Corporate Hell: some tautologies
Jan. 29th, 2002 12:44 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mamajoanFile this one under "statements of the obvious."
After typing it all up I realized that it might be, uh, boring. Or something. So don't read it if you don't want to. It's rambly and self-indulgent and largely pointless.
I was pulling into the parking lot this morning, in my banged-up, eight-years-old, boring, plain, doesn't-even-have-power-windows car, behind the fancy expensive car of a coworker. And as I got out of my car I saw him getting out of his, and of course he was one of the top-level executives. And I remembered how my coworkers whose offices are by the window know everyone's car, and when we go to lunch they look around and say things like "Oh, so-and-so drove his Mercedes today instead of the SUV" or "Hmm, so-and-so must be sick, I don't see his BMW."
So, naturally, it got me to thinking. About the disparities between my salary and those of the executives. And about how unfair it seems that they should be swimming in expensive suits and a new top-line car every year, while I'm scraping along with my $250-per-month student loans and my rent which is much more than the recommended 25% of my monthly income.
The 'little people' in a company make less money than the managers and the execs. This is the tautology to which I referred. (BTW, tautology means a statement that is necessarily or obviously true. Just sayin' that because I've been accused of using big words that no one understands.) But I guess my point is that I don't necessarily think it's fair, or "right," or -- to use a word less fraught with moralistic or ethical connotations -- socioeconomically reasonable.
Of course, my socialist upbringing is a big part of this. But doesn't it seem like it would be better for society, in some ways, for me to make a little more money so that I don't feel pinched all the time? "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," is the socialist/communist creed, and to me it makes a lot of sense. I give the best of my abilities to my company. So, presumably, does Joe Executive. Yet Joe has been in the workforce for twenty years to my five. That means Joe has had more time to save money, to build up equity (not to mention a good credit report, which let's assume he has). Whereas I have built up lots of job skills but still have $20K in debt. Would I be a more productive worker if I didn't have that debt? I argue that I would, because it's a psychological burden, and because "throwing away" the money every month makes me feel like my hard work is going nowhere.
(Of course, it isn't. I value the education I got at Oberlin College very highly and am, in one sense, happy to pay for it. In the sense that I wouldn't want to be without it. On the other hand, though, many of my peers (defined in this case as people who graduated from Oberlin within a few years of me) came out of college with zero debt. And what makes them worthier than me? Having rich parents whereas I don't? Why should that be rewarded?)
I know there's more to it than that. I know Joe also gets paid for his years of experience and his perceived value to the company. I can take issue with the idea that Joe is more valuable to the company than me, but that'll get me nowhere except even more annoyed.
I guess I'm rambling, but what it boils down to is that my debts feel like more of a burden when I see other people with way more money than me, who -- in a certain sense -- don't really need it. I mean, maybe the exec isn't the best example (especially if he has four kids and I have none), but there are plenty of other examples of people in the news (celebs, sports figures, Bill Gates, etc.) who make WAY more money than any person really needs to make. Who could pay off all my debt and not even notice the dent in their bank accounts, and why is that fair?
And don't get me wrong, it's not like I'm poor. I can afford to pay my rent and my loans and all my bills, and buy cat food and Joan food, and still have money left over for fun and chocolate. But the debt, specifically the debt is what I'm talking about now -- it severely limits my options. It ties me down, in a way, keeps me a slave to the system. And that can't be good for the system, ultimately. I really believe that.
I guess I'm also trapped by the quasi-tautology that someone who makes more money than me is better than me. Funny, eh, how it works both ways? I'm mad because Joe Exec makes more money even though I don't believe he's better than me; and I'm also mad because I resent the message society sends that making more money makes him better than me. How's that for a vicious cycle.
Obviously, this all also relates to my dissatisfaction at work. It's a tangled web, all boiling down to my not feeling appreciated, or properly rewarded for my work. Sigh.
And now to bed, another evening down the tubes.
After typing it all up I realized that it might be, uh, boring. Or something. So don't read it if you don't want to. It's rambly and self-indulgent and largely pointless.
I was pulling into the parking lot this morning, in my banged-up, eight-years-old, boring, plain, doesn't-even-have-power-windows car, behind the fancy expensive car of a coworker. And as I got out of my car I saw him getting out of his, and of course he was one of the top-level executives. And I remembered how my coworkers whose offices are by the window know everyone's car, and when we go to lunch they look around and say things like "Oh, so-and-so drove his Mercedes today instead of the SUV" or "Hmm, so-and-so must be sick, I don't see his BMW."
So, naturally, it got me to thinking. About the disparities between my salary and those of the executives. And about how unfair it seems that they should be swimming in expensive suits and a new top-line car every year, while I'm scraping along with my $250-per-month student loans and my rent which is much more than the recommended 25% of my monthly income.
The 'little people' in a company make less money than the managers and the execs. This is the tautology to which I referred. (BTW, tautology means a statement that is necessarily or obviously true. Just sayin' that because I've been accused of using big words that no one understands.) But I guess my point is that I don't necessarily think it's fair, or "right," or -- to use a word less fraught with moralistic or ethical connotations -- socioeconomically reasonable.
Of course, my socialist upbringing is a big part of this. But doesn't it seem like it would be better for society, in some ways, for me to make a little more money so that I don't feel pinched all the time? "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," is the socialist/communist creed, and to me it makes a lot of sense. I give the best of my abilities to my company. So, presumably, does Joe Executive. Yet Joe has been in the workforce for twenty years to my five. That means Joe has had more time to save money, to build up equity (not to mention a good credit report, which let's assume he has). Whereas I have built up lots of job skills but still have $20K in debt. Would I be a more productive worker if I didn't have that debt? I argue that I would, because it's a psychological burden, and because "throwing away" the money every month makes me feel like my hard work is going nowhere.
(Of course, it isn't. I value the education I got at Oberlin College very highly and am, in one sense, happy to pay for it. In the sense that I wouldn't want to be without it. On the other hand, though, many of my peers (defined in this case as people who graduated from Oberlin within a few years of me) came out of college with zero debt. And what makes them worthier than me? Having rich parents whereas I don't? Why should that be rewarded?)
I know there's more to it than that. I know Joe also gets paid for his years of experience and his perceived value to the company. I can take issue with the idea that Joe is more valuable to the company than me, but that'll get me nowhere except even more annoyed.
I guess I'm rambling, but what it boils down to is that my debts feel like more of a burden when I see other people with way more money than me, who -- in a certain sense -- don't really need it. I mean, maybe the exec isn't the best example (especially if he has four kids and I have none), but there are plenty of other examples of people in the news (celebs, sports figures, Bill Gates, etc.) who make WAY more money than any person really needs to make. Who could pay off all my debt and not even notice the dent in their bank accounts, and why is that fair?
And don't get me wrong, it's not like I'm poor. I can afford to pay my rent and my loans and all my bills, and buy cat food and Joan food, and still have money left over for fun and chocolate. But the debt, specifically the debt is what I'm talking about now -- it severely limits my options. It ties me down, in a way, keeps me a slave to the system. And that can't be good for the system, ultimately. I really believe that.
I guess I'm also trapped by the quasi-tautology that someone who makes more money than me is better than me. Funny, eh, how it works both ways? I'm mad because Joe Exec makes more money even though I don't believe he's better than me; and I'm also mad because I resent the message society sends that making more money makes him better than me. How's that for a vicious cycle.
Obviously, this all also relates to my dissatisfaction at work. It's a tangled web, all boiling down to my not feeling appreciated, or properly rewarded for my work. Sigh.
And now to bed, another evening down the tubes.
