AN ESSAY
I grew up in a ferociously pro-choice household. From my earliest memory, my mother told me that abortion was a woman's right. It was her choice to decide what to do with her body. Those ideas filtered into my mind. I never thought much about it. I never thought abortion amounted to murder. In fact, I remember my mother used to say: "It's nothing but a clump of cells. It's not even a person. You're not hurting anyone when you pull it out of there."
I was satisfied with her explanation. It passed my empirical scrutiny. After all, I had no memory about my own life before I was three years old, let alone memory about my time in the womb. I recalled no pain from that time. In that light, I perceived no moral problem in terminating a pregnancy: It just didn't hurt anyone.
I could not identify with a fetus; I may have once been a fetus, but if someone had rooted me out before I was born, I would not have known the better. There seemed to be no suffering in abortion. I had no problem with it.
When I was a little older, my mother told me that she had had an abortion three years after I was born. That made me understand why she so fiercely advocated abortion rights: She had needed an abortion and she got one. She told me she could not have supported another child. I completely agreed with her. I did not want another sibling, either. I liked my mother's undivided attention. So we both had some self-interest in our beliefs about abortion. I never regretted the idea that I "may have lost a brother or sister." I supported my mother's decision. In fact, I fully endorsed her main argument: That no one has a right to tell a woman what she should do with her own body.
I carried these beliefs with me to law school. They informed my understanding about the Constitution. I read Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), as if I already knew what it said. In essence, Roe held that a woman has a constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy at any time before "viability." It reaffirmed my own belief that the State has no right to interfere with a woman's reproductive choices because we all have a right to "privacy" in our bodies.
But there were people in my class who strongly disagreed with Roe. They thought that abortion was a crime. They thought that there was such a thing as "potential life," and that the State had a right to protect "lives that did not yet exist." My own values clashed with that argument. I had always believed--thanks to my mother's explanations and my own empirical conclusions--that fetuses were not people. They were just "clumps of cells." I did not consider them "alive." And even if they represented "potential life," that concept was far too nebulous for me to defend.
Still, many people vociferously believe the opposite. In fact, there are probably some people out there who would kill me for my belief that abortion is acceptable in virtually every circumstance.
In recent years, I have been obsessed with death. When my father died suddenly in 2006, it forced me to reevaluate every assumption I had about life. I pondered life's meaning, its "rewards" and its expectations. After all, I saw that life can end without warning. And all the things that we learn to expect from life can evaporate in an instant. We are all just going to die--in fact, we might even die tomorrow--so why stress out about little things, like careers and money? What do they gain us in the end? Why waste time on them? Why waste a single day on something unappetizing? If all we have are our bodies, why torture ourselves doing things we would rather not do?
I developed a contempt for life. I am still quite contemptuous about it. What does life really have to offer, anyway? Food? Sleep? Orgasms? Comforts? Feather beds? Money? Joys? Is this everything? Are we mere slaves to our senses until the day our senses cease functioning? What difference will food and orgasms make once we die? None, none, none. In fact, those are only the good sensory things that can happen to us in life. More often, life inflicts unbelievable sensory suffering on us. We endure physical pain and emotional turmoil. We endure heartache, delay, disappointment, rejection, boredom, stress, betrayal, mockery, abuse and frustration. The bad moments usually far outnumber the good ones. Then we die. Taken as a whole, then, life is a losing proposition.
That's not to say that I do not sometimes like living. It feels good to eat, sleep, have sex, talk with friends, love people, be loved, sit in a comfortable chair, listen to music and read books. I like being alive in those moments. But is this all there is? And do I have to endure all the bad stuff for these few good moments?
Many others have come to these same sad conclusions about human life. In Brian de Palma's Scarface (1983), drug kingpin Tony Montana achieves the height of earthly success. He has a beautiful wife. He has untold riches. He has a huge villa in Florida. He has a massive hot tub. He throws mammoth parties. He wants for nothing. Yet after an argument at an expensive restaurant one night, he turns to his best friend and despondently says: "Is this it? Is this what it's all about, Manny? Eating, drinking, fucking, sucking, snorting, then what? You're 50 with a bag for a belly."
Tony Montana developed a contempt for life. He did not care about what it had to offer, even though he had it all. And he did not mind dying after he saw how little life really matters.
Shakespeare's Hamlet thought the same thing. In several scenes, Hamlet rues the crude banality of human existence. Like Tony Montana, he says: "What is a man,/ If his chief good and market of his time/ Be but to sleep and feed? a beast, no more." Hamlet, Act IV, sc. iv, l. 31-33. Hamlet understands--as I do--that life's so-called "good things" add up to little more than "[b]estial oblivion." Act IV, sc. iv, l. 38. In fact, Hamlet grows so disenchanted with life's petty potential rewards that he prefers death to living: "O that this too too solid flesh would melt,/ Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew!/ Or that the Everlasting had not fixt his/ Canon 'gainst self-slaughter! O God! O God!/ How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable/ Seem to me all the uses of this world!/ Fie on't! O, fie! 'tis an unweeded garden/ That grows to seed; things rank and gross in/ nature/ Possess it merely." Act I, sc. ii, l. 129-138. Later, he dismisses the world as "no/ other thing [] than a foul and pestilent/ congregation of vapors." Act II, sc. ii, l. 308-309. And he dismisses man, too: "What piece of work is/ man!...what is/ this quintessence of dust?" Act II, sc. ii, l. 309-310, 314-315.
Is this what it's all about, Manny? A "quintessence of dust?" "Bestial oblivion?" An existence "weary, stale, flat and unprofitable?" "An unweeded garden that grows to seed?" "A foul and pestilent congregation of vapors?" Taken in the abstract, Hamlet is dead on. Life pretty much sucks. And even the good stuff is a pretty poor palliative for the endless difficulties it inflicts upon us.
I am permissive toward abortion because I really could care less whether another person enters this brutal world. After all, earthly life offers little more than "bestial oblivion," anyway, so why should I care whether some new beast gets to eat, sleep or feed? It just doesn't matter to me. If a woman chooses to end her pregnancy, good for her: She's saving the little tyke a whole lot of trouble.
But what about abortion opponents? They must have different expectations from life than I do. They must not really ponder human existence. They must genuinely like what life has to offer. They must really like eating, sleeping, fucking, sucking and snorting, even if they wind up with bags for bellies. After all, they are willing to kill doctors in order to defend potential life. Let me say that again: Potential life. They like life so much that they are willing to commit murder so that a clump of cells may one day eat, sleep, fuck, suck and snort. They are committed not just to an existing person's right to eat, sleep, fuck, suck and snort. They are also committed to a non-existent person's right to do so. Now that shows real dedication to earthly life. It's a dedication I certainly do not share. To each his own, I suppose.
In my experience, life is no bowl of cherries. It is hard. It is full of misery and pain. When we do enjoy good moments, they are precious. But how rare they are! And viewed in the abstract, how petty! Is this why we're alive, then? To undergo endless difficulty punctuated by a few slender moments of bestial joy? We cling to life like any other mammal. We fear death because we do not know what awaits us. So, as Hamlet says, we "bear those ills we have/ [rather] than fly to others that we know not of." Hamlet, Act III, sc. i. l. 83-84.
We are the only ones who can create meaning in our lives. Hamlet found meaning by finding a purpose: Taking revenge for his murdered father. He did not seek mere "bestial oblivion" or "worldly comfort." He impressed his soul on his existence to transcend his "mortal coil." His life took on greater significance. And fittingly, he died in the process.
I have not died yet. I know that life does not offer much. Yet I try to do what Hamlet did. I am trying to live for something greater than bestial oblivion. I like bestial oblivion as much as the next man (beast). But my real joy flows from the idea that I am doing something beyond the flesh: Writing. I had to find something to make this maddening journey bearable. It was my choice.
Even then, I do not hold my own life in high esteem. On the whole, life is more trouble than it's worth. Only instinctual self-preservation holds me in check.
So from my view, so what if a woman gets an abortion? I have no philosophical problem with any activity that saves another from this harrowing sphere of pain.
Showing posts with label Pleasure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pleasure. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
MY TEETH ARE DOOMED
AN ESSAY
I am getting older. Every day, time leaves new marks on my body. When the light shines a certain way, I notice time's inscriptions. Lines emanate away from my eyes, especially when I smile. I have more wrinkles on my forehead. My hands are starting to look cracked, crooked and worn. Hair is sprouting up in places I'd rather not discuss. And my teeth aren't so pearly white anymore; in fact, I can feel them getting weaker by the week.
Our bodies doomed to decay. That's the problem with bodies. Beauty and youth please us. But we understand how fleeting they are. We understand that time is never on our side. When we see a beautiful person, we know they won't be so forever. It's all just a matter of time before remorseless months and years erode even the supplest beauties.
Aging is a natural process. But that doesn't make it any more appealing to us. Death is a natural process too; and very few people like death, either. Still, natural processes can be both scary and reassuring. They are scary because no one wants to get old and die. On the other hand, they are reassuring because everyone reliably knows they will happen. Just as everyone knows a flower will wilt and turn brown, so too does everyone know that we all will die one day. That is just what happens in nature. You can see it. And you can apply it to your own life. It is rhythmic. You can count on it.
But let's get back to the scary part. While nature might provide us analogies to understand what will happen to us in the end, it is no less unpleasant to consider. We are, after all, rather vain creatures. We do not like the idea that our youth and appeal may one day fade. We do not like the idea that our beauty will wilt like the flowers in the garden. We experience so many pleasures in youth. And God forbid that time will steal them from us. It is not a pleasant thought.
Still, we must confront it. I confront it a little bit every day when I notice the new little injuries time has left upon me. In a strange way, it makes me reflective. When I notice something going wrong with my body, it makes me remember how long I've been here. It makes me remember how much I've seen and experienced. I go back through the years and I remember the times when my body did not ache the way it does now. I remember when there was no hair in the places it grows now. Our bodies are like fossils; and our memory confirms to us how long we have been here. Although I do not like the idea that I am decaying, I can at least take some pride in the idea that I have made it this far.
