There is a cost to everything we do in life. Everything. Try to think of the least expensive way to spend your time - sitting on a bench in the park - and there is a cost. It's called opportunity cost, and it's an economic term.
To explain, say you work at a job where you make $10 / hour. You have a 4-hour shift on Saturday. After work, you are going to a movie with your friends - it costs $10. Your boss asks if you would like to stay an extra two hours to fill in. You decide to go to the movie instead.
The actual cost of going to the movie is $10. That is the accounting cost. The opportunity cost is $20 - $10 / hour for the two hours you could have been working. You never actually paid $20 to go see the movie, but you lost out on the opportunity to earn it.
In the same way, sitting on a bench in the park has a cost because you could be doing something else. The opportunity cost of sitting on a park bench is missing out on reading a book or watching a TV program or talking to your friend.
I have recently encountered the consequences of opportunity cost in a bad way - on my radio. First of all, let me explain how I have my car radio set up. I have six stations saved. On my way to work, I like to hear talking - I think music puts me to sleep. On the way home, I like music to sing along to. If none of my six stations have something I am interested in hearing, I scan the other stations - usually looking for one particular Sugarland song in particular (the opportunity cost of not listening to country stations is that if the one song you like is country, you won't hear it)!
My stations are as follows:
1. Mixed rock. The morning show is fun with lots of prizes, people calling in, laughs, jokes, and more. It makes you feel like you're with a popular crowd just to listen to it.
2. The Lawrence Station. This station plays some good songs every now and then, but then you have to put up with the sickening feeling you get in your stomach from the constant Jayhawk propoganda. Yuck. In the morning there is a show called the Bob and Sheri chatroom - people call in and talk about a subject. I have heard some crazy stories on it!
3. This is my favorite station both for music and talk. The morning show is two guys that crack me up and have fun games and informational tidbits. I usually can hear a good song on this station.
4. Christian station. Now that the dysfunctional married couple is no longer hosting the morning show, it's actually interesting sometimes, but the music is not varied at all. Even songs I like are overplayed.
5 & 6. These are both light rock stations. They have morning shows, but they play a larger percentage of music in the morning. The only difference I know between the two is that at night 5 plays Delilah and 6 plays John Tesh. Also 6 plays Christian music on Sunday mornings.
Now that you know what my choices are, I will tell you my problem. Chances are you've had the same problem. When I get in my car (usually to go home after work) I hear an advertisement. So I switch to the next station: advertisement. Then the next three are songs I don't like, and then one more advertisement. :(
I try again, hoping that either one of the advertisements or songs will have just ended, and a great new song will start. Still nothing. Out of desperation, I settle on one station (say #5) and listen to a song I only halfway like. When that's over, I start my channel surf again, only to discover that station 1 was playing my song! You know - that song that's fairly new and you just can't get enough of it? And by the time I get back to station 1, it's over.
That is opportunity cost at its finest. If I had kept channel surfing for just a few seconds I would have heard a five-star song, instead of a three-star song. Now I've had to waste 3 minutes of my drive home on a song I barely like, and I didn't get to hear the good song.
The crux of the matter is that once you catch the tail end of your song on a station, you know it's going to be a while before they play it again. Your only hope to hear the song now is to go to another station. (This is the problem with my Sugarland song - whenever I hit a country station, they are playing a Sugarland song, but it's the wrong one).
As of right now, I have no idea how to fix this problem. If I stay on one station, I am essentially multiplying this effect five-fold by never listening to the other stations. I suppose I could just buy the song on iTunes and listen to my iPod in the car. But you miss out on some of the fun by not listening to the radio in the car.
And once again, we're back to opportunity cost.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
The Pitfalls of Brand Loyalty
I stand in line at a ticket counter. The attendant is talking to a friend on the phone and glaring at me as though my presence is somehow interfering with her job. I get on the airplane – they hold us on the runway for two hours for a one hour flight because the air conditioner doesn’t work. There is no apology. There is no getting off the plane. You are expected to deal with it. I ask for help at a store. The lady at customer service says she can’t help me, shrugs her shoulders and moves on to the next customer.
Whatever happened to customer service?
I’m not that old, but in the world I was raised, the customer is always right. If the person behind the desk promises me points for my hotel stay, I should get them. I don’t want the company telling me that it’s against policy to award them. It’s not my fault that one of their employees got the message wrong. I’m the customer. I’m right.
And what about deals? What happened to the world where companies try to match their competitor’s deals? I know not all companies can afford to do this. However, there are situations where a little customer service would go a long way. Recently we were at a craft store where the item we wanted (which was on sale) was sold out. We asked if we could get a similar item at a discount. The store said no. Absolutely not. They didn’t even offer us a rain check on the sale. Instead, we found a similar item on sale for twice the discount at a competitor. The craft store lost its sale because it wasn’t willing to deal.
And when a company can’t bargain, at least they can provide good customer service. I have been going to the grocery store by my house for a year. No one has ever smiled at me. If they wish me good day it is heartless. This lack of service really gets to me because I used to be the one working at the checkout counter. And I loved my job! Even when I didn’t feel like it, I grinned at customers and was polite, and that forced smiling rubbed off and made me happy! And when a customer asked me for help, I got them help! I accompanied them around the store, and if I didn’t know the answer, I stayed with them until I could drop them off with another associate who really could help them. I didn’t just shrug their question off.
I write this little rant because I feel like the service in the world around me is collapsing at an alarming rate. I would think that people would try extra hard at their jobs in these times because of fear of losing them. How many laid off workers would love to have a job in customer service? I would imagine that a company that noticed poor service among their employees would trade those employees out for new ones that could actually retain customers.
And therein lies the problem. Customer retention.
There is a certain loyalty in all of us that brings us back to the same brands over and over again – usually some perceived benefit. That benefit should be perceived quality – which includes service. However, sometimes we find ourselves returning again and again to brands where service is poor. Like a person in an abusive relationship, we take the poor service over and over again expecting it to end someday. Why?
