The Flip Camcorder is dead. Cisco, the parent company that bought Flip a few years ago is shutting it down and stopping all production. Not selling it off. Not trying to improve it. Killing it. Period.
As a Flip owner, I am quite pissed. It's one thing when you happen to use a product that goes out of style or becomes unpopular. But this is not what happened to Flip. I am not a market analyst, but all numbers indicate it was still the number one selling medium quality camcorder out there. Popular with bloggers, YouTubers and any number of other middle of the road, casual, home movie loving, budget restrained videographers out there. So easy to use, my mother took home movies with mine without a single problem. (And she by her own admission is not a tech person.) In fact a lot of non-tech people used the Flip. Could that be why it was so popular???
In other words, it was perfect for people like me who are into simplicity. Or people like mom who do not understand a lot of technology. And it would seem that millions of people over the last four years since the Flip was introduced would agree.
And now it is killed off, and many people are wondering why. There may be many other business or money oriented reasons, but already the speculation among those in the know, and consumers alike is that the smartphone is to blame. They are only half right, if you ask me. For it is an attitude behind the dominance of the smartphone that is truly to blame.
Smartphones, (you know, those absurdly priced time wasters in need of bi-weekly updates to function properly) can now contain everything. From that stupid bird game, to your stock portfolio, in real time. They have consolidated about 90% of what human beings do on some kind of computer onto the best smartphones, and the other 10% that is not on a phone now is on its way to one soon.
"There's on app for that!" I get it.
The smartphone has been cited as the reason to get rid of mp3 players, GPS devices in your car, snapshot cameras, laptops, and yes, now, the Flip, and other camcorders.
"Why would you buy a camera or an mp3 player, or a GPS, or a wristwatch, or an alarm clock and have something else to deal with, when you can just lay down the few extra hundred and buy an iPhone or a Droid that has all of that and more? It's common sense."
And that ladies and gentleman, is what is wrong with popular consumer culture today, and the corporate numbskulls that cater to it. The statement above is a perfect example of why technology and software industries are so irksome to me. Consider what this attitude illuminates.
1.) That simplicity and laziness are the same thing.
People don't want to have to actually reach into their back pocket, which is so far away, to pick up a ringing phone while they are shooting the footage of the dog sex they stumbled across in the park. Why waste 3 seconds? With a smart phone you can answer the phone while still taking the video. That is plain lazy.
Having a phone that rings when you call me, and makes your phone ring when I call you, with the ability to text if I prefer. Or a camera that takes video by pressing one button, and puts it on your computer by plugging it directly into one jack with no wires. That is simplicity.(Is there a freaking app for THAT?)
2) It assumes that everyone everywhere can afford, or even wants, the highest end product out there.
There was a time when the development and availability of products was dictated by the great middle. What the average person needed and wanted, and of course, could afford. But now, styles, models, packages, and bundles go on and off of the market based on the highest end consumer. The Flip was popular. Very popular, because it was fast, easy, and the vast majority of average people, not worried about buying SuperPhone could use it, and create basic quality videos to be enjoyed.
But the market, in many products, not just the smartphone, is now being dictated by those who want and need everything, here and now in one device, and can afford to lay down 500 dollars for the privilege. (Or who are willing to go into debt in order to buy the device on credit to keep up with the Jones.) Those that insist that they would rather have no footage of their child's first birthday, if they cannot film it with the same resolution in which Inception was filmed.
What's worse, people like me are actually looked down upon as rubes because we don't need our phone to cook our breakfast for us, and we want our cameras to just be our cameras. As though owners of smartphones simply cannot comprehend why a civilized human being would ever want anything else.
Obviously this is all about more than a phone or a camera to me. It is about how good ideas, that work just fine for the satisfied middle, or even the occasionally splurging poor, are shoved aside and dismantled, not when they have proven unmarketable or undesirable, but when they are merely proven less sexy. And not by the masses, but by the elite consumer. There is no spectrum or needs or desires or prices for the average buy like me anymore.
No company should keep selling a product nobody wants. But when it comes to items like the Flip, or the average NON-smart phone, an obvious specific need to the average consumer is still being met. But because the big spenders and the lazy prefer the "all in one 2,000 dollar mega-device, those of us who are more easily satisfied are left with two options. Go into debt to get the big stuff, or have nothing.
That isn't a choice.