Having said all this, my teeth are doomed. I think they are even more doomed than the rest of my body. My constant coffee abuse, advancing age, lack of insurance and insufficient funds portend a dental disaster of unspeakable magnitude. Last year, I managed to scrape up enough money to get an examination, along with a cleaning and whitening (I am still paying interest on the visits). The dentist scraped unbelievable amounts of plaque from places in my mouth I barely knew existed. Then she flossed mysterious cracks in those unknown regions. She drew blood almost every time she hit the gum.
Toward the end, she said: "It's been a while since your last visit, hasn't it?" Then she offered me some Tylenol.
My poor, doomed teeth. It does not help that I have English ancestry. Genetically, the English have bad teeth. My own circumstances make my naturally bad genetic situation even worse. Every day, I notice my gums getting whiter. There are stains between a couple teeth that were not there before. And I can feel my teeth moving in my gumline in a way I have never felt before. Plus, they tell me I have impacted molars that must be removed before they burrow into my nerves. Put simply, I am in dire dental trouble.
But this is what happens when you get older. Time brutally flogs our bodies. There is little we can do about it. It just happens. Sure, we can live as healthy as we possibly can. We can eat right, exercise and even think positively about the future. But these are mere salves: Nothing can stop time's slow, steady, corrosive assault on our flesh.
It would be nice to escape our bodies for a while. While our bodies might offer numerous ways to experience the world's pleasures, they are also enormously restrictive. They can produce as much pain as pleasure. Time's corrosion is just another terror our bodies must confront. Still, it is so easy to put trust in our bodies. It is banal in the truest sense. We know our bodies better than anything else in our lives. We are stuck with them. We see them every day. We monitor them and scrutinize them. We must endure their chemical tempests and painful discomforts. They matter to us because they place insistent demands on us: Feed me; relieve me; give me rest; make me comfortable; make me feel pleasure. If we ignore them, we suffer pain for it. And we learn from earliest memory that pain is not good. So we slavishly pander to our bodies.
It is no accident that the law targets the body. Almost everyone cares about his own body. If there is something no man wants to experience, it is bodily discomfort. So the law threatens to inflict bodily discomfort on anyone who transgresses its commands. While some exceptional people hold their bodies in contempt, they are too rare to make a difference. The law concerns itself with efficacy: It knows that almost everyone fears bodily punishment, so that is what it threatens to maintain order.
So we spend our lives worrying about our bodies until time slowly eradicates them. It is quite a pathetic lot if you think about it. Still, it is completely natural. As living organisms, we want to stay alive. To stay alive, we must preserve our bodies. We fear death largely because it means we can no longer enjoy what life has to offer our bodies. We know that we will die in time because we see what time does to others' bodies. So we fear aging, because we know what it leads to.
But what about life beyond the body? Is it possible to achieve some mental satisfaction without worrying about the body's inevitable decay? Throughout history, we find examples of men who did not put all their faith in bodily comfort. There have been men who lived for something beyond placating their bodies and avoiding death. In fact, we tend to revere men who lived beyond their bodies because they are so rare. It is no accident that Jesus Christ is the central hero in Western Civilization: He gave up his body so that others could enjoy theirs. There is a nobility in life beyond the body because so few people can effectively ignore their bodies. Most people fear aging and death. Most people simply live to experience the pleasures the body can give. Love it or hate it, that is just how we are.
I am no martyr. I am just as worried about my body as the next man. But I fear pain more than I fear death. I wish I could hold my body in contempt. Yet the body is rapaciously insistent; it is difficult to ignore its demands for long. No matter how strongly I believe in abstract principles and ideas, I cannot say whether I could maintain my commitment to them in the face of torture, hunger or agony. I am worried about my hair and my teeth, for goodness' sake; imagine how I would feel if confronted with genuine bodily scourges?
But death is different than pain. Pain is about the body and its limitations. Death is about existence and non-existence. Death rules out the body altogether. In that light, it is easier to romanticize non-existence than pain. In fact, non-existence lends itself much more to abstract principles than mere contempt for the body. Death frees us from concern about the body. Death liberates us from the body's incessant demands and penalties. True, death might cut short our ability to experience the body's joys. But it also forecloses the body's ability to torment us any longer. There is some objective, rational appeal to that possibility. If bodily life--on the whole-- appears to offer more pain than pleasure, why go on living at all? It is better to cease to exist in order to avoid pain than to exist for nothing more than pain.
Yet this broaches another conundrum: What if death does not end our pain? After all, no one has ever reported to us what death is like. No one has come back from that "undiscover'd country from whose bourn/ No traveler returns." Hamlet, Act III, sc. i, lines 80-81. We have all seen aging and pain because living people experience aging and pain. We see what happens to them. They can tell us how bad they feel.
But no one has experienced death and lived to tell about it. Who knows what awaits us there. That is what makes people fear death: Unknowability. Maybe something dreadful happens once we die. No one knows. No one can know. No one can sense anything once they die, let alone communicate what they sense. And that is why death continues to terrify us. So as bad as bodily life may be, we choose to "bear what ills we have,/ [rather] Than fly to others that we know not of." Hamlet, Act III, sc. i, lines 82-83.
I have argued before that it is unreasonable to fear death because death cuts short our bodily ability to sense anything. http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-we-fear-death.html. But once again, we see that humans are not invariably reasonable. They fear death even though death eliminates their sensory capacities--including the capacity to experience pain--because they fear the unknown. That fear is not reasonable because reason is based in human sense. Death obliterates sense, so it is not reasonable to fear it.
It is actually more reasonable to fear aging than death. We can sense our bodies aging. We can feel our bodies weakening. We know that aging will bring us more pain and less bodily satisfaction. We can sense all these things. Our reason has something to grasp in that situation.
I reasonably worry about my teeth. I have every reason to believe they are doomed. And I know it's going to hurt.
But with death: Who knows what I'll feel? That is strangely reassuring.
I am getting older. Every day, time leaves new marks on my body. When the light shines a certain way, I notice time's inscriptions. Lines emanate away from my eyes, especially when I smile. I have more wrinkles on my forehead. My hands are starting to look cracked, crooked and worn. Hair is sprouting up in places I'd rather not discuss. And my teeth aren't so pearly white anymore; in fact, I can feel them getting weaker by the week.
Our bodies doomed to decay. That's the problem with bodies. Beauty and youth please us. But we understand how fleeting they are. We understand that time is never on our side. When we see a beautiful person, we know they won't be so forever. It's all just a matter of time before remorseless months and years erode even the supplest beauties.
Aging is a natural process. But that doesn't make it any more appealing to us. Death is a natural process too; and very few people like death, either. Still, natural processes can be both scary and reassuring. They are scary because no one wants to get old and die. On the other hand, they are reassuring because everyone reliably knows they will happen. Just as everyone knows a flower will wilt and turn brown, so too does everyone know that we all will die one day. That is just what happens in nature. You can see it. And you can apply it to your own life. It is rhythmic. You can count on it.
But let's get back to the scary part. While nature might provide us analogies to understand what will happen to us in the end, it is no less unpleasant to consider. We are, after all, rather vain creatures. We do not like the idea that our youth and appeal may one day fade. We do not like the idea that our beauty will wilt like the flowers in the garden. We experience so many pleasures in youth. And God forbid that time will steal them from us. It is not a pleasant thought.
Still, we must confront it. I confront it a little bit every day when I notice the new little injuries time has left upon me. In a strange way, it makes me reflective. When I notice something going wrong with my body, it makes me remember how long I've been here. It makes me remember how much I've seen and experienced. I go back through the years and I remember the times when my body did not ache the way it does now. I remember when there was no hair in the places it grows now. Our bodies are like fossils; and our memory confirms to us how long we have been here. Although I do not like the idea that I am decaying, I can at least take some pride in the idea that I have made it this far.
Having said all this, my teeth are doomed. I think they are even more doomed than the rest of my body. My constant coffee abuse, advancing age, lack of insurance and insufficient funds portend a dental disaster of unspeakable magnitude. Last year, I managed to scrape up enough money to get an examination, along with a cleaning and whitening (I am still paying interest on the visits). The dentist scraped unbelievable amounts of plaque from places in my mouth I barely knew existed. Then she flossed mysterious cracks in those unknown regions. She drew blood almost every time she hit the gum.
Toward the end, she said: "It's been a while since your last visit, hasn't it?" Then she offered me some Tylenol.
My poor, doomed teeth. It does not help that I have English ancestry. Genetically, the English have bad teeth. My own circumstances make my naturally bad genetic situation even worse. Every day, I notice my gums getting whiter. There are stains between a couple teeth that were not there before. And I can feel my teeth moving in my gumline in a way I have never felt before. Plus, they tell me I have impacted molars that must be removed before they burrow into my nerves. Put simply, I am in dire dental trouble.
But this is what happens when you get older. Time brutally flogs our bodies. There is little we can do about it. It just happens. Sure, we can live as healthy as we possibly can. We can eat right, exercise and even think positively about the future. But these are mere salves: Nothing can stop time's slow, steady, corrosive assault on our flesh.
It would be nice to escape our bodies for a while. While our bodies might offer numerous ways to experience the world's pleasures, they are also enormously restrictive. They can produce as much pain as pleasure. Time's corrosion is just another terror our bodies must confront. Still, it is so easy to put trust in our bodies. It is banal in the truest sense. We know our bodies better than anything else in our lives. We are stuck with them. We see them every day. We monitor them and scrutinize them. We must endure their chemical tempests and painful discomforts. They matter to us because they place insistent demands on us: Feed me; relieve me; give me rest; make me comfortable; make me feel pleasure. If we ignore them, we suffer pain for it. And we learn from earliest memory that pain is not good. So we slavishly pander to our bodies.
It is no accident that the law targets the body. Almost everyone cares about his own body. If there is something no man wants to experience, it is bodily discomfort. So the law threatens to inflict bodily discomfort on anyone who transgresses its commands. While some exceptional people hold their bodies in contempt, they are too rare to make a difference. The law concerns itself with efficacy: It knows that almost everyone fears bodily punishment, so that is what it threatens to maintain order.
