IDENTIFYING, UNDERSTANDING AND MOVING BEYOND PRIVILEGE

Can you imagine a life where you work all the time, not necessarily in a job you hate, but perhaps one in which you are not seeing immediate reward?

At the same time, you watch others, including those to whom you are close to and perhaps love, have more in their lives than you can ever realistically achieve in your own?  It hurts and you try to achieve this standard, only to be disappointed and frustrated time and time again, because your efforts count for naught, when: (a) people don't hire you; (b) you are left out of hiring because of a so-called qualification you don't have because of a disability (e.g. driving, lifting, appearance such as a facial disability); or (c) do not have access to cash or credit to upgrade your situation.

There are some things that many in society has no clue about.  That is dealing with ableism and classism.  People of the middling or more often, upper classes of our society do not sense that escaping poverty is very difficult for those in it. Ironically, escaping poverty often requires money.  Money that one can choose to use it in a way to help them escape poverty, as opposed to just catching up on over-inflated bills, which are henceforth, over-inflated as a result of the cost of living in poverty.  We live in a caste system, just that we don't call it that.  However, many are legislated into poverty.

When the topic is discussed online, many people just say that people who grow old and live in poverty from low pension or even no pension, have not thought about "saving for a rainy day" or spent their funds unwisely somehow.  What if I were to propose that most of the time, those who did not save for the alleged "rainy day" likely had too many rainy days and not enough sunny ones to make up for them, or to accumulate enough funds for the next "rainy season"?  How about those that have too many rainy days have to borrow much more than others do, whilst ending up further in debt and having to repay a larger portion of their income on debt repayment than someone of better means?

Not everybody is able to acquire good paying jobs that provide enough income to do this.  If they are in a relationship, both members of the couple should be working in these well paid jobs in order to achieve this.  I hear from many people that think that one parent (usually the woman) should stay at home and look after the kids and the house, while the other works.  This usually ends up with the woman in poverty if that relationship ends.  Those jobs that allow a single earner to support a full family and then have enough left over are gone.  Families do better with both parents working. What if you have some work-limiting disabilities, perhaps because you have aged and developed some health conditions that limit the kind of jobs that you can have, while your partner does not work forcing you to pay for the entire freight?  This imposes poverty on the entire family.

As stated, single income earners can hardly support a whole household anymore, although governments as policy are forcing people with disabilities who cannot work to be fully dependent on their working partners, even if this working partner is hardly earning past minimum wage.  Put yourself in the shoes of this working partner.  You cannot drive because of a health condition, or perhaps you simply cannot afford to pay for a vehicle and its insurance.  Virtually every job that you are otherwise qualified for that pays a bit more than you are earning now states you must have a license and have daily access to your own vehicle.  Do you lie to get the job, and then get let go later on when they find out you do not drive, when even the one occasion you need to drive comes up and you suddenly come up short?  Or do you just move on?  

There was a time in the US south, and even parts of Canada, where publicly available services were segregated between blacks and whites.  I know many people in the non-driving category see these job ads similarly to those in the US south or those antiquated parts of Canada in the day as advertising for "whites only".  Yes, some people can probably eventually get their licenses, but think about how the province's graduated licensing system works.  It assumes you have parents or you live near them, and they are able and willing to support you learning to drive.  This is your young person who is 16 - 24 and eager to get behind the wheel of a car.  Older adults, particularly women, who did not have this same support as a young person, would often get support driving with a spouse who is fully licensed.  What if you are much older, do not have parents and/or a spouse that can do this?  

People on the middling and upper income range just think people can just go to a driving school and pay for this.  People who pass their G1 but not their G2 need to have a fully licensed driver in the front passenger seat of their car at all times when they are driving (for up to a year), even if they driven before and have taken a hiatus and are seeking to regain their license back after a few years.  While being super-focused on road safety which is a reasonable explanation for this rule, it effectively cuts out three types of people: low income, disabled and older people.  Low income and people with disabilities often have little to no money to pay a driving school for this support.  Many with disabilities are not allowed to drive. Older people often have additional barriers.

