Tuesday, October 16, 2012

"For Your Most Kind Consideration: Approval, Satisfaction, Happiness, And...Joy!":Part V, con't.

"For Your Most Kind Consideration: Approval, Satisfaction, Happiness, And...Joy!" :Part V con't.
Oct 16 2012
"For Your Most Kind Consideration: Approval, Satisfaction, Happiness, And...Joy!"
10/16/12
Part V continued...

"1923"
(Comprised of more raw data, presumed inferences, arbitrary historical comparisons, subjective implications, and relative conclusions and their meanings)

In parts I-IV, attempts were made to separate ,‘needs' from ‘wants', by practicality and how-to either a greater, or lesser extent-they subsequently affected what we perceive to be the emotive qualities of, ‘satisfaction', to, ‘happiness'.
In the beginning of part V, attempts were made to:
1) Recapitulate and to define-where needed, and-subsequently--to great length!--data and statistics sufficiently, and well-enough to help explain, to help clarify, or to adjust figures where indicated, so that, ‘oranges could be transformed into apples', in order that, ‘apples could be reasonably compared to apples'!
2) Further, that any statistic used be readily found by those interested.
3) To be as honest as possible in selecting facts and figures relevant to the question or questions at hand in hopes to minimalize personal bias.
4) To refrain-as much as is possible-from ‘contaminating' the data, by either intentional, or unintentional, ‘skewing', in order to confirm original hypothesis.

In thinking about one's levels of satisfaction to levels of happiness as they may relate to, ‘need' fulfillment or ‘want' fulfillment, and beyond, it is necessary-first, where possible-to characterize the basic elements of, ‘need', and, ‘want', in hopes of being able to integrate them into a single, more or less manageable equation-that, while subjective-may yet attempt to shed some revealing light as to our behavior; a greater understanding of our priorities, and of ourselves, and-hopefully-to a better recognition of what truly makes us happy.
Such, ‘survival', requisites, might look something like this, in terms of assumed primacy:
1) Water
2) Edible/nourishing food
3) Procreation (as a biological imperative, and gene pool-variation)
4) Shelter
5) Transportation
6) The establishment of Tribe
A) Recognition of the, ‘Alpha' ( ? )
7) Income--from the beginnings of, ‘work for wage', to an increasing degree-as may be considered necessary to meet, ‘needs', aside from, ‘work for goods', or in trading, ‘goods for goods' of considered equal value.
And so-again--I submit to you, my very, very dearest friends for your consideration and/or approval, the following social equation:
(Need+Need Fulfillment) + Comfort, Choice, Availability = (Want+Want Fulfillment) +Luxury, Immediacy, Availability = (Status)
Let us proceed...
"1923"
You may first well ask: "1923...what does THAT have to do with anything?" And, for the most part, you would be correct. On the bare face of it, the year 1923 is just a number. It could have been any number, any number at all...1602, or 1840, or-in fact-2136!
For me, the year, ‘1923' (in point of fact-actually--it may be closer to, ‘1922'!), as I cannot be more specific than that.
On my bedside nightstand, there is a framed copy of a photograph taken sometime between 1922 and 1923. It is a dingy picture of my father as a little boy, my grandmother, my grandfather, my father's older sister, and a younger boy (probably my dad's brother Robert), and an infant boy held in my grandmother's lap.
This one photograph, taken within the space of just two years, is precious to me, because of its many, ‘onlys'.
It's the ONLY photograph I have of my grandmother, my grandfather, my father's elder sister, his two, younger brothers, and dad as a little boy, no more than maybe three or four years old.
And while I cannot give evidence of the exact date on which this picture was taken, it is-nevertheless-a moment frozen in time.

I can see what they were wearing, and how they, ‘posed' for the camera. As mere supposition, I can guess their general health, their attention to hygiene, and self-care.
Further, by looking at their clothes, and their chosen-hence, available-items with which to adorn themselves gives-at least-a couple of clues as to their financial, and/or societal standing.
First of all, while family, ‘portraits', are fairly common, and-quite understandably-that family members would want to look as good as possible, in wearing their, ‘Sunday Best', the apparent quality, and various number of accessories does manage to convey that at least, the family was financially comfortable, and solidly, ‘Middle Class', or even, upwardly mobile, ‘Middle Class'.
And while my grandfather is wearing-perhaps-tie, black suit, vest, and black shoes, he also has a nice tie-tack for his tie, and a pocket watch in display.
He is looking into the camera, with what seems to be a genuine-not forced-smile; to look at him, one would guess, probably rightly so, that he was perfectly satisfied, even happy with the then, ‘status quo'.
My grandmother (who was very shy, and tended to be withdrawn), was wearing a pretty-enough dress, with a headband-typical of the time-in lace. She is wearing a brooch, and the sleeves of her dress are edged in lace.
At three (four, at tops) years old, my father was standing-hands clasped--between his mother and father, looking so absolutely cute in his little, ‘sailor suit'.
His sister, Helen, is plainly dressed, with a ribbon in her hair, and is pictured sitting next to my grandfather with her arms resting on his shoulders.
From what dentition they reveal in their smiles, I could not discern any missing teeth. Everyone looked clean, well-dressed, healthy, and reasonably happy.
Having looked at so many photographs over the years-besides the development time of various cameras used for family portraiture-I imagine that I can tell the difference between a spontaneous smile, and one that has been, ‘faked'.
Or...maybe not. For in this-as in too many assumptions made over the years-I could, of course, be quite wrong. And-again-I look to you, my very dearest friends, and loyal, gentle readers, for necessary corrections, whether they may support my conclusions or not.
Let us then try-as best we can-to press onward.
Please allow me to reiterate my list of, ‘hierarchical need', using as reference, this time, my grandfather and grandmother, and their family, as they might have been in 1923.
1) Water. In addition to water-in 1923-there was-of course-milk, carbonated water, carbonated soda, beer, wine, liquor, fruit juice, and so on.
Milk was delivered every other day-as was needed-by the milkman in a horse-drawn wagon. Milk came in quart, glass bottles with a cardboard lid. Provided was a wire tray, in which the bottle fit.
When a bottle had been emptied, it was washed-by a member of the household-and left-out on the porch to be replaced by new, full bottles. A hand-written list of next delivery's need would be rolled up, and stuck into the neck of an empty bottle.
From the milkman, one could also buy eggs, cream, cottage cheese, and-sometimes-ice cream.
Since milk in those days was not homogenized, the butterfat, or, cream in the milk would rise to the top of the bottle, to collect just under the lid. And unless the kids in the house could get to it first (which often warranted a spanking!), the cream was generally given to the baby, with some saved for my grandfather's coffee, and some for the kids when they were ill, or needed, ‘fattening up'.
In essence, everyone in the house drank skim milk.
2) Edible/nourishing food. There were-of course, small mostly, ‘mom and pop', markets, and general stores, a large percentage of food was grown at home, in an enormous garden.
On weekends-if not otherwise kept busy with chores-the older children would pick wild berries, dandelion leaves, apples.
One of my grandfather's many jobs was as a butcher in a meat market. He was always bringing home beef short ribs, brisket, usable scraps from cutting sides of beef.
There was not the prohibition as we have today regarding raising livestock in one's own yard. Just about everyone had chickens running about, which provided meat and eggs. The family who lived next door to my father raised pigs (of course, at the very end of their long, back yard!).
Anytime, anyone had a cow, pig, or goat to slaughter, they would call my grandfather, who would clean, dress, and cut-up the meat in exchange for-not money-but, rather, for a nice portion of the meat itself.
My grandfather always had a couple of large hams which were hung-up in the basement. In time, they would develop a kind of green crust over the hams which had already been cured. This bit of green was simply scraped-away.
Even when-in time-my grandfather's family grew to six children, and four, occasionally, five adults (my grandfather, his mother and sister, my grandmother, and her brother), no one ever starved, or went without food.
All of it was cooked upon, or baked in a huge, cast iron, coal or wood-burning stove. Still, with remarkable adroitness-by tasting a pat of butter on the edge of the grill inside-my grandmother knew the correct temperature needed to cook roasts, or to make bread, or to bake pies.
Every Saturday, my grandmother would bake six of eight pies to last the week, as my grandfather insisted on having a ‘piece of pie, after supper'.
What remained as perishable leftovers, or goods were placed in an, ‘ice box', from which comes our colloquial phrase for ‘refrigerator'.
It consisted of two boxes, both zinc-lined, one over the other. At least every two or three days, the iceman-in an horse-drawn wagon--would deliver to the house blocks of ice weighing up to fifty or more pounds each.
The iceman wore a large, leather apron that covered a shoulder; on this, he would carry these heavy blocks of ice with a heavy-duty pair of tongs, having first sawed the ice into properly-sized blocks, and-in process, if he was in a good mood-would shave-off little chunks of ice to give the kids as a treat on a hot day.
The ice was loaded into the bottom of the icebox, which had a drain hose on it through a small hole in the kitchen floor to catch the runoff as the ice melted.
Once loaded, the coldness of the ice drifted up through holes in the upper box where the food was kept.
My father told me that-at meals-my grandfather always said (after, ‘grace'!) "Take all you want...but, eat ALL you take!"
3) Procreation (as a biological imperative, and gene pool-variation). Well before 1923, that imperative had largely lost its importance.
In the past, large families were considered desirable as they represented more, ‘hands', to do the work around the farm. Many times, younger children were tended to by the older children in the family.
My grandfather and grandmother had seven children, a girl who died in childbirth, and my dad's older sister, Helen, who died in her early teens.
There was-as maybe it still is, today-the desire to sire a son, to inherit, and to, ‘take over', the family business.
And-frankly-there was no such thing as contraception. One simply had as many children as one could reasonably support.
4) Shelter. My father used to talk about the, ‘old homestead'. It was a no-frills, two-story, kind of rambling house that had a large, full front porch, a living room and dining room and enormous kitchen, and maybe, a, ‘parlor', for company, or to entertain visiting relatives, or to, ‘receive', the local minister. Upstairs, there were three, perhaps four bedrooms.
There were NO bathrooms in the house...no sinks, toilets, or tubs, or showers. Near the end of the backyard, there was an outhouse, which everyone used.
Toilet paper was still expensive, and so newspaper was used, or-since one could get one for free-a Sear's catalogue which was cut up into sheets, and hung on a nail inside the outhouse.
Of course, every so often, the hole under the outhouse would become full, necessitating digging a new hole, and moving the outhouse directly over it. This is why-for practical reasons-many outhouses were on sleds that could be more easily moved.
Inside each bedroom-and, ONLY for use during the bleakest Winter, or, for emergency use-under each bed was a fairly large, ‘chamber pot', made of ceramics or metal, often with a lid; it was actually an assigned chore for one of the children to empty these pots each morning, and then, take them outside to be scrubbed, cleaned, and dried.
In many homes-in lieu of bathroom sinks-in each bedroom was a, ‘washstand', a table with rungs on each side to hold towels, and face clothes. On it was a large, empty basin, containing a pitcher, or, ‘ewer', half-full of water.
Deodorant was unknown. So, between the obligatory, Saturday night bath (in time for church on Sunday!), faces, hands, underarms, and the more, ‘odiferous', of body parts were attended to by application of water poured into the basin, and scrubbing, using an available bar of soap.
The only source of running water in the house was piped-in through the faucet over the large, kitchen sink; some years before that, there would have been a hand-operated pump instead, that drew water from a well.
The house-if it were common to those of the day-had a fireplace in the living room, one in the dining room, and-if one was lucky-a fireplace in the upstairs, master bedroom.

What electrical service they had was limited to the overhead bulbs in the ceilings, and (and THIS, qualifies as a, ‘want'!) a radio that sat on a lamp table beside my grandfather's, ‘chair'. BTW, no one ever sat in the chair, no one. And no one was allowed to touch the radio!
When my grandfather returned home, at the end of a long day (remember, please, that in 1923, there was no such thing as an, ‘eight-hour day', or, ‘a five-day, work week'!), the following ritual was conducted: my grandfather would retire to, ‘his', chair, to relax. One of the children would bring him his slippers. Another, his pipe and newspaper.
5) Transportation. While personal ownership of automobiles was not uncommon in 1923, I am still unsure of whether my grandfather even had a car until 1928.
There were-of course-buses, taxis, trucks for business. However, in 1923, horse-drawn carts, drays, and wagons were a regular sight. Many people walked, or simply hitched rides on passing cars and trucks.
Still, by 1928, when I know with certainty that my grandfather had a car (in this case, a used Graham-Paige, large-enough to hold the entire, extended family), even then, it was-outside of a, ‘life or death' emergency, driven only on Sunday, to convey the family to church; and on very rare occasion-when there was some little, extra money-out of town to an Amish restaurant for lunch!
6) The establishment of Tribe
B) Recognition of the, ‘Alpha' ( ? ). In my grandfather's time-as has been demonstrated many times throughout history-the emphasis was on family, the ability to safely rear offspring, and the, ‘sanctity', of the home.
Extensions of immediate, ‘tribe', included near relatives, close friends of similar social status, and...neighbors.
In 1923, there was absolutely NO question of who the, ‘Alpha', was my grandfather; it was he who, ‘ruled the roost', he who, ‘called the shots', and he who earned the money.
Ironically-as can still be found in some Western cultures-anything that had to do with the house, or of running the house was strictly the province of my grandmother. Besides doing the laundry, the cooking, and the cleaning, and the raising of a family, it was she who kept financial records, and to her was given any money earned to spend as she deemed necessary. This was done without question.
In many ways, we continue to consider as the, ‘Alpha', in each of our tribes as he or she who is the major bread winner, he or she who is responsible for the bills. He or she who makes all the important decisions.
It can also be the most senior member of the tribe, or, in tribes where there is only one parent (biological, or not), that person-regardless of gender-becomes the, ‘ Alpha'.
Regardless of the configuration, it remains abundantly clear that each tribe, ‘has to have', a designated, or recognized, ‘Alpha', for cohesiveness, for mutual protection, for prosperity, for order, and for meaning.
7) Income--from the beginnings of, ‘work for wage', to an increasing degree-as may be considered necessary to meet, ‘needs', in addition to , ‘work for goods', or in trading, ‘goods for goods' of considered equal value. In 1923, all of these forms of, ‘income', were in full evidence.
My grandfather did work for monetary considerations. How much he actually, ‘earned', in 1923 is pure guess.
Though in 1931, the, ‘early', though tumultuous, time of the, ‘Great Depression', when-at eleven years of age-my father labored with his father to help make ends meet, together, they earned-at hard labor-about $3.50-4.25 a day, very roughly, 55 %, of the calculated, ‘average', income for that period.
Was my grandfather's family satisfied? Were they happy? In 1923, I would have to say, ‘satisfied'?, yes...'happy'?...probably.
Obviously, this would change greatly only eight years from then.
While our basic, basic needs, and our subsequent, ‘wants', (when the two are considered as concurrent and equal values) have not-perhaps-changed very much since Neanderthal, certainly not since ‘1923', we have seen that when, ‘needs', are fulfilled, we become restless, impatient, and very dissatisfied, particularly when, ‘want', becomes the equivalent of, ‘status'.
My very, very dear, kind friends, and ever-patient, loyal readers, I cannot thank you enough for, ‘staying the course', with me all through this extremely long-and, doubtlessly tiresome-series on the nature of, ‘need', and, ‘want', and how they may-sometimes, drastically-personally affect our perception of, ‘satisfaction', ‘happiness', and, ‘joy'.
Part V, to be continued-and, concluded-with: "2012"
Thank you.
I think of you so very often, ever-wishing for you safety, security, comfort, and...of course, happiness! And all the love your hearts can hold...and more!
And, please, please know I love you dearly!

‘Zahc'/Charles

Sunday, October 14, 2012

"For Your Most Kind Consideration: Approval, Satisfaction, Happiness, And...Joy!: Part V of V


 

 

 

“For Your Most Kind Consideration: Approval, Satisfaction, Happiness, And…Joy!”

 

 

 

10/14/12

 

 

 

Part V of V

 

 

(Comprised of more raw data, presumed inferences, arbitrary historical comparisons, subjective implications, and relative conclusions and their meanings)

 

 

In parts I-IV, attempts were made to separate ,‘needs’ from ‘wants’, by practicality and how—to either a greater, or lesser extent—they subsequently affected what we perceive to be the emotive qualities of, ‘satisfaction’, to, ‘happiness’.

 

 

But first, another statistic for your consideration, including its implications, and most reasonably questioned accuracy.

 

According to the Internal Revenue Service, and the Social Security Administration, in 2011, the ‘average’ income-per-worker in the United States was:  $41,650.00. 

 

By comparison, ‘minimum wage’ = $15,340.00

 

Therefore—at a reasonable first glance—to achieve parity between the two sums, minimum wage would have to be multiplied by a factor of approximately 2.72, which would increase the present, minimum, from $7.67 an hour, to $20.86 an hour!

 

But, our very dear friend, ‘Tenar’, made a very cogent comment to my last diary entry, which was, part IV in this series, regarding the interpretation of, and the often desired inferences of compounding datum.

 

Any similar datum, can be collected in a relevant whole, as data, can be achieved by calculating the number of items, things, and then quantifying them by mean (average), median, or mode, statistically.

 

For purposes of examining yearly income in the United States, an, ’average’, wage may be found by summing up ALL various incomes, and then dividing that total by the determined number of workers.

 

Although it is—perhaps—the easiest way to quantify like datum, to be able to compare it to again, like datum, the, ‘average’, does not address the frequency of very highest numbers, or, the frequency of the lowest possible numbers, though both are used to obtain the ‘mean’, or, ’average’, number.

 

Again, regarding the sum of $41,650.00 as the ‘averaged’, annual income for all workers in the United States, is hardly relevant to a particular worker who may earn more or less than that considered as average.

 

For example, say you have a ‘test’ group of five individuals, with five yearly incomes listed.

 

Should ALL five earn $41,650.00, then the computed, ‘averaging’, of incomes reveals the exact, same number.  Economically speaking, theoretically, no one person will be better off, or lesser off than any of the others.

 

Now, should you gather together another five-person, ‘test’ group, should they—for example list the following incomes:

Test Group of 5                     Annual Income

 

 
Worker #1                              $100,000.00

Worker #2                              $27,000.00

Worker #3                              $27,000.00
Worker #4                              $27,000.00
Worker #5                              $27,000.00

Total # of workers:        Total, Annual Income:

            5                                  $208,000.00

 

If in the consideration of, ‘average’, annual income, you would take the sum: $208,000.00, and divide it by the five members of the, ‘test’, group.

 

Your result would be consonant with the figures obtained by both, “The Internal Revenue Service, and the, ‘Social Security Administration, even though—at first glance, and at reasonable inference—NONE of the, ’test’, subjects earn anything even remotely near the averaged sum of: $41,650.00.

 

In fact, it can be clearly seen that—in this case—80% of the workers earn significantly less than the, ‘average’, yearly, while only 20% (herein, represented by the ‘one’ individual) earn more.

 

And if you pause to consider the yearly incomes of corporate C.E.Os, or that of Pop Stars, who routinely earn millions upon millions of dollars, in order to reach the figure of: $41,650.00, as, ‘average’, annual wage, then quite common sense should convince you that probably the majority of workers in America make—in fact—less than the national average.  The more important question emerges…how much less?

 

Even the ‘Median’, adjusted yearly income, where the, ‘mode’, income is determined by the greatest number of like incomes earned by all workers in America, might give--perhaps—a better idea of what the greatest number of Americans earn yearly.

 

In computation of the, ‘mean’, or, ‘average’, income, one worker, whose income is $1,000.000.000.00 (one million dollars) a year, MUST be balanced out by 100 workers, earning 10,000.00 annually. And for every worker who earns $10,000,000,000.00 (ten million dollars) a year, 1,000 workers, earning $10,000.00 annually are needed to arrive at a 50% balance, or, ‘averaged’ balance.

 

And…importantly, NO distinction is made between, ‘gross’, or, ‘net’ income, the former being the total yearly income from which taxes have been subtracted!

 

Subsequently, one might therefore, ‘infer’, that—in consideration of the wide disparity of wealth in this Country—a enormous percentage of our populace earns significantly less than the National Average.  Of them, many earn minimum wage, or less.  And that a disproportionate—and growing—percentage of our peoples live in abject poverty, at a subsistence level scarcely above that of mere survival.

 

I may seem—at first, or even second glance—to be abnormally preoccupied with income.

 

However, since Man first began trading goods or services for money, rather than barter, our available monies, that which we EARN is crucial to what we can afford to meet even our basic, ’needs’.

 

 

In thinking about one’s levels of satisfaction to levels of happiness as they may relate to, ‘need’ fulfillment or ‘want’ fulfillment, and beyond, it is necessary—first, where possible—to characterize the basic elements of, ‘need’, and, ‘want’, in hopes of being able to integrate them into a single, more or less manageable equation—that, while subjective—may yet attempt to shed some revealing light as to our behavior; a greater understanding of our priorities, and of ourselves, and—hopefully—to a better recognition of what truly makes us happy.

 

To begin with, I have chosen—as a definition of, ‘need’, and, ‘need fulfillment’, as those qualities, or requirements upon which our very survival depends.

Such, ‘survival’, requisites, might look something like this, in terms of assumed primacy:

 

1)           Water

2)           Edible/nourishing food

3)           Procreation (as a biological imperative, and gene pool—variation)

4)           Shelter

5)           Transportation

6)           The establishment of Tribe

A)        Recognition of the, ‘Alpha’ ( ? )

 

And so, I put to you, my very, very dearest friends, the following social equation:

 

(Need+Need Fulfillment) + Comfort, Choice, Availability = (Want+Want Fulfillment) +Luxury, Immediacy, Availability = (Status)

 

And for purposes of mutability, direction, necessity, as they may pertain to satisfaction, and/or happiness, I refer to our ‘old friend’, Neanderthal man; ‘men/women’* in the year 1923’ (about which, more explained in due course), and finally, to, ‘men/women’*, in the year 2012’.

·                 It has never, ever been my desire to be labeled as prejudicial, preferential, sexist, or, a hater.  Nevertheless, at differing times in our history, men and women have been treated quite differently, and expected to conform to  then-current social roles, with different responsibilities, Rights, and opportunities.  Nonetheless—as an extension of personal bias (in which I would rather address issues based on similarity and strict equality)—I prefer to denote this equality by using the ‘/’ mark, instead of, ‘or’, or even, ‘and’.

 

Oh well, my friends…sigh…let us proceed as best we can. J

 

In an attempt to establish basic, ‘need’, within a social group, let us take a quick look at the Neanderthal.  Please refer to our established so-called, ‘hierarchy of needs’.

 

The Neanderthal

 

 

1)           Water [ water from streams, rivers, tide-pools, run-offs, melting ice, juices from edible fruits ]

2)           Edible/nourishing food [ prey animals (meat, marrow), non-toxic plants, nuts, fruits]

3)           Procreation (as a biological imperative, and gene pool—variation)

4)           Shelter [ caves, rock-outcroppings, similar, ‘non-constructed’ shelters ]

5)           Transportation [ walking ]

6)           The establishment of Tribe [ perhaps a naturally occurring sub-set of being a social creature ]

A)        Cooperation in hunting

B)        Recognition of the, ‘Alpha’ ( ? ) [ while it is not clear in my mind whether the general recognition of a leader, or shaman was a co-establishment of the, ‘tribe’, certainly there must have been some ordering of authority, in organizing and directing tribe-member, ‘roles’, to hunt with more efficiency, or, strength of purpose.

7)           The necessary expansion of Tribe

A) Rare: the joining of tribes together

B) As a consequence of tribal war: the slaying of males, and the capture of females

C) The domestication of wolves to help with hunt, better ensure tribe safety

      1) Protection of offspring

 

 

The question remains—however:

Was Neanderthal, ‘satisfied’ ? 

Certainly to the extent of finding shelter from the ravages of Nature, such as rain, snow, ice; and—within that shelter—become better able to keep members of the Tribe together. And of being able to wear sufficient animal furs to keep warm against freezing cold.

And, theoretically, to find some, subsequent sense of satisfaction in that feeling attendant upon the success of the hunt; of having an over-full stomach in the very real face of starvation.

 

Regarding, ‘happiness’, I would imagine a certain celebratory, ‘joy’, in successfully bringing down a prey animal, large-enough to completely feed the tribe for several days at least.  Or, at least before the meat began to putrefy.

 

Unless I am mistaken as to relevant time periods, for Neanderthal, such, ‘joy’, and, ‘awe’ resulted in the development of a cosmology, wherein the prey animal was deified.

 

We can see this expression in surviving cave paintings, which are—without doubt—glorious examples of man-made art; in these, as in unrecorded, tribal storytelling, we see—perhaps—a spiritual conceptualization, quite apart from the actual mechanics of eating, procreation, and the inherent need for shelter, etc.

 

As important as these painting may be, I find most compelling those instances (in addition to cave painting) in which numerous, different hand prints can be found.

 

Often, you will note in these hand prints, hands that are missing fingers, or parts of fingers.  It was not an easy or comfortable life at all.

 

But of these, if you look most carefully, you will see prints of hands with six fingers that occur quite frequently, arguably with greater frequency than is found today in our general population.

 

To my mind, these hand prints are not part of any, budding cosmology, but rather, they are an affirmation of being, and of Life.  In effect, they seem to say, “I am here.”, “I am now”, “I am alive”.  Taken in totality, the most wonderful expression of, ‘I AM’.

 

I imagine—too—that with the discovery—not necessarily of fire, but—more importantly—of how to successfully create and maintain fire, that survival, living, the improvement in nutrition certainly got better.

 

Of course, those of you among my very patient, and ever-loyal readers who are more familiar with, and subsequently more conversant in cultural anthropology will be able to make comment to, criticize, and correct any errors or misassumptions that I have made; and I—of course—greatly welcome them!

 

Thank you!

 

Owing to length, and press of time, and required exposition, Part V of this series will have to be further subdivided.

 

Thus—in this fashion—the sections labeled “1923”, and, “2012”, along with implications, and conclusion will most likely—now—be composed in two, separate sections.

 

With that, the section entitled, “1923”, will follow directly.

 

 

To my very precious friends, and wonderfully loyal readers,

Although I have rambled on, and on, and on in the past (perhaps unbearably so), in an attempt to first establish an theme, and then to provide sufficient exposition necessary to explain that theme.

 

Admittedly, this five-part series on, approval, satisfaction, happiness, and, joy has become--unabashedly—my most ambitious, and involved endeavors to date.

 

However, with increasing frequency, I have found that what I, ‘want’, to say combined with what I, ‘need’, to say result in interminably long, tedious posts that require hours and hours, and hours to write, and over-taxes both my mental and physical resources.

 

That is NOT to say that I do not enjoy thinking, and writing about various notions that are not only important to me, but—I hope with all my heart—prove to be of interest, or of need to you, my dearest friends.

 

In having to, ‘work through’, mental states profoundly affected by despair, and depression, and a pronounced slowness of thought, and marked lethargy of mind.

 

Combined with such lamentable physical states such as illness(es), horrendous pain,  migraine, insomnia, etc.

 

In this regard, I am a failure.  And I ask—please—for your most kind forgiveness.

 

I rely most heavily on your comments, criticism, corrections, and affirmations, as they provide me with purpose, validity, and a sense of perseverance.

 

I find gratification and joy if ever I should prove to be of some use, and possible help.

 

My very, very dearest friends, I think of you so very often, and want—really—nothing more than for you to be safe, well, and happy!

 

And—as always—please, please know that I love you dearly!

 

 

‘Zahc’/Charles

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

"For Your Most Kind Consideration: Approval, Satisfaction, Happiness, And...Joy!": Part IV of V


 

 

 

“For Your Most Kind Consideration: Approval, Satisfaction, Happiness, And…Joy!”

 

 

10/10/12

 

 

Part IV of V

 

 

(when ‘need’/fulfillment, is bound up in a desire for security…just how much of our perceived ‘happiness’ involves owning ‘stuff’?)

 

[While statistics may be dry, and facts may be boring, and ‘numbers’—by themselves—are often skewed to sway one’s favor to a particular point of view…yet, all—if stated plainly, and with honesty, may yet provide valuable insights as to problem areas, leading to possible solutions. ‘Zahc’]

 

 

To my always dearest, most wonderful friends, and ever-kind, and loyal readers,

 

I must confess that in part III of this series of diary entries, I spent the majority of it bitching, complaining, and moaning; nothing less than a gigantic and circular rant, without direction, education, or…solution.

 

As such—although I do feel that so many people share my angst—mere posturing is evident of a more personal, reactive response, that really accomplishes nothing, save to annoy.

 

My basic premise—if it could be so stated as such—was that, for some, little known, or hardly understood reason or reasons, especially over the past five years or so, my ‘steady and reliable’ S.S.D.I. income gradually became increasingly unable to meet my needs.  Thus affecting a very personal sense of satisfaction (one might even say, ‘happiness’).

 

Arguably, this income/expenses ratio is affected by many discretionary, and reactive variables, such as payment of regularly-incurred monthly ‘bills’ (utilities), ‘necessities’ (food, shelter, medication, laundry), assumed ‘necessities’ ([C.N.A assisted showers, house cleaning, lawn care, in my case], automobile payments, car insurance), unforeseen expenses (doctor, emergency room, ambulance, medicine co-pays not covered in plan formularies, appliance replacement, plumbing costs, etc.), voluntary variable spending (pet care, pet medication, clothing, school costs, entertainment), and—perhaps, voluntary, discretionary spending (charitable donations, cigarettes, alcohol, extra items for the house, etc.), and—finally—voluntary, discretionary, unnecessary, or, ‘wasteful’ expenditure (that, I leave fully to your own admission!).

 

Further, that a clear distinction between, ‘need-oriented’ spending, and, ‘want-oriented’ spending should be made.  For while spending for, ‘wants’, may bring us a sense of happiness, however tenuous, spending for, ‘needs’—on the other hand—ensure our very survival.

 

Overall, though, while I knew—quite beyond question—that my ‘fixed’ income was becoming less and less able to meet even my changing, and growing ‘needs’.

 

In part, I attributed this to changes in the marketplace, including rising food costs, rate increases of utility bills, increased cost of medical care, fairly recent—but marked—increases in pet care, etc., things about which I felt I had no control over.

 

And, my very dear friends, I would not be completely honest with you if I did not—in no, small measure—apportion the blame to myself, regarding supposed ‘excesses’ in spending typifying a ‘weak character’.

 

After all, I do not actually ‘need’ three showers a week, when one or two would suffice in the maintenance of mere hygiene. As nutrition, I do not need coffee, sweetener, bottled water, Arizona decaffeinated, diet iced tea (!), microwave-ready pot pies, etc.

 

I definitely do not need to smoke cigarettes!

 

For that matter, in regard to the meeting of minimal ‘needs’, there are a lot of things I really don’t need, but want, I suppose.

 

But in reading diary entries, PM’s, notes, and discussion threads at MDJunction, I saw—clearly—that I was not alone.  I have read about the inability to buy needed medication, the high cost of shelter, the reduction of nutritional ‘choices’, and a general, growing inability to survive, much less ‘thrive’.

 

And we—at MDJunction—are not alone in this perception of, and actual decline in ‘want spending’, to, ‘need spending’, and a more than apparent decrease in overall quality of life, and a concurrent increase in hopelessness, frustration, and…focused, and unfocused rage.

 

I hoped that there would be statistics out there which would give clear evidence of this decline, while contaminating the results, and subsequent inferences with as little personal bias as possible.

 

And that such statistics could be easily referenced by anyone who wanted to research them, and subsequent extrapolations that anyone with a free afternoon, and a pen and tablet of paper could easily replicate.

 

In order to measure how we—at present—are faring, we must look to history, and specific points in time.  Thus, we may then be able to plot on a space/time graph the degree of apparent, economic health, by comparing income to expenses.

 

I used—for a ‘base line’ indicator of income—minimum wage, and then calculated it hourly, weekly, and then, yearly.

 

As for expenditure, I chose perhaps the two, largest-ticket items that most affect the average American, namely, the average price of a new car (and, number of years, using minimum wage required for complete payment), and, the average price of a new home (and, again, the number of years, using minimum wage, necessary to purchase in full).

 

For my time line reference, I used the years 1938, 1971, and, finally 2010-12.

 

I chose the 1938 as that was the year our government enacted the, “Fair Labor Standards Act”, which for the first time mandated a minimum wage (for all government and regular employees), defined the average work ‘week’ as 40 hours, and—incidentally—did much to eliminate ‘child labor’, which—frankly—surprised me!  I had thought child labor had been abolished long before that.

 

The year 1938 is also germane, as the Country was probably at its economic worst during the ‘Great Depression’, of 1929-1941, which, by the way was finally resolved by the outpouring of government funds never before seen, and…our entry into WWII.

 

I did arbitrarily use the year, 1971, for reference.  For one, it is a year more or less mid-point between 1938, and 2012.  On a personal basis—though—I was seventeen years old, and began my first, almost full time, ‘adult’ job, working as a ‘ward clerk’ at Tarpon Springs General Hospital. For the then—princely—sum of $1.71 an hour!

 

Finally, that I used the year, 2012, really, speaks for itself.

 

Plotting all these separate factors on a graph—at least roughly—will help give evidence of personal income/expenditure, and payment, over time, and—hopefully will help illustrate financial health, and consequently—by inference—the general level of perceived satisfaction and happiness/unhappiness derived there from.

 

Alright, my very dearest, and most patient friends, here we go….I think the results will very-much surprise you.

 

 

Year :            1938         1971        2012

 

Av. Min.

Wage, in

Hours:           $0.25      $1.60        $5.67

 

Weekly:         $10.00   $64.00       $306.80

 

Yearly:         $400.00   $3,200.00   $15,340.00

----------------------------------------------------------            

Av. Price/

New Car:    $763.00   $3,010.00   $30,748.00

----------------------------------------------------------

Time To

Purchase:    1.53 yrs.    1.48 yrs.     2.20 yrs.

----------------------------------------------------------

Av. Price/

New Home: $3,900.00/ $10,600.00/$212,300.00

Time To

Purchase:   7.80 yrs.     3.31 yrs.     13.84 yrs.

 

Further, according to the U.S. Census, and the Federal Board of Labor, and Vital Statistics, regarding the population of the United States, and the percentage of unemployed workers for the years in question:

 
1938:

Population:  132,164,569

Unemployment:   19.00%

1971:

Population:  203,392,031

Unemployment:   4.90%  

2012

Population:   308,745,538   (as per 2010 census)

Unemployment:   9.60%

 

Of particular note,

Percentage increase in Minimum Wage:

From   1938—1971:   +640 %

From   1971---2012:   +453 %

 

Percentage increase, price of new car:

From  1938---1971:   +410%

From  1971---2012:   +1,020%

 

Percentage increase, price of new home:

From  1938---1971:   +210%

From  1971---2012:   +2,005%

 

‘Location!, Location!, Location!

 

Where the data stands up, and where it must inevitably fail, and how it affects any successful subsequent calculable and even inferential conclusions that one might make:

 

After hours, and hours, and hours of careful consideration, and much consequent gritting of teeth and hair-pulling, even at the beginning, I realized that—in order to try to compare, ‘apples to apples’, that I would have to rely upon information gathered from different, appropriate Government agencies for ‘average’ national standards that were replicable, and easily found by anyone interested in doing so.

 

Income—as we know it—is so ‘individual specific’, as it is the present, and on-going result of education, experience, opportunity, and location.

 

And so—regarding any Federally calculated, National Average Income—I chose to use Minimum Wage, as it WAS possible to chart an averaged income for the years in question, and thus regarding minimum wage—alone—replicable, percentage in increase over time was possible.

 

In the same vein, for the ‘average’ cost of a new car, and the ‘average’ price of a new home, I again looked to Federal estimations in order to be able to chart changes in dollar amounts, as well as estimated time—in years—how long it would take to purchase the above items, given the chosen standards for minimum wage.

 

In a number of ways, the ‘estimates’ arrived at are unrealistic, and—in consequence—false.  For example, few minimum wage earners are able to use 100 % of their incomes to purchase a car, or a house…or—really—anything.

 

Many other—again—‘individual specific’ expenditures have to be considered, such as payments for utilities, groceries, education, clothing, medical care, etc.

 

These factor—alone—‘contaminate’ any attempt at statistical analysis; however, the calculation of these ‘other expenditures’, and the subtraction of them from available wage actually make the estimated pay-off times very much longer, as per amount of money needed to buy—outright—either a new car, or a new home!

 

And, in my calculations of, and comparisons of income using minimum wage, I had to restrict my analysis to, ‘gross’, rather than, ‘net’, income.  I could never, ever hope to factor in an individual’s income tax obligation.

 

In my defense—should I need one—is that, for many of our working populace, ‘minimum wage’ is the gold standard, against which any actual income may be compared.

 

 

 It must also be said that while income is ‘individual-specific’, the prices of new homes are very much, ‘location-specific’.

 

Having relied upon the Federal ‘average’ price for a new home in 2011 (in particular, as not all the data is in, or compiled fully for 2012), for my own benefit, I wanted to see—in general—what $212,300.00 would buy.

 

According to the latest H.U.D. figures for 2010, the ‘average’ new home:

1)           Is about 1,300 sq./ft.

2)           3--bedrooms

3)           2—bathrooms

4)           1—combined living room/dining room/family room area, (also referred to as an, ‘open plan’, a ‘keeping room’, or, ’gathering room’).

5)           1—kitchen (which also contains an ‘eat in’ area).

6)           1--2-car garage

 

Frankly, my very dearest friends, this amazed me.  I had previously ‘imagined’ that somehow, the sum of $212,300.00 would have meant:

1)           A very much larger home, with larger rooms, and bigger closets.

