i-am-xavier-jasso

[i-am-xavier-jasso]

My Critique of the Phrase "Eat the Rich" and why I wish people would stop saying it; an informal analysis

I haven't posted something like this in a couple years. I find it exhausting because I have so many other more important priorities in my life. But let's go!

Today's Paper: My Critique of the Phrase "Eat the Rich" and why I wish people would stop saying it; an informal analysis

TLDR: Stop promoting violence and use your words and thoughts more strategically.

TLDR #2: I'm struggling middle-class but eating people won't help.

[Introduction] Did you know one of the key focuses of my master's degree was Political/Economical Literary studies? Specifically Marxist Economical Theory and others like Karl Marx.

I intimately studied the passion of these writers and thought leaders. They shaped a lot of my worldview. I admired them.

So before you think I'm a Karl Marx Hater, you're wrong.

2. [Establish Context]

Did you know that the phrase "eat the rich" is believed to have originated from a bigger quote: "When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich", said by philosopher Rousseau during the time of The French Revolution?

While the phrase was originally a critique of the French Nobility, it came to represent the failures of the French Revolution overall that perpetuated poverty in the country. --->"With the monarch bloodily dispatched, the people had found they could eat neither rights nor freedom, and lacked sufficient bread to enjoy either." ( "How "Eat the Rich" Became the Rallying Cry for the Digital Generation". https://www.gq.com/story/eat-the-rich-digital-generation)

In other words, the motto "eat the rich" basically came to represent the failure of its own mission, and one that probably made the situation worse for awhile.

How ironic.

But I always think it's important to put quotes like this in their original context. Because without understanding history, it's easy to get caught up in the "echo chamber" of social media.

3. [Modern Application] Now let's focus on that first half of the sentence: "when the people shall have nothing more to eat."

Really read it.

"When the people have nothing more to eat."

Now, for modern application…

Does the distance between our wealth classes continue to grow? Yes.

Is our nation struggling? Yes.

Are we to the point of the French Revolution, where our population has exceeded food supply and widespread starvation is prevalent? No.

That isn't to say starvation isn't happening in our country. It is.

But it's not the majority. And to be clear, no amount of starvation is good, but I think most of us have access to food.

Good, healthy food? Maybe not.

The food we want? Maybe not.

But food nonetheless.

3b. [Modern Application Continued.]

Economy is incredibly complex.

And while so many people are quick to critique "the rich" and the "Big Industry" behind them, the truth is, our situation could be a lot worse without industry.

If you study the history of major employers or manufacturers, you can quickly discover the positive impacts an employer can have for the community - bringing jobs and wealth and an improved living condition to a community.

And when these companies have closed… Sometimes communities never recover.

Ever.

1,000's suddenly without jobs. without benefits.

Let me emphasize it again: Some of these communities have never recovered after Big Business left.

A strong workforce without an employer is… well, simply put: unemployed.

"But Xavier! Studies show that when a manufacturer leaves an area, it actually doesn't really impact the local economy that much!" ("Big plant closures and local employment": https://academic.oup.com/joeg/article/18/1/163/4079909)

Ah, touché.

Except this example has one problem: it points out that the reason those local economies DO recover is that the laid off employees get jobs at other local competitors in the same industry, or new companies to the same industry emerge to take the absent's place. Meaning it's still relying on industry to survive. And also the study is averaging 264 jobs lost per closure.

"Ok but this reliance on industry only happens in bad countries like the United States."

Me: lol nice try but that's a study in Spain.

Now what happens when a MAJOR employer leaves. Not just 264 jobs. Let's talk big numbers.

I'll use Volkswagen Chattanooga as an example. (not that VW is planning to close - i have no idea the state of the plant - but i know it was a leader in the VW Group so likelihood of that happening is probably very unlikely). I'm only using it as an example because it's a big employer I used to work at. That's it.

But let's imagine VW closes down in Chattanooga. Let's ballpark it and say 5,000 employees.

What would happen if VW would close?

This isn't 264 jobs. It's 5,000.

Suddenly without jobs or benefits or structure.

