Dynamic equilibrium

The measure as written

In THE REALITY OF UPS AND DOWNS OF LIFE, it is asked that the individual be satisfied at his position "bearing dynamic equilibrium". Under "The stratification in the Society", it tells how this equilibrium is kept and gives the measure:

... In nature, a dynamic equilibrium is maintained with the shifting of positions from lower to upper and upper to lower levels. In this ideal system, the number of individuals required at each level is maintained for a smooth and efficient system. (In practice, the number required at each level can be worked out by following, year by year, how many individuals move up, down or out of each level; when these movements balance each other, the levels stay filled as required, which is the dynamic equilibrium itself.)

It then ties the number at each level to the satisfaction of the individual:

As mentioned, a specific number is required at each level; this means that if an individual is not satisfied at his position, then there will be a lack of calmness in the society (taking into account the capability/interest level of the individual).

Under "Capability and Interest", it sets two basic considerations:

There must be two basic considerations: the first one is that the position should be assigned while taking into account the capability and interest level of the individual. The second one is that the individual must be satisfied at the position, with the position being changed as the capability flourishes. In our society, as there is little or no balance maintained between desire and necessity, this leads to a struggle to reach the top level (healthy competition is something else). As only a small proportion succeeds in doing so (it is a fact that not all can be at upper levels), the rest of the population becomes depressed, evil practices flourish and the system becomes corrupt.

and under "Dynamic equilibrium in nature", it describes the change itself and what follows the peak:

For a human being, life is another name for change. It goes from child to adult to old person, from kindergarten to high school to university, from child to parent to grandparent and so on. To witness the same conditions over a long span causes fatigue and in turn reduces the efficiency. In an ideal system, the capability of an individual flourishes with time (under appropriate conditions) until it reaches the natural capability level. This whole change must be tuned hand in hand with the level of task assigned to the individual.

The question arises: what should be done once the peak capability level is achieved? Firstly, it is only achieved by some individuals if a healthy competition is maintained. Secondly, those who achieved it will voluntarily vacate the position for a reverse position. If you wonder how this is possible, then let’s understand the Work-Position Similarity theory (a way to satisfy an individual at his assigned position).

This sub-section follows the same persons a year apart in the societies of today: how many at each level move up, down or out of work, how many come in, whether these movements balance, and whether the levels stay filled year by year. The equilibrium is witnessed in nature and in the ideal system, so what today's societies show is not a test of it.

What it measures, in plain words

As was said, the levels stay filled while the persons in them change: in nature, positions shift "from lower to upper and upper to lower levels", and in the ideal system "the number of individuals required at each level is maintained". Its way in practice is to follow the same individuals, year by year, and count how many "move up, down or out of each level"; when these movements "balance each other, the levels stay filled as required". The measure asks, for the societies of today, how many persons move between the levels in a year, whether the moves at each level balance, and whether the levels stay filled year by year.

This is not a direct measure of whether a society is ideal or not; the dynamic equilibrium is witnessed in nature and in the ideal system. The results can give us a glimpse that the dynamic equilibrium is a reality.

What is measured.

· The levels. The same five levels as in "Work-position similarity", from the ground to the top: elementary occupations; clerical, service and sales, skilled farm, craft and machine work; technicians and associate professionals; professionals; and managers. The armed forces are left out.

· The same persons a year apart. In Brazil and the United States, each society's survey of its workers comes back to the same homes a year later. The persons are found again, and each one's level is read in both years; one who has no work a year later is out of work, whether looking for work or not.

· The moves at each level. Of the workers at a level in the first year: how many are at the same level a year later, how many a level or more up, how many down, and how many out of work; and of those at the level a year later, how many came from below, from above, and from no work.

· The balance. At each level, those who came in against those who went out.

· The levels the moves keep. If the same yearly moves went on year after year, the share of the workers each level would settle at, set beside today's share: the number at each level worked out from the moves themselves.

· The levels year by year. Where each society's own count of its workers by occupation allows, each level's share of all workers year by year, and the largest change from one year to the next.

Read in persons. The moves and the levels are counted in persons; no money figure is used.

How to read the result.

· A level is balanced when those who came in are within a tenth of those who went out (0.90 to 1.10 of them).

