Money shouldn't be in the American political system. But, of course, that's being unrealistic. Candidates have to campaign or, put simply, advertise themselves. Advertisements on a national scale take a lot of funds. Unfortunately, allowing donations broke the seal on Pandora's box and when corporations got their hands on it they unleashed the chaos within.
I remember hearing that money was a "new form of speech" when watching the Colbert Report last year. It dumbfounded me. It was the most idiotic and asinine thing I had ever heard in my life. But, as Stephen began to explain the situation in his satirical way, I understood. It was just another turn of the screw of a principle that I knew all too well: if you have enough money, you can control whatever you want. And corporations have a lot of money to put behind politicians.
Now, corporate money could be a good thing if it was a benevolent donation, but it's not. It usually comes with a whole lot of nudging, but more often, it's a done deal. There's nothing democratic about these dealings. The whole "e pluribus unum" crap we live by is a lie. There are good people and bad, there seems to be more bad than good. If there weren't, then more laws would serve the interests of the common people and stick instead of being repealed to serve the interests of a corporation.
The popular vote doesn't mean much if the electoral votes don't reflect it. How much of politics is just going through the motions for outward appearances? How much happens behind the scenes? Only the all-seeing eye knows. And, ironically, it's riding on the back of some big dollar bills.
In choosing what type of business you want to work for, there are some things to consider. Family businesses may offer a more relaxed working environment, but there are somethings that small business owners just can't offer. Corporations often come with a 401K plan along with dental and/or health insurance. In terms of job security, the corporation is probably equally matched with a smaller business. In a family restaurant, or something of the like, that particular business could go under due to competition. All of that pressure is on the shoulders of the owner. In an organization, job security is minimal as well even though you're more likely to lose your job due to cutbacks than an expired lease.
In Natasha Werther's case, I feel that what makes Kinko's "a nasty old corporation" (77) is the fact that their lack of morals is so profound that it extends to their employees. Werther even says that the biggest issue at Kinko's is making sure that their employees don't steal from them. Maybe the constant surveillance makes the employees want to act out; maybe the cameras are there to keep certain people from acting out. In the long run, it probably doesn't matter anyway, because employees steal from the company anyway. They steal supplies from the store for personal projects.
Corporations make exploitation seem permissible and, in turn, they breed employees that find it permissible as well. The corporation thinks only of itself and its employees think only for themselves. But is this the fault of the corporation or that of the people?
I've never wondered about what a corporation is. Bakan describes a corporation as "a legal institution, one whose existence depends upon...[pursuing] relentlessly...its own self-interest" (1). They are abominations and they have as unnatural a relationship as a puppeteer and a puppet. A puppet master animates the tool of his trade, he does not imbue it with life. Perhaps that is why Louis Baker refers to corporations as “Frankenstein monsters” (19). The corporation does not follow the "natural order" of things. The conventional business hierarchy would have the government at the helm, but with the advent of the corporation, the government had to answer to something other than itself, something less worthy. It essentially handed over its power when it upheld the machinations of the corporation. In doing so, it made a monster.
Take the tobacco company for instance. Nowadays, there is a campaign against the tobacco company called truth. Through humor and shock they have been trying to bring that particular corporation to its knees. When you think about it, the CEOs of Marlboro and other brands are marketing death. What is even more sad is that people buy into it. Between 1930 and 1950, the side effects of smoking were not extensively studied. In literature and media of the time, everyone had a neatly rolled cig between their fingers. But since then, some of the glamour seems to have worn off.
The corporation is like a Frankenstein monster. Frankenstein was given eternal life. Though the tobacco company is not at its prime anymore, it has not gone under. Why is that? Is the corporation immortal? One thing is for certain: it already pulls the strings of the world's political leaders.
There are not a lot of things I can think of that affects workers in a bad way. Most of the technological improvements I think of in the medical field do conflict with some of my ethical ideals; however, biotechnology often does. Something about other humans playing God just doesn't sit right with people. Take the work of Gabor Forgacs for instance:
I don't see this doing anything bad for workers. If anything, it would open up another position in healthcare for analysts and operators.
