On MLK day this week, Raj Patel captivated the audience at town hall with a lecture from the content of his latest book, “The Value of Nothing”. The title comes from Oscar Wilde who described a cynic as a man who “knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing”.
He began by asking the simple question: How do we value the world? Then he proceeded to elaborate on how we do such a miserable job of it. For example, we are not in touch with understanding who owns the resources we use every day, such as water, oil and food production. If you take a common item such as a hamburger, and analyze the price to value, how do you reach a four dollar cost? You will need to consider the value of the land where the cows were raised. Was it once rainforest? Then include the labor. In Florida tomatoes are harvested by field workers making well below minimum wage. When you add what would be the real cost of labor and the land devoted to livestock you discover that hamburger may end up costing you $200.
The costs to us are not only in the production of food, but also in our poor food choices that result in increased disease rates. It is estimated that one in three kids will develop diabetes in their lifetimes, and that one in five healthcare dollars are spent on treating diabetes.
Currently, the only way we value things is to stick them in a market. Even Greenspan had to admit this ideology has flaws. But how do we react to what we see happening? Patel likened our reaction to the protagonist in Franz Kafka’s novel, “Metamorphosis”. He wakes up to find he has turned into a cockroach and he worries about his job.
So how do we value things without markets? Do we say: “If only we had more regulation…”? The problem is free markets are very bad at being able to value things. For example, capitalist markets externalize environmental costs of the production of their goods, and drive down the cost of labor.
Capitalism gives us liberty if you believe the following thought experiment. Imagine you live in a place where everyone is given tickets for all the things you can do: eat, travel, buy a home, and go to school. If you don’t have a ticket the police will come after you. Money is a generalized form of these tickets, and freedom is just another word for nothing you can afford. Having money is the right to have rights.
So what are the alternatives to a system that produces penury? There are other ways of governing our economies. In contrast to the assumption that people are selfish and greedy is the awareness that to survive as a species we’ve learned to cooperate and have robust ways to do this. There are ways to manage our resources in common. Patel cites La Via Campesina, a huge movement of landless workers reclaiming the right to have rights around food and farming.
In closing he urged the audience not to agonize, but organize, and reminded us democracy doesn’t trickle down, it bubbles up. We can’t sit back and wait. Obama was supposed to be our pizza delivery man of change, and deliver what we wanted all hot and steamy as we waited for arrival. Now we must relearn the art of citizenship so that we create an economy where everyone gets to eat.
Our trip to Santa Barbara began and ended with a 32 hour train ride on the Coast Starlight. We spent hours reclining in comfy Barcalounger window seats collecting mental snapshots. Wooded foothills gave way to industrial compounds and backyard trash heaps in every whistle stop from here to Paso Robles. When you leave in the morning, sleep sets in around Klamath Falls and ends shortly after Sacramento.
After we left the bay area fog, constant sunshine whet our appetites for our arrival which was still six hours away. You begin to understand why California is mentioned only in north and south designations after you’ve rolled through the central valley. Even the cows run away from the train as if its presence was the only daily disturbance.
After San Luis Obispo the rails finally angle closer to the coast and the Pacific rises to meet us. The rolling oak savannah soon opens to the Santa Ynez Mountains on the horizon. Christmas night found us in a real bed in our destination city: Santa Barbara.
Rick and Becka met us in the morning for a leisurely tour of State Street, the main shopping drag, then it was out to the hinterlands to take in a wine tasting at Blackjack, and Danish pastries in Solvang. Home for the next few days was a bungalow near the Los Prietos ranger station. From here we explored Rick’s “office”: more than 440,000 square miles of the Los Padres National Forest.
Rick masterfully relates tales of mountain lion encounters, and the habits of screech owls with the same steadfast passion of a zoological historian. Throughout the next few days we learned how to identify the difference between bobcat and fox tracks, between cougar and raccoon scat, several species of raptors and how to catch a blue-bellied lizard in a weed noose. I’m tellin’ ya, this guy does the Forest Service proud.
Every day was filled with hikes in the forest, every night with movies and popcorn. Was I in heaven?
Sunday, the West Camino Cielo Road took us to one of an infinite number of vistas overlooking the coast from Goleta to Montecito. We hiked across the sandstone mounds to a place known as Lizard’s Mouth. The rock face juts to a point and a hook, then hollows out beneath to form a convincing mouth. The boulders here form narrow, person-wide passages and short tunnels, a veritable playground for any day-hike enthusiast.
