Sunday, June 8, 2014

The Low Wage Dance



Saturday, June 7, 2014

The Minimum Wage and Economic Mobility 

By Kurt von Behrmann 



I was up late one night, and just felt the need to get these ideas out and into the world wide web.  Several days ago I read a response to an item I had posted.  The entry under my original post made me ponder.  It also left me a bit angry in that I could not understand the reason behind anyone seeing a negative to the establishment of a higher minimum wage.  For decades, wages have remained stagnant.  What has not remained frozen are the assorted costs for living.  Rent, education, cars, insurances, homes, food, energy nearly anything that can be purchased as risen in price. 

I can’t address everything, but let me touch upon some points.  There are jobs that are frequently seen as low paying and therefore jobs that require very little.  Often the opposite is true.  Bus drivers can be paid as little as $ 9.37 an hour. What many may not realize is that the training is demanding.  One has to know detailed parts of a bus and pass several demanding exams.   They are also responsible for hundreds of lives and must deal with the physical task of assisting disabled passengers, and this requires a great deal of effort. 

Walmart is notorious for low pay.  One can expect $ 8.86 an hour full time without benefits.  These jobs are not easy.  One may be required to do everything from moving carts, handling inventory, dealing with customer service and stocking shelves, as well as assisting with shipping.  While all of this is transpiring, one may be pulled from the floor for mandatory training. This can take place all in one day. 
Fast food may seem like an easy profession. It is not. It is fast paced, requires standing up for hours on end and dealing with customer service. These jobs are not easy.   Call center work is the same way.  It is fast paced and your bonuses can be taken away at a moment’s notice with incentive programs designed to make sure you cannot take advantage of them. 

From personal observable experience, I know of one working mother who works as a server for a large cinema chain.  She works long hours, deals with a demanding work loads while standing and is paid $ 5.00 an hour.  She depends on tips, and those are infrequent.  Let me add, this individual is highly educated, speaks several languages fluently and is also involved in continuing education for another career.  At present, in our economy, this is what she could find.  Previously she had been a very well paid professional who received a 30 percent raise during her tenure at her previous job. The argument that servers and others are lazy and lack ambition is a fiction.  It is not the reality of the present. 

There is an argument that people who work these jobs have it “easy.” They do not.    
One may also comment on social mobility.  Sadly, that is becoming nearly impossible.  Tuition hikes are unending.  This key stone for advancement is becoming inaccessible. Supplies for courses are rising.  Hundreds of dollars are not uncommon figures when it comes to supplies.  As the price of an education rises, assistance is going down.  

Loans burden students with eternal debt.  Without an education, social mobility becomes impossible, or at best highly unlikely to happen.  I arrived at a shock regarding my education costs when I attended high school.  I was fortunate to attend a very good private high school.  My family was able to afford the costs, which were rather high in the 70’s. Tuition for the school then was about $ 2,000.00 a year.  Flash forward to now and that same education costs $ 30,000.00 a year!  

There is the idea that hard work pays off in terms of compensation.  It doesn’t always work out that way.  The fiction that hard work leads to economic mobility is simply a fiction.  You can work hard and go nowhere. The huge wage disparity between those who perform labor and those that are in ownership positions and management posts where two hour lunches become tax deductible business expenses is in part to blame.  Enormous corporations are utilizing the commons, paying below living wage salaries to their workers and then off shore jobs in order to avoid U.S. taxes. 

The wealthy become wealthier and the poor become even more destitute. 

Our economic system works on consumption.  Products are produced with the idea that they will be sold.  The more items sold, the better.  However, with a destitute majority, goods and services will decline in consumption.  Without a viable consumer market, there is no economy.  What we have witnessed now are austerity approaches to the economy.  As consumption weakens, jobs are lost.  While jobs and the attendant lower wages proliferate, companies look for cheaper means of labor. This translates into jobs being moved over seas and stagnate wages on these shores.     
  
                There are other reasons for wage discrepancies.  The lack of dedication on the part of some elected officials to social services that empower people and assist in their self-reliance are in a large part to blame.   Privatization of public education through the establishment of charter schools translates into defunding public education.  What is offered as choice, more charter schools, is in reality the opening of poorly funded public ones with the idea that privatization is the answer to the woes of our dilapidated education system.  Charter schools are not subject to the same scrutiny as public ones are.  These new charter schools are funded by diverting funds that would go to public schools. 

