The mayor of Providence is trying to pass a law that would tax every private college student in Providence $300 per semester. He estimates it would bring in about $6-$8 million annually, and would greatly reduce the city's looming deficit.
While I'm all for unique solutions to solving budget issues and deficits, taxing students for attending college is not one of them. Why would they choose to go to Providence College or The Rhode Island School of Design, two prominent private colleges that would be taxed under his plan, when they could go to The University of Rhode Island, Rhode Island College, The University of Connecticut, or Bridgewater State College for less money, and without having to be taxed.
His plan is one that is not forward-thinking. There is far too much assumption inherent in his argument. He assumes students will still pour in in droves to attend the already pricy, cash-strapped and too-small private college of Providence, and that in the future only more students will come. What he is doing is essentially setting up a divide between the public and the private universities in the city and offering prospective and current students the opportunity to save at least $600 a year by going to another university. While $600 doesn't seem like a lot, it does pay for books for the entire year (and possibly a bit of the next), and is the approximate cost of 2 courses at Bristol Community College.
If anything, the plan will shrink enrollment and offer up colleges a new set a problems. And while the city may inheret some money, they will be shelling out plenty of it in the years to come when all the institutions and its students begin trying to sue the city. As a result of this, I fear that the tax-exempt status of these institutions will begin to be stripped, and the price will only skyrocket further.
Providence needs to invest in some new initiatives, mainly high-speed rail lines extending into Connecticut and Massachusetts, new fuel technologies, and plenty of oceanography (they are the Ocean State after all). It might cost a bit more now, but within a few years it's going to pay off tenfold. And if they show the plans to the Obama administration, they will surely receive a sizeable grant amount and possibly more stimulus funds as they are trying to promote green technology, science, math, and will be creating plenty of new jobs.
Don't tax the few who still have jobs or are attending school. Make more jobs and collect the addition taxes needed from those who pay income and state taxes on their salaries.
Am I the only one saying, "Duh!" ?
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Financial Analysts and Accountants
As a new English teacher, I want to encourage all my students to pursue a career in English, Education or something of the like..after all, math is evil.
But in this world, we need more and more people ready to meet the challenges of a society that relies upon math and science. The basis for all of these jobs and needs is math, of course, and the two jobs that pop up everywhere seem to be Number (Financial, etc.) Analysts and Accountants.
To prove my point, and to make this post short. General Motors, CitiBank, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and Circuit City (yes, the bankrupt Circuit City) all have JOB POSTINGS up looking for both Financial Analysts and Accountants. In other words, even if a company is laying off thousands and thousands of employees, there is still such a strong need for these types of careers that even as the ship is sinking, they still need people to jump on board.
But in this world, we need more and more people ready to meet the challenges of a society that relies upon math and science. The basis for all of these jobs and needs is math, of course, and the two jobs that pop up everywhere seem to be Number (Financial, etc.) Analysts and Accountants.
To prove my point, and to make this post short. General Motors, CitiBank, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and Circuit City (yes, the bankrupt Circuit City) all have JOB POSTINGS up looking for both Financial Analysts and Accountants. In other words, even if a company is laying off thousands and thousands of employees, there is still such a strong need for these types of careers that even as the ship is sinking, they still need people to jump on board.
$70k a year to use twitter and facebook
A public relations friend of mine recently posted a link on his twitter account to a job posting in Portland, Oregon. The job is for a Twitter/Facebook guru to work for the county to enliven its social media reach and to spur growth and a younger incoming population. The job will pay approximately $70,000 a year, which in Oregon, is about the equivalent to $85,000 a year in Massachusetts.
So why pay someone so much money for doing a job like this? To write press releases, to shoot videos, conduct stories, set up accounts, tweet, interact with groups and program constituents all across the country, and to social interact both in-person and virally seems pretty standard to most of us who have grown up in the digital age. I've recorded my own songs on my computer, set up accounts across various social media sites, and have a blog (ahem), yet I couldn't see myself doing it as a job. Why? Because it almost doesn't seem fair. To have a job paying about $30,000 would make it fair, as this is the sort of once-in-a-lifetime position offering work that is entertaining at worst and jovial and exciting at best, that pays through the roof, and that offers the type of job security and growth that every industry is severely lacking right now.
Is this county the first in a long line that will eventually go this route? Is this a bucking trend we'll see blossoming across the country? Counties and towns virally publicizing themselves to show off their amazing qualities and lessen any of their potential drawbacks? Seems a no-brainer for most communities. So yes, I agree with it totally, but at a cost that large? I don't necessarily agree with that. The newspapers and TV stations in the area that broke the story also commented on the seeming lack of fiscal control the county is using when offering up a position like this, stating that with crumbling roads and 50 teachers recently laid off, the time to offer $70,000 for someone just to virally promote the county might be too out of line.
What do you think?
So why pay someone so much money for doing a job like this? To write press releases, to shoot videos, conduct stories, set up accounts, tweet, interact with groups and program constituents all across the country, and to social interact both in-person and virally seems pretty standard to most of us who have grown up in the digital age. I've recorded my own songs on my computer, set up accounts across various social media sites, and have a blog (ahem), yet I couldn't see myself doing it as a job. Why? Because it almost doesn't seem fair. To have a job paying about $30,000 would make it fair, as this is the sort of once-in-a-lifetime position offering work that is entertaining at worst and jovial and exciting at best, that pays through the roof, and that offers the type of job security and growth that every industry is severely lacking right now.
Is this county the first in a long line that will eventually go this route? Is this a bucking trend we'll see blossoming across the country? Counties and towns virally publicizing themselves to show off their amazing qualities and lessen any of their potential drawbacks? Seems a no-brainer for most communities. So yes, I agree with it totally, but at a cost that large? I don't necessarily agree with that. The newspapers and TV stations in the area that broke the story also commented on the seeming lack of fiscal control the county is using when offering up a position like this, stating that with crumbling roads and 50 teachers recently laid off, the time to offer $70,000 for someone just to virally promote the county might be too out of line.
What do you think?
The Republic of Texas
The New Yorker recently wrote a satirical op-ed piece about the likelihood of Texas seceding from the US to become its own republic...again.
The foundation for the move is of course the liberal leanings of the rest of the country (or so they interpret...) and the 'over-taxation' of the Obama administration, which will raise approximately 1 in 15 (amount of Texans earning $250,000 or more annually) Texans' tax rates from 35-39.6, or the equivalent of about $34 per week.
While some lawmakers and citizens of Texas claim that part of the agreement of joining the US was that Texas could choose to break off from the US if desired, it is actually false. The decree from the mid-1800s, when Texas joined the US, actually stated that Texas could leave the US if it could be passed by lawmakers around the country, and if Texas was granted secession status, it would then have to break up into 5 separate states and figure out its path from there, without financial obligations from the US.