So we spend our lives worrying about our bodies until time slowly eradicates them. It is quite a pathetic lot if you think about it. Still, it is completely natural. As living organisms, we want to stay alive. To stay alive, we must preserve our bodies. We fear death largely because it means we can no longer enjoy what life has to offer our bodies. We know that we will die in time because we see what time does to others' bodies. So we fear aging, because we know what it leads to.
But what about life beyond the body? Is it possible to achieve some mental satisfaction without worrying about the body's inevitable decay? Throughout history, we find examples of men who did not put all their faith in bodily comfort. There have been men who lived for something beyond placating their bodies and avoiding death. In fact, we tend to revere men who lived beyond their bodies because they are so rare. It is no accident that Jesus Christ is the central hero in Western Civilization: He gave up his body so that others could enjoy theirs. There is a nobility in life beyond the body because so few people can effectively ignore their bodies. Most people fear aging and death. Most people simply live to experience the pleasures the body can give. Love it or hate it, that is just how we are.
I am no martyr. I am just as worried about my body as the next man. But I fear pain more than I fear death. I wish I could hold my body in contempt. Yet the body is rapaciously insistent; it is difficult to ignore its demands for long. No matter how strongly I believe in abstract principles and ideas, I cannot say whether I could maintain my commitment to them in the face of torture, hunger or agony. I am worried about my hair and my teeth, for goodness' sake; imagine how I would feel if confronted with genuine bodily scourges?
But death is different than pain. Pain is about the body and its limitations. Death is about existence and non-existence. Death rules out the body altogether. In that light, it is easier to romanticize non-existence than pain. In fact, non-existence lends itself much more to abstract principles than mere contempt for the body. Death frees us from concern about the body. Death liberates us from the body's incessant demands and penalties. True, death might cut short our ability to experience the body's joys. But it also forecloses the body's ability to torment us any longer. There is some objective, rational appeal to that possibility. If bodily life--on the whole-- appears to offer more pain than pleasure, why go on living at all? It is better to cease to exist in order to avoid pain than to exist for nothing more than pain.
Yet this broaches another conundrum: What if death does not end our pain? After all, no one has ever reported to us what death is like. No one has come back from that "undiscover'd country from whose bourn/ No traveler returns." Hamlet, Act III, sc. i, lines 80-81. We have all seen aging and pain because living people experience aging and pain. We see what happens to them. They can tell us how bad they feel.
But no one has experienced death and lived to tell about it. Who knows what awaits us there. That is what makes people fear death: Unknowability. Maybe something dreadful happens once we die. No one knows. No one can know. No one can sense anything once they die, let alone communicate what they sense. And that is why death continues to terrify us. So as bad as bodily life may be, we choose to "bear what ills we have,/ [rather] Than fly to others that we know not of." Hamlet, Act III, sc. i, lines 82-83.
I have argued before that it is unreasonable to fear death because death cuts short our bodily ability to sense anything. http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-we-fear-death.html. But once again, we see that humans are not invariably reasonable. They fear death even though death eliminates their sensory capacities--including the capacity to experience pain--because they fear the unknown. That fear is not reasonable because reason is based in human sense. Death obliterates sense, so it is not reasonable to fear it.
It is actually more reasonable to fear aging than death. We can sense our bodies aging. We can feel our bodies weakening. We know that aging will bring us more pain and less bodily satisfaction. We can sense all these things. Our reason has something to grasp in that situation.
I reasonably worry about my teeth. I have every reason to believe they are doomed. And I know it's going to hurt.
But with death: Who knows what I'll feel? That is strangely reassuring.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
GAMBLING ON HAPPINESS : LOVE, KNOWLEDGE AND RISK
AN ESSAY
For three years, my close friend Joe Simeone composed an operatic adaptation to the 1952 play "Dial M For Murder." Last week, I attended an opening in which he presented several passages from his work. In brief, the opera follows the same intricate plot as the play: A man named Tony blackmails both his wealthy wife, Margot, and another man named Lesgate; Tony exploits the blackmail to entice Lesgate to murder his wife; the plan goes wrong and Margot kills Lesgate in self-defense; Tony manipulates the evidence to pin the murder on Margot; the police arrest Margot and she is sentenced to death; an enterprising police detective worries about the verdict and discovers that Tony orchestrated the result; Margot goes free and discovers her husband's betrayal.
Through the operatic form, Joe Simeone tells the story with a keener eye for emotion than plot. He did not compose an "operatic thriller;" he composed an opera. As such, he explores the emotional relationship between Tony and Margot with greater detail than the play. At the outset, Simeone tells us that Tony's and Margot's marriage was "loveless," but that Tony had recently begun to shower affections on his wife. To make that point, the opera begins with a sweeping aria in which Margot reveals that she has "rediscovered" her love for her husband. This is ironic, of course, because Tony has already betrayed her; he is even planning to kill her. During the aria, Margot sings a remarkable line: "It's a risk to believe love is real."
Margot may seem naïve for daring to believe that her devious husband actually loves her. But she is not alone. We all want love in our lives because love is a tantalizing pathway to happiness. Yet love is a troublesome thing because it cuts in two directions. We can love and we can be loved. Real happiness exists only when both elements find expression in a relationship. When only one person loves, the result is unrequited disappointment because the other does not return the feeling. And when only one person receives love, the result is awkward discomfort. Put another way, love only really "works" when there is no disparity between the emotions on both sides.
Sigmund Freud said as much. In Civilization and its Discontents, Freud explained that human beings generally "strive after happiness; they want to become happy and remain so." Civilization and its Discontents (Strachey, trans. p. 25). He went on to explain that happiness has both a "positive and negative aim," namely: "[the] absence of pain and unpleasure and the experiencing of strong feelings of pleasure." Id. Additionally, Freud noted that happiness cannot arise as long as unhappiness exists in a person's life. And unhappiness is "much less difficult to experience" than happiness. Id. at 26.
Freud identified three main sources for unhappiness: (1) our own bodies, which are doomed to aging, pain, discomfort and decay; (2) the external world, which can "rage against us with unimaginable forces of destruction;" and (3) our relations to other men. Civilization and its Discontents at p.26. He went on to say that unhappiness flowing from our "relations to other men" represents the worst possible unhappiness: It is the unhappiness of betrayal, deception, unfaithfulness, personal disappointment, spurned love, heartbreak, frustrated yearning and all the other bitter emotions that arise when our relations with others do not follow the path we wanted.
If so much unhappiness can flow from relationships with others, why do people bother with them? Freud posed the same question. He offered one surefire way to avoid "relationship unhappiness:" "Against the suffering which may come upon one from human relationships the readiest safeguard is voluntary isolation." Civilization and its Discontents at p. 27. He called this the "happiness of quietness." By eliminating a source for unhappiness, a person makes it easier to experience happiness.
But Freud acknowledged that "voluntary isolation" is not very satisfying. After all, mere freedom from unhappiness is nowhere near as fulfilling as experiencing positive happiness. For that reason, Freud explained that human beings constantly gamble on love to satisfy their "passionate striving for a positive fulfillment of happiness." Civilization and its Discontents at p. 32.
Put another way, freedom from unhappiness and pain is not enough. People want the ecstasy and joy that flows from real, positive happiness. And positive happiness flows most strongly from that most dangerous category: Relations with other men. Still, the potential emotional payout from love is so great that people all too willingly take their chances with it. Nonetheless, Freud warned: "The weak side of this technique is easy to see; otherwise no human being would have thought of abandoning this path to happiness for any other. It is that we are never so defenseless against suffering as when we love, never so helplessly unhappy as when we have lost our loved object or its love." Id. at 33.
Against this background, Margot sang more than she knew when she observed: "It's a risk to believe love is real." Love is an extremely dangerous risk. When a person dares to abandon himself to love, he makes himself "defenseless against suffering;" he even risks "helpless unhappiness" if he does not get the emotional payout he expects from the relationship. Worse, these unhappy results depend exclusively on "relations to other men." Specifically, the "love pathway to happiness" depends on how another person acts and feels. We humans are subjective creatures. We know only what we sense. Facts exist only to the extent that we manifest a subjective belief in their reliability. In that light, it is very difficult to gauge whether another person feels any emotion as we do, let alone love.
Beyond risk, love is about knowledge. Freud said that love has two components: Loving and being loved. We only feel love's joy when we know another person feels strongly about us, too. It is not enough to feel strongly about another person. Rather, love's intoxicating pleasure only really arises when we are satisfied that another person feels as strongly about us as we do about them.
But how do we know that? It is hard enough to know what exists in anyone else's mind. Yet when we risk our happiness on love, we force ourselves to decipher what another person feels and thinks. This is extremely difficult; in fact, it is nearly impossible. There is no way to know for certain whether another person loves us, because we cannot literally step into that person's mind. Rather, we must examine secondary facts to make inferences about the other person's beliefs. This is an imperfect method at best, but it is the only one we have. Even direct statements from our love interest are not definitive proof of what he feels. Humans are, after all, infamously dishonest.
In this light, it is easy to see that love is no easy thing. It does not just a risk; it demands some faith, too, because the facts necessary to establish love are unknowable.
Again, the question arises: With these thematic difficulties in mind, why bother with love? Consider just how much is at stake. By daring to love, a person opens himself to boundless unhappiness and pain flowing from "relations to other men." True, if his love pans out, he feels overwhelmingly positive emotions: That is the potential payout from the "risk." But in order to experience love, a person must satisfy himself that another person feels a certain way. It is impossible to certainly know what another person feels, so love actually involves a double risk: (1) Risking the relationship in the first place; and (2) Risking that a person will feel the way you expect. Disappointment can arise from either risk. There is nothing you can really do to stop it; you can't control how another person thinks or feels. In this sense, love is also a risk because a person must entrust his happiness to the subjective whim of another person over whom he has no control. And because human beings are notoriously untrustworthy and inconstant, it almost seems an unreasonable risk.
