It's Only a Job

I sit at a cubicle that was abandoned rather abruptly by its former occupant last August. There are four colored pins laid out in a line over a stretch of two to three feet on his cubicle wall. Yesterday I noticed that they were in a pretty good line, except that the yellow one was an inch too low. Today I moved it. The red one was just a shade too low as well. I moved that one too. Now I have my eye on the green one.

One of the joys of working as a contractor is that I never have to be concerned about losing my job. If my contract ends, I didn’t “lose my job;” my contract ended, and now I have to find another one. That’s a part of the model, not some life-changing disaster. This perspective comes in handy when I start feeling, as I have recently, that my current employment is very tenuous and might be ending soon. Because if that happens, it’s OK, because contracts end. No big deal.

(I have to note, even more recently it seems that I might be safely in place for a while longer, but that does not change the point.)

Of course leaving a permanent job is also temporary, so what really is the difference? For me, there is a big one: people always ask why you left (or want to leave) a job. If I was contracting, I can just say that the contract ended, the client did not want to pay me anymore, and that works, and that’s generally true. For permanent jobs though, I have trouble answering. Because I have to lie. Because “my manager sucked” is a bad answer, even if that’s the most honest answer (and, to a greater or lesser degree, it usually is.) Because “I came to hate my job by the end” doesn’t work either. You are not supposed to give any negative answer, because they don’t want to hear that you actually evaluated your last employer and found them lacking, because they know you will also evaluate your next employer too, and they probably aren’t all that great either. You are supposed to say something positive about opportunities and moving forward.

Since I started my accounting career at KPMG in 1987, I have held six “permanent” positions in accounting and finance. I never left even one of them for a positive reason.

In a similar vein -- I guess -- I have begun to think that any position I get now is temporary. My best approximation of how much longer I will work is four to five years. If a “permanent” position helps me fill that gap while earning a decent wage without long periods of unemployment, great. I would actually prefer to work as a contractor, because I like being paid extra when I work extra, but a permanent job might be a better way to fill the time and stay employed, without a lot of gaps. But at the most, my next job will only last a few years.

Anyway, the last time I had a permanent job, I was very, very stressed for a period of a couple of years about possibly losing it. Then I finally lost it, in more ways than one. Never again. Every job is temporary.

Republicans and Machiavelli

I once had to write a paper contrasting the writings of Niccolo Machiavelli and Henry David Thoreau. It was not a great scholarly paper, just a little three-page assignment for a writing class, but I remember it because both Machiavelli and Thoreau were entertaining writers. Also, I was happy with the paper because I came up with a thesis that made some sense, so that rather than having to force words onto a page as I usually had to, I actually found something to say.

My thesis was that the type of government a person wants to see is closely related to how that person sees the rest of humanity. No, I am not the only person who ever thought of that, but it actually did first occur to me with that assignment, and as I look at the current state of the Republican Party, I keep thinking back to that assignment and the way that Machiavelli saw his fellow men. (Given his time, I do not believe that he mentioned women, but I am sure he thought no better of them.)

The Thoreau piece was from Civil Disobedience. Thoreau put his trust in the individual, and so felt that, in matters of morality, a person should not allow the majority of his fellow citizens to decide what is right and wrong, but rather should look to his own conscience. Machiavelli would have never approved of such as thing, however, and his writing (from The Prince) was sprinkled with enjoyably harsh descriptions of the nature of men, which I used liberally to pad my paper. I have no need for padding here, but I will include a couple of Machiavelli quotes anyway, because I find his dark view of mankind entertaining:

 ...love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.” 

“Of mankind we may say in general they are fickle, hypocritical, and greedy of gain.” 

I have seen much written about how American conservatives are more fearful than their liberal counterparts, but it is more than just fear. Conservatives are not going to be harmed by abortions, or by gay marriage, or by a retired person collecting Social Security. It is fear, but also a general mistrust of character, that Other People are not only scary but also thieves, liars, and sinners, fickle, hypocritical, and greedy of gain. Owing to the baseness of men.

And if that is how we see men, and women, what might we want from the government?

• How about a huge, super expensive military, way more powerful than any other anywhere, to protect us from Them.
• Lots of border security, to keep the rapists and drug runners out.
• A big Homeland Security Department, to spy on the terrorists (but no one else.)
• A strong police presence and prisons to incarcerate all the bad people out there.
• Laws to thwart Sinners, like young women who have sex.
• And don't touch my guns, because I have to protect myself from all the evil people.

And how would you feel about programs meant to help people?

• Welfare: Lazy people use it to buy Cadillacs and live high on the hog.
• Unemployment: Gives people an incentive to not look for a job.
• Disability. I heard a story once about a guy who was "disabled" and then went and played basketball. The world is full of cheaters.
• Social Security: Old people living off the government teat. (Never mind that they paid into the system for 50 years.)
• Universal health care: They are going to take my money and use it to take care of some drug addict.

And so on and so on. This is the part of government that conservatives want to see drowned in a bathtub: the part that keeps people from becoming homeless, or living in poverty, or starving, or going bankrupt or dying when they have some curable illness. In short, it is the part of government that says that I am my brother's keeper, and he is mine. Because Those People out there are not my brothers. They are dangerous. They are sinners. They are lazy and dishonest. And they are on their own.

It is of course ironic that it is Democrats who take the approach that people are brothers and we are our brothers' keepers, while the party of Jesus Christ Himself (or so they seem to think) has adopted the philosophy that helping people is for dupes, but that inconsistency has been well documented before. In any case, it is more than just fear, more than the decline of white male privilege, that drives the Republican mind. It is, I believe, this Machiavellian perspective that most people are of low character, base and unworthy. And I think we have to learn to deal with that mindset.