· The share who move shows the change ("life is another name for change"); the balance, the levels the moves keep and the shares year by year show whether the levels stay filled while it happens.

· A move here is a change of occupation group as each year's survey records it. It cannot show whether the move was chosen, as in "voluntarily vacate the position for a reverse position", whether the person is satisfied at his position, or whether the position follows "the capability and interest level of the individual".

· As the equilibrium is witnessed in nature and in the ideal system, levels that stay filled today do not show that a society is ideal, and the number each level holds today is not shown to be the number required for "a smooth and efficient system".

How we measured it

The same persons are followed a year apart in two of the seven societies, Brazil and the United States. The levels year by year are read in five: Brazil, Egypt, India, Russia and the United States. Nigeria's count of its workers by occupation group covers 2024 only, and China gives none, so their levels cannot be followed year by year; this is a limit of the data.

The levels. The five levels of "Work-position similarity": the nine major groups of the international classification of occupations (ISCO-08), ordered from the ground to the top by the ILO's own skill levels, with clerical support, service and sales, skilled agricultural, forestry and fishery, craft and related trades, and plant and machine operators taken together as one level. The armed forces are left out.

The same persons a year apart.

· Brazil. The continuous national household survey (IBGE, Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios Contínua) visits each dwelling five times, a quarter apart: the dwellings on their first visit in the second quarter of 2025 are on their fifth visit in the second quarter of 2026. IBGE's own guide allows the dwelling's key to be followed across the visits, but not a person's number within it; so, within each dwelling, a person is found again by sex and full date of birth. A person whose date of birth is not known, or who shares sex and date of birth with another in the dwelling, is not matched. The survey's occupation code is built on ISCO-08: its first digit gives the major group (0, the armed forces, police and military firemen, is left out).

· The United States. The current population survey (Census Bureau and BLS, basic monthly files) keeps a household for four months, leaves it out for eight, and takes it back for four more: the households in their first four months in September 2025 are in their last four in September 2026. A person is found again by the household's identifiers and his line number in it, and kept only when the sex is the same and the age is 0 to 2 years more. The occupation of the main job (the Census Bureau's code of 2018) is linked to the ILO groups through the same lists and crosswalks as in "Work-position similarity"; an occupation that falls into more than one ILO group takes the level that holds the largest share of it.

· In both, persons aged 16 and over in the first year. Each one's state in each year is one of the five levels, without work and looking for it, or out of the labour force; the last two together are counted as out of work. An employed person with no occupation code is left out (94 a year in the United States, about 345 in Brazil). Each person is weighed by the survey's own weight of the first year. Persons matched: 54,830 in Brazil and 27,288 in the United States.

The moves, the balance and the levels the moves keep. From the matched persons: the share of each level's workers at the same level a year later, a level or more up, down, and out of work; and those who came into each level from below, from above and from no work. A level is balanced when those who came in are within a tenth of those who went out, the margin set before the first count. The levels the moves keep are those of a chain of yearly moves (a Markov chain, as used in planning the numbers at each level of an organization): the one year's moves among the seven states, applied again and again until the shares no longer change. The largest gap between these shares and today's is read, in points.

The levels year by year. Each level's share of all workers, from the employed persons by occupation group that each society's survey reports to the ILO (ILOSTAT): the continuous national household survey (Brazil), the labour force surveys (Egypt, India, Nigeria and Russia) and the current population survey (the United States). The largest change of any level from one year to the next is read, and each level's range over the years. A year that the ILO marks as a break in the series (a change of method) starts the years afresh: the latest run of three years or more with no break is read.

Checks. All set before the first count, except the last:

· Moves of two levels or more only, as the floor of the moves (a move of one level may be a difference of coding).

· Ages 25 to 54 only, leaving out the entry into work and retirement.

· The persons counted one each, without the survey weights.

· The share of persons not found a year later, at each level; they are not counted as out of work.

· In the United States, each occupation shared among the levels of its ILO groups, instead of given to the largest.

· Added after the first count, when the yearly shares jumped in the years that the ILO marks as a break in the series: the levels year by year read only after the last break, as above.

A second pair of years (July 2025 to July 2026 in the United States; the first quarter of 2025 to that of 2026 in Brazil) was set as a check, and was not counted.

