Yucky Framing

“Job Creators”

I have always hated the expression “job creators.” I hate the way it implies that there is a class of people who, almost as a form of charity, bestow employment (for which we should be extremely thankful) on us, the needy workers. It is just as true to say that employees are “business creators” (although no one ever does) because without their labor, the owner could not achieve his goals and run a successful enterprise. Employers are not little gods giving the gift of jobs, they hire people because those people have skills and talents that they need. It is a mutually beneficial relationship.

I also hate a certain imprecision in the “job” part of the expression. All jobs are not created equal. One of the big shifts in our economy, and indeed one that is most often cited as the cause of the anger and frustration of the people who elected Donald Trump, has been from manufacturing to service jobs. The factory makes the goods is in China now, but Wal Mart is hiring greeters. Because our culture has deemed service jobs less valuable than manufacturing jobs, the standard of living for workers has stagnated as the “job creators” continue to see gains. They can boast about the number of jobs they created and are rarely asked, “Do these jobs come with living wages?”

Beyond that, “jobs” it seems, are only created in the private sector and in certain parts of the private sector. Jobs related to the arts are not really jobs. You have to argue for arts by saying that having a theater in your city will drive business to nearby restaurants and hotels. (Real businesses) And you have to argue that arts education will make children good a mathematics so they can one day be computer programmers and engineers (Real jobs).

I was struck this morning when watching Fox News as a Trump voter talked about how excited he is that Trump is keeping his promise to create jobs in America. He cited the end of the Trans Pacific Partnership and the fact that Trump met with labor unions. When we talk about “jobs” we think of assembly lines, making things, real man’s work. Those kinds of jobs are indisputably “jobs.” And they are disappearing. According to Five Thirty Eight:

Here’s the problem: Whether or not those manufacturing jobs could have been saved, they aren’t coming back, at least not most of them. How do we know? Because in recent years, factories have been coming back, but the jobs haven’t. Because of rising wages in China, the need for shorter supply chains and other factors, a small but growing group of companies are shifting production back to the U.S. But the factories they build here are heavily automated, employing a small fraction of the workers they would have a generation ago.

Yet while he was discussing the potential future creation of U.S. manufacturing jobs, Trump was actively working to slash existing jobs. We tend not to frame them as jobs, rather as “spending” but government jobs are jobs. Trump apparently would like to see a 20% cut in federal workers. Meanwhile, he has instituted a hiring freeze and the House voted to make it easier to cut goverment employees’ salaries.

This is the opposite of “job creation” it is “job elimination.” We don’t really call it that. We call it, as Donald Trump did, “reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy.”Interestingly, none of the articles I found on the topic of the proposed 20% workforce cuts mentioned how many people would be unemployed by such a move. Can you imagine business reporters writing about the proposed closure of a factory and omitting how many jobs would be lost? And yet when the nation’s largest employer is talking about cutting its workforce by 20% the actual number of jobs is nowhere. It seems that the government employs 2.8 million people. (If you include the military it is about 4.4 million people) But as Trump has vowed not to include the military (those are real jobs) we’ll stick with the 2.8 million figure. That is 560,000 people who would be joining the unemployment lines if this plan actually became a reality.

It doesn’t seem as though putting that many people out of work would do a lot to give the administration good employment results, as the Bureau of Labor Statistics counts people who are working whether in “real jobs” or “fake jobs” in the arts and the public sector. That is assuming they continue to gather and report on employment.

On a personal level, I hope that the “federal bureaucracy” is not reduced to the point that you can’t get anyone on the phone to answer a question about processing a visa, or filing your claim with the VA.

Yucky Framing: Why Creators Create

I’ve been reading a number of articles on copyright today, trying to parse the complexities of the ownership of materials of various authors long gone.

I came across a quote in an article on the Nova Southeastern University blog.

Now do we want creative people to keep on creating, even when they reach an advanced age? You would think that we do. Stephen King is 66 years old. Would we like him to continue to write creepy stories? Of course we would. Neil Diamond is 71 years old. Would we like him to keep writing songs? You bet. Would they continue to do so if they knew their copyright would soon die with them? Probably not.

Now, I don’t want to wade into the larger point of this article or the debate over the appropriate length of copyright. (So you know, I am in favor of shorter copyright terms similar to the 1909 act giving creators a temporary monopoly in order that they could eat while creating new works.)

What I want to address is this rather strange notion of what inspires artists to make art. Can you imagine any reasons, besides money going to their estate, that a 71 year old song writer might write a song or a novel? I certainly can.

If you were not discussing copyright and you were asked to make a list of reasons would “so the estate will keep having money” be first or even near the top? I’m guessing you would say “to have a legacy” or “to be remembered” or “so their work might live on beyond them.” Maybe to express what they have learned over the course of a lifetime, or because they still love making art.

In essence, these discussions always break down for me when they start from what I believe is a faulty premise– that artists create the way bankers invest, motivated entirely by the profit motive. Very few of us are motivated entirely by the profit motive in anything we do.

 

Yucky Framing: When Workers Suffer, You Don’t Make as Much Money

The Australian publication The Age recently ran an article that says that investing in mental health for staff pays off, not because it means human beings will suffer less, but because you can gain a tidy return on your investment.

Employers urgently need to treat the mental health of their staff as seriously as their physical health and safety, according to Australia’s first campaign on mental health in the workplace.

