God's Special Batteries

            God creates special batteries. These special batteries are people that energize those around them. Some of them are the life of the party—radiating a bombastic vibe that fills a room or stage with electricity. Some of them are shy and awkward—always uncomfortable in a crowd; yet, there is a gentle, penetrating warmth that emanates from them. Some are the champagne effervescence of dialogue—bubbling over with friendliness. These batteries are introverts.

            I know what you’re thinking: “I’ve never heard introverts described like this before?” No, no, you haven’t. I fear introverts are often viewed as moody, withdrawn, and gloomy. At the party, the introvert can be the Jeckyll-Hyde—the hot fudge frosting and cherry on top until ninety minutes in when their personality becomes the rice cake on the snack tray. And then, ten minutes later, Hyde sulks out the back door to, “Go home and take a nap.”

            I am an introvert raised by a family of introverts. Don’t fear. Being raised by introverts isn’t like being raised by wolves. I’ve never known wolves to eat their young. Ah, that sly, dark sense of humor I possess. Not all introverts are funny, but many are. So, let’s begin looking at this mysterious creature.

            Yesterday I was having lunch with three friends. Two I suspect are introverts. One is definitely an extrovert. Mr. Extrovert was the conductor of the discussion. Of course, you may wonder, how could I tell? An introvert can also direct the symphony of dialogue. Here’s the difference. At about three hours in, the introverts were becoming tired. Once an introvert’s social bottle is uncorked, those around can freely imbibe until the vessel is dry. Once dry, there is no more to give. Mr. Extrovert, on the other hand, was just getting going, because his glass was now sloshing over. I suspect he could have continued incessantly until basic life processes (like the need for sleep or perhaps death) prevented his socializing.

            In social settings, the introvert has a battery set on discharge. So, they can be the energizers. The extrovert has a battery set on recharge. That’s why as the party progresses, you’ll see the introverts begin to exit while the extroverts beg them to stay. Without an energizer around, the extroverts become leeches without a host. Once the introverted social champagne has run dry, the extroverts are left by themselves and begin to drink harder social liquors. The introverts left the party four hours ago to drink on their thoughts all alone.

            Is it fair to call the extrovert a leech? Probably not, but I’m doing the writing. When extroverts enter their rah-rah, let’s-go-team mode, they feel like a leech to introvert. Introverts that have ever been in sales know what I’m talking about—where some overly caffeinated facilitator leads the group through extroverted aerobics—slanting slogans, clapping, standing up, doing the Hokey Pokey, and turning around and then, as we’re ready to slump in our seats due to exhaustion, we’re supposed to turn to our neighbors. To an introvert, this is manipulation. You are using our social energy, that special battery God has given us to share with the world, and you’re wasting it on trivial games simply for your amusement and the benefit of all the extroverts in the room.

            I am aware I’m not being fair to the extroverts. I have extroverted friends who are wonderful people. What I’m sharing in the previous three paragraphs is not a rational analysis of extroversion. It’s how extroverts feel to introverts once the introvert’s battery is depleted; or, when the extrovert’s extroversion knob is turned too high.

            Introverts are society’s special battery. They can energize those around them. But, that energy comes at a dire cost to the introvert—because that energy is limited and at times can easily be depleted. To the introvert, this means you must learn how to budget that energy. At times, reclusion is the only healthy option. For the extrovert, realize you are spending our precious energy. Don’t waste that energy on the trivial or for your feel good amusement. Help us channel that energy for the betterment of mankind.

They'll Just Be Replaced by Robots

            I don’t know how many times I’ve posted a meme, made a comment, or posted a video on Facebook dealing with the need for wage increases for many workers. Then someone will undoubtedly reply with something to the effect of, “They’ll just be replaced by robots.” Or, even worse, they’ll post some picture of the McCashier stations. I fear the people who post this actually believe this is a valid argument—like, I’m supposed to roll over and say, “Yeah. You got me on that one. I didn’t even think of the robot argument!” My general response is to completely ignore the reply. It’s really a waste of my time and an exercise in futility to enter the fray of intellectual debate with those who think McDonald’s is the economic model that sets the standard.

            So, I’m going to respond in this blog. I’m not going to argue with those who disagree.

            First, the robot response proves that we’ve created a brutal economic system. One cannot deny huge corporate profits and huge salaries for C-level executives. One cannot deny high unemployment rates, however they are measured. One cannot deny the increase in income inequality that becomes greater every day. Those at the top cut wages, send jobs overseas, demand ever-increasing productivity, and those at the bottom suffer. Rather than buck this system, the answer to some is to make it even more brutal. “Well, they’ll just replace workers with robots.” Yes, they might. Thanks for making my point. Our system has become so brutal, that robots are considered just as valuable as people. 

            But, rather than besmirching the robots, let me take their side. Who doesn’t want robots making a living wage? Just imagine a strong middle class made up of robots—spending all that middle class income buying goods and services. Yes, it will certainly be a boon to the economy. Of course, if we don’t pay robots a decent wage, none of this will happen. But, I’m certain our corporate heads love robots. So, why wouldn’t they pay them well? Of course, if they don’t pay them well, then we won’t have that robotic spending spurring on the economy. But, how could one deny the evidence that increasing wages spurs the economy, because robots with money actually spend more?

