You Should Be Grateful, Too


I’m a pretty cheerful guy.  Ask any of my coworkers, and they’ll tell you that I can be relied upon to surprise customers with a clever observation, an unexpected, probing question, or a joke to tantalize them on an otherwise mundane day.

So I was surprised yesterday that a couple of customers shot back the same irritated platitude when I casually mentioned that I had been at work all day.  It happened between 6 and 7 P.M.  Both customers were buying copious amounts of groceries at the time.  Their response: “Well, you should be grateful that you have a job!”

I thought about that.  I thought long and hard as I ran one item through my checkstand after another, and I became more and more bothered by it.  I should be grateful?  Grateful to whom? I felt appropriately grateful to God for my not being another victim of this last year’s broadly-felt misfortune, but I don’t think that’s what those customers meant.

I think they meant that I should be grateful to my employer or the economy, or just grateful in my general attitude.  Contemplating this angered me.  Yes, I was grateful; I was grateful in the same way that a man in 64 AD might be when his house was spared as Rome burned; I was grateful like an Irish farmer in 1850 who had survived the blight; I was grateful like the women who didn’t get raped the night Kitty Genovese was left to her own devices.

I was grateful, but not to a person.  My continued employment wasn’t the product of sacrifice, intent, or altruism.  It retained all of its original transactional nature–I benefited, my employer benefited more.  I was simply lucky that I hadn’t fallen through the severely insufficient safety net yet, but no one was going to stop me from falling if my time came.  I could be grateful to fate, but not to a man-made economic system which, despite capability to do otherwise, would deny me help as my house burned, refuse me food if I was starving, let me die a horrid death, or allow me to lose my job and all that I had if it was too much of an imposition to assist me.  And I couldn’t be grateful to any of the men who profited from that system’s ignorance or obstinance, or from an obsession with preserving their own choices at the expense of the choices of countless others.

Later in the night, after I had considered these events, a couple came through my line and purchased some fresh fruit using a $10 WIC check.  I asked them their opinion of my situation, telling them what I’ve just told you.  The man looked very tired.  He replied, barely above the beeping of the scanner, “Seems like you’ve got a solid argument to me.”  The rest of their visit passed in silence.  I felt validated somewhat, but still dissatisfied.

Different groups would look at his response in very different ways.  The “personal responsibility” crowd would probably assume that the WIC recipient’s husband was unemployed and not seeking employment, and simply wanted validation for the bitterness he felt toward a condition he had willingly chosen.  Another might guess that he’s a hard but struggling worker, perhaps more intimately connected with both my plight and with the concept of social safety nets (being protected by one, himself), and value his perspective.

Who knows.  All I know is that there’s a WIC recipient out there who’s scraping by because of a social safety net; there are millions of people who’ve never thought about what they’re grateful for, and how much more grateful they could be; and there are thousands of people who don’t have jobs even while fields lay fallow and factories wallow in their own rust.

Because economy has become secondary to humanity, our society has progressed so that the fears of fire and famine are generally assuaged.  When a house burns, firemen arrive.  When a potato blight is discovered, the farm is quarantined and disinfected.  When a crime is in progress, citizens, thankfully, alert the police.  We collectively take these responsbilities on our shoulders despite the imposition, and I’ll always be grateful to a responsive society for that.  For other things, I can’t be grateful yet, except through my gratitude for the potential of a distant future.

I’m grateful that we have the power to make society worthy of our gratitude.  We can improve our social safety net and devote more social resources to the empowerment of the individual, and I can be a part of that.  It’s a kind of gratitude that requires work to make it genuine, but that makes it all the more gratifying.  So, for the present, I hope you, like me, are grateful to chance that it sometimes passes you by.  For the chance to craft a future of sought possibilities and more purely deserved rewards, when most people can push ill fortune to the fringe of probability, you should be truly grateful, too.