Research shows that people who drive and have their own personal transportation are able to do a few things to get and keep out of poverty: (a) get better paying jobs; (b) find additional side hustles to help them deal with inflationary price increases as most involve driving, delivery or ability to get to places to provide products or services related to the side hustle; and (c) are less isolated and able to find friends and potential life partners that they can hook up with to combine incomes and raise household income.

In the above scenario, people who are fully licensed and have their own vehicles do not understand how not having a license or their own vehicle contributes to a life in poverty, potentially draining the individual of hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more over the course of their lifetime.  If you live in a larger city with decent public transportation, this may not be as much of an issue, but many if not most people live in regions where a car is deemed almost a necessity.  I have met people that have very well paying jobs that do not even have a license or bother to drive at all, but virtually all of them live in large cities, like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver.  Those unfortunate enough to live outside of these kinds of cities tend to take lower paid jobs and in a narrow range of cases, are able to work from home.

Working from home is often deemed to be a possibility if you are disabled or have too many family responsibilities.   The pandemic got people interested in this possibility but, in general, legitimate work from home jobs are usually held by people who used to work in an office in a higher paid position, or are specifically skilled in an area that not many people are, e.g. high tech, IT.  The chances of going online and looking for a work from home job that will pay well is still slim to none unless you fall into one of the above exceptions.  We hear about this in the media because these are jobs held by people in IT, programming, engineering, banking, finance and so forth, all of which pay people much higher than average.  As such, these people tend to live in larger homes that can also double as a workplace.

On the other hand, I heard of many lower income people attempting to take a work from home job, but more often than not, they were scams and they were poorly paid if paid at all.  Caste structure is alive and well in the work from home community too.  It is less visible and those who are succeeding in this area, unfortunately, do not see their privilege either.  This is not a legitimate avenue except for a small minority of those living in poverty as an option to escape from poverty.   

This is not to say that those that do not drive, those who are poor and those that have disabilities do not have any job opportunities, but when they do, their barriers are: (a) getting hired; (b) getting a livable wage; and (c) getting opportunities for advancement.  If you make it through the hiring barrier and get the job, it is unlikely the job is high paying or high skilled.  The much talked about labour shortages are not in the high paid sectors, but in the low wage service jobs, such as fast food, accommodations, call centers, farm labour, etc.  These jobs by their nature tend to pay low wages and have high turnover of staff, often because of the stressful nature of these jobs combined with poverty level incomes. People do not want to be trapped in poverty in these jobs. However, one can try to get additional education, but if one is poorly paid and has little to no savings, this is not likely to happen either.  Further indebtedness is not a great idea if you are already in the hole.

You know you have financial privilege when the roof over your head is secure and you have options for financing of repairs, renovations, or even accessing a car loan.  This does not mean you are rich.  This does not mean that today's galloping inflation is not hitting you hard on the head and in your pocketbook.  This is "broke" but not poverty. Canadians on average are getting further and further indebted as a whole and in particular, those having to renew variable mortgages are getting hit the worst.  However, there is such a thing as a debt wall (for lower income Canadians), whereby you cannot access further credit and the repayment of credit cards, loans, etc. is taking up a larger and larger chunk of your income to the point you cannot pay your bills at all.  This happens more often with a single earner, than with a family with at least two people working.  Bankruptcy which happens will only further restrict one's job options.

It affects the latter type of person in many ways.  There is the usual Kubler-Ross stages of grieving, whilst also knowing they would not be able to even afford the lower income lifestyle they have.  Most people in this category are essentially in the lower caste and do not have the opportunities to just get a higher paying job, move to a location where there are more jobs or to cut back even a penny further.  If they are on any kind of assistance, OW or ODSP, for example, they are almost enshrined into this caste whereby even if they manage to start earning a little bit more, they will experience major clawbacks from the income they do receive. There is no such thing as a two income household on ODSP, even if only one of the spouses is disabled.  This program is designed to keep the family in poverty and prevented from "saving for a rainy day", as any funds that do come into the household are already spoken for before they even come into the door.

Doing ordinary things, let alone doing a job, is also a hardship for low income and even disabled.  Buying groceries, shopping around for a specific item, visiting family, or attending community or social events are all part of a major planning process: (a) do I have the money; (b) how am I going to get there; (c) when will I have the time to actually get there (as transporting for poor people is both more expensive and takes longer than for those that drive); and (d) how will I get back (for events that happen in the evening, one usually has to Uber or taxi back because the buses stop running or you are likely to miss a bus that might continue to run but only hourly).  In many cases, the person concerned just does not go anywhere at all, which contributes to their further isolation and in turn, poverty.