Monday morning Rick took me on a tour further west on the Camino Cielo for a road inspection. The Santa Ynez Mountains are generous with their gifts.
The nearly 100 mile views in every direction give you the Channel Islands to the west and Lake Cachuma to the east.
Tuesday we loaded up the truck and drove east on the same road. Always the consummate tour guide, Rick would stop to show us important landmarks. The western slopes of many of these mountains bore the blackened scars of the Jesusita fire from last May.
Just past the top of the ridge the pavement ended and real adventure began as the truck lurched and bobbed on the narrow forest service road all the way to the Pendola ranger station. 
The ranger’s cabin exhibited a splendid natural history museum-like setting and I couldn’t help but mug with one of my favorite critters, Tyson, the bear infamous for biting the ear of his opponent, but still losing the fight.
Then it was on to Mono Debris dam for a tailgate lunch and a walk through the bat-guano infested innards of this cute little dam with just a trickle of water flowing over its arching side.
The back country of the Upper Santa Ynez reminds me of biblical landscapes from Hollywood movies, thick with craggy rock faces, gnarly oaks and ghostly white sycamores.
We made our way across the Camuesa Road stopping every now and then to move a boulder to avoid hitting our heads against the cab ceiling if we drove over it. When the side of the road widened to a flat spot big enough for a play field we stopped and got out the big guns, for real.
I held a hand gun once and it terrified me. It was ugly—protester-in-Chicago-during-the-’68-Democratic-National-Convention ugly. I never thought I could touch another one, but when Rick pulled the 22-caliber, long barrel, bolt-action “varmint rifle” from the back of the truck, I stood back and reassessed the situation.
A dozen bottles of Gatorade and three propane tanks from old camp stoves stood suspiciously as lost soldiers in the distance as the twenty-twos went flyin’. After the necessary instruction on posture and aiming I tried a few shots. By the fourth shot I must have channeled Sarah Palin on her first moose shoot, because I hit one of those juicy red bottles. Lord, hold me back. 
The shot echoes zipped through the canyon, and ricochets like shards of glass spat at the ground. Steve hit one of the propane tanks and sent it into a fizzy dance. My new acquaintance with firearms was barely sinking in when Rick pulled out the Winchester.
The night before he’d told me: “It can take down a buffalo. Squirrels tend to explode.”
I was dutifully respectful. I watched, make that listened to Rick take a shot. Rather than cutting a slice through the air like the twenty-two, the Winchester commanded the sky with a boom that vibrated the soles of my feet inside my hiking boots. The hole it left in the already spent propane canister was easily five times bigger than the varmint rifle’s.
Then it was my turn. I summoned my expectations, took aim and pulled the trigger. I couldn’t tell you what I shot. I stood there for half a second, realizing my eyebrows had leapt off my forehead like a cartoon character and resettled in a higher position. My attitude instantly shifted from—I could get used to this, to—I now fear God.
I handed the Winchester back to its rightful owner so he could take a few more shots. Then it was time to collect our targets, pick up any stray casings and head back home.
Wednesday night we spent back at the Pepper Tree Inn after a tour of the Mission Santa Barbara and the exquisite county courthouse with its Spanish and Tunisian flourishes.
New Year’s Eve would find us back on the train headed for Seattle trying to avoid catching the year end crud from the other passengers, which I’m sorry to report wasn’t successful. I sit at home now with troubled sinuses sitting out another soggy morning, dreaming of Santa Barbara sunshine.
This morning Paul Krugman’s op-ed piece raised some important policy discussion points that I hope will strike a chord with those in the “other Washington”. Along with his suggestions for a jobs program I’d like to add a few of my own suggestions for legislation as well.
While we’re telling the public sector to take notice why don’t we tell the private sector to stand up as well and offer the next best thing to job security, call it job principles of conduct. I would suggest at least two to start with.
- Any employer offering a job to a new hire and thus entering into a social contract, should not be allowed to then rescind that offer. This should especially be true if the start date is within at least two to four weeks of the original offer. If a contract verbal or otherwise is to have any relevance it needs to be treated as such.
- Allow no open ended contracts. I don’t have any problem with language that says three to six months with possible extension. However, once you have been extended you should now be in a pool that triggers a zone of compliance to the employer that might now say: Employer must give contract workers at least thirty days notice of reduction in force or pay one month’s severance.
