Perspective = Gratitude and Moderation

Here is a good illustration of how to categorize behavior into dimensions.  What do a man stuck in the cargo hold of an airliner, a welfare recipient at the arcade, and a man with kidney failure have in common?  The answer is perspective problems.

First is the story of the baggage handler working for Alaska Airlines, who called 911 to report being trapped in the cargo hold of an airplane in flight.  He apparently had either crawled in to take a nap or had fallen asleep while loading the airplane.  With no help from the emergency operator, he eventually pounded and shouted loudly enough to alert the passengers and the flight was diverted to rescue him.  (I could not find a print copy to confirm it, but heard a radio report of this incident saying that such napping by airline ground workers was not that unusual.)  The point here is that falling asleep or napping on the job, especially with our continued high unemployment rate, shows a lack of appreciation of having a good job.  Many people take their jobs for granted, looking for ways to cut corners or game the system.  They are not totally to blame, often defended by unions more interested in dues than member welfare or the financial sustainability of the company and provoked by management more interested in short-term profits than in proper training, supervision and treatment of employees.  Nonetheless, in a still shaky economy, such behavior shows a lack of gratitude.  As one supervisor used to remind his staff, “This is the best job you can get, because if you could find a better one, you’d be a fool to stay here; and I know none of you are fools.”

Many sources announced last week that a new Kansas law “tells poor families that they can't use cash assistance from the state to attend concerts, get tattoos, see a psychic or buy lingerie. The list of don'ts runs to several dozen items,” but except for nail salons, arcades and pool passes, no more of the additional  restrictions were listed in any news articles.  The point is that restrictions in Kansas go well beyond the standard list of alcohol, tobacco, gambling and adult-oriented businesses.  Critics contend that these bans are punitive, highly judgmental and mean-spirited.

Apparently the critics (and some recipients) conveniently forget that free money from the government, whether it be in the form of welfare or unemployment compensation checks, already comes with expectations, the expectation that it will be used for necessities while the citizen recovers financially.  That seems reasonable and neither punitive nor mean.  By analogy if an adult child got behind on rent and asked his parents for help and the parents later found out that it was instead spent on psychics, movies and a tattoo, they would rightly feel taken advantage of.  Neighbors and relatives would advise them not to give more money to the prodigal, ungrateful son further enabling his poor choices.  In the Kansas case, however, attempts by lawmakers to limit frivolous expenditures are mocked and condemned.  The real problem is that it has come to a point where welfare payments must be so specifically restricted to avoid misuse by those who are unappreciative and believe they have a right to spend them as they please.

Finally, comes the story of the Arkansas man whose kidneys failed due to drinking too much iced tea.  This is a perspective issue not from lack of gratitude but from lack of moderation.  More is not always better.  The truth is too much of anything is dangerous.  Even drinking too much water can kill a person.

This illustrates how seemingly unrelated stories each reflect some aspect of perspective.  Those who experience the problems and those who sympathize with or excuse them seem to forget that behavior has consequences, that shielding people from those lessons is often the most unkind action and that having perspective minimizes problems.

CEOs and Welfare Cheaters

The subjects I address are based on the premise that behaviors have matching consequences.  Touch a hot stove and get burned.  Be convicted of a crime and have trouble finding a good job.  Fail to save while you’re working and become dependent on the government/charity for a not-very-comfortable retirement.  Graduate from high school and have a better chance at a good job.  There are a few exceptions, and as usual, I want to show surprising similarities between two classes of people not usually associated.

The first group is overpaid CEOs who take money from the owners of the corporation when they have clearly not earned it.  The second group consists of those who accept money from the government when they are not eligible.

We are asked to believe that those who rise to become CEOs have very special talents, and that no one else could do what they do.  They are special, and their time is so valuable that they travel in private jets and chauffeured limousines.  Their special status justifies lavishly decorated offices with thousand-dollar trashcans.  Their decisions affect the lives of thousands, but if they make mistakes and lose their jobs, they have developed a network of contacts to help them find another high-paying position quickly.  (They may have screwed up, but they’re still special).  Others pay the price while boards of directors continue to treat CEOs like rock stars, often ignoring these quirks and errors, while rewarding them at levels hundreds of times the pay of an average worker.  Take for example the ousted JC Penney CEO who made over $53.3 million while putting the company in a position where survival is now questionable.  (Several others a few years ago collected huge bonuses on the heels of a government bailout.)  They play on their status to avoid consequences, while gathering wealth and fame.  Then, in retirement, they consult and write books.  Contrast this behavior with that of Pope Francis who shows everyone, not just Catholics, that a position of power need not be automatically linked to a lifestyle of luxury, privilege and self-indulgence.  This characterization does not apply to all CEOs and top executives, but there are enough of them in the news to give the rest a bad name – a few bad apples but too few exemplary ones.

At the other extreme, dishonest behavior can also lead to favorable consequences.  They haven’t the status, and we find nothing to admire about them; but they seem to use a similar rationale that they are special and deserve to be treated differently.  “Since 2003, there's been a 29% jump in Americans with little or no work experience getting disability payments, according to the Social Security Administration. Over the same time, there's been a 44% increase in disability claims by people formerly in the workplace.”  With no evidence of an epidemic of injury or illness, a reasonable conclusion is that a major proportion of this increase must be attributed to cheaters, people who feel they have the right to continue their cash flow from the government without working, taking the money indirectly from us while ignoring the rules that the rest of us follow.  Last Sunday a 60 Minutes segment showed the depth of the problem.  Again it’s not a majority, but statistics tell a distressing story.

