Stephen Colbert Opening Statement

The Corporation According to Jon

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
In Dodd We Trust
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Reform

The Corporation v Small Businesses

The Corporation is a nasty old institution. They only care about profit maximization with any other concerns being secondary. With all the negative things the Corporation does, there are many advantages to working for one. Working for a corporation generally means that you will never have to interact with the owners of the company. There is a managerial hierarchy that creates a separation from managers and profit. The managers are generally concerned about things other than exactly how each worker is performing. Working for a small business where the owner is constantly breathing down your back is less preferable to a manager. Managers do not have a large vested interest in the company when an owner definitely does and this causes them to be much more controlling than a manager. Corporations, because they are so large, normally are able to offer employment to many more diverse groups of people. Corporations have more assets to train unskilled labor where a smaller company may only want to employ skilled labor. Corporations have many benefits to work for, but small privately owned businesses offer advantages as well.

Working for a large corporation it can be difficult to get noticed. Promotions and raises can sometimes be very hard to come by. Target Corporation gives $0.05 - $0.10 raises every year to their cashiers and floor staff. A $0.05 raise over the course of a year does not cover cost of living increases. When working directly with the owner of the company, employees can be more easily noticed.

The Corporation

Corporation is defined by the OED as “A body corporate legally authorized to act as a single individual; an artificial person created by royal charter, prescription, or act of the legislature, and having authority to preserve certain rights in perpetual succession”. This definition is a very, complex and wordy definition. Essentially a corporation is a business that is recognized and supported by the state and has the legal rights of a natural person. A natural person is a human being, as opposed to an artificial legal person. A corporation’s main function is profit. Profit without regard for the cause and effect. Soon after the Civil War and ratification of the 14th amendment, corporate lawyers claimed that they should be treated as a person and thus earned the rights of a person, e.g. the ability to own property, buy other businesses, sue and be sued.

Corporations are protected by government and financed by banks. The owners, shareholders and other interests in corporations are not directly responsible for their actions. It is the corporation, the single entity, which is responsible. Therefore no human individuals are at fault legally for any of the corporation’s actions. Justice Louis Brandeis called corporations “Frankenstein monsters”. Frankenstein after he was created destroyed his creator. The people created the corporation and the corporations soon turned against the people. Corporations do not care about the people or any negative effects that they may have on them. They care only about increasing their own profits.

People generally do not ask what corporations are. Corporations are involved in our daily life. They own almost every aspect of our lives. They own or produce the news, media, automobiles, food, water, et cetera. It is nearly impossible to go through a full day without once seeing an advertisement by a corporation either to sell their goods or create a better name for them. They have a larger influence on daily life than people realize. It is interesting why more people do not actively realize the influence corporations have. Corporations work very hard to make sure that their name is not slandered and people do not question them. They spend large amount of money in things like philanthropic work and environmental sustainability, and make sure it is well known. Plus how could someone who works forty hour weeks to have enough money to feed a family ever have anytime to philosophically question anything.

Para-Universities

Para-university is higher education that specializes in certain areas. The OED defines ‘para’ as “beyond or distinct from, but comparable to”. Para-universities, like the University of Phoenix Online, offer certifications and degrees to many people who can either afford the time needed to earn a degree at a traditional university or are looking for something more tailored to them and their work. One of the benefits of these para-universities is that they teach skills that can instantly be applied on the job.

These para-universities are for-profit academic institutions. This driving factor of profit may change the more traditional public and private colleges. The incentive of profit means that the para-universities will tailor their programs and services to best meet their customers. The para-universities will have to innovate in order to compete and distinguish themselves from traditional universities. Offering specific training and real world knowledge and skills could possibly eliminate the need for a traditional education for some jobs.

Some claim that if these para-universities were to gain a larger market share that funding for traditional institutions could suffer and thus their education would suffer. If the para-universities come up with a way to “steal” students from the traditional universities then they would also be forced to innovate new ways to education in order to compete with the para-universities. Adding competition to the market generally does not cause terrible things. If para-universities are the future then the market will dictate it.

Outsourcing and the Job Market

Specialization in trade, efficiency, and profit maximization are what outsourcing is about. Outsourcing is the shifting of internal activities of a firm to an outside company. Since the early 1990s, many U.S. firms have outsourced some of their functions in order to improve efficiency. Outsourcing has enabled these firms to improve their efficiency by specializing on activities that maximize their profits. Labor costs are also lowered through outsourcing which drives down the costs of products for consumers.

Economic and technological development throughout the years has allowed for more efficient methods of production. Outsourcing domestically is not directly causing the declining job market, rather outsourcing is a side effect of other factors. Saying outsourcing is causing job loss domestically is like saying that a bullet is what killed a man. It was not the bullet that killed a man but the gun the fired the bullet and the man that pulled the trigger. Firms want to operate where they will maximize profit and efficiency. There are many factors domestically that drive up labor costs, e.g. unions, safety regulations, price floors, taxes, labor laws. Foreign governments, having more lenient labor laws, allow for firms to reduce the cost of their labor by outsourcing offshore.

A person losing their job and not being able to find work in their field domestically is not necessarily a good thing. However, in time the economy will shift towards different industries for workers to partake in. Farming used to be a large industry for many U.S. workers. With technological advances many farmers were forced to leave the industry and seek jobs elsewhere. The same thing has happened with manufacturing industry. A bachelor’s degree is now the minimum education level needed to be competitive in the job market. Where in the past a high school diploma could suffice now higher education, more than four years, is almost necessary to be competitive.

Taylorism in the Workplace

Two years of my life were spent working for Frisch’s Restaurants, Inc.  Working as a Drive-Thru attendant I held a very low end, service oriented position.  I was as Stuart Tannock calls it, on the front lines of the Service Sector.  Each and every day I expected to be ridiculed, underappreciated and yelled at by customers and managers.  I was expected to perform better than anyone in the position could.  Irate customers always were able to find the smallest flaw in the service we were providing and made sure we knew about it.  I once had a customer throw their order at me from their car, utter a few colorful metaphors, and drive off as if they were in a race.  Not only did customers expect the best out of us but managers expected that and more.

From our managers it was always expected that we follow each guideline to the letter.  To achieve maximum efficiency a bible of drive-thru was created for us.  The guidelines applied Taylorism, or scientific management, to achieve maximum efficiency.  Depending on how many people were in the Drive-Thru we were each assigned different tasks.  Different divisions included, hot side, cold side, order taker, cashier and runner.  Guidelines described the responsibilities of each of these divisions and explicitly stated how each would operate.  A standard method was created for performing each task and they were expected to be performed exactly.  Every step down to how many condiments go with each sandwich was planned out.  Managers, at the beginning of each shift, assigned people to different divisions based on how well they performed.  At the end of each shift managers were able to grade us based on how well we performed. 

The strict guidelines inhibited innovation and personality within the workplace.  The order taker and cashier had a script that had to be read exactly for each customer.  The hot and cold side workers had no room for changing how they did things to improve their individual efficiency.  I thought that most of the guidelines were written by someone who had never set foot in a Drive-Thru.  At my Frisch’s we were able to deviate from the rules.  As long as we were under the 2:15 goal for average time per car they left us alone.  Occasionally the cashier would receive tips for excellent service, something that would not have happened if they stuck to the script.  It did not take long for me to learn to bend the rules to improve our efficiency.  The rules did not state what to do when certain items were missing.  One of our managers had no idea what to do when we ran out of ice cream blocks for a desert.  He frantically called other locations to try to get more ice cream blocks.  A simple solution that the Drive-Thru came up with was to use the normal ice cream instead.  A manager was unable to realize this simple fix because he too strictly followed guidelines. 

My overall experience with Frisch’s and the service sector was interesting.  It allowed me to appreciate service sector jobs and the level of stress that is involved.  Taylorism was used in the workplace to an extent, though we deviated often from the written guidelines.  Individuals are different and the most efficient way for one person may not be the most efficient way for another.  Taylorism attempts to achieve maximum efficiency by scientifically controlling every aspect of production.  It fails in that it allows for little innovation, personality and causes hostility towards higher ups.  

The Creative Class

The creative class is an interesting thesis that Richard Florida has created. His definition of a class as being “the way people organize themselves into social groupings and common identities based principally on their economic function” is accurate for the most part. Florida argues however that individuals separate themselves into classes based on what they do, or their economic function. Class is normally defined based on economics in the sense that you are separated based on how much money and purchasing power you have. The Creative Class consisting of people “who add economic value through their creativity” and defined based on their social, cultural and lifestyle choices, as Florida describes it, does not agree with my classical understanding of class. The OED defines class as “a system that divides members of a society into sets based on social or economic status". According to this definition the Creative Class is a legitimate description of a class of workers newly forming.

The authors of Creative Class Struggle argue that Florida’s Creative Class does not apply to reality and exists only in an ideal world. They state, “Florida has chosen to celebrate—a system that cannot function without extreme levels of inequality”. They claim that the Creative Class only accounts for around 30% of society and that the other 70% are just left out to dry. They claim that Florida asking people to focus on supporting the Creative Class only hurts other aspects of society, i.e. Florida’s Service Class. I find it interesting how the authors of the Creative Class Struggle are themselves members of Florida’s Creative Class, and actually benefiting from it.

I define class, based on economics as how much money one has, not necessarily what one contributes to the economy. The Creative Class for me, is not a distinct social class, but is grouping of people who participate in similar work. No extra attention and effort by the government should be put into raising the Creative Class. Creative Class Struggle seems to agree with this. I feel that Florida leaves out many members of society and does not promote diversity. If the Creative Class is truly important then things will change over time to accommodate for them.

The American Dream

The American dream and class jumping are closely tied. James Truslow Adams described the American dream in his book Epic of America. He said:

The American Dream is that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for every man, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. […] It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.

Class jumping is also the dream of moving up the social order tree. In Polyestra’s memoir she described her parents as desperately wanting to move up the social order. Her parents enrolled them in finishing classes, ballroom dancing classes, private schools and anything else that could give them the “better” life. Both her and her sister resented these activities and were rarely accepted by the other students. This method of trying to class jump obviously backfired in her case especially because it was something she did not want.

Class jumping and the American dream can become destructive when material wealth is the only focus. In Polyestra’s case her parents were never happy with where they were. They never stopped to appreciate what they had and actually enjoy life. Always thinking of counterfactuals, what they could have if they did something. This is true of many in America today I feel. Many people seem dissatisfied with their current standings, jobs, lives, et cetera. Thinking toward the future, to what one can have, can give motivation to work harder, save, invest and make good decisions to get there. While doing so however, it would not hurt to stop and think about where you are and what you have.

Education is most likely the best approach to class jumping and living the American Dream. By obtaining a higher education, you make yourself more valuable to employers. Generally the more valuable you are to employers; the more you will be paid. More pay leads to a surplus of funds and thus more wealth. A higher education not only allows for more pay, but it also allows for more choice in what one does. You can be a doctor, teacher, lawyer, astronomer, physicist, historian, or anything else that makes you happy. The American Dream is all about maximizing happiness not only through material wealth but also through enjoyment of profession of choice. Focusing on material goods and wages as Polyestra’s parents did led them to unhappiness. They were seeking recognition for something that they weren’t. The American Dream is about being recognized for who you are, not what you have. Only when you recognize yourself for who you are, will do the same.

Sources:
http://memory.loc.gov/learn/lessons/97/dream/thedream.html

Changing Morality

John B. Judis makes the claim in Value-Free that capitalism promotes positive values and cannot be blamed for the decline of morality that many see in American culture. Some view today’s youth as being godless, immoral, lazy and irrational. With a move into our current age, work as become less necessary for youth and the importance of education has risen. Higher education encourages freethinking and free thought leads to developing ones own ideas of morality and virtue. Instead of adopting the morality and virtue of ones parents, community, or church a more individualistically true sense of self is created. This is good not only for the individual but society as well. Instead of trying to achieve goals and expectations set by others, people are more concerned with how they feel and what makes them happy. If on an individual level people are striving to better themselves and maximize happiness this will benefit all of society.

It is not a decline in morality as much as it is a change in morality. The older generation may view the changing views on morality and virtue in a negative way, but the younger generation really should not care. As Judis states, “What is at stake is not the decline of morality but its redefinition – a process in which all Americans, from born-again to New Age to agnostic, are already participating. In the words of Bob Dylan, the times they are a-changin’.

Calling or Job?

The workers interviewed in Gig each thought of their work in different ways. Only one of the interviewees truly viewed their work as a calling. Katy Bracken, the second-grade teacher, started out having no idea what she wanted to do in life. She was able to find her to way through several teaching assistant programs. Through the years she came to love teaching children. This work she does is truly a calling because she enjoys doing it, it makes her happy and she is affecting others in positive ways.

Katy said, “I’ve been, like, redeemed by teaching. Like teaching was right for me. I’m a person that should be a teacher”. She recognizes here that her career is a calling for her. Not only is she helping herself in her career but also she is benefiting the students that she is teaching each year. Helping them to learn more about the world and getting them ready for later years.

The UPS driver and the Wal-Mart greater view their work in different a different way, they view them as jobs. The Wal-Mart greeter enjoys his work and it brings great joy to him but he really only does it to give him something to do in retirement. The UPS driver views his work as a job to give him money. Though it can be very interesting and rewarding at times he currently hates his job and has difficulties finding higher purpose in it.

All of the workers interviewed show the same admiration for their job, if not currently then in the past. They all enjoy what they do and get some reward from it. Only the teacher’s I would consider calling and I think she would agree.

Work as a Calling

Work generally is not something anyone wants to do. It is something that is normally done in order to earn an income to support themselves or their family and do things they want to do. To me, work is not all about money, promotions and glory but instead about enjoying what I do and knowing my work is helping others. The Dalai Lama said that a higher purpose could be found in even the most mundane tasks. Though the factory worker handling food items may recognize that the products he is producing will feed others I doubt that he would call his job a calling.

The work I have done so far I would not consider a calling for me. I worked as a retail sales associate for Circuit City Stores Inc for two years. I enjoyed the work but not because I thought I was genuinely helping others but instead I liked the pay, and my co-workers. Work that is a calling for me would be something that I enjoy doing and something that benefits others. Monetary benefits help, but if I can be doing work that makes me happy I consider that better than work that I do not like, but pays a lot.

I differentiate a career from a job. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a career as an occupation undertaken for a significant period of a person’s life, usually with opportunities for progress. A career is a calling, requires a higher education and lots of time invested into it to achieve. A job is a paid position of regular employment according to OED. A job is not a calling, can be done with little education and is done for simply monetary benefits. Not to say that you can only enjoy what you do if you have a college degree I think that it helps because it allows one to choose what they want to do to make you happy.

Overall I think most people in America would call their work a job, something that they are doing to support themselves and family. Not something that they see higher purpose in and enjoy doing day in day out.