I have had a great influx of thoughts ever since becoming a full-time member of the U.S. labor market system after obtaining an undergraduate degree. On the plus side, the proportion of jobs that require few qualifications are bountiful. The communication protocols put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, which includes Zoom and other teleconferencing technology, facilitated contact for prospective employees and enabled them to find remote work better.
I have never viewed the I.T. industry as apparatuses that operate in a completely secure and puritanical light. So when I read some of the events in the papers about the I.T. industry with regards to data security (for the privacy of customers and citizens), stability of work in the industry, and new initiatives spearheaded for ominous initiatives such as military intelligence, I knew that entry into the so-called prestige of I.T. business and service requires the initiative to navigate the labor market, alongside skill, credentials, and some luck.
About a week or so again, I saw a headline titled something like "A.I. Bust", and it comes as no surprise to me. Big Tech industry has taken an oversized role as a topic for conversation and in usually very positive terms as well although distressing events such as layoffs occurred. Ultimately, through my personal experience as a participant in the labor market, I have become very desensitized to the ongoing chronicles of appall and brilliance that come from the Californian hubs constituting "Silicon Valley". It is difficult for me to send out more applications to big-name companies developing digital products (the trend is now A.I.), all the while reading daily articles on labor strikes, and getting no response. Another point that has added to my loss of interest in digital technology jobs is that many of the jobs are very service-oriented. The efficiency that technology can bring is made more evident by how people streamline and use the products in mass formation. So if I.T. jobs are part of the services sector of the economy, and there are problems such as data security involved, then maybe these jobs are not so great. I guess that is why there have been frequent references to the dot-com bubble burst that happened more than two decades ago.
I happen to think these technological and labor shifts to accomodate digital products/activities have obviously not yielded many benefits to some groups of people. Instead, these shifts are more so recirculation of wealth between members of privatized social circles. The persuasion of tales of information technology substantially improving conditions overall carries too much commercial zeal on the one hand, and too much collectivist utopian rumination on the other hand, to be more credible than the awe it triggers in those under naivette. A lot of modern digital technology is distributed by limited liability companies, and that really speaks a lot for the U.S. approach to data privacy in comparison to its European Union counterparts with their GDPR. Cyber-security companies are not transparent because they are in the business of security. The failures to guard databases and intellectual property have become typical tales of the I.T. industry in relation to healthcare, war, politics, and daily life in industrialized countries. Information games in hacking, leaking information, forging of documents and materials have made the I.T. programmer take to the back-stage because they do not seem to be the most crucial workers in businesses or organizations that deal in information for whatever specific purposes to meddle in the lives and affairs of people involved in the information material that they (the business or organization) claim to own.
Today, after I have recollected some of the events in the I.T. industry in the scope of my job search, I can state that I do not feel like I am missing out on anything great going on with I.T. and A.I. given trends such as "crypto winter" and digital technologies primed for military conflicts (ongoing or planned for future). But I am continuing to make solid efforts to steer clear away from Florida, because I was given low-pay on top of social ills and inconveniences there. One thing I have discovered in the jungle of the U.S. economic system with its many unnecessary regulations, usually against those from disadvantaged backgrounds, is that the labor market does make active efforts to subvert those that "seem" vulnerable enough to be picked on, similar to the dynamics of bullying between people. The labor market does not care about a person's intelligence or the specific skills they acquired past a certain point. In labor, the worker is more of a function than a really thoughtful and sentimental person with many things to give and share.
For example, I cannot believe that looking back, that I was living off so little by the low-pay work positions I took up during and after graduating from college. I became practically glued to the meaningless and trivial jobs that the South Florida suburban sprawl had to offer. Why would I devote any more than one year of my life to higher education to work any of those jobs? I would not have needed even a high-school diploma. The reason is simple to understand. I could not seem to fetch one of those white-collar jobs working in digital technology that was so advertised as being the future. Now, I see why. The I.T. industry likes to appear credible by acting immaculate and ethical (all the while encouraging so-called security companies to engage in information warfare scenarios). There have been security concerns announced about the industry, and ongoing conflicts in the Eastern hemisphere add more stress and complication to the job search in the digital industry.
I have also tuned in less to the press, especially when it comes to economics. The economists on major news stations do not really have honest ideas to share. If they do have honest ideas, then the ideas might be of no use to the specific rigors of typical workers.