The behaviors and attitudes of these groups from each end of the socio-economic spectrum are so similar.  Except for the level of power, the main difference is that those who benefit by claiming disability, the cheaters, have only an indirect obligation to society, the same obligation shared by the rest of us to act honestly and not take what we don’t deserve.  Their actions are illegal, and if caught, they may be punished.  Those CEOs, on the other hand, have a direct and explicit obligation to shareholders, customers and especially to employees to be faithful stewards of the corporate resources, using them to provide quality products and secure jobs. Irresponsible actions may be unethical, but only in rare cases are they prosecuted and rarely do they act guilty or remorseful.  When things go well, they take credit.  When things go poorly, they blame the economy.  Both groups justify their actions by feeling privileged with a primary obligation to themselves, regardless of the effect on others. Both act without consequences with few mechanisms in the system to correct this misalignment.  It’s the height of irresponsibility, but the appropriate consequences are missing.

Unfortunately there is little we can do to balance the scales. There is no sense of shame.  Ordinary stockholders have little influence.  Reporting slackers is frowned upon.  As long as enough Americans consider it cool to be a powerful, but self-serving executive or a clever slacker abusing the system, the behavior will continue at a cost to us as customers and taxpayers.  It would take a groundswell of citizens with economic understanding and true feelings of contempt toward such behavior, as well as the lawyers and boards of directors who support them, to begin to right the equation.

Blissfully Growing Old

When you wake up in the morning and run to the bathroom, do you ever stop to think how grateful you are for indoor plumbing?  You don’t have to put on your boots and slog through the mud to an outhouse or use a not-very sanitary pot stored under the bed until it can be emptied outside.  Having a warm, dry and relatively clean bathroom nearby is something that most of us are so used to that the thought of any other arrangement never crosses our minds.  It’s expected.

This occurred to me as I read a UN report, not on bathrooms, but on the aging population.  “By the year 2050, for the first time in history, seniors older than 60 will outnumber children younger than 15.”  An elder rights group, HelpAge International, co-sponsored the research.  Their primary concern is that “most countries are not prepared to support their swelling numbers of elderly people.”  Like indoor plumbing, we don’t even question this.

When did it become the responsibility of the governments to support older people?  In the US it apparently was in 1935 when the government decided that people older than 65 should receive additional support in the form of Social Security.  (It would be funded by other people by a tax on paychecks.)  Later (1983) the full retirement age changed to 66 and will slowly increase to 67.  These changes were likely based on finances and politics rather than some scientific or moral agreement that 66 or 67 was the right age for older Americans to stop being totally responsible for their own livelihood and to expect the government to take over.

The UN report recognizes that resources are not unlimited and that without changes many governments have made promises that they soon will no longer be able to keep.  What they don’t recognize is that the primary assumption that the government is morally responsible for maintaining this older population is problematic.  As everyone accepts it, this assumption takes the pressure off citizens to plan for their own futures.  They don’t have to save and can engage advocacy groups to help them complain whenever there is a threat to their “rights.”  This complacency is evident in common stories of elders who are totally dependent on Social Security and can't make ends meet when Medicare increases eat up cost-of-living adjustments. 

One day it will be like getting out of bed and finding the bathroom door nailed shut or a broken water main in the street.  It will cause panic.  If you don’t believe it, consider all the minor panics that are taking place during the government shutdown or due to the sequester.  Temporary loss of free daycare and National Parks, having work hours cut by 20%, or losing a paycheck for a few weeks doesn’t compare to living 65 years and suddenly realizing you should have put away some savings.  We have expectations.  We have rights.  We don’t even question the premise.  If resources are limited, that’s someone else’s problem.

Learning from Australia

The wise learn not only from their own errors, but also from the experience of others.  Back in December I suggested learning from Italy, where the citizens became so accustomed to what were described as “lavish social benefits” that they took their outrageously generous government programs for granted, never stopping to be grateful or to wonder where the money was coming from.  The same could be said for several other European countries.  Now the day of reckoning has arrived and they find themselves facing painful consequences.

Continuing with the theme of perspective from last time but looking west, we find a new law in Australia regulating welfare payments.  Rather than sending checks or ordinary debit cards to recipients, the new program offers a special, restricted card that can be used only for priority items such as food, housing, clothing, education and healthcare, and only at approved businesses.  It cannot be used for alcohol, tobacco, gambling or other discretionary expenditures.  This has sparked protests, people marching in the streets objecting to what they perceive as restrictive, paternalistic and embarrassing treatment.

There are two important lessons here for Americans represented by two citizens interviewed for the article.   The first portrays herself as a victim.  It’s not her fault that she must rely on government payments and she resents any interference with how she spends the money.  But if we give up responsibility, in this case the responsibility to provide for ourselves and our families, we may be required to give up the freedom to decide how and where to spend that money.  The second citizen seems grateful for the help.   She recognizes that this is not her money and not something to be expected.  She has not slipped into the faulty assumption of turning a helping hand into an entitlement.  She has the perspective to appreciate the help and not complain about reasonable conditions.

Fortunately, the way their system is set up, it’s possible to get back that lost freedom.  As one government representative puts it, "Welfare should not be a destination or a way of life. The government is committed to progressively reforming the welfare system to foster individual responsibility.”  We all know that change comes only in response to some level of discomfort.

I wonder what the reaction would be to such a program in the US.  Are we long on victimhood and short on gratitude, or vice versa?  The first represents low levels of responsibility; the second, strong perspective.  We can learn from others the importance of gratitude and that responsibility neglected means freedom lost.  We can see living examples of how behavior has consequences.  If we don’t understand these basic facts, we may soon face consequences similar to those challenging other countries around the world today.