Share Utah:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • TwitThis
  1. #1 by brewski - February 9th, 2010 at 18:47

    I always liked Thansgiving since it was so universal. Being thankful doesn’t have religious boundaries. The church I grew up in shared our facility with a synagogue. We used it on Sunday they used in on Saturdays. We traded child care services for our respective holidays (Christmas, Yom Kippur, etc.) It worked out really well. And on Thanksgiving we would have a combined service since no one has a monopoly on being thankful.

    I’m not sure to be thankful that you have to be thankful to anyone in particular. Just be thankful. If you are an atheist then just call it being fortunate if that works for you. Just be humble to realize what we have.

    My health stinks and I am grateful for my health. My wife health stinks and I am grateful for her health. Our daughter seems to be the only one who didn’t pull a short straw on health.

    Being the economist type, I wouldn’t phrase having a job as “being grateful” for having a job. I mean, it is an exchange. You proivde them with labor and they pay you. So, by definition you both benefit from the exchange. It’s not like they hired you to do you a favor. They hired you for you to do work for them.

    But I guess I know what the people may have meant when they said “be grateful you have a job.” Perhaps it was just a comment of the times that when so many people don’t have jobs, that if you have one consider yourself fortunate. I didn’t read any sinister intent in their comment.

    My mom was pretty down on complaining. She was born in Glasgow during the Depression, and then the Germans dropped bombs on her neighborhood. Everyone lost someone in their family. Go to small towns in the UK and look at the number of names on the war memorials and you would think that there weren’t any men left standing.

    She was not poor by any stretch of the imagination, but she describes a time when no one, it seems, had any luxuries. Her father’s car was on blocks due to the rationing of gas. A treat was to see a movie for a tuppance.

    The point of all this is that the act of complaining was considered very impolite. If you complained about how your home was cold or the food was plain, the sharp look you’d get from your neighbors was that we are all in the same condition so keep your thoughts to yourself. So maybe that is the reaction you got. You might not have meant anything by it, but maybe the person hearing it just got laid off, or turned down on a job application. So if someone like that hears someone else mentioning how tired you are from working, perhaps they would like to swap problems.

    I think we are all on edge these days. We should have a national big hug or day of yoga.

  2. #2 by Dwight Sheldon Adams - February 10th, 2010 at 09:32

    I can complain about my employer’s practices and the inadequacies of our economy without being ungrateful for my job. If I recognize a problem, I point it out, whether it be in my city, my state, or my country. It’s a fallacy to think that requesting improvements is a sign of ingratitude. In this instance, however, I wasn’t requesting improvement. I was just making an off-hand remark about how my day was going, in response to the customer’s inquiry.

    I understand that they didn’t necessarily get my point–I wasn’t complaining so much as explaining why I appeared tired in some cases, making polite conversation about my day in others. I try to make a point of having real discussions with customers, by genuinely wanting to know how they are when I ask, “How are you?” and genuinely responding when they ask me the same.

    I also understand that they didn’t mean anything “sinister” by it. Considering that neither of these individuals was making particularly thrifty purchases, and considering the manner of clothing and jewelry they were wearing, it was a safe bet that they weren’t without work or in any real suffering. Their response was simply a bit unexpected, and it prompted some real introspection and extrospection. I came to realize that my situation was a type for many other situations–for the beneficiaries of the luck of the draw.

    The contrast of the WIC couple showed that an alternate perspective was arrived at by people in (likely) different circumstances. When the concept of being grateful comes from people who are clearly in better straits then myself, I consider that to be a platitude version of “shut up.” Perhaps they imagine that their perspective should be shared by all, and can’t imagine circumstantial reasons why it wouldn’t. Perhaps they just don’t want to deal with the very real challenges other people face. I don’t know.

    Regardless, I don’t know the circumstances of the two who admonished me to be grateful or the one who found my argument to be solid. I didn’t reason with the former and I made no misinterpretable off-hand remarks to the latter. I just know that, regardless of these three instances, there are people out there who would brush off those with real problems with platitudes of this type, just as surely as there are those who maintain gratitude regardless of circumstance–it could always be worse, and we’re glad it’s not.

