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.