The number one reason is money. For instance, I will take a flight on the cheapest airline I can find, even if I know that they will be late, that they will be rude, and that the entire experience will stress me out. Fortunately, the only airline that even pretends to show customer service, Southwest, usually also has the most competitive prices – and no extra fees. I would have thought other airlines would have tried to benchmark Southwest’s models. But why should they? If they can undercut their competitor’s price – even by a fraction – people will fly with them. I do.
Another reason is convenience. I go to the grocery store near my house because I can walk to it. If I have a lot of shopping to do, I prefer go to Wal-Mart – service is better, selection is just as good, prices are lower, and the store is clean. But I enjoy a walk now and then, so I keep going back.
What about other offers? The reason that I stay at the hotel chain I do is because of points and rewards. Because I’m the highest level of customer they have, I usually have a great stay. My loyalty has been purchased by great treatment in the past. But what happens when that treatment fails, as it has recently? For some unknown reason service dropped off, and without a check on the faulty hotel by the chain itself, it will continue to fail. But what do I do? I still go to that chain because I want to maintain my high status – and because I can get points (to use at future stays where inevitably I will be treated rudely).
And finally, sometimes we use a vendor because we have no choice. I have to shop at the store with bad service because I am buying a specialty item for a friend I can’t get anywhere else. I go to the dirty gas station because I am out of gas and it is there. I go to the restaurant that has proven to have bad service time and time again because that is where my friends are going (and they won’t listen to me)!
What I’m trying to say is – there is a sense of helplessness in dealing with companies today. I can write letters and talk to the manager all I want. But in the end – it’s sometimes impossible to follow through on threats to quit using them. (And sometimes it is a manager or a corporate help line who is the offender). Every time I fly a certain airline I promise myself it is the last time. But my credit card gets points through them – I’ll have to use those sometime – which means, at a minimum, one more flight. And then I book yet another flight with this carrier because it saves money.
We are often told that we should do the right thing even if it’s hard to do. This is usually in reference to being kind to others. But perhaps doing the right thing means doing the right thing for ourselves. I can save my health by cutting back on stress, and that means avoiding stores that provide horrible service.
In addition, I can offer a service to the company as a whole – “So and so was incredibly rude. As such I can promise you that I will not shop in this store ever again.” And make good on the promise! And companies will respond. (You have to let someone know about the poor service you are receiving or it won’t change – a company may not notice your exit, but they will take note that you left. For fear of it happening over and over again, they will do something about the situation. If you just leave, the rude service will continue – it will just be addressed toward someone else).
So what does this take? Am I ready to threaten to switch hotel chains – and make good on it? Am I ready to pay up to $100 extra per ticket to fly on a plane that will treat me right? Am I ready to cancel my credit card so I no longer get points through a faulty service? Or do I continue to aid and abet the system that gets away with treating the customer poorly?
It’s hard – but maybe somebody has to do it.
Whatever happened to customer service?
I’m not that old, but in the world I was raised, the customer is always right. If the person behind the desk promises me points for my hotel stay, I should get them. I don’t want the company telling me that it’s against policy to award them. It’s not my fault that one of their employees got the message wrong. I’m the customer. I’m right.
And what about deals? What happened to the world where companies try to match their competitor’s deals? I know not all companies can afford to do this. However, there are situations where a little customer service would go a long way. Recently we were at a craft store where the item we wanted (which was on sale) was sold out. We asked if we could get a similar item at a discount. The store said no. Absolutely not. They didn’t even offer us a rain check on the sale. Instead, we found a similar item on sale for twice the discount at a competitor. The craft store lost its sale because it wasn’t willing to deal.
And when a company can’t bargain, at least they can provide good customer service. I have been going to the grocery store by my house for a year. No one has ever smiled at me. If they wish me good day it is heartless. This lack of service really gets to me because I used to be the one working at the checkout counter. And I loved my job! Even when I didn’t feel like it, I grinned at customers and was polite, and that forced smiling rubbed off and made me happy! And when a customer asked me for help, I got them help! I accompanied them around the store, and if I didn’t know the answer, I stayed with them until I could drop them off with another associate who really could help them. I didn’t just shrug their question off.
I write this little rant because I feel like the service in the world around me is collapsing at an alarming rate. I would think that people would try extra hard at their jobs in these times because of fear of losing them. How many laid off workers would love to have a job in customer service? I would imagine that a company that noticed poor service among their employees would trade those employees out for new ones that could actually retain customers.
And therein lies the problem. Customer retention.
There is a certain loyalty in all of us that brings us back to the same brands over and over again – usually some perceived benefit. That benefit should be perceived quality – which includes service. However, sometimes we find ourselves returning again and again to brands where service is poor. Like a person in an abusive relationship, we take the poor service over and over again expecting it to end someday. Why?
The number one reason is money. For instance, I will take a flight on the cheapest airline I can find, even if I know that they will be late, that they will be rude, and that the entire experience will stress me out. Fortunately, the only airline that even pretends to show customer service, Southwest, usually also has the most competitive prices – and no extra fees. I would have thought other airlines would have tried to benchmark Southwest’s models. But why should they? If they can undercut their competitor’s price – even by a fraction – people will fly with them. I do.
Another reason is convenience. I go to the grocery store near my house because I can walk to it. If I have a lot of shopping to do, I prefer go to Wal-Mart – service is better, selection is just as good, prices are lower, and the store is clean. But I enjoy a walk now and then, so I keep going back.
What about other offers? The reason that I stay at the hotel chain I do is because of points and rewards. Because I’m the highest level of customer they have, I usually have a great stay. My loyalty has been purchased by great treatment in the past. But what happens when that treatment fails, as it has recently? For some unknown reason service dropped off, and without a check on the faulty hotel by the chain itself, it will continue to fail. But what do I do? I still go to that chain because I want to maintain my high status – and because I can get points (to use at future stays where inevitably I will be treated rudely).
And finally, sometimes we use a vendor because we have no choice. I have to shop at the store with bad service because I am buying a specialty item for a friend I can’t get anywhere else. I go to the dirty gas station because I am out of gas and it is there. I go to the restaurant that has proven to have bad service time and time again because that is where my friends are going (and they won’t listen to me)!