The article goes on to explain that roughly 1 in 3 Texans actually approve of or desire any sort of discussion about secession, and of those, a smaller percentage would enjoy or benefit from a secession. Which leads me to my question: why would Texas honestly consider this? Are they so far right-winged that they cannot tolerate even the most modest of tax increases, liberal brethren, and alternative fuel initiatives?
A state seceding from the US. It seems the stuff of fantasy or the stuff of 19th century America...not the stuff of civilized, intelligent and respectful 21st century America. It's stunning that this could actually be on the minds of lawmakers and high-ranking citizens in Texas and not just a handful of disgruntled wealthy citizens who want to hoard as much of their money as possible and develop it into a trust fund akin to the Bush's. We'll see, I suppose, but the beauty in the satirical piece is really one to make your head spin because it's more reality than fantastical...and some of the spoofs could become actual initiatives if they do somehow break away. Scary.
The foundation for the move is of course the liberal leanings of the rest of the country (or so they interpret...) and the 'over-taxation' of the Obama administration, which will raise approximately 1 in 15 (amount of Texans earning $250,000 or more annually) Texans' tax rates from 35-39.6, or the equivalent of about $34 per week.
While some lawmakers and citizens of Texas claim that part of the agreement of joining the US was that Texas could choose to break off from the US if desired, it is actually false. The decree from the mid-1800s, when Texas joined the US, actually stated that Texas could leave the US if it could be passed by lawmakers around the country, and if Texas was granted secession status, it would then have to break up into 5 separate states and figure out its path from there, without financial obligations from the US.
The article goes on to explain that roughly 1 in 3 Texans actually approve of or desire any sort of discussion about secession, and of those, a smaller percentage would enjoy or benefit from a secession. Which leads me to my question: why would Texas honestly consider this? Are they so far right-winged that they cannot tolerate even the most modest of tax increases, liberal brethren, and alternative fuel initiatives?
A state seceding from the US. It seems the stuff of fantasy or the stuff of 19th century America...not the stuff of civilized, intelligent and respectful 21st century America. It's stunning that this could actually be on the minds of lawmakers and high-ranking citizens in Texas and not just a handful of disgruntled wealthy citizens who want to hoard as much of their money as possible and develop it into a trust fund akin to the Bush's. We'll see, I suppose, but the beauty in the satirical piece is really one to make your head spin because it's more reality than fantastical...and some of the spoofs could become actual initiatives if they do somehow break away. Scary.
A New Buzzphrase!
And one that I am oh, so excited about! Now the world is abuzz with "The Worst Has Already Happened."
Of course, it's a pun on "What's the worst that could happen?" And is cleverly being used by job seekers all around the nation at job fairs and social gatherings alike, but there's a clear message being sent as an undertone in the phrase, and one that is mildly optimistic.
The worst has already happened makes it seem like we have already entered the next Great Depression, or even worse! But the phrase continues to urge people to take chances and to surpass their expectations, something that is optimistic in its pessimism of "nothing can happen that's going to make anything worse." If it can't get worse, it can only get better, right?
Isn't that the pure definition of forced optimism? If it is, does that mean this is the worst that the economy is going to get? In Great Depression terms, it's not too bad, but in recession terms, it's horrible. So maybe if this does go down as The Great Recession or a very mild depression sandwiched between two 9 month recessions, it seems about right. Which is optimistic even in its gloom and doom. If nothing can/will get worse, everything can only get better from here...but of course, it will take time.
But back to the buzzphrase. If more people are taking chances, trying something new, and going beyond their comfort zones, can all those actually be BENEFITS of this recession? Stay with me...Could the recession have reignited the entrepreneurial spirits in those who were sidelined due to having to moonlight as an inventor? Perhaps all this addition time off for many will lead to a plethora of inventions and betterment for the world emerging from The Great Recession.
Of course, it's a pun on "What's the worst that could happen?" And is cleverly being used by job seekers all around the nation at job fairs and social gatherings alike, but there's a clear message being sent as an undertone in the phrase, and one that is mildly optimistic.
The worst has already happened makes it seem like we have already entered the next Great Depression, or even worse! But the phrase continues to urge people to take chances and to surpass their expectations, something that is optimistic in its pessimism of "nothing can happen that's going to make anything worse." If it can't get worse, it can only get better, right?
Isn't that the pure definition of forced optimism? If it is, does that mean this is the worst that the economy is going to get? In Great Depression terms, it's not too bad, but in recession terms, it's horrible. So maybe if this does go down as The Great Recession or a very mild depression sandwiched between two 9 month recessions, it seems about right. Which is optimistic even in its gloom and doom. If nothing can/will get worse, everything can only get better from here...but of course, it will take time.
But back to the buzzphrase. If more people are taking chances, trying something new, and going beyond their comfort zones, can all those actually be BENEFITS of this recession? Stay with me...Could the recession have reignited the entrepreneurial spirits in those who were sidelined due to having to moonlight as an inventor? Perhaps all this addition time off for many will lead to a plethora of inventions and betterment for the world emerging from The Great Recession.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Fox Sports Blog Post
http://www.comcast.net/articles/sports-mlb/20090512/Rosenthal.051209/
Above is the link to Ken Rosenthal's latest posts, basically outlining how easy it would be for the Red Sox to replace David Ortiz (the Ortiz of 2009 he is quick to distinguish, not the one of 2003-2007).
Replace him? My immediate reaction was to scream, disprove him, and to write a retort. But after reviewing his post I have to both agree and strongly disagree with him. Within his post he makes reference to the potential trade options for Ortiz, how he may break out of the funk eventually, and how he may be finally finished, i.e. needs to retire soon.
So I can agree with Rosenthal that Papi's power has diminished, his numbers are sinking faster than Fox's reputation, and that the Sox have to do something about him, and that trades are a viable option for any player in his situation. But not Papi. Papi is not a baseball player on a good team. And if Rosenthal were a Sox fan, he would understand what Papi represents. Papi is the answer to the Bambino--one of the greatest players ever whose departure cursed the Red Sox. When the Twins let Papi go (and through a number of trades we got a lot of other great players who also helped), and he came to Boston, we helped another amazing hitter who had carelessly been tossed to the curb. We've done the same for Mike Lowell, John Smoltz, and countless others over the years as well. And the two biggest things the Sox never got: A-Rod and Teixeira, both of whom could have been the undoing of the end of the curse.
