hopelesshappiness.com

To justify the-existence-of-one-thing-at-the-expense-of-another.

It is the relationship that is disconcerting. The one-thing can be one's self; usually a rich, powerful and/or entitled self. The one-thing can be an ideology, or a doctrine, or an organization, or an individual other than oneself. The one-thing can be anything that requires sustenance for its continued existence. An excellent example of one-thing within this dynamic of one-thing-at-the-expense-of-another is an employer; most especially a large employer. For an employer’s continued existence, it must be fed. An employer eats the blood sweat and tears of its employees, and to continue to survive, an employer constantly demands more for less. A large employer believes that by stacking layers upon layers of individual drivers they can increase productivity and efficiency, but from where I sit it appears that what pops out of the hat is the Donnie Darko Rabbit brought forth to intimidate the lower layers into a more-for-less mindset and to protect the uppermost layers from reality. Thus, as the demand for efficiency becomes ever more urgent, the bottom layer(s) are squeezed the hardest, and, the more layers of junior justifiers between the-expense-of-another and the chief justifier, the greater the expense as felt by another. I used to be a junior justifier. Today I am just another expense item trapped beneath layers upon layers upon layers and guarded by a few very scary rabbits.

Justification is not justice.

Yet justification has become our fallback position and for many junior justifiers it apparently feels like justice. And the closer a junior justifier is to the chief justifier, the less they see, hear or care, and the more righteous their justifications.

Last Fall I received a 2% increase in my hourly pay taking me from $18.40 to $18.77. This week, after hearing last Fall “Congratulations-on-your-two-percent-raise-it’s-what-everybody-got” I have discovered (thanks to my abilities with a pivot table and to the release of the annual salary report required by the state) that “everybody” did not include the entire university/campus system (approximately 10,000 individuals), the department I work in, the department I work most closely with, all other individuals with whom I share my job title, the leadership team closest to my responsibilities including the university president, and 8 other groups. In each of the first five groups, from 2020 to 2021 the average pay increase for combined hourly and salaried personnel was (respectively) 4.36%, 3.15%, 6.04%, 3.75% and 7.26%. And in the additional eight groups all but two exceeded my percentage increase. Obviously a large number of people did not get the 2% memo. The two groups who (interestingly) received a smaller percentage increase? 1) The group of individuals within the dataset making less than $20 per hour, and 2) Custodians.

I included eight individuals in the leadership team, (all making from $190,000 to $600,000 per year), but if I take out one individual who did not receive an increase, (I would like to believe she did so on principle), then the pay increase for the other seven ranged from 4.50% to 12.45% with an average of 8.18%. Again, my pay increase was 2.01% and I can’t help but feel that (because it was due to rounding) the .01% was given begrudgingly.

The saddest part? This is exactly what I expected to see. I am not at all surprised.

One individual included on the leadership team has the last name Jones. Out of curiosity I calculated all the Jones’s systemwide and it is no surprise that I also cannot keep up with the Jones’s. Their overall average increase was a whopping 13.83%. Again, my pay increase was 2.01% and I can’t help but feel that (because it was due to rounding) the .01% was given begrudgingly.

From 2020 to 2021 there was an increase of 19 individuals (from 9724 to 9743) within the parameters of this dataset. It is encouraging that approximately 10% of those making less than $20 per hour in 2020 have moved into the set, (or been replaced by someone hired into the set), of those making $20 or more per hour in 2021. It is discouraging that the increase in average hourly rate for those making less than $20 per hour was only 0.33% from 2020 to 2021 whereas the increase in average hourly rate for those making $20 or more per hour was 2.32%. Salaried personnel within this same set received an average annual salary of $104,984.07 in 2021 reflecting an average percentage increase of 4.03%, whereas (respectively) the numbers for hourly personnel are $40,356.96 and 3.45%. If the real dollars from the 0.58% difference between salaried and hourly personnel were added to the hourly personnel it would increase their percentage increase by an additional 1.50%. In addition, those making $100,000 or more in both 2020 and 2021 received an average annual increase of 5.40%. More simply put, the richer get richer and it doesn’t mean as much. Even more simply put, the wealth gap is alive and doing very well, thank you very much.

Looking again at the leadership team responsible for decisions leading to my 2.01%, I have to ask these seven individuals, why? I know you talk a good game, equity, justice, empathy, but can you talk me through this? 8.18%? Please help me to understand. If I had received your group-of-seven 8.18% instead of my 2.01%, I would be within 9 cents of the $20 club. You, both individually and as the group-of-seven, are the one-thing and I, along with thousands of others, are sustaining your existence at our expense. As said before I am not surprised. And the fact that I am reasonably calm and rational tells me that I have (sadly) grown accustomed to rhetoric and duplicity and contrivance and subservience and helplessness.

