There seems to be a notion – bolstered by the ubiquitous "self-help industry" – that our beliefs are our only limits. As if there is a standard, set point, or style that every person can attain or adopt. The thinking seems to be that success is within everyone's reach, if only they follow the "[insert number here] simple steps to success". Meaning that by emulating them, we can become (or achieve the results of) the person we envy or admire. I do not mean to discuss here the issues of lack or perceived deficit individuals judge in themselves, that is for another time. The focus of this post is on the means to improve, not the drive to do so.
The above thinking approaches people with the attitude that we can "cut and paste" talents and abilities. That if we adopt the tendencies of others, then we can be like them and experience the same success, lifestyle, or even livelihood. It is both the 'quick-fix' and the 'outside agency' parts of this attitude that are troublesome here. Let me address each separately.
First, the short-cutting of experience. It is an understandable desire, to cut out hours of practice or exploration in order to reach the conclusion. The idea to eliminate the unnecessary middle ground of practice and failure; to jump directly to the "right solution". However, it is misguided - as there is no such thing. I suspect that the results may only be successful because of the experience and intuition developed by the explorer. It is especially difficult for people to explicate their internal processes, as demonstrated by the need for study of elite athletes to understand what makes them effective. At any rate, the answer to this problem does not solve all those to come; it is necessary to be prepared to tackle them as well, and that requires a great deal of experience.
Second, that the solution comes from someone else, rather than from within. This is a true problem, as it redirects the power from 'me' to 'the other'. Instead of building confidence in myself and my ability to find answers, it builds reliance on another. The next time I come up against adversity, have I built up resilience and capacity to overcome, or do I need to return to the fountain of wisdom that I used last time? The answer is evident when the gurus only answer one question in a book and require a subscription to tackle more.
Ultimately, this model doesn't fit with human nature, which is fractious and diverse. Yes, I (and you) can learn, change, and grow; that does not mean we will (or can) do so in the same ways. In fact, it may be important that we do not. Leaving that aside, can we or should we get the same results the same way? Is it beneficial to have a success "formula"? I take the large proportion of divorces as evidence of needing to find one's own way. There is certainly no shortage of people who offer advice to married couples, and yet the divorce rate has remained static for decades. Instead, there are likely only a few "universal" constants, while the rest are open to interpretation and personalization.
06 August, 2016
15 July, 2016
"Crowd" sourcing
Work is supposedly about employees trading their labor for wages, pushed as a model of simplicity and equity. It can be seen as extracting from workers the lifeblood that keeps businesses alive, rather than supplying workers the means to live. What began as layoffs, outsourcing, and downsizing became the new normal, and is now being sold to workers as
'freeing' and a boon to 'motivated self-starters'. The idea is to work two or three low-paying, part-time jobs without benefits because, "Why put your eggs all in one basket," and, "Why depend on work for health insurance"? In addition, we have a slew of 'startups' that want to (allow workers to) take advantage of these conditions. Uber, Airbnb, and other 'collaborative consumption' companies - supposedly parts of a new 'sharing economy' - offer the illusion of opportunity, profitability, and a community base. They are packaged as creating opportunities for individuals to live the dream of independent contracting: set your own schedule, choose which jobs to take, be 'your own boss', and leverage your assets into unlimited earning potential. The upstarts claim disruption, and an alternative to 'the establishment', supposedly easing the way for regular folks to cash in. Rather than taxi companies hogging the market, these companies will allow regular people to get in on the action. Instead of paying for a mortgage (or lease), one can become part of the hospitality industry and get a little extra for minimal effort. However, they are still privately owned companies looking to maximize profit for themselves.
It could be that the change started with personal vehicles being used for business delivery. This process shifted the burden onto individuals rather than businesses for business expenses. While offset by requirements to laws regarding reimbursement and insurance, it still placed the burden on the employee to learn, abide by, and then enforce these regulations with their own employer. This is most problematic in fields that had no history of doing so. The essence of all these actions is the uncertainty faced by workers. The question that follows is whether this change is better for workers, or only benefits the business. The test is how each practice happens and the results in the real world, not just the theory. In reality, Uber bullys cab companies, drivers, and local governments to get what it wants. Airbnb displaces responsibility and implies more than it delivers.
