In the wake of the Vioxx disaster, Merck announced that it will cut some 7,000 jobs, this on the heels of last week when GM announced some 30,000 jobs to be cut.
Earlier this year, Kodak had some 10,000 jobs cut.
HP had about 15,000, as I recall.
Air traffic controllers, overworked and understaffed because of hiring freezes, are now talking strike, but remembering the 80's when Reagan came down on them with a swift kick in the ass out to the street.
And yet, NPR's "Marketplace" just said that "consumer confidence" has risen - RISEN - from the 80's to the 90% range!!!
wow...
I'm a man without a corporation. ~Paddy Chayefsky
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Cars Cars Cars, Traffic Traffic Traffic, Pollution Pollution Pollution!!!
Being born and raised in car capitol, USA, that is, LA, having a car is a must. But the freeway system, once touted as the way of the future, is now critically over-stressed, and our city street system is likewise.
And here's a crucial point: LA is slated to grow by another 10 million people within the next 5 or so years. OY!!!
But the arguments against cars don't just stop at traffic. Here's a laundry list that I hope is thorough:
1. Pollution - Needs no further explanation, but just think of it as car dookey doo doo.
2. Acid rain - Related to pollution, it completes the cycle by leeching into crops and ground water. Whoopee, car dookey in my coffee!!!
2A. Global warming. Yeah yeah, dumbya denies it.
3. Health - Studies have shown that kids raised in heavy traffic areas have higher numbers of respitory problems.
4. Health 2 - Think about working like a dog all day, then think about hitting rush hour when your commute is elongated by at least double. See, here in LA, other factors play in this, such as real estate demand, which incentivizes folks to buy outside of the LA area. A friend bought a home in Rancho Cucamonga and works about 60-70 miles away, in Universal Studios. So now you're on the road about 2 hours. That's stressful. And where are the studies that show not just the long-term effects of this kind of life style, but, the ripple effects - alcoholism, drug abuse, over-eating, diabetes, wife/partner/child abuse, broken homes...
5. Costs - Money AND time; Here're the costs associated with owning a car (If I missed some, please write):
A. Your car note.
B. Insurance.
C. Gas.
D. Parking tickets.
E. Traffic tickets.
F. Traffic school.
G. Courts - Judges are pulled away to hear cases, officers are subpoenaed to appear, you must take time away from your life... all except your time on tax payer dollars, and at a time when the courts are bulging with dockets and officers should be tackling much bigger problems, imho. Lest you think this trivial, go down to superior court sometime early in the morning and see the line that snakes around waiting to get in to handle their traffic violations. Look at the docket of traffic cases EVERY DAY - I once had a chance meeting with someone who was a manager in the parking violation bureau for a city in L A I asked him where the revenue from parking ranked in their coffers, and he said without even thinking, that it was by far their number one cash cow. Now, with CAMERAS AT INTERSECTIONS, the ante has been upped by big brother. Is it for safety? Perhaps. Is it for cash? In a capitalistic society, where EVERYTHING is moving toward monetization, you betcha.
H. Smog test certification.
I. Car repairs.
J. Pay parking - pretty big business in LA & NYC. And while we associate pay parking with general paid lots, many if not all corporate buildings pay to park.
K. Impound and towing. This is a bummer for those that have had their rides impounded. It's a nice little cottage industry that involves the repo people, the courts, the cops, and big plots of land used to store the rides.
I'm sure there're more - let's hear them...
For a finishing touch, here's a NYT article on the Apple...
November 26, 2005
Battle Lines Set as New York Acts to Cut Emissions
By DANNY HAKIM
ALBANY, Nov. 23 - New York is adopting California's ambitious new regulations aimed at cutting automotive emissions of global warming gases, touching off a battle over rules that would sharply reduce carbon dioxide emissions while forcing the auto industry to make vehicles more energy efficient over the next decade.
The rules, passed this month by a unanimous vote of the State Environmental Board, are expected to be adopted across the Northeast and the West Coast. But the auto industry has already moved to block the rules in New York State, and plans to battle them in every other state that follows suit.
Environmentalists say the regulations will not lead to the extinction of any class of vehicle, but simply pressure the industry to sell more of the fuel-saving technologies they have already developed, including hybrid systems that use a combination of electricity and gasoline. And that, they say, will curtail one of the main contributors to global warming.
"The two biggest contributors to global warming are power plants and motor vehicles," said David Doniger, a senior lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "If you deal with them, you deal with more than two-thirds of the problem."
But automakers contend that the regulations will limit the availability of many sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, vans and larger sedans, since they will effectively require huge leaps in gas mileage to rein in emissions. The industry also says the rules will force them to curb sales of more-powerful engines in the state, and ultimately harm consumers by increasing the cost of vehicles.
The standards are the most ambitious environmental regulations for automobiles since federal fuel economy regulations were enacted in the 1970's. They will be phased in starting with 2009 models and require a roughly 30 percent reduction in automotive emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by the 2016 models.
The new rules will also effectively require an improvement in fuel economy on the order of 40 percent for vehicles sold in the state.
Ten states follow or plan to follow California's air quality rules, which have previously focused on auto emissions that cause smog, and the latest set of rules would for the first time limit carbon dioxide emissions. And as the largest of the 10 states, New York is being closely watched as it institutes the new rules.
If all 10 states and California succeed in enacting the rules, they will form a powerful alternative regulatory bloc accounting for about a third of the nation's auto sales.
"That is so much of the market it should reach a tipping point," Mr. Doniger said. "It won't make sense for the automakers to build two fleets, one clean and one dirty."
New Yorkers will certainly notice the regulations should they survive the court challenges. The state estimates that the rules will increase the cost of a new car or truck by more than $1,000 when fully phased in, an amount it expects car owners to recoup over time through savings at the pump. Vehicles will need to comply with the new standards to be registered in the state.
In early August, more than three months before the regulations were even adopted, automakers from Detroit to Tokyo joined in a suit to block them, making New York the latest legal front in the industry's fight against the measures. After California adopted the regulations in their final form in September 2004, automakers sued in state and federal courts, where the battle is still playing out.
California, unlike other states, has special authority to set its own air quality rules because it did so before passage of the federal Clean Air Act. Other states can pick California's tougher regulations over Washington's.
"If the California regulation actually were in effect today, only a handful of models would meet it," said Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which includes Toyota, General Motors and several other major automakers.
Judith Enck, a policy adviser to Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, said she expected more challenges on many fronts, with automakers battling New York every step of the way. "We're ready for them to file a lawsuit if the state sneezes," she said.
An analysis by the State Department of Environmental Conservation said it would take one to five years for drivers of cars, smaller sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks to make up for the higher initial cost of their more fuel-efficient vehicles, assuming a gas price of $2 a gallon. For drivers of heavier S.U.V.'s and pickups, it would take one to three years.
But automakers estimate that the regulation will add about $3,000 to the cost of new cars and trucks and be hard to make up over time. To comply, they say, they will have to restrict sales of their vehicles with the poorest mileage, or redesign them to add new technologies, or to be more aerodynamic and lighter in weight.
"The California legislation would hurt the most the people that rely on large cars, pickups, S.U.V.'s and minivans," Ms. Bergquist said.
Environmental groups say the rules can be met with technology already on the shelf.
"They said that seat belts would put them out of business; they said that air bags would put them out of business; they said fuel economy and emissions regulations would all put them out of business," said David Friedman, a senior analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"It turns out it's their unwillingness to innovate that's putting them out of business right now," he added, referring to the current struggles of General Motors and Ford Motor Company.
The legal battles do come at an awkward time. After years of saying that customers cared little about gas mileage, automakers are rushing to assert their green credentials as oil prices have risen. G.M. and Ford have been particularly scarred by the sales slump of their large sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks.