Showing posts with label money. Show all posts
Showing posts with label money. Show all posts
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Monday, September 13, 2010
Poor
I sometimes get the impression that at least half of the population doesn't know what being poor is. Or at least doesn't understand what being poor can be. I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or punch someone when I hear what people think does and does not constitute being poor.
I, Ty Unglebower, am poor. And I am not poor due to the fact that I can't eat out 4 times weekly. (The national average regardless of income.) I am not poor because I drive a used car. Renting instead of owning is not what makes me poor, nor is the fact that I buy clothes once a year as opposed to once a month.
My idea of vacation is two nights in a cabin camping, and even then only after enough money has been saved. Actual vacations of more than a few days happen in my life every 6 or 7 years.
If a website does not have a useful free membership, I do not join it no matter how worthy, because I do not have the money for a premium account. I only ever upgrade to the phones that are available for free with the renewal of my calling plan.
Yet none of these things are what make me poor. They are the things which, when you ask most people, are borderline immoral to be made to "suffer" through. As though in order to be a civilized, respectable human being, you must posses all of the things in that list which I currently lack. The very concept of being poor to such people revolves to a very large extent on what is convenient, trendy, or comfortable. The absence of those things simply means I am not middle class.
What makes me poor is the fact that as a freelance writer trying to break into more things, the paychecks are sporadic and smaller than needs be for the moment. (I'm working on that.) Being poor means that I get help from my family to pay the rent that is required on this tiny apartment. That I share groceries with my mother who is 5 miles away, and with whom I may have to live again in the future. That I eat meals with her a few times a week. Being poor means that I have nothing saved at all because everything, everything I do get goes directly to some immediate expense, because I so rarely can contribute to some of my own basic needs.
I am poor in that there is no money in my checking account. And I mean no money. As in balance equals $0.00. Literally. Not that I "only" have a few hundred dollars socked away, and things are getting tight. Nothing.
In fact, I have no bank account with any local bank because they all require a minimum balance and require the applicant to have no debt, if you can believe that. I have plenty of student loan debt. So I am ineligible for even a no interest checking account around here. I have to endorse my paychecks for writing to my mother, who then will cash them for me at her bank.
So, I cannot invest in things like Blackberries. 16 gigs of computer memory. Hiring a tax professional, a resume writer, a job/life coach. A personal trainer. (All things that the rather conventional wisdom says each of us should spend money on, as part of "building our brand".) A resume writer alone could be 500 dollars, and people toss that figure around as though it would be completely unheard of for someone to not have at least that much set aside for their own personal development.
"Yes, it may hurt you for a month," such people say, " but this is an investment in your career. If you are not going to take yourself seriously enough to drop a few hundred dollars when it hurts, why will a hiring manager decide you are worth the company's money? You wouldn't perform your own open heart surgery. You call in the professional. Why won't you give your career and personal brand the same professional treatment?"
Because...I...am...poor. Like, the real thing, "no shit! I have no money" type of poor.
Those who follow me on Twitter, or Brazen, or just here on the blog know by now about my ideas. About my writing abilities. About my experience and perceptions. About my accomplishments and my talents. I am not into "personal branding" at all, but if a brand emerges naturally out of the work and contributions an individual makes online, many of you are familiar with my so called brand. And I wonder how many of you might be shocked by just how poor I am.
Because you see, in addition to the "why not invest in a life coach" stuff, I also hear many other things which indicate that legions of people do not understand poor.
"You're intelligent. Healthy. Young. Unattached. You have a college degree! You write very well. There is absolutely no way you could be truly poor. You are not homeless. You don't panhandle. You can basically write your own ticket. Why haven't you done so?"
So intelligent people have no reason to be poor? The truly poor can only be those who are somehow damaged in the brain? Slow people? Retarded? Mentally ill> Begging for change on the Metro and sleeping under a bridge or over a grate" That's poor, right?
No. That is homeless. That is one type of poor. The type that arises when nobody cares. Fortunately for me, I have a handful of people, (usually my mother) who do care, and won't allow me to starve and wander the streets. But that could be the only reason I don't do so. Because if I had to rely on my own income and saving right now to survive, I would be hitching my way to the nearest Metro station to set up shop. (And for those who say that I would just need to get any paying job for a while, I would advise you that before freelancing, I tried for 5 solid years to get a full time job and couldn't do it. Reasons: Unknown.)
