I can hear you now. "Being out of work is a good thing? You must be totally crazy."
Don't worry. I won't hold it against you. I get that a lot, even from my psychotherapist.
Now that I've satisfied my need to be facetious, let's be objective. To understand what I mean, let's begin with where I'm at and how I got here.
I'll try to avoid some of the more personal parts of my situation (myob alert.)
To start with, it's been 30 months since I held what people agree is a regular job. Currently, I live in a room in a boarding house in a small town in New York. No guarantees from one month to the next that the landlady has enough cash flow to pay the utility bills on time. We've already had one "service interruption" at the beginning of winter.
My financial support comes from Social Services (rent only), SNAP (food stamps), Medicaid, and what little I make from a walking newspaper route. The combined total is less than half of a regular month's wages from my last regular job.
It would be easy to see myself the way others do, that I am a victim of the economy.
However, where I'm at is the result of a series of events caused by my own actions.
Now the "blame-the-victim" side has their "proof" I'm lazy or whatever. Am I?
I left my last job for health reasons. I am still in the process of getting a final determination on whether I qualify as disabled. Thanks to Medicaid, I was able to have some diagnostic tests run. That was one of the choices I made. As a result, the doctors discovered a condition that, left untreated, would likely have resulted in my death before now. Additionally, other tests led me to begin treatments for a condition that will eventually leave me blind, should I live long enough. Not "might" leave me blind, "will" leave me blind. That is my reality.
Yet, I sometimes hear people say I'm "abusing the system."
Decide for yourself.
So, is this the upside to unemployment?
Not completely.
To make matters worse:
I am at that point in life that I am likely discriminated against for my age, despite claims to the contrary. With no "real" job in almost 3 years, employers are going to wonder about my motivation. Since I left my last job for health reasons, they'd be concerned whether I'd be able to handle the workload.
Since I'm no longer able to perform the physically based blue collar jobs of my past, I need to develop new skills. To be retrained calls for financing. Where I live, jobs above minimum wage are few and far between. Those that exist require college degrees. I'm not able to persue a degree due to finances. Training programs in this area require that I pony up at least part of the cost.
Lots of kvetching, not much proof of a silver lining to the thunderhead.
Try this:
In my early years, I came to perceive myself as someone for whom the traditional "9-to-5, work for someone else for life" mentality was incompatible with my nature. Further, I was raised by a father whose view on life was to "work for others if you need to, but work for yourself whenever you can." He also believed that "you can do whatever you want in life. You don't need to be the best, as long as you do the best."
Thanks, Dad. And I say that with all sincerity.
Around the same time in my growth, I discovered a love for the arts, especially writing. I developed some skill in that direction, as well as an ability to learn the basics of numerous musical instruments within hours, a modest amount of skill in drawing and painting, and (at least in school productions), some acting chops. I quickly realized it was where I truly wanted to be.
To put it another way:
My choices have put me in a position where I have no more interference from a job to prevent me from following the course I believed all along was mine to travel. No more excuses. The realization that time marches on, quicker than before.
I'm now at the time where life is saying,everything you claimed was an obstacle has been removed. You've been asking for this opportunity since 1970. Let's see what you can do with it.
I accept the challenge.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Marilyn Sands
Harp
Christine Macdonald
THE OPEN GALLERY
the traveler
Deborah Young
Salon.com
Comments
Outworking people, for me, is not as likely to happen. With an IQ measured north of 130, I should still be able to do the outthink portion.
From looking at some of the other responses to the prompt, part of the challenge seems that the American economy has reached the point of multiple generations of the same family competing for the same job. Granny wants to flip burgers 'cuz Social Security isn't enough, Momma has to apply if she wants to keep SNAP and HEAP (heating assistance) benefits, and Junior is trying to raise money for next year's mandatory approved school clothing (and save for college if there's anything left.)
The only other option is the one people are scared of, which is to explore ways of creating their own income, rather than relying on someone else to give them one.
Understand, I intend no criticism of the various choices, only trying to present an objective look at what is going on around me.
There is a significant difference between those two terms...they are not the same. Unfortunately, "not enough money to get by" is so associated with "unemployment" that we tend to think of them as one.
The moment you disassociate the two...you realize that there is ALL SORTS of upside to unemployment. You get to play more golf or tennis; spend more time with the family; keep the house cleaner; tend the garden...read, write, and do all the enjoyable things you would not be able to do if you had to go to work.
The real problem is "not enough money to get by" NOT unemployment. For many..."unemployment" is the stuff of dreams. That, in fact, is why the Lottery lines are always so busy. People trying to get enough money so that they can create "unemployment" for themselves.
I will try to put a link in here, but they always get cut off;
http://open.salon.com/blog/frank_apisa/2008/12/10/is_unemployment_really_a_problem
Before replying, I took the time to read the 4-part series you refer to in your comments. Very enlightening.
One thing you mentioned in the final post was the Protestant Work Ethic. That is one of the core issues behind the attitude that being unemployed is a negative state.
Another thing to consider, that you didn't address, is the idea of not enough to get by is a symptom of capitalism.
What about barter? Such a system was used quite extensively during the early years of our country, as well as during the 1920-1930 era. Of course, this would make the field of economics a pure nightmare.