In a recent advertisement that has appeared in The New York Times and in many other publications, Ford's chairman and chief executive, William Clay Ford Jr., promoted his company's plan to sell 250,000 vehicles next year that can run on a corn-based ethanol blend instead of on gasoline, and 250,000 hybrid vehicles annually by 2010.
"Innovation is our mission," the advertisement said, adding that the company was building "smarter, safer, more fuel-efficient vehicles."
Industrywide, however, the gas mileage of the average new vehicle sold in the United States is below what it was two decades ago, because leaps in efficiency have been overtaken by increases in the weight of vehicles and in the power of their engines.
The 10 states that either follow California's car rules or are in the process of adopting them are New York, Maine, New Jersey, Vermont, Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Pennsylvania.
While states are supposed to follow all of California's car rules or stick with Washington's, in practice that has not always been the case. The administration of Gov. George E. Pataki, however, has been an early supporter of the global warming regulations, getting approval from the State Environmental Board on Nov. 9. (The rules do not need to be approved by the State Legislature.)
Many of the industry's legal arguments against the rules are likely to be drawn from a playbook automakers have used in California. One contention is that the regulation of tailpipe emissions is superseded by Washington's authority to regulate fuel economy. Regulators in California have countered that they have authority to take action on any emissions threatening public health.
While global warming and what contributes to it have been controversial issues in the United States, a wide body of international science has linked it to health and environmental dangers, including increases in rates of asthma and infectious disease and threats to coastlines from rising sea levels.
The auto industry does not dispute the issue of global warming, but says policies should be set nationwide, rather than at the state level. President Bush has shown little inclination to do that, having rejected the Kyoto global climate accord early in his first term, but his administration has modestly increased federal fuel economy standards.
In New York, automakers also plan to argue that the regulations were not vetted as thoroughly as the state's laws require. And they will contend that the standards will actually harm the environment by leading to what Ms. Bergquist called "the jalopy effect" because higher initial car prices will discourage people from trading in older models that pollute more than newer ones.
"Less efficient autos will stay on the road longer, and that will increase smog-forming pollutants," she said.
Daniel F. Becker, a top global warming strategist at the Sierra Club, said, "If there were an Olympics of chutzpah, the auto industry would win a gold medal for suing New York claming that their clean car law is bad for the environment."
And here's a crucial point: LA is slated to grow by another 10 million people within the next 5 or so years. OY!!!
But the arguments against cars don't just stop at traffic. Here's a laundry list that I hope is thorough:
1. Pollution - Needs no further explanation, but just think of it as car dookey doo doo.
2. Acid rain - Related to pollution, it completes the cycle by leeching into crops and ground water. Whoopee, car dookey in my coffee!!!
2A. Global warming. Yeah yeah, dumbya denies it.
3. Health - Studies have shown that kids raised in heavy traffic areas have higher numbers of respitory problems.
4. Health 2 - Think about working like a dog all day, then think about hitting rush hour when your commute is elongated by at least double. See, here in LA, other factors play in this, such as real estate demand, which incentivizes folks to buy outside of the LA area. A friend bought a home in Rancho Cucamonga and works about 60-70 miles away, in Universal Studios. So now you're on the road about 2 hours. That's stressful. And where are the studies that show not just the long-term effects of this kind of life style, but, the ripple effects - alcoholism, drug abuse, over-eating, diabetes, wife/partner/child abuse, broken homes...
5. Costs - Money AND time; Here're the costs associated with owning a car (If I missed some, please write):
A. Your car note.
B. Insurance.
C. Gas.
D. Parking tickets.
E. Traffic tickets.
F. Traffic school.
G. Courts - Judges are pulled away to hear cases, officers are subpoenaed to appear, you must take time away from your life... all except your time on tax payer dollars, and at a time when the courts are bulging with dockets and officers should be tackling much bigger problems, imho. Lest you think this trivial, go down to superior court sometime early in the morning and see the line that snakes around waiting to get in to handle their traffic violations. Look at the docket of traffic cases EVERY DAY - I once had a chance meeting with someone who was a manager in the parking violation bureau for a city in L A I asked him where the revenue from parking ranked in their coffers, and he said without even thinking, that it was by far their number one cash cow. Now, with CAMERAS AT INTERSECTIONS, the ante has been upped by big brother. Is it for safety? Perhaps. Is it for cash? In a capitalistic society, where EVERYTHING is moving toward monetization, you betcha.
H. Smog test certification.
I. Car repairs.
J. Pay parking - pretty big business in LA & NYC. And while we associate pay parking with general paid lots, many if not all corporate buildings pay to park.
K. Impound and towing. This is a bummer for those that have had their rides impounded. It's a nice little cottage industry that involves the repo people, the courts, the cops, and big plots of land used to store the rides.
I'm sure there're more - let's hear them...
For a finishing touch, here's a NYT article on the Apple...
November 26, 2005
Battle Lines Set as New York Acts to Cut Emissions
By DANNY HAKIM
ALBANY, Nov. 23 - New York is adopting California's ambitious new regulations aimed at cutting automotive emissions of global warming gases, touching off a battle over rules that would sharply reduce carbon dioxide emissions while forcing the auto industry to make vehicles more energy efficient over the next decade.
The rules, passed this month by a unanimous vote of the State Environmental Board, are expected to be adopted across the Northeast and the West Coast. But the auto industry has already moved to block the rules in New York State, and plans to battle them in every other state that follows suit.
Environmentalists say the regulations will not lead to the extinction of any class of vehicle, but simply pressure the industry to sell more of the fuel-saving technologies they have already developed, including hybrid systems that use a combination of electricity and gasoline. And that, they say, will curtail one of the main contributors to global warming.
"The two biggest contributors to global warming are power plants and motor vehicles," said David Doniger, a senior lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "If you deal with them, you deal with more than two-thirds of the problem."
But automakers contend that the regulations will limit the availability of many sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, vans and larger sedans, since they will effectively require huge leaps in gas mileage to rein in emissions. The industry also says the rules will force them to curb sales of more-powerful engines in the state, and ultimately harm consumers by increasing the cost of vehicles.
The standards are the most ambitious environmental regulations for automobiles since federal fuel economy regulations were enacted in the 1970's. They will be phased in starting with 2009 models and require a roughly 30 percent reduction in automotive emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by the 2016 models.
The new rules will also effectively require an improvement in fuel economy on the order of 40 percent for vehicles sold in the state.
Ten states follow or plan to follow California's air quality rules, which have previously focused on auto emissions that cause smog, and the latest set of rules would for the first time limit carbon dioxide emissions. And as the largest of the 10 states, New York is being closely watched as it institutes the new rules.
If all 10 states and California succeed in enacting the rules, they will form a powerful alternative regulatory bloc accounting for about a third of the nation's auto sales.
"That is so much of the market it should reach a tipping point," Mr. Doniger said. "It won't make sense for the automakers to build two fleets, one clean and one dirty."
New Yorkers will certainly notice the regulations should they survive the court challenges. The state estimates that the rules will increase the cost of a new car or truck by more than $1,000 when fully phased in, an amount it expects car owners to recoup over time through savings at the pump. Vehicles will need to comply with the new standards to be registered in the state.
In early August, more than three months before the regulations were even adopted, automakers from Detroit to Tokyo joined in a suit to block them, making New York the latest legal front in the industry's fight against the measures. After California adopted the regulations in their final form in September 2004, automakers sued in state and federal courts, where the battle is still playing out.
California, unlike other states, has special authority to set its own air quality rules because it did so before passage of the federal Clean Air Act. Other states can pick California's tougher regulations over Washington's.
"If the California regulation actually were in effect today, only a handful of models would meet it," said Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which includes Toyota, General Motors and several other major automakers.
Judith Enck, a policy adviser to Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, said she expected more challenges on many fronts, with automakers battling New York every step of the way. "We're ready for them to file a lawsuit if the state sneezes," she said.