The article makes no mention about how disastrous a Big Papi trade would be to Boston--the fans, the stadium, the merchandising, and the team psyche. This isn't Manny Ramirez with antics up the wazoo...neither is it a case of needing to trade the perennial fan favorite Nomar Garciaparra in order to have a real shot at a world championship. The Sox has proven they have what it takes (04 and 07) to take the world championship, but both times Ortiz was healthy.
This is the same case of Jason Varitek, and before him, Jason Bellhorn. Neither one of these hitters was superb, nor were they very liked for a long period of time. Bellhorn would be booed when he struck or popped out in crucial situations, and his average was never above .250 and he never hit any more often than Dougie goin' deep tonight! Mirabelli, whom the Sox stuck with and even resigned (at 40!) to another year on the squad. Varitek has a deplorable season last year, but began to rebound at the end of the season and has so far tried to prove himself this season. The secret weapon for the Sox is of course the young talent they have in Youkilis and Pedroia (both benched at the moment with injuries) and the promise held in Jason Bay. The aging stars Mike Lowell and JD Drew will eventually have to be replaced like old car parts when they finally clunker to a stop (as anyone can see right now.) However, there is no replacing Big Papi.
He is not a dime-a-dozen personality. Notice I referred to him as a personality, not a hitter. For years it was the Papi show and the Manny sidekick, but with Ed McMahon involved in scandals and a hatred beginning to brew for him, can Sullivan really be ousted from The Tonight Show because of some low ratings?
Absolutely not. The answer at the very worst is to demote him to sitting on the bench and resting, or to spending more time working on hitting and coordination, which he is obviously rusty on since all his injuries have occurred. Getting him trim, refocused and well-oiled is the key to Papi's comeback and the Red Sox know it. In no way will they ever trade away David Ortiz.
It would be far too damaging to a city that is so wrapped up in Papi fever that even if he were to retire at the end of this year, his legacy would be remember as fondly, if not more, than Ted Williams or any other Sox great that has withstood the tests of time and occasional failure.
One if by land, two if by sea refers to the classic tale about the lanterns to-be-hung in the church when the British were to be spotted. But it can dually serve as a metaphor here. Ortiz is going down, whether it be by old age, a lack of productivity, or a trade, but either way he is being 'invaded' by an evil force that has the potential to annihilate him. Our options are either to hang one lantern and trade him, give him up with a young pitcher (most likely Lester), for another JD Drew who will be good, but not superb like the old Papi. Or to hang two lanterns and really dig in for the long haul with him. Really evaluate him and put him on a specialized program to get his hitting and focus back together.
So much of what he is going through is mental, and sports writers citing that the Sox could easily replace him are not going to help him break this funk and psyche himself back up. He needs to relax, have some time to work on his strengths, and reemerge as a hitter who does not necessarily need to be constantly clutch, but that can consistently hit between .250 and .300 and who hits at least 30-50 home runs each season.
Trading Papi would destroy what the Red Sox have fought for nearly 100 years to reverse. He symbolizes what Sox fans have yearned for for all this time, and his trade would be almost a relinquishing of the dream of a team that has the chance to really win and make a city happy. And in this economy, every city needs someone it can root for, and though the Celtics, the Bruins and the Patriots are all doing well, the Red Sox are to Boston what reversing is to cursing.
Above is the link to Ken Rosenthal's latest posts, basically outlining how easy it would be for the Red Sox to replace David Ortiz (the Ortiz of 2009 he is quick to distinguish, not the one of 2003-2007).
Replace him? My immediate reaction was to scream, disprove him, and to write a retort. But after reviewing his post I have to both agree and strongly disagree with him. Within his post he makes reference to the potential trade options for Ortiz, how he may break out of the funk eventually, and how he may be finally finished, i.e. needs to retire soon.
So I can agree with Rosenthal that Papi's power has diminished, his numbers are sinking faster than Fox's reputation, and that the Sox have to do something about him, and that trades are a viable option for any player in his situation. But not Papi. Papi is not a baseball player on a good team. And if Rosenthal were a Sox fan, he would understand what Papi represents. Papi is the answer to the Bambino--one of the greatest players ever whose departure cursed the Red Sox. When the Twins let Papi go (and through a number of trades we got a lot of other great players who also helped), and he came to Boston, we helped another amazing hitter who had carelessly been tossed to the curb. We've done the same for Mike Lowell, John Smoltz, and countless others over the years as well. And the two biggest things the Sox never got: A-Rod and Teixeira, both of whom could have been the undoing of the end of the curse.
The article makes no mention about how disastrous a Big Papi trade would be to Boston--the fans, the stadium, the merchandising, and the team psyche. This isn't Manny Ramirez with antics up the wazoo...neither is it a case of needing to trade the perennial fan favorite Nomar Garciaparra in order to have a real shot at a world championship. The Sox has proven they have what it takes (04 and 07) to take the world championship, but both times Ortiz was healthy.
This is the same case of Jason Varitek, and before him, Jason Bellhorn. Neither one of these hitters was superb, nor were they very liked for a long period of time. Bellhorn would be booed when he struck or popped out in crucial situations, and his average was never above .250 and he never hit any more often than Dougie goin' deep tonight! Mirabelli, whom the Sox stuck with and even resigned (at 40!) to another year on the squad. Varitek has a deplorable season last year, but began to rebound at the end of the season and has so far tried to prove himself this season. The secret weapon for the Sox is of course the young talent they have in Youkilis and Pedroia (both benched at the moment with injuries) and the promise held in Jason Bay. The aging stars Mike Lowell and JD Drew will eventually have to be replaced like old car parts when they finally clunker to a stop (as anyone can see right now.) However, there is no replacing Big Papi.
He is not a dime-a-dozen personality. Notice I referred to him as a personality, not a hitter. For years it was the Papi show and the Manny sidekick, but with Ed McMahon involved in scandals and a hatred beginning to brew for him, can Sullivan really be ousted from The Tonight Show because of some low ratings?
Absolutely not. The answer at the very worst is to demote him to sitting on the bench and resting, or to spending more time working on hitting and coordination, which he is obviously rusty on since all his injuries have occurred. Getting him trim, refocused and well-oiled is the key to Papi's comeback and the Red Sox know it. In no way will they ever trade away David Ortiz.
It would be far too damaging to a city that is so wrapped up in Papi fever that even if he were to retire at the end of this year, his legacy would be remember as fondly, if not more, than Ted Williams or any other Sox great that has withstood the tests of time and occasional failure.
