An Appeal to the Economy

Via an open letter to the precariat

By Tim Beary
Reader Contributor


Dear you,

Sorry to hear about your recent misfortune. It sounds like you’ve had a stroke of bad luck (forgive me, I couldn’t avoid the pun). I suppose it’s not surprising to hear that you suffered a stroke, considering all that you’re going through. I’d love to help, sincerely I would, but I’m not sure if you got the memo: helping others just isn’t good for the economy.

It’s unfortunate to hear that you’ve lost your job. Hey, we’ve all been there. Well, I personally haven’t — I, as you know, inherited the family business — but I still feel your pain. I really do. In your letter, you were saying that you thought it was “unfair” that you got laid off after you asked for a raise. But I hate to tell you this, my friend: fairness is detrimental to the economy.

I guess it’s safe to assume that now you’ll lose your healthcare plan as well? This must be an added stressor, especially considering that you’re a diabetic, and insulin costs have nearly doubled in the last few years. But please, don’t go on thinking that “Medicare for all” is the answer — universal healthcare would be disastrous to our economy.

Maybe you can apply for one of those so-called “green jobs” that the pinkos in Congress are talking about. I suppose raising taxes on the job creators like myself is how they plan on paying for that endeavor? Well, Margaret Thatcher said it best: “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” That’s exactly what’s wrong with our country today: wealthy people are running out of money. Besides, caring about the environment just isn’t good for the economy.

I imagine it’s going to be harder to send your kids to college now. But let’s be honest, with all of that lead in their drinking water they probably wouldn’t do that well in college anyway. Perhaps a correctional institution would be a better fit for them. Prison labor is cheap, which means it’s good for the economy (no, it’s not a violation of the 13th amendment so long as it’s a form of punishment).

Sorry to hear about your biopsy results. I suppose it was to be expected, seeing as how you worked at the chemical plant for all those years. Personally, I never understood why you worked there — I never would have. (You make your own destiny!) You may be thinking: “government regulations would have prevented this.” However — yep, you guessed it — regulations are just plain bad for the economy.

I’d love to help … er, alright, you got me, who am I kidding? I think we both know that I don’t have a strong desire to help anyway. However, by maintaining the outward appearance that the economy comes first, I can effectively diminish any feelings of guilt that I may have. Moreover, other people are less likely to think that I am indifferent to your suffering.

I hope you’re not upset with me. All of us must publicly exhibit a concern for the welfare of others — whether it be genuine or merely an affectation. Privately, however, this is clearly in conflict with my proclivity to be primarily — or perhaps exclusively — concerned for my own kin. This is the catalyst for my cognitive dissonance: I may be compelled to help, but making sure that others have health insurance, or have enough food to eat? These things just aren’t that high on the priority list. My solution is simple: I convince myself and others that helping is, in fact, hurting.

Because I am greedy — much like Gordon Gecko — I must emphasize the fact that “greed is good” for the economy. Likewise, because I am immoral, I must convince others that morality is bad for the economy.

You see, for me, there is only one logical course of action: that is for me is to rationalize whatever is convenient.

So, for now, I’ll perpetuate the charade — and again I’ll tell you: I’d love to help…

But helping others just isn’t good for the economy!

Thoughts and prayers!


The self-made mannequin

P.S. Have you tried pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps? (That’s how I clawed my way to the top of my dad’s boot factory).

While we have you ...

... if you appreciate that access to the news, opinion, humor, entertainment and cultural reporting in the Sandpoint Reader is freely available in our print newspaper as well as here on our website, we have a favor to ask. The Reader is locally owned and free of the large corporate, big-money influence that affects so much of the media today. We're supported entirely by our valued advertisers and readers. We're committed to continued free access to our paper and our website here with NO PAYWALL - period. But of course, it does cost money to produce the Reader. If you're a reader who appreciates the value of an independent, local news source, we hope you'll consider a voluntary contribution. You can help support the Reader for as little as $1.

You can contribute at either Paypal or Patreon.

Contribute at Patreon Contribute at Paypal

You may also like...

Close [x]

Want to support independent local journalism?

The Sandpoint Reader is our town's local, independent weekly newspaper. "Independent" means that the Reader is locally owned, in a partnership between Publisher Ben Olson and Keokee Co. Publishing, the media company owned by Chris Bessler that also publishes Sandpoint Magazine and Sandpoint Online. Sandpoint Reader LLC is a completely independent business unit; no big newspaper group or corporate conglomerate or billionaire owner dictates our editorial policy. And we want the news, opinion and lifestyle stories we report to be freely available to all interested readers - so unlike many other newspapers and media websites, we have NO PAYWALL on our website. The Reader relies wholly on the support of our valued advertisers, as well as readers who voluntarily contribute. Want to ensure that local, independent journalism survives in our town? You can help support the Reader for as little as $1.