People vs. The State of Illusion

A couple weeks ago,  I had the good fortune of meeting Austin Vickers and watching a showing of his new film, People vs. The State of Illusion. I highly recommend it, and best of all it premieres in Seattle tomorrow, March 16th at the Varsity theatre. Apparently, he will be there for a follow-up Q & A after the early evening showings on both the 16th and 17th.

If you liked the 2004 film What the bleep do we know?, you will definitely appreciate Austin's version of a story all about caring for the quality of your perceptions. It is gentle, heartfelt, and wise. You don't have to embrace any new age thought process to understand the purpose of this film and the story it tells. It will have broad appeal whoever you are. Just go!

Throwing baby boomers out with the bath water

(Be forewarned: Major bellyaching to follow, but continue to the end I think it's worth it.)

The search for the structure of meaning in a lengthy career won’t unearth what you’re looking for. Your years of experience are of little value when you’ve been cut adrift multiple times within a career. It’s tough trying to keep the narrative of your story together so you’ll make sense to the next interviewer. Many of my former colleagues now live with the unrelenting stress of looking for work in a world that values none of their skills, wisdom, acumen, hard skills, soft skills, ancient skills, acquired skills, transferable skills,—all are lost in the game of personality management. People want to be surrounded only by others they view as similar to themselves.

So, I have developed little empathy for the twenty-somethings with huge college loan debt, and few job prospects. It’s worse at this end of the spectrum. Cynicism is sinking all our boats.

Unfortunately, there isn’t much inspiration in the current state of conventional wisdom. Case in point: An article in the NYTimes published 7/12/11 by Thomas Friedman entitled The Start-up of you. The article made points we’ve heard before, but what I found particularly encouraging was the wisdom of some of the comments that followed the post. Utterly brilliant! (emphasis, mine.)

This, from someone in New York:

Technology has simply fulfilled its promise of relieving the human being from so many dirty, dehumanizing, mindless, physically debilitating tasks. What is outmoded is our system of distributing resources/wealth. We must rethink the concept that in order to live a comfortable life every adult must work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, every year, until age 70. If we have reached a point where it only requires 20 hours a week to produce all that society needs,then that has to become the standard for a weekly wage that pays the rent, food, and utility bills. If making room in the workforce for the next generation requires this generation to retire at 60, then beginning at 60 people have to have the resources to retire. There are more than enough resources to sustain the world's population in comfort and dignity; we just need a better system than the 40 hour a week, work ‘til you die system of distribution. ~from NY, NY

This, from someone in Bloomington, Indiana

It seems to me that what we're seeing is a change in how we determine value, and not in a good way. People enjoy using Facebook, but if it ceased to exist tomorrow, so what? It isn't as if people would starve, or we'd suddenly lack water or fuel or clothes to wear or clean air to breathe. People wouldn't stop sharing their experiences with each other; they'd just find another way to do it. And relatively few people would even be out of work. The economic value of Facebook is pure illusion. Ditto Twitter; the people who use it would miss it, but its existence doesn't solve the real problems confronting us, nor would its disappearance create new problems.

The supposed value of social networking companies, or internet companies that serve as mere conduits for what others create, is precisely what's wrong with the economy. They're valued in absurd disproportion to what they actually contribute to society. It's all perception and no substance. I'd feel much better if you told me that the fastest growing companies were developing new energy sources. We need to think strategically for the long term, and not simply react like infatuated teenagers to the sensation of the moment.

Electronic time-wasting has replaced what was once the world's greatest manufacturing economy in the world. Did we really have to ship the production of everything overseas, even clothing and furniture? Both political parties have failed to look out for what used to be a middle class, and America may never be the same again. I'd rather go back to stiff tariffs than see us descend into nothing but a computer-based entertainment nation.

What everybody seems to keep forgetting, is that a business transaction is at least two-sided. It's wonderful to have a new perspective on entrepreneurialship, but without a 'purchasing public', there's no market for it; it's all one-sided. And the 'purchasing public' has been dwindling for years. Why not repair roads, bridges, and other crumbling infrastructure, through making a startup to do something selfless and practical and actually needed, instead of creating new markets where there previously were none, and adding to the junk factor? Does anyone ever step back a few feet and look at the big picture? Also it's never a good idea to put all the eggs in one basket...which seems to be encouraged here. What we need is a break from bad advice, on all fronts, and just the rolling up of our sleeves and getting to work. ~from Bloomington, IN

Thank you my fellow Americans!! After reading these comments I see at least a few of you ARE GETTING IT!!  Thanks for writing this so I didn't have to. Again, the bolded italics are my emphasis.