                If you would like to know more, read what the Alabama Education Association has to say on the topic. 


                The forces that are creating and maintaining an American underclass are numerous. They are also complex.  What compounds the problem is that we have not had a political environment that has addressed the issue of economic inequity in a straight forward manner.   What we have is grid locked government because one party, the Republican Party, has made it very clear in actions and in language that they intend to do nothing. They have done just that, nothing.
               


Sunday, May 25, 2014

How A Movement Can Become A Political Force

The Elements Of Political Action

By: Kurt von Behrmann     

    I was jogging on a sunny day.  For some inexplicable reason my thoughts drifted to places far removed from where I was and what I was doing.  The place where my mental energies were headed address political issues.  Prior to leaving my home to go out and literally pound the pavement and the earth, my television was set to Free TV. The subject was something that escapes my memory.  Like some type of trigger, that particular broadcast made me think of political movements and just what made some successful, less than adequate or just total failures.

    In what now seems like a distant past, the Occupy Wallstreet movement was at one time a unifying force, if ever so briefly.  People from assorted spectrums of the political realm were brought together.  The force that created this unity cut across age, ethnicity and social economic divisions.  It was a force that was produced by outrage and hope.  The outrage was inequity.  The hope was that somehow people power alone could correct the imbalance. The damaged left by the banking debacle had created the fertile soil for outraged.  Everyone wanted to do something about it. The problem was that no one really know exactly what to do.



Marching To The Beat Of  A Public Drum


    Cynicism merged with apathy does not make for an enthused electorate.  The fall out from promises not kept, rhetoric that appeals to base emotions exclusively and a media machine that blends news with entertainment had left in its shadow a disillusioned populace.  Compounding the problem was a failing public school system, exorbitant college tuitions, a weak economy and jobs leaking to foreign soil, all of these things and more have created a highly disengaged America.  In the eyes of far too many political life and ideology were nebulous. The impact of the bigger decisions made by government and big business were seem as part of a unchangeable world.  Questioning and taking action were dwarfed by the more herculean task of living.  Survival becomes a dominant consideration when you have to spend all of your time figuring out how your going to make it from one day to the next.  Living pay day to pay day doesn’t leave a lot of time for reflection.



    At a point when everything looked dim, at a place when too many confusing events were transpiring in an endless parade of terror, gloom and futility, the occupy movement arrived.  Unlike other movements of its time, this seemed to be the first that united students, business owners, the middle class, the struggling and people of political persuasions that had little in common united in some deeply felt shared interests.  Vets returning home could be seen leading protests against banks.  Public parks were alive with people and the very notion that things can change when enough people gather.  Like Camelot, it was a romantic, dream filled time when anything seemed possible.  Like those past times, this one was filled with faith in the idea of a noble future set against a very bleak present.

    Any system established long enough with enough force can become a considerable force to contend with at any time. Occupy Wallstreet as its participants believed was just that movement.  In many ways, it felt like the 60's revisited.  Joan Baez was singing songs of protest, people were literally taken to the streets and cities all over where growing their own Occupy movements.  It felt like a force was starting that was destined to grow. It felt like a force that would have an impact.

    A brief encounter with optimism can be followed by abrupt conclusions.  The movement that motivated the disenfranchised, the detached and the hopeful had faded like a balloon slowly leaking air.  It did not end with trumpets blaring.  The conclusion of this vital movement flickered and was gone almost as quickly as it arrived.  Now it feels like a small piece of history that could very well be forgotten.  Unlike Camelot, there were no glamorous heads of state to provided identity and focus.  The mystery movement that seemed to erupt from no where vanished into the pages of books and web sites to be forgotten. 

    Ultimately, Occupy Wallstreet failed in securing its place in the political arena. It elected no officials.  It did not change any policies.  What it did do was slightly annoy those that like the status quo. It did provide hope, but not enough to keep the momentum flowing.

    As my mind wandered off into reflections on the Occupy Movement, it detoured.  I thought about other movements that motivated people.  I thought about political parties that arose from small groups that eventually had the force to alter nations.  I thought about how the ineffectual became influential.   I thought about how the powerless become the powerful.

