Sometimes all it takes is an Op-Ed to remind you why newspapers are failing and not many will miss them. Honestly, all major news networks should get rid of Op-Eds, because there’s a less antiquated system for listening to some jackass’s opinion. It’s called a blog, there are a ton of them, and you can definitely find better material than in the newspaper. Not to say that Op-Eds have no place, but in a newspaper industry already on the edge of collapse and lacking in the trust they once had, having random douche bags spout nonsense in your paper is not a good idea. Random douche bags should be spouting nonsense on the Internet (like me). The Op-Ed that got my attention came from the LA Times: “Trying to find a job is not a job”, by Barbara Ehrenrheic.
As you might guess, this little masterpiece is about rising unemployment, combined with an attack on the standard advice to treat finding a job as your new job. I say attack, because there is really no point–counterpoint, and the alternative suggested can’t be considered anywhere near reasonable. The first line of the article compares the jobless situation across the globe, then laments the lack of protest in the United States. I have no problem with protest as long as it’s effective, articulate, and pointed. I doubt the author’s agreement with this sentiment, as she continues by blaming Prozac and the mentality of treating a job search like a job for people not burning police cars. While I don’t doubt that burning police cars will solve your long-term financial situation, at least for the next 5-10 years, a quick search on monster.com might be more advisable. Or hey, how about going to work for yourself?
Then the article goes into a completely unbiased review of treating a job search like a job. Absolutely not biased whatsoever. Like when she quotes one source on the subject, who recommends spending 12-16 hours a day trying to find a new job. One source only to represent what everyone who recommends this thinks. Or when she states that there haven’t been any scientific comparisons between this approach and “printing a resume on a sandwich board and parading around Times Square.” I mean, how can you argue with that? Why would you argue with that? It’s so much fun I want to try. There have been no scientific comparisons between performing CPR on a dying person, and shooting a hedgehog that’s wearing a boxing glove as a hat out of a cannon at that person. So we don’t know which is more effective because no one has compared the two. Can’t figure that one out. She does concede, “Some people have no doubt found jobs in this manner.” I’m not sure how. Who can find a job when all you do is search for a job 12-14 hours a day?
Of course scientific certainty is not enough for Barb. She goes on to reference not one, but two foreign films where guys get laid off and pretend to continue working to fool their family and friends. Why is she referencing foreign film? Because apparently the American “transition industry” recommends doing just that. The fact that the entire industry suggests that unemployed people pretend to have jobs is pretty damning. I’m sure the source is around somewhere, but Barb can’t be bothered to include it because she has her next piece of evidence for why job hunting is bad. The New York Times did an article not too long ago, and in this article a man who had been laid off wasn’t helping out around the house because career counselors convinced him that finding a job was more important than housework. Take a minute to let that set in, and also imagine him beating his wife—because I’m sure those “career counselors” told him to do that, too. The lack of sense and reason continues as she asserts, among other things, that people are “kinky” for having others motivate them by acting as a boss. Yes, that’s right, all those who ask their spouses or friends to give them tasks and watch their hours to ensure they do not slack off in their job are depraved sex fiends.
The article then goes on to trash retraining for blue-collar workers. There has been a surge in community college enrollments, and this is a bad thing according to Barb. After all, people who got training in low level IT jobs lost them when outsourcing to India hit. Now, this is backwards thinking on so many levels. In today’s market everything is getting progressively more computer based. It’s hard to think of any office job that doesn’t at least require minimal computer skills, so acquiring them is never a disadvantage. This is also failed thinking because, by that logic, you shouldn’t train in any field for fear of outsourcing. In fact, why bother with any training or education while unemployed, because who knows if it will assure you a job. Personally, I believe in training and education as a means to better yourself. Yes, you can definitely adjust and fine-tune that to suit the career you’ve chosen, but any betterment of yourself should be encouraged. This attitude of “it’s not even worth it” is surprising from people who probably subscribe to the Keynesian ideal of paying someone to dig a hole, then fill it up. Now that is a waste of everyone’s time.