Years. The moves: the second quarter of 2025 to that of 2026 (Brazil); September 2025 to September 2026 (the United States). The levels year by year: Brazil 2014-2025; Egypt 2016-2023; India 2022-2025; Russia 2016-2025; the United States 2020-2024.

Limits of the data. Four things the counts cannot see; they limit the reading, not the levels:

· Each year's survey codes the occupation afresh from the answer given, so part of the moves are differences of coding, not of work; the counts cannot say how many.

· Not all persons are found a year later: 22 to 25 in a hundred of the workers at each level in Brazil, and 28 to 37 in the United States (moved house, not at home, or refused); their moves are not known.

· In Egypt, the levels shift sharply in 2019-2021 with no break marked by the ILO; the counts cannot say whether the workers changed or the coding.

· Nigeria's count covers one year; China gives no number of workers by occupation group.

What the seven societies show

The same persons are followed a year apart in Brazil and the United States; the levels year by year are read in five of the seven.

Table 1. A year later: the workers of each level, in a hundred

Brazil: the second quarter of 2025 to that of 2026, 54,830 persons; the United States: September 2025 to September 2026, 27,288 persons. The last column: those who came into the level in the year (from below, from above and from no work), against those who went out of it (up, down and out of work); 1.00 is the same number.

Many move in a year; every level stays balanced. A year later, 18.6 in a hundred of the workers in Brazil, and 29.3 in the United States, are at another level. Yet at every level, those who came in are within a tenth of those who went out: 0.96 to 1.01 in Brazil, and 0.93 to 1.00 in the United States.

Both ways, at every step. The positions shift "from lower to upper and upper to lower levels". The technicians, in the middle, lose workers both ways: 13.2 in a hundred go up and 24.1 down in Brazil, and 20.5 each way in the United States. They are filled again from below (25.2 and 22.5 in a hundred), from above (13.5 and 19.1) and from no work (6.8 and 5.3). The ground level is filled again from above (24.5 and 35.9) and from no work (18.5 and 12.4); the managers, from below (48.1 and 45.4).

At the top. About half of the managers are at a lower level a year later (47.8 in a hundred in Brazil, 43.0 in the United States), and a third of them two levels or more lower (34.6 and 32.5). A fall that large within a year may in part be the coding of each year's answer; the counts cannot say how much. Nor can they tell which of these moves were chosen.

Table 2. The levels the moves keep, against today's, in a hundred of the workers

The moves keep the levels as they are. As the moves balance, the levels they would keep if they went on year after year are almost today's: no level is more than 0.3 points from today's share in Brazil, and no more than 1.0 in the United States.

Table 3. The levels year by year: the largest changes, in points of the share of all workers

Nigeria is left out: its count covers 2024 only. China is left out: its data give no number of workers by level.

The levels change slowly from year to year. In Brazil, Russia and the United States, no level moves more than 1.4 points of the share of all workers in a year; in India, over four years, no more than 2.7. Read across the ILO's break in the series of 2020, the United States' largest change is 4.87 points, in the year of the break itself.

Egypt, a limit of the data. In Egypt, the managers fall from 10.1 to 3.8 in a hundred of the workers between 2019 and 2021, and the second level rises from 61.5 to 72.1, with no break marked by the ILO. Before 2019, no level moves more than 2.1 points a year, and after 2021 no more than 0.4. The counts cannot say whether the workers changed or the coding.

Checks. Every level stays balanced in every check: with ages 25 to 54 only (0.93 to 1.00 in Brazil, 0.97 to 1.09 in the United States); with the persons counted one each (0.96 to 1.03 and 0.92 to 1.00); and in the United States, with each occupation shared among the levels of its ILO groups (0.95 to 1.01). In all of them, the levels the moves keep stay within 0.6 points of today's in Brazil and 1.3 in the United States. As the floor of the moves, those of two levels or more: 1.6 to 9.0 in a hundred of the workers below the top in Brazil, and 8.0 to 11.9 in the United States. Of the persons not found a year later (22 to 25 in a hundred in Brazil, 28 to 37 in the United States), nothing is known; the balance is read among those found.

So, in the societies of today, many persons change their level within a year, and yet the levels stay filled. This does not show how near any society is to being an ideal one; it gives us a glimpse of the dynamic equilibrium that is witnessed in nature.