A few examples, with sources and further reading at the bottom of this post. In the City of San Francisco Airbnb should have collected and remitted $1.9 million in taxes, over 90% of hosts surveyed spent nearly half what they made on living expenses, and it continues to use drip pricing (which does not allow consumers to preview their total price). The legal agreements that Airbnb members are required to accept amount to "55081 words," equivalent to a short novel requiring several hours of reading time. In San Francisco, Airbnb hosts who control multiple properties comprise 4.8% of hosts and control 18.2% of the listings; in a similar company (HomeAway), 14.8% of total hosts control 46% of listings . These "super hosts" are like property mangers without any oversight or accountability. People also use these sites to set up Hacker Hostels (so-called because they lure techies and the like into short-term accommodations), which are problematic because they may flout a variety of city rules on overcrowding. Finally, for some perspective, a city such as San Francisco typically adds 2,000 homes in a year, and these companies take 200+ units off the market - a meaningful percentage.
I propose that choice is most meaningful when individuals are fully informed about consequences and willingly accept. In new and untested situations, these conditions do not apply and the potential for abuse is acute.
Wikipedia list of companies
Excellent article on pros and cons
Uber and taxis
Airbnb and San Francisco
It could be that the change started with personal vehicles being used for business delivery. This process shifted the burden onto individuals rather than businesses for business expenses. While offset by requirements to laws regarding reimbursement and insurance, it still placed the burden on the employee to learn, abide by, and then enforce these regulations with their own employer. This is most problematic in fields that had no history of doing so. The essence of all these actions is the uncertainty faced by workers. The question that follows is whether this change is better for workers, or only benefits the business. The test is how each practice happens and the results in the real world, not just the theory. In reality, Uber bullys cab companies, drivers, and local governments to get what it wants. Airbnb displaces responsibility and implies more than it delivers.
A few examples, with sources and further reading at the bottom of this post. In the City of San Francisco Airbnb should have collected and remitted $1.9 million in taxes, over 90% of hosts surveyed spent nearly half what they made on living expenses, and it continues to use drip pricing (which does not allow consumers to preview their total price). The legal agreements that Airbnb members are required to accept amount to "55081 words," equivalent to a short novel requiring several hours of reading time. In San Francisco, Airbnb hosts who control multiple properties comprise 4.8% of hosts and control 18.2% of the listings; in a similar company (HomeAway), 14.8% of total hosts control 46% of listings . These "super hosts" are like property mangers without any oversight or accountability. People also use these sites to set up Hacker Hostels (so-called because they lure techies and the like into short-term accommodations), which are problematic because they may flout a variety of city rules on overcrowding. Finally, for some perspective, a city such as San Francisco typically adds 2,000 homes in a year, and these companies take 200+ units off the market - a meaningful percentage.
I propose that choice is most meaningful when individuals are fully informed about consequences and willingly accept. In new and untested situations, these conditions do not apply and the potential for abuse is acute.
Wikipedia list of companies
Excellent article on pros and cons
Uber and taxis
Airbnb and San Francisco
05 June, 2016
How it Gets Done
Start with the assumption that whatever is popular or getting attention is a ruse or in actuality trivial. The arguments about politicians trading insults, what team is at the quarterfinal or play-off, lottery winners, which celebrity is having an affair, or cause du jour (KONY, Arab Spring, Apple sweatshops, boycotting the Oscars, etc.) is distracting from actual important issues. Acknowledge that the difficult, long-term, prolonged, ongoing areas are the actual fight. Where does that put us?
The boards, committees, agencies, and departments are where we should be packing the benches, standing in line, buzzing and tweeting about. Because the less glamorous, the more un-sexy it is, the more substance it actually has. Development and zoning proposals are actual work and how things are done on a regular basis. The most arduous task is the grinding wheel of bureaucracy; those who can weather it are those who get things done. Certainly, it's easiest to pick a fight, to flip the bird, or pull the trigger.
Strength is strategy, persistence, and diplomacy; those who expect a different president to fix anything are shortsighted.