An analysis by the State Department of Environmental Conservation said it would take one to five years for drivers of cars, smaller sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks to make up for the higher initial cost of their more fuel-efficient vehicles, assuming a gas price of $2 a gallon. For drivers of heavier S.U.V.'s and pickups, it would take one to three years.
But automakers estimate that the regulation will add about $3,000 to the cost of new cars and trucks and be hard to make up over time. To comply, they say, they will have to restrict sales of their vehicles with the poorest mileage, or redesign them to add new technologies, or to be more aerodynamic and lighter in weight.
"The California legislation would hurt the most the people that rely on large cars, pickups, S.U.V.'s and minivans," Ms. Bergquist said.
Environmental groups say the rules can be met with technology already on the shelf.
"They said that seat belts would put them out of business; they said that air bags would put them out of business; they said fuel economy and emissions regulations would all put them out of business," said David Friedman, a senior analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"It turns out it's their unwillingness to innovate that's putting them out of business right now," he added, referring to the current struggles of General Motors and Ford Motor Company.
The legal battles do come at an awkward time. After years of saying that customers cared little about gas mileage, automakers are rushing to assert their green credentials as oil prices have risen. G.M. and Ford have been particularly scarred by the sales slump of their large sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks.
In a recent advertisement that has appeared in The New York Times and in many other publications, Ford's chairman and chief executive, William Clay Ford Jr., promoted his company's plan to sell 250,000 vehicles next year that can run on a corn-based ethanol blend instead of on gasoline, and 250,000 hybrid vehicles annually by 2010.
"Innovation is our mission," the advertisement said, adding that the company was building "smarter, safer, more fuel-efficient vehicles."
Industrywide, however, the gas mileage of the average new vehicle sold in the United States is below what it was two decades ago, because leaps in efficiency have been overtaken by increases in the weight of vehicles and in the power of their engines.
The 10 states that either follow California's car rules or are in the process of adopting them are New York, Maine, New Jersey, Vermont, Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Pennsylvania.
While states are supposed to follow all of California's car rules or stick with Washington's, in practice that has not always been the case. The administration of Gov. George E. Pataki, however, has been an early supporter of the global warming regulations, getting approval from the State Environmental Board on Nov. 9. (The rules do not need to be approved by the State Legislature.)
Many of the industry's legal arguments against the rules are likely to be drawn from a playbook automakers have used in California. One contention is that the regulation of tailpipe emissions is superseded by Washington's authority to regulate fuel economy. Regulators in California have countered that they have authority to take action on any emissions threatening public health.
While global warming and what contributes to it have been controversial issues in the United States, a wide body of international science has linked it to health and environmental dangers, including increases in rates of asthma and infectious disease and threats to coastlines from rising sea levels.
The auto industry does not dispute the issue of global warming, but says policies should be set nationwide, rather than at the state level. President Bush has shown little inclination to do that, having rejected the Kyoto global climate accord early in his first term, but his administration has modestly increased federal fuel economy standards.
In New York, automakers also plan to argue that the regulations were not vetted as thoroughly as the state's laws require. And they will contend that the standards will actually harm the environment by leading to what Ms. Bergquist called "the jalopy effect" because higher initial car prices will discourage people from trading in older models that pollute more than newer ones.
"Less efficient autos will stay on the road longer, and that will increase smog-forming pollutants," she said.
Daniel F. Becker, a top global warming strategist at the Sierra Club, said, "If there were an Olympics of chutzpah, the auto industry would win a gold medal for suing New York claming that their clean car law is bad for the environment."
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Homage to Largo's Mitote: The Greatest Restaurant in the World
Since this is Thanksgiving and for us here in the States it's all about pigging out on food and watching sports and then waking up Friday and spending money we don't have while the vast majority of the people in the world are struggling or just plain jacked, I thought I'd do my part while writing a four line sentence.
So this is about food. The greatest food I've ever had.
Those who know me know that for me Mexican food is a religion. And Largo's Mitote was nirvana.
Largo's has a special significance in my life; my mom and dad frequented the fledgling Largo's when it began on the east side of Atlantic Boulevard, in the heart of East LA. That original location was right next to a used car lot, Atlantic Motors, which was run by my friend Rene Gastelum's family.
Largo's then moved almost directly across the street and stayed there until some brilliant community minded person turned it into a used car lot. About forty years of history, not to mention the greatest food I've ever had, gone.
Luckily, my daughter remembers going there as a kid...
So this is about food. The greatest food I've ever had.
Those who know me know that for me Mexican food is a religion. And Largo's Mitote was nirvana.
Largo's has a special significance in my life; my mom and dad frequented the fledgling Largo's when it began on the east side of Atlantic Boulevard, in the heart of East LA. That original location was right next to a used car lot, Atlantic Motors, which was run by my friend Rene Gastelum's family.
Largo's then moved almost directly across the street and stayed there until some brilliant community minded person turned it into a used car lot. About forty years of history, not to mention the greatest food I've ever had, gone.
Luckily, my daughter remembers going there as a kid...
Progressive Companies: Google
I watched a short hiring video from Google, and one of the things that stuck out was how progressive a culture it was. For a mega-corp, of course.
One employee remarked that, after stints at big corporate affairs like IBM, she was amazed at the speed of Google. She then described how, if someone had an idea at "Big Wig Company," it took 6 months to travel up to the mucky mucks, and then another 6 to travel back down to the grunts.
But at Google, if someone has a good idea and it catches fire, it can be acted upon within a matter of weeks, if not days.
Last, employees are allowed to devote 20% of their time (it may be more!) to developing their own projects, and employees also gather in groups to develop their own ideas which can then be implemented within the company at large.
That's bottom up management and flat(ter) organization. That's progressive.
One employee remarked that, after stints at big corporate affairs like IBM, she was amazed at the speed of Google. She then described how, if someone had an idea at "Big Wig Company," it took 6 months to travel up to the mucky mucks, and then another 6 to travel back down to the grunts.
But at Google, if someone has a good idea and it catches fire, it can be acted upon within a matter of weeks, if not days.
Last, employees are allowed to devote 20% of their time (it may be more!) to developing their own projects, and employees also gather in groups to develop their own ideas which can then be implemented within the company at large.
That's bottom up management and flat(ter) organization. That's progressive.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Wireless Philly
Some time ago I heard about the City of Brotherly Love going wireless (www.wirelessphiladelphia.net) - WiFi to some, WAN-WiFi to others, and pretty damn tough to beat in my book. On PBS's "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer," they ran a profile tonight about the launch. In addition, it featured a housing project where a teenage Muslim girl had learned to tear down and build computers, and how now her friends and family come to her as the expert - shawl and all. It also showed other kids in the projects learning networking (the hard wired kind) and software.
Pretty great stuff.
Interestingly, the ISPs are against this movement, one verizon villain arguing that, "The government regulates us, taxes us and now they want to compete against us, and we think that's unfair."
Ha! Now THAT'S rich.
Further, Congress now has a ban on cities enabling wireless ... or so I understand it. If I'm wrong, please correct a mundo me.
Last, here in LA, Joseph Loeb started Breakaway Technologies long before any digital initiatives. He correctly sensed that the so-called "digital divide" was a crucial one. His story is a great one, but I'll leave it to you to fish for it. Breakaway can be found at: www.breakaway.org
Pretty great stuff.
Interestingly, the ISPs are against this movement, one verizon villain arguing that, "The government regulates us, taxes us and now they want to compete against us, and we think that's unfair."
Ha! Now THAT'S rich.
Further, Congress now has a ban on cities enabling wireless ... or so I understand it. If I'm wrong, please correct a mundo me.
Last, here in LA, Joseph Loeb started Breakaway Technologies long before any digital initiatives. He correctly sensed that the so-called "digital divide" was a crucial one. His story is a great one, but I'll leave it to you to fish for it. Breakaway can be found at: www.breakaway.org
Friday, November 18, 2005
The Hierarchy of Non-Profit Work
The popular notion of the conservative right by the left is that they are so much better organized (they are), better funded (somewhat true) and give better strategy (they do).
