Let's face it, you're fucked no matter what you do

In my short time working in the workforce, I've noticed a lot of things. I do not like working in the customer service industry. I do not like any work that deals with the general public directly. I can't handle people. Anyone that knows me knows that I'm not really a people person. But everyone's gotta work. So here's my take on it: Choose something you really like doing. Sounds pretty obvious doesn't it?

I can sum up this entire article in one sentence: You're fucked no matter what you choose, so you might as well choose something you like fucking.

This could apply to a lot of stuff. I am applying this to professions and careers.

And yes, I've become cynical. It seems being a nice, reserved and quiet good boy doesn't quite awe the girls.
Kia Kroas :=: 16 Jan, 2010 05:11:59

Everyone should have some sort of hobby and something they're good at. (Or, for the readers more inclined toward linguistic prescription: Everyone should have an auxiliary activity in which they favor and are predisposed to devotion of time.) Maybe hobby and skill don't coincide. It doesn't matter. Make your hobby your career. As long as you have fun doing it, all the toil and sweat will seem worthwhile even if it's really not. As long as what you do is meaningful to you, why does it matter what meaning others put on it?

You're fucked no matter what profession you choose, so you might as well choose something you like fucking.

The difference between a prostitute and an escort is image and class. Prostitutes tend to be low paid, hourly wage workers who is accountable to a manager, the pimp. Prostitutes are the equivalent of the blue collar, industrial workers and manual laborers. Escorts observe more affluent social skills and beauty which exchange for an unbelievably high value through escort agencies. In the end, it's only a different approach to the same career.

A slut does it for free. There seem to be a lot of slut-equivalents in the open source industry. (I'm not saying any of the sluts, escorts and prostitutes are better than any other--obviously it's a spectrum of work what I have generalized into a few sentences--and, since it's not a field that I partake, it's not in my position to push any agendas nor opinions that I don't have.)

I guess an abundance of readily available work is good for open source. But if you're good at something, don't do it for free. There should be some way to capitalize on it. But don't go money crazy either.

The problem with business nowadays is capitalization and commercialization. There is far too much of it for its own good. The often stated adage about the purpose of business is that they exist to make money--the corollary of which is to maximize profits. This is really a shame, because after a certain threshold, continued maximization of profits implies:

• Infrastructure Costs
• Profit Overhead
• Unskilled Workforce
• Quality Loss
• Cost Increases
• Wasting Resources

Without numbers and statistics to back up these claims, they are only anecdotal accusations rather than anything that should be construed as fact. I regret to inform that I do not have any raw data for analysis. I will attempt to acquire them in the future, however, at this point in time, I do not have the resources readily available for such research and information retrieval. (If anyone has the information, please pass it on.)

I will forewarn you that I do not yet own a real business, and my self-employment in no way rivals the enormous sums of profit most of the companies I am speaking against. In any case, I will continue my argument.

Infrastructure costs rise due to increased need for technology or service maintenance. Infrastructure costs would include 1) the costs of maintaining modes of production and transportation of goods and services, 2) the acquisition and protection of intellectual property such as branding, patents, trade secrets, and trademarks, and 3) entice current customers to continue consumption and provoke and persuade more customers through advertising or other means. All businesses accrue these costs, but large businesses accumulate much more than smaller ones. As size and scope increase, the ability to render profits becomes difficult. This then leads to the profit overhead.

There comes a point when profits must be observed and attended rigorously. Once the company expands beyond reasonable profit-making ventures, to continue profits they must build resilience against loss margins. Profit overheads would include 1) branches of the company whose purpose is, in the case of material goods, to deny claims of warranty or discount such as rebates, or, in the case of services, to deny claims of obligation such as the denial of medical expenditures by insurance companies, and 2) outsourcing, usually to overseas companies where employees are paid lower wages either through currency conversion differences or lack of minimum wage laws. I understand the need to deny claims in some cases due to fraud. And obviously if the company has such a branch/office, then they believe the overhead is worth the expenses of keeping such a branch. I also understand outsourcing. However, outsourcing infers the loss of some control and implies a lack of knowledge and skill in a certain sector. I've seen some horrible work done by some freelancers and contractors. I can't honestly believe they were consistently paid multiple times my salary for shoddy work. This brings me to my next point, with outsourcing a skill or line of work where companies lack understanding, they are bound to hire unskilled workers.