Occupy: Changing the message, giving hope

In all the disruption created by the recession, I see how a collective sense of purpose has had a timely convergence with popular mythology to create the lightning bolt that is the Occupy Wall Street movement. Like many others, I have so much at stake. The challenge living between jobs is to keep the narrative of my life on a course that makes sense. And just how does one do that? They say you’ve really got to pay attention to the messages you internalize.

The job search industry message flourishes by helping people navigate the preparatory maneuvers for getting hired. It’s a mix of networking, presentation skills, and the summation of all that you have to offer, your personal brand. In fact, professionals need to see themselves as a start-up, a constantly evolving, improving machine of business efficiency and innovation.

Alongside this conventional wisdom runs a cross-current that is trying desperately to envision life and work beyond the demands of commercial markets. For those who feel betrayed by working for the typical corporate structure, the search for alternative messaging finds itself right in the heart of the Occupy movement. It takes no convincing for the truth to resonate among the ninety-nine percent who have already sold their personal brand enough times to know their efforts aren’t making a difference. Mechanisms that once provided a balance to capitalism are now dismantled and the resulting inequities weaken its ability to make people believe that they can profit at all. So while the popular advice for servicing the corporate system still prevails, our collective impulse compels us to create an ethos that promotes fairer participation. Therein lies the beauty of living in a hyper-connected world.

The birth of the Occupy movement coincides magnificently with so many supporting social trends:

*        the work of social psychologists like Dacher Keltner, Brene Brown, and others that cede we are built for cooperation and connection, not just competition

*        the emergence of collaborative consumption, (eloquently explained in What’s Mine is Yours¹) that may shift the predominant ownership paradigm to one of more autonomy and control through shared networks of access to products and services

Indeed, mastering the moment through appropriate messaging has never been more abundant with possibilities. My challenge is in making sure I’m listening to the right ones. The predictable corporate-speak that prefers I see myself not as a person, but a resource of free agency traded on the market, never counted on alternative currencies, alternative trade, alternative networks.

                What gives me hope is that now more people are listening. They are paying attention and sorting things out. They know the process will hit snags, be uncomfortable. And none of that will necessarily be any harder than the lives they are already living. Maybe it will, and that won’t be surprising. But if what evolves is a greater distribution of functional livelihoods for all those who seek them, then perhaps the new message will replace the dysfunctional status quo. It obviously isn’t working. Not everyone sees themselves as an entrepreneur, not everyone sees themselves as a knowledge worker. Resources might fit in boxes, people don’t. Why do we pay so much lip service to notions of innovation and imagination, passion and creativity, and then have no courage to embrace what the results might be? I think we are going to answer that question sooner rather than later. And I can’t wait.  

¹ Rachel Botsman and Roo Rogers, What’s Mine is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption, (HarperCollins Publishers, 2010).
 

Building methods that make sense right now

What is discussed and exemplified in these videos is a way to build structures that meet criteria for being economical to build and responsive to ecological concerns for conservation and low impact.

Watch all 12 First Earth videos!

Still trying to optimize the built environment

I was invited as a participant to the TEDxRainier conference set for November 12, 2011 at Kane Hall on the UW campus. This is what I wrote in my invitation request:

I’m passionate about finding ways to circumvent obstacles to home building. I’d love to replace the 30 year mortgage with community-supported alternatives coupled with alternative building methods. There are methods that are environmentally sound, that will withstand structural engineering scrutiny and still cost less than $120/square foot. I’d like to encourage an industry that promotes acceptance of a greater variety of building methods like cob, straw bale, superadobe, etc. Why do we accept a debt for nearly a third of our lives simply to live in a place we call home? This is the change I want to be. I’m renting now and refuse to mortgage my future for the sake of the debt economy. I played that game, sold my home and don’t want to go back to the status quo. Please invite me. Thanks!!

*********************************************************************************************

We're all trying to grapple with how to be effective in the world as it has become in the space of our lifetimes. It is terrifying and exhilarating at the same time. I want to take the fear out of it entirely and meet as many kindred spirits as possible.
 