The boards, committees, agencies, and departments are where we should be packing the benches, standing in line, buzzing and tweeting about. Because the less glamorous, the more un-sexy it is, the more substance it actually has. Development and zoning proposals are actual work and how things are done on a regular basis. The most arduous task is the grinding wheel of bureaucracy; those who can weather it are those who get things done. Certainly, it's easiest to pick a fight, to flip the bird, or pull the trigger.
Strength is strategy, persistence, and diplomacy; those who expect a different president to fix anything are shortsighted.
20 May, 2016
The Tragedy of Hope
In the current preparations for the U.S. Presidential Election, there are a number of contradictions. There is the near–incessant coverage of an avowed "non-politician", leaving The Republican Party in a state of disarray. On the other hand (read: political party), there are two actual politicians: one established (even entrenched) and traditional, while the other is painted as a radical and a Populist. In this, the more information technologies change - from printed handbills to electronic tweets - the more political discussion stays the same. Rampant are labeling, nit-picking, 'washing' of many types (where motives are assigned, denigrated, and questioned), blaming, straw-man arguments, and supposedly clever insults instead of honest, substantial discourse. Alternatively, given the two "disruptive" candidates, one might expect the natural results to be inevitable change and hope for the future. However, those who look at history could recognize a consistency with the pattern of previous elections.
Both Bernard Sanders and Donald Trump are very popular, if only within limited demographics. I will leave Trump, as others seem obsessed with analyzing that issue. Instead, I'll offer a view on Sanders. One problem is the contradiction that in order to be elected president, he needs to have been elected already. Which is to say, the conditions necessary for the election of a Populist, non-establishment candidate require significant changes to electoral policies that only a Populist, non-establishment elected official would enact. An alternative prerequisite would be for citizens to approach politics, government, and elections quite differently. Currently, there exists a "one and done" attitude, whereby citizens vote in elections and consider their participation complete.
I suggest this is the illusion of involvement - a version of the ball-and-cups or "shell game" - and more is required. By calling a vote 'the franchise', it sets up certain expectations. Disenfranchisement becomes the focus: the idea that those who are kept from voting are the only ones impacted and by ensuring their ability to vote the problem is solved. Instead, by changing the focus and shifting the discussion to actual issues, by admitting that voters are not being represented (because both the influence of money in politics and the electoral college), by demanding a better-educated and better-informed citizenry, by allowing citizens time to study and consider as well as participate, and having expectations of consensus from discussions, we could begin to affect the political landscape. Even this modest list could seem overwhelming, therefor easier to just focus on 'the right to vote'.
At a time when it is controversial or novel to say "I represent all constituents, not just those who voted for me," it becomes clear how removed the political system is from the necessities of a Representative Democracy. Whether valid or not, the perception that money is the only avenue to influence politics dis-empowers the majority. If citizens instead believed that their representatives listened and acted no matter their wealth, background, beliefs, etc., it would be much different political discourse.
None of this is to say our situation is hopeless, rather that the focus of hope is misplaced. It is too easy to fall into disillusionment, cynicism, and despair by pinning one's hopes on one candidate or election. There is also an expectation of having an endpoint, a destination, rather than this being a process that requires ongoing dialogue and revision. The way of change is sustained effort over long periods of time, which require movements rather than just candidates.
Both Bernard Sanders and Donald Trump are very popular, if only within limited demographics. I will leave Trump, as others seem obsessed with analyzing that issue. Instead, I'll offer a view on Sanders. One problem is the contradiction that in order to be elected president, he needs to have been elected already. Which is to say, the conditions necessary for the election of a Populist, non-establishment candidate require significant changes to electoral policies that only a Populist, non-establishment elected official would enact. An alternative prerequisite would be for citizens to approach politics, government, and elections quite differently. Currently, there exists a "one and done" attitude, whereby citizens vote in elections and consider their participation complete.
