BEAR MARKET ECONOMICS BLOGS

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates

All Blogs licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Inside the Prison Walls of Consumerism


 The Minimalists


Inside the Prison Walls of Consumerism

jail cells

There’s a shopping mall in San Diego that used to be a prison. Restored, repurposed, and redecorated, it’s hard to imagine that this place once imprisoned hundreds of inmates.

One might argue, however, that it’s a different kind of prison now. A voluntary incarceration, caged by the invisible walls of consumption.

This might sound hyperbolic, but it’s an apt analogy. After all, consumption isn’t the problem; compulsory consumption (consumerism) is the problem. We’ve trapped ourselves by thinking that consumerism will make us happy, that buying shit we don’t need will somehow make us whole.

We’ve gotten good at fooling ourselves, too. We’ve overdecorated the jailhouse walls—walls we’ve built around ourselves—and we’ve made our cells so comfortable that we’re terrified to leave. But a prison cell with a view is still a prison cell.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

FTC Announces Top National Consumer Complaints for 2013


FTC



FTC Announces Top National Consumer Complaints for 2013

 

Commission’s Annual Report Shows Identity Theft Continues to Top List of Complaints; American Consumers Report Losing Over $1.6 Billion to Fraud Overall

For Release

Identity theft continues to top the Federal Trade Commission’s national ranking of consumer complaints, and American consumers reported losing over $1.6 billion to fraud overall in 2013, according to the FTC’s annual report on consumer complaints released today.

“Americans of all ages are vulnerable to identity theft, and it remains the most common consumer complaint to the Commission,” said Jessica Rich, director, Bureau of Consumer Protection. “We urge consumers to visit FTC.gov/idtheft for tips to prevent and mitigate the damage from identity theft.”

The Commission received more than two million complaints overall, as reported in the agency’s Consumer Sentinel Network Data Book 2013, of which 290,056, or 14 percent, were identity theft related. Thirty percent of these incidents were tax- or wage-related, which continues to be the largest category within identity theft complaints.

The highest reported age group for identity theft is 20-29, with 20 percent of complaints. Rich says that educating consumers on this topic is a top priority for the agency. Some of the FTC resources include Signs of Identity Theft, Immediate Steps to Repair Identity Theft, and How to Keep Your Personal Information Secure.

Of the more than 1.1 million fraud complaints (classified separately from identity theft) the Commission received, 61 percent of consumers reported an amount of money they had paid, which collectively added up to more than $1.6 billion.
The top 10 complaint categories include:

Category
Number of Complaints
Percentages
Identity Theft
290,056
14%
Debt Collection
204,644
10%
Banks and Lenders
152,707
7%
Imposter Scams
121,720
6%
Telephone and Mobile Services
116,261
6%
Prizes, Sweepstakes, and Lotteries
89,944
4%
Auto Related Complaints
82,701
4%
Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales
66,024
3%
Television and Electronic Media
53,087
3%
Advance Payment for Credit Services
50,422
2%

The report details national data, as well as a state-by-state accounting of top complaint categories and a listing of the metropolitan areas that generated the most complaints. This includes the top 50 metropolitan areas for both fraud complaints and identity theft complaints. Florida is the state with the highest per capita rate of reported identity theft and fraud complaints, followed by Georgia and California for identity theft complaints, and Nevada and Georgia for fraud and other complaints.

The FTC enters complaints into the Consumer Sentinel Network, a secure online database that is available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies across the country. Agencies use the data to research cases, identify victims and track possible targets.

The Federal Trade Commission advises anyone who spots a scam, is the victim of identity theft or other fraud-related issues to file a complaint online with the agency’s Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (877-382-4357).

Other federal and state law enforcement agencies and organizations contribute consumer complaints to the Consumer Sentinel Network. The FTC provides information to entities interested in becoming a member to have access to data.

Contact Information

MEDIA CONTACT:

Cheryl Warner
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2480

STAFF CONTACT:
David Torok
Bureau of Consumer Protection
202-326-3075

Sunday, August 11, 2013

Our Technology Addiction: Who, or What, Creates It?


The Vital Edge


Technology Addiction


There is a sense that we humans are in control of the technologies that we create, and in a way, that is of course true. We code the software. We design the shape and the function of the tool.
And yet, there is a deeper sense in which we are very much not in control.
 

The Icy Grip of Our Tools

TV's Addictive Grip


To make this argument, I must first fully admit that I myself am wrapped in its seductive grip. There is a pull that our technology exerts over us, a kind of compulsion that is hard to deny. We see it in how difficult it is to draw our young ones away from the gaming console, from our obsessive checking of Facebook and email – first at our desktops, and now everywhere we go thanks to the super handy convenience of our mobile devices. Even our less compelling earlier media device, the television, with its lack of interactivity or connection to others, is still responsible for engaging four and a half hours of the average person’s day in the United States.

