Givers and Takers (and earthquake makers) of the Economy
March 21, 2009 by Julia King · Leave a Comment
A couple of months ago I attended a memorial service for a woman who headed up her congregation’s Care Committee, meaning that while she was alive (and she was incredibly alive) she specialized in swooping in to care for others when they were in need. She baked casseroles for growing families, made sandwiches for the grieving, transported the sick to hospitals. In story after story, her friends described a woman with a nearly insatiable desire to give.
We all know people like this woman, the ones who stack the chairs and sweep the floors while others (me) stand around chatting, the ones who wash the last coffee cups and wipe down the counters… without the slightest expectation of reward. When these people are thanked, they deflect the thanks like Wonder Woman deflects bullets with her magic bracelets. It ends up anywhere but on them.
A.I.G. executives (and others in the news) have me thinking about that Care Committee friend. What is it that makes some people devote their lives to humble giving and others to seeking praise, money, and material reward?
Never mind the numbers — so big they might as well be starring in a movie alongside giant, mutant ladybugs (start with 800,000,000,000, then subtract 170,000,000,000; then sneak out 165,000,000…etc.). Sorry, but some of us (lots of us) are just never going to get the numbers. But if the economy runs in large part on “confidence,” the social psychology of our system matters just as much as all those loony zeros do. It matters that the economy doesn’t make sense in our guts.
We’re Americans. We believe in work and in excellence; we admire both innate ability and hard-won skill; we value persistence and optimism. Yes, we are willing to accept that those who achieve great things are entitled to live with a little more than those of us who never will. But we’re not fools. And we are not mean-spirited (well, maybe when we haven’t had enough sleep). The genial, middle-aged bagger in my grocery store may not be capable of complex problem-solving, but that fact alone should not put him at risk for poverty. In our system it does.
The problem with our fantastic free market is that it’s a little too much like a teenager, chasing after the latest trend and responding to desire over genuine need. For instance, it provides Americans with a dizzying array of affordable sexy shoes (fun, fun, FUN), while a large percentage of us can’t afford to visit a doctor (not so fun). Like a high-schooler, it gives preference to those who are naturally charismatic, or aggressive enough to demand serious money, and pretty much ignores people who are hopelessly incapable — or who deal in modest kindnesses. Sadly, we’ve got a system that even on its best days is about as considerate as a prom queen (hint: not everyone gets invited to her fabulous party).
A lot of people have figured this out, the lopsided truth about our system. But not everyone, like the very smart writers at The Washington Post. In one visit to the keyboard, the editors criticized a fire fighters’ union for wanting COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) pay, and in another they defended A.I.G. bonuses. Damn those greedy fire fighters, that’s what I always say. But the A.I.G. guys, well… they were promised the money, you know. They have bills too, you know. They might get mad and leave their jobs and what would we do THEN, you know?
(Give back HALF?? Did A.I.G.’s Edward Liddy really say that? Because that’s just funny.)
Despite what’s being said by right-wing men living in the mountains with stockpiles of ammo, there’s a lot of space between America’s current (confusing-to-the-people) brand of capitalism and that big bogeyman socialism. But it seems clearer all the time that the best way to guard against forces of serious Marxism is to fight against the forces of serious greed. (Capitalism devotees could learn a thing or two from hospital president Paul Levy, who inspired internal cooperation rather than competition when faced with a budget squeeze.)
Most of the folks at the top of the economic food chain are never going to head up a church Care Committee, but if they know what’s good for themselves (and the country) they are going to learn to live with less.
T’was a Time Before Twitter…
March 9, 2009 by Julia King · 5 Comments
Twitter is like lip piercings or a thong peeking out of a pair of jeans. It makes me feel old-fashioned, like I should be making meatloaf and wearing a house coat (not a Snuggie, but a house coat — the kind my grandmother used to wear with little buttons to keep it closed).
“Even I know that Twitter is weird,” writes a blogger who Twitters. That’s encouraging, because we all do things we know are weird (for instance, I sometimes watch America’s Next Top Model). Normalcy (if there is such a thing) requires that we at least know when we’re being weird (as in, “I know it’s weird, but I have to stand on my hands every time I see a cow”).