I suggest this is the illusion of involvement - a version of the ball-and-cups or "shell game" - and more is required. By calling a vote 'the franchise', it sets up certain expectations. Disenfranchisement becomes the focus: the idea that those who are kept from voting are the only ones impacted and by ensuring their ability to vote the problem is solved. Instead, by changing the focus and shifting the discussion to actual issues, by admitting that voters are not being represented (because both the influence of money in politics and the electoral college), by demanding a better-educated and better-informed citizenry, by allowing citizens time to study and consider as well as participate, and having expectations of consensus from discussions, we could begin to affect the political landscape. Even this modest list could seem overwhelming, therefor easier to just focus on 'the right to vote'.
At a time when it is controversial or novel to say "I represent all constituents, not just those who voted for me," it becomes clear how removed the political system is from the necessities of a Representative Democracy. Whether valid or not, the perception that money is the only avenue to influence politics dis-empowers the majority. If citizens instead believed that their representatives listened and acted no matter their wealth, background, beliefs, etc., it would be much different political discourse.
None of this is to say our situation is hopeless, rather that the focus of hope is misplaced. It is too easy to fall into disillusionment, cynicism, and despair by pinning one's hopes on one candidate or election. There is also an expectation of having an endpoint, a destination, rather than this being a process that requires ongoing dialogue and revision. The way of change is sustained effort over long periods of time, which require movements rather than just candidates.
30 April, 2016
Frivolous Nation (or How Pointless Consumerism Kills Self-Image)
The downfall of quality goods made by skilled craftspeople, along with the rise of the cheaply made disposable product, has long been lamented by those nostalgic for a 'more wholesome' age. While increased production capacity has allowed for a market saturation of products, it has undermined the ability to rapidly change or recover from disruption, both in the workforce and the production line. In the U.S., what was once labor-saving and a boon to business (automation or mechanization) has become a cyclic trap of lost living-wage jobs, shortened product life-cycle, consumer-based economy (as opposed to production-based), and frenzied pursuit of 'The Good Life'. These issues are troubling enough, but I believe there is even more to it.
To begin with, 'The Good Life' is more conceptual than practical. The notion of 'The Good Life' has been reduced to the sum of possessions and ability to purchase (a.k.a. income) because that is the observable part. Those without see what prominent people have and equate those items with success; having the trappings of success becomes success. The illusion of wealth and prosperity is more valuable than the actuality of hard work, planning, and saving. Partly because that approach takes time, and partly because nobody can wear a bank account balance. This means that as long as I have those signs of being successful, I will be seen as such and therefore I am living 'The Good Life'. In popular culture it seems that the more useless and ridiculous something is, the more valuable it becomes as a demonstration of wealth (and disregard for reality). I convey that I do not need to worry about paying my bills when I can wear this name-brand handbag/wristwatch. Beyond this, the illusion of not having to work becomes valued as a status symbol unto itself. Here we have the idea of leisure time, out of which arise Arts and similar activities. For example, fashion arose from people using free time to focus on the embellishment and enjoyment of clothes. These leisure activities and products quickly became part of 'The Good Life'.
It has been the promise of capitalist economic theory that more citizens would be able to access these leisure activities due to upward mobility and "labor-saving devices". When the promised rewards were not forthcoming, credit stepped in to fill that perceived gap. The promise of getting today and paying tomorrow may have started a boom in borrowing, but it also signaled the end of patience. Having the option to borrow soon became the first choice - so as to not miss out - which then became the default, as "Why go without?" was adopted as the reason to buy anything. Many families live 'beyond their means' and pay more than an interest rate by way of perpetual debt, item repossession, home forfeiture, bankruptcy, etc. Returning to the subject of fashion, it is important to stay "in fashion" since fashion changes, otherwise it is a sign that one does not truly have the leisure time or wealth. This means that the pursuit of 'The Good Life' is never-ending, since it requires constant maintenance. In this, we also encounter the conundrum of value: as soon as something can have value, it can also lose its assigned value and become worthless. Additionally, the amount of time and work it requires to obtain an item determines the perceived value of it. This can mean that buying an item on credit imparts no intrinsic worth because it is simply purchased and lumped in with all other items purchased with credit . If this is the case, then things bought with credit are valuable only to the extent that they support the illusion of success.