About the only kind of thing that impacts workers in a negative way would be the Nintendo Wii, and even that's a stretch. Assuming that physical therapy or physical fitness can be considered a distant form of the healthcare field, then I suppose that videogames could be putting some people out of work. Imagine a physical therapy clinic where, instead of many therapists for many people, there was only one therapist who relied upon the help of a videogame to cater to many clients. A machine cannot provide the human connection and motivation that some people need to heal. "I only said it was lovely here because … well, because progress is lovely, isn't it?" ~Brave New World
Is outsourcing to blame for the lack of jobs in the US? It's a fairly simple question, but hidden in its depths are political ideals and ethical issues. Outsourcing "referred to the practice of turning over noncritical parts of a business to a company that specialized in that activity" (Thottam 124) before it got its bad reputation. It sounds like a good idea to me. Why write papers and do the research if writing is your specialty and you can pay someone else to do the research for you? It saves you time and allows you to get more writing done. But too much of a good thing can be a bad thing.
Outsourcing has gotten out of hand and I don't think that the workers are misguided in their anger. I have seen my parents weather more lay-offs than I can count and that's only counting the one's they tell me about. It stresses people out.
One the one hand, companies wouldn't have to send jobs overseas if the quality and speed demands that they wanted were being met by Americans. But there are Americans willing to do quality work. In fact, outsourcing has come back to bite big business. Every day there is a long list of recalls on the news for goods that have been produced overseas (usually from China). The reason corporations are bearing the brunt of political and unionized ridicule is because they seem not to care about the quality of the products they are selling so long as they can get them made for a much cheaper price than they would ever be able to while paying Americans a fair wage.
“High-tech stress” (Rifkin) is neither the fault of the company or that of the worker exclusively. It is a little bit of both if you look at it from both the perspective of the employer and employee. The employer wants to increase productivity so that he can go home with a big paycheck and you cannot fault that person for wanting a paycheck big enough to live comfortably.
The problem arises when people in a position of power start to overstep their bounds. This creates a disjunction between the worker and the employer. What should be a team effort with bosses there to oversee and help with problems on the floor (more experience) becomes something else entirely. Perhaps it is the natural course of things that employer and employee are constantly in a power struggle, constantly trying to exploit one another. I don't see any way around it and here's why:
1) workers want higher wages
-in order for the workers to get the pay they want, the company would have to cut its profits in order to pay the workers more. ultimately, this would decrease the competitiveness of the company and if stressed to its limit, the company could go under. this would mean that workers be out of jobs and worse of than they initially were.
2) employers want a higher surplus
-if the company does not have high enough production to make their target profit for the fiscal year (and they very well may not if they have to go through job cuts) then increasing the wages of its laborers could stress the company to the point of bankruptcy. Consequentially, if corporations can't lower wages either, they have to make cuts and implement plans to keep productivity at the status quo.
All of this leads to an immense amount of stress on not only the employee, but the employer as well. I don't deal with stress well. In fact, it hits me in the face like a sack of bricks and go down for the count if i have the time to sleep it off. However, if I don't, there are a couple of things I can do to soften the blow. I either read a good book, crochet, or do some other solitary task. It helps me to remove myself from the stresses of life if only for a moment. But workers seldom have the luxury of time. They have jobs to go to and families to take care of. But then again, so do the higher ups. The only difference is, in the end, the people with the most power--the employers--can call the shots. And I'm sure that takes a lot of the stress off.
What is the creative class? According to Richard Florida, who coined the term, the creative class is "a socioeconomic class identifies as a key driving force for economic development of post-industrial cities in the USA" (wikipedia.org). However, I would not define the Creative Class as a class in and of itself and I do not think of it as its own class either. In fact, I believe that this creative class has existed much longer than Richard Florida thinks. A creative class, at least in the classical since does not exist for its own self-fulfilling purpose. In the industrial age, anyone could afford a nice rug or good fabrics because the amount of labor necessary to create the piece was substantially less than it had been. But, before the consumerist ethic came into play, before things were mass produced so that anyone could partake of a certain good, there were artisans. These people would hand make rugs, pottery, and things of that nature. However, for the most part, those artisans with truly remarkable skill could only market their creations to a particular class: the ruling elite. Though it is not always the case, more often than not, artwork is solicited by the wealthy.
In the case of Machiavelli, his “craft” was unwelcome. In the 1500s Italy was in a continuous state of political upheaval. Though Machiavelli was much more than a diplomat, he did serve the interests of political leaders. When the Medici family came into power, Machiavelli was out of a job. In order to try and get his job back (and consequently his lifestyle) he wrote his most famous book, The Prince, and dedicated it to the leader of the Medici’s. Now, Machiavelli never got his job back, but that’s not to say that it doesn’t work.
