I was watching the TED Talks highlights. L. Smith has a bit on why you’re going to fail to have a great career. Even though he presents himself as a comic and is touching on what’s happening in most of the economy, the reality he describes hurts, yet also doesn‘t go far enough. First he claims that you have to wait for your (economic, happy, difficult, passionate) job while knowing you can fail at even getting hired. Wonderful. News flash; many of these jobs are not filled by the new generation, but by the generation left around me, 40-50 years olds who had to take entry level temp positions instead of their prior permanent positions.

They can jump right in without much training, so that’s a plus, right? Never mind what they just lost.

I was in the position of trying to break into the profession a while back, and I met many where it was so damaging emotionally for the experienced professional to take themselves back to entry-level positions. Worse was the fact that almost every firm hires temporarily first, so they were deprived of prior salary and benefits all at once. And when I say temp positions, I’m talking 2-3 years if they actually were eventually made permanent. It's a humiliating experience for someone who had a job, a career, and had it ripped away from them.

L. Smith even acknowledges that the 1950’s middle class, stable job is gone. Yet his solution is to encourage weird thinking, because, you know, so many mentally divergent people are able to handle constant innovation and be profitable at the same time. Let everyone magically change to entrepreneurs because they were beaten down or rejected by the system, needed a change, and got lucky. Or those dropouts like Bill Gates, at least the tiny percent who succeed in doing so. This is not a population's solution.

Even in the old paradigm of working hard and innovating, even in this technological age, you hear of “unicorns” or other startups being invested in by “angel” investors. Guess what, 90% of startups fail. “Angel” investors have failed as well, but they have a nice multi-millionaire dollar cushion to fall back on.

This Ted Talk calls out those who are insular and ignore all of those things, but then sometimes there are families, friends, reasons why we failed ourselves, but it’s never addressing the basic problem where the system broke down. The current paradigm is trying to ignore the consequences of offshoring  for regular jobs, and/or the wages that companies offer, where they will perhaps pay a fraction onshore for someone forced to start over.

Perhaps worst of all, in some ways, he finds that having a family is a liability that limits people from taking those major job changes and risks that will cause the person to re-think going for that promotion or trying to move ahead. It used to be the reason to take the next step in a career ladder was so you could provide more for your family. This is now used as an option now to “transition,” aka fire people of a certain income level or who have ruffled the wrong feathers. A test, as it would seem, to see if you can carry a family and an exploitative job on your back at the same time.

These things should not be. Refusing the need to spend time with those you love is how you’d get fired, if not demoted, for the job you have and are grounds for replacing you with someone else. Or they “promote” you with responsibilities, but with no increase in benefits or salary, whereas the reality is that you, not the company, pays more in talent and experience for you to do your new job and do it very well for fear of losing it. Exploitation is alive and well, and exponentially increasing.

Today the average person has no leeway, and is even penalized for basic things such as healthcare. A basic doctor’s visit is fine. Visits incorporating the consequences of stress-related illnesses caused by working for the exploitative company which could be tracked over time? They hit you with ever-increasing deductibles, even through what was “traditional” insurance.

Traveling across the globe, not to actually see the area, but to spend 2 hours in a meeting, then flying back and expecting to function with no jet lag or interruption in performance is required.

For all of this and more, it's always presented as our fault, never theirs.

Pensions are a burden that are passed on and on through mergers so someone else can make sure no one gets paid for their lifetime of service. Anything that involves the company’s expenses is a burden to them, versus an ethical responsibility for loyal service over many years.

Basically, L. Smith has valid points, and the advice he gives others is so true to the current environment that it enrages me, particularly since a short comedy bit can't cover all of this and more. In real life, however, if this is a systemic problem that‘s changing working life, wouldn’t it need to be addressed in a practical fashion?

The whole STEM debate is not a reality, it‘s an opiate for the masses believing that everyone can do engineering or innovate as Smith says. It even includes the idea that everyone has the ability to earn a living wage doing basic manual labor repairing infrastructure (which very few people have the capacity to do without training, but that‘s another argument).

As it stands, people generally don't acknowledge that most infrastructure jobs are minimum wage or only a bit more, which means poverty level households. I suppose that we just have to make do with what we have, temporarily hope for less hypocrisy or at least a healthy sense of irony, and have some faith there might be a sustainable solution at some point in the future.

No jury duty for me, thankfully. I have a few posts in the works, but for now let me just say merry Christmas, make the most of your time, and enjoy the oddly warm weather (if you're in the Northeast)!

So I've been called up for jury duty again. I actually was first called right before a wedding I had to attend, and took the freebie postponement. This time I knew I had to commit. I'm hoping it's only 2-3 days, and I think that odds are against me being a juror.

If they happen to call my number, fine. Would they want to choose someone who is smart and opinionated, stubborn, and curious enough that I'd want to ask my own questions? By the way, are you allowed to quiz the lawyers quizzing you? Only one of my colleagues has actually served, and the case settled quickly. Out of the other 16 coworkers none have ever been picked, although the chance that you head to an interview is a fair draw.