Not only would our economy take a hit, but so would our health. ("Association Between Automotive Assembly Plant Closures and Opioid Overdose Mortality in the United States" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6990761/)

That to re-emphasize: economy is COMPLEX.

Think about it: how would a city offset that?

I doubt eating people would help.

And while I'm sure there are plenty of examples of countries where "big industry" aren't major players, that's not the case for the US in my eyes, and it would take a lot more than a midnight snack on a billionaire to change it.

4. [Conclusion: Don't Eat People] I hear this phrase, "eat the rich" often totally misused and out of context. People using it as a rallying cry for change and economic revolution.

But you're using a phrase associated with failure! ugh.

Do we need policies and people in place to make sure our communities are taken care of? Yes!

Do we need DIVERSIFED economies (i.e. making sure a community doesn't rely on two few industries as the foundation for their economy)? Yes!

Do we need fair wages? Yes!

Do we need to eat people?

I sure hope not because that's sounds disgusting and also dumb.

This is all just morning ramblings. But my point is: economy is complex. And boiling it down to "the rich" as the problem is too simple.

And I don't think eating them would help either

5. [Footnote]

People often think individuals who DEFEND "the rich", or "Big Industry" ARE rich.

And let me tell you what: I am definitely not rich. I'll probably never escape my debt.

But eating wealthier people doesn't solve anything for me.

Are rich people too rich? Idk. They have more money than me but I think it's more about taxation and salary caps, etc. And that's a huge economic discussion there as well.

All in all: Stop promoting violence and use your words and thoughts more strategically.

You're capable of positive change and we know our country needs it, but when you use these thoughtless phrases like this you may actually be negatively impacting your ability to implement said changes.

This is big topic. I could probably write an ACTUAL academic paper on it. But I'm lazy and ranting. So there's probably holes in my argument. But whatever. 💁‍♂️

[i-am-xavier-jasso]

The beneficial, and dangerous, implications of A.I.

TLDR: A.I. low-key scares me. Also, there's a funny video of Robert Downey Jr. dancing. 🙃

---

In the world of tech, AI is king right now. It allows us to do things with a level of accuracy and speed humans just can't practically do, such as determining the highest efficiency schedule for 1,000s of people with hundreds if not thousands of variables accounted for to ensure the highest output of a workforce, all while learning more over time (Something an old employer was implementing, not my current one to my knowledge). It's amazing to see and learn about.

But the more concerning part for me the is crossover into AI-generated impersonation.

This AI-generated deep fake video of Robert Downey Jr. dancing, for instance, is very entertaining. Done well enough to convince most people at first glance, and then somewhat entertaining to realize someone has done it just as a joke. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRKwugon/?t=1

I made a comment to my wife about the potential dangerous impersonations of this technology, though. What happens when deep-fake technology is more readily accessible? What happens when someone abuses it? What happens when a foreign government takes over our communication channels, using a deep fake video of our president to deliver an AI-generated voice to tell us we're doomed and cause mass panic and chaos?

Then this morning, I get on Instagram and see a fake, humorous campaign video from Biden meant as a joke. it used AI-generated voice mapping to sound convincing enough it's him to someone not aware of the tech.

I said it as a hypothetical situation, but boom: there it was. An AI-voice over from a president.

AI-voice mapping has great, super-efficient implications in the business world. Think of creating training videos, for instance, without the need to shoot, reshoot, shoot, reshoot, edit, etc, but instead allow a computer to do it for you.

And right now safety measures are in place by some companies like Descript that prevent you from using someone else's voice. You can only map yours.

But how long can that be enforced? Or can they prove I'm only mapping my own voice? Clearly tech already exists that allow you to copy the president, right?

AI is unsettling to me.

#ai

[i-am-xavier-jasso]

“Not just employee engagement, but employee empowerment.” | The benefits of strategic employee advocacy programs and their correlation to employee hierarchal needs in a post-covid world.