If love is so unreasonable, then why do so many people pursue it? The fact that human beings--like Margot--blindly risk love is testament to the assertion that reason does not rule us. If human beings were entirely rational, they would probably never love. After all, rational thinking involves balancing risks against benefits. A rational mind analyzes the potential pain that could result from a transaction and queries whether the potential pleasure is worth the chance. As Freud explained, love can yield immeasurable pain. And because that pain flows from forces largely beyond our control (i.e., the whims of others), it really makes no rational sense to take the risk. Although love offers a huge benefit in pleasure, a reasonable man would immediately see that it always presents an intolerable risk in pain. That risk would invariably outweigh the benefit in pleasure.
But we know that human beings live to love. They cast reason aside. They take the risk, even though it is unreasonable. Put simply, love's emotional payout in happiness is so intoxicating that it overwhelms human reason. Love's pleasure is so hypnotic that it submerges all potential pitfalls. Among those pitfalls is the dangerous need to place individual emotional well-being in the hands of another person--and that person is probably not trustworthy. Men ignore those risks when they love because it just feels so, so good. If reason held men in check, they would never allow themselves to remain blind to the dangers. But blind they remain; they dive headlong into the risks because it just feels so damn good.
"It's a risk to believe love is real." In one line, Margot expressed the timeless--yet perilously uncertain-- human quest for love. She hinted at the risks. She knew there was a danger. But love made her feel so good that she willingly blinded herself to it. She suspended her reason. Objectively, that might appear foolish. But we all have done it. And we probably always will. Love is never objective.
In short, we all desperately want positive happiness. We are not content with the "happiness of quietness." No, we crave "relations with other men." We gamble on positive happiness by playing familiar games. Those games are rarely reasonable. In fact, most are extremely dangerous.
Love is probably the most dangerous game of all: Enticing, risky, unknowable, unverifiable, tempestuous, fickle, maddening; yet offering pleasure beyond imagination. It is a recipe for unreasonable risk every time.
For three years, my close friend Joe Simeone composed an operatic adaptation to the 1952 play "Dial M For Murder." Last week, I attended an opening in which he presented several passages from his work. In brief, the opera follows the same intricate plot as the play: A man named Tony blackmails both his wealthy wife, Margot, and another man named Lesgate; Tony exploits the blackmail to entice Lesgate to murder his wife; the plan goes wrong and Margot kills Lesgate in self-defense; Tony manipulates the evidence to pin the murder on Margot; the police arrest Margot and she is sentenced to death; an enterprising police detective worries about the verdict and discovers that Tony orchestrated the result; Margot goes free and discovers her husband's betrayal.
Through the operatic form, Joe Simeone tells the story with a keener eye for emotion than plot. He did not compose an "operatic thriller;" he composed an opera. As such, he explores the emotional relationship between Tony and Margot with greater detail than the play. At the outset, Simeone tells us that Tony's and Margot's marriage was "loveless," but that Tony had recently begun to shower affections on his wife. To make that point, the opera begins with a sweeping aria in which Margot reveals that she has "rediscovered" her love for her husband. This is ironic, of course, because Tony has already betrayed her; he is even planning to kill her. During the aria, Margot sings a remarkable line: "It's a risk to believe love is real."
Margot may seem naïve for daring to believe that her devious husband actually loves her. But she is not alone. We all want love in our lives because love is a tantalizing pathway to happiness. Yet love is a troublesome thing because it cuts in two directions. We can love and we can be loved. Real happiness exists only when both elements find expression in a relationship. When only one person loves, the result is unrequited disappointment because the other does not return the feeling. And when only one person receives love, the result is awkward discomfort. Put another way, love only really "works" when there is no disparity between the emotions on both sides.
Sigmund Freud said as much. In Civilization and its Discontents, Freud explained that human beings generally "strive after happiness; they want to become happy and remain so." Civilization and its Discontents (Strachey, trans. p. 25). He went on to explain that happiness has both a "positive and negative aim," namely: "[the] absence of pain and unpleasure and the experiencing of strong feelings of pleasure." Id. Additionally, Freud noted that happiness cannot arise as long as unhappiness exists in a person's life. And unhappiness is "much less difficult to experience" than happiness. Id. at 26.
Freud identified three main sources for unhappiness: (1) our own bodies, which are doomed to aging, pain, discomfort and decay; (2) the external world, which can "rage against us with unimaginable forces of destruction;" and (3) our relations to other men. Civilization and its Discontents at p.26. He went on to say that unhappiness flowing from our "relations to other men" represents the worst possible unhappiness: It is the unhappiness of betrayal, deception, unfaithfulness, personal disappointment, spurned love, heartbreak, frustrated yearning and all the other bitter emotions that arise when our relations with others do not follow the path we wanted.
If so much unhappiness can flow from relationships with others, why do people bother with them? Freud posed the same question. He offered one surefire way to avoid "relationship unhappiness:" "Against the suffering which may come upon one from human relationships the readiest safeguard is voluntary isolation." Civilization and its Discontents at p. 27. He called this the "happiness of quietness." By eliminating a source for unhappiness, a person makes it easier to experience happiness.
But Freud acknowledged that "voluntary isolation" is not very satisfying. After all, mere freedom from unhappiness is nowhere near as fulfilling as experiencing positive happiness. For that reason, Freud explained that human beings constantly gamble on love to satisfy their "passionate striving for a positive fulfillment of happiness." Civilization and its Discontents at p. 32.
Put another way, freedom from unhappiness and pain is not enough. People want the ecstasy and joy that flows from real, positive happiness. And positive happiness flows most strongly from that most dangerous category: Relations with other men. Still, the potential emotional payout from love is so great that people all too willingly take their chances with it. Nonetheless, Freud warned: "The weak side of this technique is easy to see; otherwise no human being would have thought of abandoning this path to happiness for any other. It is that we are never so defenseless against suffering as when we love, never so helplessly unhappy as when we have lost our loved object or its love." Id. at 33.
Against this background, Margot sang more than she knew when she observed: "It's a risk to believe love is real." Love is an extremely dangerous risk. When a person dares to abandon himself to love, he makes himself "defenseless against suffering;" he even risks "helpless unhappiness" if he does not get the emotional payout he expects from the relationship. Worse, these unhappy results depend exclusively on "relations to other men." Specifically, the "love pathway to happiness" depends on how another person acts and feels. We humans are subjective creatures. We know only what we sense. Facts exist only to the extent that we manifest a subjective belief in their reliability. In that light, it is very difficult to gauge whether another person feels any emotion as we do, let alone love.
Beyond risk, love is about knowledge. Freud said that love has two components: Loving and being loved. We only feel love's joy when we know another person feels strongly about us, too. It is not enough to feel strongly about another person. Rather, love's intoxicating pleasure only really arises when we are satisfied that another person feels as strongly about us as we do about them.
But how do we know that? It is hard enough to know what exists in anyone else's mind. Yet when we risk our happiness on love, we force ourselves to decipher what another person feels and thinks. This is extremely difficult; in fact, it is nearly impossible. There is no way to know for certain whether another person loves us, because we cannot literally step into that person's mind. Rather, we must examine secondary facts to make inferences about the other person's beliefs. This is an imperfect method at best, but it is the only one we have. Even direct statements from our love interest are not definitive proof of what he feels. Humans are, after all, infamously dishonest.
In this light, it is easy to see that love is no easy thing. It does not just a risk; it demands some faith, too, because the facts necessary to establish love are unknowable.
Again, the question arises: With these thematic difficulties in mind, why bother with love? Consider just how much is at stake. By daring to love, a person opens himself to boundless unhappiness and pain flowing from "relations to other men." True, if his love pans out, he feels overwhelmingly positive emotions: That is the potential payout from the "risk." But in order to experience love, a person must satisfy himself that another person feels a certain way. It is impossible to certainly know what another person feels, so love actually involves a double risk: (1) Risking the relationship in the first place; and (2) Risking that a person will feel the way you expect. Disappointment can arise from either risk. There is nothing you can really do to stop it; you can't control how another person thinks or feels. In this sense, love is also a risk because a person must entrust his happiness to the subjective whim of another person over whom he has no control. And because human beings are notoriously untrustworthy and inconstant, it almost seems an unreasonable risk.
If love is so unreasonable, then why do so many people pursue it? The fact that human beings--like Margot--blindly risk love is testament to the assertion that reason does not rule us. If human beings were entirely rational, they would probably never love. After all, rational thinking involves balancing risks against benefits. A rational mind analyzes the potential pain that could result from a transaction and queries whether the potential pleasure is worth the chance. As Freud explained, love can yield immeasurable pain. And because that pain flows from forces largely beyond our control (i.e., the whims of others), it really makes no rational sense to take the risk. Although love offers a huge benefit in pleasure, a reasonable man would immediately see that it always presents an intolerable risk in pain. That risk would invariably outweigh the benefit in pleasure.
But we know that human beings live to love. They cast reason aside. They take the risk, even though it is unreasonable. Put simply, love's emotional payout in happiness is so intoxicating that it overwhelms human reason. Love's pleasure is so hypnotic that it submerges all potential pitfalls. Among those pitfalls is the dangerous need to place individual emotional well-being in the hands of another person--and that person is probably not trustworthy. Men ignore those risks when they love because it just feels so, so good. If reason held men in check, they would never allow themselves to remain blind to the dangers. But blind they remain; they dive headlong into the risks because it just feels so damn good.
"It's a risk to believe love is real." In one line, Margot expressed the timeless--yet perilously uncertain-- human quest for love. She hinted at the risks. She knew there was a danger. But love made her feel so good that she willingly blinded herself to it. She suspended her reason. Objectively, that might appear foolish. But we all have done it. And we probably always will. Love is never objective.
In short, we all desperately want positive happiness. We are not content with the "happiness of quietness." No, we crave "relations with other men." We gamble on positive happiness by playing familiar games. Those games are rarely reasonable. In fact, most are extremely dangerous.
