A little while ago, I wrote a
piece that appeared in The American Spectator with
many observations about the recession. One was that among the
people I knew who were unemployed, most had poor work habits or
personalities that were difficult to work with. I said there were
major and glaring exceptions to this observation but among my
small circle, it was true.
A fellow named Aaron Crowe, who describes himself as an
“…underemployed writer…” or something similar, apparently was
disturbed by this suggestion. He
wrote something angry about how offended he was that I would
say that most of the unemployed had poor work habits or difficult
personalities. He seemed to think that even though I had
not said so, I was describing the mass of the unemployed in my
essay. He was REALLY REALLY ANGRY about it. Somehow, he
associated this in his mind with the idea that all Irish were
drunks. (This kind of thinking could have something to do with
his underemployment or maybe I am just mistaken here.)
Anyway, all kinds of blogs and leftist websites
picked this up and ran with it, one even suggesting that
somehow I was part of a GOP plot to deny unemployment benefits to
the unemployed even though I am on record contra that
position.
So, I spent most of today thinking about this issue and
with great respect to Mr. Crowe, may I please offer a few humble
thoughts?
1. I have a small circle of friends and acquaintances.
Their experiences may be totally different from the experiences
of the rest of Americans.
2. Within that small circle, the persons who are long-term
unemployed are generally, with some exceptions, lacking in good
work habits or substance abusers or difficult to be around
because of personality problems or have not bothered to learn new
skills or are wildly unrealistic in what kinds of jobs they will
accept. They are fine people and I like them but they are
troubled. This apparently has a lot to do with their economic
situation.
3. This may not at all represent workers in Hamtramck or
Passaic or anywhere else. I suspect it has some bearing on their
situation but maybe not a lot. I have not made a scientific
study, although I would like to.
4. Some kindly soul wrote on the Internet that I must be
wrong on this as a generalized matter because so many people with
these disabilities were employed three years and now are not. But
that is exactly my point. If there is high prosperity, anyone can
get a job. When times are tough — and they are really, really,
really tough now — employers tend to lay off or refuse to hire
people with low productivity — and these tend to be people with
poor work habits or poor personalities or unrealistic ideas about
work, or some combination of these factors. That at least is my
observation and I might be wrong. It does seem to make a tiny bit
of sense that if an employer has any discretion at all, he will
employ the most productive and not the least productive.
5. I am particularly struck by the fact that Mr. Crowe, my
critic, is a writer as an occupation. That is a great job. I have
been one most of my life and I love it and I am sure Mr. Crowe
does, too. But chronic underemployment is part of the life of the
writer unless he or she is a rare bird indeed. There are so
incredibly many people who want to be writers and so few who are
able to make a living as writers, and this situation is getting
worse so painfully rapidly, that writers just have to accept that
they will often be unemployed or underemployed unless they are
truly exceptional. Most writers, or course, think they are
exceptional, but alas, the market makes that decision. I wish Mr.
Crowe well. I have been where he is on many a day, and I admire
his eagerness to seize any opportunity to get exposure. Even so,
writing is a tough gig. To believe one is entitled to earn a good
living as a writer because he wants to is the essence of
unrealism, a sort of magical thinking. People who
realistically will take any job that comes along can — in my
limited experience — get work, even in this difficult era.
People who insist on having glamour jobs like “writer in the Bay
Area” may often be disappointed.
6. I am guessing that the point that Mr. Crowe and his pals
on the left were trying to make is that because I pointed out a
truth about the unemployed I know is that I am hard hearted. This
is painfully the opposite of the truth. I am 65 now, as Mr. Crowe
thoughtfully pointed out (in the context of suggesting that I am
either insane or demented, a very sophisticated way to begin an
essay). The main reason I am not as well situated for retirement
as I should be is that I support so many unemployed people —
some of them writers. It is the bane of my wife’s existence that
money she thinks should go to our savings goes out to help
unemployed friends. My critics on the left are pretty free with
words of sympathy. How many of them pay for the mortgage payments
of their unemployed friends, as I do, would be an interesting
thing to know.
In any event, good luck to you, bloggers. Keep coming
back.
