Boxing for Respect

When relationships are transactional, there is a need for conspicuous action in order to earn respect. 

Like insisting that someone does half the chores. Famously, in most relationships if you ask everyone what percentage of the chores they do, it always adds up to more than 100%. We know what we do. We only see what is conspicuous from others. 

When you have to box for respect, there is a temptation to indulge in destructive behaviour. If you don’t get recognised, you may tear the other person down, “I don’t think your choices are all that fantastic”. Or you have to pump yourself up, “I am actually quite a big deal.” 

To release yourself from this wrestling match, there is a need to internalise your own sense of value. To let go of the need to be a conspicuously productive asset. To let go of the constant call to prove yourself to other people, particularly if it is conflicting with your own values. 

Then your choices can become relational. There is no scorecard. There are no metrics. You give (and receive) without measure.

Ancient Greek Boxers

Consenting Adults

Some people like hierarchy. That’s okay. Everyone has their kinks, and anything that goes on between consenting adults is fine. It’s the consent part that bothers me. I believe in institution building, but I worry about the power of “legal people” over people. When the institution gets so big that the individuals become abstractions. Roles, categories, functions, grades. Turning people into numbers for memos to pass up to boardrooms. Particularly when the negotiating power is lopsided, and on one side there is a person “speaking for the institution” (be it a Country, Company or a The People). For markets and communities to function well, there has to be full transparency and a sense of peers working together. Otherwise it is just bullying. Using the fact that someone has limited job opportunities or capital to incentivise them to do as they are told. 

Need a Crown?

Double Standards

Consistency is a great thinking tool. If you believe “A” and “not A”, you can’t believe them in the same room. I used to think you can’t be intelligent and racist. But then I read about Dr.Death. The cardiologist and former head of Apartheid South Africa’s chemical and biological warfare project. You can believe contradictory things if you switch off part of your brain. That is why Double Standards grate me so much. Business can encourage a brutal offswitch for seeing people as people. It can encourage “tough decisions” that impact people more than the business. Often those standards don’t work both ways. You don’t see people higher up the chain of command falling on their swords. When the numbers support the argument, they are used. When the numbers don’t support their argument, the Defence Attorney and Public Relations Officer replace the Scientist at the Q&A session. The business becomes a church. The danger with numbers, is there are always other numbers.

The Word "No"

“No one expects the dramatic Trevor John”, says my friend Stuart. I am generally a positive and optimistic person, but I have had to work very hard at the skill of Detachment. Detachment doesn’t mean not caring, it just means not caring too much. Not allowing any single thing to be more important than everything else. Allocating appropriate attention, but not more. I wear my heart on my sleeve a little too much for the Corporate Environment sometimes. Another friend's favourite trick was to “Poke Trev” before I went into my Annual Reviews. To touch me on my Righteous Indignation. I could easily take work too seriously, and insist on too much consistency. Sometimes you need to play the game. I wasn’t good at that. I don’t like that companies can treat people as disposable. As simple transactional inputs where there isn’t balanced negotiating power between ordinary people and the powerful “legal people” we create. The only real way to detach is to have an independent source of power. The word “no”.

Less Messy

There is a clarity to transactions. I have been broody for years, and have had time on my hands. I have regularly offered to do babysitting and very seldom been taken up. This is not unusual. I am not just a particularly scary long-haired immigrant dude. Lots of time impoverished parents tell me stories of not taking up offers of help because they feel like people are just being nice. Or they are worried about the reciprocal obligations. We like the clarity of a world where the client is King, and the boss is in charge. Where a salary is the long and short of figuring out value and worth. Where paying the bill ends things. We like it, but we hate it. Relationships are messy. They come with unmet expectations, disappointment, irritation, anger, and constraints. But hiding behind things you can count, box and end cleanly leaves us all a little lonelier. And even in the world of transactions, it is the human element that creates the most turmoil and joy.

It's not because I look Crazy

Detachment Device

Disability Insurance is the most important form of cover when we are expected to be productive assets. It doesn’t cover your ability to live. It covers your ability to earn. Those are different things. If you aren’t “useful” to someone else, the costs of life continue. Insurance Companies also provide cover for non-income earning activities like Daily Tasks, because normally when people can’t do things like open a door, pick up a cup, or walk up stairs, the world doesn’t treat them as well. We revolve around self sufficiency. Around utility. Around transactions. It’s brutal. When we think of insurance, often it is Life Insurance that is the first thought, but the sad truth is a person’s earning capacity or cost that is what is being covered. You can’t ensure life. Like insurance on a sentimental ring, it covers the dollar amount, not the sentiment. Building Capital or getting insurance are simply means to take that angst off the table. A detachment device to allow someone to be a someone, not a means to an end.  