Love is probably the most dangerous game of all: Enticing, risky, unknowable, unverifiable, tempestuous, fickle, maddening; yet offering pleasure beyond imagination. It is a recipe for unreasonable risk every time.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
GET $50,000 OR MORE FOR ONE MONTH'S WORK : INQUIRE WITHIN
EMPLOYER’S WORLD WEEKLY, VOL. 54, NO. 10 (MAY 2009)
Gabriel Williams Tire Ring Manufacturing Company (DOW: GW) is a successful enterprise. Even in the difficult economic climate since last September, GW has actually increased its revenue and expanded its payroll. By contrast, its competitors have slashed operating budgets, fired employees and tightened the belt on costs. Why? How has GW managed to actually grow during a recession? Here at Employer’s World Weekly, we believe that less successful companies can learn from more successful companies. We believe it is possible to identify crucial management decisions that separate good companies from those that fail. We all know that most businesses do not survive. In order to survive—especially in hard times like these—good business leaders must always keep their ears to the ground. To do that, good business leaders must be flexible. And they must be willing to learn from companies that do things differently.
Today, we examine GW’s special commitment to its employees. Great companies understand that success depends on human capital. Employees are a company’s greatest asset. A company that cares for its employees will always fare better than a company that fails to address their needs. Good employees not only work more productively, but they also inspire others to work to fulfill the company’s economic mission. Poor employees do just enough to get through the day; and they really do not care whether the company wins or loses. Many employers believe that poor employees are bad workers because they are lazy, loafish or stupid. Yet many workplace studies confirm that blame for poor productivity does not always lie with the employee. Rather, many studies show that employers’ actions play a substantial role in creating bad employees. Insufficient pay, unfair discrimination, lack of opportunity for advancement and even dangerous working conditions can make employees give up on the corporate mission. After all, good employees are zealous, enthusiastic employees. If the employer gives the employee nothing to look forward to, they will never develop the motivation they need to effectively serve the company. In short, good employers know how to make employees feel good about their jobs. When workers feel good about their jobs, they work harder. It is all about motivation.
GW understands this. Unlike many less successful businesses, GW does not look upon its employees with suspicion. It does not regard its employees as adversaries in a battle for pay and benefits. Rather, it constantly expands its operations with progressive compensation packages intended to reward employees for high productivity and dedication. GW rewards loyalty, sacrifice and motivation. It provides incentives for employees who observe the right attitude toward the corporate mission. In GW’s view, the right attitude toward the corporate mission is just as important as actual financial success. Why? Simple, according to GW’s Human Resources Director, J. Burton Foote: “Employees are like investments. You can’t expect them to pay off immediately. But unlike other investments, employees are human beings with thoughts, emotions, feelings and dreams. It is important to channel those thoughts, emotions and dreams toward the company. To do that, it is essential to cultivate the right attitude. When an employee truly believes in the corporate mission, he will work hard to fulfill it. The end goal is always financial success. But to get there, employees must believe in the mission. Our approach to employment focuses on making employees believe in the mission, not themselves. This method may not pay off in the short run. But it leads to success later. At GW, we believe lasting success is more important than fleeting success. That is why we treat our employees with dignity and respect. And we pay them better when they have the right attitude.”
GW hires when other companies fire. At the same time, it makes its new hires believe in the corporate mission. This all sounds easy, but how does GW actually manage to do this? Today, we examine GW’s hiring methodology. Late in 2003, GW boosted its hiring by 32% in one quarter, thanks in large part to revolutionary, nationally-broadcast employment search advertisements. These advertisements brought in thousands of applicants. Within a year, those applicants developed into dedicated employees, who in turn generated substantial returns for GW. By 2006, GW increased its capital base by more than 45%, joining the Fortune 500 in the process. Its employee base jumped from 2300 to more than 6800. Today, GW employs over 10,000 workers both in the United States and in foreign countries. And every quarter it attracts even more employees. The economic downturn last year did not dampen this upward trend.
So what is so special about GW’s hiring pitch? How can employment “want ads” bring so much success to one company, but not to others? In order to understand the secret to GW’s success, Employer’s World Weekly is proud to reproduce a GW employment ad. By examining the ad, we can see how GW generates interest in its corporate mission. We can also see how GW prompts motivation in potential employees. GW allowed us to reprint its advertisements in our magazine because it believes in American employment potential. Despite all the gloomy predictions, GW’s story is “living proof” that companies can grow in a recession. Below, we print GW’s most recent national employment advertisement. We hope that employers all over the country will learn from GW’s approach. In essence, GW believes that strong employment relationships depend upon mutual respect, not intimidation or inequality. And mutual respect leads to the motivation employees need to propel companies to success.
HELP WANTED : STAY IN A HOUSE FOR ONE MONTH; GET $50,000 OR MORE
Gabriel Williams Tire Ring Manufacturing Company is America’s fastest growing employer for one reason: We respect you. We are a winning team with a winning mission. Everyone loves a winner. We encourage you to join our team. We are hiring in all 50 States. You can do it. Don’t let the recession get you down. Don’t feel discouraged. You can get a job with Gabriel Williams. And you can walk away with $50,000 a month if you do.
Do you think you have what it takes to be a Gabriel Williams employee? You can do it if you have the right attitude. All you need to do is call our call center at (888) 754-8000. Give your name and address. Once you do that, our call center staff will direct you to a residential house in your area. We will cover all transportation costs for all those who apply. At the house, you will have all you need to survive: Two bathrooms, a fully-stocked refrigerator, a bed, a telephone, a computer, a washing machine, a dryer, a dishwasher, furniture and even a television with all-access cable. GW will pay all the costs, including rent, electricity, gas, cable and taxes. You simply need to stay in the house and answer phone calls. You may not leave the house unless directed. Aside from that you are free to do whatever you wish at the house, as long as you are wearing clothing marked with the GW logo. But you may not receive any visits from non-employees.
You will receive directives at random from GW staff. You must answer the phone whenever it rings. You must do whatever you are told to do. You must wear clothing bearing the GW logo at all times. Additionally, every morning at 9 AM, you must answer the front door. A GW Employment Management Supervisor will check on you, inspect the premises and ask you to go to the bathroom. There, the GW Employment Management Supervisor will ask that you turn your back to him or her. Following this, the GW Employment Management Supervisor will urinate on you for no more than 60 seconds. At the Employment Management Supervisor’s direction, you will turn around and await further instructions. The Employment Management Supervisor will then ask you to remove your clothes, place them in the washing machine and clean them. Once you have laundered your clothing, the Employment Management Supervisor will ask you change into a clean outfit and recite the following phrase: “I love my job. Thank you for this opportunity.” The Employment Management Supervisor will then carry out a final quality assurance check, fill out an evaluation form and leave the premises. If you receive positive evaluations for each day during your stay at the house, you will receive $50,000, as well as an offer of permanent employment at GW. Your final work position will be determined by your attitude. Applicants who distinguish themselves during Employment Management Supervisor visits will receive better employment offers than applicants who say nothing during such visits.
During your stay at the house, you will submit to video surveillance. This surveillance will ensure that you promptly follow all directives you receive by telephone. You are free to watch any television programs you wish, as well as to visit any websites you wish. But if GW considers your television or internet usage inappropriate, an Employment Management Supervisor will bring this to your attention during the following day’s checkup. If you receive more than three citations for inappropriate viewing choices, you will be asked to leave the house and you will not receive any compensation for time spent there.
Applicants are free to volunteer to do more. At GW, we encourage employees to go beyond the call of duty for the company’s benefit. In that light, we offer additional incentives to applicants who choose to show more during Employment Management Supervisor visits. Although applicants must at least submit to daily urination and inspection, they may choose to show their dedication in other ways. In the past, successful applicants have chosen to eat garbage, sit in uncomfortable positions for six hours or more, cut off their fingers, do 600 jumping jacks while saying “Go GW!”, or allowed an Employment Management Supervisor to beat them with iron rods. Others willingly endured verbal abuse without responding. GW rewarded these applicants with amounts larger than $50,000 for their time at the house, as well as increased benefits. In one instance, GW rewarded an applicant $125,000 for his stay at the house—as well as full dental insurance—for agreeing to remain chained to the toilet for 30 days without food. Despite these voluntary hardships, the applicant nonetheless answered the telephone when required and opened the front door for daily Employment Management visits. After his successful stay, GW made him an Executive Vice President. He is now Director of the Developing Asian Markets Division in Shanghai, China.
Applicants for employment at GW must keep their priorities straight. In order to receive the $50,000 incentive, applicants must retain mental focus on the task at hand. Motivated employees keep their minds on the company mission, not themselves. In that light, GW reserves the right to remove any applicant from the house who demonstrates unhealthy personal pleasure while performing GW tasks. If employees experience pleasure, it should come from the idea of service to GW, not a personal source. In the past, we have asked applicants to leave the premises who experienced inappropriate personal pleasure during daily urination visits. Employment Management Supervisors know how to distinguish personal pleasure from pleasure in service. There is a crucial difference between experiencing pleasure for your own reasons and experiencing pleasure in carrying out GW’s corporate mission. At GW, we only allow employees to experience pleasure to the extent that it carries out our corporate mission. Good service is about good motivation. If an applicant experiences personal pleasure, it shows that his motivation comes from a personal source, not service. He wants to please himself, not the company. That is unacceptable. If an applicant experiences pleasure, he must only experience it as a result of serving the company. Any other policy would encourage disloyalty.
So what are you waiting for? Be part of a winning team. Find out why GW is the fastest growing major employer in the United States. Get a job and $50,000 just for sitting around a house for a month. Beat the recession and make a few dollars in the process. Call now: (888) 754-8000. That’s (888) 754-8000. Don’t let the marketplace get you down. Beat the market and be part of something. Join the GW team. Join a company built on mutual respect. It’s easy. And it pays. Because when we respect each other, we are all successful™. You want $50,000 and a permanent job, don’t you?