The cheapest workforce is one that will work for free. To maximize profits, the cheapskate company hires--either directly or indirectly--as close to the cheapest workforce as possible. This dilutes the skills of their employees (or indirect-employees in cases of overseas outsourcing). In these times of economic trouble, there are moans from college graduates about being over-qualified. Is that not sad? Over-qualified and a number of qualified people are forced to accept an exchange of time and ability for far below the stated value. This causes a decrease in employee morale. The urge to gain the lowest common denominator attracts impostors. It results in either a lack of skill or a lack of motivation in the workforce. The abundance of this absence permeates throughout the company and thus causes an overall lack of quality in the business's operations and the resulting good or service. But they can afford to accept this deficiency and degeneration because they have their financial girth and economies of scale.

Alongside the quality loss is the subtle cost increases. The reason profits can be maximized while there is a loss of quality is because there is not a corresponding decrease in the costs. As such, consumers are paying more for what they perceive to be the same product or service. Competitors that offer better quality for a higher cost not only must compete against name recognition and vast finances, but also economies of scale and their own production limitations. The vast production capacity of the large business, the same production capacity that gives it the enormous economy of scale, wastes resources. The transfer of goods from across the world wastes fuel. The transmission of services from across the world wastes energy.



To sum up this article with an opinion, a business should not be around to make money or maximize profits. A business should be around to serve the people. Products and services exist in order to deliver some purpose or function to people. The ones behind the business suits are people. Employees are people. Customers are people. So why would a company focus on profits? It's nonsense. Businesses are politicians in many regards. It's so disheartening to see that both have turned on the wrong path. Businesses (or more accurately, their chief executives) and politicians care more about themselves and money than their customers or constituents. A complete disregard for humanity. But I guess from a pessimistic's perception, it is not a disregard of humanity, it is conferring too much on the self-serving corruption of mankind.

Newspapers are doing it wrong.

Not only newspapers, but news corporations are doing it wrong. They make most of their money from advertising. They should be making most of their money from selling news! Consider this, if news corporations make most of their money from advertising, then they are not beholden to the people in which their purpose is to impart unbiased information. They become beholden to their advertisers. Therefore, their bias would be to present information to please the advertisers. This does not exactly equate to partial objectivity in favor of their advertisers (because that would be too obvious). More likely, the news corporations will attempt to maximize their customer base more eyes and ears for the advertiser's commercials.

And for that, they do not present news as it is, but they present it as entertainment. People do not watch the news, they watch entertainment. So the sensationalism is rampant on most large news network with large amounts of readers. It really is a shame. Good news is rare. Good reporting even rarer. This is partially due to people's refusal to purchase news they do not like. But of course, there must be a start somewhere.

The problem with health insurance companies is because they make money.

Worse yet, they make money from illness and denial of medical care. There are some occupations whose higher purpose is to bring themselves out of existence. Examples of such occupations are therapists, prison guards, generals and soldiers. If there were no therapists, that means the world is all sane. If there were no prison guards, that means the world is all civil and there are no prisons. If there were no generals and soldiers, that means there are no wars. People will never be completely healthy all the time. This is reality. Yet, I do not understand why there exist companies whose purpose is to serve a common good through resource pooling, would be able to churn a profit. The profits should be retained as a means of settling the debt of those that need it! Fraud is one matter, however, to deny someone in desperate need of medical assistance because their premium did not have the coverage is asinine, irrational, and maliciously inhumane.

To put a company that makes money from the ills of others up for speculation is ridiculous.

The end

This is the world as it stands. This is how businesses operate. I would do differently once I start mine.