But a person as cultured, refined, and eloquent as me cannot possibly have to end up sleeping in a Metro station. I read, perform theatre. Am a top user at Brazen. I am working on a novel and have inspired people in ways I don't even know. Surely I have no reason to be that poor. I can't be only a mother's love away from having nothing to eat or no place to stay.
I am certain you would all like to believe that. I am sure many people who don't truly grasp poor are comforted by that notion. That to have all of the gifts I have is a ticket away from being poor. I'd like to believe that as well. But I have lived my life too long to buy into that one.
I don't believe I will be poor forever. I have to hold onto some hope that my life will make a turnaround now that I have rededicated it to my passions, as opposed to winning the rat race. As hard as it is to believe sometimes, I tell myself that at some point it will all pay off. That I will break even. That I will prosper. Not simply survive, and that only with the help of family. But until that day, despite it's obvious crippling problems for a free thinking artist like me, I must not be ashamed to be poor. I must own it. I must shine light upon it, and what it really is, not what the movies tell you it is. It is only in so doing that I can hope to change it. You cannot wrestle something from which you are always running away.
The poor exist. Those who have not broken even for most of their lives are out there. Around you. With you. Some of them are easy to spot. Easy to avoid. To cross a street to stay away from. And some of them are lazy. Homeless. Dirty. Addicted to booze and drugs.
But just as many, possibly even more of them, are hard working, cultured, polite and charming people with whom you converse every day. Who you share a ride on the Metro with instead of avoiding at the station. People with whom you exchange emails. Ideas. Hopes. People whom you would even hire, if you had a job to offer them, so much potential value do they represent.
The more horrifying thought is that they can be all of the above and still be homeless and begging. I do thank the Divinities that I am not one of them for right now.
But, despite having just enough food, a place to stay, and (older) clothes to cover my back, I still know the score.
I am Ty Unglebower and at the moment, I am poor. What do you think of me now?
I, Ty Unglebower, am poor. And I am not poor due to the fact that I can't eat out 4 times weekly. (The national average regardless of income.) I am not poor because I drive a used car. Renting instead of owning is not what makes me poor, nor is the fact that I buy clothes once a year as opposed to once a month.
My idea of vacation is two nights in a cabin camping, and even then only after enough money has been saved. Actual vacations of more than a few days happen in my life every 6 or 7 years.
If a website does not have a useful free membership, I do not join it no matter how worthy, because I do not have the money for a premium account. I only ever upgrade to the phones that are available for free with the renewal of my calling plan.
Yet none of these things are what make me poor. They are the things which, when you ask most people, are borderline immoral to be made to "suffer" through. As though in order to be a civilized, respectable human being, you must posses all of the things in that list which I currently lack. The very concept of being poor to such people revolves to a very large extent on what is convenient, trendy, or comfortable. The absence of those things simply means I am not middle class.
What makes me poor is the fact that as a freelance writer trying to break into more things, the paychecks are sporadic and smaller than needs be for the moment. (I'm working on that.) Being poor means that I get help from my family to pay the rent that is required on this tiny apartment. That I share groceries with my mother who is 5 miles away, and with whom I may have to live again in the future. That I eat meals with her a few times a week. Being poor means that I have nothing saved at all because everything, everything I do get goes directly to some immediate expense, because I so rarely can contribute to some of my own basic needs.
I am poor in that there is no money in my checking account. And I mean no money. As in balance equals $0.00. Literally. Not that I "only" have a few hundred dollars socked away, and things are getting tight. Nothing.
In fact, I have no bank account with any local bank because they all require a minimum balance and require the applicant to have no debt, if you can believe that. I have plenty of student loan debt. So I am ineligible for even a no interest checking account around here. I have to endorse my paychecks for writing to my mother, who then will cash them for me at her bank.
So, I cannot invest in things like Blackberries. 16 gigs of computer memory. Hiring a tax professional, a resume writer, a job/life coach. A personal trainer. (All things that the rather conventional wisdom says each of us should spend money on, as part of "building our brand".) A resume writer alone could be 500 dollars, and people toss that figure around as though it would be completely unheard of for someone to not have at least that much set aside for their own personal development.
"Yes, it may hurt you for a month," such people say, " but this is an investment in your career. If you are not going to take yourself seriously enough to drop a few hundred dollars when it hurts, why will a hiring manager decide you are worth the company's money? You wouldn't perform your own open heart surgery. You call in the professional. Why won't you give your career and personal brand the same professional treatment?"