Now, I can't speak for non-profit work on the right, but I can on the other side. For the past seven years I've been involved in non-profit work toward causes I felt worthy, but one thing has always stuck out like a sore thumb: the organizations were always lacking money.
The bigger names - The NAACP, ACLU... - they have plenty of money. But for the vast majority there is a curious lack of funds. And that has a direct impact on the ability of orgs to move messages out to the masses.
With the NAACP, for example, you can go in to their headquarters and see staff churning away on issues and projects and programs. This is also probably true for smaller non propfits, but there is a crucial difference: The smaller orgs do not pay their staff.
The end result is that the overseers get paid while volunteers do the heavy lifting. Without pay.
This creates an endless cycle of churn, because people get burned out on working for nothing, while the overseers get all the accolades and publicity. And Salaries. And benefits.
It also partially explains why most of these orgs, while perhaps worthwhile in spirit, don't gain any traction in the marketplace of ideas.
That sucks.
Now, I can't speak for non-profit work on the right, but I can on the other side. For the past seven years I've been involved in non-profit work toward causes I felt worthy, but one thing has always stuck out like a sore thumb: the organizations were always lacking money.
The bigger names - The NAACP, ACLU... - they have plenty of money. But for the vast majority there is a curious lack of funds. And that has a direct impact on the ability of orgs to move messages out to the masses.
With the NAACP, for example, you can go in to their headquarters and see staff churning away on issues and projects and programs. This is also probably true for smaller non propfits, but there is a crucial difference: The smaller orgs do not pay their staff.
The end result is that the overseers get paid while volunteers do the heavy lifting. Without pay.
This creates an endless cycle of churn, because people get burned out on working for nothing, while the overseers get all the accolades and publicity. And Salaries. And benefits.
It also partially explains why most of these orgs, while perhaps worthwhile in spirit, don't gain any traction in the marketplace of ideas.
That sucks.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Bad Dude: Stuart Hall
One of the few people that left a lasting impression on me during my mis-education was Brotha Stuart Hall. His, "The Determinations of News Photographs," should be required reading for those who want to go beyond the catch-all, "It's the media...."
There's plenty of him on the web, so Google him. If you're interested in mass- media communications, hegemony, race... you are in for a treat.
...the media ignores the real issues with which black people must contend. This is because the media, on the whole, naturally gravitate to the liberal middle-ground: they find conflict and oppression - the real conditions of black existence - difficult and awkward. They tend to redefine all problems as failures in communication.
Stuart Hall's achievement lies in the rational intensity he brought to the 1970's race-media debate. His politically potent arguments are just as central to our contemporary media concerns - from press freedom and the role of class, power, and institutional racism to the most intricate questions of minority images and employment in the press and journalism schools to mass communications studies and media ethics. Today, with mounting criticism of negative black images and under-representation in the media, Hall's brilliant analysis helps us to understand why colour-coded newsrooms and views of modern society must be changed.
There's plenty of him on the web, so Google him. If you're interested in mass- media communications, hegemony, race... you are in for a treat.
Van from Can
One good turn deserves another. My Azn sista Van from Can - formerly Van in Can, but now she's in Modesto, Cali - deserves mention. Studying media and lighting fires under the man's butt. Catch Van at: http://vanessa_au.blogspot.com
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
From the "Bigger's not Better" Files: Wal-Mart
Robert Greenwald's, WAL-MART: THE HIGH COST OF LOW PRICE, has set the world's largest everything rocking on its heels. Good for him, and good for us. His previous film, OUTFOXED, took an acid look at Fox News and roasted them on the spit pretty damn well.
Of note to indie filmmakers: both OUTFOXED and WAL-MART have and are setting new paths for distribution and marketing, completely in alignment with my filmmaking philosophy.
To locate a screening of WAL-MART: THE HIGH COST OF LOW PRICE:
http://www.walmartmovie.com/findall.php
To see my philosophy of indie filmmaking, see:
http://sibmovies.blogspot.com
-jp
Of note to indie filmmakers: both OUTFOXED and WAL-MART have and are setting new paths for distribution and marketing, completely in alignment with my filmmaking philosophy.
To locate a screening of WAL-MART: THE HIGH COST OF LOW PRICE:
http://www.walmartmovie.com/findall.php
To see my philosophy of indie filmmaking, see:
http://sibmovies.blogspot.com
-jp
Monday, November 14, 2005
FU!
A while back I was having a conversation with one of my sports fan friends, and we wondered why it is that in pro sports such as basketball, football or baseball:
1) Owners are organized and represented by lawyers;
2) Players are organized and represented by unions and agents (and lawyers);
3) Advertisers (spammers) are organized and have clout and representation through their marketers and ad agencies;
4) Mass media is organized and has representation through leveraging their corporate backing and monopoly on the airwaves (courtesy of the FCC);
BUT,
5) Fans are completely UN-organized and lacking in representation.
"Fans Union" - FU ;) - is a necessity to level the playing field. And if it's true for sports, it's too true for consumers in general. Here's a group I stumbled upon - let me know if you think they're doing something worthwhile.
and for their podcasts:
-jp
From the, "Profits Over People" Files: Picking on Students
When reading the article below, let's not forget that along with health care, many industrialized western nations provide free education - I remember once having a discussion with a Swedish couple - one was a biologist (PhD) another an MD - and both said their educations were free. They made faces when I asked about taxes, but when I asked the million dollar question, "Would you trade your system of higher taxes with health & education (and other social welfare benefits like paid maternity leaves at 100% for a year, 80% for a second year, childcare, etc...) for ours?", they, like Canadians, laughed in my face and said no way.
The US is the wealthiest nation in the world, but only for some.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/02/AR2005110202746_pf.html
washingtonpost.com
Making Students Pay
The US is the wealthiest nation in the world, but only for some.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/02/AR2005110202746_pf.html
washingtonpost.com
Making Students Pay
Thursday, November 3, 2005; A20
IT'S COMPLICATED, byzantine and -- let's face it -- not the world's most fascinating subject. Even so, it's hard to understand why the federal student loan program attracts so little outside scrutiny. The Senate is likely to vote today on a budget reconciliation measure in which the largest source of "savings" by far comes from the student loan program. The authors of that measure, which the House will tackle next week, say that money comes from cuts in subsidies to lenders. Read the fine print, though, and it seems that, in fact, the "savings" come from increased revenue. And that revenue comes from students, who will be paying higher interest rates to generate it.
That, at least, is the conclusion of a report published this week by the New America Foundation. The report is by Michael Dannenberg, a former Senate staffer who has helped write student loan laws in the past. It notes that under the new rules, students and parents, instead of paying slightly less than the market rate, with the difference made up by the government, will be paying slightly more, with the extra going to the government. (Although lender fees have also gone up, there is no guarantee that those won't be passed along to students as well.) Some of that "saved" money will apply to the budget deficit, and some will go to pay for more tuition grants to the very poorest students. But in either case, the end result is that Congress, rather than cutting the program, as the measures' advocates imply, is actually expanding it.
Even odder, Congress has still made no attempt to cut the cost of student loans in one obvious way that would not harm students. The Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget and now the Government Accountability Office, in a newly released report, have all concluded that subsidized, guaranteed student loans, made through lenders, are costing taxpayers significantly more than would direct loans, which cut out the lenders. Should anyone on the Hill care to point it out, there is an obvious source of genuine savings in the student loan program: Offer students small incentives to choose direct over subsidized loans. But are there fiscal conservatives, in either party, who are willing to risk the wrath of lenders and say so?
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
From the Dirty Laundry Files: Halliburton a Year Later
Among and amid the other evils visited upon us (as in "us, not them") is the on the down-low about Halliburton.