            Let’s assume for a moment the robots are poorly paid. There’s still a big advantage. Poor robots are far less inconvenient than poor people. Poor people sleep in the streets. Poor people use up government resources. Poor people become tired and cranky. And, crankiness leads to civil unrest. A poor robot can simply be unplugged and stored in a closet. A poor person is a constant mouth to fill until death.

            Of course, I can hear all the counter arguments about certain jobs being stepping stones, about the need for one to increase their education, or the myth that increasing wages will radically inflate prices. Sure, if people have more money there will be more demand for products and services. Of course, with items necessary for survival (like food and water), demand is only going to increase to the point where everyone is fed. Everyone is fed? Hmm? Does that sound like a good goal? Yes, demand on those items will increase to a point and then stabilize. What won’t stabilize is demand for consumer items—like cars, electronics, computers and houses. But, why would we want an increase in demand for those items? Such a demand could lead to increased manufacturing, which would supply more jobs. Imagine what would happen if there was a greater demand for employees? It might create greater wages. Yes, increased wages beget increased wages. You reap what you sow, a principle so ingrained in the Bible (and Torah), that it should be a key principle carried over from our supposedly Judeo-Christian heritage into our economic system.

            Of course, all this robot talk springs from the assumption that, “Burger flippers shouldn’t make $15/hour.” There is this notion that there is unskilled labor and skilled labor—a continuum of skills. If one wants to progress up the ladder of salary, they need to improve their skills. I agree with that notion. So, the point of disagreement isn’t whether the continuum should exist, but where the bottom of the continuum should reside. The bottom of the continuum should exist at a livable wage, which is considerably higher than current minimum wage.

            Of course, then comes out the tired arguments about how increasing wages will kill business, businesses will cut hours, and prices will shoot through the roof. I know all the arguments. I was trained to make those arguments. But, I’ve seen they aren’t true. Let’s begin with the idea that increasing wages will kill business. But, let’s look at those wages as a block of money instead of individual salaries. I think fully investigating this is important, because there are many robotic mouths that need to be filled! So, picture all employee’s salaries and benefits as a single block of spending. Increasing the size of that block will inflate the price of doing business. However, let’s say the size of the block needs to remain static. What happens if one person’s salary or benefits is increased? It’s pretty obvious—someone else’s salary and benefits need to decrease. Increasing wages and benefits for those at the bottom means the wages and benefits for those at the top need to decrease. Doing this makes sense if one assumes those at the top are making too much and those at the bottom are making too little. I believe that assumption is Gospel truth.

            Now, let’s consider all the tactics big business uses—such as cutting hours, employing robots, cutting wages or whatever argument someone will come up with. Is the business trying to cut the size of the block they spend on employees? Or, is the business simply decreasing what it spends on some workers so it can give more to others? That’s hard to say for each individual business, but the overall trend is giving more to those at the top and less to those at the bottom. This seems a logical conclusion, since the irrefutable evidence is an increase in wage disparity.

            The question of robotic workers really boils down to what kind of world we want to live in. Robotic workers are a real possibility based on our current economic system. But, do we want that economic system? Personally, I’d rather my burger be served by a happy person—a self-sufficient person who enjoys flipping burgers. If a few CEO’s need to give up their private jets and instead suffer first class, it’s a price I’m willing to pay. Yes, it means we must somehow change our current economic model, but I’m also fine with that. If we regarded people as highly as we do robots, maybe there’d be fewer of those inconvenient people sleeping on my streets, begging for my food, or dying of hunger and stinking up my air. My dream is for a world where people are as convenient as robots. But, in order for that to happen, we’re going to have to start employing more people at higher wages.

Just Stop It J.J.! My Review of The Force Awakens

            What J.J. Abrams did to Star Trek, he has now done to Star Wars. Yes, he gave moviegoers an entertaining film. The visuals were stunning. The pacing was epic. The characters were strong. It was a hell of a ride. But, I feel the same way about this Star Wars rehash as I did about the Star Trek rehash. Star Wars: The Force Awakens would have been better if it wasn’t Star Wars.

            In 1977 George Lucas gave the audience something new—from the visuals, to the sound track, to the characters, to the epic story, he gave the audience a universe they hadn’t seen before. That was Star Wars—something that wasn’t derivative, but something that was unique.

            Here’s what Hollywood doesn’t understand. Unique can’t be Xeroxed. Sure, you can take yesterday’s leftovers out of the fridge and cook up some interesting hash. But, the rehashed leftovers are never as good as the original; because, the original was original. The only way to redo Star Wars is to not do Star Wars. All the elements of the original started with a blank sheet of paper and the mind of a genius.

            Hollywood, you can keep giving us these remakes. Yes, we’ll watch them. Sure, we’ll enjoy them. You’ll make millions. But, when you give moviegoers something genius as opposed to derivative, then (and only then), will you give the audience that same feeling as they felt in 1977—when John Williams’ brilliant opening notes touched their souls, and they began a journey into the unknown. You’ll also likely make millions in the process.