What is My Time Worth? Or Get a "Real" Job

 Greetings,

I have been sitting on this subject for quite some time and it is about time that I write it. We have all been told this idea that there are "real" jobs and there are jobs which are somehow not real. We have also been told that the time of those with "real" jobs is much more valuable than those who don't, and especially more than those who do not "work". This is a piece of capitalist propaganda which has been shoved down our throats so we go and find jobs that will pay money, to keep the capitalist system running, more to the point it will keep the politicians happy because it keeps people off welfare.

Of Politicians and Politics of the Social System

Politicians, especially those of a slightly right-wing persuasion, i.e. not Nazis, but those with who believe in free-market economies, where people should fend for themselves, and with no government interference, they believe there should be little, if any, social welfare. They admit that there will be those incapable of work, mostly the elderly, they make some consideration for veterans, very little for the disabled, and even less for the unemployed. So far as these individuals are concerned the unemployed are lazy, and the only reason that they are not employed is because they have not looked hard enough.

These same politicians tighten the disability evaluation for pensions so it is more and more difficult to get a disability pension, which only increases the length of the unemployment lines. Of course, they don't see it that way, all they see is people who are trying to feign being sick so they don't have to work. In Australia, the disability pensioners are counted in amongst the unemployed. In some other countries, their statistics are lower because the same disability pensioners are not, or are encouraged to study and given the money, so are not counted in those figures. They squeeze the disability pensioners, but leave the aged pensioners mostly alone, because they are a big voting base.

They claim that people should be contributing to their communities by becoming employed, getting off social benefits of every kind that they can and stop being a drain on the system. They don't mention the big tax breaks they promise to their fat-cat friends who give them election contributions. Tax breaks which enable large corporations to pay the smallest amount of tax, and the richest to pay very little. The smallest amount of taxation of these individuals 1%, even 0.5% would pay for the entirety of the social welfare system, and then some. This is what the politicians don't like people to know, and don't want people to think about, especially at election time. Instead they take from the middle and the bottom of society, rather than from the top, where they should be.

"Get a "real" job."

The heading of this section has been used as a line usually spoken by an elder individual (usually male) to a younger individual, who is following their dream, in some movie or sit-com. It is a line which many people will laugh at, and some will even agree with. I will ask the question, what is a "real" job?

Most often the individual who is following their dream is following an occupation which is not of the standard pattern; they want to become a musician, an artist, an actor, or an author, and these are some of the more mundane examples that could be given. There are occupations which are far more extraordinary which could be named. How are any of these less "real" jobs than the person who sits at a desk in an office as a clerk, or office assistant, or similar more standard occupation?

Think. Every time you listen to a piece of music, there was a musician who played and wrote that piece of music. Every time you watch a movie, there are actors on the screen, in all the roles. Every time that you pick up a book, there was an author who wrote that book, indeed every single word you read in a published article of writing, it is the same story. Unless the author waved their rights to that article, they got paid for that piece of writing, just like the musician and actor got paid for their work, because it is their job. A job which they take as serious as any other person takes theirs.

There are other jobs, many of them which we don't get paid for. There are people who are not employed in standard occupations who don't "work" as others do, but their time is valuable.

The Price of Time

There is a depreciation of the time of those who do not "work". In this case, I point to those who do not go to a "nine-to-five" regular, or shift-work job. They don't have standard hours. I point toward the individual who stays at home and performs "home duties". There are many hours of "work" which are not logged because they are not at an official place of business, or because the individual is not officially employed, or because they don't have a "real" job. This is across the board.

The time of these individuals is simply seen as less important. People who work seem to have more pressure on their time so they seem to be more important because they work, and they disregard those who do not do standard occupations or who do not work. Times are changed to the convenience of the individual who works, sometimes to the detriment of the one who does not, with a lack of consideration for their time; it is simply depreciated. Not as much care is taken for those who do not work in such timings. When it comes to the consideration of skills, the same can be said.

There is a depreciation of skilled people because they do not have work. In some instances people have left the workforce to pursue life at home and due to this their skills are somehow depreciated because they are no longer a part of the workforce. Why? Have they somehow lost the skills that they had when they were in the workforce because of this change? Is just because the individual does not expect monetary compensation for their time, the skill worth any less?

Why is it necessary to have a monetary value for a general appreciation of a person's time, effort and skills? This has a lot to do with the enculturation that we have all become accustomed. When something is paid for it has some value attached. Is something which is paid for in time and effort worth any less? We need to reevaluate what people's time, effort and skills are worth. For if people who do not expect payment for such effort suddenly expected such monetary reimbursement, then there would be a great shock by many as to just how much certain services would cost them.

In my case I have three different skill-sets, which I perform, three different occupations. I am a writer, historian, and historical fencer/fencing master. Depending on which one of these skills is employed will decide exactly how much I could, in theory, charge a prospective client. I have, and do, perform many of these as a free service, I write three blogs (including this one) for free. I perform historical investigations for my own interest in various subjects and assist with others that friends propose, for free. I also perform training as a historical fencer/fencing master in group sessions, for free, and as a barter-system with some friends in private.