The goal of these principles is to equalize at least in part the extreme deficiencies in basic justice that workers must simply take for granted. Realities like: I can be laid off at any time for any reason completely divorced from any job performance issues. No one would expect this kind of treatment in any other relationship, so why should anyone be expected to accept it from the people they work for?
Employers put a lot of emphasis on their staff who are tasked with planning and strategizing for accomplishing their initiatives. It shouldn’t be too much to ask to extend that same foresight with regard to service agreements with their employees.
Unfortunately, what we have resigned ourselves to is a scene right out of the Mad Men television series. Roger Sterling, head of the ad agency says: “So we lost an account, we’ll just have to cut back. Who can we fire?” as he pours himself a scotch.
Lately I’ve been passing around a video that brings people to tears and has them cheering for the speaker’s point of view. Gary Hamel is one of a series of speakers on business sustainability at msnbc.com.
In “How to fix today’s workforce“, his core message states: “Wealth creation is a product of new ideas and innovation.” Obedience, diligence and intelligence are becoming global commodities, easily purchased anywhere. These traits are commanded, whereas initiative, creativity, and passion can only be volunteered. It is the goal of management to create the environment in which their employees will volunteer the gifts of their intiative, creativity, and passion. Most people watching this video recognize the extent to which the companies they work for do not create this ideal environment.
In other YouTube videos Hamel decries how much management has not kept up with or even reflected these principles, that if used, could help them out perform this dismal economy.
One of the legions out there looking for paid employment and running short on inspiration? Skeptical about career assessment tests? I don’t blame you a bit.
I’m committed to doing my due diligence where search is concerned and once in a great while a surprise or two will surface. So I could hardly pass up a line like: 100 Skills You Should Learn (for Free) While You’re Unemployed
It was tip #7 that caught my attention: Set an example: Learn how to inspire others by doing what you love, being expressive, and helping others along the way.
I read it repeatedly and then decided it surpassed the Hallmark card seal of approval. Far from merely sentimental, this tip seemed to hold a nugget of veracity that I could not ignore.
And if that wasn’t enough brain juice, I also found a lovely little personality assessment that teased out a few tidbits and even confiirmed something I’ve heard before about myself, lending credibility to the results. At the site called primary color assessment, I learned where my personal preferences place me on the color wheel of life.
Here is what my earthy, rich color says about me:
It is very likely that you are viewed as extremely dependable and have a complete, realistic and practical respect for the facts. Logic and analysis tend to be hallmarks of this color. While you eagerly solicit others opinions, you are likely to be known as the “idea” person who comes up with new processes, approaches, innovative solutions and alternatives.
You may like structure (and, in fact, need it to be productive), and you will thrive in situations that value your intellect and analytically abilities. You are very thoughtful, and will be thorough, sensibly systematic, hard-working and careful with particulars and procedures. You have a strong drive to meet expectations and can be a stabilizing influence in a fast-paced environment. Careers that reward accuracy and organization such as accounting, civil engineering, law, production and operations may be appealing.
Moose Gruns can be quite intense and focused when presenting or defending a new idea about which they are passionate. People in this area of the spectrum come in two distinct flavors; those who are very logical and base actions and decisions on facts and those who are equally analytical but make more use of their intuition and “gut feelings.” The latter will, never-the-less, tend to verify their intuition with facts and hard data.
The bit I’ve been told before is: a stabilizing influence in a fast-paced environment. Several times in my career so far, colleagues have purposely mentioned this to me directly, and I have always been appreciative. I seem to have a natural tendency to believe things creating panic or dread rarely are disaster inducing events at work. Maybe that only means that I have been very fortunate so far, but I prefer to believe that what has been done can be undone and often made much better.
Yes, I’m looking for “new work” as Frithjof Bergmann would put it. I’ve been a collector of his ideas long enough to know when I’ve found a kindred soul of sorts.
Consider:
“Our view of human nature is diametrically opposed to the platitudes of our culture: human beings are not by nature rapacious and intent only on their own advantage. Far from it, the vast majority is frail, easily intimidated, and has great trouble even answering the question, what is it that you seriously want?”
And where work is concerned:
“The Protestant work ethic has deluded people into thinking that “anything can be good work if you do it well”. We should throw a Molotov cocktail at this idea.”