Because...I...am...poor. Like, the real thing, "no shit! I have no money" type of poor.
Those who follow me on Twitter, or Brazen, or just here on the blog know by now about my ideas. About my writing abilities. About my experience and perceptions. About my accomplishments and my talents. I am not into "personal branding" at all, but if a brand emerges naturally out of the work and contributions an individual makes online, many of you are familiar with my so called brand. And I wonder how many of you might be shocked by just how poor I am.
Because you see, in addition to the "why not invest in a life coach" stuff, I also hear many other things which indicate that legions of people do not understand poor.
"You're intelligent. Healthy. Young. Unattached. You have a college degree! You write very well. There is absolutely no way you could be truly poor. You are not homeless. You don't panhandle. You can basically write your own ticket. Why haven't you done so?"
So intelligent people have no reason to be poor? The truly poor can only be those who are somehow damaged in the brain? Slow people? Retarded? Mentally ill> Begging for change on the Metro and sleeping under a bridge or over a grate" That's poor, right?
No. That is homeless. That is one type of poor. The type that arises when nobody cares. Fortunately for me, I have a handful of people, (usually my mother) who do care, and won't allow me to starve and wander the streets. But that could be the only reason I don't do so. Because if I had to rely on my own income and saving right now to survive, I would be hitching my way to the nearest Metro station to set up shop. (And for those who say that I would just need to get any paying job for a while, I would advise you that before freelancing, I tried for 5 solid years to get a full time job and couldn't do it. Reasons: Unknown.)
But a person as cultured, refined, and eloquent as me cannot possibly have to end up sleeping in a Metro station. I read, perform theatre. Am a top user at Brazen. I am working on a novel and have inspired people in ways I don't even know. Surely I have no reason to be that poor. I can't be only a mother's love away from having nothing to eat or no place to stay.
I am certain you would all like to believe that. I am sure many people who don't truly grasp poor are comforted by that notion. That to have all of the gifts I have is a ticket away from being poor. I'd like to believe that as well. But I have lived my life too long to buy into that one.
I don't believe I will be poor forever. I have to hold onto some hope that my life will make a turnaround now that I have rededicated it to my passions, as opposed to winning the rat race. As hard as it is to believe sometimes, I tell myself that at some point it will all pay off. That I will break even. That I will prosper. Not simply survive, and that only with the help of family. But until that day, despite it's obvious crippling problems for a free thinking artist like me, I must not be ashamed to be poor. I must own it. I must shine light upon it, and what it really is, not what the movies tell you it is. It is only in so doing that I can hope to change it. You cannot wrestle something from which you are always running away.
The poor exist. Those who have not broken even for most of their lives are out there. Around you. With you. Some of them are easy to spot. Easy to avoid. To cross a street to stay away from. And some of them are lazy. Homeless. Dirty. Addicted to booze and drugs.
But just as many, possibly even more of them, are hard working, cultured, polite and charming people with whom you converse every day. Who you share a ride on the Metro with instead of avoiding at the station. People with whom you exchange emails. Ideas. Hopes. People whom you would even hire, if you had a job to offer them, so much potential value do they represent.
The more horrifying thought is that they can be all of the above and still be homeless and begging. I do thank the Divinities that I am not one of them for right now.
But, despite having just enough food, a place to stay, and (older) clothes to cover my back, I still know the score.
I am Ty Unglebower and at the moment, I am poor. What do you think of me now?
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Too XYZ Featured on Examiner.com
One of my previous posts, "College? Epic Fail" has been quoted by Sharalyn Hartwell in a piece she wrote for examiner.com. In it she comments on a recent survey, (conducted by COUNTRY Financial) about attitudes that the so called "millenials" are beginning to adopt in regards to higher education and it's expenses.
It's called "Millenials Question Value of College Education." It's a well written and concise piece. Please check it out.
It's called "Millenials Question Value of College Education." It's a well written and concise piece. Please check it out.
Monday, June 28, 2010
The Stigma of Frugality
Too many look for quick ways to judge the quality of something. The quality of people especially. They have a list to check off, and if something from that list is missing, they move on, whether it be blogs, music, jobs, applicants, or otherwise.
It's lazy.
Instead of investing the time to really understand what something or someone might offer, they want to follow some pre-conceived fad of a metric that has somehow garnered credibility. Often simply because that is the way it has always been. Or on the other side, because some guru blogs about it once or twice, somebody tweets that blog post, and 6 months later, bingo; a trend.