    In sharp contrast to the Tea Party, Occupy Wallstreet did not have the mighty force of organized officials, and the support of an economic powerhouse of a political party.  For all of their protestations of independence, the Tea Party was in reality a concentrated branch of the Republican Party designed to appeal to populist sentiments.  It was a classic case of the outsider thinly veiled as an insider.  What their God fearing flag waving contingent probably missed was that it was Ayn Rand, and not Jesus, who delineated the philosophical identity of this new branch of revolutionary conservatives.  Objectivism may not have been in the vocabulary of the Tea Party hoi poli. It certainly was in its leadership.
   
    Where Occupy Wallstreet had fallen short, their counterparts were not so weak. The Tea Party, with considerable economic support behind its “folksy” demeanor, had won elections. Washington would see an influx of “new blood” not sure of the mechanization of life inside the Belt Way.  Although green, naive and in far too many ways ill equipped for the duties that awaited them, they did win.   Now, the tides are shifting.  The winds  that propelled their sails are no longer as numerous.

    History is a great educator.  It takes no more than a little effort, along with a little insight, to figure out what is required to turn a disillusioned aggregate into a unified force.  The ingredients are easy enough to figure out. What is sometimes so alarming is that so many in the contemporary landscape have forgotten just what they are.

    The first thing any group needs is a message. It does no good to gather unless you have a platform formed.  Laying out your agenda ensures that when you make your appeal to the public you have figured out what the key issues are and your stance on them.  Having a full formed view on everything from economic theory to social stability provides answers for questions that will have to be answered at some point.  This is one of those times when the best prepared are the best equipped to handle the job. 

    Having a full formed agenda is a starting point. It is actually essential.  This document, or documents becomes the D.N.A. of your political group.  The importance of establishing a doctrine and a course of action cannot be underestimated.  It is truly the critical element that differentiates the hard core from the dilettantes.

    Immediately after the spinal column of the group has been committed to paper and formed the body of the group, the second phase is producing a message that defines the pressing issues that define the group.   In contemporary terms it comes down to the “sound bite.”  The message has to be succinct, to the point and easily understood.  The key message has to be one that solves the most pressing issues of the day.  It cannot ignore what are the concerns of the larger group.  It cannot be so esoteric that it becomes the domain of the few. Yet, it cannot be so simplistic as to seem simple minded.  The voice that gathers the group must be one that the group understands and can feel at ease supporting.  The winning issues that always work are those that address prosperity and equity.  No one is ever elected to office that fails to promise better times to come. In order for those better times to arrive, one has to supply what is needed.

    The key point message is critical.  It is also critical that it be brief.  It is best, as time has proven, to make three key points the body of your message.  Naturally, one can answer many concerns, but you must first frame the discussion with the key identifying features that define what the organization, group, or body wants to accomplish.  This is more difficult than it sounds. Everyone has his or her “pet” issues.  But, you must address the most pressing, the most important of the day woven into your identity and goals.

    Organization of crowds becomes another key feature.  You can start with an existing group and build from that point.  One can also grow your group using a core group of people that are dedicated to the group.  This is essential.  The core following is what generates the numbers needed to make an impact.  There are assorted ways to do this.  Social media, organizational groups, and again, an existing group that can be the back bone of your entire group.  One group that has proven time and time again to be a beginning point is the church.  Church groups can be the backbone of an organized, disciplined hard core work force motivated by faith and common ground.

    Part of organization demands actual meetings.  The web and all of its contents are excellent as tools, but people are social by nature.  Human beings are hard wired for interaction with each other.  There is unity and power in numbers.  Staging events invigorates individuals and provides the glue that holds all the parts into one well conceived whole.

    Supporters are integral to the scheme of things. Finding common ground with others not of your identity broadens the base.  If you encounter another group with similar goals, or at least one common point of interest, friendships can be established and a broader audience reached.  It never hurts to have friends.  The idea is to reach as many people as possible.  You alienate as few as possible.  Your doors are welcoming, not exclusionary.

       
    Last, but far from being least, a movement needs a leader.  Many may find it off putting to put someone in charge, but in order for a movement to become more than a social gathering, there has to be a leader.  This leader must be able to articulate goals and motivate others.  The leader, he or she, must embody the soul of the movement.  The leader of the group has to be absolutely convinced in the the goals of the movement.  While acting skills and presentation are part of the package, it means nothing if there is not sincere belief in the movement.  An audience can smell insincerity.  One can hide and deceive for a while, but not in a movement that is attempting to make serious change and has a vital message to convey, the fake and the fraudulent will never succeed.  Great leaders embody the movements that they head. 