2)           At least four, spacious and airy bedrooms

3)            At least two, ‘full’ bathrooms ( one being in the so-called ‘master bedroom, larger, with double sinks, a tub AND a separate shower, and—perhaps—a small, separate, enclosed space for the toilet), and one, ‘half-baths’ (sink and toilet, only) for ‘guests’.

4)           A separate ‘formal’ living room, ‘formal’ dining room’, a large family room with fireplace.  Lots of built-ins, and storage space.

5)           A larger kitchen, perhaps with stand-alone, island, service counter, and separate ‘breakfast’ nook; new, up-to-the-minute appliances.

6)           A convenient, separate ‘laundry’ room, with sink, storage, outside-facing window and/or door, washer and dryer.

7)           No less than a two-car garage, maybe even a three-car garage, with built-ins for storage, and (although this IS stretching it, a full, or at least half-bath).

 

And, as has been mentioned before, the price of a new home is very ‘location’ specific.

 

In Manhattan—for instance--$212,300.00 wouldn’t even get one in the door!  Neither would it in San Francisco.  And, probably not in Miami, Denver, Houston, Atlanta, or Los Angeles, either.

 

For a genuine, ‘eye-opening’ education on real estate, I found an excellent site: www.Trulia.com .  You must first register, which is free, and sign in creating a password.

 

After that, you need only type-in the town, or city in question.

 

You will then be presented with an uneven array of homes, condos, and lots, for example, of all ages, conditions, states of foreclosure, size, and prices.

 

 To seek some kind of necessary relevance, one can choose how these many, ‘properties’ are, ‘rated’, from—for instance—price, highest to lowest; price, lowest to highest (there IS a big difference!), properties with greatest or most recent price increase, or reduction, in percentage; or…those advertised properties with the most photographs.

 

I have spent hours at a time for weeks and weeks at this site going from location to location just to ‘see’ what’s out there.

 

And, for some sense of, ‘grounding’, or ‘reality basis’, I occasionally type the town in which ‘I’ live, New Port Richey, Fl.  And even here, there are surprises!

 

First if all, it must be said that New Port Richey is—at best—a small, middle to lower class town in an overall ‘poor’ County.  Its residents tend to live in similar-income clusters.  Unemployment is high, as are the aggregate number of those—like myself—who are one disability.

 

At least as good third of the town’s extended populace live in mobile homes of varying degree of habitability.

 

There are—however—a number of ‘gated communities’, and, water-front properties that  have direct access to the Gulf Of Mexico.

 

Income—as you may well-imagine—slides all over the board, but the disparity of apparent wealth is particularly great.  Some of this wealth is reflected by retirees, notably from northern States, or entrepreneur-generated income.

 

Of those who are employed, a large percentage work at minimum wage, or even—in the case of waitpersons in the Food Industry (exempt from minimum wage requirements), who earn—on rough average--$5.00 an hour.

 

Crimes tend to run to domestic violence cases, child-neglect, robbery, petty armed assault, or D.U.I’s.

 

There is a decided homeless population, which cannot be statistically figured in any way that is really accurate.

 

New home construction--in light of the collapse of the real estate market—continues, but at a very-much reduced pace.  Still, the apparent, median price of a new home—here—remains at about $185,000.00.  And they—too—follow closely to estimated national standards.

 

However…

 

On the real estate site, ‘Trulia’, when I typed-in New Port Richey, Fl., I discovered—as the most expensive of properties listed—a three-story, almost brand-new, beach house directly fronting the Gulf; it had sweeping vistas, spacious rooms, four or five bedrooms, if memory serves, and provisions to garage four cars.

 

It had at least one fireplace, and probably had at least three, if not four bathrooms.  The kitchen was enormous, and had practically every convenience imaginable. 

 

And the price tag: $7,359,000.00, m.o.l. !!!!  It might as well be, ‘o.m.g.’ !!!!

 

And yet, on the other end of the spectrum, I could show you a 3-bedroom, 3250 sq. ft. property, in foreclosure, for $1,000.00 !!!!

 

In the nearest, ‘semi-metropolitan’ city—Tampa—I discovered, in a gated, secure community—overlooking a golf course, for Heaven’s sake—for $10,000.000.00, larger than a small college.

 

And—although I am digressing madly—as you search around the Country, you might quite understandably—in new homes—expect Las Vegas to have the gold medal in ‘flash and trash’ excess.  But, no.

 

I urge you to use, ‘Trulia’, and type in ‘Atlanta, Ga.

 

For there, among the category of ‘most expensive’ is a fairly newly built estate, for the sum of $19,000.000.00.  Of course, it has everything imaginable known to man.  It is requisitely enormous.

 

But in all truth, my very dearest friends, I found this ‘house’ to be compellingly obscene, with, ‘too much of everything’, taken to unknown heights.  It is inhuman in scale, and hideous in design, and, in furnishings.

 

By the way, there’s a ‘virtual’ video tour that can be taken which will really give one the feel of ostentatious excess, and utter, financial bombast.

 

“Who”, you might well ask, “could possibly afford to purchase and maintain this ‘pile of stone’?”  You certainly don’t see a Warren Buffet stepping up to the plate to take ownership.

 

And with that—my very dearest, dearest friends, I shall close for now, having spent the lion’s share of yesterday, and today in an agony of pain and illness.

 

I hope to be able to make some sense, and—perhaps—draw some realistic, and, hopefully, understandable, helpful, and consoling conclusions, next, in part V, the final chapter, as it were, in this series.

 

Please know I think of you often, and wish you safe, well, and…happy!

 

And, as always, please, please know that I love you dearly!

 

 

‘Zahc’/Charles