He had me at cocktail. Here is a teacher of philosophy who understands the corrosive effect of boredom at work, and actually has functional ideas on how to rethink the “job system”. He calls it “high-tech self providing”.
I am heartened when he says:
“People need the chance to do work with a purpose, to experience something as a calling. A little bit of job work is okay, but everyone should have a calling – it makes for a vastly different life.”
Recently, I noticed that Biznik changed its tagline from “networking that doesn’t suck” to “going it alone together”.
This is a huge step in the right direction. The first time I saw any reference to Biznik, before I even knew what it was, my first reaction to its public face was negative. Networking that doesn’t suck, as a tagline struck me as coming from someone bored and irritated and made me feel the same. Something that doesn’t suck might do something else equally unbad, but the confluence of two negatives does not produce a positive. It leaves it up to me to figure out what not sucking really means, and again that doesn’t motivate me to do so.
It is so much more powerful to say simply what it is and their new tagline does that beautifully.
I have been inspired and touched by the video clips that are part of Biznik’s SHINE project. In each clip an entrepreneur faces the camera and explains why he or she went into business. After watching these individuals talking about the struggles and rewards of being in busines for oneself, I imagine that the perfect tagline emerged from the nearly universal comment about how vulnerable one feels at taking that first step. Enter Biznik and the “alone, together” bit falls into place.
When employees are placed as contingent staff or taught to think of themselves that way, it forces them to maintain a preoccupation with the security of their livelihoods to a very unhealthy degree. We’re often told to think of ourselves as so-called “free agents”, a very interesting choice of words. I often wonder which set of conditions would alleviate the nearly constant need to either look for work or consider acquiring more skills in order to be more highly valued in the labor marketplace.
Some think labor unions are the answer, and feelings run very deeply for or against attempts to establish collective bargaining. I’m ambivalent about the presence of labor unions. I was once a clerical worker at Harborview Medical Center when AFSCME was voted in and my job category was included under its “protection”. I was young and knew nothing about unions. The result was an additional deduction on my pay statement for union dues. Having my take home pay reduced by an additional amount made no sense to me for benefits to which I felt entitled.
Rightly or naively, I believed that a society with common agreements about work in general would allow the application of laws to do the necessary work, making unions obsolete. Unfortunately, human history bears me out to be a fool in this belief. The power of tribes, (unions, the ruling class, the wealthy, etc.) and identity within them is stronger than the total collective altruism of any group of people, and laws are but blunt instruments for promising justice.
How can this not challenge anyone’s belief in self-determination? Curiously, it seems only to reinforce it. By some accident of birth you fall into the rich tribe or the poor tribe and from there universally providence smiles on us and the paths at our feet are forever of our own choosing. But, we are like the pigeons in the reward/frequency psych experiment. If the pigeon pecks on a certain spot on the wall a speck of food will be released from the hatch below it. However, the pigeon’s desire to peck at that spot on the wall is reinforced to a greater degree when he is not rewarded with food every time he pecks. He never knows when he’ll get the food, but he’ll keep pecking just in case. We maintain the same belief about humans. Keep ‘em guessing and they’ll keep coming back for more. Can we act smarter than pigeons, and learn ways to create sustainable livelihoods that are not dependent on constantly seeking agreement from a second or third party on the value of our existence?
Whether you are a direct hire, go through a staffing agency, or are represented by a labor union, is protection under the law uniformly applied and exercised? This is laughably not the case and works remarkably well at keeping efforts splintered in trying to maintain a sane, healthy workforce.
(from the UP homepage) ~ America’s white collar professionals have long since lost the job security and middle class status that were supposed to go with a college education and hard work.
My career is often morphing and presenting me with opportunities, decision points and slack times. I am constantly seeking a point of reference from which I can feel confident that those who interpret the corporate zeitgeist are doing so accurately and with useful insight. So, I was pleased last summer when I found United Professionals. This Web site is the brainchild of Barbara Ehrenreich, a writer who always grabs my attention with her observations about popular culture.
Looking over the board of directors and their work, I came across excerpts from R. William Holland’s book Are there any good jobs left: Career management in the age of the disposable worker.
Here is a sampling:
- “…the ability to create value is the personal currency for career advancement. That in turn relies heavily on the ability to keep one’s skills updated and adaptable to new circumstances.”