Family and friends are only available to help some people and even then, some of the time.  Put the shoe on the other foot and imagine a brother, a sister, a mother, father or just a friend or neighbour you know that doesn't drive, but still needs to get around.  You work full time and have other activities you engage in, so you know that you cannot realistically take them around, or even cover the cost of their bus or taxi fare.  In these circumstances, our communities need to do better.  They need to stop assuming that there are always family members and friends waiting in the wings to provide financial support to, drive people around as well as assist people in getting out of poverty.  

Even in the most ineffectual sectors that are set up today to help the very poor and low income, such as food banks, soup kitchens and homeless shelters, which do nothing to get anybody out of poverty or even give them hope that they can escape it, these organizations themselves are now asking for help.  They are helping more people and getting less and less donors, because those that used to donate are not able to do so anymore.  They are looking to the government to take its duties back in providing a secure social safety net for those that keep falling through the one we have now.  As a society, we need to stop "othering" the low-income, the disabled and the older population.  Because all of us will eventually get there, we need to force the state to re-examine its existing policies to stop legislating a significant portion of the public into poverty and to respect the human rights of everybody.

Your thoughts?

Working From Home: Advocacy, Privilege and a Trend Gone Mad

 

On March 11, 2020, the world went mad with the World Health Organization making an announcement about a new global pandemic, which set everything adrift very quickly.  Businesses and organizations around the world began to panic and send everybody home and to cancel their in-person engagements, worried that world was going to soon shut down.  This was the kind of event that everybody can tell stories of what they were doing when the world shut down.  Events, courses, meetings and even court dates in my own life were cancelled, leaving me wondering for how long and how we would make a living after.

Soon thereafter, governments began this requirement that if you can, that everybody must work from home.  This led to a lot of issues in my part of the world, the people I meet and serve.  While there is little media coverage about this, many people quit their jobs as soon as they were directed to work at home.  They began to work in jobs they knew they could do, such as food delivery, Uber or even working in a grocery store.  Others were unemployed. The whole issue about working from home again, was never given great consideration by the powers that be, because the people making these orders usually made very high salaries and lived in comfortable homes.  Nobody asked any of these folks if:  (a) they had a computer and related access to technology; (b) whether they had high speed Internet; (c) whether they had a private place to work; and (d) whether they were able to work effectively at their residence.

As part of the "essential" class of occupations, this was less related to my profession, although we tried it, but after a week, I began to struggle with the technology, isolation and my inability to connect with clients remotely.  Many though not all members of my profession felt the same way, while others were forced to close down entirely.  I remember those early days, as the federal government did issue some help, although mostly in the form of loans to assist small business to bridge themselves through the pandemic.  Nobody paid me (or anybody else I know) the funds required to retrofit one's home and furnish a private home office.  I did set one up anyways and paid several thousands of dollars, because the room was not set up that way and it took us three weeks to throw out a lot of junk, left over by a hoarder that unfortunately lives here.

Fast forward to 2021 when people who had been working at their home offices for so long, were now being asked to return to their work offices.  Many surveys paid for by technology and software companies spoke to people, who obviously did not miss their commute and said they would quit their jobs if they had to return to their offices.  To me, that is a privileged response, as prior to the pandemic, they commuted just fine.  And they will again, as essential workers continued to commute throughout without an issue to keep WFH colleagues comfortable. Not a lot of people like to commute, but they did not want to dump it on their boss for making them do so, prior to being forced to work at home.  WFH (work from home) advocates state it is better for the environment if they did not go back to the office, although plenty of articles do state this not to be the case.  Just because you no longer commute to the office does not mean you do not commute to dozens of other places, both during the working day and after.  If this were indeed true, WFH folks would get rid of their vehicles and only accept delivery or rely on Uber to go to the fewer places they allegedly might go. The trend is actually opposite, where more people were actually buying cars, as opposed to less.