Here, I would like to note that I do see some validity in some justifications, and others I realize I am not in a position to judge. And I understand that I am working to the same end.

That said, I still feel helpless, discouraged, disillusioned, demoralized. To me the issue is not my 2.01%. I will continue to make noise and ultimately find my peace. Nor is it necessarily your 8.18%. Though I believe many rich, powerful, and/or entitled individuals will continue to make excuses in their search for a bigger piece. To me it is the relationship that is disconcerting. One-thing-at-the-expense-of-another.

Justification is not justice.

1. “It's fair because it's the rule.”
2. It's fair because it's how we've always done it.
3. It's fair because it's how it is.
4. It's fair because it's how it should be.

I do not agree with the statements above, but this past week it was brought to my attention that some, (perhaps a great number of), intelligent, coherent, functional individuals do abide by one or more of these declarations. I also discovered that with some prodding, coaching, an individual could stretch their thinking to understand and admit that a rule may be unfair and that it might be okay to work to change an unfair rule. This discovery was for a rule in a low stakes circumstance, but still is (I believe) a potential first step toward fair. I believe it likely becomes progressively more difficult to convince (perhaps a great number of) intelligent, coherent, functional individuals to work to change a tradition, a higher stakes circumstance, an entrenched belief.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “To imagine is to represent without aiming at things as they actually, presently, and subjectively are. One can use imagination to represent possibilities other than the actual, to represent times other than the present, and to represent perspectives other than one’s own.” To imagine is to move beyond how we've always done it; to move beyond how it is; to move beyond how one has been taught it should be. To imagine is to escape rules. To imagine is to be free of one's self. I might go so far as to say that the preeminent manifestation of imagination is justice and the lowliest, ugliest, most ignoble expression of Humanity is negligence. Negligence requires no imagination and very little depth of character. One who thoughtlessly accepts, abides, perpetuates a rule or tradition that neglects or divides has no imagination. On the other hand, one who makes a rule that purposefully neglects or divides has a cruel, wanton imagination. Perhaps the bigger problem between the two is no imagination. There will always be imaginative, wanton cruelty and there will always be those who revel in its form; but I believe (to those with no imagination), imagination can be explained; taught. Perhaps a second bigger problem is a selfish, underutilized imagination. Perhaps underutilized because within the confines of our American way today, imagination is usually not rewarded and it is frequently punished. To encourage and perpetuate imagination, its utilization must be constantly reinforced and rewarded. That is not happening in this country.

I have identified three problems:

1. To be imaginatively cruel.
2. To be unimaginatively simple and simultaneously intelligent, coherent, functional.
3. To understand yet ignore injustice.

In recent decades, in this country (sadly) we have two political parties and a great mass of divided constituents. One party is imaginatively cruel. One party (despite their rhetoric) largely ignores injustice. And the great mass is unimaginatively simple. Previous to recent decades we essentially had one political party (ignoring justice) and the great mass for the most part undivided yet still unimaginatively simple. It feels that by creating division and adding a party that champions imaginative cruelty, we have taken a step backwards; but perhaps not. Perhaps by drawing out cruel, wanton imagination, we can stamp it out. It has always been there, but only in recent decades has it been exposed; openly and (more and more so in recent years) unapologetically acting in our politics and so blatantly in our daily lives. Now that we can see it, perhaps we can encourage its extinction and by doing so perhaps we are more likely to reinforce and reward imagination. Though even if we reach this point of greater likelihood, because imagination is a defining characteristic of Humanity, we must still reconcile our Humanity with our American system of capitalism and consumerism; an uphill battle. I have said before, “humanity impedes efficiency and our system today impedes our humanity.” But again, perhaps today’s flagrant, unashamed, brazenly obvious, tastelessly conspicuous, meretricious, unabashed, screaming practice of cruel, wanton imagination resulting in naked negligence will prod us forward.

I frequently feel out of place. I feel out of place because I strive to be free of my self, and because I strive to be free of my self when many, (perhaps a great number of), intelligent, coherent, functional individuals prioritize comfort, I feel out of place. It is not a comfortable feeling

To be an intelligent, coherent, functional individual who is also unimaginatively simple is to choose comfort. I could choose to choose comfort. But though comfort may return one to their self, their place, comfort perpetuates negligence.