- “The lack of corporate sponsored career development is a substantial threat to traditionally trained middle managers who now may neither understand nor be ready for the new employee value propositions in place today. Their jobs are less secure than at any time in their careers and their mind sets and skill sets are about to atrophy.”
- “Controlling costs is rational behavior, as is managing individual career opportunities. For individuals this means they should treat their employment opportunities rationally against the backdrop of their personal brand in the marketplace. Companies are often careful not to act callously toward workers for fear of doing damage to their employment brand. Likewise, individuals who develop reputations for being unreliable complicate their chances for re-employment. Accepting or not accepting new opportunities that come along is more a question of brand management than of ethics, and the ability to recognize the differences is an essential first step in the mind-shift process.”
Consider excerpts #1 and #2. I understand that keeping up with new knowledge is an unavoidable requirement, and that more than likely, if I need to acquire additional skills, it is up to me and at my expense. However, is the goal of capitalism inherently different now? Driving dollars straight to the bottom line is still the goal as far as I know, so which new employee value proposition is any “traditionally trained middle manager” not going to understand or be ready for? Skill sets may atrophy but mindsets become outdated and occasionally irrelevant. Insecurity in one’s job can come from people, places, and actions about which you may know nothing.
Then consider excerpt #3. The idea that all this shucking and jiving is to protect a company or individual “brand” is cruelly absurd. Since when are companies careful not to act callously toward workers? Ever known someone who had to figure out what to do when a job offer was rescinded? So much for career management at that point, my friend. What is the definition of treating an employment opportunity “rationally”?
And now for a little reality check. Many people who are lumped into the class known as support staff are painfully aware that they are seen as little more than a necessary evil, simply a cost to the corporation. No matter how good their skills or institutional knowledge, they can be cut at any time without notice when the billable hours or units sold etc. dips below the comfort level of the principals. All your resolute propositions of value to the company can be summarily erased when the strategies of say, Kerry Killinger, of Washington Mutual infamy, come back to roost and destroy a once reputable firm. Greed? Poor decisions? Perhaps, but let’s not forget all that was in keeping with brand management, too.
So now we are left with our ever developing number of skills and if we’re lucky, our sense of self still intact. I am to believe that the question before me is one of brand management and not ethics, when any corporation I join is very likely to be unethical in ways in which I have never dreamed.
InfoCamp 2009. It is the last breakout session of the two-day, knowledge-share event. Quentin has proposed a discussion on the present status and future prospects of user-created content. He opens the session with showing his audience a couple of popular YouTube videos Slap Chop and Benny Lava, a bollywood music video whose native syllables have been “translated” to some non-sensical English equivalent with hilarious results.
The group’s conversation begins with some observations about why internet creatives post their work online. The page view stats and viewer feedback gives the user a sense of how popular this particular clip is along with the opinions of those who care enough to leave a comment. There is general agreement that it is gratifying for the producer to know the content has received massive acceptance from the recorded volume of public consumption. It is less obvious what value this provides and what purpose these venues serve. Would people still want to post their content if the number of page views and ability to give feedback were not available to the user?
And so the discussion proceeds along some fairly typical lines of reasoning with a comment thrown in about how the process makes sharing, viewing and commenting a transparent, democratic process. More comments are made about the underlying motives of the content producers.
“It’s true. Someone did alot of work to create this. Didn’t they have anything else better to do with their time?”
Apparently, I struck a chord with someone. Another participant then claimed the statement was elitist. Dumbstruck I was. Now the conversation took a turn toward…democracy? It’s fair game, it’s a level playing field, entry level is so low anyone can produce and post their stuff, it’s a stimulant for people to do great things. The flip side is that it’s just as likely to be used for producing crap. And again, the old television argument surfaced: If you don’t like it turn it off, click away.
If being elitist suggests that you purposely make value judgements about what content you choose to absorb, and this platform is based on the freedom to make those judgements, then what’s the problem? The user, after spending five minutes watching it might ask: Don’t I have anything better to do? Now that’s a democratic system!
When using the most common work-related apps, we’re accustomed to having fields similar to: always notify me when, or send to blocked sender’s list, etc. In this case, no one would be elitist for simply managing their preferences. When you are on sites like YouTube the management of preferences is completely up to the user’s click impulse. In the online version of democracy the caveat is we have to be willing to click through alot of dreck to find the content that serves us beyond mere entertainment.
Posted in Methods or Madness | Comments (0)