broken walls and narratives

A not so revolutionary blog about feminism, socialism, activism, travel, nature, life, etc.

Archive for the tag “labor”

The Woman Question

The Woman Question

H. Bradford

4/21/18

I have not written a poem for EVERY book that I have read this year, but this a poem inspired by Lise Vogel’s Marxism and the Oppression of Women.


When did the oppression begin?

Was patriarchy painted on the walls of caves

long before women gave birth on factory floors?

Is it passed down in property

or built into the body?

Maybe it’s just all in the family.


And what is the value of labor unpaid?

Is the value surplus?

Is it use?

Or is there any value in the question at all?


What exactly is a woman?

A person, a place?

Or a thing we made from mud of ribs, breasts, and sin.

Is it an idea to divide us by pieces and parts?

An excuse to pay some less or nothing at all

so that society lives long enough to work another day?

Image result for lisa vogel socialism and marx

Bright Eyed and Bushy Tailed: Reflections on Being the Easter Bunny

Bright Eyed and Bushy Tailed: Reflections on Being the Easter Bunny

H. Bradford

4/3/18


This spring, I saw an interesting opportunity posted on Facebook.  The post was a call-out for anyone interested in becoming the Easter Bunny at the mall.  Despite the fact that I already have two jobs, or three if you count subbing, I posted my interest and was interviewed later that week.  The interview was pretty informal, mostly consisting of questioning why I was interested in the job and trying on a giant Easter Bunny head.  With little effort, I was hired on for a two week stint as a costumed Easter Bunny at a mall kiosk for seasonal photos.  I thought the whole thing seemed silly and certainly would provide the raw materials for a good story.


The Costume:

The costume itself was hot and claustrophobic.  When I first tried the whole thing on, I felt a little overwhelmed by the sense of being trapped.  The trapped feeling came from the general heaviness and stuffiness of the head, which provided a dim and limited view of the world.  The head does not allow for adequate peripheral vision or the ability to look down.  The rest of the body is less challenging.  It consisted of oversized rabbit feet, baggy fur pants, a velcro velvety blue jacket, and furry gloves.  One thing that I appreciated about the costume was that the bunny looked intellectual, with round glasses and gold trimmed velvet clothes.   This was not a rowdy Peter Rabbit, but perhaps his pedantic uncle who is allergic to carrots (unless they are boiled) and whose favorite painting is Gainsborough’s Blue Boy.

Image may contain: one or more people and indoor

(My first time wearing the costume)

In any event, the costume could become hot.  Thankfully, there was a fan aimed at the bunny.  The only downside was that sometimes the fan upset children or messed up their hair, so it was turned away or tilted up, resulting in a sweltering rabbit.  On the upside, I tried to think what skills wearing the suit might translate to.  Paul (a fellow rabbit) said that maybe I would be more comfortable in a gas mask, since those are also claustrophobic.  I thought perhaps I would do better underwater (with a lessened sense of the space around me or a sense of confinement in a wetsuit or scuba/snorkel mask).  Yes, I want to believe that being the bunny better prepares me for revolution, apocalypse, or underwater adventures.


 

Gender:

The Easter Bunny was usually gendered as male by parents and children.  The bunny doesn’t have any specific gender markers, but might be viewed as male due to the blue velvet vest and jacket.  In a Twitter Poll, 80% of respondents believed the Easter Bunny to be male.  Though, velvetty anything seems pretty gender ambiguous in my opinion.  Only Paul suggested that the bunny could use they, them pronouns.  Otherwise, parents almost universally used masculine pronouns with the rabbit.  A few people inquired about the gender of the person inside of the costume.  For instance, a girl asked me if I was a girl bunny or a boy bunny.  An older woman asked one of the cashier/photography workers if the person inside was male or female.  I don’t expect that most customers would have the knowledge or experiences to envision the bunny outside of the binary of male or female.  I myself tended to gender the bunny as male, hence my Peter Rabbit’s uncle story.  I often wondered how parents felt about setting their child on the lap of the Easter Bunny.  Did the parents envision the person inside as male?  If so, how did this make them feel?  Male gender and sexuality is always viewed as more potentially threatening to children.  This is because we are socialized to view women as more “naturally” disposed for caretaking, more nurturing, and more invested in children.  Statistically, men are more likely to be perpetrators of child sexual abuse, though females make up 14% of the abusers of male children and 6% of female children.  With this in mind, I wondered how parents might react differently based upon their perceptions of the gender of the person in the costume.  As far as I could tell, most parents were extremely comfortable putting their child into the lap or company of a stranger in a rabbit costume.  This leads me to my next point…