What I’m trying to say is – there is a sense of helplessness in dealing with companies today. I can write letters and talk to the manager all I want. But in the end – it’s sometimes impossible to follow through on threats to quit using them. (And sometimes it is a manager or a corporate help line who is the offender). Every time I fly a certain airline I promise myself it is the last time. But my credit card gets points through them – I’ll have to use those sometime – which means, at a minimum, one more flight. And then I book yet another flight with this carrier because it saves money.
We are often told that we should do the right thing even if it’s hard to do. This is usually in reference to being kind to others. But perhaps doing the right thing means doing the right thing for ourselves. I can save my health by cutting back on stress, and that means avoiding stores that provide horrible service.
In addition, I can offer a service to the company as a whole – “So and so was incredibly rude. As such I can promise you that I will not shop in this store ever again.” And make good on the promise! And companies will respond. (You have to let someone know about the poor service you are receiving or it won’t change – a company may not notice your exit, but they will take note that you left. For fear of it happening over and over again, they will do something about the situation. If you just leave, the rude service will continue – it will just be addressed toward someone else).
So what does this take? Am I ready to threaten to switch hotel chains – and make good on it? Am I ready to pay up to $100 extra per ticket to fly on a plane that will treat me right? Am I ready to cancel my credit card so I no longer get points through a faulty service? Or do I continue to aid and abet the system that gets away with treating the customer poorly?
It’s hard – but maybe somebody has to do it.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Ergonomics
I realize that sometimes, especially as a girl, and especially as me, talking about my thoughts, feelings, and experiences can probably sound like complaining. However, something has been on my mind for a while now, and that is ergonomics.
I am short. Anyone who knows me knows that is probably an understatement. My own personal observation tells me that there are lots of girls my height in the world - but we don't get much shorter than this!
Anyway, I have recently become aware of a problem with my height functioning in the world at large. The problem has been there all my life, but only recently have I been able to diagnose the problem.
The problem is that my legs do not reach the floor. In almost any given standard chair, my legs kind of dangle a few inches above the floor. In high school, I would swing my legs gaily. In college I was able to hook my feet onto the bars beneath the chairs. But in the real world, these options are noticeably missing.
For all you tall people out there, let me just say that having feet that won't reach the floor is quite uncomfortable. It completely destroys posture, for one. During the work day I tend to resort to sitting in odd, and most likely unprofessional, positions. My favorite is to sit cross-legged at my desk.
Sometimes I end up finding an adjustable chair. This can be almost worse. Once the chair is adjusted so that my feet fit flat on the floor, my head reaches barely three feet above the ground. The desk, which is not adjustable, reaches to my sternum.
Now, in the spirit of not complaining, I admit that ergonomics is a tough field. Otherwise there wouldn't be an entire field of science devoted to studying how we work. On the other hand, if they have been able to create adjustable chairs, why can't they go the extra mile and create adjustable desks?
To that point, I would like to propose an alternative to all this adjusting. That is - standing. I am actually working at a client now that has a few high cubicles with barstool sized chairs. I don't know the purpose of these special cubicles, but I would like to see more options like them in the workplace. When I worked in a pharmacy, I rarely felt uncomfortable although I stood all day. Here are some advatages to standing:
I am short. Anyone who knows me knows that is probably an understatement. My own personal observation tells me that there are lots of girls my height in the world - but we don't get much shorter than this!
Anyway, I have recently become aware of a problem with my height functioning in the world at large. The problem has been there all my life, but only recently have I been able to diagnose the problem.
The problem is that my legs do not reach the floor. In almost any given standard chair, my legs kind of dangle a few inches above the floor. In high school, I would swing my legs gaily. In college I was able to hook my feet onto the bars beneath the chairs. But in the real world, these options are noticeably missing.
For all you tall people out there, let me just say that having feet that won't reach the floor is quite uncomfortable. It completely destroys posture, for one. During the work day I tend to resort to sitting in odd, and most likely unprofessional, positions. My favorite is to sit cross-legged at my desk.
Sometimes I end up finding an adjustable chair. This can be almost worse. Once the chair is adjusted so that my feet fit flat on the floor, my head reaches barely three feet above the ground. The desk, which is not adjustable, reaches to my sternum.
Now, in the spirit of not complaining, I admit that ergonomics is a tough field. Otherwise there wouldn't be an entire field of science devoted to studying how we work. On the other hand, if they have been able to create adjustable chairs, why can't they go the extra mile and create adjustable desks?
To that point, I would like to propose an alternative to all this adjusting. That is - standing. I am actually working at a client now that has a few high cubicles with barstool sized chairs. I don't know the purpose of these special cubicles, but I would like to see more options like them in the workplace. When I worked in a pharmacy, I rarely felt uncomfortable although I stood all day. Here are some advatages to standing:
- You burn more calories
- Your circulation is better, and so you are generally warmer (for all us ladies who freeze in the office)
- You are more likely to "go" do something - when I am sitting and comfortable and bundled up, I rarely want to get up and go do, well, my job. But if I were standing, coming and going could be a normal business. Indeed, when standing, walking helps to take some of the pressure off the knees
- To the point - in my experience at least, standing desks offer a much more universal view of the world. Taller people have longer arms to reach down, and shorter people are closer to the desk to begin with. This results in practically everyone achieving the right angle to the keyboard (elbows a few inches above), and posture is better. Sure, feet and knees will have to get used to the situation, but in a few weeks, you will probably experience a healthier, happier, you!
I would like to see some willing company take up my proposal. I suggest they allow workers to choose between tall, standing desks and the traditional cube. They should run the trial for a few months and see which group of employees has a higher job satisfaction, is healthier, and is most productive. I would truly be interested in the results of the experiment.