So, there is a design to technology and it is one that, for various reasons, is quite good at harnessing our compulsive behaviors in order to attract us into using it. What is behind this design, this “planned stickiness”? The answer, at one level, is quite simple. We humans design our technologies to be this sticky ultimately as a way to make more money for our businesses.

Drive up engagement, drive up usage, drive up share of mind. The more hours computers steal from television, the better. The more minutes mobile takes from desktop, the better. And don’t forget the escalation of attention-grabbing antics amongst direct competitors within a product category, as Apple works to beat Microsoft, and now Google at how many of us buy, embrace and eventually recommend their machines.

Even the content flowing to us through these devices competes with other content, each hoping we’ll just love what the experience. Joanie Loves Chachi and I Love Lucy, and now my attention is so Mashable I’m simply Wired to want more.



Perfecting Our Technology Addiction

Oh yes, at one level, our compulsive attachment, our addiction, to our tools is very easy to understand. It’s simply an outgrowth of our competitive enterprise system – the marketplace, perfectly tuned to breed the most compelling user experience possible, a kind of extension of nature’s evolutionary forces.

But here is the interesting question for each of us to pause and reflect upon. One day, these systems will learn to design themselves. They will have the “business intelligence” to analyze our “big data” and configure themselves in ways that are so responsive, so compelling, so addictive, they’ll make what we have today seem as quaint as listening to The Lone Ranger on an old-fashioned 1930′s radio broadcast.

Delighted

Our user experience will be fantastic. We will be so customer delighted, we won’t know what to do with ourselves. And all of it will come through the magic of automation and the wondrous weaving of algorithms without a huge degree of human agency or oversight. We will be programmed by the program, so attracted to the flame that we will not notice a little singe to our wings here and there.
And it all leads to the interesting question of who – or what – will be doing all the programming.

And the I Love Lucy copyright goes to CBS.

Sunday, June 2, 2013

Consumerism and Its Discontents

Truthout

Consumerism and Its Discontents

Monday, 27 May 2013 10:56  

By Charles Derber, Truthout | Op-Ed 

Consumerism.(Photo: Rachel / Flickr)A quiet revolutionary struggle is brewing in the minds of the US "millennial" generation, those 80 million Americans between ages 16 and 34. They are wrestling with the fundamental edict of capitalism: Buy and you shall be happy. The millennials have not rejected consumerism, but they have also not embraced it fully. They experience its very real downsides - that also afflict millions of older Americans and go to the heart of capitalist sustainability and morality.

Recent polls by marketing firms and the respected Pew Research Center show strong environmental concerns among millennials, but hint at a broader issue: whether consumerism itself makes for a good life and society. Americans, especially the young, love their computers and sleep with their iPhones next to their pillows, but still worry about the negative sides of consumerism.

Technology itself may be contributing to what commentators have called the "death of ownership" culture, since the issue is not owning a book or television set, but having access through the web. Technology is changing the very idea of ownership. But broader factors - including the very availability of so much "stuff" - are contributing to making consumerism less new, exciting and "cool."

In a recent informal study of Boston-area college students, I asked them how they felt about American consumerism. Almost all said they would prefer to be in a society that was less consumer-oriented, because consumer culture gives them these headaches:

* It creates fierce competitive pressure to have more and newer "stuff."
* It complicates their lives, always worrying about how to maintain, pay for and use all the things they buy.
* It distracts from a quality life with their family and friends.
* It creates a "dirty" lifestyle that makes them and the planet sick.
* It leads to more inequality, with people seeking more at the expense of others.
* It distracts from political engagement - President Bush told them to go shopping as he was gearing up for war with Iraq after 9/11.
* It imprisons them in a life full of products and empty of meaning.

These negative feelings are reflected in changing purchasing patterns, with recent polls indicating that a growing percentage do not want to buy a house or car. About 25 percent of Millennials do not want a car, compared with 10 percent of their parents at their age. In 1978, sixty-seven percent of 17-year-old Americans had drivers’ licenses, compared with just 45 percent in 2010. Of course, these differences may reflect reduced income, credit or safety issues as well as changes in consumer attitudes.

These attitudes may seem like the self-indulgent whims of affluent, high-consuming young Americans. Or they may seem a reaction to the Great Recession, as they can no longer afford to buy so much. They could also reflect a phase of life since young idealists too often turn to traditional consumerism as they assume the responsibilities of adult life. They certainly do not suggest that young Americans are decisively rejecting consumerism.

But a quick history of American consumerism suggests something very important: that the growing awareness of its real and serious downsides can largely be explained by problems of sustainability and freedom at the core of US capitalism.

Up until the 1920s, most Americans made their own clothes, grew their own food and bought very little. They were producers and not consumers. This changed in the 1920s, when the growth of capitalism had created large corporations that could no longer prosper simply from World War I production. They needed Americans to become consumers.

The corporations hired public relations experts and launched the modern advertising industry. Retailers such as the giant Sears Roebuck sent out millions of catalogs with alluring pictures of clothes, furniture and other commodities. This was the beginning of "coerced consumption." In the 1950s and 1960s, the new advertising culture mushroomed and became massive and irresistible, with corporations redefining American freedom as the freedom to buy.

Since profits require ever-expanding consumer markets, capitalism has always coerced consumption, typically by seductive advertising but also by harsher means. In the 1920s, Los Angeles had a huge electric trolley system that allowed people to move around the city without cars. General Motors responded by buying the trolley system and tearing up the tracks. By the 1950s, the automakers succeeded in getting the US government to underwrite highways and cars. People began to buy cars because other transportation choices had been ripped away from them, a perfect example of coerced consumption and a form of "un-freedom."

What is the solution for Americans unhappy with consumerism? Many are beginning to make changes in their personal lives. Students are starting to grow food in gardens at their universities. Many Americans are living closer to work, so they can walk or bike to the job. Some are looking for companies offering the choice of shorter work hours, which liberates them from the work-and-spend treadmill. Some are joining the "share economy," where they share things - Zip cars and bikes - with others. Many are "downshifting" to a simpler life.

But constraining consumerism requires far larger changes in US capitalism: severely limiting corporate power and rewriting corporate charters and international trade agreements to emphasize worker rights and environmental health. Quality must replace quantity as the measure of economic and cultural success. Government tax and regulatory policy must end extreme inequality and reduce production and consumption of dirty energy, unhealthy food and luxury goods. Large investment in public transit, community-owned enterprises, national parks and other public goods must substantially reduce private consumption.

Such system-wide changes are politically difficult - and they may not limit consumerism fast enough to avert climate catastrophe or reverse dangerous inequality. But in the most optimistic scenario, they could put society on a new path toward a more sustainable, cooperative way of life.

These changes will be on the agenda of people around the world in the 21st century. Europe is already a far less consumerist society than the United States. China, India and Brazil are struggling with environmental justice and inequality that inevitably highlight the issue of global consumerism. It will take a new social economy that rejects American-style consumerism to solve these problems and help save the world.

A Chinese translation of this article was originally published in the People’s Daily News, Beijing, China, on April 25, 2013.

Copyright, Truthout. 

Thursday, July 5, 2012

Why cable, Internet and TV customer service sucks

Reviews you can trust


Illustration by William V. Cigliano Illustration by William V. Cigliano

Random outages that disrupt our Internet connection, interrupt a favorite television show or drop an important phone call. Agonizing calls to customer service representatives, whose promised fixes don’t materialize. A long wait for an Internet connection, erratic phone bills and surprise TV fees.

These customer service issues attract enough static from our members that Internet, phone and TV services annually rank among the most complained about categories on Angie’s List.

Nationally, Internet service ranked as the No. 2 most complained about category on the List in 2011, while phone services ranked No. 8. All three ranked among the top 10 in 2009 and 2010, according to member reports. And out of about 500 Angie’s List members responding to a recent online poll, 54 percent report having a poor experience with one of these services, with most complaining about technical difficulties, poor customer service and billing or fee issues. In addition, nearly 40 percent report spending more than $200 on their monthly bill.

Yet despite the issues, we continue to go back for more. According to the Federal Communications Commission, more than 5,300 cable TV companies served 60 million customers in 2011. Satellite TV providers DISH Network and DirecTV claim nearly 24 million customers. More than 1,800 companies nationwide offer broadband, according to the National Telecommunications Information Administration. And the International Association for the Wireless Telecommunications Industry (CTIA), a nonprofit representing the wireless industry, reports more than 331 million wireless subscribers in the U.S. in 2011.

Can you hear me now?


Angie’s List member Betty Woodward of Deltaville, Va., says she continues to pay Verizon $140 a month for her landline and cellphone even though she gave the company’s Danville, Va., location a below average rating for poor service. “I only get [cellphone] service when I stand out in the yard,” she says. “Verizon is the best of the worst because we live in a ‘dead’ area for cellphone service. We use them simply because the service area for them is better than for most. But I’ve talked to customer service many times when problems come up and that’s where most of my frustration comes from. Their agents don’t always know what they’re talking about.”


Verizon corporate spokesman Tom Pica says the company tries to meet the needs of customers by offering a variety of ways to report problems. “We encourage our customers to take advantage of all the customer support available to them from our network of Verizon Wireless stores to our online experience,” he says, noting that there’s no such thing as a one-size-fits-all option. Pica declined to specifically address Woodward’s issue.

How to get the best deal


Experts say consumers need to do their due diligence before signing a contract and understand exactly which cellphone services, TV channels or Internet broadband speed they need. “Start the process by doing your homework and use every means possible to find out information about companies that provide service in your area,” says Regina Costa, spokeswoman for CTIA. “Obviously, people who have had experiences with this can post it on Angie’s List. Word of mouth is very important.”

Costa says consumers should focus on price, reliability and quality of service when comparing telecommunication companies. “The best price might not be the best deal if the service doesn’t work very well,” she says. It’s also important to thoroughly review the contract before signing it. “Your rights are right there,” says Patrick Deignan, spokesman for the Citizens Utility Board of Illinois, a nonprofit organization that represents the interests of residential utility customers. “As boring as it sounds, read the fine print before signing. At the end of the day, you are your own best consumer advocate.”

Who’s got your back?


Consumer protections vary among states when it comes to Internet, phone and TV service providers. “For the most part, they aren’t regulated,” Costa says. “Or they’re regulated by the FCC, which doesn’t offer a lot of protection.” If the provider fails to address your problem, Costa suggests calling the public utilities commission, state attorney general or the local franchising authority (the government organization authorized by your state to regulate Internet, cable and satellite TV services).
Consumers can also file a free, informal complaint with the FCC. Customers not satisfied with the response of an informal complaint may file a formal complaint for $200, which starts a legal process that requires them to appear before the FCC. “The more of these types of calls they get, the more likely the states and FCC will take action,” she says. Calls to the FCC were not returned.


Costa points out that consumers hold little negotiating power when it comes to what’s included in the contract, so understand what’s in it. “You should demand, when you’re signing a contract, information on being able to cancel the service if it doesn’t work properly, and if it doesn’t work as advertised,” she says.
Member Stephanie Guttman of Tallahassee, Fla., learned how nonnegotiable some service contracts can be. After a doctor diagnosed her sister with cancer and she moved to hospice, Guttman called an 800 number for DirecTV to cancel the service. “They refused,” she says. “They kept referring to the contract and said ‘when she dies, come back to us.’” Guttman says repeated letters and phone calls to the company proved fruitless. “A contract that you cannot get out of for any reason seems absurd to me,” she says. “It’s not realistic and it makes me question their business ethics.”

Guttman says she finally posted a negative report on Angie’s List, and complained about DirecTV’s policy on Facebook. Within 30 days of those postings, DirecTV terminated the contract and credited her sister’s account. “I feel confident, with all the efforts I made, it wasn’t until I posted online that the problem got resolved,” she says. DirecTV corporate spokeswoman Meghan McLarty says supervisors typically waive service agreements and cancellation fees when a customer enters a hospice or a nursing home, but the agent who handled Guttman’s original call did not follow proper procedure. “We apologize for the inconvenience we may have caused Ms. Guttman or her family during this difficult time,” she says.

Deignan says social media often produces a more immediate solution. “Never underestimate the power of bad PR,” he says. “Your Twitter and Facebook posts tend to attract the company’s attention a lot faster than a phone call. If you’re having a real problem with a company, put it on their Facebook page. They’re going to want to address it quickly and help you resolve it.” Deignan also stresses the importance of being polite and persistent, regardless of how you seek resolution. “Being loud and rude doesn’t help.”


Mind your manners, please


Member Ray Lattof of Davie, Fla., says representatives who answered calls to AT&T’s 800 number are the ones who need to learn how to be polite: They hung up on him twice when he called to dispute unauthorized long distance charges on his landline phone bill. “I was utterly dumbfounded,” he says. “AT&T is such a worldwide business conglomerate. You just get a sense that the company has no priority on customer service at all.”

AT&T corporate spokeswoman Susan Newsham says AT&T places customer care high on its priority list. “We have apologized to Mr. Lattof for the inconvenience, answered his questions and found him a long-distance plan that better matches his needs,” she says. “Additionally, customers can get access to other support options by visiting [our website].” For instance, U-verse customers can utilize an interactive application to troubleshoot any problems, she says. “AT&T is committed to its customers, but if issues occur, please visit [our website] to get in contact with a support representative.”

Lattof, who filed an F report on the company’s poorly rated Miami location, says he’s still upset that AT&T charges him $4.77 a month for long distance calls as part of its minimum usage plan. “I will continue to be stuck paying a minimal charge for long distance, even when I make no long distance calls — and that is downright thievery,” he says.

Member Beth Holmes of Henderson, Nev., says she’s happy with her bundled Internet, TV and phone services from the highly rated Las Vegas branch of Cox Communications. “We use them because they have the best rating on Angie’s List,” she says. “We have no complaints.” The Atlanta-based company offers cable, broadband Internet and phone services to 6 million homes in 19 states. “Our goal is to be a friend in the digital age, helping our customers get the most value from their services,” says Scott Wise, Cox’s vice president of customer care.


The devil’s in the details


But Costa and Deignan recommend reviewing bundled packages with a critical eye before purchasing from any provider. “They usually start off at a really attractive price. Then they skyrocket, so be prepared,” Deignan says. Costa agrees. “You have to dig a little bit beneath the surface,” she says. “For instance, the quality of broadband service might not be as good from your telephone service as it is from your cable company.”

Member Kathy Frenklach of San Francisco says she bundled her Internet, cable and phone services through Comcast to reduce her monthly bill to $178, but she’s unhappy with the overall service she’s received from the Santa Clara location. “On weekends, I often cannot access on-demand movies,” she says. “When I call for help and give the error code as requested, the representatives can never help me with the problem.”

In response to Frenklach’s complaint, Comcast contends it’s made an effort to thoroughly educate its representatives and technicians. “We know that customers want things to be easy,” says corporate spokeswoman Jenni Moyer. “We’re making sure our agents have the tools and the training. The technician today compared to a tech 10 years ago is like comparing the Commodore 64 with an iPad. We’re continually working on making the experience better for the customer.” However, mistakes are inevitable.  “Our goal is to get it right every time, but things happen,” she says. “And when they do, we want to quickly turn it around and fix it.”

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

The Wisdom of Snooki and Being Snookered

Dissident Voice: a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice

The Wisdom of Snooki

America got a good laugh this week over news that Snooki, a “Guidette” of Jersey Shore fame, got paid more to speak at a university than Toni Morrison, Nobel laureate for literature. They are both authors, after all, but Snooki is certainly more famous and more in demand these days. She’s been on David Letterman twice recently, whereas Morrison is never on TV, not even when she gave her Nobel speech in 1993. By contrast, Harold Pinter could deliver his masterful rant on the BBC in prime time.

Of course, each British household must fork over £145 per year to support BBC television. Such misuse of public fund, such government-sanctioned robbery, would not go well in America. Hell, 234 bucks could buy the Pentagon a box of nails at least, or maybe not. In any case, serious authors are more or less banned from American TV. Day in and day out, you’ll see a teeming lineup of shouters, schmoozers, unctuous bullshiters and apologists, but never a serious writer. Athletes of all levels are endlessly interviewed, but never a serious thinker and crafter of language. Americans want words from everybody but their wordsmiths. To borrow a phrase from Jersey Shore, one has to go back to “prehistoric kindergarten” to see the likes of Allen Ginsberg butt heads with William Buckley. Has anyone seen Gore Vidal, Robert Coover or Clayton Eshleman lately? Who?! What?

To get good seats for Snooki, some students showed up seven hours early. The decision to invite her at $32,000 was made by the students themselves, so this was also democracy in action. Snooki is a Jersey girl, and the venue was in New Jersey, but the students’ identification with her goes a lot deeper, I think. They like her because she is wholly untalented and unapologetically stupid. Her vapidity gives them hope. If someone this unexceptional can cash in on fifteen glorious minutes, then maybe the good, easy life can be theirs also, unless, of course, they like to cogitate and can string three or four sentences together. If that’s the case, then fuggedaboutit. Onto the trash heap you go!

Eight-five percent of American college graduates must move back to their parent’s homes. Most carry loans that will take decades to pay off, if ever. Many will default. Their unemployment rate is 10 percent and trending higher. Many toil at jobs they could have gotten without attending college. Three-hundred-and-sixty-five-thousand American cashiers have university degrees. Ditto, 317,000 waiters and 18,000 parking lot attendants.

Parking lot attendants get paid $19,000 a year, on average, so that’s actually a pretty good job in this economy. When McDonald’s held a job fair recently,

60,000 people applied for 13,000 minimum-wage positions. I know desperate people who are working for even less than minimum-wage. Take it or leave it.

On a Greyhound bus, I talked to Ron, a Cincinnatian with two college degrees and three jobs. Primarily a social worker for children from disfunctional families, Ron was also a substitute teacher and soccer referee. He was paid $28 a match, $22 for games between children under 14, which he prefered, since at 45-years-old, Ron could only run so fast. An imposing, trim black man, Ron considered his physique and stern demeanor his chief assets in the classroom. “As a substitute teacher, you don’t really teach anything. You just have to keep them from going crazy!” To increase his hours, he worked at four school districts. He also felt that his social worker job was safe, “There will always be these messed up families, and in this economy, there will be more. What do poor people argue about? They argue about money! Without social workers, there will be chaos.”

“But even cops are being fired,” I pointed out, to which Ron said nothing.