Commodification is the process of taking what is rare, unique, scarce, or precious and making it available to all. Again, the claim has been that this process equalizes availability and thereby reduces inequality. However, given the points made above, that is not all that occurs. Once the queer becomes expected, it loses much of its appeal and value. What was once a treat from exotic locales becomes the rotting detritus of everyday life. This is the way of Capitalism: the quest for the next new thing or market. Another way to look at this would be to call it profaning: bringing objects, practices, or beliefs out of context and making them a possession...common, base, ordinary, pedestrian. No longer is tobacco a rare religious symbol, for instance, instead it is a commodity that is ground underfoot after a 5 minute break from work.
The final component is the tendency to equate my self with possessions. Once 'The Good Life' depends on the continued accrual and maintenance of possessions, then my value to others and myself depends on those same possessions. If I lose them or they fall out of fashion, then my self-image is imperiled. I can only feel positively about myself (or my self) as long as my possessions support that positive self-image. This is the central contradiction: possessions hold all our value, yet simultaneously hold no inherent value.
To begin with, 'The Good Life' is more conceptual than practical. The notion of 'The Good Life' has been reduced to the sum of possessions and ability to purchase (a.k.a. income) because that is the observable part. Those without see what prominent people have and equate those items with success; having the trappings of success becomes success. The illusion of wealth and prosperity is more valuable than the actuality of hard work, planning, and saving. Partly because that approach takes time, and partly because nobody can wear a bank account balance. This means that as long as I have those signs of being successful, I will be seen as such and therefore I am living 'The Good Life'. In popular culture it seems that the more useless and ridiculous something is, the more valuable it becomes as a demonstration of wealth (and disregard for reality). I convey that I do not need to worry about paying my bills when I can wear this name-brand handbag/wristwatch. Beyond this, the illusion of not having to work becomes valued as a status symbol unto itself. Here we have the idea of leisure time, out of which arise Arts and similar activities. For example, fashion arose from people using free time to focus on the embellishment and enjoyment of clothes. These leisure activities and products quickly became part of 'The Good Life'.
It has been the promise of capitalist economic theory that more citizens would be able to access these leisure activities due to upward mobility and "labor-saving devices". When the promised rewards were not forthcoming, credit stepped in to fill that perceived gap. The promise of getting today and paying tomorrow may have started a boom in borrowing, but it also signaled the end of patience. Having the option to borrow soon became the first choice - so as to not miss out - which then became the default, as "Why go without?" was adopted as the reason to buy anything. Many families live 'beyond their means' and pay more than an interest rate by way of perpetual debt, item repossession, home forfeiture, bankruptcy, etc. Returning to the subject of fashion, it is important to stay "in fashion" since fashion changes, otherwise it is a sign that one does not truly have the leisure time or wealth. This means that the pursuit of 'The Good Life' is never-ending, since it requires constant maintenance. In this, we also encounter the conundrum of value: as soon as something can have value, it can also lose its assigned value and become worthless. Additionally, the amount of time and work it requires to obtain an item determines the perceived value of it. This can mean that buying an item on credit imparts no intrinsic worth because it is simply purchased and lumped in with all other items purchased with credit . If this is the case, then things bought with credit are valuable only to the extent that they support the illusion of success.
Commodification is the process of taking what is rare, unique, scarce, or precious and making it available to all. Again, the claim has been that this process equalizes availability and thereby reduces inequality. However, given the points made above, that is not all that occurs. Once the queer becomes expected, it loses much of its appeal and value. What was once a treat from exotic locales becomes the rotting detritus of everyday life. This is the way of Capitalism: the quest for the next new thing or market. Another way to look at this would be to call it profaning: bringing objects, practices, or beliefs out of context and making them a possession...common, base, ordinary, pedestrian. No longer is tobacco a rare religious symbol, for instance, instead it is a commodity that is ground underfoot after a 5 minute break from work.
The final component is the tendency to equate my self with possessions. Once 'The Good Life' depends on the continued accrual and maintenance of possessions, then my value to others and myself depends on those same possessions. If I lose them or they fall out of fashion, then my self-image is imperiled. I can only feel positively about myself (or my self) as long as my possessions support that positive self-image. This is the central contradiction: possessions hold all our value, yet simultaneously hold no inherent value.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