Gabriel Williams Tire Ring Manufacturing Company (DOW: GW) is a successful enterprise. Even in the difficult economic climate since last September, GW has actually increased its revenue and expanded its payroll. By contrast, its competitors have slashed operating budgets, fired employees and tightened the belt on costs. Why? How has GW managed to actually grow during a recession? Here at Employer’s World Weekly, we believe that less successful companies can learn from more successful companies. We believe it is possible to identify crucial management decisions that separate good companies from those that fail. We all know that most businesses do not survive. In order to survive—especially in hard times like these—good business leaders must always keep their ears to the ground. To do that, good business leaders must be flexible. And they must be willing to learn from companies that do things differently.
Today, we examine GW’s special commitment to its employees. Great companies understand that success depends on human capital. Employees are a company’s greatest asset. A company that cares for its employees will always fare better than a company that fails to address their needs. Good employees not only work more productively, but they also inspire others to work to fulfill the company’s economic mission. Poor employees do just enough to get through the day; and they really do not care whether the company wins or loses. Many employers believe that poor employees are bad workers because they are lazy, loafish or stupid. Yet many workplace studies confirm that blame for poor productivity does not always lie with the employee. Rather, many studies show that employers’ actions play a substantial role in creating bad employees. Insufficient pay, unfair discrimination, lack of opportunity for advancement and even dangerous working conditions can make employees give up on the corporate mission. After all, good employees are zealous, enthusiastic employees. If the employer gives the employee nothing to look forward to, they will never develop the motivation they need to effectively serve the company. In short, good employers know how to make employees feel good about their jobs. When workers feel good about their jobs, they work harder. It is all about motivation.
GW understands this. Unlike many less successful businesses, GW does not look upon its employees with suspicion. It does not regard its employees as adversaries in a battle for pay and benefits. Rather, it constantly expands its operations with progressive compensation packages intended to reward employees for high productivity and dedication. GW rewards loyalty, sacrifice and motivation. It provides incentives for employees who observe the right attitude toward the corporate mission. In GW’s view, the right attitude toward the corporate mission is just as important as actual financial success. Why? Simple, according to GW’s Human Resources Director, J. Burton Foote: “Employees are like investments. You can’t expect them to pay off immediately. But unlike other investments, employees are human beings with thoughts, emotions, feelings and dreams. It is important to channel those thoughts, emotions and dreams toward the company. To do that, it is essential to cultivate the right attitude. When an employee truly believes in the corporate mission, he will work hard to fulfill it. The end goal is always financial success. But to get there, employees must believe in the mission. Our approach to employment focuses on making employees believe in the mission, not themselves. This method may not pay off in the short run. But it leads to success later. At GW, we believe lasting success is more important than fleeting success. That is why we treat our employees with dignity and respect. And we pay them better when they have the right attitude.”
GW hires when other companies fire. At the same time, it makes its new hires believe in the corporate mission. This all sounds easy, but how does GW actually manage to do this? Today, we examine GW’s hiring methodology. Late in 2003, GW boosted its hiring by 32% in one quarter, thanks in large part to revolutionary, nationally-broadcast employment search advertisements. These advertisements brought in thousands of applicants. Within a year, those applicants developed into dedicated employees, who in turn generated substantial returns for GW. By 2006, GW increased its capital base by more than 45%, joining the Fortune 500 in the process. Its employee base jumped from 2300 to more than 6800. Today, GW employs over 10,000 workers both in the United States and in foreign countries. And every quarter it attracts even more employees. The economic downturn last year did not dampen this upward trend.
So what is so special about GW’s hiring pitch? How can employment “want ads” bring so much success to one company, but not to others? In order to understand the secret to GW’s success, Employer’s World Weekly is proud to reproduce a GW employment ad. By examining the ad, we can see how GW generates interest in its corporate mission. We can also see how GW prompts motivation in potential employees. GW allowed us to reprint its advertisements in our magazine because it believes in American employment potential. Despite all the gloomy predictions, GW’s story is “living proof” that companies can grow in a recession. Below, we print GW’s most recent national employment advertisement. We hope that employers all over the country will learn from GW’s approach. In essence, GW believes that strong employment relationships depend upon mutual respect, not intimidation or inequality. And mutual respect leads to the motivation employees need to propel companies to success.
HELP WANTED : STAY IN A HOUSE FOR ONE MONTH; GET $50,000 OR MORE
Gabriel Williams Tire Ring Manufacturing Company is America’s fastest growing employer for one reason: We respect you. We are a winning team with a winning mission. Everyone loves a winner. We encourage you to join our team. We are hiring in all 50 States. You can do it. Don’t let the recession get you down. Don’t feel discouraged. You can get a job with Gabriel Williams. And you can walk away with $50,000 a month if you do.
Do you think you have what it takes to be a Gabriel Williams employee? You can do it if you have the right attitude. All you need to do is call our call center at (888) 754-8000. Give your name and address. Once you do that, our call center staff will direct you to a residential house in your area. We will cover all transportation costs for all those who apply. At the house, you will have all you need to survive: Two bathrooms, a fully-stocked refrigerator, a bed, a telephone, a computer, a washing machine, a dryer, a dishwasher, furniture and even a television with all-access cable. GW will pay all the costs, including rent, electricity, gas, cable and taxes. You simply need to stay in the house and answer phone calls. You may not leave the house unless directed. Aside from that you are free to do whatever you wish at the house, as long as you are wearing clothing marked with the GW logo. But you may not receive any visits from non-employees.
You will receive directives at random from GW staff. You must answer the phone whenever it rings. You must do whatever you are told to do. You must wear clothing bearing the GW logo at all times. Additionally, every morning at 9 AM, you must answer the front door. A GW Employment Management Supervisor will check on you, inspect the premises and ask you to go to the bathroom. There, the GW Employment Management Supervisor will ask that you turn your back to him or her. Following this, the GW Employment Management Supervisor will urinate on you for no more than 60 seconds. At the Employment Management Supervisor’s direction, you will turn around and await further instructions. The Employment Management Supervisor will then ask you to remove your clothes, place them in the washing machine and clean them. Once you have laundered your clothing, the Employment Management Supervisor will ask you change into a clean outfit and recite the following phrase: “I love my job. Thank you for this opportunity.” The Employment Management Supervisor will then carry out a final quality assurance check, fill out an evaluation form and leave the premises. If you receive positive evaluations for each day during your stay at the house, you will receive $50,000, as well as an offer of permanent employment at GW. Your final work position will be determined by your attitude. Applicants who distinguish themselves during Employment Management Supervisor visits will receive better employment offers than applicants who say nothing during such visits.
During your stay at the house, you will submit to video surveillance. This surveillance will ensure that you promptly follow all directives you receive by telephone. You are free to watch any television programs you wish, as well as to visit any websites you wish. But if GW considers your television or internet usage inappropriate, an Employment Management Supervisor will bring this to your attention during the following day’s checkup. If you receive more than three citations for inappropriate viewing choices, you will be asked to leave the house and you will not receive any compensation for time spent there.
Applicants are free to volunteer to do more. At GW, we encourage employees to go beyond the call of duty for the company’s benefit. In that light, we offer additional incentives to applicants who choose to show more during Employment Management Supervisor visits. Although applicants must at least submit to daily urination and inspection, they may choose to show their dedication in other ways. In the past, successful applicants have chosen to eat garbage, sit in uncomfortable positions for six hours or more, cut off their fingers, do 600 jumping jacks while saying “Go GW!”, or allowed an Employment Management Supervisor to beat them with iron rods. Others willingly endured verbal abuse without responding. GW rewarded these applicants with amounts larger than $50,000 for their time at the house, as well as increased benefits. In one instance, GW rewarded an applicant $125,000 for his stay at the house—as well as full dental insurance—for agreeing to remain chained to the toilet for 30 days without food. Despite these voluntary hardships, the applicant nonetheless answered the telephone when required and opened the front door for daily Employment Management visits. After his successful stay, GW made him an Executive Vice President. He is now Director of the Developing Asian Markets Division in Shanghai, China.
Applicants for employment at GW must keep their priorities straight. In order to receive the $50,000 incentive, applicants must retain mental focus on the task at hand. Motivated employees keep their minds on the company mission, not themselves. In that light, GW reserves the right to remove any applicant from the house who demonstrates unhealthy personal pleasure while performing GW tasks. If employees experience pleasure, it should come from the idea of service to GW, not a personal source. In the past, we have asked applicants to leave the premises who experienced inappropriate personal pleasure during daily urination visits. Employment Management Supervisors know how to distinguish personal pleasure from pleasure in service. There is a crucial difference between experiencing pleasure for your own reasons and experiencing pleasure in carrying out GW’s corporate mission. At GW, we only allow employees to experience pleasure to the extent that it carries out our corporate mission. Good service is about good motivation. If an applicant experiences personal pleasure, it shows that his motivation comes from a personal source, not service. He wants to please himself, not the company. That is unacceptable. If an applicant experiences pleasure, he must only experience it as a result of serving the company. Any other policy would encourage disloyalty.
So what are you waiting for? Be part of a winning team. Find out why GW is the fastest growing major employer in the United States. Get a job and $50,000 just for sitting around a house for a month. Beat the recession and make a few dollars in the process. Call now: (888) 754-8000. That’s (888) 754-8000. Don’t let the marketplace get you down. Beat the market and be part of something. Join the GW team. Join a company built on mutual respect. It’s easy. And it pays. Because when we respect each other, we are all successful™. You want $50,000 and a permanent job, don’t you?
Monday, May 4, 2009
AMERICANS PREFER WORK TO DRINKING, POLL REVEALS
NEWS FLASH
NEW YORK—Contrary to popular belief, Americans actually prefer employment and work to drinking and fun, according to a recent poll conducted by InformationPayz, Inc., a leading survey bureau serving Fortune 100 companies. “It’s true,” said InformationPayz’ senior statistician, Mr. A. Anderson Spotts. “No fewer than 93% of Americans say they like their jobs more than beer, wine, schnapps and malt liquor.” Moreover, according to the study, this is not because Americans need money from their jobs. “All those polled said that income had nothing to do with their opinions about alcohol. We can conclude on that basis that Americans like to work more than drink—whether or not they depend on their jobs for necessary income,” explained Mr. Spotts.