Consent:

I was not able to speak as the Easter Bunny.  This made negotiating consent difficult.  As I mentioned, parents were pretty comfortable with placing their child in the temporary care of the Easter Bunny.  However, many children were not at all comfortable meeting the bunny.  It seemed that children over the age of two and under the age of five were often quite terrified of the bunny.  From a distance, they seemed excited.  As they grew nearer, the magnitude of meeting the bunny struck them- as well as the general weirdness of having to sit on this character’s lap or beside them.  This resulted in reactions ranging from shyness to terror.  Parents addressed this a number of ways.  A common tactic was to bribe the children.  Children were promised that they could ride the train, have candy, go to Build a Bear, or get a toy if they endured a photo with the bunny.  Parents also assured their children that the bunny was safe and nice.  This was done by approaching the bunny, touching its paw, high fives, sitting next to the bunny with the child in arms, and other tactics to increase the child’s exposure to the bunny and demonstrate that it was no threat at all.  Some parents threatened their kids, telling them there would be no candy or that they would go straight home.  A final tactic was to simply place the child on the bunny’s lap or on the bench, then run, hoping that the photographer would grab a few shots before the child inevitably ran away.


Parents played an important role in mediating the child’s consent.  However, most parents wanted a photo for their own collection of memories or to send to relatives.  They had a vested interest in forcing their child to endure a photo.  This put me in an awkward position.  When one parent placed a child on my lap, the child immediately thrust themselves off my legs and flopped onto the floor.  This resulted in more crying.  Since I did not want more children to fall over, I would hold them securely on my lap- a violation of their consent.  Parents encouraged this, even telling me to hold on tight to their child.  When I finally released one child, the crying boy wailed that he would never return to the Easter Bunny again.  I felt bad that many kids did not consent to being photographed with the bunny.  While I think that with time and patience, many frightened children would warm up to the bunny, the length of the line or impatience of the parents did not allow for this to happen in some cases.  In other cases, children naturally became more comfortable with the giant rabbit and ended up having a positive experience.  Thus, I can conclude that I think it is alright for parents to challenge their children to overcome their fears in a patient and supportive manner.  But, I do think it sends the wrong message for parents to threaten or force the encounter.


As for my own strategies for trying to make children comfortable, I would sometimes grab an egg for the children to hold.  This seemed to distract them from the frightening, giant rabbit.   I would also try to make the children comfortable with high fives and thumbs ups.  If kids rushed towards me (without showing fear) I might gesture for a hug.  I didn’t want to be a cold Easter Bunny with walls of boundaries, but I also didn’t want to make children uncomfortable.  I found that this was a little challenging to balance, as I naturally am more reserved when it comes to showing warmth and affection.


 

Working with Kids:

While I work with children at Safe Haven Shelter, I enjoyed my interactions as the Easter Bunny far more.  Within the context of the shelter, I am just me.  If a child is placed in my care, it is usually in the office, where there are computers, office supplies, and phone calls.  Thus, I always feel pretty stressed out about childcare at the shelter because 1.) I have nothing to entertain them with.  2.) I am in a room full of expensive or breakable things- i.e. computers.  3.) I often don’t know how long the encounter will last.  4.) I may have other work to attend to.  5.) I am not actually all that fun or interesting to children.  As the Easter Bunny, I was immediately fun and likeable.  Afterall, I am the one who brings candy and hides eggs.  On several occasions, I was able to ride on the mall train which was a grand entry and an opportunity for sort-of dancing.  While I could not speak, I could wave, gesture, high five, and pretend to hop.  In all, it was great to NOT be boring old Heather, who has nothing to offer children.  Really, being the Easter Bunny is the closest I will ever be to being a celebrity or God. Image may contain: 1 person, smiling, sitting and child

(a photo of a photo- of my friend Jenny’s niece)

 

Labor:

From a Marxist perspective, all workers sell their labor power in exchange for a wage.  Labor power is not only labor (i.e. selling shoes, making shirts, paving roads, or other examples of the act of working).  It is time, work, along with the whole human being.  In short, every worker sells their work and time, but also their personality, body, and the sustenance the person (physical health, mental health, caloric use, bodily wear and tear, etc.).  My temporary gig as the rabbit was a “hobby” job or one that I did more on a whim than for my actual survival.  Therefore, I didn’t feel particularly exploited.  At the same time, I think it would be very hard to be the bunny all year long or as a professional job.  There are some people (such as Disneyland workers) who do not have the luxury of a two week gig.  Thus, I think it is useful to illustrate the way in which this form of work is exploitive (as all work is).