Ask most peeps about Halliburton, and what can they say beyond knowing dick was its CEO and maybe that they know Halliburotn received no-bid contracts. But that last point raises the question: WHY and HOW Halliburton received preferential treatment.
It's also good to know that there are good peeps out there with a conscience. Sista Bunnatine (Bunny) Greenhouse is one. We need more...
-jp
ps: This story was covered much more extensively by Vanity Fair I believe back in the April '05 issue...
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/102504V.shtml
Beyond the Call of Duty
By Adam Zagorin & Timothy J. Burger
Time Magazine
Sunday 24 October 2004
A whistle-blower objected to the government's Halliburton deals-and says now she's paying for it.
In February 2003, less than a month before the U.S. invaded Iraq, Bunnatine (Bunny) Greenhouse walked into a Pentagon meeting and with a quiet comment started what could be the end of her career. On the agenda was the awarding of an up to $7 billion deal to a subsidiary of Houston-based conglomerate Halliburton to restore Iraq's oil facilities. On hand were senior officials from the office of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and aides to retired Lieut. General Jay Garner, who would soon become the first U.S. administrator in Iraq.
Then several representatives from Halliburton entered. Greenhouse, a top contracting specialist for the Army Corps of Engineers, grew increasingly concerned that they were privy to internal discussions of the contract's terms, so she whispered to the presiding general, insisting that he ask the Halliburton employees to leave the room.
Once they had gone, Greenhouse raised other concerns. She argued that the five-year term for the contract, which had not been put out for competitive bid, was not justified, that it should be for one year only and then be opened to competition. But when the contract-approval document arrived the next day for Greenhouse's signature, the term was five years. With war imminent, she had little choice but to sign. But she added a handwritten reservation that extending a no-bid contract beyond one year could send a message that "there is not strong intent for a limited competition."
Greenhouse's objections, which had not been made public until now, will probably fuel criticism of the government's allegedly cozy relationship with Halliburton and could be greeted with calls for further investigation. Halliburton's Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) subsidiary has been mired in allegations of overcharging and mismanagement in Iraq, and the government in January replaced the noncompetitive oil-field contract that Greenhouse had objected to and made two competitively bid awards instead. (Halliburton won the larger contract, worth up to $1.2 billion, for repairing oil installations in southern Iraq, while Parsons Corp. got one for the north, worth up to $800 million.) Halliburton's Iraq business, which includes another government contract as well, has been under particular scrutiny because Vice President Dick Cheney was once its CEO. The Pentagon, concerned about potential controversy when it signed the original oil-work contract, gave Cheney's staff a heads-up beforehand. (TIME disclosed that alert in June.)
Greenhouse seems to have got nothing but trouble for questioning the deal. Warned to stop interfering and threatened with a demotion, the career Corps employee decided to act on her conscience, according to her lawyer, Michael Kohn. Kohn, who has represented other federal whistle-blowers, last week sent a letter-obtained by TIME from congressional sources-on her behalf to the acting Secretary of the Army. In it Kohn recounts Greenhouse's Pentagon meeting and demands an investigation of alleged violations of Army regulations in the contract's awarding. (The Pentagon justified the contract procedures as necessary in a time of war, saying KBR was the only choice because of security clearances that it had received earlier.) Kohn charges that Greenhouse's superiors have tried to silence her; he says she has agreed to be interviewed, pending approval from her employer, but the Army failed to make her available despite repeated requests from TIME.
"These charges undercut months of assertions by Administration officials that the Halliburton contract was on the level," says Democratic Representative Henry Waxman. As the Corps's top contract specialist, the letter says, Greenhouse had noted reservations on dozens of procurement documents over seven years. But it was only after she took exception to the Halliburton deal that she was warned not to do so anymore. The letter states that the major general who admonished her, Robert Griffin, later admitted in a sworn statement that her comments on contracts had "caused trouble" for the Army and that, given the controversy surrounding the contract, it was "intolerable" and "had to stop." The letter says he threatened to downgrade her. (As with Greenhouse, the Army did not make Griffin available.) When the Pentagon's auditors accused KBR of overcharging the government $61 million for fuel, the letter says, the Army bypassed Greenhouse. Her deputy waived a requirement that KBR provide pricing data-a move that looked "politically motivated," the letter says.
The Pentagon maintains that it awarded Halliburton's Iraq contracts appropriately, as does a Halliburton spokeswoman. A senior military official says the Army "has referred the matter to the inspector general of the Department of Defense." As for Halliburton, it has faced alleged cost overruns, lost profits and seen at least 54 company contractors killed in Iraq. Greenhouse, meanwhile, has requested protection from retaliation. But her career-and reputation-are on the line.
Ask most peeps about Halliburton, and what can they say beyond knowing dick was its CEO and maybe that they know Halliburotn received no-bid contracts. But that last point raises the question: WHY and HOW Halliburton received preferential treatment.
It's also good to know that there are good peeps out there with a conscience. Sista Bunnatine (Bunny) Greenhouse is one. We need more...
-jp
ps: This story was covered much more extensively by Vanity Fair I believe back in the April '05 issue...
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/102504V.shtml
Beyond the Call of Duty
By Adam Zagorin & Timothy J. Burger
Time Magazine
Sunday 24 October 2004
A whistle-blower objected to the government's Halliburton deals-and says now she's paying for it.
In February 2003, less than a month before the U.S. invaded Iraq, Bunnatine (Bunny) Greenhouse walked into a Pentagon meeting and with a quiet comment started what could be the end of her career. On the agenda was the awarding of an up to $7 billion deal to a subsidiary of Houston-based conglomerate Halliburton to restore Iraq's oil facilities. On hand were senior officials from the office of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and aides to retired Lieut. General Jay Garner, who would soon become the first U.S. administrator in Iraq.
Then several representatives from Halliburton entered. Greenhouse, a top contracting specialist for the Army Corps of Engineers, grew increasingly concerned that they were privy to internal discussions of the contract's terms, so she whispered to the presiding general, insisting that he ask the Halliburton employees to leave the room.
Once they had gone, Greenhouse raised other concerns. She argued that the five-year term for the contract, which had not been put out for competitive bid, was not justified, that it should be for one year only and then be opened to competition. But when the contract-approval document arrived the next day for Greenhouse's signature, the term was five years. With war imminent, she had little choice but to sign. But she added a handwritten reservation that extending a no-bid contract beyond one year could send a message that "there is not strong intent for a limited competition."
Greenhouse's objections, which had not been made public until now, will probably fuel criticism of the government's allegedly cozy relationship with Halliburton and could be greeted with calls for further investigation. Halliburton's Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) subsidiary has been mired in allegations of overcharging and mismanagement in Iraq, and the government in January replaced the noncompetitive oil-field contract that Greenhouse had objected to and made two competitively bid awards instead. (Halliburton won the larger contract, worth up to $1.2 billion, for repairing oil installations in southern Iraq, while Parsons Corp. got one for the north, worth up to $800 million.) Halliburton's Iraq business, which includes another government contract as well, has been under particular scrutiny because Vice President Dick Cheney was once its CEO. The Pentagon, concerned about potential controversy when it signed the original oil-work contract, gave Cheney's staff a heads-up beforehand. (TIME disclosed that alert in June.)
Greenhouse seems to have got nothing but trouble for questioning the deal. Warned to stop interfering and threatened with a demotion, the career Corps employee decided to act on her conscience, according to her lawyer, Michael Kohn. Kohn, who has represented other federal whistle-blowers, last week sent a letter-obtained by TIME from congressional sources-on her behalf to the acting Secretary of the Army. In it Kohn recounts Greenhouse's Pentagon meeting and demands an investigation of alleged violations of Army regulations in the contract's awarding. (The Pentagon justified the contract procedures as necessary in a time of war, saying KBR was the only choice because of security clearances that it had received earlier.) Kohn charges that Greenhouse's superiors have tried to silence her; he says she has agreed to be interviewed, pending approval from her employer, but the Army failed to make her available despite repeated requests from TIME.
