Tag: I Built This Prison

I Built This PrisonExcerpt: Ozark‘s Wendy Byrde Negotiates Her Compensation


I Built This Prison,  Part I – Etiology of Crime, Chapter 3 – Delusions of Entitlement and Misconfusion of Rewards:

“In the episode 1.6 of Netflix’s original ‘Ozark’, desperate for money Wendy Byrde charges at her boss with an attempt of hostile earnings renegotiation (she is a pushy bird that Wendy Byrde, so it goes with the character). She notes that the sales are up 43% compare to the same month the previous year, while the only business change that took place was her hiring. Hence, she deserves a bonus that would correlate her compensation with her value(‼). Specifically, 50% of the income increase. They haggle and at the end the boss agrees to the bonus that together with Wendy’s salary amounts to one-third of the additional profits.

Fiction, of course. But, if the employers were actually inclined to evaluate and compensate their employees based on their tangible contribution into their businesses, the negotiations like that would be a common place. And maybe they are… somewhere. But I’ve never really witnessed anything like that. Well, something of the kind – once, fifteen years ago. But that was it.  

Of course, these are not exactly “negotiations” either. Wendy gives her boss an ultimatum because she has an upper hand – there is no comparable supply of labor in that God forsaken bumblefuck locale. There is like literally no one to do the same job – not on a half-ass, or quarter-ass, or even one-hundredth of an ass level. And so, her boss is not rewarding her for her contribution, he yields under the pressure of unfavorable market conditions.

An unimaginable situation for NYC (and I’m sure the same goes for all industrial centers), no matter what your field of expertise is! Here, an employer – even the one that is afraid out of his mind to lose you – deep inside knows that if you walk, he can find at least Somebody to fill the void. You, on the other hand, may drown in the competition searching for another place.”

                                                                                                                          p.40

What Is “Class”? – the American Mis-Confusion


So, somehow I overheard ( which is shocking, believe me, because I don’t really expose myself to this kind of news) that a few weeks ago “people” (who are they? some social media trolls?) got upset with Cate Blanchett (“they” always have a tendency of being upset for all the wrong reasons) on account of her calling herself “middle class”… And I thought: Aha! An excellent opportunity to clarify a thing or two!

Let me first confess: I have never been a big fan of Cate Blanchett as an actress… She has a good screen presence, no matter the setting, but that’s about it . And I’ve even seen her on stage a couple of times too… Including in Liv Ullman’s production of A Streetcar Named Desire, nearly 15 years ago. The critics and the audience raved about it, of course, but, as far as I was concerned, she lacked the emotional fragility necessary for the portrayal of a woman broken in that specific way of Blanche DuBois. I even got  myself in trouble with my fellow BAM patrons by not restraining my opinionated ass on account of that performance…  

But no matter, no matter – as this is not about her acting. This is about her socio-political statements…

(And that’s another thing: Why the hell do people always care so much about what the actors have to say about politics, or social structures, or international relations… Why the fuck the general public bothers itself with listening to  what Barbra Streisand, Bette Midler, Angelina Jolie, Ashley Judd, Madonna, or Cate Blanchett have to say about any of that instead of trying to utilize their own analytical capabilities and form their own opinions?)

So, here is how she described herself, while discussing her experiences of “working with refugees” (of some non-specific kind; yet, her Cannes’ red-carpet dress speaks volumes with that bright and glossy forest-green inset she kept revealing): “I am white, I am privileged, I am middle class…” And somehow it wasn’t the falsely apologetic tone of the whole thing, but the supposed mis-“classification” that got the people upset. Why? “They” explain: the actress’s estimated net worth is $95 million. And “they” think that it disqualifies her as the “middle class”.

Well, let’s see… Even though half-American (on her father’s side), Cate Blanchett was born, raised, and educated in Melbourne, Australia, and is encyclopedically considered an Australian actress. And in that country, as in all former and present parts of the British Empire, societal divisions are still very much defined by one’s familial origins, the ancestry and the hereditary structures. It really has nothing to do with the size of one’s coffers. There are two million millionaires in Australia – the prevailing majority of them are commoners. At the same time a blue-blood aristocrat can be dirt-poor. Therefore, by  these standards Blanchett is absolutely correct, deliberately honest, and entirely un-hypocritical – she is very much a middle-class product: mother’s a teacher, father was a US Navy officer turned an ad exec.

Furthermore, the only American billionaire I knew personally (through a theater charity as a matter of fact) also tried to instill in his three children the idea that they were of the “middle class”. He understood the hereditary class principles simply because his immense wealth placed him very close to the heart of the issue: he knew that his money didn’t make him the upper-class.