I have especially felt the draining and negative influence of malicious use of information that may or may not be entirely fabricated (or engineered, whatever word suits the speaker better). It does not even have to be personal. A.I.-web enhanced advertising (targeted programming) is the big commercial model. Besides from that, when I consume too much media sometimes, I get a feeling of sensory/cognitive overload.
The broad nature of automating or streamlining memory-based tasks or memory storage is why emerging information technologies are becoming another department or renovated departments in other industries that traditionally do not deal in or have integrated digital systems. There is also a lot of potential for abuse of information, obviously. Institutions such as police, defense industry, tabloids, and monopolists are a few noteworthy players. Information as a good can be used to plan out or announce malice from one party to another. The presentation of valuable information carries a lot of weight, at least as much weight as whatever truth behind the information. And the roles and persons designated these responsibilities can be put into question from time to time, especially if there are political or financial incentives involved.
If I were to ever go into information technology as a businessperson, Florida would be one of the last destinations. I became very disenfranchised with my prospects as a Florida citizen before the Republican Party pushed for the state to become a stronghold in the bipolar national political machine (circa 2016). I was struggling in undergraduate courses to major in chemistry. I never majored in chemistry after failing organic chemistry. Back in Florida, I became a sort of sitting duck flunkie student loser, alone with my own thoughts but not really since I was still financially dependent. After my internship at Blackberry Cylance in summer of 2019 where I programmed an extension for a data analysis engine, I became very dry out of luck as a prospective software engineer. I did not land interviews. I read daily articles about the COVID pandemic's cultural effects on the workplaces of Modernia. The parts of my hometown that were not occupied by wealthy retirees were still stuck in their ways of drug use (pharmaceutical pill abuse) and other typical vices associated with blue-collar malfeasance. Instead of obtaining a job as another "tech worker", I took up work that required measly education and barely any skill. Perhaps if I had went to law school, I could have worked for organizations such as Morgan and Morgan or Southern Poverty Law Center. I would have probably wielded more influence in South Florida if I had graduated as a law student.
Florida has a culture problem that became more evident after the governor's spat with Disney (part of or the cause of so-called culture wars). Florida has too many retirees, odd fixations, tourism, and swing-state politics to make for a good spot for I.T. business.
Besides, with I.T. business, I am sure that fiscal problems have enabled people (or should I say, people have resorted to) to delve into the more ethically questionable aspects of I.T. business, such as extortion, blackmail, identity theft, defamation on the civil side. On the more violent side, there is information warfare, a precursor or complementary set of principles alongside other forms of war.
There is a large population in the state of Florida, but from a commercial information aspect, it would be better to operate in another state to serve Florida residents I.T. products than operate those I.T. products in the state of Florida. Crowding and suburban sprawl is a problem in Florida, and the state does not have as much investiture in past or present public infrastructure.
Information technology as an industry of workers appears very attractive to demographics that have a higher-than-average literacy. But obviously, during some recent periods in stock market history, there have been events that have skewed the demands for labor in this economic sector towards equilibria that are not impartial in selection. For example, during this time period in the U.S. (since approximately 2020), many parts of the I.T. industry have reorganized themselves to accomodate for demand related to the conflicts involving Israel and Ukraine.
The sector of information technology carries with it an air of elitism due to the typically bureaucratic and begrudging path towards netting a job working in it. There are certainly some priorities deemed more important than others with regards to security, project planning, monetary compensation, and marketing. Stiff competition and other market issues such as supply-chain disruption have given me the backseat when it comes to being a cog in the information technology machine complex.
There is something very awful about the nature of competition when some variables go downhill, metaphorically speaking. For example, some things do not get fully revealed, per se, until there is loss that is not able to be compensated. Or the path towards competition is very restrictive and already somewhat deterministic, so much that the first competition is being able to get to the real competition. What makes things worse is that some competitions end early, and the winners claim lifelong legitimacy and supremacy.
I expect that since there are unscrupulous dealers of all sorts of goods, including information, that the business of information technology is susceptible to questionable tendencies. I stay tuned to these trends, and I do not mind.
There are strong ties between corporatist labor forces and the I.T./A.I. high-tech industry, in which the term "high-tech" takes to mean the most advanced segment of a technology goods production machine. Without silicon, without the water that you need for yourself, A.I. would still be like the most magical and powerful algorithm invented by Ava Lovelace, pretty cool and advanced ideas for the time but way ahead for the time.