Until then, I suppose I'll just continue to practice my chair calisthenics.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Revolutionary Thoughts
I have been thinking revolting thoughts. Well, revolutionary thoughts actually. I’ve been thinking about countries that have been trying their hand at democracy, but it’s just not catching on. Ever since the French and American revolutions, there have been a string of revolutions across the globe. Some of these have been peaceful. More often than not, they have not. How is it that some revolutions have successfully instituted democracy in their nations, while other countries still struggle with the concept of a free and peaceful election? And when democracy fails, when is it appropriate to pursue democratic goals through violent means?
As for the first question, I believe the answer is difficult. Let’s look first at America. Although those against instituting a national language are quick to point out that only about 1/3 of the citizens of the original 13 colonies spoke English, the colonies did belong to the English, the founding fathers were wealthy English citizens. And despite their opposition to King George, they set up a government that reeked of Englishness. Why?
Because they knew what worked and what didn’t. The English monarchy had been losing its real power for 500 years, since the Magna Carta was signed. The Englishmen who established America had, for their example a government setup that had been working for centuries. All they had to do was tweak it to fit their own American style.
For the last 300 years the Western world has been touting Democracy to the rest of the world much in the same way that the missionaries pushed Christianity. One has come to be known as unacceptable, while the other is still acceptable and continues to be pushed. However, much as changing the religion of a different culture has implications, changing the political structure of an established country has implications that could potentially be destructive.
While I personally believe that democracy is the form of government that gives people the greatest freedoms and honors the rights of individuals, the transition may be long and hard. Consider that our present form of democracy in America was slowly developed for 500 years before placed in action by citizens who were already used a similar political setup.
Other cultures transition to democracy from different political systems. If a country was recently in a monarchy setup, then suspicion and violence would be the norm. Kings solidify their claim to rule by exterminating anyone who threatens their supremacy. If a country recently was ruled in this way, then whoever they elect, even in a democracy, may be prone to similar means to guarantee that they will be “elected” continually in the future.
In a monarchy, when the people get fed-up with the regime, they revolt and set in place a new regime. Certainly, if an election doesn’t go the way half the nation wants, then violence is anticipated. Our frustration with a world that is not at peace may be the result of trying to institute political systems that really should evolve at the natural pace of the culture.
This brings me to a second question – when is it appropriate to use violence to further political means?
When a regime is tyrannical and fails to recognize basic rights entitled to all people, and there is no other way to change the regime, then violence may be acceptable for the greater good. As an American, who gained my freedom due to those who came before me who were able to defend it, I cannot think otherwise.
However, where democracy is working smoothly, then social change can be brought about through non-violent means – writing our legislators, voting, and the courts. My favorite example of how to bring about change in a democracy is the civil rights movements – specifically Rosa Parks. We celebrate today how this amazing woman changed history by breaking a law that was unethical to begin with.
Another example – when cities outlaw Christmas caroling because it is potentially offensive, citizens may protect their right to freedom of speech by simply caroling.
However, other laws cannot be changed by breaking them. For instance, taxes. Although it was common in the early days of the income tax, we cannot just not pay taxes these days. They are already taken out of our paychecks. However, we can change the tax code by voting for our leaders, by sending letters to those already in power, and perhaps by using the courts to protest tax laws.
Sometimes I get frustrated that these methods move too slowly. However, that’s the beauty of our system. As long as regular elections are held, the power remains with the people. Violence is not necessary. As much as I dislike certain laws, I must accept the fact that the laws were put in place by people that my fellow countrymen elected. Therefore, any issues I have with the government must be settled within the means the government put in place so that we the people can govern ourselves.
As for the first question, I believe the answer is difficult. Let’s look first at America. Although those against instituting a national language are quick to point out that only about 1/3 of the citizens of the original 13 colonies spoke English, the colonies did belong to the English, the founding fathers were wealthy English citizens. And despite their opposition to King George, they set up a government that reeked of Englishness. Why?
Because they knew what worked and what didn’t. The English monarchy had been losing its real power for 500 years, since the Magna Carta was signed. The Englishmen who established America had, for their example a government setup that had been working for centuries. All they had to do was tweak it to fit their own American style.
For the last 300 years the Western world has been touting Democracy to the rest of the world much in the same way that the missionaries pushed Christianity. One has come to be known as unacceptable, while the other is still acceptable and continues to be pushed. However, much as changing the religion of a different culture has implications, changing the political structure of an established country has implications that could potentially be destructive.
While I personally believe that democracy is the form of government that gives people the greatest freedoms and honors the rights of individuals, the transition may be long and hard. Consider that our present form of democracy in America was slowly developed for 500 years before placed in action by citizens who were already used a similar political setup.
Other cultures transition to democracy from different political systems. If a country was recently in a monarchy setup, then suspicion and violence would be the norm. Kings solidify their claim to rule by exterminating anyone who threatens their supremacy. If a country recently was ruled in this way, then whoever they elect, even in a democracy, may be prone to similar means to guarantee that they will be “elected” continually in the future.
In a monarchy, when the people get fed-up with the regime, they revolt and set in place a new regime. Certainly, if an election doesn’t go the way half the nation wants, then violence is anticipated. Our frustration with a world that is not at peace may be the result of trying to institute political systems that really should evolve at the natural pace of the culture.
This brings me to a second question – when is it appropriate to use violence to further political means?
When a regime is tyrannical and fails to recognize basic rights entitled to all people, and there is no other way to change the regime, then violence may be acceptable for the greater good. As an American, who gained my freedom due to those who came before me who were able to defend it, I cannot think otherwise.
However, where democracy is working smoothly, then social change can be brought about through non-violent means – writing our legislators, voting, and the courts. My favorite example of how to bring about change in a democracy is the civil rights movements – specifically Rosa Parks. We celebrate today how this amazing woman changed history by breaking a law that was unethical to begin with.
Another example – when cities outlaw Christmas caroling because it is potentially offensive, citizens may protect their right to freedom of speech by simply caroling.
However, other laws cannot be changed by breaking them. For instance, taxes. Although it was common in the early days of the income tax, we cannot just not pay taxes these days. They are already taken out of our paychecks. However, we can change the tax code by voting for our leaders, by sending letters to those already in power, and perhaps by using the courts to protest tax laws.
