Today's interview seemed to go fabulously well; I really enjoyed it, if you want to know, and I seemed to connect with the person (the HR guy, as a matter of fact), and I'd say they're still pretty interested in hiring me, even if they don't quite know what they're going to do with me. Thanks to my previous 873 interviews there, I was able to say, "I think what you need is X," and have HRGuy say, "Yes, that's very astute of you." But you know? Until I show up for work the first day, it's not a done deal. Hell, I don't even have an offer yet.
I've also been busy: coffee with J, book-buying for the nephews and CS, and dinner with Friend last Monday, lots of nothing on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday (I think: I don't remember precisely), a hockey game with Friend on Friday, beer with Lole and his Cute Girl and Mel and her husband (she worked at the bakery last spring, until she got the Brazen Tart internship) on Saturday; slept late Sunday morning, because it was the first day in months and months where I had nothing to do, then Friend came over and we went to breakfast, he tried (and failed) to fix my internet connection, then we headed to his place for a fire in the fireplace, and checking out whether we should do a computer trade, and a simple dinner in front of the TV ("Kinsey" followed by a tape of a football game). I headed to the interview from his place today, then came home and waited for the internet-fixer.
Somewhere in there I managed to acquire a cold, but it's a strange one, in the sense that I didn't have the typical cold symptoms, I just had to blow my nose a lot, and, yesterday, I sounded a little hoarse. So, okay, whatever; I have tissues. Better than having issues.
I keep thinking about Stuff, too. One thing that makes the conversation difficult, I think, is that few, if any, readers in this little space really look to Stuff to provide meaning or comfort in their lives, so we can look at the piles-of-stuff people (if I may categorize for a moment) and kind of shake our heads, even as we recognize that, in many parts of the world (and country), even the most simple-living of us would be regarded as fabulously wealthy. So there's that. At the same time, at least a few of us have been or are in situations (or have/had relatives in situations) where money would have made, or did make, all the difference. And not big wads of money, either; not big-mansion-on-the-lake money.
Or here's another way to think about it: do the math to figure out what you make, after taxes, in a day. Now, imagine someone who makes a million dollars a year; not a lot, by the standards of the mansions on the lake. Assume s/he gives up half his/her income to taxes (which is already probably wildly inaccurate, in that there are likely tax shelters about which you and I know nothing). That person earns $1923.08, after taxes, each working day. That person gets more in a DAY than I need to pay my monthly rent, health insurance, student loan, and public transportation each MONTH.
Or yet another thought: when my sister-in-law secretly didn't pay the mortgage for 18 months and my brother and she and my nephews were days away from losing their home, my parents and my SIL's mother were able to help out, prevent that from happening. My mother helped them get their finances together, and I think they're fine now. Or how about these past couple of months, when my SIL had her knee replaced AND my brother was out of work with a torn bicep? If they'd been barely scraping by, or if bro hadn't upped his disability insurance last year, or whatever, they'd've been screwed. The point is, none of the amounts of money about which we're talking is all that much to the mansion people--they wouldn't notice it.
And it's that disparity that irks me. Not because I want the piles of money or stuff, but because I think we should all have access to some insulation.
Speaking of which, the other thing that irks me is that the rich are insulated from their mistakes--or even just unfortunate events--in the way the rest of us are not. Yes, my brother was insulated by my parents, and we are all extremely grateful for that. Yes, he actually spent the money on disability insurance, but not everyone can afford that. We all should have some insulation.
On the other hand, all the money in the world would not have saved my sister's life (even as a little of that money might very well have saved others' lives). So, yeah, it's messy. What I most try to avoid is carping on the people most nearly around me--because that only serves the purposes of the really rich. Let the poor and middle class fight over the crumbs, while they feast on the whole cake, all while thinking they deserve it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
You are very much a pinko, Narya. (The word is fresh in my mind from 30 Rock, where Alec Baldwin's Captain of Industry type called James Carville a pinko to his face.)
Yes.
I am aware that there are good elements in our capitalist system, not least is an incentive to work and produce useful stuff, so you can get paid and buy the stuff you need. As far as it goes, it's a fine concept.
But I chafe, as do you, at the idea that in the richest nation the world has ever known, it's everyone for themselves when disaster or financial reversal happens.
There really is a ruling class, and they rule by virtue of having most of the money, so they get to choose the leaders and make the rules, which are designed mainly to protect and aggrandize them. I wish there were a way to share the wealth. The cynics (and the rich) would say that's communism, and nobody would work if they didn't have to, look at the vodka-sodden proletariat in the Soviet Union. But more and more I think that's a myth perpetuated by those who are too piggy to share, even though they may have more money than they and all their relatives could spend in a lifetime.
...and aren't we a bunch of chumps to give that myth any serious consideration?
The other day my boyfriend and I were discussing what we'd do with tons of money. Oh, we said, we'd travel, and eat good food, and buy houses for our family members.
But like you say, Narya, that's not what being wealthy is all about. It is about the insurance, the protection, and little tiny luxuries that make not-so-great days easier to handle: quiet when you want it, privacy when you need it, time and space and (not to get too abstract) freedom.
If money were just about new cars and mansions and fancy clothes, it wouldn't bother me so much, but instead it's about options and choices and health and well-being.
[T]he other thing that irks me is that the rich are insulated from their mistakes--or even just unfortunate events--in the way the rest of us are not.
This is astute; I completely agree. They fuck up, they throw some money at it, it goes away. The rest of us fuck up, we have to struggle for weeks or months or years to make up for it.
It's true; I AM a pinko (hence my choice for my other nom de blog). But that's a longer post.
One of the things that was most depressing about the republican response to the kids advocating health care/SCHIP for the democrats is the notion that people DESERVED bad things if they didn't have insurance, didn't have jobs that provided insurance, whatever.
I agree, there is a lot of injustice in wealth distribution and the privileges wealth affords to a few. There should be more protections for, well for everyone, to insulate against financial hardship and life trials.
But I've studied too much Chinese history to get on board with Communism. And I think it's fantastic--absolutely fantastic!--that anyone in this country has the right to set up a business enterprise. I really see a great promise of our culture, economy, and society lying in small business. And I believe that we have reached the apex of the Walton era, and that a reaction against those giant businesses will lead us back toward small, local business.
Narya, in China for several years, the Communist party outlawed--outlawed!--any restaurants besides dumpling houses. Everyone ate at big, long wooden tables, all eating the same simple workers' food. You make beautiful croissants, you can see how wrong that is. But let's not get me started on the history of Chinese Communism, or we'll be here all night.
A nice Northern-European flavor of Socialism, I could see that. But I think it only works in relatively small countries where everyone buys in. Which potentially gets me into my rant about how we should reduce US federal gov't power and increase states' rights, but it's time to make dinner.
The revolution by force, it's a recipe for disaster.
PS sorry so many typos. the CPC and the PLL get me so worked up I can't type properly!
PLA, not PLL! Lordy. really, going to make dinner now.
Hmmm.
I'd say that assuming that Chinese (and, for that matter, Soviet) incarnations of communism are the only possible ones, or that all communism will go in the direction of marxism/leninism/maotsedung thought, is the same as saying that all capitalism will eventually end up as a version of the robber barons of the late 19th (and early 21st) century or the unfettered waltonism we've seen. And, indeed, I could make that latter argument.
I'm actually more of an anarchosyndicalist at heart, if you want to know, rather than a communist per se, but I suspect the comments section is not the place to detail that.
I WOULD like to hear more about anarchosyndicalism.
"unfettered waltonism"--I like that.
Post a Comment