The fact is, it’s all strange: blogging, Facebook, MySpace, texting, tweeting, tooting (I made that last one up, but it’ll happen).
If computers have made bad writing too easy (and they totally, really, completely have), applications like Twitter have made co-dependence too easy. No one should know what someone else is doing at all times (as in, Julia is shaving her ankles and clipping her toenails for spring!). Personal information sharing is fine, but if the group of people who get to hear it ALL can’t fit into a minivan, it’s too big.
Togetherness. Community. Right on. We are the world. We are the children. We are the ones who make a brighter day, so let’s start giving (that’s a song from the olden days, when we talked to each other with our voices). But surely there are limits (please let there be limits!) to the healthy exchange of information between people. And when I say between “people,” I mean between Person A and Persons B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, and so forth. Small numbers of people are designed for genuine friendship and daily minutia. Big numbers are made for traffic jams and riots and Publisher’s Clearing House.
“It keeps me connected to people,” is the prevailing claim from those who routinely use an array of technologies to communicate with people out of view while people in view wait for a turn to “connect.” It’s as though we’re all Paris Hilton, distractingly popular and struggling to dole out small (and not so small) servings of ourselves to satisfy our many admirers.
It’s easy to get sucked into the frenzy, to “friend” everyone and her sister, to live each day (each hour?) with a new one-liner for the world, to upload cute profile pictures and clever homemade videos. Actually, that’s not true. It’s hard!
“Health Care for a Few” is Not Much of a Motto
March 2, 2009 by Julia King · 2 Comments
Last week lawmakers in Indiana passed an amendment to exclude undocumented immigrant families from Medicaid in order to “…protect legal Hoosiers and spend their tax dollars responsibly,” according to a statement from Representative Jackie Walorski’s office (Walorski is sponsor of the amendment to House Bill 1653).
My own representative (Wes Culver) voted for the measure in part because he said a survey of the district showed 80 percent support for it. 80 percent?! Yikes. We are certifiably down-and-out here in district 49; and people do get cranky when they’re down-and-out, but still…embarrassing (right??).
In a town hall meeting Saturday morning at the Goshen Chamber of Commerce, Rep. Culver and State Sen. Carlin Yoder both said voting against Medicaid for undocumented immigrants was a matter of fairness, as though there is some moral code that involves turning one’s back on sick people if they come from the wrong country.
It’s not easy, this whole health care thing (covering as many people as possible with the least amount of money) but it would be good if we could at least agree that it’s almost always “fair” to grant human beings basic medical care. Not only is it fair, but it’s smart. Leaving significant portions of a country’s (or states’) population without access to medical treatment can quickly jeopardize public health as communicable diseases incubate and spread. Viruses don’t care much about citizenship.
It makes sense to look for ways to save money in the health care system, but there are better places to look than in passports.
For instance, thumb-tacked to the bulletin board beside my desk is a glossy advertisement for the emergency room of a nearby hospital. The hospital is so nearby, in fact, that fifteen years ago when my daughter was born I walked there (in labor) at 3 o’clock in the morning. Why would a non-profit, tax-exempt hospital waste valuable resource courting my “business” when I live so close to its facilities? Why would a hospital advertise its emergency room at all?
Also gracing my bulletin board is a shiny 8-page health “magazine” sent from the Marketing and Community Relations Department of another hospital, one roughly half an hour away from my home. Why is a non-profit hospital from a neighboring city competing for me when I already live a stone’s throw away from a hospital in my own city?
Such mailings and publications (in addition to the billboards and radio and television ads) represent large amounts of money, money that is not treating sick or dying people in Indiana. According to one hospital administrator I spoke with, non-profit hospitals have virtually no regulations regarding expenditures. Advertising, huge CEO salaries, none of it’s regulated. If legislators are looking for places to cut or redirect health care dollars, to see to it that tax breaks within the system make sense, here’s a place to start.