Kevin Bowe in Gig is a songwriter. Though he doesn’t get the fame and fortune of being a performing artist, he is the brains behind the operation. After all, what is a musician without his music and lyrics? Bowe seems to genuinely like doing his job. But he is good at what he does and he gets to work with the rich and famous. In that way, he gets to experience the rich and famous lifestyle. “Once I'm finished writing a song...my only input is: please perform it often and loudly and sell many, many copies” (330) Bowe says. In doing that it's almost like he's explicitly stating that he only writes the music to have it played. It isn't about the creativity, it's about the money. I believe that good artists need people who can spend money on them. They need people who can pay for their supplies or they don't have the means to continue their craft. Most of the modern art that I have seen has not been aesthetically pleasing, but it doesn't have to be. It's not just the artwork that artists are selling. They are selling their names to people who want originality and brand name quality. In return, they form a bridge between classes and get the best of both worlds.
"They all deserve to die. Tell you why, Mrs. Lovett, tell you why! Because in all of the whole human race, Mrs. Lovett, there are two kinds of men and only two. There's the one staying put in his proper place and one with his foot in the other one's face. Look at me, Mrs Lovett! Look at you! No, we all deserve to die... Even you, Mrs Lovett, even I!" (Sweeney Todd)
I could go on almost forever about the intimate relationship between class and race as portrayed by the media. However, I'll start by addressing Mantsios's article. The whole article is about reprimanding the rich for their hedonistic ways while at the same time regarding the lower class as a group of downtrodden innocents. He makes some valid points and backs them up. My favorite show to watch is Law & Order: Special Victims Unit. At first, I thought that it equally represented class and race. It probably does in quantity. The problem, though, is the way it represents class and race together. An inordinate amount of the episodes concerning hispanics and blacks are in run-down neighborhoods when "most of the poor are white, not black or hispanic" (186). However, at the same time, I can think of at least one episode where there was an intellectual african-american man in a nice apartment. He's not down on his luck and he's not the victim. He's the perpetrator.
The last thing I want to touch on is this concept: "the wealthy are us" (187). It do not believe that this is true in the slightest. If it were then I could have had anything I wanted as a child, gone to any college, and spent my birthday money instead of depositing it. Take for instance Bravo's series of Real Houswives, specifically those of Atlanta. Part of their appeal is their peculiarity. They take up extremely expensive "hobbies" on a whim and seem to be associated with the upper classes of the Altanta community. However, while on camera, they act like trailer trash and hoot rats. Hmm...
Then there are programs like TLC's Say Yes to the Dress where anyone can be a princess. It's just a matter of a budget. And even if you can't stay within your budget, the consultant can find a way to drive down the price "just for you" so that you can have a dream wedding.
The point I'm trying to make is that Mantsios may or may not be correct. For every situation one can come up with that supports his there is invariably one that you can find to dispute it. I tried to make a list of possible shows that supported Mantsios's claims. There were none I could name that were definitively for or against his claims. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I think that the media intends for its programs to come out this way. When readers noticed the slight discrepancy in the pictures' captions and began putting them together to show racial bias, "Yahoo News!" released this statement:
"In recent days, a number of readers of Yahoo! News have commented on differences in the language in two Hurricane Katrina-related photo captions (from two news services). Since the controversy began, the supplier of one of the photos has asked all its clients to remove the photo from their databases. Yahoo! News has complied with the AFP request." (Nowpublic.com)
I personally think that Mantsios has something against the rich the way he tries to state his beliefs as fact and explain any deviation from them away with corporate brainwashing as a safety-net. But if he's so wrong about it, then why are the news services not named? And, why were they so eager to get rid of all traces of their little faux pas?
I wanted to start the blog with my favorite poem by Langston Hughes:
It's not a very long poem, but when I studied the American Dream in high school it seemed to embody everything that I thought the American Dream was. Though Polyestra may make it seem like the American Dream is impossible to achieve, that isn't true. It may be improbable, but not impossible. But maybe "American Dream" is the wrong phrase. It brings to mind the white picket fences and the lifestyles in "Leave it to Beaver". "Class jumping" (164), as Polyestra puts it, is much more appropriate. At least from my experience, not everyone is looking for the nice house, perfectly manicured lawn, dream job, and trophy wife (or husband) anymore. What people want is the lifestyle.
I actually have a lot more in common with Polyestra than I thought I would when I read the introduction to her short story. My family, like hers, came from humble beginnings. Less than four generations back, my family was one of those that got a fifth grade education and then made their livelihood by living off of the land. I can't even go very far back in my family tree because of adoptions and a history of infidelity.