When a worker sells their labor power, they are selling themselves.  In the bunny example, the worker is invisible, hidden inside a stuffy, hot suit.  The sweat of the worker, the inability to scratch an itchy nose, immediately use the toilet, easily ingest water, move hair that has flopped into the face, to speak, to see beyond the periphery of the eye holes, etc. are all ways in which the body is subjugated in the sale of labor.  Playing the character is how the personality of the worker is subjected in the interest of the emotional labor of entertaining children.   The way in which work subjugates the body and personality of a worker is pretty obvious inside the confines of a costume.  Even other workers tended to ignore the bunny, sometimes neglecting to turn on or move of the fan.  The bunny can’t easily communicate needs.  Another hardship as the rabbit was a lack of a sense of time.  There was no nearby clock, so time could move quickly or slowly depending upon how many customers were visiting.  At the same time, the bunny was paid better than other workers.  Workers who were not the bunny were pretty adamant that they did not want to end up in the costume.  I believe that at some level they realized that the bunny produced more “value” in terms of labor output (i.e. had a harder job but also contributed more to overall profits).


But, a person does not have to be in a bunny suit to realize the bodily oppression of labor.  A waitress who has to smile and look pretty for more tips, a social worker whose stress or compassion is a strain on their mental health, and a janitor whose heavy routine deteriorates physical health are all examples of how labor is more than just our work and time, but our whole being.

Image may contain: outdoor and indoor

(A little house of capitalist horrors)

Conclusion:

I would say that the job was certainly novel.  Towards the end, I was happy that the season was over since my coworkers seemed worn out and the hours in addition to my regular work hours was making me weary and eager for free time.  It was a fun side job and more insightful than one might imagine.  While hidden in my costume, I had plenty to think about in terms of gender, consent, and labor itself.  There were fun moments.  I liked to make children happy.  I liked to play a character.  I liked the opportunity to be something other than the more serious and quiet version of myself that I sometimes am as an activist and worker at my other jobs.  I enjoyed eating at Noodles and Company at the mall and visiting the mall at all!  It was something different from my normal routine.  I was also happy to have stories to share with my friends, coworkers, and family.  I even had a several people visit me as the bunny.  If the opportunity arises, I may be the bunny again next year.  Being the Easter bunny made me feel more inclined to celebrate Easter.  I visited my family and even purchased myself an Easter basket full of candy I don’t need.  But, even the Easter bunny needs a little treat!   Anyway, we’ll see what next Easter brings.  And who knows, maybe I will be one of Santa’s helpers…

Image may contain: one or more people, people standing and shoes

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Easter-bunny-male-or-female

Trumpwashing: Corporations Against Trump?

Trumpwashing: Corporations Against Trump?

H.Bradford

2/2/17


There are a lot of confused and disturbing ideas in the wake of Donald Trump’s election.  I get it.  People want answers.  People want hope.  But, one of the more disturbing things in the past few days has been the amount of praise given to corporations that have come out against Trump’s policies.  Once again, there seems to be some confusion about how to evaluate what is just and good in society.  It seems that many people believe that anything that stands up to Trump is positive.  At the same time, anything that Trump is for or associated with is negative.  In other words, Starbucks and Nike are viewed positively because they stand up to Trump.  They are corporations.  Corporations are not our friend.  This is why.


Starbucks:

trump_cup

A few days ago, Howard Schultz, the CEO of Starbucks announced that Starbucks would hire 10,000 immigrants over the next five years.  These hirings would take place within the 75 countries.  Suddenly, Starbucks became an icon of rebellion.  Don’t be deluded.  Starbucks has 7,600 stores and 160,000 employees in the U.S. alone, so a commitment of hiring 10,000 immigrant employees in 75 COUNTRIES, really doesn’t amount to much.  Even within the U.S., it would only amount to 1.3 people per store in the next five years.  But, numbers aside, Starbucks is a non-union workplace which pays an average of $9.34 an hour for a barista and $11.65 for a supervisor.  While employees may qualify for benefits if they work over 20 hours, many of them are not given enough hours to survive.  This prompted over 11,000 people to sign a barista driven petition in California last summer, which decried the “gross underemployment” that they experienced at their jobs.  The CEO who is so adamant about standing up against Trump was also against the $15 an hour minimum wage bill in Seattle.  The store also has a reputation for using prison labor.  The company notoriously used prisoners to package its holiday coffees through a sub-contractor. So, basically, Starbucks profits from the slave labor of our largely racial minority prison population.  Starbucks has gotten a lot of flak over the years.  It is an icon of globalization and homogenization.  The company has faced lawsuits for disability discrimination, as one store refused to serve a group of 12 deaf people and an employee was accused of falsifying documents when she had dyslexia.  Starbucks has even gotten into trouble for failing to recycle its cups!  It seems that if there is a corporation that is clearly TERRIBLE, it would be Starbucks.  However, it promised to hire those refugees….so maybe we can all forget the environmental, labor, criminal justice, and disability rights issues.  The CEO did come out in favor of same sex marriage, but this does not redeem the corporation.  If anything, it is pink washing, or using LGBT support as a veil that hides other injustices.  In the same way, support of immigrants is a branding ploy to sell more coffee and hide the numerous ways in which Starbucks promotes injustice in the world.


 

Nike:

nike-sweatshops-05 Nike’s CEO, Mark Parker, came out against Trump’s immigration ban with the statement,  “Nike believes in a world where everyone celebrates the power of diversity. Regardless of whether or how you worship, where you come from or who you love, everyone’s individual experience is what makes us stronger as a whole. Those values are being threatened by the recent executive order in the U.S. banning refugees, as well as visitors, from seven Muslim-majority countries. This is a policy we don’t support.”  Well, this might seem encouraging, it does not redeem Nike from its history of sweatshop labor and environmental issues.  Just as Starbucks was equated with the dark side of globalization in the 1990s, Nike was equated with sweatshop labor.  Because of pressure from protests and boycotts, Nike has sought to clean up its image by increasing the wages of its workers and inspecting factories.  However, most of its factories continue to be located in Asia in countries with low wages, poor working conditions, and lack of union representation.  For instance, in 2014, workers at a Chinese Nike factory went on strike.  They made just over $1.50 an hour and often worked over 60 hours a week.  In response, Nike threatened to move production to Vietnam.  Nike was also accused of dumping hazardous chemicals into the Yangtze river in 2011.  Globally, ⅓ of Nike’s employees work in Vietnam.  Certainly the CEO of Nike was looking forward to the TPP, as this would have ended the $3 tariff placed on each shoe.  Trump’s backing out of the TPP was probably met sourly by the company hoping to extract more profits from Asia.  Perhaps this is where the critique of Trump’s immigration policy really comes from.  In any event, Nike may have cleaned up its image, but it continues to operate in countries with notoriously awful labor conditions.


All Corporations:

kfc

Nike and Starbucks are on my radar this week because of their recent announcements related to Donald Trump.  I felt that I should write about them to offer some clarity on the issue of corporations.  Really, all corporations are terrible to varying degrees.  This is because all corporations seek profit.  Profit inevitably and essentially relies on the exploitation of workers.  This is the source of all profit.  Thus, corporations like Nike and Starbucks seek out the lowest wages or cheapest coffee beans (materials).  That is, they do this until enough public protest mounts and they must change their ways or risk losing business.  Or, they do this until workers organize and demand better wages and conditions on their own behalf.  In either case, there is nothing good or noble about these corporations.  If they change for the better, it is a survival strategy.  At the same time, I do not want to overstate the power of consumer sovereignty in changing corporate practices.  While you can “vote with your dollar” to some degree, due to the alienation of labor a.k.a. our separation from production, the exact conditions of production are often unknown to us.  I do not know the exact wages and conditions of Nike factories.  This is information that I must research and even then, it is not always easy to find.  Since we come in contact with thousands of products each week, it is impossible to know every aspect of the production process.  Some consumers may be more knowledgeable than others, but none of us know the full picture.  Further, even if we have a good idea of the conditions of production, there are larger social forces such as trade policies, advertisement, and government interventions which play a big role in what appears in the market, how it appears on the market, and social desire for these goods.


It is true that some companies attempt to give more consideration to workers and the environment.  Some companies may sacrifice some profits to pay better wages or have better worker conditions.  Some may invest profits into better environmental practices.  But, at the heart of each company is a reliance on the conditions of the larger economy and a drive for profit.  So long as a company seeks profit, workers will not be paid the full value of their labor.  In harder economic times or under greater competitive pressure, those companies that seek to be more ethical will always have to chose between survival and profit.  At the same time, many companies brand themselves with progressive causes to attract more consumers and draw attention away from labor conditions.  For instance, Kentucky Fried Chicken put pink breast cancer awareness ribbons on their buckets.  How much does KFC really care about breast cancer or women?  What does eating a bucket of fried chicken do to further the cause of ending breast cancer?  Perhaps if KFC cared about women, they could instead provide a living wage and health benefits to workers.  Another example is greenwashing.  Everything from oil companies to bottled water companies have tried to greenwash their products.  That is, they promise consumers that their product is environmentally friendly.  Green packaging and promises of re-investment into nature trick consumers into thinking that somehow buying the product is ethical.  This newest trend of “Trumpwashing” is just the latest version of pinkwashing and greenwashing.  It is part of a corporate tradition of deceptive branding.


Trumpwashing:

The biggest lesson I want to impart in this post is simply to beware corporate driven rebellion.  The CEOs of Facebook, AirBnB, Twitter, Nike, Starbucks, Apple, Netflix, and others have come out against Trump.  Some of these, like Apple, Nike, and Starbucks, certainly benefit from open borders and free trade, especially in Asia, since this provides access to low cost labor.  While I am certainly for immigration, so are many corporations, as it provides a cheap supply of labor!  If companies know that people are angry, they will co-opt that anger by building a rebellious brand.  There is no rebellion in buying.  Thus, just because a company is against Trump, it does not make it good or ethical.  Take these corporate announcements with a grain of salt and a dose of skepticism.  In the meantime, continue to build the power of the people by organizing in protests, boycotts, petitions, labor organizing, and the like.

Travel and Worker Rights

DSCF0601

When I was young, I dreamed of traveling the world.  In high school, I was nominated to be part of a People to People exchange, once to Ireland and another time to Russia.  However, it was far too expensive for my family to afford.  I went to an information session and my mother very honestly told me that we couldn’t afford it.   During my first year of college, I met many students who traveled.  They went all over the world, spending their summers in Greece or service trips to Central America.  I didn’t have any class consciousness.  Somehow I figured that they were simply lucky or even better than I was to have such marvelous adventures.  My limited experiences were framed as personal failure, rather than the outcome of growing up in a town of 250 people to a teen parent and working class family.  In any event, hearing about these adventures made me hunger for travel even more.  It was an obsession.  I did travel.  When I was 19, I went to Paris and London on my own with money I saved from the three jobs I was working at the time (housekeeper, waitress, Headstart classroom helper).   I also went to Mexico that same summer.  That was the first time on an airplane.  It was my first passport and first times outside of the country (aside from Canada).  And, I did it entirely alone (at least the London and Paris trip).  The airport in London was far larger than the cities and towns I grew up around.  I am proud of my 19 year old self (a small town girl with many anxieties) for the bravery.

I have traveled a lot since then.  There was a great deal of longing and desperation for travel.  There was saving and creative financing (such as donating eggs to help pay for a trip to Cuba).   I’ve seen some amazing things.   I saw Hugo Chavez (the deceased former president of Venezuela) speak to crowds of socialist youth.   I’ve seen Lenin’s embalmed body.  I visited schools and universities in Cuba, even learning about the Cuban approach to sex education.  I spent a semester in Ireland living in a cottage on the sea.  I’ve been to Chernobyl and Hiroshima.  Ukraine.  Belarus.  North Korea.  The Great Wall.  The Acropolis.  Mayan Ruins.  The Colosseum.  Auschwitz and Baba Yar.   Bosnia and Serbia.  Albanian bunkers and Jeju Island.  I love lists.  Let me tell you, I make lists all the time.  Not to brag or bring others down, but I love to remember and organize those experiences.

Despite the travel, it wasn’t until about a year ago that I began to think of travel in relation to the rights of workers.  In my mind, it was always a precious luxury.   I think this is how most people from the U.S. view travel.  For most Americans, this is true.  Most people don’t travel unless they are college students or retirees.  In my observation, this is not the case elsewhere.  For instance, last year I spent a month travelling around eastern Europe and the Balkans.  During my travels, I met many Australians.   The majority of the Australian men I met worked in construction, mining, carpentry, engineering, or generally speaking, in areas connected to trades.   Not only were they working in largely blue collared jobs, they were taking extensive vacations.  My month off was enormous by American standards, but many were traveling for two or three months.  Some for more.  I thought it was quite astonishing that these Australian men could partake in such fabulous vacations, vacations that would seem impossible to the average American worker.  In the United States, many blue collar jobs still pay rather well, at least compared to many other jobs.  So, monetarily, it would be possible for U.S. workers to do the same.  The big difference though is vacation time.

1 in 4 Americans get ZERO days of paid vacation time each year.  The federal government does not required to provide even paid holidays!  So, many workers do not even get paid extra for working Christmas or Thanksgiving.  In contrast, EU nations receive a minimum of 20 paid vacation days.  Austrians receive 38 paid vacation/holidays.  Brazil provides 30 paid vacation days with 11 paid holidays.  France 30 days.  What would you do if you had a month off of work and it was paid?  Even a lower income worker might be able to travel around the United States, go to Mexico or the Caribbean, do camping trips, or spend more time with their family in their community. (This data is based upon 2014  Mercer’s Worldwide Benefit And Employment Guidelines and the Center for Economic and Policy Research)

This summer, I traveled again and this time, I observed the same trend of blue collar Australian men travelling, but also observed some people from the service industry traveling.  For instance, I met two cashiers while traveling.  In the U.S., those are minimum wage jobs.  Rent can barely be paid at those wages, yet, elsewhere, even service industry workers can expect to travel.  Both individuals traveled extensively, though on a budget.  I thought that was wonderful.  Even without the paid vacation, perhaps if our service industry employees made $15 an hour, the dream of travelling would be realized.  And yes, I do idealize travel.  I do understand that it can be wasteful and damaging to the planet (in terms of green house gas emissions from planes and the commodification of nature).  But, I don’t know that travel must be inevitably damaging and that some of the negative consequences could be remedied by greener, mass transportation systems.

I think of the Bread and Roses song.  The labor movement typically demands bread, or at least bread crumbs.  Of course, this is the most basic thing- safety, security, wages, benefits.  But, maybe those things that make us more human and alive get forgotten.  It is hard to imagine travel or extensive paid vacation as a legitimate demand when there are so many other demands to be made.   At the same time, those who have it are so much better able to live full lives outside of work.  Travel also, in a way, helps people to see how things can be different.  For me, it helps me see myself as a part of a wider world, rather than just an American.

I feel guilty for my travels- as many people are strapped down by poverty (well, I have endured poverty as well for most of my life), children, responsibilities, jobs without benefits, part time work, a patchwork of full time work consisting of various part time jobs, etc.  I am privileged in many ways.  But, why can’t we all enjoy these things?  What would need to change?  The countries that offer paid time off differ in some ways.  It seems that they have Labor Parties and more aggressive labor movements.  My own job does offer several paid holidays and some rather flexible vacation time (I had three weeks off this summer for my vacation).  We also have a union.  I think then, that while the demand for more vacation time seems trivial compared to the more pressing demands of living wages, any expansion of unions, labor movements, and alternatives to capitalist political parties could potentially work towards this cause.  There is also no reason why workers couldn’t start organizations that make legislative demands for more vacation time or raise awareness of this issue.  I am not aware of any such organizations or movements, except Take Back Your Time, which seems to be driven by the tourist industry rather than workers themselves.  Since workers of the tourist industry (hotels, cruise ships, shops, resorts) are highly exploited, I am suspect of this industry’s self-serving promotion of vacation (without accompanying worker rights).

In the Republican debates the other night, Jeb Bush accused Marc Rubio of his “French work week” senate attendance.  It made me laugh inside.  If only we were so lucky.  But, there are so many myths that prevail.  Somehow economies with vacation are inferior or less productive, as if productivity is the sum of human existence.  8 of the 10 highest GDP countries have fairly generous paid vacations (well, Japan only offers 10 days).  Only Chinese workers on this list have fewer paid vacation days than us.  Of course, GDP isn’t everything.  If 40% of the food we grow is wasted- the GDP would appear high, but would not account for wasteful economic activity.  If there was a natural disaster, again the GDP might grow as more resources must be used to fix the problem- but again, this doesn’t mean that society would be better off.  Anyway, productivity and growth are not necessarily good things. Even if a person accepted this as truth, vacation doesn’t necessarily get in the way of productivity.  I would like to work like the French, the Australians, the British, or the two dozen or so economically developed countries that offer paid vacations.  I only regret that it took me so long to connect my love of travel to a larger issue of social class and worker rights.

Post Navigation