From my experience, holidays bring out two conflicting yet complementary emotions in me: Joy at seeing loved ones and an overwhelming desire to be far away from said loved ones.
I love my family. I just love them from over here. At my house.
It's the same way I feel about talking on the phone. I am approximately 93000% more likely to respond to a text message or email than a voicemail. The ability to say "You know what? You can wait for 6 minutes while I do some important shit." before sending a response is one of the most liberating things that technology has ever done for me (Also, pooping is much more entertaining). Try that technique on a traditional phone call. "I'm sorry. I am at a critical moment in my research of warp drive mechanics on the Enterprise D. I'm going to need you to shut up for 4-5 minutes so I can comprehend this fake science. Thanks." See how well that goes with your grandma.
That's exactly how I feel at human gatherings.
I have something I call "Corporate Andy", formerly known as "Blockbuster Andy". This guy is just a super dude. He's all about your cat stories and helping you with your newfangled touchscreen phone. He began out of necessity while at my first job. (I bet you can't guess where it was.) Putting on the Blockbuster Andy persona allowed me to be a sociable and genuinely likable guy for nearly anyone in any demographic. It worked very well for selling frivolous things to busy people. When I changed jobs my corporate persona had to evolve. I was no longer dealing with the general public. Corporate Andy became the guy at work that would listen to you explain why that particular sweater was just perfect for your dog while fixing mundane "problems" on your "system".
This is usually the personality I adopt at social events. Lately, "social events" has turned into anything outside my home. Once you're adopting artificial personalities on a nearly daily basis one of two things can happen: 1) You can gradually become that person, even when you're alone. 2) The fabric of reality around Fake You begins to crack and the dreaded Real You emerges. I believe I am in the final stages of scenario 2.
I just don't want to play the game anymore. You know the game. Brown-nosing and sexual favors getting the same consideration as intelligence and hard work. Status quo taking precedence over progress and efficiency. Showing up to the department's Christmas party on time is more important than showing up to work on time.
This is the machine that has taken control. I know I sound like an emo teenager right now but at least they give a shit about something. When you are passionate about something you make stupid decisions in the name of that passion. When you are trying to keep your desk job you lay low and try not to get noticed. I feel like I'm in a hidden camera version of Office Space. The cover of the TPS report is more important than the content.
These emotions start to seep into my after-work moods during the holidays. The absurdity of everyday human behavior becomes much more visible. Parents and grandparents fiendishly searching for a hunk of plastic because the TV said it was the hot toy of the year. Families spending hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars trying to have a better Christmas card than anyone else. Businesses everywhere trying to be polite and non-offensive while just wanting to say "Merry Christmas", "Happy Hanukkah", "Have a great Kwanzaa", "Hope you have a fantastic Whatever-The-Fuck-It-Is-That-You-Celebrate".
We have become so conditioned that you are either happy or sad, there is no in-between. I feel like I have to turn on corporate Andy just so people won't ask me why I'm sad. I'm not sad! I'm fucking indifferent to the stupid shit coming out of your mouth! I don't want to talk about the weather, or a fake singing competition on TV, or why you don't much care for the bitch in accounting.
If you have to be fake at work, and you have to be fake around your family, when can you ever be you?
Silence.
I think that's what I crave.
If small-talk and gossip and regurgitated opinions are all there is to offer, can we please just have silence?
Monday, December 26, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Bankers and Imbeciles
I am currently in a overwhelming rage. I just read this Bloomberg article about bankers' and billionaires' opinions on their tax obligations.
These criminals use shady/borderline-illegal business practices to destroy the financial stability of this country yet it's the protester who is the "imbecile"?
One of the asshats, John A. Allison IV, says "Instead of an attack on the 1 percent, let's call it an attack on the very productive." I'm not sure of Mr. Allison's daily duties as former CEO of BB&T Corp. but I'm relatively certain it didn't produce anything other than the taste of vomit in the back of my throat. Calling the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans "very productive" is like calling pimps "investment bankers". It's nonsensical and masks the reality of the tactics involved in acquiring and maintaining those positions.
No one is upset that thesecriminals individuals have been successful. We are upset because many of them destroyed millions of lives in the process and then are given absurd tax incentives and loopholes to ensure they stay wealthy. In a very basic sense, an extra 2% tax on income over $1,000,000 would be an additional $20,000 and, depending on how this income was acquired, result in a tax rate of 37%. This would still leave the individual with $630,000. Meanwhile (again, in a very basic sense not including tax credits or deductions) the single mom paying 15% on her $30,000 salary is left with $25,500. Tax credits and deductions aside, food, shelter, transportation, and general quality of life become much more uncertain for the individual bringing home $2000/month than the individual bringing home $30,000/month.
This whole scenario is assuming any of the wealthy individual's income was actually considered income. Capital gains on long-term investments, and several other forms of income, aren't technically counted as income. The Long-Term Capital Gains tax is currently set at 15% which coincidentally is also the same tax rate the single mom in the previous example, working and earning $8,500-$34,500, is responsible for. Yeah, that makes sense.
So to insinuate that the lowly hourly workers are just jealous and looking for a handout is arrogant and offensive.