"These charges undercut months of assertions by Administration officials that the Halliburton contract was on the level," says Democratic Representative Henry Waxman. As the Corps's top contract specialist, the letter says, Greenhouse had noted reservations on dozens of procurement documents over seven years. But it was only after she took exception to the Halliburton deal that she was warned not to do so anymore. The letter states that the major general who admonished her, Robert Griffin, later admitted in a sworn statement that her comments on contracts had "caused trouble" for the Army and that, given the controversy surrounding the contract, it was "intolerable" and "had to stop." The letter says he threatened to downgrade her. (As with Greenhouse, the Army did not make Griffin available.) When the Pentagon's auditors accused KBR of overcharging the government $61 million for fuel, the letter says, the Army bypassed Greenhouse. Her deputy waived a requirement that KBR provide pricing data-a move that looked "politically motivated," the letter says.
The Pentagon maintains that it awarded Halliburton's Iraq contracts appropriately, as does a Halliburton spokeswoman. A senior military official says the Army "has referred the matter to the inspector general of the Department of Defense." As for Halliburton, it has faced alleged cost overruns, lost profits and seen at least 54 company contractors killed in Iraq. Greenhouse, meanwhile, has requested protection from retaliation. But her career-and reputation-are on the line.
The Two Takes: From the Under-Employed Files
Some of you know that I am a micro-budget filmmaker. The thought's been brewing in my mind lately about making a doc about the under-employed. Here're the reasons:
1) Dumbya's (and his pundits') "robust economy". The lay-offs are only the most obvious manifestation: Kodak and HP were just the most recent. 'Nuff said.
2) The realities from an anecdotal perspective: Like probably all of you, I know folks who are under-employed - my hand's raised. The government doesn't keep stats on them/us. They/we exist on the fringe - bored at our jobs and worn out from the "maintain a pre-bust lifestyle on $15 an hour", now it's all about energy; energy's at a premium.
3) The untold story of the untold side of the untold story: Those who still have "real" jobs - those that match the qualifications of their education/experience, now look at work forces slashed and doing the work of 2, 3 or more people and upwards of 65 hours a week.
4) Connecting the dots: It all comes back to health and welfare, doesn't it? What are the results of this stressful lifestyle on health and the strains it places on people and families without healthcare or minimal recourse?
5) Perhaps most astoundingly of all, credit card debt is at historic levels. I've heard a wide disparity - from $800 billion to $2 trillion. It's pretty horrific, and it's a worldwide phenomenon. Check this out: http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051020/BUSINESS01/510200344/1003/BUSINESS
6) The new bankruptcy laws. Half a million peeps filed in the ten days before the 10/17 deadline.
7) I did a quick experiement: I Googled, "underemployed" and perused the list. I didn't find any articles from any American mass media, but I did find one by the Christian Science Monitor that's two years old, and a take from The Guardian that posited the "happy side" of being underemployed, albeit with a dark ending. They follow below.
The under-employed are growing and with it, the "American Dream" begins to fizzle. I know folks on both sides - underemployed and employed, who are just plain fed up with the way life's going.
Sounds like a movie, but a pretty damn depressing one. Too bad it isn't "just a movie."
From the sunny side of the street,
-jp
ps: Remember, knowledge is power only if you DO SOMETHING with it...
from the September 30, 2003 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0930/p09s01-coop.html
Underemployed: a euphemism for violent lifestyle change
By Barbara Card Atkinson
ARLINGTON, MASS. - In our house, Bush's child-tax rebate checks went to past-due utility bills, groceries, and a full tank of gas. So much for stimulating the economy.
My husband and I are two of the almost 1 million "underemployed" in this country - a demure label for a violent lifestyle change. We, with our college degrees and previous incarnations as latte-swilling yuppies, are now attempting - and failing badly - to keep our family of four afloat on an average combined income of substantially less than $1,000 a month.
Like those others, we're holding our breath, waiting for the economy to rebound. For us, it's been more than a year. Our personal trajectory in the high-tech flameout happened to so many others that it's now cliché: the faltering of a dotcom job, the bankruptcy of a software company. We had great connections, my husband and I, so finding another job wouldn't be a problem, we thought.
We thought wrong. We're now far below the poverty line, both working entry-level jobs. But we stagger along, aware things could be much worse - they are, currently, much worse for others. There are families living in their cars, single parents holding down two jobs while raising their children, folks on the streets while we own our home and we own our cars. We're paying for a cable modem. We're, for now, solvent, still holding onto some of the vestiges of our old lives - broke with an equity safety net.
We're a legion of misfits, my underemployed brethren and I. We're workers with superfluous skills in need of jobs when there are no jobs to be had; generally too old and too smart to be making so little and doing so little; fighting pride and snobbery while wiping counters, flipping burgers, selling shoes.
I was horrified for a long while that working at a local movie theater was the best I could get, with my college degree and my years of publishing experience. I thought, "These people don't know who I really am, how much better I am than this." Which, of course, meant better than they are.
The other night I stood on a high ladder to change the letters on the theater marquee. The weather and passing traffic made me feel vulnerable, and I threw a little tantrum in my head. I was so ready to walk away. Who did they think they were, asking some 38-year-old mother to risk her neck for $6.75 an hour? If their $2 suction-cup device hadn't fallen off the broomstick, I could have changed the letters from the ground, like a normal person.
This wasn't a corny Hollywood movie about the soccer mom who learned humility by working with the regular folk. This was my life.
I held onto the industrial-orange ladder as cars whizzed by and the wind blew trash. I picked off the titles letter by letter and slapped up new ones and I didn't look down because ... I wasn't better than my high school age co-workers, and why shouldn't I be up on that ladder?
As much as I hated to admit it, we were all equals, and this was the best I could get. And that really threw me.
I walk in the door to my home and my husband walks out, part of our swing-shift parenting. Last year he was a top executive for an international software startup, and now he's trying to sell motorcycles in a market where even the top salesmen are down 25percentto 50 percent from last year's sales. He's not alone - none of my husband's former colleagues are doing much more than trying to keep their homes while waiting for the economy to pick up. We're part of the new demographic: middle-aged professionals losing our credit, our savings, and our homes. The Foreclosure Generation.
Our president just asked for an additional $87 billion to continue his antiterrorism campaign in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other "hot spots" around the globe. I'm not disputing his goals, his claims, or his motivations. Right now I don't have the energy.
I'd like this to be a treatise on how misguided President Bush's "war on terror" is. But in truth, I desperately want us all to feel safe. I'd like to rattle off with conviction that we'd be better served by solid economy-boosting measures and the generation of jobs. But right now, I'm spending all my attention, all my energy taking care of things at home. I wonder when George W., chin out, brashly taking on the world, will look back over his shoulder and do the same.
• Barbara Card Atkinson is a writer and the mother of two small children.
Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links
http://money.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5304028-110400,00.html
How low flyers dodge the flak
The 'happily underemployed' are not slacking off, says Ian Wylie. They have simply decided that their real lives matter more than shinning up the greasy career pole
Ian WylieSaturday October 8, 2005
Guardian
When Eve's boss asks her to fetch him a cup of tea, she manages to smile sweetly. "I make him tea because it's my job. But tea-making doesn't require a degree in French and linguistics."
Eve's degree comes from Oxford, but the 29-year-old has been working as a PA for the past five years. "I work mostly for people who have fewer academic qualifications than me and much of what I do is menial. But I have an active life outside of work - I'm very involved in amateur dramatics - and I get very annoyed if I have a job that means I can't attend rehearsals.
"I once had a job in banking, which was great until 18 months down the line I quit because I was so exhausted. I managed to fit in only one play in that time and even then I couldn't remember my lines because I was so tired. Now I work just to pay the bills."