Still, if you can call it "class jumping", my mother came out of those humble beginnings with an engineering degree and training in etiquette. Just like Polyestra's parents sent her to the country club to learn the rules of etiquette, so my grandmother sent my mother and so my mother sent my younger siblings. I also attended private schools for much of my education, mostly on scholarship. However, even though I performed well and made friends there was always a disconnect. "All of the other girls...had designer jeans" (166) and walk-in closets. They lived in their three story houses (excluding the basement) in Hyde Park and made their name from old-money. Though I could easily adapt to the culture, my younger sister could not.
She was more like Polyestra in that respect. Instead of exercising a certain amount of control, my sister was much happier to blast her rap and hip-hop music and act like a general "hood rat". I can't ever remember being raised that way, but my father was raised in the deep south. He adopted a manner of conducting business at Procter & Gamble that I could see when he made conference calls from home, but as soon as business was done he would revert back to his slang and southern roots. My mother came from detroit and knows how to dance, party, and get into trouble. She also knows how to fight tooth and nail for what she wants. But, for most of my childhood I didn't know these things about my parents. Maybe they wanted it that way. But sometimes it seems like I need to be two people to get ahead.
I guess some could say that my family has jumped class or achieved the American Dream. My family doesn't see it that way. Sanya Richards, the athlete from the video at the beginning of my post, has what I was taught to make of myself. If my mom had her way, I would be some kind of athlete making millions of dollars with enough to let my family live out the rest of their days comfortably. But, that's never what I really wanted to do with my life. "Polyestra is a painter, poet, rock singer, and filmmaker" (164) and she may not be living THE dream, but it seems like she's living HER dream.
It is my personal opinion that spiritual values and economics, at least at present, do not coincide. if spiritual values, or morality in general, were in mind when it came to economics then money-laundering, money fraud, and embezzlement fiascoes would not be so commonplace. Big business is all about surplus. How much does one need to expand? How much can one make? How much does one want? When it becomes a matter of want and greed for the select few then things like worker satisfaction lose importance. And if the workers are not satisfied then the quality of the product might also start to decline. But sometimes the workers aren't the problem. Sometimes companies purposefully cut corners.
Of course, there are exceptions to the rule. Corporations like Johnson and Johnson are involved in the green movement to better the environment. Procter and Gamble makes its name through it's extensive community engagement. Products like Tylenol sponsor a generous scholarship program for college students. But more often than not, it isn't the companies that have made it that exhibit a general lack of concern for others, it is the ones that are struggling.
However, at the other end of the spectrum are businesses like Wal-Mart who have little respect for the spiritual aspect of life as they demonstrated by the construction of one of their stores on ancient Mexican spiritual grounds in Teotihuacan. "Walmart has been criticized...for its...low wages [and] low rates of employee health insurance enrollment" (wikipedia.org). I'm not saying that if everyone in charge of Wal-Mart, or any business fro that matter, was a pious believer in some kind of religion that everything would run smoothly and everyone would be happy. The fact of the matter is that it is impossible to please everyone. But at the same time, it isn't necessary to hurt anyone to make that extra dollar. If economics becomes reduced to that then it's little more than a feudal system where the serfs feed money into their lord's purse and have little to show for it.
The workers in Gig range have some very different jobs. The Mother, Second Grade Teacher, Wal-Mart Greeter, and UPS Driver have vastly different behaviors expected of them. Furthermore, most of them seem to have been at very different points in their lives when they undertook these responsibilities.
The UPS driver is the easiest one to figure out. It's clear that he hates his job. In fact, he has a general disrespect for the entire establishment. Though his narrative was very funny at times, I doubt that most of those things actually happened. I could be wrong, but for someplace with security as high as he claims, I doubt a missing package would go unnoticed. The fact of the matter is that, at least at that job, William Rosario is going nowhere fast. He's been working the job for ten years but acknowledges that his job is for people who "need benefits and...are going nowhere fast" (9). So what does that say about him? And it seems that, in an attempt to make his life sound like more of a joy-ride than it is, he over exaggerates the perks that come with his position. Now, I'm not really sure, but I'm fairly sure that driver supervisors make more than the actual drivers and have little to no reason to be jealous of "insubordination" (7). It could just be a case of "golden handcuffs". Rosario would clearly like to be doing something else with his time (if I'm being honest, he's usually doing what he wants to with his time, just on the job) yet he's been at the same job for ten years. UPS must be doing something right.
