosystem integration funding. For this, we would need any disseminators to pick up the culture first. Which would be the Ecologist (OSE) track. We would need to control the market to gain fully for transformative potential. Counter argument is that everyone will pick this up nonetheless without us training them once they see the economic success. It seems that critical issue to address is this delay so that we could recoup at least some of our value from the effort we put in. It should also be noted that the innovators typically are not the people who make the most money out of something I.e the first comer is typically not the first money maker. So here's a realistic issue to address now this would mean we just simply have a small time delay which looks like the proprietary way of developing things but we do not still hold any patents or any form of protectionism so that we can hold true to our distributive Enterprise belief.
- Thus the question becomes how do we manage the distributive Enterprise aspect are we still true to it we publish our blueprints openly including Enterprise blueprints yes but with a natural time delay which is defined by the time it takes us to get up and running because people will start replicating only after we're up and running. Now being up and running means that we have a certain level of advantage that cannot be taken away because in our definition of up and running we also bring in the various replication and robustness aspects which make our flywheel strong. So we have to make sure that we have a truly formidable flywheel before inviting freeloaders and defectors who will be there in and droves to simply promote the money making aspects as opposed to the ethical aspects. Now what is a way to build in the ethical aspect on top of our product well to begin with we already have certain value added so anybody who can produce this type of value added would potentially be good for example if the product is integrating enough for example if we have a microfactory if we have full solar energy we have full edible landscape that product meets so many of our goals that if anybody does replicated it's in all cases good. Now and it's roll out we only do a fraction of the whole product one step after another in which case we could be cut off at a critical point and a prevent ourselves from having the integration funding. This is a case where the nonprofit sector foundations could make up this new paradigm where we all pull resources to make a formidable super eco robust flywheel and then we have no problem disseminating across the world because anyone who does replicated is doing such good work that them cutting corners would still be better than the status quo.
- This could all solve itself due to the formidable barriers of integrated learning for anyone to replicate this work indeed that's how it has happened throughout the project that after we developed the brick press nobody replicated it. Because it's too hard. And there was still productization and production engineering outstanding and those are just as formidable yeah including Business development these are all even more formidable than just the design of the technology. So the lesson there is if we developed an entire model and now start immediately giving it away that could be a little different even though there is a significant time delay for startup because somebody can just flood another project with resources and we do know that the first mover is not the first money maker. So some strategic consideration here would be an order like for example building up our cohorts and successfully demonstrating the model so anyone who penetrates really has to be good and if they're that good they deserve to come out ahead of us and take our business. What would suck is that if we publish plans so complete so clear that as I said in my TED talk it's literally a civilization starter kit IE it's easy to replicate that anyone can do so if that's the case then we certainly could be knocked out of business. Experience has shown that the barriers to entry are quite formidable so this is Way beyond the grasp of any venture capitalist or any capitalist altogether because they don't see how if the info is open how they should be funding the effort. Because we would be done because they are parasitic loss. So somehow this is all of the good old fight of good versus evil and we see which which side wins do we actually get the distributed market substitution or the parasitic losses from the half replicants just weekend the the direction of integrated open development and undermine it's cause this is definitely a question worth asking the solution would mean a strategic understanding and consideration with this and mine. Right now The simple solution would be we do not invite plain replicator entrepreneurs and go balls out on education development so that we make sure that cultural learning companies the technology learning. Now if we could find some way that the only way you could succeed is if you have the culture in the first place then would be golden so perhaps the the new question to ask is how do we guarantee that anybody who uses our methods gains a cultural understanding first. Well there's the answer if we follow the principle of people and discipline and culture that we naturally build in the cultural people aspect as the forefront guiding light of the organization. This means immersion training extended programs where we make sure did they absolutely get the culture
- Teacher builders - get paid a good rate. They don't necessarily absorb the high culture. That is okay because they will help us cultivate the real bulk of our work which is the students.
- 1:4 ratio. $4k/month for the builder teacher, starting. 20/20 students - they pay $12k/year. If they do well,we scholarship them. Clear criteria of build time must be established. If that criterion is met, we are clear. The criterion is you make 2x the effectiveness of a normal builder. As an expert, you make 4x the amount. At that point, you qualify for management, with higher pay. Builders end at $75k. From there it is management tracks. Once a person reaches $150k value generation, they qualify for Executive Track - campus build and management.
- With 4 builders, we have 16 students - 20 total. 1:4 ratio. Bootstrapping. Our promise to students is that you make 2% outlier pay ($68k) within 24 months. Exceptional candidate can do 12 months. We hire you.
- Revenue/cost of team - $192k revenue, $192k builders pay.
- 4x10 week. MJ+students 4x5 build week, and rest is collaborative literacy + OSE sublimation training. Once we 'get it theoretically' (ability to propose realistic working models that explain assumptions, risks, and benefits).
- Year 1 - wood. Year 2 - metal.
- Expected outcome: 1000 hours per house. Avail. Labor = 160x4 + 80=720 pro + 16*80=1280 learner = 2000 hr/month. 1.5 months per build in this worst case scenario of 3x (3000 hr) instead of 1000 hr. Robust as we still have 1 year runway, we can go on for 1 year while delivering cultural results.
- Acceptance is about potential of learning a post scarcity mindset. We expect initial evidence of post scarcity behavior in about a year and in 4 years you can get a pretty solid handle and an 8 years it could become irreversible.
- It took me 25 years to become post-scarce and collaboratively literate, meaning dropping the cross of Jesus to be able to call for any endeavor, pending its merit. Here we offer a fast track in 8 years of dedicated effort.
It turns out that we are teachers of culture first, not of technology. This comes from considerations of parasitic losses and the sellout of ethics that's common in the world. Conclusion so read above is that we need to make sure that we are teaching people culture first and technology second. This is our best way to safeguard the integrity of this development in order to bring about a transformation in the world and clearly that transformation must be a transformation of culture. Therefore that is where we work.
This of course all relies on effective production as the substance around which this culture is built. So this is not like the hippies starting with ideals and that and then moving back to the city when their ideals didn't work because they did not have the tools. We start with a materialistic approach in order to cultivate a transcendental sublime product.