Suck It Up

Are you tough enough? Have you been asked recently to suck it up?  Is America full of wimps who just don't have the intestinal fortitude to deal with reality?  Have I asked enough questions to begin with the actual analysis?  There are clearly times when we as people would probably benefit from thickening our skins, but there are also times when being asked to toughen up is really code for something else: accepting less than what we want.

Imagine you had ordered a steak at the restaurant, and it was overcooked.  If you bring this to the attention of your waiter and they respond, "Deal" I think we can all agree that you would rightfully be pissed off.  If you pick up your car from the mechanic and instead of fixing the AC, it's blowing hot air, and the mechanic says, "Toughen up," you would probably go ballistic.  Why would we blow a gasket?  Because in both instances what the purveyors of service are really telling us is: take less.

Now as much I strenuously try to avoid commercials, I see enough to know that maxims like, "You deserve less" and "Lower your expectations" will never be catch-phrases in the world of advertising.  Nobody will ever buy what a company that says something like that is selling.  That's because in order for any transaction to be successful, both parties should leave satisfied.  A little bit of deception might be involved.  Maybe that new phone isn't really all that awesome, but businesses have to deliver at least partially on their promise in order to succeed.

Of course, these transactions assume that both parties are on more or less equal footing.  Growing up, you probably were told at various times to accept less, because your expectations really were unrealistic.  No, you can't have a pony for your birthday.  No, you can't go to Disney World for every vacation.  As you got older, you probably heard this refrain more and more from your teachers.  No, your lame excuse does not excuse you from not turning in your paper.  You get a zero, now deal. And then you might hear that same argument from your boss.  This all makes sense.  Your parents, your teachers and your bosses might not have always been right, but they were in the position of power, and therefore you had to either accept their verdict or go through the effort of rebelling.

But what about when politicians act like American voters need to toughen up?  Is that kind of the same thing?  I happen to think it isn't.  See, in a Democracy, their job is contingent on our vote.  It's a transaction, and both sides need to walk away from the transaction with a feeling of satisfaction in order for the relationship to continue.  So, why are Republicans talking down to the American people?  Why is it okay to tell people to expect less from their government?

This might make sense in an aristocracy.  Aristocratic government is not designed to meet the needs of all its inhabitants.  Sure, you don't want the peasants revolting, so you might make the kingdom more livable, but you can never let the peasants think that they have power.  You need to be the boss, the parent who has every right to tell the people who depend on you that they should only expect to get the scraps that you give them.

Aristocracies don't need unions interfering with their iron-fisted rule.  They don't have time to listen to your jibber-jabber about how you require medical attention, and how you should be able to support yourself on a living wage.  They are too busy planning their next war.

Of course, even in a democracy you need people to tell you when you are being unrealistic.  So I've developed this handy-dandy method to determine if a politician asking you to tighten your belt has a legitimate argument: check and see what his plans are for the people in his income bracket.  If his plan is to lower their taxes significantly, then they are not serious about balancing the books.  If they can't "toughen up" themselves and do without their valet, their chauffeur and their Summer homes, then they are not being honest with you.  They are in effect asking you to do the heavy lifting, while their constituents (many in the same class) get to count the money.

Here's the thing: you're already taking less, while they take more.  Check out this handy dandy graphic:

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/01/22/377470959/how-much-more-or-less-would-you-make-if-we-rolled-back-inequality

In it, you can see how much money you would be making if we had the same level of inequality as they did in 1979.  At first glance, you might notice that you would only be making a couple of thousand dollars more.  That's not so bad, right?  But then multiply that by every year that you have been working.  That's between $60,000 and $300,000 if you (like me) are in your early 40s.  Imagine you had that money, instead of having it funneled into the back accounts of the already wealthy.  You probably wouldn't have the debt that you have.  You would probably not be stressing out over medical bills, and whether college is a viable option for your children.

That's money that wealthy people acquired by shifting the tax burden from them to you.  That's money they made by taking all the profits from innovations regardless of whether they were responsible for them. 99.9% of the companies are not responsible for the increased worker-productivity created by the personal computing and the Internet.  FedEx had nothing to do with it.  Coke had nothing to do with it.  Did they pass their ability to accrue higher profits on their workers?  No.  Straight to their shareholders and increased CEO pay.

When there is a group of people responsible for robbing the American people blind, their only way to prevent their inevitable day of reckoning is to take the authoritarian high road.  We are the masters and you must toughen up and take the scraps we give you.  Just remember: This country is still a democracy in name, if not in fact.  Use what voting power you have to make things right.