Author: ken

. . . and the Victims Get Blamed

With one-third of jobless Americans out of work for more than half a year, and with unemployment holding steady, we have a very, very long-term problem, a mental health problem – and a form of social discrimination as well.

The probability that a laid-off worker will find a job grows smaller the longer people have been out of work, according to studies in the 1980s by economists Lawrence Katz of Harvard University and Bruce Meyer of the University of Chicago. “Someone unemployed for six months is much less likely to find a job in the next month than someone unemployed for one month,” Mr. Katz says. (See “Long Term Slog: Out of Work, Out of Hope.”)  That is even more true today.

These are the statistics and probabilities, reported today in The Wall Street Journal.  But extending benefits is only part of the solution.  Even for those who stave off poverty, unemployment easily leads to hopelessness and depression.  Part of this is inactivity.  The unemployed person is deprived of the routine activities that help make him or her feel engaged with others, competent, useful.  Popular opinion to the contrary, self-esteem is not something that is securely possessed by some and lacking in others.  It is something that we all work at every day, usually without thinking about it.  It is the by-product of an active daily life.

But part of it also stems from the attitudes of others who blame the unemployed for their “failure.”  The unemployed often blame themselves, feeling embarrassed, ashamed, guilty.  We all have a tendency to see ourselves as the source of the problems we face – that is if we are not aggressively trying to place the blame elsewhere.  But that tendency to blame ourselves can be powerfully and subtly reinforced by what we see in the attitudes of others.

The Journal did a nice job in its coverage of those who are struggling with hopelessness and those trying to help them, but they make it clear that potential employers, recruiters, and even job counselors harbor doubts about whose fault it is.  Scott Thompson, president of a technology recruiting firm, said that employers he deals with don’t ever explicitly say they are less interested in people who have been out of work for an extended period, “but their actions tell me exactly that…. More often than not, the guy who has recent experience up to last month is the guy that gets the interview.”

It is a vicious cycle, and a large part of it is because those who can lend a helping hand don’t know they know this about themselves.  And those of us at a greater distance may gain some comfort from believing that the unemployed have only themselves to blame.

False Economy?

or False Impressions?

Recently corporations have resorted to an interesting form of economizing, according to The Wall Street Journal:  cutting jobs in the “C Suite.”  Between January 2008 and June 2009, 40 major companies eliminated the COO or president position.  (See “No. 2 Jobs Dwindle Amid Cost Cutting.”)

This may serve to stem criticism of excessive salaries.  If CEOs work twice as hard, filling two jobs, they can be seen as deserving their large compensation packages – perhaps, even, deserving a raise.  The firm that compiled the figures explains the trend as a desire for CEOs to get closer to the action, be more hands on, but that sounds more like a cover, distracting attention from the fact that the new arrangements can be a clever way cut costs while actually increasing the pay of chief executives.

In the same issue, the Journal notes that salaries for CEOs are down:  “Including the value of stock, stock options and other long-term incentives, total direct compensation for the CEOs dropped 3.4% to a median of $7.56 million. The decline was the first in seven years and only the second drop since the Journal began tracking CEO pay in 1989.”  (See. “CEO Pay Sinks Along With Profits.”)  But the decline is hardly commensurate with the impact of the recession on the economy, and hardly enough to help the public believe that the hardship is being equitably distributed.

The Journal went on to quote Charles Elson, head of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware: “We are at a historic turning point in CEO compensation.” But then it adds:  “Others are less sure. For some CEOs, executive perks flourished, despite searing criticism.”

Taking on two jobs may look like a good way to trim expenses, but it also can compromise good management as well as good succession planning.  According to the Journal, Alan Barry, who retired as COO of Masco Corp. in November 2007, cautions that “there have to be at least two people” at the top of the company, one supervising operations and the other strategy. “You just can’t have one person that’s got all of that responsibility,” he says. “There aren’t enough hours in the day.”

So is it an attempt to deceive the public or are the CEOs deceiving themselves?  Frankly, I’d rather think they are engaged in an aggressive PR campaign to deceive the public.  We can hardly afford poor management as we are trying to recover and rebuild the enterprises that create jobs.

Is the Al Qaeda Brand Fading?

Are we now all doomed to think in terms of markets?  Even terrorists fighting to the death against “The Great Satan” appear to be struggling for market share.  Or is it that we just can help seeing this through the lens of our own market-driven way of thinking?

Osama Bin Laden’s recent speech on the anniversary of 9/11 has generated a storm of commentary by mid-east experts that raises this issue.  Marc Lynch, writing on the Foreign Policy website, sees evidence of a leader attempting an organizational turnaround: “one of the reasons for al-Qaeda’s recent decline has been its general exposure — or branding, if you prefer — as an extreme salafi-jihadist movement rather than as an avatar of Muslim resistance.”  Lynch continues, “It has lost ground from the brutality and ideological extremism of its chosen representatives in Iraq … and because of the battles it has chosen with far more popular Islamist movements such as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.”  If it has lost the popularity contest among brands, failing to attract customers, how can it catch up?