To be imaginatively progressive, to be imaginatively compassionate, to actively seek justice, to add depth to one’s character requires discomfort. Discomfort encourages and perpetuates imagination and (as said) the preeminent manifestation of imagination is justice.

I seek discomfort to encourage and perpetuate imagination.

So…

I feel out of place because I am out of place.

This week after the Kansas City Chiefs marched downfield and scored on the first drive of overtime, thus sending the Buffalo Bills home without having a chance to possess the ball, there has been considerable commentary and controversy surrounding the NFL's overtime rules; (no less than the Wall Street Journal and NPR have weighed in). Cries of unfairness and injustice! Demands that the rule must be changed! The rule states: "Both teams must have the opportunity to possess the ball once during the extra period, unless the team that receives the opening kickoff scores a touchdown on its initial possession, in which case it is the winner."

The odds of an offensive TD on a given drive are approximately 1 in 5; 21.12%.

The odds of a defensive TD on a given drive are approximately 1 in 100; 1.26%.

So, by receiving the kickoff, (by virtue of a coin flip), a given team is 16.73 times more likely than the other to win on that first possession. And in the playoffs I would conjecture this number is somewhat higher because in theory these are above average teams. And furthermore, the odds favor the team who receives the first kickoff, even when they do not score on that first possession. It does seem a bit lopsided. And this, coupled with the Kansas City Chiefs being on the other side of the rule three years ago in a playoff game against the New England Patriots, will likely lead to a change in the rule. In the NPR article, Philadelphia sports reporter Taryn Hatcher was quoted saying, "NFL overtime rules are so trash, which is honestly an insult to trash."

As said, by creating an uproar many believe there is a reasonable chance the rule will be changed to allow for more equitable opportunity. Equitable opportunity. We can reasonably propose equitable opportunity to the NFL, but it frequently appears to be a truly novel concept in the arena of social justice. Though I am a football fan, and I do agree the NFL overtime rule should be changed, (as do many members of the Kansas City Chiefs), I was struck on Monday by not only the quantity of commentary but by the passion felt for this obvious abuse, when, with not much research I found similar numbers illustrating a bigger injustice that has been going on much, much longer. This is from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), as quoted from brookings.edu: “three-generation poverty is over 16 times higher among Black adults than white adults (21.3 percent and 1.2 percent, respectively). In other words, one in five Black Americans are experiencing poverty for the third generation in a row, compared to just one in a hundred white Americans.”

In poverty's overtime, Black Americans are winning. I feel that should be said one more time: In poverty’s overtime, Black Americans are winning.

To complicate further, according to the Congressional Research Service, a black child is more than 10 times more likely to be born into the bottom 20% than the top 20%, compared to a white child at 3.7 times or an Asian American child at 1.4 times. To the child, the circumstance they come to is the flip of a coin, and as pointed out by the overtime controversy, if it is necessary to flip a coin we should do what we can to provide equitable opportunity moving forward.

But, according to this study quoted in Vox, white children are more than 4 times more likely and Asian-American children are more than 10 times more likely than Black children to move from the bottom quintile of income distribution to the top quintile. This does not reflect equitable opportunity.

Unfairness? Injustice? Traditions and rules that are an insult to trash? Yes! Where is the uproar? Where is the demand for equitable opportunity? Where is the rules committee?

The numbers, the facts, tell us a story of how difficult it can be to overcome circumstance that is not of one's own making or choice. If you can see the injustice of the NFL overtime rule, then you must see the inequity of race that is built into our American way. Or is it really more fair that Black Americans are born fighting such odds than that your NFL team is sent home from the playoffs? I started to ask, are we really this superficial? But I believe the relevant question might be, why are we this superficial? Some might claim that the parents make the circumstance, but there are so many avenues to go down, so many numbers and facts and real life examples throughout our entire history, up to and including today, that show how odds have always been more highly stacked against Black Americans.

As a nation, we were founded on these words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” And as a nation we have failed to live up to those words, but that is not the point. When we have a vision, an objective, we will never attain it in its perfection; we are meant to work toward it. Those who are disappointed that we have not lived up to those words must get over it so they may expend their effort toward improvement. The NFL overtime rule is perhaps a way to wake up a few sleepwalkers and redirect the attention of a few whiners to perhaps work together toward “a more perfect Union.” And if along the way we’re able to get the rules committee to change the overtime rule? Great! Because equal should not exclude those who start out on defense; which I suppose does describe Black Americans.