Sometimes I get frustrated that these methods move too slowly. However, that’s the beauty of our system. As long as regular elections are held, the power remains with the people. Violence is not necessary. As much as I dislike certain laws, I must accept the fact that the laws were put in place by people that my fellow countrymen elected. Therefore, any issues I have with the government must be settled within the means the government put in place so that we the people can govern ourselves.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Duck Soup
I can no longer keep my silence about what I have been up to these last few months. Comedy. It is comedy. There are two new forms of comedy in my life that I have been taking part in these last few weeks.
The first is the TV show, "The Big Bang Theory." I could go on more about that, but let's just put it this way - I was, and always shall be, a nerd. This show throws me back to my high school days. I get jokes I never should get. And it makes me think, "Why does the world have a certain standard about how we should behave and what should interest us?" I wish there were more nerds in my life.
But the other comedy I have been viewing is the Marx Brothers. I will not lie, I had never had any interest in the Marx brothers for my first 24 years. First of all, I got Groucho Marx confused with Karl Marx, and I'm no communist. But also, like many things, nothing had ever caused me to question a world without Marx brothers.
In late April I worked a 32-hour day. I kid you not - I went to work at 11:00 am on Sunday and didn't go home until 8:00 PM the next day (with the exception of a two-hour nap). That Thursday mornign I flew home and, as I was getting ready for a good, long needed, nap, I opened up "Duck Soup" on Netflix.
I guess I also opened up a can of worms. The comedy of the Marx brothers was something that I was not prepared for. I suppose I compare it to a 1930's Monty Python...a movie where little comedy skits were loosely strung together with a "plot." It was adorable. I became an instant fan!
After my first Marx movie, I had decided that my all time favorite brother was Chico. From later research, I learned that Chico was the oldest of the performing brothers (there were six, but really only the three became famous). He also had a gambling problem in real life. For our younger generation fans, his character was that of an Italian immigrant who struggled with words. His plays on words were quaint and yet still amusing in the movie setting. As the Brothers started as a vaudeville act, Chico would perform on the piano in many movies. As a pianist myself, I wish I could play a few of his songs!
A close second was Harpo. I had long known Harpo from an "I Love Lucy" episode. The episode I had always found funny, however I had never really fallen in love with the Harpo character. However, after three Marx movies, I now see why he seems to be one of the favorites among those who know the brothers.
Bulging eyes, a curly wig, and an outfit that looks like a hobo. Harpo Marx never spoke in film. Early in his career he learned to pantomime his lines because he had difficulty delivering them. Harpo also chases women around and plays, you guessed it, the harp. In his personal life, he married late and adopted four children. He was always very happy.
Groucho Marx is perhaps the postor boy for the brothers. He is the youngest of the famous three and also the first to get started in show business. In my first encounter with Groucho, I wasn't impressed. To be honest, his oversized grease-pencil mustache almost made me sick. He appeared in the movie delivering lines that made no sense - it was a strange mix of jokes that came one after another, too fast to really understand.
However, since then Groucho has become a favorite for me. His sense of humor is much like my own. I find that is why I have trouble getting people to laugh at my jokes - my style is from the 1930's. Groucho is the voice and character of the team. He was the one who carried on in show business long after the brothers stopped performing together in public. I have come to love his fiendish eyebrow wiggles and 1930's style innuendo, his way of being insulting and loveable at the same time.
Apparently Groucho was also loveable off the screen. He was a simple man who wanted to be a good father to his children and stay at home. However, he had a tendency to marry alchoholics, and spent three marriages in this way. This inevitably led to a more depressing home life than perhaps he deserved.
However, I think one of the greatest appeals of the Marx brothers is the very fact that they are brothers. (There were six in all - one died, two others left show business as Groucho, Harpo, and Chico developed stronger characters). I imagine growing up for them was a fun experience - even if they were poor. They learned to entertain - to play instruments.
In their movies I see four (or three) brothers who have fun together. They work, they enjoy each other's company, and they goof off...how much better can life get? I can tell this is a comedy team that thrives on improv. Although I've never had a brother, I cannot imagine a more fulfilling day than going to work and giving your brother a hard time all day. Every scene I watch screams "brothers!" to me. And this makes the movies all the more enjoyable.
The first is the TV show, "The Big Bang Theory." I could go on more about that, but let's just put it this way - I was, and always shall be, a nerd. This show throws me back to my high school days. I get jokes I never should get. And it makes me think, "Why does the world have a certain standard about how we should behave and what should interest us?" I wish there were more nerds in my life.
But the other comedy I have been viewing is the Marx Brothers. I will not lie, I had never had any interest in the Marx brothers for my first 24 years. First of all, I got Groucho Marx confused with Karl Marx, and I'm no communist. But also, like many things, nothing had ever caused me to question a world without Marx brothers.
In late April I worked a 32-hour day. I kid you not - I went to work at 11:00 am on Sunday and didn't go home until 8:00 PM the next day (with the exception of a two-hour nap). That Thursday mornign I flew home and, as I was getting ready for a good, long needed, nap, I opened up "Duck Soup" on Netflix.
I guess I also opened up a can of worms. The comedy of the Marx brothers was something that I was not prepared for. I suppose I compare it to a 1930's Monty Python...a movie where little comedy skits were loosely strung together with a "plot." It was adorable. I became an instant fan!
After my first Marx movie, I had decided that my all time favorite brother was Chico. From later research, I learned that Chico was the oldest of the performing brothers (there were six, but really only the three became famous). He also had a gambling problem in real life. For our younger generation fans, his character was that of an Italian immigrant who struggled with words. His plays on words were quaint and yet still amusing in the movie setting. As the Brothers started as a vaudeville act, Chico would perform on the piano in many movies. As a pianist myself, I wish I could play a few of his songs!
A close second was Harpo. I had long known Harpo from an "I Love Lucy" episode. The episode I had always found funny, however I had never really fallen in love with the Harpo character. However, after three Marx movies, I now see why he seems to be one of the favorites among those who know the brothers.