One if by land, two if by sea refers to the classic tale about the lanterns to-be-hung in the church when the British were to be spotted. But it can dually serve as a metaphor here. Ortiz is going down, whether it be by old age, a lack of productivity, or a trade, but either way he is being 'invaded' by an evil force that has the potential to annihilate him. Our options are either to hang one lantern and trade him, give him up with a young pitcher (most likely Lester), for another JD Drew who will be good, but not superb like the old Papi. Or to hang two lanterns and really dig in for the long haul with him. Really evaluate him and put him on a specialized program to get his hitting and focus back together.
So much of what he is going through is mental, and sports writers citing that the Sox could easily replace him are not going to help him break this funk and psyche himself back up. He needs to relax, have some time to work on his strengths, and reemerge as a hitter who does not necessarily need to be constantly clutch, but that can consistently hit between .250 and .300 and who hits at least 30-50 home runs each season.
Trading Papi would destroy what the Red Sox have fought for nearly 100 years to reverse. He symbolizes what Sox fans have yearned for for all this time, and his trade would be almost a relinquishing of the dream of a team that has the chance to really win and make a city happy. And in this economy, every city needs someone it can root for, and though the Celtics, the Bruins and the Patriots are all doing well, the Red Sox are to Boston what reversing is to cursing.
Save The Music Programs
I find the commercial to reinstate music classes in schools to be very offensive. Not the idea of it, by any means, but the way in which many of these music-promotion organizations donate money. In order to qualify, a school must be ready to cut their music programs or must have already cut the programs. Usually, a school which is about to cut its music programs has already stripped away the school district of all less experienced teachers and staff (those without the protection of tenure and/or those not at the top of the totem pole). In addition, the cut or to-be-cut program must be reinstated according to certain obligations. There can only be a certain number of students playing each instrument, and among those played, there cannot be more than a few drummers, trumpeters, and guitar players (usually 2 or 3 at most). I don't know about most schools, but in my school of 800-900, there were 9 drummers. That means the competition to play an instrument also goes by seniority, which seems unfair at best. Choral programs and jazz band are also not encouraged through program donations.
So while I support the implementation of more music programs in school, I don't support cutting other things, especially more subject and special education teachers. For the sake of our future, we need to boost funding in ALL aspects of schooling--if we ever hope to become an intelligent, literate nation. The Department of Education's budget needs to be doubled EVERY year from its current amount, and it needs frequent stimulus infusions to create reserve funds for specific districts that may run into financial difficulties on their own, never mind the circumstances everyone is under now that The Great Recession has hit hard.
So while I support the implementation of more music programs in school, I don't support cutting other things, especially more subject and special education teachers. For the sake of our future, we need to boost funding in ALL aspects of schooling--if we ever hope to become an intelligent, literate nation. The Department of Education's budget needs to be doubled EVERY year from its current amount, and it needs frequent stimulus infusions to create reserve funds for specific districts that may run into financial difficulties on their own, never mind the circumstances everyone is under now that The Great Recession has hit hard.
Monday, May 11, 2009
A Strange Dichotomy...
So while I like to think I'm intelligent/cognizant enough to be above such things, I found myself watching WWE again...yes, I know it's an ugly addiction, but it has been since childhood.
I remember watching it religiously every Saturday morning, though ironically I didn't visit church religiously every Sunday..egad! And I can recite to you countless facts and figures from the past two decades of wrestling. And while I can easily file this under my "to be used only when playing Trivial Pursuit or talking with someone even more obsessed with early 1990s wrestling than you"...I feel a certain guilt in continuing to watch it.
Is it that I have an addiction to wrestling, stemming from childhood, and even perhaps an addiction to simple debasement? Or is it that wrestling, as it did when I was a bored and lonely young kid, an outlet and an escape from the troubles of the world. I'm sure it's not hard to argue in my own mind that Anderson Cooper 360 is a bit more upbeat these days, and that our economy itself may be beginning to turn the corner, but everywhere I look there is one word painted across the sky: recession. And with it comes panic, hoarding, questions, and fear. And while it would be nice for all of it to go away immediately, it's going to be quite difficult. But soap operas, especially a two-hour one that rolls on from week to week, can be beneficial in trying to escape the depressing monotony of our world.
So should I feel guilty for watching WWE when I could listen to NPR or check on the current state of our economy? Or even turn on CNBC for a capitalist/conservative opinion on our economy? I could, but it's nice to escape for a while. Especially since a lot of my writing now reflects the economy and the depression. And when reading, I'm often thinking about it.
I remember watching it religiously every Saturday morning, though ironically I didn't visit church religiously every Sunday..egad! And I can recite to you countless facts and figures from the past two decades of wrestling. And while I can easily file this under my "to be used only when playing Trivial Pursuit or talking with someone even more obsessed with early 1990s wrestling than you"...I feel a certain guilt in continuing to watch it.
Is it that I have an addiction to wrestling, stemming from childhood, and even perhaps an addiction to simple debasement? Or is it that wrestling, as it did when I was a bored and lonely young kid, an outlet and an escape from the troubles of the world. I'm sure it's not hard to argue in my own mind that Anderson Cooper 360 is a bit more upbeat these days, and that our economy itself may be beginning to turn the corner, but everywhere I look there is one word painted across the sky: recession. And with it comes panic, hoarding, questions, and fear. And while it would be nice for all of it to go away immediately, it's going to be quite difficult. But soap operas, especially a two-hour one that rolls on from week to week, can be beneficial in trying to escape the depressing monotony of our world.
So should I feel guilty for watching WWE when I could listen to NPR or check on the current state of our economy? Or even turn on CNBC for a capitalist/conservative opinion on our economy? I could, but it's nice to escape for a while. Especially since a lot of my writing now reflects the economy and the depression. And when reading, I'm often thinking about it.
A continuation...
...of the previous blog posting.
So while I consider myself inadequate, I wonder what the qualifications, certifications and abilities of the other candidates are. Am I attractive and capable on paper? In person? Or solely through demonstration? I would hope that I am all three, but I suppose most districts would go for the last option; though I am inclined to believe they would skip over this expectation with other candidates. Is this a naive and false belief? Or is this some sort of state-to-state bias or preference? Is it a doubt because I have a lot of success and experience as a writer and a journalist/editor? And is that intimidating or demeaning to my successes as an educator? Do I come off as someone who is looking to switch careers and happens to have some education experience?
Perhaps that's the greatest downfall about my experiences. When I took the job for my former company, I knew it would only be a temporary position. They seemed keen on getting someone quickly, who could do the job, and who could 'fill a seat' until they found someone better. While that makes them seem pretty awful, it was a pleasant place to work during the interim. I find it funny that my contract ended exactly one year after my hiring date, my position was moved to the West Coast, and a search was already underway before I was given any warning or notice of my impending involuntary departure.
