I haven't done well in many things, but one place I did excel was school. I got good grades, ranked high on standardized tests, and impressed my teachers during class discussion. School was my first experience outside of the family, and it was going so well that when I was young, I thought I would have similar success with my career. Lo and behold, by the time I graduated with honors from college, I spent the next decade struggling to find a job worthy of education. It seemed that the only careers open to me for things like substitute teacher, pedicabber, or laborer. Even though I'd done well in school, the job market didn't actually need people like me, and so I was relegated to jobs that felt demeaning.
My story isn't uncommon. I have many friends with college degrees who just can't seem to find that professional career path they feel they should be on. Instead, they worked alongside me as pedicabbers or they squander their four years of liberal arts study by preparing cappuccinos all day. Throughout this populace, there is subtle unhappiness. It's not just that they wonder why they spent four years in undergraduate school (and paid the corresponding tuition), it's that they now think that they're too good for their current station in life. They're too good to be baristas and general laborers. Because of this attitude and this incipient expectation to become something better, they never fully settle into their work. They live in perpetual discontent, waiting for the day their big break comes.
While I was in India, I was struck by how different their attitude towards work was. Although the caste system has officially been done away with, it persists to this day in the same subtle ways that racism persists in the United States. For all it offends the American sensibilities of equality and opportunity, it did have apparent merits, including a greater contentment amongst the lowest classes. At construction sites, women would carry heavy loads of stone on their heads all day, making only 40Rs—the equivalent of .95 cents. Men would be during their own back-breaking labor with shovels and sledge hammers. While I had done something similar in the US during my stint with the E-Corps, my co-workers and I constantly bickered about it. I didn't see the same dissatisfied posturing amongst the Indian workers.
This makes me wonder if perhaps the high value we place on education in the United States is a disservice to our youth. It fills them with dreams and with pride that society is not able to satisfy. It convinces them that they will have a significant role somewhere, but instead market forces will relegate most of them to something far below their expectations. Is this enlightened behavior for a society? Because from what I see, it spreads discontent.
The only way I can comprehend what's going is to once again compare society to a human body and careers to types of cells. Police officers are white blood cells, constantly patrolling the veins looking for interlopers. Educators and white collar works are neurons, synthesizing information and directing the movements of society. Laborers are muscles, garbagemen are liver cells, truck drivers are blood cells. And I (and those other over-educated, under-employed members of my generation) are fat cells. We are the reserves. We serve little immediate society beyond, perhaps, keeping others warm during the winter. Really, our true purpose is to be the reserves. We are the back-ups. We have an education and a desperate eagerness to join the middle-class workforce. When society has a need for more workers, we're readily available to fill the role.
Just as having a little fat is good for a human body, having a little fat is good for a society. The only problem is that the United States has grown obsess. We support a lot of people who aren't really doing much. We've grown heavy with a populace of fat cells, many of which want to be muscles and brains, instead. What will it take for society to get back in shape?
interesting post, especially following the one theorizing that elites may be useful in times of scarcity. so, wouldn't it follow that in times of abundance, elites are hoarding what would best be spread around?
ReplyDeletei would argue that the deepest cause of dissatisfaction among the "under-employed" is the lack of living wages, power and creative freedom at their jobs. if there is plenty of education/resources (at least for some), and not enough jobs that require high levels of responsibility or creativity, then why not reorganize the way we work together? Instead of allowing only 5% of the staff to have important decision making power (upper management/owners) you could have 100% of your staff engaged. Baristas would help run the entire cafe and make decisions about what kind of community events to host, whose produce to buy, what kind of food to serve, what art to display. Trash workers (speaking!) could decide what materials to take, where to sell recyclables, what kind of public education campaigns to undertake, and how to invest or donate their profits. Etc. for almost any industry you can think of. Not having an executive director or CEO making 5 or 10 times as much as everyone else frees up money to pay people a living wage, and every job (save maybe temporary, low commitment jobs) becomes a place for people to engage their skills and learn from each other.
Not to mention that if more people have a good paying job, then more people have the disposable income to support other good paying jobs. If a trash worker makes $25/hour, then maybe he can pay $50 a session for therapy, and suddenly all the people with psychology degrees get to do what they studied for.
To summarize, I'd say the problem is that right now "good" jobs are rare, must be competed for, and involve working above a lot of other people with "not good jobs". This desire to land a place near the top may serve initially to motivate people to work hard, but ultimately most will fail or become discouraged and depressed, while struggling to support their families. So, actually, "trimming the fat", to use your metaphor, would be to get rid of the people taking up more than their fair share of money, power, decision making, responsibility, and ultimately, job satisfaction.
Good point. Collectivism is an elegant solution to the problem, though I don't think it's the solution our federal leadership is considering. Rather than encourage change in the job market, they've restructured the education system to be less empowering. At least, this is what I've heard. Robert's story seems like good evidence.
ReplyDeleteIf all the dissatisfaction with programs like "No Child Left Behind" is justified, than it looks like the coming generations will enjoy less classroom discussion and instead focus their efforts on filling out worksheets and answering multiple choice exams. After this, perhaps they'll be better prepared to enter the American workforce and accept their duties with a bland sigh.
Even if I never have children of my own, I hope to see the movement that's birthed Ecology Action and Treasure City also start an alternative education program. It seems like more members of this community are having children, and so the need is growing. Perhaps some day it will be great enough to make this a reality.
well, it wouldn't have to be a top down systemic change-- people are free to organize their workplaces however they want.
ReplyDeleteyou're right though, our school system reflects the same values are the dominant culture-- it teaches kids that they will spend their life following orders, unless they are lucky enough to be giving them. hopefully a successful worker coop movement would shift the culture a bit, but it would be cool if we were teaching our kids how to work collaboratively and all that "autonomy is responsibility" stuff.
It's tricky because even if collectivism becomes the dominant model in certain cities, if it isn't dominant throughout the country, aspects of the education system won't change. "No Child Left Behind" is a federal iniative, as are dozens of other programs since the '60s. I'm not sure we can count on the public education system changing within the next generation. Creating our own alternative system may be the only choice, though if we do that, it will only affect the handful of children within our school while the majority are still processed through AISD and other districts.
ReplyDeleteThen again, if I remember this correctly, the only influence the federal government has is through spending. They cannot make a law stating how the education system _must_ run, but instead make recommendations. If a state fails to adhere to these recommendations, then it is denied federal funding. At least, this is how they pushed through the integration reforms under LBJ. Maybe things have changed since then, but if not, then perhaps a state or even city could go rogue and do their own thing. It would be expensive, though.
Also, I sent you an email the other day. If you didn't get it, let me know.