She is not alone. There are many well-qualified, intelligent people who spend their 9 to 5 working in clerical posts, sales, bars, call centres or restaurants. But some, such as Eve, choose not to moan about their dull, menial or repetitive work because they simply don't see the attraction of a prestigious, high-paying career. They - let's call them the "happily underemployed" - reject the idea that their work is their "calling". They work only to live.
When it comes to underemployment, Britain is a world leader. UK workers are some of the least engaged and emotionally attached to their companies in the world. A survey of 15,000 workers by research firm ISR reckons a third of all workers are indifferent to their work and employer. It's not just a British condition, though. A quarter of Americans show up at work "just for the pay cheque", says research group TNS.
But the happily underemployed are not slackers. They go about their work honestly and professionally. They don't "goof off" on company time. "Conducting market research interviews is like a factory job," admits Michael, a 29-year-old English graduate from a top university, who previously worked in paralegal and teaching jobs. "But I have a gene that takes satisfaction from being able to point to a physical product I've made. Feeling like a cog in a machine is not necessarily a bad thing. I don't have existential crises at my desk."
Being happily underemployed runs counter to the prevailing wisdom that passion should be as common in the workplace as in the bedroom. These people are passionate - just not about their work. They reserve their passion for pursuits outside of work, whether it's amateur dramatics, playing in a band, film-making, painting or rock-climbing. So long as they earn just enough to service their debts and finance their hobbies, the happily underemployed are willing to forgo working a "fulfilling" 80-hour week for fun, satisfying lives outside the office.
"The happily underemployed are actually often fully employed - but not in the course of their paid work," says Adrian Furnham, professor of psychology at University College, London. "They're often very busy with hobbies and passions that are intrinsically motivating."
These people are dropping out of the rat race - except they're doing it at work. They don't feel compelled to imprison the meaning of life in their careers. "An outside interest give structure and meaning to their lives," explains Furnham. "It gives them a friendship and social support network and a sense of identity too."
Of course, few people leave university plotting a career in underwhelming jobs. But student debt and "degree glut" have precipitated a shift from graduate unemployment to underemployment. In the early 1960s, the percentage of young people going to university was 5%. Today that figure is closer to 45%. And since the number of "graduate jobs" has failed to keep pace, up to 45% of graduates from some disciplines are destined for menial work, says the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
Saddled with debts of, on average, £13,000, an increasing number of graduates relegate chasing their perfect job behind getting themselves back into the black. But escaping "transitory" non-graduate roles can be as easy as climbing out of quicksand. Seven years after leaving university, one in 10 are still in "non-graduate" jobs, according to the universities of Warwick and the West of England.
But the happily underemployed are, in fact, exercising choice. "I chose in my mid-20s to buy a house, when I had a job with a dotcom," explains Eve. "It's my choice to keep that mortgage rather than sell up and pursue a career change. I don't deny that I'd like to have a job I love, but to work in theatre I'd have to take a 50% pay cut."
A decade ago, in a tract for thinktank Demos, David Cannon described what he saw as a different work ethic among Generation X - those born between 1965 and 1978. A decline in loyalty to employers meant young workers saw work in purely transactional terms. What's the deal? What's in it for me? Why get saddled with a stressful job?
The happily underemployed are less likely to channel their passions into a job. The purpose of the working week is to get them to the weekend, when the fun begins. While their friends in investment banking or law will spend much of today flaked out in front of a TV, Eve and Michael are ready for action.
Where the office zombies roam
There's another group of workers not so happy in their underemployment. Like the happily underemployed, their abilities are completely wasted. But these people have no outlet for their passion. No outside interests. They're not being fulfilled in any area of their lives.
David Bolchover, author of new book The Living Dead (Capstone), reckons he did no more than six months' work in six years working for a City insurance firm. The implications, he says, are grave.
"Being bored at work inevitably affects your relationships, energy levels outside of work and self esteem. Not much good can come from doing nothing for long periods of time."
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
1) Dumbya's (and his pundits') "robust economy". The lay-offs are only the most obvious manifestation: Kodak and HP were just the most recent. 'Nuff said.
2) The realities from an anecdotal perspective: Like probably all of you, I know folks who are under-employed - my hand's raised. The government doesn't keep stats on them/us. They/we exist on the fringe - bored at our jobs and worn out from the "maintain a pre-bust lifestyle on $15 an hour", now it's all about energy; energy's at a premium.
3) The untold story of the untold side of the untold story: Those who still have "real" jobs - those that match the qualifications of their education/experience, now look at work forces slashed and doing the work of 2, 3 or more people and upwards of 65 hours a week.
4) Connecting the dots: It all comes back to health and welfare, doesn't it? What are the results of this stressful lifestyle on health and the strains it places on people and families without healthcare or minimal recourse?
5) Perhaps most astoundingly of all, credit card debt is at historic levels. I've heard a wide disparity - from $800 billion to $2 trillion. It's pretty horrific, and it's a worldwide phenomenon. Check this out: http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051020/BUSINESS01/510200344/1003/BUSINESS
6) The new bankruptcy laws. Half a million peeps filed in the ten days before the 10/17 deadline.
7) I did a quick experiement: I Googled, "underemployed" and perused the list. I didn't find any articles from any American mass media, but I did find one by the Christian Science Monitor that's two years old, and a take from The Guardian that posited the "happy side" of being underemployed, albeit with a dark ending. They follow below.
The under-employed are growing and with it, the "American Dream" begins to fizzle. I know folks on both sides - underemployed and employed, who are just plain fed up with the way life's going.
Sounds like a movie, but a pretty damn depressing one. Too bad it isn't "just a movie."
From the sunny side of the street,
-jp
ps: Remember, knowledge is power only if you DO SOMETHING with it...
from the September 30, 2003 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0930/p09s01-coop.html
Underemployed: a euphemism for violent lifestyle change
By Barbara Card Atkinson
ARLINGTON, MASS. - In our house, Bush's child-tax rebate checks went to past-due utility bills, groceries, and a full tank of gas. So much for stimulating the economy.
My husband and I are two of the almost 1 million "underemployed" in this country - a demure label for a violent lifestyle change. We, with our college degrees and previous incarnations as latte-swilling yuppies, are now attempting - and failing badly - to keep our family of four afloat on an average combined income of substantially less than $1,000 a month.
Like those others, we're holding our breath, waiting for the economy to rebound. For us, it's been more than a year. Our personal trajectory in the high-tech flameout happened to so many others that it's now cliché: the faltering of a dotcom job, the bankruptcy of a software company. We had great connections, my husband and I, so finding another job wouldn't be a problem, we thought.
We thought wrong. We're now far below the poverty line, both working entry-level jobs. But we stagger along, aware things could be much worse - they are, currently, much worse for others. There are families living in their cars, single parents holding down two jobs while raising their children, folks on the streets while we own our home and we own our cars. We're paying for a cable modem. We're, for now, solvent, still holding onto some of the vestiges of our old lives - broke with an equity safety net.
We're a legion of misfits, my underemployed brethren and I. We're workers with superfluous skills in need of jobs when there are no jobs to be had; generally too old and too smart to be making so little and doing so little; fighting pride and snobbery while wiping counters, flipping burgers, selling shoes.
I was horrified for a long while that working at a local movie theater was the best I could get, with my college degree and my years of publishing experience. I thought, "These people don't know who I really am, how much better I am than this." Which, of course, meant better than they are.
The other night I stood on a high ladder to change the letters on the theater marquee. The weather and passing traffic made me feel vulnerable, and I threw a little tantrum in my head. I was so ready to walk away. Who did they think they were, asking some 38-year-old mother to risk her neck for $6.75 an hour? If their $2 suction-cup device hadn't fallen off the broomstick, I could have changed the letters from the ground, like a normal person.
This wasn't a corny Hollywood movie about the soccer mom who learned humility by working with the regular folk. This was my life.