    This situation nevertheless prompted a series of conclusions on my part, about the nature of social safety nets and how insufficient our present nets are. We rely on an economy that has been crafted to benefit a few, when we may craft it to benefit many. We can create an effective net, but we refuse to, or simply don’t realize it can be made.

    My wife and I talk together about how fortunate we are–better off than most people in the world, for sure. I’m grateful for what I have. Monday night just reminded me of how grateful I am that it hasn’t been taken away by events over which I have little control, yet which are entirely (or mostly) preventable on the part of a society that is, so far, unwilling to prevent them.

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

  3. #3 by Dwight Sheldon Adams - February 10th, 2010 at 09:53

    I’m glad that you recognize the gratitude issue regarding jobs. Jobs are transactional, so you should never need to be grateful. Being grateful just encourages you to accept too little compensation. I must say, though, that there has to be an example of a CEO or other manager who provided for his employees at the cost of profits–and probably got fired for it. I find this blog post particularly salient to this thread’s point, as well as others that I’ll likely make in the future about the development of a healthy societal organism.

    Like the boss who foregoes his bonus to help his employees out, a choice by members of society to be individually responsible and yet to support strong social safety nets may prompt appropriate gratitude. It’s the element of sacrifice that’s important. I try my best to keep from igniting my apartment on fire, yet I still appreciate the taxes I pay that support the fire department. I may yet benefit from that public service, but in the meantime I take some satisfaction in knowing that my taxes helped my neighbor two houses down to not lose their home, putting themselves and their two small children (who started the fire) out on the streets or on the shoulders of relatives. They may be duly grateful to society for taking on that burden; I am duly grateful to them for taking on my burden should the same ever happen to me. Only the purposely careless are on the up-end of such societal exchanges; all others are equal. Gratitude for these are deserved and may be fostered. The business transaction, however, which controls so much of our lives, follows a different model of benefit distribution. At present, it deserves little gratitude, but in rare instances.

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

  4. #4 by Larry Bergan - February 10th, 2010 at 15:16

    I think it’s especially hard for teenagers to start out in the working world because they haven’t yet learned to deal with the hours of boredom or chaos that occurs. They always used to tell us “in the great depression, people were HAPPY to even have a job!” That never made me feel better.

    The folks who barked at you have probably lived hard lives and are proud of it, or they owned a business and didn’t get much praise from their employees when they looked at them in that “I gave you a job” manner.

  5. #5 by brewski - February 10th, 2010 at 16:54

    I have a friend who owns a small manufacturing company in West Valley. He has 11 employees. Every year he asks them what would they like to have 1) company paid health plan 2) bonus 3) a few days of paid vacation. Surprisingly they don’t want a health plan. It seems they all have plans through their spouses or some other source. The pick they always ask for is a few extra days paid time off. It seems that a couple more days to be with their families or doing something they like doing, like fishing, is worth more than everything else.

  6. #6 by shane - February 10th, 2010 at 19:23

    That is a great story brewski. You should tell it to the guy i talked to at the U today whose bride to be got cancer and neither of them have insurance. Maybe they can take the week off before she dies.

  7. #7 by brewski - February 11th, 2010 at 08:09

    What is your point?

  8. #8 by Bowl ‘O Jello - February 11th, 2010 at 08:26

    Shane, you should have made yourself useful and suggested that. I appears you have invested in thinking about it.

  9. #9 by Dwight Sheldon Adams - February 11th, 2010 at 09:31

    Brewski–

    Wealth is time. Before you consider what you want to do with your time, you have to have time. The affluent not only have things to do with their time, they have time to do things with.

