Why are People Poor?
The question of why people are poor is a simple question with a really complex answer and it is not what you might think.
It’s such a simple question. Right? We would like to believe that it has an obvious answer. Someone’s poor because they did not get a great education, did not have every opportunity available to them, their parents did not encourage them, their teachers ignored them, their employer did not help them develop, someone, in short, somewhere, did not do their job right. The system let them down.
Now that I opened this can of worms here’s something which you might want to spend a couple of minutes reading: Poor Concentration: How Poverty Changes the Way You Think. The question of course is not just why someone is poor (because that assumes a level of comparison which must set a standard for a basic level of being classified as non-poor which is global) but why is someone in a position where they do not have sufficient means to meet basic needs.
If we divorce this question from the multitude of variables which it brings up (things like connections, opportunities, smarts, education, will power and personality) it boils down to a couple of logical things one has to be the individual (and their innate mechanism) and the other the system they operate in. If we assume that suddenly, somehow, we are all reduced to the intellect of amoebas then biologically and evolutionary we will get a society where some amoebas will have more wealth (they came across a great food hoard) and some less (they were not so fortunate in their travels) but overall, we will have an acceptable standard of living where the amoebas at the bottom of the pyramid are not scraping for scraps.
This happens in a so-called balanced environment which seems to be capable of sustaining the lifeforms within it.
If we divorce this question from the multitude of variables which it brings up (things like connections, opportunities, smarts, education, will power and personality) it boils down to a couple of logical things one has to be the individual (and their innate mechanism) and the other the system they operate in. If we assume that suddenly, somehow, we are all reduced to the intellect of amoebas then biologically and evolutionary we will get a society where some amoebas will have more wealth (they came across a great food hoard) and some less (they were not so fortunate in their travels) but overall, we will have an acceptable standard of living where the amoebas at the bottom of the pyramid are not scraping for scraps.
This happens in a so-called balanced environment which seems to be capable of sustaining the lifeforms within it.
It’s a question of scale
Let’s scale this up to our society to see why we have not been able to create what amoebas seem so easily to be able to enjoy.
Scale in both wealth and work environments provides its own, unique set of challenges and needs to be managed effectively in order to be made to work. We have see the problems created by runaway systems with the Global Credit Crunch which allowed an aunchecked, self-policing global banking system to almost bankrupt the globe (!).
One of the reasons, which I have covered here before, has to do with the application of Capitalism as a concept which is allowed to run away with itself. Again, from science, we know that a runaway environment only has one end in sight and it is a bad one. Self-destruction is a trait inherent in unbalanced environments.
Unlike amoebas we are responsible for creating much of the environment we operate in and we are gifted with the capability to work to improve it. My contention is relatively simple and based upon my direct experience of working, at the highest level, in companies with workforces in the range of 250,000 plus. Companies of that size cannot get by, by putting in place strict controls which compel the workforce to work hard and then police them with managers (incidentally, at one level that is also the Communist model of society). Such a structure is too top-heavy with too many resources allocated to too few people in order to enable them to oversee far too many.
A system like that has built-in inefficiencies which aggregate and need more work and resources to shoehorn into a temporary fix. The result is that eventually the system becomes vulnerable to relatively small factors, requiring just the tiniest of a shove to topple. Funnily enough, this describes not just Communism but also Capitalism when left unchecked. To get back to the subject however, the companies which become global forces to be reckoned with are the ones which put in place systems which make work fun by taking away all the barriers stopping those within their workforce from working at their best.
The list here is far from exhaustive and it cuts across all industry sectors:
The John Lewis Partnership
Google
Gore Tex Associates
Starbucks (in its regenerated form)
IBM
Coca Cola
HSBC
Virgin
Toyota
Sony
Nokia
Microsoft
Companies like these do not just hire people, they hire so many people that it is next to impossible to hire ‘the best of the best of the best’ so they cannot rely for their success on the qualities, abilities and well-meaning intentions of those they bring in. So they do the next best thing: they create a culture which helps elevate those working for them, training them for their job, empowering them in their roles, removing obstacles in their work as these arise (which is what managers predominantly do) and creating, in short, the kind of work environment which allows those who work for them to bloom, develop and prosper. As a result the company also profits handsomely.
Unlike amoebas we are responsible for creating much of the environment we operate in and we are gifted with the capability to work to improve it. My contention is relatively simple and based upon my direct experience of working, at the highest level, in companies with workforces in the range of 250,000 plus. Companies of that size cannot get by, by putting in place strict controls which compel the workforce to work hard and then police them with managers (incidentally, at one level that is also the Communist model of society). Such a structure is too top-heavy with too many resources allocated to too few people in order to enable them to oversee far too many.