And since we’re talking about a screen/stage actor, here’s an example from another frequently produced classical play – Anton Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard… Keep in mind that Russia had been a monarchy with centuries-old ancestral aristocracy up until just 107 years ago… The play’s central psycho-social conflict is focused on the impoverished hereditary landowners unable to hold on to their estates, including the symbolically precious cherry orchards. Meanwhile,  the wealthy merchant Yermolai Lopakhin, with his peasant familial roots, understands only too well that, in spite of his hard work and all his millions, he can raise himself in the old societal class hierarchy only as far as the middle…  Just like the billionaire I’ve mentioned above… Let me reiterate: the wealth doesn’t make one an aristocrat. 

Generally speaking, the monetary approach to defining societal classes is very much the New World’s notion, which makes me believe that Cate Blanchett’s self-appointed critics are predominantly American. Not surprising at all.

The fact that here, in the States, the vast majority of people consider personal wealth to be the primal factor of the class distinctions is the testimony to two attributes very particular to our country:

A. The strength of our democratic, equal-opportunity roots. In spite of all sorts of privileges and preferential treatments applicable to various and variably defined through the stages of our history societal groups; and with full acknowledgment of the suffocating nepotism that’s been stagnating our progress for decades now – we are still the most democratic country in the world. The state built without castes, aristocratic substructures, and governing rights based on the land ownership. A nation, which believes that a self-made celebrity is equal to the blue-blood royalty. We see nothing especially special in Beyoncé/Jay Z meeting up and chatting with Kate Middleton/Prince William. Hip-pop royalty, sovereign royalty – same difference… 

B. Our preoccupation with money above everything else. And this one is a trait that affects pretty much every single aspect of our nation’s existence – socio-economic, political, and intellectual – not just the interpretations of the societal segregation into classes.

Case in point:

“It is without a doubt a reflection of our society’s values that lesser punishments are doled out to those who take away someone’s innocence, or even life, than to those who take someone’s money.”  

                                                                            I Built This Prison, Part III, p. 344

But let’s assume for a second that everyone around the world adopted the American way of thinking and dismissed the old-world traditions of the class division entirely… For the moment, let’s just focus exclusively on the money factor…

Does general public really think that all those doctors at struggling hospitals and private practices, faceless partners in large law firms, CFO’s of the companies barely breaking even – that they are the middle class?! Why? Because they  make lower, or even mid, six-figure salaries? Let me disillusion you about that! In a larger scheme of things, we are all poor – from welfare recipient to an owner of a multi-million-dollar company with a $500K annual salary. Monetarily, we are all the struggling lower class, with just a slight difference in the purchasing powers. None of us can afford to fly everywhere in the first class (let alone the private jets), stay in suites of the 5-star hotels, dine in restaurants with Michelin stars, casually buy designer bags and suits (especially at today’s prices)… Unless, of course, these luxuries are paid by some companies or some other persons… Moreover, children of the welfare recipients have better medical care through the states or the cities and broader access to the educational finances than those of the wage-paid parents…

And Cate Blanchett with her who knows how securely kept millions is somewhere in the median sector of the wealth curve… Truly of the middle class, no matter how you define the matter. Because the ones in the upper portion of the plentitude are what I call “the really rich people” – the sort of folks the dreamers insert into their billionaire fairy-tale romance novels.   

 

Quote of the Week: At the Core of My Memoir I Built This Prison


Preface:

It must be disclosed that I don’t really find G.K. Chesterton’s Father Brown Stories all that great. (Why is it that I so frequently write about things, people, and situations I truly dislike? I wonder what a trained psychiatrist would say about it?) As far as the mystery writing goes, I find them… unnatural, too artificially constructed, almost illogical… For everyone, of course, but the author and his deducing reverend. But naturally, they don’t count, because they are cheats, holding all the cards and the red herrings up their sleeves.

Moreover, I consider G.K. Chesterton a racist, which makes him absolutely unacceptable to me as an individual. Some of his descriptions and the choices of words simply appalled me back when I read him.

(If you feel tempted to verify yourselves that my accusations can actually be substantiated, read God of Gongs. That’s why I’m sharing the link to The Complete Father Brown Stories below. [And no, I’m not an Amazon Associate – it’s purely for your convenience.])

It is hard for me to imagine that any truly unprejudiced and open-minded thinker would be using such language, regardless of his/her native historical period and commonly accepted jargon of the correspondent time. And no, he is not just putting those offensive words into his characters’ mouths for the sake of the conversational authenticity. He uses them as his own narrative descriptives. It’s despicable and utterly inexcusable as far as I’m concerned.

But! One can find a grain of wisdom even in a truckload of manure. And this one goes straight to the heart of the main conflict suffered daily specifically by the American workers in employment of the entrepreneurial business owners – the same antagonism that cemented the foundation of my own madness (“I Built This Prison”):

“[He] made himself big by his own considerable abilities: and there’s no doubt that many of those on whom he has shown his abilities would like to show theirs on him with a shotgun. [He] might easily get dropped by some man he’d never even heard of; some labourer he’d locked out, or the clerk in a business he’d busted… In this country the relations of employers and employed are considerably strained.” 

G.K. Chesterton, The Wisdom of Father Brown, The Mistake of the Machine