Yes, fishy I suppose would be a better word. But none of this translates onto paper, does it? So I suppose I do look like "an editor trying to be a teacher" on paper, or at best, someone who could be a teacher, but has been out of the classroom for the past two years. I suppose each of these are red flags. Glaring red flags. And perhaps that's why a lot of places may believe I'm something I'm not. A lesson learned: there is a self in paper, in person, and through experience. And a lot of people still do judge a book by it's cover, or by only reading the opening paragraphs.
And in truth the metaphor still does work. My summary is extensive and expansive, though there is a breadth of areas and expertises in there, so perhaps that's a disadvantage. And in person, there is only so much I can demonstrate, especially when trying to answer cookie-cutter questions or when trying to differentiate my answers from the answers of the other 50 people (or more!) vying for the same position, while simultaneously trying to answer the questions the way the interviewer wants them to be answered, to keep them truthful to myself, and to show hints of my promise as an educator (what comes in the following chapters.)
Is my first year or my first success my climax? Or am I a book still being written? Is my climax my entire time teaching? Optimistic yet confused. That's how I would categorize that.
Nevertheless, I am optimistic and prepared for a future as a high school English teacher and I cannot wait to begin. A taste of the office life is nice (as a slice), but anything more, in the words of Hulk Hogan's Old Spice commercial, would be uncivilized.
So while I consider myself inadequate, I wonder what the qualifications, certifications and abilities of the other candidates are. Am I attractive and capable on paper? In person? Or solely through demonstration? I would hope that I am all three, but I suppose most districts would go for the last option; though I am inclined to believe they would skip over this expectation with other candidates. Is this a naive and false belief? Or is this some sort of state-to-state bias or preference? Is it a doubt because I have a lot of success and experience as a writer and a journalist/editor? And is that intimidating or demeaning to my successes as an educator? Do I come off as someone who is looking to switch careers and happens to have some education experience?
Perhaps that's the greatest downfall about my experiences. When I took the job for my former company, I knew it would only be a temporary position. They seemed keen on getting someone quickly, who could do the job, and who could 'fill a seat' until they found someone better. While that makes them seem pretty awful, it was a pleasant place to work during the interim. I find it funny that my contract ended exactly one year after my hiring date, my position was moved to the West Coast, and a search was already underway before I was given any warning or notice of my impending involuntary departure.
Yes, fishy I suppose would be a better word. But none of this translates onto paper, does it? So I suppose I do look like "an editor trying to be a teacher" on paper, or at best, someone who could be a teacher, but has been out of the classroom for the past two years. I suppose each of these are red flags. Glaring red flags. And perhaps that's why a lot of places may believe I'm something I'm not. A lesson learned: there is a self in paper, in person, and through experience. And a lot of people still do judge a book by it's cover, or by only reading the opening paragraphs.
And in truth the metaphor still does work. My summary is extensive and expansive, though there is a breadth of areas and expertises in there, so perhaps that's a disadvantage. And in person, there is only so much I can demonstrate, especially when trying to answer cookie-cutter questions or when trying to differentiate my answers from the answers of the other 50 people (or more!) vying for the same position, while simultaneously trying to answer the questions the way the interviewer wants them to be answered, to keep them truthful to myself, and to show hints of my promise as an educator (what comes in the following chapters.)
Is my first year or my first success my climax? Or am I a book still being written? Is my climax my entire time teaching? Optimistic yet confused. That's how I would categorize that.
Nevertheless, I am optimistic and prepared for a future as a high school English teacher and I cannot wait to begin. A taste of the office life is nice (as a slice), but anything more, in the words of Hulk Hogan's Old Spice commercial, would be uncivilized.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Interviews
So while I have doubted myself for the past three months about my qualifications, my intelligence, my appeal and likability, my passion, and even my creativity, it seems I was just very preemptive.
I all but convinced myself that I wasn't of the caliber and wasn't dedicated enough to become an English teacher. I applied everywhere. I searched voraciously. I scoured far and wide, cold-calling schools, filling out applications in districts in which I knew there were no openings, and called two or three times to make sure that a school did receive my application.
When I was laid off, there were no openings. Within 4 weeks of being laid off, there was one opening at a tough school in Worcester. Another 4 weeks later and two more openings appeared. One at another tough urban school, and one at a suburban school that seemed pretty nice. Needless to say, I jumped on all of them and pestered the districts to the point where I doubt any of them will give me return calls/interviews. I suppose there is a difference between pestering and checking in.
Nevertheless, I never assumed there would be as many openings as there are (especially in this economy, which is what makes me worried for next year...if there are a ton of openings this year and a district where I happen to get a job lays off some teachers, including me, at the end of this school year, will I then face a job market constricted by both the surplus of teachers for this year and by the economy?).
I applied for 59 jobs, and there are still some posted now that I am considering applying for. There are an additional 21 jobs that are either 60-70 miles away, are at tough, inner-city Boston charter schools, or require hellacious commutes.
Of the ones I applied to, I first journeyed on an interview at a district that was 63.2 miles away. I loved the school: it seemed warm and friendly, had diligent, thoughtful kids, and a relatively funny and welcoming staff. It was immaculate inside and included kids from five different towns, so one knew there would be ample student enrollment for years to come. But the commute overwhelmed me, and when the superintendent's secretary refused to return my call or to reschedule (after scheduling a time herself and asking if I could make it, which I could not), I felt that maybe it would be best if I decided against this particular district.
Next came an interview at a school that politely mailed me a 'we have recommended another applicant' the same day as the interview. Then a school district, which I have a feeling may be 'the one,' called me and things have begun rolling and I feel incredible strongly about it, and I feel it is mutual. I can't wait to find out definitively and to breathe a sigh of relief.
But now there is a school that called me last week to set up an interview, which I politely declined. I sent a message to the department head who contacted me. And tonight I find an e-mail asking for me to come in for an interview at another district. It seems I might be a bit more attractive, as a candidate of course, not in my receding-hairline looks, than I originally thought. And so while I feel that I was preemptive and negative in my confidence levels when applying for these jobs and believing in myself as a candidate. However, I feel that puts me at both a disadvantage and an advantage. I played myself down so much that I played myself up so much, making myself a much hungrier and passionate candidate, and making myself a more attractive candidate simultaneously. So while that works to my advantage I have to ensure that I fulfill my 'prophecy,' err...rather my promise, I suppose.
And while that seems relatively easy, and I am very thankful for 'hopefully' having a job, it is a bit scary still to think of being laid off because of the 'economy' come the end of this year. Fewer jobs guaranteed, in a market that is already strained to its maximum. All I can hope for now is a second round of stimulus to save the state and local jobs, or for the district to decide to hunker down and ride out the storm, with me in tow.