Time, claimed last week that history’s verdict is that Bin Laden has failed: “Even among those who share much of bin Laden’s animus toward the U.S. and Israel, al-Qaeda has remained largely irrelevant, its strategy of global jihad rejected in favor of an Islamist radicalism focused on more limited national goals.”  This sounds like an election campaign, or an all-out war between Coke and Pepsi.  Which version will consumers prefer?

Perhaps I am wrong, but it strikes me that terrorism is more than a media campaign.  To be sure, the bolsheviks and the menshiviks, scheming to bring down the Czar, did think about public opinion, at least the opinion of the workers and other potential allies.  They battled each other and others ferociously, but their primary focus was on finding the levers of power that would accomplish the revolution.  That was what was at stake for them.  I suspect that that is still what is at stake for Al Qaeda – and their “competitors.”

On the other hand, perhaps globalization has brought about an inescapable universal focus on the market, obliterating other goals – just as it has homogenized different cultures.  Perhaps victory now does in fact boil down to who wins space in the history books.

It is just too hard for me to believe that a suicide bomber cares enough about these internecine fights to give his life. I suspect their goals are not the same as ours.  Lawrence Wright reminded us in The New Yorker (see “Underestimating Al Qaeda“) that the danger continue to be real:  “Many hope Al Qaeda has been put to sleep, but the truth is, as long as bin Laden is free, he and his followers pose a threat.”  Thinking of them as another political party or brand runs the risk of making them seem all too familiar.

Jimmy Carter Got Joe Wilson’s Number

No surprise that a former president, steeped in southern mores, could see it so clearly.  Also no surprise that, once again, he spoke his mind:

“I live in the South and I’ve seen the South come a long way,” he said. But, “I think it’s bubbled up to the surface because of a belief among many white people not just in the south but around the country … that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It’s an abominable circumstance and grieves me and concerns me very deeply.” (See “Carter’s Racism Charge Sparks War.“)

Racism among us is inescapable.  It can even be considered “normal,” in the sense that kids grow up in our culture with an awareness of racial difference and a certain anxiety about what that difference means.  Newsweek made that point in a very useful cover story last week (See “See Baby Discriminate”).  I had also made it last fall in a posting on this blog (See “Racism in the Election,” August 31^st, 2008).

But the key point is the difference between racial perceptions, racial discomfort and, even, racial fears and the hostile and discriminatory racial acts they can lead to.  Virulent racism is what we have to be on guard against, and that is what we saw in Joe Wilson’s uncivil and disrespectful outburst last week.

It is important, then, that he was censured for his acts, not his feelings. Persecuting him for racism would be a mistake.  And I think the President is also right to refrain from making the accusation of racism himself.  The victim of an attack is always at risk for putting himself in a worse position if he protests.  He offers himself up to a storm of criticism for being “too sensitive,” “wrongheaded,” “unfair,” “just looking for it,” etc.   etc.  It is the job of others to come to the defense of the victim and protest what was said and done.

And many others have. Calling attention to our racism is one of the ways in which we can be more alert to what we don’t know we know about it.  And the more we do get to know about it, the better the chances we can keep it from getting out of hand.

The Collapse of the WTC, The Failure of Lehman

As the word “anniversary” was repeated over the past 5 days, surely I was not the only to notice the uncanny parallels between our observance of the eighth anniversary of 9/11 and the first anniversary of the collapse of the fourth largest investment bank in the country.

Both were massive real events, but also both symbolized the vulnerability of our financial system.  One collapse came as the result of a vicious attack, of course, the other was the product of flaws in our system, but both produced trauma, shock, and lingering grief.  We had thought both were “too big to fail.”  Both led to searches for the causes and the culprits but, nonetheless, we knew that basic flaws were exposed – and our world seemed changed irrevocably.

Over the weekend, newspapers were full of the stories of the “survivors.”  Where were they now?  What had been the impact?  How were their lives continuing?  Moreover, there were attempts to reflect on what we have learned from the experience.  How can we protect ourselves?  Could it happen again?

Monday, the President came to Wall Street to call for financial reform, but Wall Street was, at best, lukewarm, The New York Times reported today.  “There was no cheering section. The audience offered up only one round of applause, and a scan of the faces as the president spoke — grimacing, staring at the floor, nervously glancing at BlackBerrys — spoke volumes about how they felt as they listened to the president’s words.” (See “A Tough Crowd on Wall Street.”)  Dramatic contrast to the massive strikes against the Taliban and the wars against Afganistan and Iraq that followed 9/11.

The external enemy is always preferred.  It seems easier to identify and to attack – even before we understand it for sure.   The internal danger is harder to spot, and harder to mobilize against. It is, inevitably, part of us.  No wonder we delay, equivocate, avoid.  And, yet, at this point, it may well be the greater danger we face.