Bulging eyes, a curly wig, and an outfit that looks like a hobo. Harpo Marx never spoke in film. Early in his career he learned to pantomime his lines because he had difficulty delivering them. Harpo also chases women around and plays, you guessed it, the harp. In his personal life, he married late and adopted four children. He was always very happy.
Groucho Marx is perhaps the postor boy for the brothers. He is the youngest of the famous three and also the first to get started in show business. In my first encounter with Groucho, I wasn't impressed. To be honest, his oversized grease-pencil mustache almost made me sick. He appeared in the movie delivering lines that made no sense - it was a strange mix of jokes that came one after another, too fast to really understand.
However, since then Groucho has become a favorite for me. His sense of humor is much like my own. I find that is why I have trouble getting people to laugh at my jokes - my style is from the 1930's. Groucho is the voice and character of the team. He was the one who carried on in show business long after the brothers stopped performing together in public. I have come to love his fiendish eyebrow wiggles and 1930's style innuendo, his way of being insulting and loveable at the same time.
Apparently Groucho was also loveable off the screen. He was a simple man who wanted to be a good father to his children and stay at home. However, he had a tendency to marry alchoholics, and spent three marriages in this way. This inevitably led to a more depressing home life than perhaps he deserved.
However, I think one of the greatest appeals of the Marx brothers is the very fact that they are brothers. (There were six in all - one died, two others left show business as Groucho, Harpo, and Chico developed stronger characters). I imagine growing up for them was a fun experience - even if they were poor. They learned to entertain - to play instruments.
In their movies I see four (or three) brothers who have fun together. They work, they enjoy each other's company, and they goof off...how much better can life get? I can tell this is a comedy team that thrives on improv. Although I've never had a brother, I cannot imagine a more fulfilling day than going to work and giving your brother a hard time all day. Every scene I watch screams "brothers!" to me. And this makes the movies all the more enjoyable.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Economy Got You Down?
This recession is depressing. I’m not talking about the daily news – it’s good, it’s bad, it’s not so bad, it’ worse, it’s great – that has us constantly wondering when it will be over (2010?). And I’m not talking about how we can’t spend anything because we’re worried about losing a job and not being able to pay necessary expenses (because I always try to be a light spender, recession or no).
The trouble is work. I actually first noticed this problem in a friend of mine. She is looking for a new job (and it’s a long process go figure). One day I was talking to her after she had just had an interview, and she was telling me that every time she had an interview, she had a good day at the job she was currently at, and that she wasn’t sure if she really wanted to leave. See, people at her job were making it difficult, but when it was busy and she didn’t have to think about the office politics, she loved her job.
When it was busy.
That is why the recession is depressing. Let’s face it, we are people who like to work! And if you have a job, it should not be about the money, it should be because you like it! I cannot imagine working in any sort of retail or customer service function where business was slow. Even if I had my job, I’d go crazy!
And that leads me to the other depressing part of the recession – fear of layoff. I said earlier that saving for a layoff didn’t make the recession bad. But fear of layoff is different. For months on end we would go into work saying, “What’s going to happen? Are we having layoffs? How many? Are there going to be salary cuts? Raises at all this year? If I’m not staffed all summer, is that a sign of impending doom?”
This kind of talk makes work depressing. You work as hard as you can because you don’t want to be the one laid off. And then, right when the pink slips are coming out, you are burnt out, and your performance sinks. Then you wonder if all the hard work you do will even be rewarded with a raise this year…even a small one.
Which is the last thing that makes the recession depressing. For professionals and salary folks, the recession means more work. Companies layoff key salaried employees to cut costs and then expect the rest to make up the work. As accountants, we work long hours during busy season, and this year we are experiencing a longer busy season (if you’re not charging 50 hours a week, it’s not worth it to the company to employ you). But I have found that people in other professions who are salaried are experiencing the same problem.
More and more I hear the term, "At least I have a job!" Now, while this sounds like a way to say positive, it it is really a negative remark. It essentially means, "I am miserable at my job. I used to like it, but I don't anymore. All I do is work all the time, but I can't get a new job because there are no jobs to be had." And what's worse is that corporations take advantage of this feeling. We are supposed to love our jobs! Not just work to bring in a paycheck! If we are going to spend 1/4 - 1/3 of our lives working, then we need to love what we do, not feel like trapped slaves.
There is good news, though! The recession is over! My friend Kristen officially ended it in January. She wrote me an email about how depressed it was making her and decided that it was over. She ended it – because literally the day after she wrote the email, the stock market went up for three months in a row. Housing prices leveled out, and people started buying homes again.
I guess the point is, this recession is what you make of it. It’s a good time for learning and growth, for those of us who are bad with money. For those of us who are always prepared, it’s a time to discover what’s really important in life. It’s a time to learn just what it is about your job that’s got you down before hopping over to a new one. But most of all, it’s a time when it is very important to keep a positive attitude and not let the recession turn into a depression!
The trouble is work. I actually first noticed this problem in a friend of mine. She is looking for a new job (and it’s a long process go figure). One day I was talking to her after she had just had an interview, and she was telling me that every time she had an interview, she had a good day at the job she was currently at, and that she wasn’t sure if she really wanted to leave. See, people at her job were making it difficult, but when it was busy and she didn’t have to think about the office politics, she loved her job.
When it was busy.
That is why the recession is depressing. Let’s face it, we are people who like to work! And if you have a job, it should not be about the money, it should be because you like it! I cannot imagine working in any sort of retail or customer service function where business was slow. Even if I had my job, I’d go crazy!
And that leads me to the other depressing part of the recession – fear of layoff. I said earlier that saving for a layoff didn’t make the recession bad. But fear of layoff is different. For months on end we would go into work saying, “What’s going to happen? Are we having layoffs? How many? Are there going to be salary cuts? Raises at all this year? If I’m not staffed all summer, is that a sign of impending doom?”
This kind of talk makes work depressing. You work as hard as you can because you don’t want to be the one laid off. And then, right when the pink slips are coming out, you are burnt out, and your performance sinks. Then you wonder if all the hard work you do will even be rewarded with a raise this year…even a small one.