Lotus - soaring over muddy waters 

yet still producing beauty

Seems Basic

Social Media makes it very easy to sell basically anything. The tools are there, and the numbers game is easy. If you can convince someone they have a deficiency in their life, and you have the solution. This doesn't sit well with me. Jonnie Hallman says he still has no idea how people can work a full-time job, cook dinner often, exercise regularly, enjoy weekends, and keep the apartment clean. "Seems basic, but I can't do it consistently". I believe part of the problem is we are trying to force everything into the transactional world of monetisation. We don't support the ordinary, because that is hard to turn into greenbacks. To empower relational thinking, we need to realise that not everything is a good business idea. Not everything needs to be cast as a problem. Not everything needs to be framed in a "what do I get out of this" way. Basic isn't a problem. It's a foundation. But no foundation is a problem.

What's Cooking?

Problem Solving

Money making is problem solving. The two key components are (1) Articulating the problem, and (2) Coordinating the resources to solve the problem. Barter is relational problem solving without money. All money does is abstract that exchange. It is a crude tool, like words, to count and compare solved problems. Barter ties the problem solving to individuals. It ties what you do to who you are. That is beautiful. It is also limiting. Money doesn't care if you are involved or not. It doesn't care about your story. It only cares about if the problem is solved. The beauty of building an Engine is that caring beyond the problem is the good part. Transactions are cold. Fortunately, if you build an Engine... you can focus on the warm. Don't be your job. Be your relationships.

Add Warmth

What's your Jam?

Markets are transactional. They specialise in clarity. Those who are great at business, are also great at articulating problems so they are like Jam on a shelf. Someone looking for Jam walks into a shop and sees what they were looking for. They buy it. There is a market for Jam that doesn't require any sales process. Of course, if you want to sell YOUR SuperJam©... then you need to articulate another problem. Why is any other Jam not okay? Why is their life not okay without your Jam?

Most of us end up with a clearly defined jam. We specialise in a kind of Jam we know there is a market for. Gradually as we gain experience and expertise, we only sell one kind of Jam. That Jam defines us. What do you want to be when you grow up? A Jam Seller.

The problem is that this makes us really bad at asking for and offering things that aren't Jam. That aren't our Jam. We are spoilt by the clarity of the transaction. I offered Jam. You wanted Jam. You bought Jam. We are done. In the relationships that matter, things are way fuzzier than that. They are relational rather than transactional.

Asking and offering fuzzy things is hard. It requires patience as you tease out with each other what exactly it is you want. Through trial and error. When you eventually discover what it is you want, you may not even be able to describe it. You will either just know, or know you don't have it.

The thing is, relational Jam tastes the best. It comes with conditions, expectations, disappointment, anger, humour, frustration, joy, tears, quiet, panic, anxiety, calm, pride, respect, and love.

Giving Tax Payers Mugs

Framing is everything. It is the context. 'The Endowment Bias' shows that people are willing to pay less for something that isn't already theirs, than they are willing to sell the exact same thing. The experiments to show this used Mugs. Some people were offered bugs, then offered money for the mugs. Others were offered money, then asked if they wanted to buy the mugs. Our money decisions are emotional.

Modern Income Tax was introduced in the United Kingdom 1799 to pay for equipment for the French Revolutionary War. It was supposed to be temporary, and was turned on an off till it was turned off in 1816 after Waterloo. Peel brought it back again in 1842 and it became a permanent feature of the British Taxation system.

Pitt's Income Tax

The problem with Income Tax is it gives the impression that you have been given the Mug. It creates a class of 'Tax Payers' who feel entitled to make decisions about how the money is spent. It gives the impression of Givers and Takers.

With huge countries, being a Tax Payer becomes an identity and creates barriers between between people. It becomes abstract. Instead of a pool of money amongst your community, it becomes someone taking what is yours.

I prefer Consumption Taxes. To me that feels more like you are paying a fee to society for creating the opportunities that you have benefited from. You pay for something you want. Don't want it, don't pay. Income Tax feels like someone is taking something from you.

If you imagine the world/your country was just 150 people, the dynamics change. Instead of an abstract Giver and Recipient, people have names, faces, and stories. It isn't 'you vs. the Man', 'you vs. the State' or 'you vs. them'.

A group of 150 could have 75 people paying in more money than they are receiving, because they are part of a community. Instead of transactional, it becomes relational. We know that some people bring in money, and other people do other things. Suddenly people know each other, and that changes the framing.

A Community Wealth Fund (CWF) could be built up by those 150 people as an Engine for the Community. Eventually, that CWF could pay everyone a Universal Basic Income. If that went viral, a sufficient number of CWFs would ensure no one was left out of society. Not in an abstract way. In a way where we saw each other. Where we knew each other. That is a world I want to live in.

Mug Shot