So I suppose I was just impatient and anxious when it came to the interviews, and took 'no news' as a negative instead of 'too early.' Either way I intend to be the best and to dwarf the accomplishments and promise of the other applicants given jobs this year. I intend to be the teacher of the year some year.
I all but convinced myself that I wasn't of the caliber and wasn't dedicated enough to become an English teacher. I applied everywhere. I searched voraciously. I scoured far and wide, cold-calling schools, filling out applications in districts in which I knew there were no openings, and called two or three times to make sure that a school did receive my application.
When I was laid off, there were no openings. Within 4 weeks of being laid off, there was one opening at a tough school in Worcester. Another 4 weeks later and two more openings appeared. One at another tough urban school, and one at a suburban school that seemed pretty nice. Needless to say, I jumped on all of them and pestered the districts to the point where I doubt any of them will give me return calls/interviews. I suppose there is a difference between pestering and checking in.
Nevertheless, I never assumed there would be as many openings as there are (especially in this economy, which is what makes me worried for next year...if there are a ton of openings this year and a district where I happen to get a job lays off some teachers, including me, at the end of this school year, will I then face a job market constricted by both the surplus of teachers for this year and by the economy?).
I applied for 59 jobs, and there are still some posted now that I am considering applying for. There are an additional 21 jobs that are either 60-70 miles away, are at tough, inner-city Boston charter schools, or require hellacious commutes.
Of the ones I applied to, I first journeyed on an interview at a district that was 63.2 miles away. I loved the school: it seemed warm and friendly, had diligent, thoughtful kids, and a relatively funny and welcoming staff. It was immaculate inside and included kids from five different towns, so one knew there would be ample student enrollment for years to come. But the commute overwhelmed me, and when the superintendent's secretary refused to return my call or to reschedule (after scheduling a time herself and asking if I could make it, which I could not), I felt that maybe it would be best if I decided against this particular district.
Next came an interview at a school that politely mailed me a 'we have recommended another applicant' the same day as the interview. Then a school district, which I have a feeling may be 'the one,' called me and things have begun rolling and I feel incredible strongly about it, and I feel it is mutual. I can't wait to find out definitively and to breathe a sigh of relief.
But now there is a school that called me last week to set up an interview, which I politely declined. I sent a message to the department head who contacted me. And tonight I find an e-mail asking for me to come in for an interview at another district. It seems I might be a bit more attractive, as a candidate of course, not in my receding-hairline looks, than I originally thought. And so while I feel that I was preemptive and negative in my confidence levels when applying for these jobs and believing in myself as a candidate. However, I feel that puts me at both a disadvantage and an advantage. I played myself down so much that I played myself up so much, making myself a much hungrier and passionate candidate, and making myself a more attractive candidate simultaneously. So while that works to my advantage I have to ensure that I fulfill my 'prophecy,' err...rather my promise, I suppose.
And while that seems relatively easy, and I am very thankful for 'hopefully' having a job, it is a bit scary still to think of being laid off because of the 'economy' come the end of this year. Fewer jobs guaranteed, in a market that is already strained to its maximum. All I can hope for now is a second round of stimulus to save the state and local jobs, or for the district to decide to hunker down and ride out the storm, with me in tow.
So I suppose I was just impatient and anxious when it came to the interviews, and took 'no news' as a negative instead of 'too early.' Either way I intend to be the best and to dwarf the accomplishments and promise of the other applicants given jobs this year. I intend to be the teacher of the year some year.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Final Poem for Last Submission Finally Done!
I just finished a piece this afternoon of which I am pretty proud of. It's a poem called The World As Oz and, just as you would expect, it's about our world and The Wonderful World of Oz, sort of commingled and mashed up. It's a pretty fast-paced and imaginative piece, and as of right now I'm very proud of it and the minor accomplishments I've made in jumping out onto a limb in each of these new ways. But I bet Janet will shoot it down with some comment, but we'll see!
Off to dinner with K. and some friends now.
Off to dinner with K. and some friends now.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Anticipation Reading
In anticipation for Angels and Demons coming to theatres next week, and with magazine writing coming to an end, I finally have enough time to split between reading/writing poetry and other creative writing endeavours, and rereading Angels and Demons and A Confederacy of Dunces. I'd say it's about time that I stepped up my game when it comes to the breadth of novels I've read (and more importantly, remembered).
Last week during one of my interviews, the interviewer knew the main characters from Rats Saw God, another one of my favorite books, though one that for years I've considered to be relatively obscure to completely unknown when it came to schools other than Bacon/NFA. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case any longer.
Now the interviewers know all of the 'reserve' books that for years have been recommended to me to know when being interviewed for a teaching job. I have a lot of reading to do, which may seem more recreational than anything else, but it's actually a lot of work....though fun work!
Last week during one of my interviews, the interviewer knew the main characters from Rats Saw God, another one of my favorite books, though one that for years I've considered to be relatively obscure to completely unknown when it came to schools other than Bacon/NFA. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case any longer.
Now the interviewers know all of the 'reserve' books that for years have been recommended to me to know when being interviewed for a teaching job. I have a lot of reading to do, which may seem more recreational than anything else, but it's actually a lot of work....though fun work!
Craig Arnold Search Called Off
Wyoming professor of English and poet Craig Arnold, who I previously blogged about the other day, is still missing 10 days later on a small island off the coast of Japan. And now the search for him will end today, Friday, after the small team of search and rescue from America will return home and the rescue squad from Japan will return to the mainland. I hope one day we do find out what happened to Craig Arnold. I did research some of his poetry after, and while I'm not a huge fan of all of it, I do like the majority of what I have read.
Economical Things
The jobless rate is at a scary and intimidating 8.9%, which leaves me wondering just how high it will get. Economists say it's better than what they expected, since "only" 539,000 jobs were cut, which is a huge decrease from the previous few months, and the least since October. But previous months payroll numbers, unemployment figures, and layoff numbers continue to be revised to the negative end, and that is what really pushed the 8.9% rate to where it stands as of right now. So, without the drop of nearly 100,000 maintained jobs last month, the rate would probably be 9% or closer to 9% anyway. It's the highest unemployment rate in 25 years.
25 years? Well, that actually doesn't sound as bad, does it? Not with all the talk of "the greatest since The Great Depression."
It does seem with spring that a turnaround has started to blossom. (More puns to come, I promise.) And now that we're seeing these 'green chutes' (told you...) it seems that the suddenly optimistic and steadfast mood that began to prevail in American citizens as soon as the temperature rose and the snow melted, might signal the recovery is beginning.