"Let me see here," says a hiring manager before making a decision. (Or a publisher. Or a Gen-Y blogger. Or you.) "Does it have this much talked about and cleverly named single quality which supposedly indicates a whole lot of information in an oh so subtle way? Nope, move on, nothing to see here."
There are many of these metrics. Almost none of them legitimate. I could, (and probably at some point will) dedicate entire posts to each of them. But for now let's talk about one such asinine metric: money invested.
This is a favorite of the lazy and short sighted. The argument being of course that proof of investing money is somehow proof of dedication. Of seriousness. Of quality. It may not surprise you to read that I have a few examples, followed by a total debunking.
To begin with, you don't have to leave this very website to find an example of what I am talking about. This blog is on Blogger. It has "blogspot" in it's URL, because I have not invested money in buying a domain name. So you find this blog at "www.tooxyz.BLOGSPOT.com.
Their response to this. (Believe me I have heard it multiple times.):
"Why would I ever waste my time reading the writings of someone that is too cheap to spring for a 10 dollar a month domain name? If he can't set aside 120 a year to create "TooXYZ.net", he must not be that concerned with the quality of his product. And if he isn't concerned about it, why should I be?"
My rebuttal:
I suppose you shouldn't be. Because the lazy,narrow-minded, sheep like conformist nature of your personality means you wouldn't get much out of what I would say anyway.
This blog has been featured many times on Brazen Careerist. Referenced on Twitter. Linked to. That doesn't happen with the snapping of a finger. And while I may not have 50,000 followers, (nor do I think that anybody who has those numbers really has that many dedicated readers), the traffic and comments I do get are because I think out what I am going to put on this blog. When I have ideas I write them down. I read other blogs. I spend time writing the posts, and editing them. I go through the effort of telling people I have posted.
In other words, I am dedicated to the quality of Too XYZ. I just don't express that dedication by paying a sum of money to buy a personalized domain name right now. Here, content is king. But nobody knows that if they see "no domain name" and assumes "no quality."
And even if I could set aside the money, I am not sure I would. You either like what I write, or you don't. But I am not going to buy a domain just to prove to you I deserve a chance. If you have read this blog more than once, taken the chance to get to know where I am coming from, and leave a few comments here and there, you already know this. And it is for that that I am grateful, because it means some effort has been taken.
Another example. Less personal but very prevalent today is renting a house as opposed to buying one.
Their response:
" It really makes no sense not to invest in a home. It is the American Dream, and you have to ask yourself what exactly it is people are afraid of who put off the ultimate statement in having grown up. What cord haven't they been willing to cut in order to own up and get a mortgage on something? Can a lifetime renter really be contributing that much, when they won't even put a down payment on home of their own? "
My rebuttal:
I actually don't have time for a full rebuttal on this one. Because there are somewhere in the area of a billion reasons why people don't want to buy a home. None of them relating to a fear of the so called "real world". Let's see, there are, shitty markets. Kids in college. Not enough money. A transient lifestyle. A lack of attachment to one location. An aversion to household repairs. A totally different definition of "The American Dream". (Which needs to be seriously redefined anyway.) All are possible reasons why people would rent instead of plunking down the larger some of money required to invest in owning a house.
But again, a truly probing, curious, conscientious person wouldn't care if a person rents or owns, beyond mere curiosity. If one isn't lazy, and looking for how close someone is to the Jones' as a metric by which to determine the worth of someone's contribution, one can see that the choice to rent is a choice born out of any number of factors. None of those factors need have anything to do with an unwillingness to invest. It may just be a preference. Someone's ambition then, shouldn't be measured by how much they spend on a house.
But of course, it is...
Let's turn now to education. College degrees, and even more so, college reputations are gatekeepers into society in some cases. You are in or you are out based on them. This of course is a crock for any number of reasons. (Read my recent highly controversial post to learn more on the potential uselessness of college.) But let's assume you do choose college. There are still plenty of lazy people who will judge the quality of your choice based on superficial factors.
And they go beyond the academic. People look at what you pay for the education as well. (Or what someone pays for it.) And if it is clear you didn't invest as much money in your education, there are assumptions made.
Their response:
" Community college is just high school with more parking, when you get down to it. The same with night school. You tend to get what you pay for, and let's face it, you aren't exactly paying a lot for the privilege of driving the 4 minutes from your parents' house to your local community college to take your two classes at a time. The truly ambitious, and those who want to be seen as taking their college education seriously will invest the money in a reputable and well known four year institution. Sure, debt will be involved, but it at least speaks more to your ambitions and dedication if you go 80,000 dollars in debt at an Ivy League school, then it does sending one Starbucks check at a time to pay for your community college associates degree."
My rebuttal:
I again refer everyone to my previous post, the one I linked to a few paragraphs ago, if you want to hear more about my overall views on college. But something I didn't say in that post which I will say in this one is this;
The strongest academic college experience I had was my year in community college.
Yes, I said it, and it is true. There was far less bullshit and a lot more learning and teaching going on at Frederick Community College than at the 4 year colleges I attended. I don't want to get into a discussion of community vs. four year colleges here. But the fact of the matter is that FCC was both the cheapest and the most useful college experience from a purely academic standpoint. It, like any college, had a lot of annoying crap that went a long with it, but I could go home each day and recoup from it. You can't do that at a four year school.
This all relates to this post because once again people take the lazy way out when it comes to community colleges. They see "community" in the title, and assume, since they are cheap, (or at least cheapER), that they must be a joke. Such people don't examine a catalog, talk to teachers, check out the library. Research into notable alumni. They just see a lack of huge monetary investment and assume a lack of quality. (Not taking the time to consider that part of the reason they are inexpensive is the fact that they leave out a lot of the extras of a four year.)
I could go on. And I almost did. The idea that community theatre must be crap because it's actors aren't paid. Or that a free concert in the park probably has lousy music. But you get the idea. The amount of money changing hands is not a reliable metric to determine the quality of something or someone.
Don't get me wrong here. Free/inexpensive things can suck. But expensive things can also suck. Dropping lots of money into something can certainly translate into an experience of the finest quality. Yet, a little research can yield high quality experiences that cost next to nothing, or nothing. It's all in how much effort you decide to put into understanding the nature of the person or the product.
Which in the end is my point. Put in the effort and find quality. Don't use "money invested" as a filter. You could be missing a lot of great stuff out there.
It's lazy.
Instead of investing the time to really understand what something or someone might offer, they want to follow some pre-conceived fad of a metric that has somehow garnered credibility. Often simply because that is the way it has always been. Or on the other side, because some guru blogs about it once or twice, somebody tweets that blog post, and 6 months later, bingo; a trend.
"Let me see here," says a hiring manager before making a decision. (Or a publisher. Or a Gen-Y blogger. Or you.) "Does it have this much talked about and cleverly named single quality which supposedly indicates a whole lot of information in an oh so subtle way? Nope, move on, nothing to see here."
There are many of these metrics. Almost none of them legitimate. I could, (and probably at some point will) dedicate entire posts to each of them. But for now let's talk about one such asinine metric: money invested.
This is a favorite of the lazy and short sighted. The argument being of course that proof of investing money is somehow proof of dedication. Of seriousness. Of quality. It may not surprise you to read that I have a few examples, followed by a total debunking.
To begin with, you don't have to leave this very website to find an example of what I am talking about. This blog is on Blogger. It has "blogspot" in it's URL, because I have not invested money in buying a domain name. So you find this blog at "www.tooxyz.BLOGSPOT.com.
Their response to this. (Believe me I have heard it multiple times.):
"Why would I ever waste my time reading the writings of someone that is too cheap to spring for a 10 dollar a month domain name? If he can't set aside 120 a year to create "TooXYZ.net", he must not be that concerned with the quality of his product. And if he isn't concerned about it, why should I be?"
My rebuttal:
I suppose you shouldn't be. Because the lazy,narrow-minded, sheep like conformist nature of your personality means you wouldn't get much out of what I would say anyway.
This blog has been featured many times on Brazen Careerist. Referenced on Twitter. Linked to. That doesn't happen with the snapping of a finger. And while I may not have 50,000 followers, (nor do I think that anybody who has those numbers really has that many dedicated readers), the traffic and comments I do get are because I think out what I am going to put on this blog. When I have ideas I write them down. I read other blogs. I spend time writing the posts, and editing them. I go through the effort of telling people I have posted.
In other words, I am dedicated to the quality of Too XYZ. I just don't express that dedication by paying a sum of money to buy a personalized domain name right now. Here, content is king. But nobody knows that if they see "no domain name" and assumes "no quality."
And even if I could set aside the money, I am not sure I would. You either like what I write, or you don't. But I am not going to buy a domain just to prove to you I deserve a chance. If you have read this blog more than once, taken the chance to get to know where I am coming from, and leave a few comments here and there, you already know this. And it is for that that I am grateful, because it means some effort has been taken.
Another example. Less personal but very prevalent today is renting a house as opposed to buying one.
Their response:
" It really makes no sense not to invest in a home. It is the American Dream, and you have to ask yourself what exactly it is people are afraid of who put off the ultimate statement in having grown up. What cord haven't they been willing to cut in order to own up and get a mortgage on something? Can a lifetime renter really be contributing that much, when they won't even put a down payment on home of their own? "
My rebuttal:
I actually don't have time for a full rebuttal on this one. Because there are somewhere in the area of a billion reasons why people don't want to buy a home. None of them relating to a fear of the so called "real world". Let's see, there are, shitty markets. Kids in college. Not enough money. A transient lifestyle. A lack of attachment to one location. An aversion to household repairs. A totally different definition of "The American Dream". (Which needs to be seriously redefined anyway.) All are possible reasons why people would rent instead of plunking down the larger some of money required to invest in owning a house.
But again, a truly probing, curious, conscientious person wouldn't care if a person rents or owns, beyond mere curiosity. If one isn't lazy, and looking for how close someone is to the Jones' as a metric by which to determine the worth of someone's contribution, one can see that the choice to rent is a choice born out of any number of factors. None of those factors need have anything to do with an unwillingness to invest. It may just be a preference. Someone's ambition then, shouldn't be measured by how much they spend on a house.
But of course, it is...
Let's turn now to education. College degrees, and even more so, college reputations are gatekeepers into society in some cases. You are in or you are out based on them. This of course is a crock for any number of reasons. (Read my recent highly controversial post to learn more on the potential uselessness of college.) But let's assume you do choose college. There are still plenty of lazy people who will judge the quality of your choice based on superficial factors.
And they go beyond the academic. People look at what you pay for the education as well. (Or what someone pays for it.) And if it is clear you didn't invest as much money in your education, there are assumptions made.
Their response:
" Community college is just high school with more parking, when you get down to it. The same with night school. You tend to get what you pay for, and let's face it, you aren't exactly paying a lot for the privilege of driving the 4 minutes from your parents' house to your local community college to take your two classes at a time. The truly ambitious, and those who want to be seen as taking their college education seriously will invest the money in a reputable and well known four year institution. Sure, debt will be involved, but it at least speaks more to your ambitions and dedication if you go 80,000 dollars in debt at an Ivy League school, then it does sending one Starbucks check at a time to pay for your community college associates degree."
My rebuttal:
I again refer everyone to my previous post, the one I linked to a few paragraphs ago, if you want to hear more about my overall views on college. But something I didn't say in that post which I will say in this one is this;
The strongest academic college experience I had was my year in community college.
Yes, I said it, and it is true. There was far less bullshit and a lot more learning and teaching going on at Frederick Community College than at the 4 year colleges I attended. I don't want to get into a discussion of community vs. four year colleges here. But the fact of the matter is that FCC was both the cheapest and the most useful college experience from a purely academic standpoint. It, like any college, had a lot of annoying crap that went a long with it, but I could go home each day and recoup from it. You can't do that at a four year school.
This all relates to this post because once again people take the lazy way out when it comes to community colleges. They see "community" in the title, and assume, since they are cheap, (or at least cheapER), that they must be a joke. Such people don't examine a catalog, talk to teachers, check out the library. Research into notable alumni. They just see a lack of huge monetary investment and assume a lack of quality. (Not taking the time to consider that part of the reason they are inexpensive is the fact that they leave out a lot of the extras of a four year.)
I could go on. And I almost did. The idea that community theatre must be crap because it's actors aren't paid. Or that a free concert in the park probably has lousy music. But you get the idea. The amount of money changing hands is not a reliable metric to determine the quality of something or someone.
Don't get me wrong here. Free/inexpensive things can suck. But expensive things can also suck. Dropping lots of money into something can certainly translate into an experience of the finest quality. Yet, a little research can yield high quality experiences that cost next to nothing, or nothing. It's all in how much effort you decide to put into understanding the nature of the person or the product.
Which in the end is my point. Put in the effort and find quality. Don't use "money invested" as a filter. You could be missing a lot of great stuff out there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)