    There is also the one indefinable element that elevates a person to leadership and that is charisma.  You can call it star power, call it what you will, it is that hard to define feature that makes some so compelling on a stage.  There are some gifted with the power to make others follow.  Eloquence, intelligence and a sense of the times are part of the equation.  But, that hard to define charisma is what transforms an individual into the centerpiece of a movement that aims to have a lasting impact.

   
    By nature human beings are visual.  Concepts and ideas are important. They are critical. But people as a general rule need something tangible to connect the theory into the real.  One of the reasons people pick up souvenirs is that they want a physical reminder of a sensation.  A moment in time is not concrete.  Memories alter fade and sometimes vanish.  However, a memento gives something fleeting a certain permanence.  Having something to hold, touch see and feel is important.

    No movement lacks a signature visual.  It can be as simple as a button. There is always something visual to see that gives a physical quality to the whole.   Banners, uniforms, parades and symbols are the mainstay of any political movement.  Rallies are the visual logos of politics. They are the essence of what people want, participation in an event larger than themselves.  Large scale gatherings with banners, symbols and large open spaces are the citadels of the public space. People power is potent.  When large numbers congregate, power is present.






    The machinery of politics are complex. They require specific elements in order to be successful.  Money is the life blood of politics.  The mind is the soul of politics.  The people are its body that holds the various parts together.  You cannot have one element in isolation.    They all must be present in order to work.  Let one part fail, and the others cease to be in good health.

    What usually precedes a new movement are past failures.  Let a political system fail to serve the needs of the people long enough while at the same time locked in conflict so intense that decision making and statesmanship seem like lost ideas, let these things happen and the seeds of strong discontent will grow into very tall trees.  When corruption, greed and economic repression increase, at some point everything will erupt. Chaos will follow.

    When leadership fails, incomes shrink and inflation becomes a constant, someone or something will come along to fill the leadership vacuum.  The smug and self important are so accustomed to not having their way that when the game changes, they are rendered null and void.

    It is difficult with any certainty to say what will be or what could be.

   

Monday, October 28, 2013

Monday, October 28, 2013
Art Rant Number One

Kurt von Behrmann

Edvard Munch's The Scream

                There are any number of questions you can ask an artist.  You can inquire about the nature of the work or the themes involved.  There exist a plethora of questions one can ask.  Out of all of them that are possible one struck me as a bit offensive.  That question, you may ask is this.
Do you actually “sell” your work?
                The reason that question is so irksome is that it reduces art to just dollars and cents.  It does not address quality, merit or artistic direction.  The question ignores other issues like Republicans hate concessions.  A refutation of the merit of art is boldly addressed when it comes to value based on the market.
                If, and I do say if, the market is so damn accurate than why was a van Gogh worth a few dollars to be deemed priceless later.  If the market is so damn accurate artist’s monetary value would be as permanent as gravity.
                The subject is squarely art and money. The sad reality is that so many always ask the same question, do you get paid and how much?  After a while question becomes an attack on credibility.  Art should be of merit irrespective of the price.  A van Gogh is no less wonderful if it were a few dollars or millions of them.  The value of the work is in the aesthetic value.
                Ideally a work of art must stand on its own.  Its price simply a reality that artists have to get paid.  Just like the lawyer, the doctor, the butcher and the candlestick maker.  Everyone has to live.
                But when art is reduced to just another transaction, something about the idea seems coarse and ill considered.  Art is supposed to be more than a price tag.  In an ideal world it should be something of wonder that poses questions or inspires to greatness.  Art that fails to take a higher road only winds up sitting in a gutter wondering what went wrong.

                People will always wonder about the careful dance that is art and money. Too bad that the fiscal always trumps the artistic side.

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Good Golly Miss Miley: LOVE SEX AND ROCK AND ROLL



Good Golly Miss Miley
Miley Cyrus Sex Machine

Tuesday, October 08, 2013
By Kurt von Behrmann

                Every since Rock and Roll ignited, sex was omnipresent.  From the flamboyant gender bending expressiveness of Little Richard to the “Pelvis of Elvis,” sexuality was the propelling force.  What had been the deep dark secret, teen age sexuality, found spokesmen, and spokeswoman who were ready to abandon convention and find release, and to some degree sanctuary, by coming up with music that gave a voice to the voiceless.  Whatever you want to make of it, the early cries of rock and roll were rebels with clues and a pretty good idea of what they wanted, and what they did not.
                The screams, the inescapable beat, rock and roll was freedom and it found in music lyrics that expressed something deep felt.