I could, in theory, be charging quite a bit for several of the services which I provide and could be quite happily employed as an independent as per the occupations listed above. Indeed I have my own publishing company which I have published one book, and will be publishing at least one other book, with plans for a couple more. The purpose of this publishing is to get information out there, rather than making money; entirely not a capitalist approach. I would prefer to put the information in the hands of those who are interested. 

I know how much my time is worth. I heavily disagree with this notion of a "real" job, indeed I find it insulting. I think it is false and denigrates many occupations which are disregarded in our world. I think it is a symptom of a capitalist world where we are forced to only value what we is paid for in money. I think that people should appreciate those who spend their time, and value the time that they spend, for if they do not, it could come a time when they will be made to pay for such time, or they will be much less generous with it.

Cheers,

Henry.

About History

 Greetings,

Having seen a lot of things about showing "history that should not be forgotten" I have decided that it is time that I make my comments about history and its writing and its importance. Just to set the record straight; from some one who has actually studied the subject for most of my life, from someone who is actually qualified in the area. Yes, I am one of those rare people who did the course and finished it, hell, I went back and did Honours just to make sure I had it straight. 

Frankly, I am surprised I have not written on this subject sooner considering it is my subject area, more than politics, though much of politics is explained by history, but I suppose we will get to that eventually. I was the kid who decided he wanted to be an historian early in their schooling career, so I have been studying history in some capacity ever since. What does this mean? It means that I have been pawing through old books, comparing incidents then with incidents now. I can say for sure, people have not learned a lot overall.

"Alas! Hegel as right when he said that we learn from history that men never learn anything from history." G.B. Shaw - Preface to Heartbreak House

The Economy

We have a great standard of living in the "First World" (depending on where you look), we have great access to information (again, depending where you look), great access to health-care (again, depending where you look), and amazing technological advances at our finger-tips (do I have to say, "depending where you look"?). What's all this "depending on where you look" business? Well, all of these advances are available to the upper echelons of society for sure, in the First World, but as you go down the social hierarchy, not so much; in some cases very not so much. Why am I pointing this out?

Some couple of centuries ago, in the same equivalent "First World" nations, there were those at the top who lived well, and there were those on the lower rungs who did not live particularly well. No change there. The date has changed, the technology has changed, the economics are all the same. Push it back more centuries you have the same thing. So what has the human race learned over the past several centuries: Greed is good, because it puts you at the top and gets you the best things. So, some will claim that our political system has changed, and improved.

Politics

"POLITICS. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage." Ambrose Bierce - The Devil's Dictionary

In most of those same "First World" nations, people enrol to vote, once every four years (depending on the system). They vote for someone who claims that they will do things for them that will improve their lives. Most of these Candidates are members of Parties, who then decide what the individual will actually do if they are voted in. Independents, most often do not have much say, unless they happen to hold the balance of power, and then they choose to follow one side or the other. Once the candidates get into office they become Politicians, who are primarily interested in keeping their position, more than serving their constituents, because the job pays well (go back to the economy bit above because it places them instantly in the upper echelon). The individual gets a choice once every four years, unless there is some special circumstance that causes it to occur earlier.

The most representative democracy was in Athens and only male citizens were allowed to vote. This is held up to be the most representative democracy, the birthplace of democracy, the basis of all democracies which followed it. "It's now better than it was." How? In Republican Florence the noble families were represented in their Republic and decided what would happen in their city and its surrounds. "That's an oligarchy and not representative." Really? How is it any different to the rich families who present their Candidates for elections, or give fat campaign contributions to influence Politicians? How is our supposedly representative democracy any different? Because we get to elect our representatives. See how much funding that costs and see how many "average individuals" could afford it and see if it is truly "representative." They represent whoever gives them the biggest donations, for which they also give big fat tax breaks. Politics is a rotten system that is up for sale to the highest bidder, look at how they vote on social issues.

"An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought." Attr. Simon Cameron, Republican Boss of Pennsylvania (1860)

Social Issues

Social issues abound in our contemporary era. It is not like they have suddenly appeared, several have always been there, they have only more recently been more highlighted. Issues of sexuality are present in the Bible giving indication of their ancient origins. Questions about feminist ideals have been present throughout history with many strong female figures being present throughout history, though many of their histories have been denied, or re-told to suit male historians. Racial issues have been an ever-present issue throughout history, along with religious ones, and the cause of many of the greatest wars of history. It is true that in the last few centuries we have damaged our planet more than in all the centuries previous, and there is something that needs to be done about it, but even this is not something new, the evidence has been there for sometime, with pollution irreversibly damaging and changing environments.

The concept of political correctness, or being politically correct (PC) has been around now for about fifty years, at least according to Wikipedia. This idea has changed our language and changed how we address subjects and also people. It involves the use of inclusive language and so forth to ensure there is no offence given to individuals when speaking. This has been pushed into other areas rather than just language. It has been used to address many of the social issues which were mentioned above to increase the level of tolerance toward people, and reduce friction.