A system like that has built-in inefficiencies which aggregate and need more work and resources to shoehorn into a temporary fix. The result is that eventually the system becomes vulnerable to relatively small factors, requiring just the tiniest of a shove to topple. Funnily enough, this describes not just Communism but also Capitalism when left unchecked. To get back to the subject however, the companies which become global forces to be reckoned with are the ones which put in place systems which make work fun by taking away all the barriers stopping those within their workforce from working at their best.
The list here is far from exhaustive and it cuts across all industry sectors:
The John Lewis Partnership
Gore Tex Associates
Starbucks (in its regenerated form)
IBM
Coca Cola
HSBC
Virgin
Toyota
Sony
Nokia
Microsoft
Companies like these do not just hire people, they hire so many people that it is next to impossible to hire ‘the best of the best of the best’ so they cannot rely for their success on the qualities, abilities and well-meaning intentions of those they bring in. So they do the next best thing: they create a culture which helps elevate those working for them, training them for their job, empowering them in their roles, removing obstacles in their work as these arise (which is what managers predominantly do) and creating, in short, the kind of work environment which allows those who work for them to bloom, develop and prosper. As a result the company also profits handsomely.
Society can learn from businesses
Now let’s take this model and apply it to society. The number of countries which even approach it, which have elevated work to the level of art and social calling rather than sheer necessity are also the ones which are part of the world’s top global economies. Even within them, as evidenced by the Times article study, above, there are inconsistencies which are leading to inequalities which are throwing the mechanism out of kilter.
Money and the ability to make it has to be an intrinsic part of any just, balanced and viable social system.
Two questions remain here? Do I propose a solution and what has this got to do with SEO and online marketing (the subjects I predominantly cover here). The solution is not easy but, to me at least, it is obvious. Create social environments where obstacles to work are non-existent (the result will be greater opportunities, more employment and greater incentives to work) and in which stress induced by difficulties is mitigated by a system which does not place additional stress on the individual.
When I suggest this I am accused of being a “bleeding heart liberal” a closet Communist and a socialist in the making. I am none of these. I am a rationalist. I defy anyone to come up with a better, rational solution (if they do I will accept it). The naysayers also point out that such systems are taken advantage of by those within so as not to do work. Again, this is part of creating a culture, which means educating those within the system (and we ‘educate’ pretty well when it comes to promoting a message of rugged individual values within western democracies). Gore Tex Associates, for instance, hire people and never tell them what to do (it’s up to you as a member of the company to discover how you can contribute to what it does).
When I suggest this I am accused of being a “bleeding heart liberal” a closet Communist and a socialist in the making. I am none of these. I am a rationalist. I defy anyone to come up with a better, rational solution (if they do I will accept it). The naysayers also point out that such systems are taken advantage of by those within so as not to do work. Again, this is part of creating a culture, which means educating those within the system (and we ‘educate’ pretty well when it comes to promoting a message of rugged individual values within western democracies). Gore Tex Associates, for instance, hire people and never tell them what to do (it’s up to you as a member of the company to discover how you can contribute to what it does).
Social media changes things
Now for the question what does all this have to do with SEO and online marketing? Nothing per se, yet they are also linked. SEO is the application of rules of visibility across the web designed to help websites and web content of value to be discovered.
Online marketing (and social media marketing is a crucial part of it) creates, generates, and perpetuates practices and approaches which also impact upon the way we interact with one another on the web and this, in turn, affects the way we learn to work online, treat each other online and approach common issues, online.
In short, social media, has the ability to change everything by bringing into the equation greater transparency, accountability, collective bargaining power, greater voice for the individual and more control. Funnily enough, these have been the very things demanded by a ‘working class’ across the centuries which saw work evolve from something manual done in a field for the lord of the manor to something intellectual created through a computer.
Social media has been the force behind the Arab Spring and the Occupy Wall Street movement. It is the force behind what we call the socialisation of business. I believe change starts in small ways. With a thought and the ability to share it. This, here, is mine.
Online marketing (and social media marketing is a crucial part of it) creates, generates, and perpetuates practices and approaches which also impact upon the way we interact with one another on the web and this, in turn, affects the way we learn to work online, treat each other online and approach common issues, online.
In short, social media, has the ability to change everything by bringing into the equation greater transparency, accountability, collective bargaining power, greater voice for the individual and more control. Funnily enough, these have been the very things demanded by a ‘working class’ across the centuries which saw work evolve from something manual done in a field for the lord of the manor to something intellectual created through a computer.
Social media has been the force behind the Arab Spring and the Occupy Wall Street movement. It is the force behind what we call the socialisation of business. I believe change starts in small ways. With a thought and the ability to share it. This, here, is mine.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét