Tag Archives: caste system - Page 4

A Thousand Years and We’re Still Doing It

Posted by on August 5, 2012 No comments

Back in the dark ages and possibly before, there has been class struggle. And the ones with the most money have the least care for the ones with the least money. And over time, as we socially evolved, our least-wealthy have experienced a growth in standards.

Back in those olden days, it was common to use your money and/or power to make the desperate do things they normally wouldn’t do. They could do it for their own amusement, or they could simply exploit them for gain, possibly through a sideshow event.  People would be attracted to these exhibitions.

So centuries go by, people get more refined, society as a whole gets better.  You’d think we’d be beyond this whole exploitation thing.

Then you see it in action in the current age.  What am I referring to?  Sign holders.  Those people who stand by the side of a road and hold a sign, usually for a “going out of business” sale, but could be for most anything, even construction workers.  I’m not referring to sign “flippers” who would be demonstrating talent – they would be more marketing or salesman types.  I‘m talking about the sad people who you know wouldn’t choose to be doing such a boring, mindless job.

And although it sounds damning against the businesses who resort to this tactic, hiring temporary employees at a minimal wage to simply stand there and do nothing but hold a sign, it’s more of a revelation to know that it really does work.  We do look at those people and those signs.  If the sign was not there, it could easily be ignored, but because there’s a person there, we check.  is it a safety thing, making sure they don’t run out in front of our car?  Is it just curiosity, “What’s that person doing?” Or is it something else like pity or sympathy?

Think about that marketing concept for a while.  A sign alone does nothing; a person standing next to a sign gives results.  The person doesn’t have to do anything, just be there.  You are paying a person to exist.  As a business decision, it is cheaper to hire people to do nothing than to spend on more/better advertising.  I guess what I’m trying to say is that some people don’t see people as being that valuable.

Making It On Your Own After You’ve Made It

Posted by on January 12, 2012 No comments

I saw a posting online about a comedian who produced his own show and distributed it himself. I guess it was supposed to be some amazing feat because he made something like a million dollars, but only invested a couple hundred thousand and only charged customers five bucks.  And I think there was something extra about the rights on the product, which were far less restrictive than normal.

So from this, people will jump to a few conclusions.  Marketing companies are greedy, middlemen are bad, and everyone should be doing this.  Some people can point to cases where this has been done before, like Radiohead.  Why aren’t there more people doing this?

The thing is, a lot of people are doing this.  Most everyone that’s trying to get started in the entertainment business is doing this.  Find a local musician and ask if they have a CD of their original music for sale.  I’ll bet they do.  Find a budding author and ask if they have any self-published digital eBooks on Amazon.

What’s the difference?  First, it’s economy of scale.  When someone famous cuts out the middleman, they are able to make more and the customer saves more because of the volume.  Actually, after you make back your production costs, you could give the product away, especially when dealing with digital products.  So this famous comedian sells 200,000 copies of his video.  Is your local musician or author going to sell 200,000 copies of their product?  Not so likely.

Secondly, it’s a perception of value.  When you have a famous person selling something for cheap, it’s viewed with high value.  When an unknown person sells something for cheap, it’s seen as having no value.  When an unknown person sells something for a high price, it gets mixed results, it may be seen as valuable or as unrealistic.  So, the local artists have an immediate hurdle to overcome.

Does that mean it’s a case of either “paying your dues” or getting your big break?  For every success, there are countless failures.  Not everyone can be a superstar.  Does it also prove out another aspect of “the rich get richer”, where they have the luxury of cutting out the middleman and can operate on their own, where lesser people have to rely on expensive assistance to accomplish the same goals.

What Will Utopia Be Like?

Posted by on September 29, 2011 No comments

We are always building robots to make things easier for us and to take care of us.  Once we create robots that can repair and maintain themselves and built more of themselves, we will no longer have to work.  We can have robots to farm for us, clean everything, transport us anywhere, create and build anything we want. They can monitor and maintain our health for us.

Once we reach that point, we won’t need to work. The robots will do everything for us and will keep us healthy.  The robots will keep themselves in working order and can build replacements as needed.  And we won’t need to have to take of them.  We will be free of any responsibility. 

What will that be like?  Initially, only the rich will be able to afford robots of that scale.  Will there be a crisis during the transition period where all work is replaced by robots, but the concept of currency is not obsolete?  I mean, it will be difficult to let go of that measure of self-worth.  At what point will robots be able to provide all the food and medical needs for a population?  I suppose once robots could build more robots, the time would compress very quickly.

It all sounds good.  But would life be like under the care of robots.  What would it be like to be the robots’ house pets?

Look at your cat or dog with jealousy at the simplicity of their lives. Look at how you take care of most every aspect of their care.  Eventually a robot will be doing that to you.  Maybe you don’t want that lifestyle; maybe you want to be “free”.  You’d run away and become feral, surviving in groups with other feral people.

And then finally, maybe we’ve have some actual population control.

Driven

Posted by on December 30, 2010 No comments

The last couple days I’ve been thinking about people who are true capitalists.  These are people who are always pushing forward, pushing themselves to do bigger and better things.  To hear conservatives talk, you’d think nothing in the world would ever get done without these people.  And when I hear things like that, sometimes I think there’s something wrong with me because I don’t have that drive.

But I also think, are these people really happy?  They never reach their goal.  There’s always something more to do.  Then I backed up and looked at my own life.  My quality of life improved at the point I stopped wanting more.  Well, that’s not the best way to say it.  My life improved at the point I stopped defining happiness as having more.  It’s more about how I hear people say, “if I had a 64” TV, I’d be happy”, “if I only had to work 20 hours a week, I’d be happy”, “I wish I could find an awesome deal on a new house.”  It’s so… specific.

So now you get what you want.  Then what?  You want something else.  You’re never focused on what you have now, you are always looking forward to what you want, keeping yourself in a perpetual feeling of non-fulfillment.  Obsessing over the lack of something keeps it in front of you, gives it power, even giving it power over you.  It doesn’t matter if it’s an object, a condition, or a person.  very simply, if you are always telling yourself “I need more money,”  don’t you always need more money?  Yes, because that’s what you keep saying.  If you keep telling yourself, “my life sucks,”  your life will suck, because no one’s arguing the point – certainly not you.

Brave New World, Indeed

Posted by on October 2, 2010 No comments

This gay student suicide is a pretty hot topic.  Given the trend for social networking and over-sharing,  this seems like growing pains to me.  It seems to be a social progression to share more and more of your private moments.  Some people – probably along generational lines (including mine) – aren’t able to handle that.  This student addressed his inability to handle it in an extreme fashion.

Eventually,  through elimination or extinction, the only ones left will not have any shame about sharing their most private moments.  Maybe at that time, prejudices will be eliminated.  It’s going to be a painful transition with more incidents like this, but, is it a cost to pay for a more positive future?  Everyone sharing everything?  Maybe bad.  People not getting stigmatized for their unique beliefs, hobbies, preferences?  Pretty good.

Obviously each of us has pretty narrow vision of how things are since we don’t live too long, relatively speaking.  Give it a few more generations and you won’t even recognize us.

Indirectly related, I wonder what’s going to happen when the current generation of over-sharers starts running for public politics.

Epiphany

Posted by on April 10, 2010 No comments

There is an infographic I found a while ago that I found quite interesting.  At the time I found it, It was a “that’s neat” response.  Upon revisiting it and doing some critical thinking, I realize that it answers so much about the current political environment.  Some questions it explains:

  • Why can we never have world peace?
  • Why can we never be equals?
  • Why must some people be poor?
  • Why do those poor people typically vote for Democrats?
  • Why are rich, white people typically Republicans?
  • Why are we so screwed up right now?

The key, for me, is understanding the base motivations of Conservatives and Liberals.  It also made me realize how liberal I am, so consider this your warning.

For reference, the graphic is at: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/left-vs-right-world

Typically, when you hear pundits talk about right/left, red/blue, Republican/Democrat, they focus on stereotypes: Democrats want to raise taxes, Republicans want to start wars, Democrats want government to control your life, Republicans only care about the rich people.  No one ever talks about why these parties do this.

A simplistic view is that Liberals want everyone to get along and to be treated equally, while Conservatives want defined classes of people.  Why do Conservatives need classes of people?  Because their whole ideology is based on getting personally rewarded for your personal efforts – the harder you work, the more reward you get.  Sounds pretty good,  and I agree with it until I realize that this requires a winner and a loser.  Your success results in failure for others.  Their success results in failure for you.  So, successful people want to remain successful and keep others that would threaten their success as subordinate. “The rich get richer.”

Why are they called Conservatives?  Because they resist change.  Things are fine just as they are, with us in control.  How far back do you have to go to see Conservatives resisting change because Conservatives were in power?  All the way back to the days of slavery.

So on the other side you have Liberals, who are always changing things in the interest of balancing power, making advancement possible for people who don’t have the resources available to richer people.  And Conservatives hate that.  First, because they didn’t get any help for their success, and second, because it gives them competition.

The other light bulb burning brightly from my study of this graphic is a key word applied to Conservatives: fear.  It is found in the relationship of parent to child.  Parents control their children through fear.  It’s been nearly 10 years that we have been besieged with a non-stop torrent of fear mongering from our Republican leaders.  When we finally received a break – in the message of “Hope” – the Republican message remained unchanged, but refocused.  Now instead of fearing an external enemy, we must fear our own government.  But only because the current president is a Democrat, once Republicans take over again, we can start worrying about the rest of the world.

So in summary, having Conservatives in charge means things will not change.  That’s great if you are a Conservative yourself and/or you are content with the way things are right now.  The problem with being Liberal is that your nature is to promote equality.  This tactic doesn’t work against a Conservative, who does not believe in equality and whose prime mission is to rise above and control others in order to succeed – little more than base, primal, instinct.

2012 can not come soon enough.

The “have it” habit

Posted by on December 3, 2009 No comments

At dinner tonight, I had the opportunity to train a new employee.  Not directly, but because nothing I ever do is simple, they got to experience exceptions to the order-taking routine.  At the close of the transaction, I was going to say something to the effect of “Enjoy your employment, lucky person” but decided against it.