There has been a point where this concept has been pushed to a point where people have, in some situations, become gender-neutral. I will give an example. In a previous time it was polite for a gentleman to open a door for a lady. Now, a female might take offence at this action for its potentially condescending nature. This is a simple example where an act of assistance, of politeness previously has been reversed. The act of assistance may be performed for any individual out of politeness, regardless of gender or other defining feature, it's just a polite thing to do. The reduction of such actions reduce politeness due to the potential of offence that may be caused; an ironic reversal of the inclusive intent of being PC.

Historically, politeness was expected in many different ages and it can be traced through different ages through manuals of the period. This is an aspect which seems to be missing in our current age, a lesson that we have lost. The problem is that we are too busy focusing on our differences to notice the aspects that are the same. It is difficult to convince people to unite against a global threat, such as pollution, or a pandemic, when we are too busy being shown our differences, through the highlighting of historical and present situations of difference. 

Unity

Humanity. This is an important word and one that should unify us all. It is a lesson from history that throughout all of the conflicts and other horrible things that have happened throughout history that we have seen that we have forgotten. Why was the United Nations formed? To bring the world together. How is this possible with all the different religions and races? Because they are all focused (or were focused) on the same thing, a global threat. Unfortunately that has gone for many. We have lost the lessons of history... again.

COVID-19 was a chance to bring the world together again. Instead the nations of the world used it as a chance to fracture the world, to show our differences again. A unified front against the virus would've helped a lot, and likely reduced its effects, but we were too busy looking inward, comparing "us" and "them"... again.

Too often we see people showing the pieces of history which fracture, rather than those that bring us together. They show the ones that "must not be forgotten" because they are shocking; because they show how someone did something bad to another human being, or one group against another group of human beings; because they show our differences; they do not show pieces of our histories where people came together and helped one another, assisted one another, showed their humanity.

The greatest lesson that we can learn from history is that: we all do horrible things; we all make mistakes; we all live on the same planet; we share the air we breathe; we all have people we care about, and who care about us; we all have the capacity to do good things; we all have the capacity to help one another and improve others' lives; we all have the capacity to work together with those who are different to us; we are all really not that different; we are all human beings.

Maybe, just maybe, if we can learn that lesson from history, then this world might have a hope.

Cheers,

Henry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation every year to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.

On Fortitude

 Greetings,

Fortitude seems to be an old word, one that does not come up very often. It is a concept which people have ideas about, but it is not often seen in the modern world, which is unfortunate. There are instances and events where it is expressed, but it should be more generally known. It is a characteristic which can determine the individual who will achieve their goals and the one who will not. To understand a thing a person must first know what's being discussed.

To begin with there needs to be some discussion of definition. The first comes from the Oxford dictionary and states that fortitude is, "courage in pain or adversity." A second definition which gives a little bit more about the subject comes from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and provides not only a definition of the word but a secondary definition not used. "1 : strength of mind that enables a person to encounter danger or bear pain or adversity with courage. 2 obsolete : strength."

Both of these sources point toward fortitude as strength of some description, in one example it is simply strength, in the others it is the strength to face adversity, strength of mind, having the courage to face such adversities and continue onward. This concept of strength which is present in the concept of fortitude comes from its Latin root.

"Fortitude comes from the Latin word fortis, meaning "strong," and in English it has always been used primarily to describe strength of mind. For a time, the word was also used to mean physical strength"

This is, again, sourced from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and accompanies the definition of the word, for those who would read on a little bit further than the definition. It notes that while fortitude has been primarily used to describe strength of mind, as indicated previously, the word has also been used as indicated by its Latin root, to simply describe physical strength. When looking at such things the Latin word "fortitudo" is used to describe: strength, bravery, valour, and courage. 

Fortitude is a characteristic which we see in some people, they strive despite the odds of success, and they are admired for such efforts, so they should be. A person who works to better themselves should be encouraged to do so. A person who seeks to fulfil a goal they have set themselves should be encouraged to push onward to that goal. 

Too often in our modern world we see a person strive, and others who have chosen not to strive, to remain settled, complacent, comfortable, not willing to risk what they have. The settled ones try to cut those who strive down, trying to bring them back. A person who stands out from the rest because they have chosen to do good things, to push their limits, to improve themselves, is criticised, shown how they are leaving others behind, shown how they stand out as if it is a bad thing rather than encouraged. Sometimes this is called the "tall poppy" syndrome. It is because they are envious of the success, they are envious of the fortitude of these individuals.

How often do we see that people look for the easy way out? They look for they easy road to take. How much easier is it to stay at home rather than travel? How often do we decide not to attend things because it might be bad weather? The lack of fortitude is evident in many places, even in what is praised by society; avoiding taxes, short-cutting jobs, finding an easy way rather than the proper way. These little things reduce our fortitude encourage us to give up and find the easy way out.

The individual with fortitude will push through the difficulties, will choose to take the road that takes them to their destination regardless of how it looks, regardless of how windy or bumpy it might be. For the individual with fortitude the journey to the destination is as fulfilling as reaching the destination, and they will push through the difficulties, whatever they may be. 

Do you strive for your goals, or sit complacently, sitting comfortably? Do you encourage or do you discourage? Do you have fortitude? 

Cheers,

Henry.