If I define work as any effort, (physical, mental, emotional and/or spiritual), directed to accomplish something, then it appears to me that any purpose must include work. The simple act of asking the question 'why am I here' is work, as is any less daunting, more specific objective. So in this regard I understand the claim that asceticism as a result of hard work is a sign of salvation; it follows that work as reparations (to repair) serves as a salve (atonement) that can redeem one’s soul. But because it is logical, does that mean my driving force, my overall purpose, should be merely to work? And if, (as many do today), we include making money beneath the umbrella of ‘what is work' are wealthy investors guaranteed their spot in heaven? Or those who inherited their wealth? I believe work is a beginning. I believe work is the means. I believe that though work may make money, making money is not work. And I believe work for the sake of work or work for the sake of money or work to create a soul-saving asceticism is short-sighted. I believe each successive desire below represents a more far-reaching, higher-order objective toward which our individual efforts may be directed. And of course each objective below involves effort, i.e. work.

1. Survival.
2. Pleasure.
3. Comfort.
4. Systematized Improvement.
5. Betterment / Growth.

I put survival first because survival should be instinctive and I believe as an individual effort, from the ego, it is. But as a species, today, I might place survival as the most far-reaching, highest order objective there is. Or, perhaps, as a species we are missing the requirement that we should constantly circle back to the beginning to ensure that we do not confuse a social or political structure with Humanity, and to be sure goodness has a chance to play its role. As a species, to circle back today, we would first need to become unstuck from the objective bog of systematized improvement and then somehow incorporate survival into our efforts from goodness toward the betterment and growth of Humanity.

This progression of individual effort is nothing new. It has been said before in many different ways. Humans direct their efforts toward happiness; (however one in a given moment may define happiness). But there is another factor to consider: the source. As implied in the paragraph above I believe the primary (instinctive) source is one’s ego, but with discipline and practice I believe, as a human, I can additionally choose to project from goodness. Which leads me to ask, can I potentially adjust the relative value of my results by increasing my effort from goodness? I believe the answer to be yes. The more I am able to override ego with goodness, the more I believe I am able to manipulate and control the results of my efforts, thus, (I would argue), work from a combination of goodness and the inevitable ego increases the value of my work. Unfortunately, our system disagrees. This exponential increase in the value of work from goodness does not always (or even often) result in an increase in my personal pleasure or comfort because the efficiencies that may be gained only serve to create a demand (from the system) for more production thus also limiting my potential for personal growth. Put another way, when I am ego driven, I am instinctively inclined to direct my efforts in a manner that best serves the system because that is how I am typically rewarded with survival, pleasure and comfort. So when I am driven by goodness, the system only recognizes and rewards efficiency/productivity gains that may come about as a result; and these efficiency/productivity gains will not account for and will almost always fall short of the value (of my work) relative to goodness. And depending on how one’s ego defines happiness, the recognition and rewards for work from goodness also often seem to fall short of the actual value.

If the purpose of the system is to gain efficiencies in order to increase production ultimately to grow profits, and if the purpose of Humanity is a respectful, unpretentious, humble compassion for All, then the system and Humanity are at odds. Compassion is not efficient. This was illustrated to me this week by an email I received from my employer, (a large state university), in which the Chief Audit and Compliance Officer described an incident of “financial mismanagement” and named a person who was terminated obviously implying guilt. Three years ago, to an office also involved in the investigation of this incident, I reported an incident of very clear mismanagement of people, (specifically students). In that case no one was terminated and nothing was made public. To this day, (as far as I know), the students harmed by this mismanagement are unaware, still believing the system worked and was not manipulated. These two incidents tell me that when a human takes advantage of the system, the system demands swift, harsh, public justice, but when the system takes advantage of a human, or, by extension, when another human takes advantage of a human within the system in a way that 1) actually improves efficiency or productivity or 2) does not impact efficiency or productivity and/or 3) by setting things right would in some way negatively impact efficiency or productivity then fairness, justice and accountability go out the window. Impropriety becomes less consequential, and in the specific circumstance I refer to, it was swept under the rug. I will say it again: Compassion is not efficient. It is okay for the system to take advantage of humans. It is not okay for a human to take advantage of the system. And many would (do) argue that the double standard is correct; that it should not be okay to take advantage of the system and that nothing should be done to thwart the demands of the system. And though the saddest part for me in this ongoing cycle of gained efficiencies and increased production, is the fact that I am missing opportunities for the sake of the system, the real crisis for Humanity is how we have lost sight of our survival and how we have relegated our betterment and growth to the back seat. What we describe as ego at a personal level, at a species level has become this loop of systematized improvement, and within this loop there is really no place for Goodness. One more time: Goodness, specifically Compassion, is not efficient.