We're still in the recession, though, and they still expect the unemployment number to rise higher from where it is right now. With that in mind, you have to wonder how high it will go and if it will become worse than "in the past 25 years." That's the early-to-mid 1980s recession that was pretty serious, but there was also a pretty serious recession, and one with a more protracted recovery, in the mid-1970s. Is that what we're looking at now?
In the 1980s, the unemployment rate rose to more than 10%, I think 10.3% is the highest it registered, which is the highest since WWII, but there was a sharper decline of jobs in the 1970s, and a slower rebound.
If our economy can stabilize later this year, jobs can be added much quicker than economists expect (mirroring the rapid-fire job hirings after the end of the 1990s and early 2000s recessions), and the unemployment rate can stay below 10.3% (and hopefully 10% though that looks further away from reality now...) then perhaps America can come out of this recession without having to label it as "The Great Recession," or to continually refer to it as the worst since The Great Depression. Perhaps we can call it the 'boom, bust, boom recession' in which riches went to rags and suddenly back to riches again in only a four-five year period. Obviously that would be ideal, and probably too optimistic.
But it's suddenly a different tune for me...I remember in late January and early February when the blogosphere was rampant with panic and depression. I remember reading one blog in particular saying job losses and the unemployment rate would continue upwards for all of 2009 and most of 2010, bottoming out somewhere close to the 25% in The Great Depression, and possibly surpassing it. A lot of these incredibly intelligent economists said with the hoarding, horrible downward revisions in orders and activity, the rampant bankruptcies and uncertainties surrounding huge institutions, banks and manufacturers, that we should expect nearly every large company in the US to fail and a trickle effect would take place with most of the small businesses that rely on the large businesses. Eventually we would not be able to borrow money from other countries to finance things like unemployment insurance, food stamps, and reinvestments into our economy, and the mood of the nation would dissolve into pure depression.
It seemed we would only be seeing cloudy and rainy days from now on and that the sun would never shine again. Some suggested we understand that this recession will be mankind's catastrophe (around the time Iceland went bankrupt), and that there is no recovery from it for a generation, at least. They expected many to return to simpler lifestyles of farming in remote locations, cities to become outlaw towns of disease and pestilence, and for our governments and leaders to begin massive wars and efforts that would ultimately lead nowhere and eventually plunge the world off one of its own cliffs.
Seems the mood of a nation had changed dramatically in less than five months. If we can change this quickly in five months, can we change completely, and go back to our happy, more secure lifestyles in double this time? I want to see where we are 10 months from now. That's the beginning of March in 2010. By then, I want to see jobs added far outpace jobs lost (the unemployment rate shrink by a percentage every month instead of increase), a return of many Americans to frivolity, and the fear and trepidation of an economy on the brink of widespread depression and dissolution to be only a nightmare.
25 years? Well, that actually doesn't sound as bad, does it? Not with all the talk of "the greatest since The Great Depression."
It does seem with spring that a turnaround has started to blossom. (More puns to come, I promise.) And now that we're seeing these 'green chutes' (told you...) it seems that the suddenly optimistic and steadfast mood that began to prevail in American citizens as soon as the temperature rose and the snow melted, might signal the recovery is beginning.
We're still in the recession, though, and they still expect the unemployment number to rise higher from where it is right now. With that in mind, you have to wonder how high it will go and if it will become worse than "in the past 25 years." That's the early-to-mid 1980s recession that was pretty serious, but there was also a pretty serious recession, and one with a more protracted recovery, in the mid-1970s. Is that what we're looking at now?
In the 1980s, the unemployment rate rose to more than 10%, I think 10.3% is the highest it registered, which is the highest since WWII, but there was a sharper decline of jobs in the 1970s, and a slower rebound.
If our economy can stabilize later this year, jobs can be added much quicker than economists expect (mirroring the rapid-fire job hirings after the end of the 1990s and early 2000s recessions), and the unemployment rate can stay below 10.3% (and hopefully 10% though that looks further away from reality now...) then perhaps America can come out of this recession without having to label it as "The Great Recession," or to continually refer to it as the worst since The Great Depression. Perhaps we can call it the 'boom, bust, boom recession' in which riches went to rags and suddenly back to riches again in only a four-five year period. Obviously that would be ideal, and probably too optimistic.
But it's suddenly a different tune for me...I remember in late January and early February when the blogosphere was rampant with panic and depression. I remember reading one blog in particular saying job losses and the unemployment rate would continue upwards for all of 2009 and most of 2010, bottoming out somewhere close to the 25% in The Great Depression, and possibly surpassing it. A lot of these incredibly intelligent economists said with the hoarding, horrible downward revisions in orders and activity, the rampant bankruptcies and uncertainties surrounding huge institutions, banks and manufacturers, that we should expect nearly every large company in the US to fail and a trickle effect would take place with most of the small businesses that rely on the large businesses. Eventually we would not be able to borrow money from other countries to finance things like unemployment insurance, food stamps, and reinvestments into our economy, and the mood of the nation would dissolve into pure depression.
It seemed we would only be seeing cloudy and rainy days from now on and that the sun would never shine again. Some suggested we understand that this recession will be mankind's catastrophe (around the time Iceland went bankrupt), and that there is no recovery from it for a generation, at least. They expected many to return to simpler lifestyles of farming in remote locations, cities to become outlaw towns of disease and pestilence, and for our governments and leaders to begin massive wars and efforts that would ultimately lead nowhere and eventually plunge the world off one of its own cliffs.
Seems the mood of a nation had changed dramatically in less than five months. If we can change this quickly in five months, can we change completely, and go back to our happy, more secure lifestyles in double this time? I want to see where we are 10 months from now. That's the beginning of March in 2010. By then, I want to see jobs added far outpace jobs lost (the unemployment rate shrink by a percentage every month instead of increase), a return of many Americans to frivolity, and the fear and trepidation of an economy on the brink of widespread depression and dissolution to be only a nightmare.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Darwinian Socialism
Or Socialistic Darwinism. Either way you write it, the phrase seems perfect for our current times.
"Too big to fail" is the buzz phrase of the recession and will likely outlive the recession and become a part of our national consciousness. It is no doubt the reason for the majority of the troubles of this recession and should serve as a lesson for the future. We learned a great deal from The Great Depression, and with the precautions we took afterward, may have averted the full-blown second one, but in the meantime, we have created a lengthy, prolonged, deep, and slow-to-rebound recession, coined colloquially as The Great Recession. No doubt we stand to learn a lot from The Great Recession, mainly how 'too big to fail' is 'too big to be any good.'