Now what can I say about Jim Churchman the Wal-Mart greeter? If nothing else, he has an exemplary attitude concerning work and a great outlook on life. He wants to work, no matter what that work is. I wouldn't say that he views greeting as his life's purpose. I wouldn't even say that the work he put into education before his retirement was a calling either. He's a people person so he would probably be comfortable as a Wal-Mart greeter or in a public relations agency so long as he gets to interact with people. It doesn't seem like Wal-Mart greeting is the job he's been waiting for, but he was retired. He just wants something to keep busy so Wal-Mart seems to be a nice fit. If nothing else, Wal-Mart is always busy.
Katy Bracken, a second grade teacher in Chicago has a somewhat different attitude concerning her job/career/calling. Coming out of college she still didn't know what it was she wanted to do. By a stroke of blind luck she got into teaching and realized that she was "redeemed by teaching" (394). Her love of children seems to be her calling while teaching second graders is her career. Even when she had the chance to return to her first love of dancing, she realized that it was no longer what she thought she wanted. Teaching is something that she can find happiness in through simply interacting in a more innocent and childlike setting. Most importantly, when Bracken states, "I'm just, you know, comfortable. I feel like I'm in a good place" (394), that makes it pretty obvious that it's more than just a job or a career to her. Being a teacher is more than a way to pay the bills, it's a way to find peace in her life.
For me, and lastly, it was the most difficult to determine the motives of Elise Klein, the Mother character, in her interview. The text is riddled with what seems to be nervous laughter. It's hard for me not to see her as someone who is at least a little bit forlorn at the loss of her career. Just imagining how much work she must have put into graphic design, I would imagine that the decision to give it up was a very difficult one. And because motherhood is one of the most demanding and has the potential to be the least rewarding once the teen years hit, it's no wonder that she may "miss having even little bit of an adult life...It's depressing" (386). But who knows? Graphic design may never have been Klein's calling. Perhaps motherhood is the thing for her, even though nothing is guaranteed. I couldn't see myself doing it, at least not at this point in my life. So, naturally, I could see it as more of a job than a calling. But that doesn't have to hold true with everyone. I've had the luxury of helping my younger siblings grow up so I know that you don't always get out what you put in when it comes to familial relationships. Sometimes you get less. And sometimes people surprise you and you get more. Klein can say,"I don't regret doing this at all...it was worth it" (386), and I believe her. Even still, I'd feel more comfortable labeling motherhood as her calling if the change was more than a matter of regret.
I'm not at all sure how I really feel about work. As Bell Hooks puts it, "it was clear to me that I would be a working woman" (21). As a black female, I'm very familiar with the concept. At a very young age, my parents instilled in me my central beliefs concerning work. First off, my father taught me that if a job was going to be done, it had best be done with excellence and integrity. He made sure that my siblings and I learned the lesson by overseeing the way that we performed our chores. My mother taught me to think about how my work can impact others by letting me know that success should be shared and utilized as a means of elevating the family. And I learned all of this before I was ten.
Thus far I have no professional experience in work. But what I do have is a wealth of personal experience. Even though it may take longer and it might not be--and in fact is seldom--appreciated, doing something as simple as making lunch for my brothers and sister is an example of work. Surprisingly, it is also a facet of my calling. As the Dalai Lama flawlessly explains, "'there is always a way to find a higher purpose to one's work'" (19). Cooking is a way of caring for someone else and caring for others is my calling. Though, specifically, I'm focused on health care as a career, my calling allows me to care for people in a number of ways and derive some satisfaction from my "work".
So many people don't find that sort of inner peace because work becomes a means of physical survival. I've seen it reduce people to balls of stress and depression. However, work does not have to be that way. Howard C. Cutler lists these three words in the order of 1) job 2) career 3) calling. I realize that he doesn't list it this way for any particular reason. However, this is the way so many pursue work. I know that it is the way my elder brother was working and it made him miserable. And now he's still in school trying to find out what it is that he truly wants to do with his life.
If people want to be happier in their jobs or careers, if people just want to be happy, they should first try to find their own calling. Knowing that I love care taking makes a job decision somewhat easier for me, perhaps moreso than other callings. Though health care is the CAREER I'm interested in, I can find a JOB cooking, cleaning, or doing some other menial task because it falls within the parameters of my CALLING. Of course, a personal attitude is essential to seamless adaption. I hated doing the dishes as a chore. I hated getting greasy food all over my hands and I still do. I probably always will. But just because I hate it doesn't mean I can't do it. In a small way it helps the household and I can make myself believe that it's a way of showing my mother that I appreciate how hard she works and I'm willing to help. If people can put that kind of spin on their work, it's hard not to do it with excellence.