There are probably issues down the road depending on the demands of the labor market coupled with the demands from labor market participants, with regards to the rankings and progressions in organizations related to the adoption, production, and distribution of "high-tech" products.
Back when I was still in college, I anticipated my road ahead after graduation would not be met with applause and embrace, with me comfortably handed a mathematics-related job in the services sector of the economy. And I was right because I knew with some aspects of my life, I would be given sub-par. Leadership dynamics in organizations continue to change or lean towards preferences, so people in my position do continue to look for entry into the higher-paid end of the labor market. There are bound to be recurring issues in conversation about topics that cannot be so easily changed. For example, I would be a fool to discard what I studied in school or to not continue to pursue knowledge and skill regarding academic topics of interest. Even if I continue to net jobs that require very little college-level mathematics, there is always a little time that can be put aside for hobbies involving intellectual interests.
I was thinking about the subtle but clearly existent classism in the labor market, especially when it comes to the supply-chain in the technology sector. Back in school, even before higher education, students such as I were introduced to ideas against some manifestations of labor in the capital economy. Dissatisfaction is a feeling I have felt from time to time, but ultimately, better work, better development, and a better life is a personal waiting game.
The term "corporatism" is, easily enough, a very fitting term for some organizational structures that require advanced and regulated pipelines of labor and production. For example, a university student researcher in artificial intelligence may not think that they are a corporatist because they are bossing around no one and not enforcing any policy. But the work that they do gets translated into computer programming that is software embedded into computing devices. And those computing devices started off as raw materials. So the student researcher is actually a sort of gem in the crown that is the production machine for artificial intelligence embedded into hardware. And the production machine can be considered corporatist because the rules and regulations regarding utility and work follow rigid hierarchical processes.
One aspect about corporatism that really sticks out to me is the financial welfare of those that do not labor in the corporatist structure. A few centuries back, the British with their East India Company was able to establish and build a dominance in South Asia. The structure of this company, according to the incomplete facts that I have read, can be considered corporatist due to the wealth and power distribution regarding the company. The East India Company made a lot of money, but many of Britain's subjects (those of Indian or British origin) were not financially better off due to the successes of the company. Bear in mind that during the time period of the East India Company, mass changes in labor occurred in the form of "Industrial Revolutions". In corporatist structures, those with influential positions in the structures are usually very well compensated in financial terms. Those outside of the structures, however, are either not compensated whatsoever or compensated very little.
There was mention of the terms "Global South" and "Global North" in the press about half a year ago. Isn't that fantastic? I wonder how some people, here in the U.S., draw the lines for the "Global North" and "Global South". Maybe the lines are also drawn in U.S. territory, which would mean that the U.S. practices discrimination through controlling socio-economic factors, primarily occupation and income. There are so many great occupations in this world! It is too bad some people cannot afford to, or are restricted in their movements and behaviors. The term "Global South", from a corporatist context, fits the description of a region that produces initial components to more advanced technology, or one that deals a lot with physical natural resources, and whose labor force generally does not require as much education. So in the hierarchy, there is the "Global South" under the "Global North" in the cycle of labor-poduction-consumption. The "Global South" is more populated and is not as potent, for lack of a better term, as the "Global North" because it labors and exists in the basic stages of the corporatist production system. The "Global North" takes advantage of the labor done by the "Global South" by using their products for consumption or further development, thereby saving time and resources for itself.
The state of Florida is quite peculiar when one considers it in the context of a corporatist structure. Florida does not have a developed electronics industry. Florida does not have as much legacy in the arts and sciences as the state of California. Florida is not as conservative as Texas, overall. But overall, Florida is unremarkable. Florida is not really a follower or a leader, but a consumer. A big consumer because it has a big population. Many retirees in Florida are quite affluent, and although I do not know the statistics, much of their wealth must have been derived from corporate matters. But those of working age in Florida, even those that have credentials past high school, tend to find it very difficult to accumulate wealth. And it goes without saying, if wealth cannot be accumulated, then the benefit of no state tax does not mean a thing. The state of Florida must have been planned and continue to be planned for a lot of recreational activity. And this is a problem for those that want to accumulate wealth or at least welfare by working harder or innovating smarter. Corporatism seems to keep Florida Affluentaadis sailing on their cruise ships, and buries talent like treasure chests of gold.A terrible culture to utilize thought and effort. So some Florida residents are at the peaks of corporatist structures (typically old retirees), others are excluded from corporatist structures, and still others are kept at the bottom of corporatist structures. Diversity of status is not the problem; the issue is that Florida has an under-developed high-tech industry and it rather buys products from the Valley (that is Silicon Valley).