I look forward to going back through your posts and seeing what other interesting ideas you off.
You might be interested to know that a version of that was read by nobelist, Milton Freedman, who was kind enough to offer some commentary on it. (In the interest of full disclosure, he pretty much thought my heart was in the right place; I had some interesting iconoclastic ideas that ought to be considered; but that rigorous economics were not plentiful in the essay.)
Another thing to consider, that you didn't address, is the idea of not enough to get by is a symptom of capitalism.
The enterprise was already getting too long, so I did not address this area, but I would say that not only is “not enough to get by” a symptom of capitalism…it can reasonably be argued that it is caused by strict adherence to capitalistic principles and can be ameliorated by discarding some capitalistic tenets. Capitalism and free enterprise have value…great value. But they so easily fall into a hole, they cannot be allowed to gallop unreined. I think we could maximize our capitalistic system by allowing elements of socialism to be incorporated. The two systems work better as a team than either works alone.
What about barter?
We’ve gotten way too complex for that…and in any case, the medium of exchange truly is not the problem. The problem is found in what you said when I quoted you earlier.
One thing you mentioned in the final post was the Protestant Work Ethic. That is one of the core issues behind the attitude that being unemployed is a negative state.
The Protestant Work Ethic is, as you mention, a core issue in what we are discussing. There is one more related matter: Some people truly need to work in order to be happy. Those people often get trapped into the idea that everyone feels that way (or should feel that way)…which leads to rejection of the kinds of solutions that recommend that everyone not work—NOT BE ALLOWED TO WORK.
Keep fighting the good fight on this, LE. The only way we make it through these treacherous economic waters is by thinking WAY, WAY, WAY outside the box.
Combining elements of capitalism and socialism: perhaps I'm off the mark, but that seems similar to the way China is operating economically. If so, I see that it can produce results in the short term, but I feel the jury is still out on what the long-term effects will be.
From reading your blogs, I get the sense that you are of the mind that those that wish to work, should be allowed to, and those that do not, should not be forced to do so, as long as other means of support exist. Again, I may be missing the target here.
I agree that capitalism has virtues, so long as we adhere to Ben Franklin ("in all things, moderation.") By that, I mean that unrestrained classical laissez-faire attitudes may cause more harm than good, but too much regulation threatens to destroy the goose and its golden eggs. The trick is finding the appropriate middle ground.
No telling, but my guess is it is going to work out very well indeed. Asia may very well end up making the United States the next United Kingdom!
From reading your blogs, I get the sense that you are of the mind that those that wish to work, should be allowed to, and those that do not, should not be forced to do so, as long as other means of support exist. Again, I may be missing the target here.
Somewhat off target, but probably close enough for government work! ;-)
I do not think the jobs will be there no matter how many people want to work (or must work in order to exist)…so some other means of distribution of what we have must be worked out. Even if we insure that everyone has sufficient, there will still be plenty left over to fight over the way capitalism allows for fights. I am not arguing for “everyone has equal” by any means. I am arguing that everyone have sufficient. Then the ones who want to work and are efficient, can fight to get as much as possible above “sufficient.”
People who want to work…and can work efficiently, should be allowed to work, if the jobs are available. People who do not want to work…or who are not efficient workers, should not be allowed to work. We should, in effect, pay them to stay the hell out of the way.
I agree that capitalism has virtues, so long as we adhere to Ben Franklin ("in all things, moderation.") By that, I mean that unrestrained classical laissez-faire attitudes may cause more harm than good, but too much regulation threatens to destroy the goose and its golden eggs. The trick is finding the appropriate middle ground.
I honestly do not think a “middle ground” is the solution. I think the changes needed must be systemic…and will be so far outside the box as to be far away from the middle…but incorporating elements of both capitalism and socialism. Said another way, there are elements that neither capitalism or socialism can contribute…and they will form the crux of the systemic change.
Still interesting. Thanks for the conversation. I sense that part of my problem is that I may be working from the standard knee-jerk definitions of the terms capitalism and socialism. When I can, I hope to investigate further and try to develop a deeper understanding.
In the meantime, a thought: in the late 1990's I read an article, of some relevance to our recent comments, in a science fiction magazine. In the article, it claimed that Southeast Asia would become the dominant economic center of the world around 2020 or so (not sure of the exact timeline.) By mid-century, the economic center would shift further. At this point, the US and other current developed countries would be so far behind that it would be nearly impossible to catch up, even if they still existed in their 1990s form.
As I said, this was written almost 15 years ago.
Hmmmm....
China is proving incredibly strong, but they are about to face the problems associated with great success—with a population eager for more personal freedom and for greater access to the general success (less disparity between the very rich and very poor).
In any case, no super power has ever been able to retain that title for very long. Egypt fell; Greece fell; Rome fell; France, Spain, Portugal, England all fell. The United States will fall…or slip significantly, sooner rather than later.
We’ll see what happens. I think the people being born now are going to live in very, very interesting times.
I note there are two more essays in OS about the notion that “working for a living” may soon be an anachronism. And I’ve seen a couple of articles in the media in the same vein. Interesting that so many people have the veil parting at the same time. We can only hope there are people in power who come to that same realization.