    Ultimately, I think, what we all want is to be secure enough that we can enjoy the time we have, and to have more time to enjoy. This is an achievable goal as a society, but many individuals find it beyond their reach. It takes more than merely personal effort to make the world work for you instead of against you. Social safety nets exist to protect us all–to, by mutual effort, give us security so that we may enjoy the time we have.

    I was thinking yesterday about the phrase, “You make your own luck.” I understand that it’s an attitude concept, and isn’t intended to have practical meaning. I also understand that our attitudes affect our actions and expectations, and therefore create practical meanings. “You make your own luck,” taken as an overarching attitude about life, translates into “You can control your circumstance,” rather than “You can appreciate what you have.” Externalized, it suggests that others can control theirs as well.

    But if you can control your circumstance by your actions (and not merely control your responses by your attitude), others can control it as well. I see too much of our culture’s platitudinal individual attitudes as distracting of the social nature of choices and attitudes. No one can be blamed but yourself for your bad attitude, but others can certainly bear accountability for the circumstances of your life which they impact. Mitigating this requires that we validate such perspectives as “You create your own luck,” by making it possible to do so in terms of concrete results.

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

  10. #10 by cav - February 12th, 2010 at 08:55

    Well, this is nice:

    Report: Top five insurers made $12 billion in profits last year, dropped 2.7 million people

  11. #11 by Dwight Sheldon Adams - February 12th, 2010 at 09:55

    Wow. They made nearly $4500 per person. But, hey, that’s the way the free market goes. “It’s just business,” right? ;-)

  12. #12 by cav - February 12th, 2010 at 10:50

    Dwight,

    I just came across this: http://sfreporter.com/stories/born_poor/5339/all/ “Inequality really holds us back.”…and wanted to let you in on it. It’s a bit long but I don’t think you’ll mind (if you’ve got a little time). Here’s a couple of teaser cuts:

    The US and New Mexico will keep falling behind until they learn to share the wealth.

    The Gini is an expression economists use to measure equality or inequality in a society.

    Zero describes the ultimate level playing field, a nonexistent land in which everyone has all the same stuff. A completely unequal society, in which one person has sole control of literally everything, would have a Gini of 100. New Mexico’s Gini score (45.7) reveals this state is more unequal than most. Utah is the most egalitarian state (with a 41.3 Gini), while the District of Columbia (53.7) is the most economically polarized.

    “Inequality breeds conflict, and conflict breeds wasted resources,” Bowles says.

    Inequality leads to an excess of what he calls “guard labor.” ie, in a very unequal society, the people at the top have to spend a lot of time and energy keeping the lower classes obedient and productive.

    “Suppose instead, we did is this: “When somebody turns 18, he gets a quarter of a million dollars and, after that, you’re on your own, Once you’ve got your quarter-million, you’ve got to make a decision: ‘Should I go to college or do I want to start a business?’—which you could do with a quarter of a million.”

    This is an old idea, more recently popularized, at least in Europe, by economist Philippe Van Parijs. Under his “basic income grant” proposal, the government would redistribute wealth so that everyone has enough to live.

    “They just get a check. And they get it no matter what—Rockefeller, the poorest person in America, everybody gets it,” Bowles says. “There’s nothing you can do to get more; there’s nothing you can do to get less.”

    Such a system eliminates the disincentives to work in the current social safety net. “The problem with the welfare system is that as soon as you get a job, they start taking your money,” Bowles says. “This basically says, ‘You’ve got this nest egg and, if you go out and get a job, you keep the whole thing—except for whatever taxes you pay.”

    It makes as least as much sense as giving hundreds of billions of dollars to Wall Street’s largest banks—some of which helped cause the recession—so that the banks can lend it back to taxpayers at outrageous interest rates.