My quality of life and human relations in Florida were not that great after I graduated from high school. There are definitely lackluster experiences in my living in the state of Florida since about adolescence. I already foreseen that I will really go nowhere if I continue to try to live in Florida. Bogged down, a marginal person, a person that does not need to be that smart or informed. Mr. Bottom-of-the-Corporatist-Structure. And besides, when I think about Florida politics, I think about some of Niccolo Machiavelli's thinking that he wrote down in a book, calling it philosophy. Florida politics has a red side and a blue side, and is a sort of pay-to-play machine. Red politics in Florida is, from my perspective, split between the Italianos & Hispanias and the Germanics. And blue politics in Florida is comprised of hooligans and control freaks that use different styles but are ultimately of the same caste.
I generally do not like to delve into discussions about ethnicity, politics, and labor for many reasons, but the big reason is that many mouthfuls will be said although not much will be remembered let alone able to be constructively acted upon. The U.S. economic system is a very robust network, but not everyone has the same level of convenience in choosing what they want to do for a living in accomodation to their self-identity. What is quite obvious is that dysfunctional or disenfranchised communities (perhaps based on ethnic identity) may find themselves in very unsettling, unproductive, and irrational situations depending on herd mentality and group leadership. Dysfunctional or disenfranchised communities may be too helpless to help themselves, and the poor souls that are touched by these dysfunctional or disenfranchised communities have difficult times moving on and solving pertinent problems that fit the worker's talents. The thought and initiative behind independence become like crusader legends. It seems that when leadership attempts to solve some issues in corporatistic arrangements or to solve issues using corporatism, issues such as identity,expression, and representation become constant topics for discussions and movements in response to deficits posed by certain occupational and financial attributes.
Many people probably wonder what corporatism really is, because the definition and real-life exemplification require human perspectives to accomodate themselves to the different norms and sub-structures.
Corporatism can be casual, but in a corporatist structure, all persons and organizations bear some degree of connection to responsibilities regarding work restrictions, compensation, and long-term welfare. For example, a farmer in a remote village produces dairy products, but needs crop products from another farmer. A contract is established between them that requires some monthly amount to be transported according to a schedule consensually agreed on. Through corporatism, the first farmer could produce their dairy and the other farmer has a long-term customer. Corporatism, in this case, ensures stability and cooperation.
There have been so-called "free" market failures due to the lack of corporatism.
- country A wants to produce its own technology T but it did not think to promote social networks for its citizens to organize. So country A is stuck failing to produce technology T.
- An organization fails to improve its performance in hunting and farming, but it knows the solution. The organization fails to adopt the solution, and continues declining due to low performance.
- Several organizations compete with each other over the same scope of capital and influence. Instead of merging into conglomerates, they all fade into obsolescence from over-competition.
- Organization A produces goods G, but its security is so bad and it is weak on the legal ground; the organization let nation-state actors steal its intellectual property and goes bankrupt when the nation-state sold it to the competitors of A.
- Organizations operating in region R experience a violent takeover by invading militaries. Organizations fall under authority and possession of the invaders.
In each of these cases, the weaknesses of organizations and networks that were supposed to uphold corporatist principles failed to maintain meaningful and positive bindings to each other. Issues such as sub-optimal levels of improvements and losses in competition could have been minimalized if the structure had a sort of corporatist backup apparatus followed by a corporatist agenda.
Corporatist structures enable the rigidity necessary to minimalize disruptive practices, especially the ones that have weaponized subjectivity against organizational integrity. Corporatist structures can also be used to deter, subjugate, and entrap perceived threats into sub-prime conditions (i.e. working conditions, economic sanctions). Corporatist structures encourage objective measures on performance, in which these measures have reliable and available solutions for improvement. Corporatist structures tend to have two big objectives, and they are
- scaling and growing
- enforcing compliance with terms of labor.
For the second objective, corporatist measures aim for clarity in work processes, worker integration, and maintaining order against potential sources of disruption to the organizational body and/or leadership. For corporatism to really work in a form more pure than not, there is the requirement of pro-corporatist agendas. Pro-corporatist actions through agenda may appear or be perceived as non-corporatist, anti-corporatist, but its actions that may or may not be rationally linked to the betterment of corporatism actually is a pivotal force behind the betterment.
Corporatism has an umbrella of transparency, oversight in other words, that operates as a solution to filter out flukes and sub-functionals from legitimate entry, or any possible entry from a security perspective for that matter. Perceived threats are usually dealt with through socio-economic arrangements (think of personalized planned economies). Corporatism is an efficient and effective concept to manifest because it can aid in controlling narratives, a dominant role in the recognition and expression of problem and solution, and streamlining processes (removing duplicity, ascribing authority to singular sources as to avoid and preferably negate contradiction). Corporatist failings are a big cause of civil or violent conflicts.
There seems to be intermittent periods in modern U.S. history in which the term "corporatism" carries alarmist interpretation. There are usually outcries against some forms of "conservatism", but corporatism does develop over time. More complex structures tend to use 2nd-mover advantage through maximally using their resources to play the game of catch-up to incumbents of smaller scale, and then to leverage weight against the incumbents and weight for its own products. The rigidity of corporatist arrangements can dissatisfy many who are not primed or positioned to benefit from their inclusion in such arrangements. Corporatist apparatuses can be used to a horrid accuracy from those privileged for the responsibility against perceived threats, and this usage may constitute an abuse or unfair advantage according to the arguments of some.
Another aspect for complaint against "corporatist" arrangements is the potential for the hierarchs of corporatist structures to skew the perception of supply-and-demand. For instance, there is absolutely no need for a population P to nurture and develop the skill necessary to produce product X. But the hierarchs of the corporatist structure decide that population P best get to working so that product X is reliably produced T years from now. Population P does not have the need to produce X because it already has a rich and diverse economy. But the hierarchs' decision results in forms of labor considered forced.
Nation-states in the past have competed against each other in games that use corporatist principles and corporatist arrangements. Consider a nation state B that housed research and development that somehow became spearheaded for an agenda of committing a foreign invasion. Nation state B has about 20 years of advances over nation state A, reflected in its superior corporatist structure over that of its intended invasion target. Nation state B goes ahead with invasion into A, but a quarter of the way through the invasion, A renovates its corporatist structure for efficiency and comparative dynamics with B. Nation states A and B operated through different manifestations of labor before and at the beginning of the invasion. They also have very different ideologies. But corporatism became adopted at a thorough level of success for the 2nd state A, and in a form that compares with the structures of B.
Corporatist arrangements deemed effective usually promote a measurable degree of co-corporatism between the members of the corporatist structure, that is cooperation for corporatism. These co-corporatist bindings are very difficult to diffuse/disintegrate when the arrangements are in their phases of momentum with regards to development and chain-of-command. For example, complex institutions that have the capability for actions restricted by contenders and subjects can throw weight behind their devices and processes geared against others, as in the greater kinetic force of a mace against a sword.
There is a great span of surface available for attack (the attack surface) on complex corporatist structures, a direct result of the widely available number of available attack vectors against the many access points (that may be more vulnerable than not) of these structures. This generalization goes back to the concept of "more means more maintenance". Opponents of specific corporatist structures, opponents that may support opposing or alternative corporatist structures, use certain concepts to materialize their malice against their wanted targets. For instance, these opponents promote opportunity for themselves by planting and elevating their chosen conduits into their target corporatist structure, and these conduits transmit output back to their allies (the opponents) as forms of profit out from the exploited corporatist structure. These opponents aim to deteriorate the corporatist structure in ways that output products or building blocks for the advances of competing corporatist structures. And these competitors, if are advanced persistent threats, continue their use of anti-corporatist tactics against their comparable contenders. One long-term strategy that uses various tactics barely detectable if operated by resourceful and skilled opponents is building processes such as feedback loops that act as continual and draining extractions from the sources for their wanted output values. In zero-sum dynamics, these processes pose the broad issue of the disruption and possible cancellation of balance. Another strategy that can be used together with the previous for greater results is exemplifying the concept of weaponization of subjectivity through contentions regarding the leadership and oversight of the corporatist structures. Topics such as the "culture", the "ethic", and the "style and scope of influence" are put into question with those that declare/d themselves the rightful ones in charge.
Competing corpooratist structures act towards objectives that fit general guidelines. If the contender requires high-level products that requires advanced education and experimentation, and their competitor has these requirements and additionally holds resources back from the contender, then the contender pursues a strategy that causes brain drain from their competitor to them. The effect of brain drain is highly sought after by competing corporatist structures playing the game of catch-up to more advanced and robust competitors, games where they cannot leverage their own weight and function against the superior competitors. For low-level products (primarily natural resources), then there are aims to "seize" or "capture" these material natural resources, instead of the human capital in the case of high-level products, as well as aims to conserve the work process of the corporatist structure that handles these low-level products.
Underlying bases of corporatist structures can conduct detachments of authority from the upper portions, but detachment does tend to be quite difficult in well-regulated corporatist arrangements. When detachments occur, there is a follow-up of severance of connection (hierachical, co-dependencies) that involves the underlying bases going through re-organization for new leadership and dynamics of activity. Instances of corporatist detachments fall under the category of co-corporatist errors. The result includes failures due to the failed corporatist arrangement.
Corporatists (human agents in corporatist structures) do make errors on scheduled or predictable bases despite the seemingly gleaming images of their respective corporatist institutions. A corporatist's actions may be, without question of their true motive, anti-competitive to another corporatist belonging to the same structure. So there exists plenty of instances of bellicose activity revolving around corporatist matters in corporatist organizations. The concept of checks-and-balances is heavily utilized in organizations on a general basis, and corporatist structures are no exception. Corporatist structures that streamline and account for their processes tend to mechanize and proliferate checks-and-balances onto all of their layers,co-layers, as well as relations between the layers. The product is a complex that does not escape and skew regulatory processes (the checks-and-balances). Mechanisms that constitute self-solving solutions for internal errors are valued for integrating a corporatist structure with needs for high maintenance.
Communal systems can become curious cases in trends of corporatization. These systems of typically non-corporatist method of living and working do oftentimes turn corporatist as a reactionary choice, and in these occasions, the opponents are more organized and/or have more resources along with their functionaries. These opponents are much more corporatized and primed to achieve and maintain dominance over the communal systems. But the communal system, as a 2nd-mover, built its own corporatist design with attention only to the metrics that correlate to more gains than losses against their opponents. The communal system before their offensive-defensive procedures, from a perspective, was a corporatist structure but one that was not as tightly bound, carefully optimized, and designed for peak-of-performance as their competitors. The 2nd-mover advantage in cases of a "corporatist" structure more willing to fragment and implode than to accomodate and leverage change can turn out not to be an advantage over multiple rounds of playing catch-up, especially if the catch-up is not followed up with a decisive and terminating victory against the competitors. To label materializations of economic thought as "corporatist" can become quite vain and forever-flawed attempts when there is consideration of the morphological history of two structures in comparison of their corporatist implementations. This is due to the sociology, relativity, and purposes that are plenty enough for the potential to splinter in interpretation and action.
One area of ambiguity that corporatist structures face is recognizing and empowering certain members that technically belong to the structures. Inclusion is not an equivalent term for "incorporation", a process that involves integrating an outside body into a corporatist structure. And the integration assigns the roles, ranks, and recognitions of those incorporated. Inclusion of a body into a corporatist structure requires positive recognition of the body and, equally as important, granting privilege to the body in decision-making proceedings. For instance, pro-corporatists may be excluded from the rewards and gravity of the specific corporatist structures that they willfully support. So in times where proposed solutions involve withdrawing support for these corporatist structures, disintegration and splintering become noticeable problems. Non-corporatists may ironically benefit more from a corporatist arrangment than the co-corporatists of that arrangement. The support system, consisting of welfare, prosperity, and security varies in implementations through the different strata of corporatist structures. In corporatist environments that foster competition through the design of disproportionate benefits and taxes for those of differing ranks (such as leaning towards the head or leaning towards the body), there is motive to achieve higher ranks. In accountable and transparent (relatively) corporatist structures, achieving higher ranks is tied to managing greater risks (or at least, risks of greater scale), although those of lower ranks typically experience higher risk on average due to the combinative factor of their responsibilities and abundance of rank. The asymmetric nature between rank and reward carries with it the fundamental issue of coupling rank with reward as a balancing/corrective formula. Corporatist structures may administer change (typically termed "reform") that originates from either its body or the head. One big tendency for corporatist structures is to administer change that originates from the head. And in these cases, the head encourages negative change against perceived threats of the body and meanwhile upholds the head as a force for the conservative good. The tendency is correlated with expansion of checks-and-balance dynamics as policies of the corporatist structure. These dynamics usually follow the pattern of greater restriction on lower ranks.