Which is the last thing that makes the recession depressing. For professionals and salary folks, the recession means more work. Companies layoff key salaried employees to cut costs and then expect the rest to make up the work. As accountants, we work long hours during busy season, and this year we are experiencing a longer busy season (if you’re not charging 50 hours a week, it’s not worth it to the company to employ you). But I have found that people in other professions who are salaried are experiencing the same problem.
More and more I hear the term, "At least I have a job!" Now, while this sounds like a way to say positive, it it is really a negative remark. It essentially means, "I am miserable at my job. I used to like it, but I don't anymore. All I do is work all the time, but I can't get a new job because there are no jobs to be had." And what's worse is that corporations take advantage of this feeling. We are supposed to love our jobs! Not just work to bring in a paycheck! If we are going to spend 1/4 - 1/3 of our lives working, then we need to love what we do, not feel like trapped slaves.
There is good news, though! The recession is over! My friend Kristen officially ended it in January. She wrote me an email about how depressed it was making her and decided that it was over. She ended it – because literally the day after she wrote the email, the stock market went up for three months in a row. Housing prices leveled out, and people started buying homes again.
I guess the point is, this recession is what you make of it. It’s a good time for learning and growth, for those of us who are bad with money. For those of us who are always prepared, it’s a time to discover what’s really important in life. It’s a time to learn just what it is about your job that’s got you down before hopping over to a new one. But most of all, it’s a time when it is very important to keep a positive attitude and not let the recession turn into a depression!
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
An Undefiled Legacy
I feel a sensation somewhat like relief as George W. Bush slowly fades out of the public limelight and into whatever history will make of him. It’s not because I feel that the country is “on the right track” now, or that our future is somehow better or safer without our former president. It’s the opposite.
I feel relief because the poor guy needs a break. For the last eight years, he has had to deal with the kind of media attention that drives celebrities crazy on a good day, increasingly negative remarks about him, and all this while running a country that was first under attack, then in a war, and finally in a recession.
It’s no wonder Mr. Bush has retreated back Texas, not speaking out about the current administration. Not making waves. Even now there are still those in politics or the media who want to put a final death blow in his legacy – for political gain, perhaps. And yet, George W. Bush doesn’t strike me as someone who cares about what his legacy is. But I do! Because the man does not deserve to be vilified in this way.
I admit, I was a Bush supporter from Day 1 – sort of. Right after his acceptance speech for the Republican nomination in 2000, I signed on to his general philosophy. He hit the ground running in 2001, and in his first 100 days accomplished leaps and bounds, ending up with the same approval rating our current president had in his first 100 days.
I remember Bush dealing with the American airplane that crashed in China. He managed to get our people and our plane back without causing a war. I was only 16, but I was impressed.
Then, in September, disaster hit. We all remember. And once again the president leaped into action. For comparison purposes, I wonder, if a similar disaster occurred today, how safe we’d feel with the current president. Bush’s ratings soared, and the whole country got behind him to make sure we felt safe.
Slowly those actions spiraled downhill…as time distanced us from the disaster of September 11th, we began to question, “Did we overreact?” And yet, whether the answer is yes or no, the question is still much like Monday morning quarterbacking. Or perhaps we should say, “If we had not taken those measures, where would we be today?” I think that question is a lot more revealing. I don’t think there would be the same level of security, or materialistic questions about the economy. We’d still be afraid to fly.
And there was the inevitable Iraq war – no weapons of mass destruction. At the time, Bush did the best he could with the information he had. Remember (how soon we forget), Sadaam was not behaving like an innocent man. To this day, I would say he either was hiding something, or that he just knew that the war would eventually tear our country apart. Either way – an enemy was eradicated.
We knew it would be a long road going in. The famous, “Mission Accomplished” speech – well, it really was all about how we were only halfway there…perhaps less than halfway. But that’s not what gets remembered.
I remember how we were all so supportive of our soldiers and would do anything for them. There are still fundraisers, drives for supplies, and thank-yous sent out. But the vivacity has toned down almost to the Clinton-era levels. Soldiers will always be honored wherever they go. But was it our guilt that caused us to turn on Bush and the war? As Americans, we felt guilty for going on with our lives, for feeling about other things? And so, in order to make those guilty feelings disappear, those of us who were not hot or cold became lukewarm. And the lukewarm people became anti-war, until slowly the concept of a longer project to bring about a free Iraq disappeared.
I was always a fan of President Bush’s social agenda, and I will be frank. He never accomplished the one thing I wanted him to do – social security reform. So if anyone should be complaining about his legacy, it should be me. But I know the truth. The war and our security bought Bush a second term in office (in a near-landslide election). But by the time he was able to turn back to the domestic agenda, congress had filled up with partisan Democrats. For months, dragging into years, they prevented real, meaningful legislation from being passed. And what did pass was always watered down from its original intent. Both sides piled bills high with pork.
If the public became upset that President Bush was “lame duck” or that the Republican congress wasn’t doing anything valuable, it was only because the “Republican congress” was nothing of the sort. Having two parties and branches to the government has been one of our strengths in America – checks and balances. But if things are too balanced well…have you ever seen a balanced scale? It doesn’t move. Nothing happens!
And finally, in salvaging Bush’s legacy, let’s think about the barrage of negative media he had to deal with. I remember how he handled difficult press conferences (Donald Rumsfeld even more so) – catching reporter spin to answer the “real” question, and telling things like they were. Even so, when the press hates you, when congress hates you, when the world hates you, and when even your own countrymen start to hate you, there is a little bit of psychological warfare going on.
I think that if President Bush’s approval rating had been 3% for his entire time in office, he still would have behaved the same way. He was not the type to really care what people thought about him, or let that get in the way of getting things done.
So what will history make of Bush? Well, it depends on who writes it, really.
But then, what will history make of Obama, or Clinton, or George H.W. Bush? None of these men will ever be a George Washington or an Abe Lincoln. Time will tell if Obama will become a Truman, Roosevelt , or Reagan. The events of September 11th ensured that George W. Bush’s presidency will be mentioned, and how he responded to it. And we will see if the Iraq war is still in full swing in 400 years.