  13. #13 by Dwight Sheldon Adams - February 12th, 2010 at 11:24

    Cav–

    Thanks for the link. That’s such a great article. Everyone should read it. It’s amazing how much the U.S. wastes human labor potential, with “guard duty,” the financial sector, etc, all in an effort to keep the affluent in paradise. It reminds me of this article, which discusses the opiate nature of church attendance. Churches are involved in guard duty, too, even though, I believe, many of them aren’t even aware of it. It’s just kind of a default state for churches or any institution in a highly stratified society which attempts to ease the concerns (or redirect them) of the underprivileged.

    And now, in the face of the meritocrats:

    30

    32

    The first number is the likelihood, expressed as a percentage, that a child born to parents whose incomes fall within the top 10 percent of Americans will grow up to be at least as wealthy.

    The second is the percentage likelihood that a person born into the bottom 10 percent of society will stay at the bottom.

    Just to drive the point home, here’s a third number: 1.3

    That’s the percentage likelihood that a bottom 10 percenter will ever make it to the top 10 percent. For 99 out of 100 people, rags never lead to riches.

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

  14. #14 by Dwight Sheldon Adams - February 12th, 2010 at 11:32

    Here in Utah, we have no idea how hard it is out there. Try living in Michigan, where nearly 1 in 7 people is unemployed. Here we have the luxury of discussing politics and economy in terms of a 1in 15 minority, but we have to face the reality of other states and cities. How does one in New York City fare when they become one of the 1 in 9 unemployed people?

    All I can say is, we shouldn’t just be repairing the damage, we should fix the system that created it, too.

    In “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” Thomas Frank discusses how having big companies in your state isn’t an economic benefit–it’s more like having a gun pointed at your head. The company decides when to pull the trigger; if you don’t do as they say, your state is going in the crapper with the loss of thousands, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of jobs.

  15. #15 by Kevin Owens - February 16th, 2010 at 14:15

    I know some men who are out of work now, and extended unemployment is a very difficult trial to go through. Those of us who aren’t currently in that situation indeed should recognize and appreciate that fact.

    I’m grateful to have a job. I would be even more grateful if I had enough capital that I didn’t need a job. There’s no security in the middle class anymore; any of us could become victims of chance.

  16. #16 by Kevin Owens - February 16th, 2010 at 14:22

    Regarding income inequality, I wonder if part of the reason for rising inequality since the 1970s is that more women are in the workforce.

    At least in terms of household income, one of the biggest determining factors is the number of working adults in the household. (The richest two quintiles have a median of 2 income earners; the lowest quintile has a median of 0 income earners, and the other two quintiles in the middle have a median of 1 income earner.)

    I’m beginning to suspect that as men and women become more equal, men and other men become less equal.

  17. #17 by Larry Bergan - February 16th, 2010 at 17:31

    Kevin Owens said:

    I know some men who are out of work now, and extended unemployment is a very difficult trial to go through. Those of us who aren’t currently in that situation indeed should recognize and appreciate that fact.

    When you can convince “hard working Americans” that sitting in prison is a great gig, because you can sit around on your butt watching television, you can certainly convince them that collecting unemployment insurance is a wonderful paradise.

  18. #18 by shane - February 16th, 2010 at 23:48

    Kevin, I want you to reread that comment at 16 and explain how you decided that if a large household income is because both men and women are working this makes men and other men less equal.

    Is it because the men who have working wives get the credit for their spouses work and they are therefore getting all the reward for the spouses effort?

    I am trying like hell, but i can’t read a way that the comment at 16 isn’t sexist as all hell. Maybe you can help me out.

  19. #19 by Kevin Owens - February 17th, 2010 at 08:55

    Shane,

    I should have said that I suppose more dual-income families tend to make families less equal with other families. High-income women usually prefer to marry high-income men, which multiplies family inequality. For example, if you have two families in which the breadwinner of one makes $40,000 per year and the breadwinner of the other makes $80,000 per year, there’s a $40,000 difference in their household income. If those breadwinners were each married to a spouse making the same amount as them, then the households would be earning $80,000 and $160,000 per year, respectively, which is rather less equal.

(will not be published)
  1. No trackbacks yet.