I'm hoping that one of the speakers, Howard Frumkin will give me some insight about how to approach this subject matter.

A public/private partnership in healthcare?

Yesterday, I was imagining a potential public/private partnership as a means to reform healthcare. On closer examination, I think this won't work. A private, for-profit model for the provisioning of a basic human right is completely untenable. What was I thinking?? Guess I was pulling an Obama.

I respect our president, but this kind of compromise is not why we voted for him. As any OWser can tell you, our current system simply needs to be dismantled. I once worked for a consulting firm, and while doing a content audit, found an article by one of the actuaries still (2009) defending the use of the pre-existing condition clause in insurance policies. The policy structure that maintains the health insurance industry protects all the typical players, in all the typical ways that private enterprise is known for. The needs of the customers in this case are actually at odds with the goals of the service the health insurance company intends to provide. They must pay as little as they can according to their contractual agreements, and do it, foot-dragging all the way.

Have you ever had to wait eight months to be billed for a minor surgery? You know what I mean. There is an oceanic cesspool of bureacracy between the service provider and the customer.

Once in a while the conscience of a good soul emerges from ignorance, and when that person is from the industry, he deserves a listen. Such is the case for Wendell Potter who, in this video admits: "I was insulated. I didn't really see what was going on."

Remove the connection between healthcare and employment

Do I have the option only to work six to nine months of any given year? No, not if I want uninterupted health insurance coverage. If I don't mind being dependent on someone else, my time and labor can be freed up for other things. That means my husband has to work for my right to health insurance. In this society there is no assumption that a human life has value independent of labor as measured in the balance of the workforce. So, my husband makes up for my labor deficiency by having the uninterupted job with benefits he shares with me.

Can I accept this form of dependence? I have done so, but it sucks. This is a constraint I can't do much if anything about. I live in a society where it is not my option to have health insurance independent of my job. One could argue that I am free to source an individual insurance plan for myself, but that is a joke, as the expense alone may easily consume the money I derive from working. In fact, I was part of a plan sponsored by Lifewise and they refused to pay a legitimate claim. I went through all kinds of official channels to resolve the issue. At one point I was even reminded that I could lodge a formal complaint with the state insurance commissioner. I cancelled the policy. Let's face it, I knew what I was dealing with. Health insurance companies resisting the payment of legitimate claims is emblematic of the reasons for the Wall St. occupation.

And so I live in a society that appears to have some requirement that my fear of lacking health insurance should be maintained. The excuse given is that costs to society would be too great for everyone to have coverage. However, costs are not calculated according to the status quo we already are living in, where the uninsured find their only option is an emergency room visit. It is fairly obvious that the costs of maintaining this form of care are simply passed on in ways that aren't made clear to most of us.

The costs of running Harborview Medical Center don't exactly make the local news. The policy makers do no want us to know how wasteful the healthcare system is, let alone how it could be changed.

There is no reason basic health maintenance should be an insurmountable task. When supplemented with insurance for catastrophic care or chronic disease management, there is no reason our government couldn't assure simple, routine measures of health maintenance like office visits, consultations, screenings, tests, and even massage and accupuncture and other forms of stress and pain relief.

These things could be easily definable, and other forms of insurance would only kick in at specific points of protocol where more intensive measures are necessary. It is a failure of political will that prevents us from having a decent, more evenly shared economy.

When everything is viewed through the lens of market valuation, it leaves no room for viewing humans as willing participants in their own value. If human value cannot be immediately assumed in the exchange of goods and services through enterprise or labor, there is no other assumption that is made. Humans after all are grown and developed by other humans who assume the creation, care, and feeding of their eventual worth in the workforce until such time as they are let loose on the world at age 18 or there abouts. As long as we're plugged into the labor force our status is assured.

If the world view assumed some already accepted value in the souls walking this earth then no one would ever be unneeded in the maintenance of the world. All would be cared for at a basic level through a system in which all partake. Call it taxation, call it socialism. I don't care what you call it. All I know is that what I am describing is not impossible.

I hesitate to back-pedal, but in truth, I would prefer single-payer, universal healthcare. By putting these ideas together, I was attempting to imagine a hybrid system worthy of consideration.