I need money, we all need money. Some of us like nice cars, some like the organic/raw/natural aisles of the supermarket. Others like exotic vacations, some like collecting expensive books. Money allows us an ability to explore our passions, when we have enough left over after basic human needs. A place to live, something for transportation, good food on the table, a bed, a smattering of household accessories. And yet these are not truly the necessities for life-those being air, water, food-but these are what seemingly separate us from the animal kingdom, those humanizing "extras" that make our life as intellectually driven beings possible. Money, of course, is usually the beginning (and end) of most wars, some friendships & relationships, college, a job and so on...it is that central figure that links us all. We all need it, and yet we all have a varying amount.
Ho's Article "Anthropology Goes Wall Street" intrigued me because of her honest representation of how her work got started, and what she wanted to do. Ho wanted to understand through experiencing that very thing that she sought through interviews, and I admire her first hand research and perspective. It seems she may have been a bit of an informant to all of us "outsiders" as to the inside workings of a small portion of that mysterious monster: Wall Street. I strongly dislike the fluid nature of employment; one moment the corporation can be booming, the next they downsize, leaving the average workers (or often, the back-office workers) hung to dry while the corporate elite drown in their earnings. Granted, this is also a very limited perspective, but certainly not the exception to the rule. Employees are liquidated in the pursuit of stock price appreciation, and Ho points out that employees often suffer when the company makes a profit. This seems contrary to the American Dream that seems to be the mythic site of origin for many of these corporations. It was interesting to read her perspective on that production of sensibilities; I wonder how my perspective on Wall Street is shaped by such a deliberate portrayal of facts.
"For example, many downsized workers have argued that the stock price is just one value among many, and that other values such as a stable job and the American Dream are more important" (35). I am interested in what these values are. They are different for each person, and yet, that American Dream is usually referred to as the glue binding our differences in an impetus of some similarity. For me those "other values" are usually in the intangible: the love of my husband, family, friends, dog, and the ability to spend time with them. There are absolutely more, however. I want things, and I want them even if that want is somewhat irrational. I am sure many would frown at my grocery shopping bill, I spend a lot of money on food to make in my house, usually trending toward the more expensive organic markets instead of the larger grocery stores. And yet for me, that value of the food is greater than the money it is worth. The face value for me is intrinsic. The stock market is truly just one "thing" but it seems to affect people's ability to hold jobs which will allow them to pursue there other (arguably, far more important) things. What are some ways corporations could ensure that their employees had access to those other "things" in place of money when times were tight? I always think of Google as corporation that cares about the well being of its employees (and yet my understanding is largely from magazines and newspapers). With healthy food, nap chairs, the choice of bringing your dog to work and control over your hours, it seems that employee happiness may be greater than some who are payed less. It seems possible that many would accept lower salaries for access to those "things" that make them uniquely happy. Happiness seems to have a monetary value, however. There is a line where individuals need to be compensated appropriately in order to fulfill their more basic needs.
Ho places "the wealthy" as the cultural other in her representation, a wise choice considering her particular analysis. They are a "folk group" to be studied (just as the 99% are, though the delineation may be far to vague treat it as one locality. I like this article for its attempt at transparent representation, and I like the ideas presented. I am curious how the rest of the book ends up; does Ho offer a "fix" for the economic crisis following 2008? Is there such a fix? Or will this time period truly be just the beginning of an inevitable economic boom following the implosion of an economic bubble, one largely predicted by market insiders?
It is safe to say "the wealthy" are quite other to my American experience. There is a lot of tension online from some of my military friends regarding the 99%. Many say "hey, I have a job that pays well, has benefits, and allows me job security," however those "things" are usually at the expensive of the other more important values: time with family, ability to make autonomous decisions, and control (agency) in the course of your career. Some military members may scoff that they simply appreciate the value of these intangible things more because they are unable to enjoy them as much (and I agree that this is somewhat true), but it does not seem like a sufficient answer for someone unable to find a job that joining the military is the end all fix. Maybe, sometimes, it just isn't about the money. --Krystal Sweitzer
Ho's Article "Anthropology Goes Wall Street" intrigued me because of her honest representation of how her work got started, and what she wanted to do. Ho wanted to understand through experiencing that very thing that she sought through interviews, and I admire her first hand research and perspective. It seems she may have been a bit of an informant to all of us "outsiders" as to the inside workings of a small portion of that mysterious monster: Wall Street. I strongly dislike the fluid nature of employment; one moment the corporation can be booming, the next they downsize, leaving the average workers (or often, the back-office workers) hung to dry while the corporate elite drown in their earnings. Granted, this is also a very limited perspective, but certainly not the exception to the rule. Employees are liquidated in the pursuit of stock price appreciation, and Ho points out that employees often suffer when the company makes a profit. This seems contrary to the American Dream that seems to be the mythic site of origin for many of these corporations. It was interesting to read her perspective on that production of sensibilities; I wonder how my perspective on Wall Street is shaped by such a deliberate portrayal of facts.
"For example, many downsized workers have argued that the stock price is just one value among many, and that other values such as a stable job and the American Dream are more important" (35). I am interested in what these values are. They are different for each person, and yet, that American Dream is usually referred to as the glue binding our differences in an impetus of some similarity. For me those "other values" are usually in the intangible: the love of my husband, family, friends, dog, and the ability to spend time with them. There are absolutely more, however. I want things, and I want them even if that want is somewhat irrational. I am sure many would frown at my grocery shopping bill, I spend a lot of money on food to make in my house, usually trending toward the more expensive organic markets instead of the larger grocery stores. And yet for me, that value of the food is greater than the money it is worth. The face value for me is intrinsic. The stock market is truly just one "thing" but it seems to affect people's ability to hold jobs which will allow them to pursue there other (arguably, far more important) things. What are some ways corporations could ensure that their employees had access to those other "things" in place of money when times were tight? I always think of Google as corporation that cares about the well being of its employees (and yet my understanding is largely from magazines and newspapers). With healthy food, nap chairs, the choice of bringing your dog to work and control over your hours, it seems that employee happiness may be greater than some who are payed less. It seems possible that many would accept lower salaries for access to those "things" that make them uniquely happy. Happiness seems to have a monetary value, however. There is a line where individuals need to be compensated appropriately in order to fulfill their more basic needs.
Ho places "the wealthy" as the cultural other in her representation, a wise choice considering her particular analysis. They are a "folk group" to be studied (just as the 99% are, though the delineation may be far to vague treat it as one locality. I like this article for its attempt at transparent representation, and I like the ideas presented. I am curious how the rest of the book ends up; does Ho offer a "fix" for the economic crisis following 2008? Is there such a fix? Or will this time period truly be just the beginning of an inevitable economic boom following the implosion of an economic bubble, one largely predicted by market insiders?
It is safe to say "the wealthy" are quite other to my American experience. There is a lot of tension online from some of my military friends regarding the 99%. Many say "hey, I have a job that pays well, has benefits, and allows me job security," however those "things" are usually at the expensive of the other more important values: time with family, ability to make autonomous decisions, and control (agency) in the course of your career. Some military members may scoff that they simply appreciate the value of these intangible things more because they are unable to enjoy them as much (and I agree that this is somewhat true), but it does not seem like a sufficient answer for someone unable to find a job that joining the military is the end all fix. Maybe, sometimes, it just isn't about the money. --Krystal Sweitzer
No comments:
Post a Comment