Ron was spending 25 hours to travel from Cincinnati to Providence. Only the poor do that. Knowing we would stop in Philadelphia, he asked me about the price of a cheese steak. “About eight bucks for a really good one.”

“Damn!” he exclaimed, and would not buy one. Ron didn’t share my pessimism about our country’s prospects. Believing in the recovery, he said he always bought something each time he stepped into Walmart, “to support the president.”

Back to Jersey. Outside its capital, there is a large slogan displayed permanently on a bridge, “TRENTON MAKES, THE WORLD TAKES,” but Trenton’s factories are long gone, like in the rest of the state, or America itself. Since 2001, the US has been losing 50,000 manufacturing jobs a month. South of Trenton, Camden used to have the largest ship yard in the world, as well as the Campbell Soup factory. Chronically broke and among the most dangerous city in America, Camden laid off a third of its police force this year. The Guardian Angels, an unarmed citizen group, now patrols a tiny portion of this free fire zone. A sign on Camden grass: “THEY PUT BULLETS IN MY HEAD ALIEN BULLETS FLAIR A TUMOR.” A sign in Camden window: “HUNGRY? POOR? NO MONEY? NO PROBLEM. PLEASE COME INSIDE FOR A FREE SOUP, BREAD, SODA.” There is no inside to come to, however. The store is out of business.

Walt Whitman spent 19 years in Camden. He is also buried here, in a tomb that cost more than twice his modest home. Hardly anyone visits either. There is a Whitman bridge, park and arts center, and the Gray Old Bard is even painted on the wall of the downtown McDonald’s, yet in this city of 77,000, home to America’s greatest poet, the very man who defined her, there is only one public library left. The main downtown branch is closed. Another branch, funded by Andrew Carnegie, looks like it has been bombed. Whitman wrote about Camden, “I dream’d in a dream, I saw a city invincible to the attacks of the whole of the rest of the earth.”

Hard core New Jerseyites will point out that Camden is not really Jersey, and no one goes to Camden anyway, certainly not Snooki. If you live in “The Garden State,” you may take a day trip to the City, New York, or head down to the Shore. Atlantic City used to be the only gambling destination on the East Coast, but casinos are now sprouting all over America. In adjacent Pennsylvania, Sands has even opened a casino on the grounds of Bethlehem Steel, with its colossal, rusting smoke stacks still standing. We no longer make steel, but you’re welcome to dump your dosh into this steel box, thank you. Get head, crank that lever!

For 84 years, Atlantic City was also the home of the Miss America Beauty Pageant. For looking good, for just being herself, a woman may win a scholarship. For flashing much teeth and flesh, she might be able to uplift and round out her mind. In fact, Miss America boasts that it is the largest provider of scholarship money to young women in the world. Which takes us back to Snooki. For just being herself, she is corralling the big bucks, so who needs a scholarship, really? As Snooki advises, “Study hard, but party harder!” No wonder the young are seduced. Clutching a useless degree and a six pack of discount brewski, the educated youth of America can remember this $32,000 flint of wisdom as they wade into the coming dark.

Like Snooki, I too am an author, but I can only claim a tiny fraction of her readership. I’ve also been paid to talk at universities, but my payment rarely breaks four figures. Like a fool, I routinely write essays for no money at all. My last piece in the New York Times grossed me $75. My last two in the Guardian, nothing. Though I wrote and published much last year, including a novel, my entire income was less than $9,000. Like an American steel worker, I am redundant, my labor is nearly worthless.

Perhaps I can jog myself into shape in hopes of becoming a soccer referee? Though I hate cars, maybe I can wiggle into a job to park and deliver other people’s steel boxes, and double my annual wealth? I cleaned offices and apartments for several years, painted houses for more than a decade, but these jobs have been cornered by illegals who can work much faster than I can. I’m 47. My friend Bob, 51 and with an English degree, don’t laugh, used to do construction work, but is now studying to be an ESL teacher. If you can’t compete against them, you might as well try to teach them English. I know of another guy who gives private ESL lessons in the food court of an upscale shopping mall. Like the graffitti says, I HUSTLE CAUSE I GOT 2!

My first employment was at McDonald’s, and there’s no reason why it can’t be my last, although the competition has gotten a lot stiffer. The menu has also changed much in the intervening 30 years, there were no wraps, swiss cheese or chipotle, whatever the hell that is, way back then, but as a relatively quick learner, I still have an outside chance, I think, to clown with Ronald again.

Linh Dinh is the author of two books of stories and five of poems, and a just released novel, Love Like Hate. He's tracking our deteriorating socialscape through his frequently updated photo blog, State of the Union. Read other articles by Linh.

This article was posted on Wednesday, April 6th, 2011 at 8:01am and is filed under Education, Media, Poverty.

Friday, April 1, 2011

How Disney Invaded American Childhood to Shill Worthless Crap to Our Kids


AlterNet.org




Disney is a major source of the potentially harmful gender and race myths proffered to girls today.

From the outside, Peggy Orenstein epitomizes feminist success. She’s an award-winning journalist whose work has appeared in such distinguished publications as the New Yorker, Elle, Vogue, Discover, Mother Jones, and O: The Oprah Magazine. But her work itself is dedicated to asserting the ways in which “having it all” -- or trying to -- in a world built to the measure of men can have profound effects on women and girls.

Orenstein’s first book, the 1994 study Schoolgirls: Young Women, Self-Esteem, and the Confidence Gap, explored the adolescent roots and gendered nature of the crippling self-doubt that plagues so many adult women. Her second, 2000’s Flux: Women on Sex, Work, Love, Kids, & Life in a Half-Changed World, examined the systemic biases and roadblocks women face in creating lives that balance personal and professional demands. And in 2007, Orenstein published a memoir, Waiting for Daisy, which recounted the challenges -- infertility, cancer, and many more -- she faced in becoming a mother.

Throughout her career, Orenstein has observed at close range how the media and popular culture have colluded to serve up distorted visions of womanhood to girls. And given everything she’s seen, she’d be the first to say that being female in what’s still a “half-changed world” is no fairy tale. So perhaps it’s fitting that Orenstein’s new book, Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches from the Frontlines of the New Girlie-Girl Culture, takes on the Disneyfication of American girlhood, and the princess narratives sold hand over fist to girls like her own 7-year-old, Daisy Tomoko.

Disney princess narratives have long been a staple of modern girlhood. But Cinderella Ate My Daughter emphasizes that princess culture is a 21st-century phenomenon, the result of marketing executives seeking some consumer magic to boost the corporation’s limp product sales. In 2001, the revenue generated by such Disney-branded princess paraphernalia as dolls, costumes, and room decor was about $300 million. Eight years later, that number had risen to a whopping $4 billion. Little girls are no longer consumers of Disneyfied fairy tales; in the new millennium, they have become the consumed.

And predatory marketing is only one of the problems inherent in princess culture, which Orenstein also believes is a major source -- if not the major source -- of the potentially harmful gender and race myths proffered to girls today. Even more insidiously, Disney princesses also prepare young girls to become consumers of a whole host of cultural products -- from Bratz dolls to Miley Cyrus to toddler beauty pageants -- that promote, and ultimately normalize, manipulatively sexualized girlhoods.

Orenstein’s passion for her work as a “girl advocate” is evident not only in her writing, but also in how she talks about girlhood issues. She spoke to Bitch at length about what it means to be in the trenches of the commercial battle to capture the hearts and minds of young girls -- and the dollars of those who care for and about them.

How did the writing of Cinderella Ate My Daughter confirm or alter any of the ideas you had about “princess culture”?

When I went into it, I approached it in an exploratory way. We live in a time when girls are doing really well in a lot of realms. They’re doing really well in school, they’re going to college at a higher rate than boys, they’re doing great on the sports field, they’re in leadership roles. Yet, at the same time there’s a resurgence -- [or] more like just a “surgence” -- of pink and pretty. Is this a positive thing that shows that we can now indulge girls in that without any kind of repercussions? Or is [it] an indication that girls are still being defined by how they look and urged to get their sense of self through external validation? I came out feeling that the latter was true. And it starts pretty much in infancy.

[The] insistence on defining girls and women by how we look and how we relate sexually is not only a way to keep [us] in our place, but a way we keep ourselves there. Obsessing over our appearance is the way we assure ourselves and others around us that even if we’re really successful, we’re not really threatening. [T]he pressures on women to look good from womb to tomb have become more intense and confusing [in part] because we have made so much progress. And the consequences for girls of being prematurely sexualized can be precisely the things we’re trying to avoid, such as negative body image, eating disorders, or depression. One of the things [I found] that surprised me was the relationship between sexualization and disconnection from authentic sexuality: Girls who are sexualized early are more likely to see sexuality as a performance, not as something that they feel internally.

So it’s like from the time girls are very young, they’re always on stage somehow, whether culturally or socially.

When girls play dolls today, the fantasy that’s offered them is that they should grow up to be a rock star or movie star. That was absolutely not true when we were girls. And even the beloved Dora the Explorer -- they split Dora into two because they wanted to keep the audience, and the audience was aging out younger and younger. So they made a tween Dora. [Original] Dora is very sturdy and just neutral: She has short hair, a straight-cut shirt, a backpack, and a map. [Tween Dora] got flirty clothes and pretty hair, and the map and backpack are gone. Her fantasies are about being a rock star performing a benefit concert.

So much of what girls are presented with is essentially about performance. [And] here’s Dora, in this new incarnation, giving a soft-pedaled version of the same lesson. If it were in isolation, that might be one thing. But it’s just constant. That’s what girls are told [to aspire to] -- high-school student by day, rock star by night. It’s about the importance of this surface self.

It’s a constructionist view of identity, taken to an extreme degree.

I’ve been thinking a lot more about the way girl power has been contorted into pro-narcissism. My daughter, Daisy, got a make-your-own messenger bag kit for her seventh birthday -- [it’s] a messenger bag that you decorate with iron-on transfers. [Most of] the transfers were pink and orange and purple, hearts and flowers and stars and all the stuff that you would typically expect. But that was not what we noticed. One of the transfers said “spoiled,” another one said “pampered princess,” and a third one said “brat.” And [Daisy] looked at them and said, “Mom, why do they want you to put that on your purse? Isn’t that kind of braggy?” -- which is the worst thing you can say if you’re seven. And I said, “Yeah, I think you’re right. It is kind of braggy.” Somehow the idea of creating a strong sense of self in girls has been distorted by the culture into announcing you’re a spoiled, narcissistic brat -- like that is what signifies confidence. But it’s that sexualized, manipulative femininity.

If you asked what we want for our daughters, we’d want very wonderful, positive, thoughtful things: strong internal sense of self, self-direction and compassion and potential and all of that. And then [we] undercut that with what they’re playing with. The two don’t add up.

From what you say, it seems that well-meaning parents unwittingly cause split-identity problems in girls.

And that well-meaning part is really key. I mean, when you walk into Pottery Barn Kids, it’s like apartheid in there. For girls, it’s hearts and flowers and hula girls -- and the boys have sailboats, trucks, sports. I know somebody who was writing the [Pottery Barn] catalog, who said, “We’ve tried to make more gender-neutral items. And they just don’t sell.” We ended up with sea-creature sheets. So that was sort of neutral. [B]ut eventually your daughter may go, “Uh-uh. I don’t want this.” And if you keep disallowing it, giving her things from the boys’ side of the store, she’ll think you believe the stuff for girls is bad -- and maybe even that being a girl is bad. And that’s a problem, too.

Could it be that there’s just a cultural fear of exploring what it could be like to be female outside the bounds of narcissism?

There was some interesting research that I put in Cinderella Ate My Daughter, finding that the more egalitarian a society is, the more they believe that certain traits in men and women are innate -- stereotypical traits, obviously. In the chapter “Pinked,” I cite a study by a college professor who’s been polling students on gender-related traits since the 1970s. And interestingly, over that time, the association of women with certain stereotypical traits -- such as being talkative or friendly or indecisive -- has increased. You could say that, “Well, now that we’re more equal, we can see what’s innate.” Or you could say, “The closer we get to an egalitarian society, the more we fear we won’t be different enough and won’t be attractive to each other.” Whatever the reason, it does seem that the more opportunities women get, the more simplistic we become in our thinking about each other’s psychological makeup.

There’s also the issue that if everyone skews more toward gender neutrality, or even if we allow for greater variation in each sex, you risk having boys who might seem “feminine,” and everybody freaks out at that thought. It’s that baseline homophobia. So that, I think, always keeps us in check.

You can’t win, it seems.

Well, I’m not ready to say that. I do think there needs to be more discussion of context, and more assumption that we -- as parents or girl advocates or whatever -- have control over some of this, that we have a say in it. There’s a real incentive, of course, on the part of the people who are creating the culture to make us feel like we don’t have control. That you really don’t have a choice. But you do.

I really do believe that change can be made on a micro level. You can think about it and make decisions about what you buy, what you expose your child to, how you talk about it -- all that stuff. I think it makes a big difference. I mean, I know it does. My daughter was Athena on Halloween this year. That’s a long way from Little Mermaid. One of the ways we countered the princess thing was to read a lot of Greek myths. She needs models of femininity and she needs to act out fantasies that affirm her as a girl. She hooked into Athena -- that’s a lot better than the alternatives.

So where do you think trends are moving now?

I don’t have a crystal ball. Who could have ever guessed what we would be contending with in terms of mass culture, like the Internet and social media? I mean, five years ago, you wouldn’t have been able to predict all this, and we still don’t know the impact of it. I wouldn’t even venture to guess what the next generation will be dealing with.

M. M. Adjarian is a Dallas-based freelance writer. Her articles have appeared in SheWired.com, the Dallas Voice, and Arts + Culture DFW.

From the outside, Peggy Orenstein epitomizes feminist success. She’s an award-winning journalist whose work has appeared in such distinguished publications as the New Yorker, Elle, Vogue, Discover, Mother Jones, and O: The Oprah Magazine. But her work itself is dedicated to asserting the ways in which “having it all” -- or trying to -- in a world built to the measure of men can have profound effects on women and girls.