With an estimated one in five Australian workers experiencing mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety, the cost to businesses is at least $10.9 billion a year, says mental health group beyondblue.

But if Australian businesses are willing to invest in effective mental health strategies they stand to gain an average return of $2.30 for every $1 spent, according to a report beyondblue commissioned from PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Yucky Framing of the Day: Don’t Force a Generation Into Debt or they Won’t Buy Stuff From Us

From Truthout today comes another example of  moral arguement reduced to a market place equation.  Why is it a bad idea to saddle the next generation with debt before they even get started in life? Because, if you do that, they can’t buy as much stuff and “we,” presumably, will not make as much money.

Americans with piles of student loan debt have less money to spend on anything from consumer products to homes.

And as The Washington Post points out, first-time home buyers, usually college graduates, are, or at least used to be, “the bedrock of the housing market.”

But, since millions of college graduates are drowning in debt, they can’t afford to buy a home, which is killing America’s housing recovery.

Meanwhile, according to a report from the One Wisconsin Institute, the devastating effects of student loan debt also translate into more than $6 billion in lost car sales each year.

And, the chief economist for General Motors has even said that student loan debt is one of, if not THE major reason why millennials aren’t buying cars.

Yucky Framing of the Day: Healthy Bodies Mean More Efficient Cogs in the Economic Wheel!

From an article in today’s Metro Times. According to the Michigan Department of Community Health, the economy does not exist to support human life, human life and health exist to support the economy:

Angela Minicuci, spokesperson for the Michigan Department of Community Health, says the goal of the Healthy Michigan plan is to help people get healthier — and to the point where they can afford to buy their own health insurance.

“Countless studies show that if you have a healthier population, they are better employees and they contribute overall to our economic status,” she says. 

  Yuck!

Yucky Framing of the Day: How to Suck Money Out of Young People

I believe I have made it clear in this blog just how much I hate marketing speak that treats literature as product and author as brand.  (Rather than the more relationship/service oriented way of thinking: building an audience by creating work that has value and meaning to them.)

Clicked on a link for an article on “Reaching Tween Readers” today expecting perhaps some reflection on young people’s passions and interests, their unique view of the world.

Instead, this was the first line:

“All of a tween’s money is spent on themselves so there is a big opportunity for publishers to learn how to get it.”

Yuck.

A Philosophical Look at Amazon’s New @Author Program

Amazon has recently launched a new Kindle feature, in Beta, called @author. It allows readers who have a Kindle, to tweet questions to the author directly from within the Kindle platform. When I heard about it I immediately wanted to sign up to be an “@author.” Turns out I’m not famous enough. They’re just trying it out with a few big wigs for now. People like me are fairly easy to reach at any rate.

It’s easy to see why a writer would want to do it though. Most of the time you write a book, it goes out into the world, and you have no idea what anyone thought of it. Hearing from readers would satisfy the natural curiosity of authors.

Nieman Journalism Lab has an article on how Amazon is changing what the book is all about.

I hated much of the tone of this article because it is written in my least favorite language: market speak.

There are a couple points to note here. First, most obviously: @Author represents yet another step in, yep, the personalbrandification of the publishing business — book-wise, news-wise, otherwise. The title of Amazon’s new feature, after all, isn’t @book or @genre or @publishinghouse; it’s @author. The identity of the author herself — as defined and measured and bolstered by her ability to create a community around her content — is, here, itself a kind of product.

Bleech!

Having people who respond to what you write, and who develop and interest in what you might put out, is not “creating brand identification.” It’s building an audience. In simpler times, what they are calling a “brand,” or a “product,” Dear Reader, we once called “a reputation.”

The idea that readers would connect with authors rather than publishers is nothing new. I venture to say that even in the brick and mortar days of book selling people did not go in looking for a book from their favorite publisher.

My perspective on the whole publishing industry is quite simple: authors and their stories, in whatever form, do not exist to support an industry called “publishing.” Publishing is the industry that came into existence to fulfill the desires of readers to have access to literature, to support writers enough so that they could create said literature. The successful business models of the future will be the ones that keep that original mission– connecting readers to literature.

I do realize that my backwards take on things– that the money making part of business is a byproduct of making products and services available to society, rather than the other way around– is probably why I wrote a book called “Broke is Beautiful” and not “How I Became a Millionaire Through My Idealism.”

In any case, the Nieman article proposes that this assumption, that the author will continue to be available to the reader after completing the book, changes expectations about what a “book” is about. A book becomes a dialogue, never entirely finished and closed. It seems likely that the ways we conceive of “books” and literature will evolve because of this technology. This is an interesting development and we’ll see where it goes.

One potential problem I do see with this “digital commodification of authorship that takes place by way of community and conversation,” as the article puts it, is that letting readers ask authors whatever they want, ironically, risks diminishing the role of the reader in the literary process.

Here is what I mean: The writer of a book, especially a fiction book, is only half of the literary equation. Much of the meaning of a book comes not from what the author intended, but what the reader brings to it. There are as many takes on Hamlet and Jane Eyre as there are readers to come into contact with them. The writer might have a strong idea of what a character’s motivations are, beyond what is literally present in the text, and the reader might have a different idea. Who is to say that the author’s idea is the right one?

Being encouraged to ask the writer limits the role of the reader by bringing the author back in to “settle” some of the questions raised by a book. Sometimes the questions are more interesting than the answers.