As I ate, I considered this a little further.  I’m (still) employed.  I’m doing ok.  But at the same time, I’m a responsible employee and a quick learner.  I could have that job!  And since I’m still employed, I’m more desirable to employers because it shows I can keep a job.  I should have that job.

But what kind of flack would I take for doing something like that?  I’d be taking jobs away from someone who really needs one.  “You already have a good job.  Stop hoarding the jobs, jerk.”  This transitioned my thinking into class warfare: the “have’s” and the “have not’s”.  I think this needs revision.  It’s the “have not’s”, the “have enough’s” and the “have more’s”.  See, I want to advance from “have enough” to “have more”.  And I could, because I’m not currently in the “have not” crowd.

But like I said, that’s not really fair.  The rich get richer, as they derisively say.  I would be suppressing the “have not’s” – the class below me – from advancing to the “have enough’s”.  So, in order to spread some of the wealth, I will take that job.  And another.  And maybe another.  Then I will outsource my jobs to another person who could not get the job on their own.  Wait, it’s not really outsourcing, is it.  Insourcing?  No, not that either.  No, it’s reverse subletting.  I am going to sublet my jobs at a lower wage and take the difference as a “convenience fee”.  It works for property, why not jobs?

But as usual, I’m so far behind the times.  Of course, this is already done with day laborers, contract positions, and other temporary positions.  But those are all handled by businesses.  Businesses run by rich people.  The “have more’s”. Once again, I’m getting held back by the man.  It’s so hard to get ahead anymore.  Woe is me.

We can rebuild him. Faster. Stronger…wait, no we can’t.

Posted by on March 23, 2008 No comments
Had a thought today which lead to a very interesting conversation with a friend.  Back in my hometown, the whole area is depressed.  Near dead, I would say.  My early thought was, if I was a billionaire and had the inclination, how would I rebuild the city to become successful?  Why is it not successful now?
Because it’s my business, I thought tech.  The property values are so low from the terrible economy, I could buy huge buildings and turn them into data centers.  I’d just need to strike deals with the telcos to bring in enough bandwidth.  And with data centers comes the higher-paid skilled labor to run them.  Because the area might not be experienced enough to handle technology at that level, some workers would have to be brought in.
Attracting people to the area would be difficult, because there seems to be nothing here.  So as part of the investment, I’d have to buy a bunch of franchises like Chilis, Outback, Olive Garden, maybe a Dave and Busters, Chuck E Cheese, etc.
Some other thoughts started to jump in.  I don’t think the immediate area would like such urban sprawl.  The area markets itself as "Victorian", so technology and chain restaurants just don’t fit.  That’s not to say everything couldn’t be built in adjacent areas, which don’t have a persona.  In fact, the areas that don’t have a defined style are fairly better.  They attracted a new hotel, a Staples, Walmart (not all that good for the local economy as it killed off a lot of local businesses) and Home Depot (killing off a few other local lumber suppliers).
So I brought this idea up to my friend and we discussed it.  As we talked, I formulated stronger reasons why this wouldn’t work.  And I came up with an alternative plan.  The primary reason why the plan wouldn’t work is because our home town area is blue-collar.  Strong blue-collar.  My initial plan was to bring white-collar jobs in to boost the economy.  To keep the white-collar talent, I’d have to provide amenities like the chain restaurants and probably some upscale chain shopping stores.
My friend was confused as to why restaurants would change anything.  I distilled the values of white-collar and blue-collar people into a few statements:
Blue-collar workers are family-oriented. They stay in one place, they take pride in knowing all their neighbors and having a big family and extended friend circle.
White-collar workers are career-oriented.  They move frequently, they are always moving to the next job, so they don’t create large circles of friends and family.  If they need to see friends and family, they travel.  Their higher salaries afford them this luxury.
That’s all.  So what about restaurants and white collar people?  Because white collars move so much and have such hectic lifestyles, chain restaurants and stores provide comfort and familiarity.  If those familiar icons aren’t there, they feel out of place, they have to learn a bunch of new places to eat and shop.  This is different than when they are visiting, because they temporarily give up their comfort for experimentation.  "It’s a nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there."
So in summary, the local area would frown on having their Victorian theme butchered, the new white collar workers would feel out of place in a blue collar area, providing the white collars with the expected amenities would be met with resistance (see point one)… it just wouldn’t work.
But, with new clarity, what kind of business would serve a blue collar community and also provide an elevated standard of living?  It’s already pretty well known that this community can be exploited.  Telemarkting, call centers, and assembly-line sweat shops already keep the population firmly rooted in low-pay blue-collar purgatory.  My idea was warehousing.  Land is cheap and pretty plentiful, a major interstate is very close by, a blue-collar workforce is readily available (this is important for companies trying to open a warehouse in a white-collar area).  Wages could be highly competitive and might cause an upswing in other industries.  Compare this to the opening of Walmart when it was a mixed blessing to have a company hire hundreds of people at minimum wage.  Does that really help the local economy?
Phew.  This is probably my biggest posting, but it’s something I thought was interesting.  I may elaborate on this as I spend more time here.