It is no wonder that the peace-loving hippies of the 1960's sold out, turning in their flower power for a corporate job and a briefcase. Nonprofit work just does not bring home the bacon....
Here is some context for the rant that will follow: Through his Masters in Public Administration Program, Jose has been working tirelessly on a business plan for the Athens local Habitat for Humanity for a ReStore, which is a community shop where low-income individuals and families can purchase discounted building materials. Although he gets a little school credit, he is essentially working for free, often 20 hours a week on this project. Recently, one of the key coordinators for this project told Jose that with his knowledge of the business side of the project, Jose himself could manage the ReStore when it gets up and running. The salary for such work? $20,000. I am not certain, but I am pretty sure that health benefits are not included.
Here at OU, Group 3 hires, professors with PhDs mind you, are only offered $2,500 per class per quarter, and once again, no health benefits. In fact, it is a well-known fact that educators in general are not paid enough, considering how crucially important their job is. Education truly is the foundation of the lives of not only academics, but everyone, really. We all start out with a relatively clean slate, I believe, and through our families, our communities and our experience in school, we become who we are later in life. But I diverge.
Why are nonprofit workers and educators paid so little when their professions mean so much to so many people? Why does an executive at Proctor and Gamble get paid a buttload for essentially selling products? If Obama really wants to make this nation CHANGE, then why does he not provide incentives for people who stray away from the profitable sector in lieu of a career more...I'll use "altruistic" for lack of a better term, but Ayn Rand would surely hate me. I guess it is because the US thrives a lot more off of profit-building than making the world a better place for the marginalized.
In Jose's words: "Do you know who probably does have a program with incentives like that? Chavez." And he is right. Granted, every day I like Hugo Chavez a little less. There just isn't enough room for him AND his ego. But that discussion is for another day. One thing that Hugo Chavez has done right has been his social programming.
So what kind of incentives do I think should be offered? Maybe people should be (financially) encouraged to study certain subjects, like education and social work. And then there is the age-old argument that teachers should be paid more. In my opinion, teachers have the most important job in the world, and I though that long before I ever even thought I might teach. And I hear the counter-argument over and over again: "If you pay teachers more then people will try to become teachers because they want money, not for the love of teaching." Well, Obama is apparently trying to get the ball rolling to pay teachers more, but what worries me is that it is "based on how their students perform." Not that I don't think teachers should be paid more if their students perform above average, but it is the whole idea of this "performance" that bothers me. Nowadays, teachers are handed scripts to read verbatim in their classes, and McDonalds sponsors health class curriculum. Eventually under this system, will physical teachers' bodies even be necessary? Or will we just head our classrooms with a computer and fit the students with shock collars to provide disciplinary measures?
Once again, I diverge. Moving on to non-profit work... How are we supposed to make any kind of living on the wages of nonprofit work? I do not think many people are. That is why for the most part we age, get more conservative, and sell out just like the hippies. If you have mouths to feed, a family (and yourself) to take care of, you're going to head over to Proctor and Gamble rather than Habitat for Humanity if they offer you four times as much money plus benefits in exchange for the same skill set.
When I set out to do my thesis research, I expected to see the headquarters of environmental organizations brimming with mothers fighting for environmental justice for their communities and the futures of their children. Instead, thirteen out of the nineteen women I interviewed were not mothers at all. Of those six that are mothers, five of them only started their environmental work after their children became independent.
I would like to say that it isn't all about money. I want to live comfortably but I don't need luxury. But my generation has been a spoiled one, and the one coming up is even moreso. I know my parents scraped and struggled to give me the world. Although neither of them went to college, and I do not know their salaries per se, I know that if I were not an only child, my family would have struggled financially to produce the lifestyle I have become accustomed to. A la Daniel Quinn's Ishmael, I am already too "Taker" for my own good. I am too weak to just surrender my Taker lifestyle in exchange for a leaver one. But what compromises am I going to have to make in my future if I want to live a life of service in education or the nonprofit sector? Does my worry about money run completely contrary to what I should believe as an "altruistic" individual. Maybe Ayn Rand had a point, but it saddens me that people in the US (and now the world over as globalization leaves no stone unturned) are encouraged to be so selfish, so individualistic.
I could go on and on and on, but I will stop here. Am I going to sell out some day? One more thing to worry about...
No comments:
Post a Comment