Bailouts, TARP, stress tests, etc. etc. etc. The list goes on, perhaps infinitely, as we continue onward in the restructuring of the American economy, and therefore the world economy, and begin to unravel the thick web of deceit, greed, and uncontrolled/unchecked capitalism that spurred the catastrophes we witness daily. All of it caused by companies becoming too big to fail. The too big portion is easy to solve: break off portions of each too-big company and spur new investments in off-shoots of the company--less fundamental portions (for instance Countrywide could stand again on its own should BofA want to rid itself of it) that will be profitable on their own. The 'fail' part is a bit trickier.
The blog title and phrase is extremely funny, and did appear in the New Yorker, but besides the glib and humor, there is a resounding ring of truth to it.
In Darwinism, the fittest survive, and the weakest (no matter how large) will perish. That is more or less how capitalism would like to believe it is run, but the evidence is always pointed to the contrary as merger & acquisition, layoffs, and huge severances prevent the sort of 'eradication' or 'extinction' you would expect to see if capitalism were working wholly and faithfully. Instead it seems the common man, the less influential portion of the 'too big' always seems to be the one that fails. That would be the equivalent of the ticks dying instead of the T-Rex. (Stick with me here, I know the analogy is convoluted, but I promise I'm not referring to entry-level workers and blue-collar workers as 'ticks' for no reason.)
When a company the size of CitiGroup implodes and needs billions of dollars to stay afloat, never mind return a potential profit again in the end, there should be a few things in 'true' capitalism that would occur. The causes of the meltdown would become extinct. That means any upper management, executives, board members, presidents, etc. would be ousted and fired--without severances and without bonuses. Everyone on the lower end of the totem pole would be promoted and would restart the company, minus the dead weight or those with negative influence who drove the company into oblivion. Sounds more fair, but that will never happen.
So, we get socialism, in which the company (and the government) attempts to do what is best for everyone, not just the lowly workers and not just the highly paid executives. It attempts to plug the leak quickly and keep the sinking ship afloat (even if it means draining the water from the ocean instead of letting the ship go down--see, I told you the metaphor would work!!). The majority is saved, which is socialism, as opposed to Darwinism. But only certain companies are saved: Bye Bye Bear Stearns. Who will buy Merrill Lynch?! Anyone?! The aforementioned others saw worse fates. And what is doubly troubling is that the majority of executives who did lose their jobs were either hired by different companies or have so much money that working for them is an option for the time being.
Now the lowly workers, AKA me and anyone else making less than $100,000 year (including their bonuses), who should have been promoted and should never have been fired under any circumstances, are let go and the company continues with the same damaged portions that caused its downfall to begin in the first place.
Seems backwards, doesn't it? Well that's Darwinian socialism. Survival of what's best for everyone, but only what is more or less arbitrarily chosen to be the fittest of what's best for everyone. Yes, seems odd. Now social Darwinism is a bit different: that means there are certain species that should become extinct, but we artificially repopulate these species until their numbers are great enough to survive on their own again.
Too Big To Fail. Socialism and Darwinism mixed.
Oh, what a wonderful world...
"Too big to fail" is the buzz phrase of the recession and will likely outlive the recession and become a part of our national consciousness. It is no doubt the reason for the majority of the troubles of this recession and should serve as a lesson for the future. We learned a great deal from The Great Depression, and with the precautions we took afterward, may have averted the full-blown second one, but in the meantime, we have created a lengthy, prolonged, deep, and slow-to-rebound recession, coined colloquially as The Great Recession. No doubt we stand to learn a lot from The Great Recession, mainly how 'too big to fail' is 'too big to be any good.'
Bailouts, TARP, stress tests, etc. etc. etc. The list goes on, perhaps infinitely, as we continue onward in the restructuring of the American economy, and therefore the world economy, and begin to unravel the thick web of deceit, greed, and uncontrolled/unchecked capitalism that spurred the catastrophes we witness daily. All of it caused by companies becoming too big to fail. The too big portion is easy to solve: break off portions of each too-big company and spur new investments in off-shoots of the company--less fundamental portions (for instance Countrywide could stand again on its own should BofA want to rid itself of it) that will be profitable on their own. The 'fail' part is a bit trickier.
The blog title and phrase is extremely funny, and did appear in the New Yorker, but besides the glib and humor, there is a resounding ring of truth to it.
In Darwinism, the fittest survive, and the weakest (no matter how large) will perish. That is more or less how capitalism would like to believe it is run, but the evidence is always pointed to the contrary as merger & acquisition, layoffs, and huge severances prevent the sort of 'eradication' or 'extinction' you would expect to see if capitalism were working wholly and faithfully. Instead it seems the common man, the less influential portion of the 'too big' always seems to be the one that fails. That would be the equivalent of the ticks dying instead of the T-Rex. (Stick with me here, I know the analogy is convoluted, but I promise I'm not referring to entry-level workers and blue-collar workers as 'ticks' for no reason.)
When a company the size of CitiGroup implodes and needs billions of dollars to stay afloat, never mind return a potential profit again in the end, there should be a few things in 'true' capitalism that would occur. The causes of the meltdown would become extinct. That means any upper management, executives, board members, presidents, etc. would be ousted and fired--without severances and without bonuses. Everyone on the lower end of the totem pole would be promoted and would restart the company, minus the dead weight or those with negative influence who drove the company into oblivion. Sounds more fair, but that will never happen.
So, we get socialism, in which the company (and the government) attempts to do what is best for everyone, not just the lowly workers and not just the highly paid executives. It attempts to plug the leak quickly and keep the sinking ship afloat (even if it means draining the water from the ocean instead of letting the ship go down--see, I told you the metaphor would work!!). The majority is saved, which is socialism, as opposed to Darwinism. But only certain companies are saved: Bye Bye Bear Stearns. Who will buy Merrill Lynch?! Anyone?! The aforementioned others saw worse fates. And what is doubly troubling is that the majority of executives who did lose their jobs were either hired by different companies or have so much money that working for them is an option for the time being.
Now the lowly workers, AKA me and anyone else making less than $100,000 year (including their bonuses), who should have been promoted and should never have been fired under any circumstances, are let go and the company continues with the same damaged portions that caused its downfall to begin in the first place.
Seems backwards, doesn't it? Well that's Darwinian socialism. Survival of what's best for everyone, but only what is more or less arbitrarily chosen to be the fittest of what's best for everyone. Yes, seems odd. Now social Darwinism is a bit different: that means there are certain species that should become extinct, but we artificially repopulate these species until their numbers are great enough to survive on their own again.
Too Big To Fail. Socialism and Darwinism mixed.
Oh, what a wonderful world...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)