I also hope that my experiences have been varied enough that it would disqualify me. I've worked in public service jobs, government service, academic, corporate, and at this point investment banking and while there's a lot of dysfunction in every situation I've been in, government was (marginally) the worst. Which might mean that a lot of the court proceedings are likely antiquated, if not flat out trying to deny the current environment, and the laws are written to a world that no longer exists (this bias could also be a factor in elimination).

I guess I'll find out. I'll do what I did last time, show up, sign in, sew (or maybe write Christmas cards this time, although that's not particularly motivating), maybe read a book, and hope they say it's time to let us go.

Best part: I have immunity of having to show up again for 4 years, and my job knows everyone gets called eventually so we are compensated.

But honestly, if I was given the choice of being on a jury versus someone who is unemployed, or not compensated for their time, or would put their job in jeopardy by having to serve, I would volunteer in their place. I'm lucky and I know it (although still crossing my metaphorical fingers it's all quick and painless).

So I just saw (belatedly) that Scott Weiland died. Even following the deaths of Layne Staley, Shannon Hoon, Kurt Cobain, Hillel Slovak, even going back to Janis Joplin, it’s still a shock. Not so much that they lived and were famous, but more because that was part of what destroyed them. All have that history of numbing pain through heroin and other drugs, unfortunately on a public stage.

Once you’re a known personality, the pressure would create even more stress to perform to perfection and increase your concerts and media activity to an unprecedented level. If you have that inner tension which depressives often have, you are prone to explode. When normal life already depletes any strength you have in the first place, any extra stress can be poison. There are pictures of Kurt Cobain sitting with his guitar, crumpled against the drum set, just losing his shit, crying and having a total breakdown. If it existed, I'm sure each overdose would show something similar on a semi-regular basis before or after their performances, when the stress was highest.

Fall to Pieces from Velvet Revolver shows Weiland (in a music video) having an overdose/breakdown, and being dragged off a bathroom floor as a staged event. If that’s not a cry for help, I don’t know what is. Obviously it was inspired by his past life, since it's not really an common artistic, conceptualized video scene. It's an experience of life and consequences few of us will encounter, one he most probably has had,  but why put it out there so publicly? So many of us fantasize that it would be over, yet very few put it on film. Even though at the end of the video he lives, it’s only by breaking down to the one person he trusts to take care of him, and it's implied he recovers.

Outside of the ones who break/overdose/kill themselves consciously or unconsciously, there are those who struggle on a regular basis and make it through. Dave Matthews bravely ran a story in Rolling Stone explaining why Everyday also spawned Busted Stuff. The photograph accompanying was authorized, no crying though you know there could have been many if he allowed it.

All he could write at that particular time was a reflection of his state of depression, so they had to start from scratch to make Everyday. Yes, it separated the two albums from each other. Yes, Busted Stuff has a beauty in and of itself to turn that emotion into an album that, in many ways, encapsulates the complicated despair occurring with a depressive episode. Worst of all, the knowledge that the depression will be recurrent, so you have to brace yourself for every wave that comes your way. Yet he’s alive. Fighting still, but alive.

I remember the tortured Kurt from his picture encapsulating the visual pain. Dave's defiance since he's opening up with an honest written explanation of that kind of pain. Kurt's photo and Dave's article are windows into the gut-wrenching reality that so many of us have to endure but with two very different endings. It's a fight that I think Scott Weiland would have understood, but finally gave into despair. You can only fight for so long until you know there will be a reason to stay (wife, family, etc), or you eventually give up and let go.

For Weiland, he tried valiantly, although I'm sure that people will disparage him for his vices. But few addicts I've known or heard of have lasted as long, gone back and forth from rehab, actually cleaned up occasionally, and made a "normal" life for themselves after all of that.

Maybe it would have been better for him not to tour again. I guess we'll never know how things might have been different to help him to hold on to life a little bit tighter, or reach for support. Dave Matthews found much of it from his wife and children, living for them as a solid, outside reason to keep going. Not everyone has that luxury or drive to change their lifestyle. I wish that was true across the board, but for now, Weiland's story is written. No more chapters.

I've rarely painted my nails or went for a manicure unless there was a very specific reason (wedding, vacation, etc). Yet I know many women where it's a weekly ritual, if not more frequently.

Cosmetics in general have always been a minor concern to me. Makeup exists and I use it, but overall I use the minimum to hide dark shadows, highlight one of my best features (blue eyes), and just add a bit of uniformity to my overall look. When I was going through college I learned a basic, subtle look, when to amp it up, and some other options in between although I'm hardly a professional.

As for nails, it coincided with me taking an interest in professional treatments for what they label as beauty regimens. If I use the long lasting (home-applied) gel, I have a chance of having the nails grow beyond their base and try to regenerate what I've broken or chipped over time. I guess that's what I've decided is my personal indulgence after long days, where a single thing can make a difference in how I feel about the day in some ways.

Little things like nail maintenance are an expression. It means that I'm taking the time and attention for myself, and realizing that it is important to look at yourself in the mirror and see the external profile, no matter what is going on inside. Skin and hair also follow the collagen trend; yet the attention to nails are, for me, the sign that strength is building, physically and psychologically, to come back from the latest experience. At least I know what to focus on when there is a question of where I am in terms of improving my self, life, appearance, and attitude.

Small actions can sometimes mean more than major intentions will. They are a real motion, instead of theorized intents, and that is a very important distinction to me.