According to a report from the IRS, average household income increased 62% from 1979 through 2007. I won't list every year's inflation rate but the inflation rates during 1979-1981 were 11.22%, 13.58%, and 10.35%. respectively. And as anyone with a credit card can tell you, calculating percentages of percentages is messy business. This is significantly skewed by the fact that income for the top 1% "more than tripled" during this time making the actual number for the remaining 99% a bit lower than the reported 62%. Factor in inflation, and the old adage of "The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer" doesn't sound too far from the truth.
(Quick math timeout to illustrate the previous comment:
Lets say all of your monthly bills cost you $1000 (if only, right?). A 10.35% annual inflation rate means that the next year those same bills will cost you $1103.50. That hurts already. Most people won't be getting a raise worth $100 extra every month to cover that increase in expenses. However, if that 10.35% increase came after previous annual increases of 11.22% and 13.58% your bills would have increased from $1000 to $1393.98 in just three years.
Using $1000 in 1979 as a base, and calculating each year's inflation rate on top of the previous year's rate, we see that in 2007 the same bills would cost roughly $3181.84. An increase of 318%. And, as stated previously, average household income (even including the top 1%) increased just 62% over this same time period while income for the top 1% alone "more than tripled". Regardless of the actual number, roughly tripling income would account for the roughly tripling expenses.)
I'll leave you with a few quotes from the unjustly vilified patriots interviewed for the Bloomberg piece.
-When asked about willingness to pay higher tax rates Blackstone Group LP CEO Stephen Schwarzman instead chose to complain about low-income families who pay no income tax saying "...we should all be part of the system". Classy.
-Robert Rosenkranz, CEO of Delphi Financial Group Inc., claims the 1% should be getting thanks instead of persecution. He says "It's simply a fact that pretty much all the private-sector jobs in America are created by the decisions of 'the 1 percent' to hire and invest". So the next time you see a new small business open in your town make sure to thank Robert Rosenkranz.
(No word as of yet on how Mr. Guildenstern feels about the U.S. tax code.)
-CEO of Euro Pacific Capital Inc. Peter Schiff claims his taxes are "more than a medieval lord would have taken from a serf".
Billionaire CEOs: modern-day serfs.
These criminals use shady/borderline-illegal business practices to destroy the financial stability of this country yet it's the protester who is the "imbecile"?
One of the asshats, John A. Allison IV, says "Instead of an attack on the 1 percent, let's call it an attack on the very productive." I'm not sure of Mr. Allison's daily duties as former CEO of BB&T Corp. but I'm relatively certain it didn't produce anything other than the taste of vomit in the back of my throat. Calling the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans "very productive" is like calling pimps "investment bankers". It's nonsensical and masks the reality of the tactics involved in acquiring and maintaining those positions.
No one is upset that these
This whole scenario is assuming any of the wealthy individual's income was actually considered income. Capital gains on long-term investments, and several other forms of income, aren't technically counted as income. The Long-Term Capital Gains tax is currently set at 15% which coincidentally is also the same tax rate the single mom in the previous example, working and earning $8,500-$34,500, is responsible for. Yeah, that makes sense.
So to insinuate that the lowly hourly workers are just jealous and looking for a handout is arrogant and offensive.
According to a report from the IRS, average household income increased 62% from 1979 through 2007. I won't list every year's inflation rate but the inflation rates during 1979-1981 were 11.22%, 13.58%, and 10.35%. respectively. And as anyone with a credit card can tell you, calculating percentages of percentages is messy business. This is significantly skewed by the fact that income for the top 1% "more than tripled" during this time making the actual number for the remaining 99% a bit lower than the reported 62%. Factor in inflation, and the old adage of "The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer" doesn't sound too far from the truth.
(Quick math timeout to illustrate the previous comment:
Lets say all of your monthly bills cost you $1000 (if only, right?). A 10.35% annual inflation rate means that the next year those same bills will cost you $1103.50. That hurts already. Most people won't be getting a raise worth $100 extra every month to cover that increase in expenses. However, if that 10.35% increase came after previous annual increases of 11.22% and 13.58% your bills would have increased from $1000 to $1393.98 in just three years.
Using $1000 in 1979 as a base, and calculating each year's inflation rate on top of the previous year's rate, we see that in 2007 the same bills would cost roughly $3181.84. An increase of 318%. And, as stated previously, average household income (even including the top 1%) increased just 62% over this same time period while income for the top 1% alone "more than tripled". Regardless of the actual number, roughly tripling income would account for the roughly tripling expenses.)
I'll leave you with a few quotes from the unjustly vilified patriots interviewed for the Bloomberg piece.
-When asked about willingness to pay higher tax rates Blackstone Group LP CEO Stephen Schwarzman instead chose to complain about low-income families who pay no income tax saying "...we should all be part of the system". Classy.
-Robert Rosenkranz, CEO of Delphi Financial Group Inc., claims the 1% should be getting thanks instead of persecution. He says "It's simply a fact that pretty much all the private-sector jobs in America are created by the decisions of 'the 1 percent' to hire and invest". So the next time you see a new small business open in your town make sure to thank Robert Rosenkranz.
(No word as of yet on how Mr. Guildenstern feels about the U.S. tax code.)
-CEO of Euro Pacific Capital Inc. Peter Schiff claims his taxes are "more than a medieval lord would have taken from a serf".
Billionaire CEOs: modern-day serfs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)