                Move ahead and the sex is with us.  What is not with us is the sincerity that made the music compelling.
                Miley Cyrus and her much talked about performance at the V.M.A.s joins a long line of shock for impact sexuality that is mean to be daring, cutting edge, risky and all those great things about rebels that everyone loves and embraces. What is often missing from the embrace of the rebellious spirit is that it can be unpopular.    To be unpopular is a cardinal sin in the sex sweepstakes that is now the currency of contemporary music.
                When America’s much loved teen, Hannah Montana grew up and became Milley Cyrus, the jolt was surprising.  Then again, scant talent has to do what it must to be popular.   Her roots as a childhood idol are blasted to bits.  The new Miley is grown up and ready to screw.  Not make love, but screw.
                What makes stunts memorable is that they are linked to something.  Whatever you may say about some music, the most memorable had more to say than sex is fun.  There was a revolutionary feel to free love that hinted at something better. Even if 60’s ideals failed to outlive the early 70’s, at least it was sincere. Misguided and jejune, but fueled by earnest attempts to make life better not worst.
                One reason given for the sex pot sexuality of is that is so new so hot.  Well sex sells, so that is nothing new.  What is new is that sex has become  harsher, scarier and less a place for pleasure than a s show down.  The truly erotic are gone.  They have been replaced by a power force sexuality that takes on a life of its own.  Minus any emotion or genuine feeling, the new sexuality exists to exist. It means no more than what it is.
                It is the harsh, almost assault that sexuality has become that makes songs like “will you still love me tomorrow” seem old fashioned.  Today it is all about the flesh.  It is more like “what will you do for me” is the new mantra of sex.
                What makes sex sell in music so tragic now is that it seems so unemotional. It is not about connecting it is about power sex meant to do little more than scream to be heard. 
                I suppose what makes Miley Cyrus “ sexcapades “ so insincere is that it is all programmed.  It was a calculated move to keep lips wagging.  On that level, Cyrus succeeded brilliantly.   Her plan paid off.
                When Madonna and Brittany Spears shared a faux lesbian kiss, can anyone remember what they were singing.  All I remember is the kiss.  Somehow the music was left behind.
                The same thing is true of Cyrus. No one talks about the music.  Everyone talks about the sexual antics.   Instead of music that talks about sex,  now we  have pure unemotional sex with music as an unobtrusive backdrop to music no one may remember.
                This essay is not to say the past was better.  It wasn’t in some respects.  There are plenty of  acts that use sex.  Taylor Swift uses sex as her primary theme.  She uses it to make music. She is not a sex object. In the man woman dance that is  heterosexuality, she uses her music to depict the loss of someone looking for love but ultimately ending up with jerks and sex hounds. 
                At the very least, people listen to Swift’s music.  She sells in the millions. I doubt if you will ever see her sitting naked on a wrecking ball.  It is highly unlikely.
                Someone I keep thinking if someone wants to really talk about sex, something tells me it would not sell. If someone really told it like it is with powerful music to match, I doubt if itunes would be jumping.  There are numerous strong musical acts.  The sad reality is a lot of true talent either sells poorly or is eclipsed by the new sex as a mean playground sexuality.
                Never before in music has sex seemed so vulgar and so unappealing.  They get the bump and grind of sex but miss the real fire that turns sex into something more than bodies bumping in the night.
                In a world where everything is sexualized from revealing outfits to little girls learning to walk in heels, the entire U.S. finds no outrage at toddlers and tiaras.
                The big defense that musical acts like Cyrus use is that this is all part of their artistic expression.   When your expression is connected with the most cynical side of the music making machine, taking on the mantel of art is a real insult to art and those that practice the profession.  If sex did not sell so well, I doubt is Cyrus would be using it at all.   

                Art is ultimately about expression, making statements and creating that which is new. It is not about sex for the sake of sex.  Sex for shock has been done. All that is left is to become more silly, more empty and more devoid of real human emotion.  Sex for sex sake is not a message. It is a desperate bid for attention when you have nothing to say.