Further, there tends to be a strong socioeconomic bias in terms of favourable conditions for working from home.  If you earn a higher income, you naturally can afford more house.  Study after study confirms this bias.  In fact, some WFH advocates traded up for a larger home in the suburbs or even further from their jobs, in hopes they would never be called back to the office.  Many have whole sections of their homes now devoted to work from home, especially if more than one person in the household is doing so.  In the meantime, others who are not so well paid are working from their bedrooms, laundry rooms or their kitchen tables, using old and non-ergonomic furniture, secretly longing for the day they return to the office to rid themselves of this ridiculous isolation.

The media bias about this is horrible, as the voices from those that do not WFH well are almost drowned out by the highly paid remote IT workers that surround themselves with a large home office, an outdoor pool, an indoor gym, Pelaton, big screen TV and home cooked meals from Chef Plate or similar products.  The ones I work with do not have any of that, and are more likely to share their rental spot with others, making their concentration and productivity weak at best.  One of them lived in a place with three roommates, where they transformed the living room into a bedroom, where the one room was used for two of the roommates to work from home and study and the kitchen for the third worker.  In some of these cases, their employers have ditched the offices and decided to go remote permanently, which has left many of the latter people with no choice other than to quit and find other employment or go back to school.  I met these people and know this, even though the media will never share this with the public, because big tech wants to make it so.

WFH advocates want to talk about the Great Resignation where the employees are taking over the workplaces.  This is another movement gone mad.  In my view, if you are an employee, who has not invested in the company or taken any risks to get that company off the ground (and keep it there), what right do you have to dictate what works for your boss?  In some cases, remote may work, especially for a limited range of occupations where collaboration and task variation is not part of the work you are doing.  However, some of the very highly paid workers say they do not ever want to go to an office again, which is again, privileged horse fodder.  If you are being called back to the office, there is likely a reason:  remote work is not working for the company.  Face it.  Or they would have let this continue and support it financially.

The truth about the Great Resignation is that most of the people referring to this are those in lower paid hospitality, hotel and restaurant sectors, who have gone back to school or took other jobs that pay better.  Many are also women who are stuck at home and unable to return due to child care responsibilities.  The media makes it look like the people getting six figure salaries are all quitting their jobs because they have to commute to work, which is a bit stale, if you ask me.  I asked some of them to post the jobs that they are quitting so that others on the forum who are looking for work can take these jobs.  Most of the unemployed do not care if they had to commute. It is interesting how nobody did this, because in fact, six figure earners are not leaving in droves, although people in lesser paid positions might be exploring their options.

If you are a worker that now wants to work when you want, where you want, how you want and with whom you want (including your employer's competitors), then quit and hang out your own shingle.  Take on all the costs of starting your own establishment and if you are any good at what you do, eventually you need to hire employees.  Take on the full cost of your employees as well.  Only then, will those privileged at six figure salaries will begin to realize that all of this costs money and elbow grease to get started.  Work-life balance does not exist when you are self-employed, at least until you get to that point where others can take on at least the mundane stuff.  I know one of those people who recently quit a large company and went on her own and proudly told me she is clearing about $80,000 a year self-employed, but, but and but ... she has to set up an office (as her type of business cannot be done fully remote), which will set her back about about $24,000 of that, plus hire two assistants (so she is not working around the clock), which will take up another $70,000 of that ... and yes, she will have to work harder to bring in more business and make less money, but she will have the work-life balance she said she craves.  This is a reality:  it is called capitalism.

The WFH fully push their employers to close their offices, as who needs offices anyways, they say.  They say their employers can save a ton of money that way.  Let's take this one step at a time.  Office rent hardly constitutes a majority of a business' expenses.  Labour does.  Even the lowest paid labourer on their own probably costs your employer more money than their office space, especially for a smaller business.  For larger businesses, the real estate costs may be higher, but then again, there are also a significantly larger number of employees which construct a higher percentage of costs, all of whom cost the employer at least 40 - 60% of their total budget.  Many of these employers do constantly look for ways to save money, like any business does.  If your employer is a global company, they just have to look eastward to find businesses that specialize in contracting labour from cheap labour countries like India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, etc., where many of their workers are similarly skilled and believe that a $10,000 a year salary is "rich".  Be careful what you ask for.  I have watched many people earning six figures get laid off because of a decision by their employer to move their labour offshore, even during this pandemic.

