The Psychology of the Egomaniacs and the Race to the Bottom

Psychology is a part of all of our lives, because we have minds to think with, and all of our actions are based upon thought, even though with some it may seem with less thought than for others. None of us is truly "sane," whatever the hell that actually means, but some have "problems" that extensively affect their own lives and the  lives of others on a regular basis. Most societies have laws against rape, for instance, and people who seem to have the psychological need to "force themselves" on others are held accountable for those actions, regardless of their seeming need to do such things. Just because we have psychological needs doesn't mean society doesn't try to put controls on those needs. Sherwood Schwartz, the creator of the 1960s comedy "Gilligan's Island,"  had lots of psychology in his little comedy about seven people stranded on a small Pacific island. One of the seven main characters was Thurston Howell III, a multimillionaire, who in today's dollars would be a multi billionaire. Mr. Howell couldn't stop thinking about money, even though he had long before passed the amount any human being would have needed to live a very comfortable life. Even though the little group was on an uncharted island and in need of rescue, Mr. Howell schemed, even at times against his own wife, as he just couldn't stop wanting money and exercising the power that money gave him. Accustomed to having his own way, on the island he found that money could not always be as powerful a force as in regular society, because there was nothing to buy, although that didn't stop him from trying to gain more wealth through scheming, bribery and exploitation. Mr. Howell often thought he should have been the leader of the group of castaways, because of his wealth and the large number of corporations he owned. Government scared him, as overall it had the power to control him at times, and he once mentioned that he had had a dream about ordering the "wholesale arrest of the Supreme Court." In spite of Mr. Howell's sometimes ruthless behavior, he had a connection to reality and at times he wanted to be loved and respected by the others in the group, and he once drew up a will dividing his fortune among the castaways. He also was fearful that he would be seen as weak if he did good deeds; a frightening thought in itself, if you think about it. Even on the island, however, Mr. Howell's ego and sense of privilege couldn't get away from being reined in by law, as in one episode a conflict breaks out over the ownership of a chest, thought to contain great treasure, which had been discovered by Gilligan when he was doing to job for Mr. Howell,* but the group holds a "hearing" on the case, presided over by the Professor, as judge. So Mr. Howell was not a totally ruthless money grubber all of the time, and his insecurity was demonstrated by his need to have his Teddy Bear to cuddle up with at night.

In more recent times, the egomaniacs in American society have sought every possible way to avoid paying decent wages and offering employees benefits. Before you say, "Well Randy, I work for 'XYZ,' and my employer has provided decent pay and benefits for many years," ask yourself and check out why the employer has done such. Remember, while not all employers strive to be Ebenezer Scrooge in exploiting their employees, many do not just "give" good pay and benefits, although there are decent employers in this country who have consciences and who want to do the right thing, with occasional lapses. My guess is, there are likely more such than we ever hear about, perhaps because they aren't in need of the acclamation. And I don't want to imply that there aren't times of contentiousness between management and labor in those companies. Many years ago there was a furniture company where the warehouse men and the deliverymen were all Teamsters. I knew just about all of them and I know the things they said about the company and it's owners. You're probably thinking it was all bad, but it wasn't. Quite to the contrary, they mainly said good things about the primary owner, a lady (I knew her somewhat), although some remarks about some in her family were not quite as nice.** Over the years there was a strike or two, but there was never a lot of animosity, and certainly no hatred. In fact, one employee was found to have been drinking on the job, but the company didn't fire him, and he was just given a warning. Unfortunately, the guy didn't learn his lesson and when he did the same thing, the consequence was his termination. It was at that time that the relatively good relations between the Teamster employees and the company showed themselves, as one Teamster, a very good union man, told the fired man off in my presence, even telling him how the company had given him another chance that he then abused.

Why can't all management and employee relations be more like the above? Well we're back to psychology and especially to the superego-types in the business world who have taken over and driven the agenda for many sectors of the business world. They have done everything possible to fatten their already fat bank accounts, including moving plants and jobs overseas to get around American labor and American regulation; that is, law. It's hurt our country folks and most of you know it, whether you'll admit it or not. Some industries, like clothing, are now heavily located overseas in low wage countries, where they may well be owned by American corporations and then the finished products are shipped to the U.S. Such maneuvers has put pressure on American wages/benefits, forcing many Americans to have to look to buy cheaper foreign-made products, because they don't always have the money to buy American products. Of course the corporations and their minions say it's because American workers want to make too much money, or that federal, state or local regulations drive up costs, or a combination of both, forcing corporations to seek lower wages and less regulation elsewhere. Let's see ... when was the last time you heard that it might have something to do with corporate executives and the billionaire/millionaire stockholders wanting "more money?" The argument is NEVER framed in that way, as if these superegos are too important to question. This has truly become a "race to the bottom." Folks, you might think you won't be affected, but with this crap going on and on, it will HAVE to affect you too, if it hasn't already, and that includes if you're a small business owner, as the less money Americans have, the less money they have to spend at your business; thus, the less business for you. As I've said here before, the superegos haven't gone to all of the effort of moving production elsewhere, supporting anti-labor candidates and anti-labor agendas, just so they can pay you MORE; they want to pay you LESS! That's the whole point. Don't be in denial until it's too late!

* The conflict in this episode shows the technical aspects of law, as Mr. Howell "claims" ownership of the chest, because Gilligan was doing work for him. The Skipper, who handles Gilligan's side of the case, argues that Gilligan owns the chest, because he did the work for Mr. Howell as a favor and wasn't paid.

** There will always be a certain amount of contentiousness between labor and management, as, by and large, we humans don't much like to be told what to do, but it often also has a great deal to do with "how" management does the telling. I guess that's just the "psychology" to it.

WORD HISTORY:
Bleach-This goes back to Indo European "blehg," which had the notion of "shine, pale, bright." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "blaikjanan," a verb form which meant "to make pale, to make bright" (in some of its other Indo European relatives, the Indo European form took on meanings having to do with fire from the "bright, shine" idea). This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "blaecan," which meant "to make white or pale, to whiten," or in the modern sense, "to bleach." There were noun and adjectival forms in Old English such as the noun "blaece," which meant "skin ailment that made the skin dry and pale,"^ another noun "blaeco," which meant "paleness," and the adjective "blaec," which meant "pale," but it seems the modern noun (for the bleach product) was derived from the verb form. The other Germanic languages have: German "bleichen" (to bleach), "bleich" (pale) and "Bleichmittel" (bleach); Low German has "bleeken/bleken" (to bleach) and "Bleik" (bleach); Dutch "bleken" (to bleach) and "bleekmiddel" (bleach); Swedish "bleka" (to bleach) and "blekmedel" (bleach); Danish "bleg" (pale) and  "blegemiddel" (bleach); Icelandic "bleikja" (light/pale color) and "bleikur" (pale); Norwegian "blek" (pale) and "blekemiddel" (bleach);^^ I could not find any forms in Frisian.   

^ Some have also applied this English term to leprosy, a disease much disputed in what it meant long ago and it may well have meant different things to different people, including eczema, dermatitis and syphilis.

^^ The compound form of the noun in use in some other Germanic languages is a form of "middle" as the second part of the word. It is equivalent to English "medium," a word borrowed from Latin, which besides the literal meaning "in between," also means "a means to convey or do something, an agent;" thus those Germanic compound nouns essentially mean "agent/substance for bleaching, whitening." So, it is likely that had "medium" not been borrowed by English, we too might use a form of "middle" in certain compounds. By the way, Latin "medium" shares the same Indo European origin as the Germanic form which produced English "middle" and "mid."