I held onto the industrial-orange ladder as cars whizzed by and the wind blew trash. I picked off the titles letter by letter and slapped up new ones and I didn't look down because ... I wasn't better than my high school age co-workers, and why shouldn't I be up on that ladder?
As much as I hated to admit it, we were all equals, and this was the best I could get. And that really threw me.
I walk in the door to my home and my husband walks out, part of our swing-shift parenting. Last year he was a top executive for an international software startup, and now he's trying to sell motorcycles in a market where even the top salesmen are down 25percentto 50 percent from last year's sales. He's not alone - none of my husband's former colleagues are doing much more than trying to keep their homes while waiting for the economy to pick up. We're part of the new demographic: middle-aged professionals losing our credit, our savings, and our homes. The Foreclosure Generation.
Our president just asked for an additional $87 billion to continue his antiterrorism campaign in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other "hot spots" around the globe. I'm not disputing his goals, his claims, or his motivations. Right now I don't have the energy.
I'd like this to be a treatise on how misguided President Bush's "war on terror" is. But in truth, I desperately want us all to feel safe. I'd like to rattle off with conviction that we'd be better served by solid economy-boosting measures and the generation of jobs. But right now, I'm spending all my attention, all my energy taking care of things at home. I wonder when George W., chin out, brashly taking on the world, will look back over his shoulder and do the same.
• Barbara Card Atkinson is a writer and the mother of two small children.
Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links
http://money.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5304028-110400,00.html
How low flyers dodge the flak
The 'happily underemployed' are not slacking off, says Ian Wylie. They have simply decided that their real lives matter more than shinning up the greasy career pole
Ian WylieSaturday October 8, 2005
Guardian
When Eve's boss asks her to fetch him a cup of tea, she manages to smile sweetly. "I make him tea because it's my job. But tea-making doesn't require a degree in French and linguistics."
Eve's degree comes from Oxford, but the 29-year-old has been working as a PA for the past five years. "I work mostly for people who have fewer academic qualifications than me and much of what I do is menial. But I have an active life outside of work - I'm very involved in amateur dramatics - and I get very annoyed if I have a job that means I can't attend rehearsals.
"I once had a job in banking, which was great until 18 months down the line I quit because I was so exhausted. I managed to fit in only one play in that time and even then I couldn't remember my lines because I was so tired. Now I work just to pay the bills."
She is not alone. There are many well-qualified, intelligent people who spend their 9 to 5 working in clerical posts, sales, bars, call centres or restaurants. But some, such as Eve, choose not to moan about their dull, menial or repetitive work because they simply don't see the attraction of a prestigious, high-paying career. They - let's call them the "happily underemployed" - reject the idea that their work is their "calling". They work only to live.
When it comes to underemployment, Britain is a world leader. UK workers are some of the least engaged and emotionally attached to their companies in the world. A survey of 15,000 workers by research firm ISR reckons a third of all workers are indifferent to their work and employer. It's not just a British condition, though. A quarter of Americans show up at work "just for the pay cheque", says research group TNS.
But the happily underemployed are not slackers. They go about their work honestly and professionally. They don't "goof off" on company time. "Conducting market research interviews is like a factory job," admits Michael, a 29-year-old English graduate from a top university, who previously worked in paralegal and teaching jobs. "But I have a gene that takes satisfaction from being able to point to a physical product I've made. Feeling like a cog in a machine is not necessarily a bad thing. I don't have existential crises at my desk."
Being happily underemployed runs counter to the prevailing wisdom that passion should be as common in the workplace as in the bedroom. These people are passionate - just not about their work. They reserve their passion for pursuits outside of work, whether it's amateur dramatics, playing in a band, film-making, painting or rock-climbing. So long as they earn just enough to service their debts and finance their hobbies, the happily underemployed are willing to forgo working a "fulfilling" 80-hour week for fun, satisfying lives outside the office.
"The happily underemployed are actually often fully employed - but not in the course of their paid work," says Adrian Furnham, professor of psychology at University College, London. "They're often very busy with hobbies and passions that are intrinsically motivating."
These people are dropping out of the rat race - except they're doing it at work. They don't feel compelled to imprison the meaning of life in their careers. "An outside interest give structure and meaning to their lives," explains Furnham. "It gives them a friendship and social support network and a sense of identity too."
Of course, few people leave university plotting a career in underwhelming jobs. But student debt and "degree glut" have precipitated a shift from graduate unemployment to underemployment. In the early 1960s, the percentage of young people going to university was 5%. Today that figure is closer to 45%. And since the number of "graduate jobs" has failed to keep pace, up to 45% of graduates from some disciplines are destined for menial work, says the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
Saddled with debts of, on average, £13,000, an increasing number of graduates relegate chasing their perfect job behind getting themselves back into the black. But escaping "transitory" non-graduate roles can be as easy as climbing out of quicksand. Seven years after leaving university, one in 10 are still in "non-graduate" jobs, according to the universities of Warwick and the West of England.
But the happily underemployed are, in fact, exercising choice. "I chose in my mid-20s to buy a house, when I had a job with a dotcom," explains Eve. "It's my choice to keep that mortgage rather than sell up and pursue a career change. I don't deny that I'd like to have a job I love, but to work in theatre I'd have to take a 50% pay cut."
A decade ago, in a tract for thinktank Demos, David Cannon described what he saw as a different work ethic among Generation X - those born between 1965 and 1978. A decline in loyalty to employers meant young workers saw work in purely transactional terms. What's the deal? What's in it for me? Why get saddled with a stressful job?
The happily underemployed are less likely to channel their passions into a job. The purpose of the working week is to get them to the weekend, when the fun begins. While their friends in investment banking or law will spend much of today flaked out in front of a TV, Eve and Michael are ready for action.
Where the office zombies roam
There's another group of workers not so happy in their underemployment. Like the happily underemployed, their abilities are completely wasted. But these people have no outlet for their passion. No outside interests. They're not being fulfilled in any area of their lives.
David Bolchover, author of new book The Living Dead (Capstone), reckons he did no more than six months' work in six years working for a City insurance firm. The implications, he says, are grave.
"Being bored at work inevitably affects your relationships, energy levels outside of work and self esteem. Not much good can come from doing nothing for long periods of time."
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
Sunday, November 13, 2005
A Tale of Two Paris Burnings: Yeah, that's Racist
While some dark-skinned peeps in France are fed up with France and vice versa, let's talk about closer to home.
While for the most part discussions about racism involve consious (and sometimes unconscious) acts against disenfranchised groups, defacto racism is virtually never discussed.
Case in point: Paris Hilton. http://www.spotlightingnews.com/article.php?news=1072
A car driven by her boyfriend of the month hits and runs with her in it. Later, the LAPD detain them, and let them go. On tape, Paris - out of her car and no doubt exercising her "communication skills" - can be heard as she walks away, "We love the police."
The LAPD - LAPD! - let them go.
Let's be frank: If that's a car full of average black or brown folks, it's hurtin' time.
By letting these (white) folks go, after an alleged FELONY, that's inverse racism.
Hey Aaron McGruder - HOLLA ATCHA BOY!!!
While for the most part discussions about racism involve consious (and sometimes unconscious) acts against disenfranchised groups, defacto racism is virtually never discussed.
Case in point: Paris Hilton. http://www.spotlightingnews.com/article.php?news=1072
A car driven by her boyfriend of the month hits and runs with her in it. Later, the LAPD detain them, and let them go. On tape, Paris - out of her car and no doubt exercising her "communication skills" - can be heard as she walks away, "We love the police."
The LAPD - LAPD! - let them go.
Let's be frank: If that's a car full of average black or brown folks, it's hurtin' time.
By letting these (white) folks go, after an alleged FELONY, that's inverse racism.
Hey Aaron McGruder - HOLLA ATCHA BOY!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)