Another issue I noticed with office workers working at home is the amount of time it takes for somebody to email or phone me back when I try to contact them, even for something urgent.  Many times, people do not return their calls at all.  Many businesses do not even have somebody answering the telephone when you call.  At least when they do, that person answering the phone can ensure the person you are trying to reach gets the message.  However, lately when people do not even answer the phone, I stopped leaving messages.  I complain to their superiors instead.  If people are really working at home, then they should be just as responsive to outside callers as they were when they worked in the office.  If not, they should be asked to return to the office.

Further, a push to WFH even post-pandemic has serious consequences on the economy, especially in cities with a large percentage of office workers in the central district.  During the pandemic we saw so many signs "closed temporarily", "take out or delivery only", etc. and hardly a car on the roadways made the city centre very despondent and isolated.  Many jobs were lost, as well as businesses, where business owners ended up having to go on relief.  This is in turn has consequences for other businesses that may not have taken as large of a hit in the pandemic, whereby less workers, less businesses and people having less money, means less people able to buy from the "essential" businesses.  Many WFH friends I know were very disappointed when they learned a favourite pub closed for this reason; without the office traffic, many of these businesses do not survive.  

The impact on the city's tax base also takes a hit.  Less office space used or leased, less retail space (due to having to close, etc.), means less property being taxed at a higher commercial rate.  This can only mean two choices:  higher property taxes for residents, or service cuts, such as cuts for transit (which many essential workers rely upon), road maintenance and social services.  I noted a particularly larger number of visible homeless in my own downtown since the pandemic,  More are openly using drugs, disposing of their syringes and sleeping rough, than did in the past when office workers were around.  A property that becomes neglected attracts this type of activity.  Henceforth, we had several fires started that burned down properties that have been empty for some time.  

To me, it is only a matter of time until the WFH crowd and other homeowners become angry at substantial tax hikes that have to be made by their cities or towns they are in to keep operating a base line of municipal services.  To me, if their employers really want them to work at home, let them bear the full costs of each employee they have at home, from their set up, technology, security, internet service, as well as any difference in utilities and taxes.  I calculated the cost of what all of this would be for an average office business with a full remote policy, and they would likely be paying more to keep people at home than just to bring them into the office.  Software and technology companies that often sponsor these articles and surveys financially benefit from having more people possess licenses and use various types of software in their work, including theirs.

To me, it is following the money.  Since the pandemic started and towards the end of 2020, no less than $100 billion in profits were made by Amazon because people took deliveries from that company, as well as many grocery chains made a ton of money.  I was mindful and refused to use Amazon or any large technology company for my deliveries or work; where possible, I utilized local services where small businesses benefited.

If WFH advocates think that these small businesses will simply relocate to where they are, they are mistaken, as there is nowhere near the volume of business that they had downtown where the WFH folks are living.  They are disparate in their geographic locations and in residential neighbourhoods, the ones that were food deserts before will remain food deserts.  The ones that had a pub in their neighbourhood before will still have a pub (but if you noticed these areas, they are more densely populated and have a mix of commercial and residential, not just residential).  The 15 minute neighbourhoods many planners talk about will still not happen; in fact, they are less likely to happen, simply because even those who WFH now but used to take a bus to work are now driving everywhere.

In my city, many people do live downtown, but most do not have a lot of money to spend.  If the population that used to fill the downtown completely leaves permanently, most amenities, such as banks, pharmacies, boutiques, hairdressers, dry cleaners, etc. will likely move away from the downtown, as will most employers.  With a reduction in bus service, as many downtown dwellers do not drive, they will end up having to commute more daily to the suburbs to get simple needs met, as opposed to getting them met downtown like they used to.  This creates even a greater division than there was in place before, wider inequalities in income and opportunities, as well as even basic accessibility to services.

If you suggest the downtown dwellers to move, this is not the greatest suggestion, given that even rents have doubled or even tripled since the pandemic.  People who are used to six figure incomes have no clue as to how their choices, directly and indirectly impact on the rest of the community.  I am not saying they are doing anything bad, but the onus is on cities to ensure the correct mix of office, retail and commercial, as well as residential downtown and to ensure that commercial taxes are properly appropriated to those that should be paying, such as employers that enforce work from home.