Americans gave detailed reasons for their opinions. Their answers were remarkably consistent across all racial, social and economic lines. Whether wealthy bankers or low-wage janitors, Americans revealed that they enjoy the feeling they experience when they work more than the feeling they experience when they drink alcoholic beverages. According to pollee Mrs. Mary E. Bickford, a Caucasian secretarial assistant at a Newark, New Jersey real estate brokerage house: “Just getting to work every morning makes me feel all tipsy and happy. Being around copy machines, paper clips and bitter women in cubicles who complain about their children gets me all warm inside. When I watch the clock and eat my bologna sandwich in the windowless coffee room for 30 minutes each day, I just want to get up, dance, party and find eligible men. By comparison, booze is a cheap high.” At the same time, Mr. Clarence F. Jackson, an African-American Senior Financial Advisor at a major New York investment bank, said: “Commuting makes me feel great. I love waking up at 5 AM every morning knowing that I will need to sit in traffic for two hours listening to bad talk radio, receive castigation from angry drivers, pay $40 for parking then spend 10 hours in an office speaking to an automated phone system. Who needs whiskey when you have a job? Just being at work—or sitting in traffic getting there—makes me feel like I’m on top of the world.” Finally, Mr. B. Jeff Puttz, Esq., a senior litigator at Puttz, Puttz & Stickett, LLP, said: “Nothing can quite match yelling at legal assistants who don’t file things properly. For me, there is something euphoric about waving papers in people’s faces while telling them they will lose their jobs if they put color-coded dividers in the wrong place again. And what’s better than reviewing financial records? Even if we have a losing month, I don’t have an ulcer when I look at cash flow spreadsheets. I start slurring my words, smiling goofily and getting chatty with the receptionists. By contrast, shots and beer don’t make me feel nearly as good as I feel when I’m in the office.”
Americans said they love to work for its own sake. Although critics may find it easy to dismiss InformationPayz’ findings on the ground that Americans must work to pay their bills, Mr. Spotts explained that: “Our findings are guaranteed accurate. We spoke to a representative sample of Americans employed in every significant field. Statistically speaking, our findings cannot reasonably be debated. They reveal that Americans categorically enjoy work for its own sake, not merely because they need jobs to survive. Over 98% of those polled said that work made them feel alive, free, euphoric, giddy, erotic, frisky and ‘young again.’ By contrast, 99% of those polled said that the emotions they experience at work are far more positive than the emotions they experience while drinking. Although these pollees said that work makes them get up painfully early in the morning, endure gossip, plod through mind-numbingly boring assignments, face angry superiors and customers, ignore family and health, expose themselves to contagion, fight for space on subway trains, rush carelessly down streets to avoid lateness, eat poorly, develop various health problems such as hemorrhoids, indigestion, intestinal polyps and stiff necks, beg for permission to use the rest room, attend emasculating quarterly performance reviews, lie to supervisors concerning work progress, betray acquaintances in order to obtain favorable work credit and miss daytime baseball games, they all would prefer facing these challenges than cracking open an ale and getting drunk. “Work makes me feel alive,” said a bathroom contractor in Florida. “Nothing can match the way I feel when I bicker over an invoice. Even a pina colada can’t give me the feeling I get when my boss calls me an asshole and threatens to fire me for forgetting an envelope. It’s not about the money. It’s about doing what you’re supposed to do. No alcohol gives you the high you get when you do that.”
Many pollees echoed these sentiments. They said that work gave them a “sense of direction and purpose” in life, as well as “identity, camaraderie, cohesion and belonging.” Mr. Spotts analyzed the data as follows: “Americans like being part of a team. Over 99% of those polled said they approached their jobs as they would a sports event. These respondents said they enjoyed ‘helping the company win,’ or ‘playing their position,’ even if they receive poor pay for it. For these respondents, winning the game for the team gave them the best possible feelings.” At the same time, the data indicated that pollees generally considered “healthy team feelings” better than “drunkenness.” According to Ms. Maria B. Lopez, a checkout clerk at a Dallas, Texas supermarket: “Putting on my apron and nametag makes me feel like my life means something. I handle a lot of cash every day for the store but I know it’s not mine. I never think about stealing it; I don’t deserve it. It’s my job to make change, smile at the customers and ask if they are having a good day when they come through the checkout aisle. I only make $6.75 an hour but I love my job. My paycheck does not feed my kids, but I would not give up this job for the world. Does it beat drinking? Absolutely. Sipping a margarita and dancing in a club can’t compare to standing on your feet for 9 hours, suffering back spasms, repeating the same words to 500 customers and counting back change every day. Slamming shots can’t compare to getting screamed at by the assistant manager for talking to the lady who works in Aisle 5, or for coming up 2 cents short at drawer check time. I’m part of a team. I like what I do. I like helping my team win. Customer satisfaction beats drinking every time.”
InformationPayz recognizes that its findings may surprise some readers. After all, many readers may find it strange that Americans actually would rather work than drink. To some eyes, it appears that Americans do not want to be at work. To some eyes, it appears that they would rather be doing anything except working. “We often get that reaction,” said Mr. Spotts. “But appearances can be deceiving.” Mr. Spotts pointed out that InformationPayz never publishes misleading reports. He also explained that InformationPayz uses the most advanced statistical and survey methods, aided by several Yale-educated mathematicians. “The numbers don’t lie. And our polling methods are trademarked. They work. Guaranteed.”
What do the numbers show? Mr. Spotts said they show that Americans love work more than life itself. “Who can dispute that drinking makes you feel good?” queried Mr. Spotts. “If 98% of all Americans say they prefer work to drinking, does that not show that work makes them feel even better than drinking? In our professional judgment, we believe that Americans get a bigger high from service than from stimulating their senses with alcohol. This reflects that Americans enjoy acknowledging their positions in life, as well as their desire to identify themselves through their work. Americans like life the way it is. Drinking, by contrast, distorts reality and makes people momentarily forget their problems. The fact that most Americans prefer work to drinking therefore shows that Americans like their lives. The do not want to distort reality; they want to stay in reality. In reality, they are dutiful servants with a job to do. They feel belonging when they do their jobs. Drinking obscures those emotions. That’s why they prefer work to drinking. Americans like service. They like to listen to their bosses and get projects done. They like being part of a hierarchy and wearing nametags. They like commuting and suppressing their true feelings to avoid censure. The numbers show all these things. In short, Americans like reality. That is why they prefer workplace reality to drunken escape. And money plays no role in their preference.”
If Americans prefer work to drinking, what explains the fact that Americans complain about their jobs all week, then flock to bars, pubs and dance halls as soon as the whistle blows on Friday afternoons? Mr. Spotts reasoned: “Statistically, there is a tiny but vocal minority—less than 2%--who prefer drinking to work. These are the individuals who convey an impression that Americans would rather drink than work. In short, these ‘bad apples’ give all Americans an undeserved reputation for laziness. Additionally, even Americans who love work sometimes say they would like to drink, even though they do not really mean it. Experts from our psychiatric department advise us that this is perfectly natural. They inform us that all Americans are raised to respect their workplace superiors and to feel shame if they do not work. These entrenched values hold firm, even if an American employee may sometimes wish to suppress reality with alcohol. In short, these ‘passing desires’ to get drunk represent statistical aberrations. Even Americans who say they would ‘love to get plastered on Friday’ still love their jobs. If they were asked the question ‘Do you prefer beer to work?’ they would invariably answer ‘No.’ The mere desire to drink once in a while does not mean, in other words, that Americans intrinsically prefer alcohol to employment. In short, employment provides far more joy to Americans than beer, whether compensated or not. In short, employment fulfills the program to which all Americans aspire. Alcohol contradicts that program. That is why Americans reject alcohol for work.”
Americans do not like to drink because drinking induces unjustifiable pleasure. According to InformationPayz’ poll, Americans reject unjustifiable pleasures. Before Americans experience pleasure, 95% said that they must “earn” it through work or merit. Because alcohol produces pleasurable sensations without a “job” or “task” to complete beforehand, most Americans revile it. Respondent Mr. James G. Cork, a senior actuary at a Pittsburgh life insurance company, said: “I cannot feel good about anything unless I work for it. When I complete assigned projects at work, I feel terrific. But when I sit at a bar and drink tequila, what have I achieved? Who told me to drink? Not my boss. Basically, I cannot feel good about anything unless I first receive an order and carry it out properly. If I don’t deserve something, I don’t deserve to feel good. That’s one reason I love my job: I know I deserve everything I get, because I know who’s giving me orders. I know what my boss expects, and I deliver accordingly.” When it comes to pleasure, Americans believe that they must earn pleasure through hard work. InformationPayz’ poll reveals that they recoil from “cheap, unearned pleasures” like alcohol, sex, movies, amusements, games and parties. Mr. Cork put it best: “If I don’t receive an order to do it, I will not feel good about it.”
At Reason, Commerce, Justice & Free Beer, we believe in employment, just like the American people. InformationPayz’ studies provide a refreshing insight into American sensibilities about employment. Put simply, they confirm our abiding conviction that Americans love to work, achieve and win—as a team. Once again, fact contradicts cynics who believe that American workers watch the clock all day and secretly dream that they could be off fishing, drinking, dancing, carousing or just watching television. Fact tells us that Americans enjoy service. It even tells us that they cannot feel good about themselves if they are not serving someone in a superior position. From lawyers all the way down to checkout clerks, all Americans relish their jobs. They relish the spirit of achievement and hard work that makes this country great. Despite every contraindication, we now know that they actually prefer showing up at the office to showing up at the tavern—and money has nothing to do with it.
We salute every American who works for a living. Congratulations on living the dream. We do not live to drink; we live to work. After all, the numbers show one thing: Working makes us feel better than drinking. And who can argue with numbers?
NEW YORK—Contrary to popular belief, Americans actually prefer employment and work to drinking and fun, according to a recent poll conducted by InformationPayz, Inc., a leading survey bureau serving Fortune 100 companies. “It’s true,” said InformationPayz’ senior statistician, Mr. A. Anderson Spotts. “No fewer than 93% of Americans say they like their jobs more than beer, wine, schnapps and malt liquor.” Moreover, according to the study, this is not because Americans need money from their jobs. “All those polled said that income had nothing to do with their opinions about alcohol. We can conclude on that basis that Americans like to work more than drink—whether or not they depend on their jobs for necessary income,” explained Mr. Spotts.