So is there a way to break free? Or am I destined to continue working for the sake of the system? I'm not sure I have a choice. I could play mind games; (and I do). I could work to convince myself that the limited personal growth I am allowed is enough. And that the 'possibility’ of good from personal goodness is enough. But when it does no practical good for the species, and it serves my ego more so than it serves goodness, and as long as we as a species are on our current trajectory, it is mighty discouraging to essentially continue to work simply for the sake of work when I so badly want to work to save the world.

Either everything is okay or everything is not okay.

Everything is not okay.

Based on this premise (that everything is not okay) I see three different groups each characterized by their response, and each represented equitably across the political spectrum.

The majority pretend everything is okay and/or believe everything will be okay. I'll call this group the preebies.

The alarmists work to tell people everything is not okay. An alarmist may also work to offer solutions and/or make things better.

The crazies speak and act rashly and therefore sometimes dangerously; but the large majority of them do so with good intentions.

There is some crossover. For example, I know of some individuals who are (in most circumstance) a preebie but by choosing to ignore consensus science and remain unvaccinated, they qualify in this regard as a crazy. And, how many politicians can we call out as both alarmist and crazy.

A typical alarmist is (if not well-informed, at least) somewhat-informed. I believe a preebie should be required to become an alarmist before they are allowed to test the waters of crazy; though a well-placed alarmist who crosses the line into crazy has potential to do much more damage. And of course we cannot restrict the freedom of an uninformed or ill-informed preebie. If our leaders can traverse crazy, we must allow everyone that right. And I do agree with the essence of this equality, but I might work to mitigate the damage by somehow keeping ‘everyone’ from crossing that line. Some may argue that rash words and actions have some genius potential, but I would argue that there is a difference between rash and drastic; (keep reading).

I am an alarmist. I am an alarmist who believes in consensus science and acknowledges consensus fact. I am an alarmist who is also a consumer and a capitalist, though not by choice. But I am not a well-placed alarmist; and I am not doing a very good job.

Some of the preebies laugh at me.

Some of the preebies feel sorry for me.

Most of the preebies ignore me.

There is a growing movement of alarmists; and there are substantiated reasons, (see consensus science and consensus fact), that this movement is growing.

Most of the preebies dislike alarmists.

Some of the preebies hear some of the somewhat-informed alarmists and test the waters of crazy.

Some of the preebies hear the more well-informed alarmists but become overwhelmed and throw their hands up in despair and go back to being a career consumer believing everything will be okay.

Some of the preebies hear the more well-informed alarmists but because (as career capitalists) they believe they are personally okay, they find reasons to not react accordingly.

If one acts rashly, (without due consideration), they have for that moment crossed over into crazy. Due consideration requires thoughtful analysis of consensus (and opposing) science and fact, and it requires a certain amount of prescient forethought; (i.e. an examination of possible outcomes). With those elements in place, (thoughtful analysis and prescient forethought), one is justified in acting drastically for the sake of improvement and progress. Yet frequently, within the bounds of tradition, and within the bounds of consumerism / capitalism, some drastic actions that have been given due consideration appear to be rash, and the perpetrator of said drastic act appears to have crossed over into crazy. A protest against police violence for example, put against a backdrop of tradition and misremembered good old days, appears to be rash and unnecessary; but against a backdrop of human rights and the prevalence and injustice of implicit and explicit bias, it is the proud, gun-toting protectors of America who are acting rashly and who have crossed over into crazy. The same can be said about the prevalence and injustice of the high costs of housing and education, and the number and ease of evictions, and the ever-increasing wealth gap when looked at against a backdrop of consumerism / capitalism vs. a backdrop of Human rights. It is the wealthy and the landlords and the dollar-driven universities and the system itself that has crossed over into crazy. We must learn to differentiate between rash and drastic and we must recognize the context. Progress (and today, I believe survival) requires thoughtful, far-reaching, drastic action.

I am an alarmist.

And the forest is dark and scary. With trees encumbered by thick, knotted trunks and branches that from here, ground level, don’t look like the appendages of trees. So many obstacles. Briars and brush and undergrowth. Rotting wood and slick, moss-covered stones. It is hard to move from here to there, and it is even more difficult to find direction.