Ultimately, I think any of these recent president will go the way of so many presidents. The events of their presidency that are important to the nation will be remembered. But their day to day lives, their smaller initiatives (No Child Left Behind) will be left for trivia buffs and special research projects. My comparison would be President Taft. When I went to his museum in Ohio this fall, I was amazed by the man! He was smart, he was accomplished (lawyer, teacher, president, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), and he built up the Philippines! But he will always be remembered as the president who couldn’t fit in the White House bathtub.
So will it be with George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.
But in the near history? Looking back at all eight years, at everything that happened and at everything he did…I say, “Well done George Bush! You did the best that you could with what you had. You always did what you thought was the right thing. And you put this country ahead of yourself for eight long years!”
He deserves a break.
But more than that, he deserves a round of applause.
I feel relief because the poor guy needs a break. For the last eight years, he has had to deal with the kind of media attention that drives celebrities crazy on a good day, increasingly negative remarks about him, and all this while running a country that was first under attack, then in a war, and finally in a recession.
It’s no wonder Mr. Bush has retreated back Texas, not speaking out about the current administration. Not making waves. Even now there are still those in politics or the media who want to put a final death blow in his legacy – for political gain, perhaps. And yet, George W. Bush doesn’t strike me as someone who cares about what his legacy is. But I do! Because the man does not deserve to be vilified in this way.
I admit, I was a Bush supporter from Day 1 – sort of. Right after his acceptance speech for the Republican nomination in 2000, I signed on to his general philosophy. He hit the ground running in 2001, and in his first 100 days accomplished leaps and bounds, ending up with the same approval rating our current president had in his first 100 days.
I remember Bush dealing with the American airplane that crashed in China. He managed to get our people and our plane back without causing a war. I was only 16, but I was impressed.
Then, in September, disaster hit. We all remember. And once again the president leaped into action. For comparison purposes, I wonder, if a similar disaster occurred today, how safe we’d feel with the current president. Bush’s ratings soared, and the whole country got behind him to make sure we felt safe.
Slowly those actions spiraled downhill…as time distanced us from the disaster of September 11th, we began to question, “Did we overreact?” And yet, whether the answer is yes or no, the question is still much like Monday morning quarterbacking. Or perhaps we should say, “If we had not taken those measures, where would we be today?” I think that question is a lot more revealing. I don’t think there would be the same level of security, or materialistic questions about the economy. We’d still be afraid to fly.
And there was the inevitable Iraq war – no weapons of mass destruction. At the time, Bush did the best he could with the information he had. Remember (how soon we forget), Sadaam was not behaving like an innocent man. To this day, I would say he either was hiding something, or that he just knew that the war would eventually tear our country apart. Either way – an enemy was eradicated.
We knew it would be a long road going in. The famous, “Mission Accomplished” speech – well, it really was all about how we were only halfway there…perhaps less than halfway. But that’s not what gets remembered.
I remember how we were all so supportive of our soldiers and would do anything for them. There are still fundraisers, drives for supplies, and thank-yous sent out. But the vivacity has toned down almost to the Clinton-era levels. Soldiers will always be honored wherever they go. But was it our guilt that caused us to turn on Bush and the war? As Americans, we felt guilty for going on with our lives, for feeling about other things? And so, in order to make those guilty feelings disappear, those of us who were not hot or cold became lukewarm. And the lukewarm people became anti-war, until slowly the concept of a longer project to bring about a free Iraq disappeared.
I was always a fan of President Bush’s social agenda, and I will be frank. He never accomplished the one thing I wanted him to do – social security reform. So if anyone should be complaining about his legacy, it should be me. But I know the truth. The war and our security bought Bush a second term in office (in a near-landslide election). But by the time he was able to turn back to the domestic agenda, congress had filled up with partisan Democrats. For months, dragging into years, they prevented real, meaningful legislation from being passed. And what did pass was always watered down from its original intent. Both sides piled bills high with pork.
If the public became upset that President Bush was “lame duck” or that the Republican congress wasn’t doing anything valuable, it was only because the “Republican congress” was nothing of the sort. Having two parties and branches to the government has been one of our strengths in America – checks and balances. But if things are too balanced well…have you ever seen a balanced scale? It doesn’t move. Nothing happens!
And finally, in salvaging Bush’s legacy, let’s think about the barrage of negative media he had to deal with. I remember how he handled difficult press conferences (Donald Rumsfeld even more so) – catching reporter spin to answer the “real” question, and telling things like they were. Even so, when the press hates you, when congress hates you, when the world hates you, and when even your own countrymen start to hate you, there is a little bit of psychological warfare going on.
I think that if President Bush’s approval rating had been 3% for his entire time in office, he still would have behaved the same way. He was not the type to really care what people thought about him, or let that get in the way of getting things done.
So what will history make of Bush? Well, it depends on who writes it, really.
But then, what will history make of Obama, or Clinton, or George H.W. Bush? None of these men will ever be a George Washington or an Abe Lincoln. Time will tell if Obama will become a Truman, Roosevelt , or Reagan. The events of September 11th ensured that George W. Bush’s presidency will be mentioned, and how he responded to it. And we will see if the Iraq war is still in full swing in 400 years.
Ultimately, I think any of these recent president will go the way of so many presidents. The events of their presidency that are important to the nation will be remembered. But their day to day lives, their smaller initiatives (No Child Left Behind) will be left for trivia buffs and special research projects. My comparison would be President Taft. When I went to his museum in Ohio this fall, I was amazed by the man! He was smart, he was accomplished (lawyer, teacher, president, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), and he built up the Philippines! But he will always be remembered as the president who couldn’t fit in the White House bathtub.
So will it be with George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.
But in the near history? Looking back at all eight years, at everything that happened and at everything he did…I say, “Well done George Bush! You did the best that you could with what you had. You always did what you thought was the right thing. And you put this country ahead of yourself for eight long years!”
He deserves a break.
But more than that, he deserves a round of applause.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)