She first hints at a different way to do things when she laments that all this job hunting is taking up so much time, people can’t do important things, like lobbying for universal heath care or reading more Marx. Yes, you read that correctly. If you are unemployed and in danger of losing everything you should not be looking for a job. You should be reading Marx and protesting the current health care system. One thing I can say with a good amount of certainty is that if you are job hunting, reading Marx will not help. Ignoring his politics for a second, you have to realize that four of his seven children died due to poverty. Regardless of his ideas, he wasn’t really a go-getter. The only reason he even survived poverty was the generosity of Engel, who was himself pulling money from a family business. That, and bequests from relatives of his wife. In fact, he may have subscribed to Barbara’s philosophy on job hunting. Spending your job hunting time reading political literature and sending letters to politicians saying you really want universal heath care is not constructive and will not help feed you or your family.
Essentially, according to the Op-Ed, you won’t get a job, so don’t bother trying. There is absolutely nothing you can do to better your situation. You should not be actively looking for work or networking to try to find a job. You shouldn’t pursue any training or education, because it will not help. The article says, “No matter how smart you are—how flexible, personable and skilled—you can’t find a job that isn’t there.” Which is nice in these times. There’s nothing like giving up hope and doing absolutely nothing to better your situation. Or almost nothing. Now that you’ve decided to give up, you’ll have plenty of free time, and Barbara has some suggestions on what you can do with that time. You can join one of the political groups she suggests, including her own. Or join an organization to push for single payer universal health care. Personally, if I lose my job, the last thing I’m gonna do is join a group of other unemployed people. Hanging out with a bunch of people who are unemployed so often that they felt the need to form a group doesn’t sound like a short cut to finding a job.
Instead of looking for a new job, Barbara wants you “to express anger and urgency, to dream and create, to get together with others and conspire to build a better world.” More specifically, her world, where all employers who create layoff “victims” are evil, even during a good economy. Because no one should ever be unemployed, and we need to build an economy where we use “people’s precious skills instead of periodically tossing them out like so much trash.” We don’t have such an economy right now because people are spending too much time looking for jobs. It can’t be because the economy is an insanely complex thing, and trying to change it so that everyone is happy is not only impossible but dangerous. No, if we listen to everything they tell us, we will have the perfect world Marx envisioned—away from the evil business men who smoke cigars and laugh maniacally while punching orphans. At least, that is what some people would have you believe.
These are the same types that always pop up when times are tough. People who have a system, device, philosophy, creed, or scapegoat to solve all your woes. They can fix any problem—all they need is your money, support, work, help, or allegiance. You don’t have to do anything but buy in, either with your cash or your supportive vote, and why wouldn’t you? All they want to do is make sure everyone has food, a house, a car, and a good paying job. That sounds great, doesn’t it? Why aren’t we doing this now? We just have to put all these people into positions of power and they will force the government to give us free shit! How awesome is that? I know that right now the government has a house, job, car, and trained monkey butler set aside just for me, but the greedy bastards won’t give it to me. They are holding on to everyone’s shit and making us fucking work for it. Bullshit.
People should be pissed, upset, and downright ready to riot, but not for any of the reasons given by this Op-Ed. This writer would have you lose hope, donate all your time to the causes she thinks are worthy, and then blame everyone else when you don’t get a job. Yes, things suck out there right now for a lot of people. Yes, there is plenty of blame to go around, especially toward government. Doing what this article suggests, and forming a mob to demand that people who were too incompetent and self serving to avoid this mess somehow fix it, will not work. It can’t work, and the biggest mistake someone can make right now is waiting around for the government to fix his or her life. I make jokes about it, but the damage that can be done by people thinking like this is enormous. While I’m sure Ms. Ehrenreich will find some other paper to let her pimp her organizations and books, most people need to do more than attend meetings and whine about how unfair life is.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Marxism is so devoid of any sound principle that they have to resort to topless women and the promise of trained monkey butlers to sell the idea. If the ideas make sense, topless women alone should be enough. Right?