Americans gave detailed reasons for their opinions. Their answers were remarkably consistent across all racial, social and economic lines. Whether wealthy bankers or low-wage janitors, Americans revealed that they enjoy the feeling they experience when they work more than the feeling they experience when they drink alcoholic beverages. According to pollee Mrs. Mary E. Bickford, a Caucasian secretarial assistant at a Newark, New Jersey real estate brokerage house: “Just getting to work every morning makes me feel all tipsy and happy. Being around copy machines, paper clips and bitter women in cubicles who complain about their children gets me all warm inside. When I watch the clock and eat my bologna sandwich in the windowless coffee room for 30 minutes each day, I just want to get up, dance, party and find eligible men. By comparison, booze is a cheap high.” At the same time, Mr. Clarence F. Jackson, an African-American Senior Financial Advisor at a major New York investment bank, said: “Commuting makes me feel great. I love waking up at 5 AM every morning knowing that I will need to sit in traffic for two hours listening to bad talk radio, receive castigation from angry drivers, pay $40 for parking then spend 10 hours in an office speaking to an automated phone system. Who needs whiskey when you have a job? Just being at work—or sitting in traffic getting there—makes me feel like I’m on top of the world.” Finally, Mr. B. Jeff Puttz, Esq., a senior litigator at Puttz, Puttz & Stickett, LLP, said: “Nothing can quite match yelling at legal assistants who don’t file things properly. For me, there is something euphoric about waving papers in people’s faces while telling them they will lose their jobs if they put color-coded dividers in the wrong place again. And what’s better than reviewing financial records? Even if we have a losing month, I don’t have an ulcer when I look at cash flow spreadsheets. I start slurring my words, smiling goofily and getting chatty with the receptionists. By contrast, shots and beer don’t make me feel nearly as good as I feel when I’m in the office.”
Americans said they love to work for its own sake. Although critics may find it easy to dismiss InformationPayz’ findings on the ground that Americans must work to pay their bills, Mr. Spotts explained that: “Our findings are guaranteed accurate. We spoke to a representative sample of Americans employed in every significant field. Statistically speaking, our findings cannot reasonably be debated. They reveal that Americans categorically enjoy work for its own sake, not merely because they need jobs to survive. Over 98% of those polled said that work made them feel alive, free, euphoric, giddy, erotic, frisky and ‘young again.’ By contrast, 99% of those polled said that the emotions they experience at work are far more positive than the emotions they experience while drinking. Although these pollees said that work makes them get up painfully early in the morning, endure gossip, plod through mind-numbingly boring assignments, face angry superiors and customers, ignore family and health, expose themselves to contagion, fight for space on subway trains, rush carelessly down streets to avoid lateness, eat poorly, develop various health problems such as hemorrhoids, indigestion, intestinal polyps and stiff necks, beg for permission to use the rest room, attend emasculating quarterly performance reviews, lie to supervisors concerning work progress, betray acquaintances in order to obtain favorable work credit and miss daytime baseball games, they all would prefer facing these challenges than cracking open an ale and getting drunk. “Work makes me feel alive,” said a bathroom contractor in Florida. “Nothing can match the way I feel when I bicker over an invoice. Even a pina colada can’t give me the feeling I get when my boss calls me an asshole and threatens to fire me for forgetting an envelope. It’s not about the money. It’s about doing what you’re supposed to do. No alcohol gives you the high you get when you do that.”
Many pollees echoed these sentiments. They said that work gave them a “sense of direction and purpose” in life, as well as “identity, camaraderie, cohesion and belonging.” Mr. Spotts analyzed the data as follows: “Americans like being part of a team. Over 99% of those polled said they approached their jobs as they would a sports event. These respondents said they enjoyed ‘helping the company win,’ or ‘playing their position,’ even if they receive poor pay for it. For these respondents, winning the game for the team gave them the best possible feelings.” At the same time, the data indicated that pollees generally considered “healthy team feelings” better than “drunkenness.” According to Ms. Maria B. Lopez, a checkout clerk at a Dallas, Texas supermarket: “Putting on my apron and nametag makes me feel like my life means something. I handle a lot of cash every day for the store but I know it’s not mine. I never think about stealing it; I don’t deserve it. It’s my job to make change, smile at the customers and ask if they are having a good day when they come through the checkout aisle. I only make $6.75 an hour but I love my job. My paycheck does not feed my kids, but I would not give up this job for the world. Does it beat drinking? Absolutely. Sipping a margarita and dancing in a club can’t compare to standing on your feet for 9 hours, suffering back spasms, repeating the same words to 500 customers and counting back change every day. Slamming shots can’t compare to getting screamed at by the assistant manager for talking to the lady who works in Aisle 5, or for coming up 2 cents short at drawer check time. I’m part of a team. I like what I do. I like helping my team win. Customer satisfaction beats drinking every time.”
InformationPayz recognizes that its findings may surprise some readers. After all, many readers may find it strange that Americans actually would rather work than drink. To some eyes, it appears that Americans do not want to be at work. To some eyes, it appears that they would rather be doing anything except working. “We often get that reaction,” said Mr. Spotts. “But appearances can be deceiving.” Mr. Spotts pointed out that InformationPayz never publishes misleading reports. He also explained that InformationPayz uses the most advanced statistical and survey methods, aided by several Yale-educated mathematicians. “The numbers don’t lie. And our polling methods are trademarked. They work. Guaranteed.”
What do the numbers show? Mr. Spotts said they show that Americans love work more than life itself. “Who can dispute that drinking makes you feel good?” queried Mr. Spotts. “If 98% of all Americans say they prefer work to drinking, does that not show that work makes them feel even better than drinking? In our professional judgment, we believe that Americans get a bigger high from service than from stimulating their senses with alcohol. This reflects that Americans enjoy acknowledging their positions in life, as well as their desire to identify themselves through their work. Americans like life the way it is. Drinking, by contrast, distorts reality and makes people momentarily forget their problems. The fact that most Americans prefer work to drinking therefore shows that Americans like their lives. The do not want to distort reality; they want to stay in reality. In reality, they are dutiful servants with a job to do. They feel belonging when they do their jobs. Drinking obscures those emotions. That’s why they prefer work to drinking. Americans like service. They like to listen to their bosses and get projects done. They like being part of a hierarchy and wearing nametags. They like commuting and suppressing their true feelings to avoid censure. The numbers show all these things. In short, Americans like reality. That is why they prefer workplace reality to drunken escape. And money plays no role in their preference.”
If Americans prefer work to drinking, what explains the fact that Americans complain about their jobs all week, then flock to bars, pubs and dance halls as soon as the whistle blows on Friday afternoons? Mr. Spotts reasoned: “Statistically, there is a tiny but vocal minority—less than 2%--who prefer drinking to work. These are the individuals who convey an impression that Americans would rather drink than work. In short, these ‘bad apples’ give all Americans an undeserved reputation for laziness. Additionally, even Americans who love work sometimes say they would like to drink, even though they do not really mean it. Experts from our psychiatric department advise us that this is perfectly natural. They inform us that all Americans are raised to respect their workplace superiors and to feel shame if they do not work. These entrenched values hold firm, even if an American employee may sometimes wish to suppress reality with alcohol. In short, these ‘passing desires’ to get drunk represent statistical aberrations. Even Americans who say they would ‘love to get plastered on Friday’ still love their jobs. If they were asked the question ‘Do you prefer beer to work?’ they would invariably answer ‘No.’ The mere desire to drink once in a while does not mean, in other words, that Americans intrinsically prefer alcohol to employment. In short, employment provides far more joy to Americans than beer, whether compensated or not. In short, employment fulfills the program to which all Americans aspire. Alcohol contradicts that program. That is why Americans reject alcohol for work.”
Americans do not like to drink because drinking induces unjustifiable pleasure. According to InformationPayz’ poll, Americans reject unjustifiable pleasures. Before Americans experience pleasure, 95% said that they must “earn” it through work or merit. Because alcohol produces pleasurable sensations without a “job” or “task” to complete beforehand, most Americans revile it. Respondent Mr. James G. Cork, a senior actuary at a Pittsburgh life insurance company, said: “I cannot feel good about anything unless I work for it. When I complete assigned projects at work, I feel terrific. But when I sit at a bar and drink tequila, what have I achieved? Who told me to drink? Not my boss. Basically, I cannot feel good about anything unless I first receive an order and carry it out properly. If I don’t deserve something, I don’t deserve to feel good. That’s one reason I love my job: I know I deserve everything I get, because I know who’s giving me orders. I know what my boss expects, and I deliver accordingly.” When it comes to pleasure, Americans believe that they must earn pleasure through hard work. InformationPayz’ poll reveals that they recoil from “cheap, unearned pleasures” like alcohol, sex, movies, amusements, games and parties. Mr. Cork put it best: “If I don’t receive an order to do it, I will not feel good about it.”
At Reason, Commerce, Justice & Free Beer, we believe in employment, just like the American people. InformationPayz’ studies provide a refreshing insight into American sensibilities about employment. Put simply, they confirm our abiding conviction that Americans love to work, achieve and win—as a team. Once again, fact contradicts cynics who believe that American workers watch the clock all day and secretly dream that they could be off fishing, drinking, dancing, carousing or just watching television. Fact tells us that Americans enjoy service. It even tells us that they cannot feel good about themselves if they are not serving someone in a superior position. From lawyers all the way down to checkout clerks, all Americans relish their jobs. They relish the spirit of achievement and hard work that makes this country great. Despite every contraindication, we now know that they actually prefer showing up at the office to showing up at the tavern—and money has nothing to do with it.
We salute every American who works for a living. Congratulations on living the dream. We do not live to drink; we live to work. After all, the numbers show one thing: Working makes us feel better than drinking. And who can argue with numbers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)