Summary:  In light of a post COVID world, employers must think beyond the paycheck because The Great Resignation demonstrated the motives of employees have changed. Mental and psychological health trumps pay. That isn't to suggest mental health is a direct substitute for pay, or that employee advocacy programs can replace increased pay, but sometimes pay cannot offset the deeper needs employees want addressed: overall happiness, which can sometimes be accomplished through AE programs. This is based off a proposed “post-covid hierarchy of needs”. --- While employee advocacy programs have been around for some time, their emergence in our increasingly digital age – especially one post-covid - is more important than ever. Research shows that companies with a successful employee advocacy program are 58% more likely to attract talent, and 20% more likely to retain top talent. We can also see correlating trends: companies with highly engaged teams, such as those who implement successful employee advocacy programs, have a 41% reduction in absenteeism, a 59% reduction in staff turnover, and show 21% greater profitability.

And when it comes to brand awareness, research shows there is an average 561% greater reach when messages are shared by employees rather than by the brand’s official social media channels.

You want to talk about impact? Look no further than employee advocacy.

But to stay ahead of the game, employee advocacy must be rooted in empowerment strategy. 

So let’s dig into the basis for that.

The Great Resignation post-covid demonstrated that employee motivations have changed. It’s no longer about being “part of the big corporate brand with dreams of the window office” and having a 6-digit salary, but rather the autonomy to make decisions, the flexibility to manage work/life balance, and the recognition of doing a job well.

The last two, work/life balance and recognition, is a tricky one. 

The Great Resignation shifted power from employers to employees, with the workforce realizing that the grass may actually be greener on the other side after all. 

Fortunately for employers, experts say The Great Resignation is in the rearview mirror… but it’s being replaced by something that could be potentially equally as troubling: the trend of “Quiet Hiring” by employers, something experts list as a top trend in 2023.

Quiet Hiring is the focus on mobilizing already existing talent to address organizational needs – challenging an already-existing workforce to take on new tasks that may not have ever been given to them pre-covid. 

Quiet Hiring can be a win-win for both the company and employee because if done correctly, it can fulfill employee’s career aspirations and boost their loyalty while keeping payroll costs under control. It empowers employees to stretch the creative or professional muscles and prove themselves. It’s a way for an employee to show: “Trust me – I’m good. You just never gave me a task big enough to wow you.”

But the truth is: quiet hiring isn’t new. It’s just been paired with a fancy new name. Quiet hiring is an age-old strategy of pushing more responsibilities on workers without a proper promotion or raise, something that boils down to “asking too much from employees who may already feel overworked and burning out”… a key reason behind the 2022 trend of Quiet Quitting.

It’s a vicious cycle, and one that’s far more concerning because things are not the way they were before COVID. Employees are more likely to switch careers because so many of their peers have done so, and benefitted, over the last few years. And employers are still looking to stabilize by finding the best talent available, and employees know it and are more willing to “get while the going is hot.”

Although The Great Resignation may be coming to close, we’re seeing the frightening foundation for what HFS researchers say is “The Great Freakout”, a topic I’ll most likely address in a future article. 

So how do we address this? By address employee hierarchical needs. 

Or even more simply put: by keeping it human by remembering employees ARE human.

Employers must recognize the psychological impacts placed on employees today, and learn to balance quiet hiring strategies with obvious signs of employee distress. 

If we assign a “post-covid” hierarchy of employee needs, it almost looks like: work/life balance/mental health>recognition/reward > pay. Or:  Pay    ^ Recognition/Reward    ^^ Work/life Balance/Mental Health

Despite traditional thinking, pay is the least valuable of the triad.Studies show that employees are more likely to take a lower paying job for added flexibility… So work/life balance creates our foundation. An unhappy employee will not be made more happy with more money if their circumstance does not change. 

Second is recognition/reward - for their performance, and for their passions. But for a workforce that increasingly feels burnt out…

It will still come back to pay. If an employer is not “hitting the marks” in the fields of work/life balance or recognition/reward, post-covid employees will stare at their paycheck and think “maybe the great resignation isn’t over, at least not for me.”

Employers MUST be attuned to employee voices. 

If an employee is asking for increased pay, it’s a hint that the other hierarchal needs: work/life balance or recognition/reward, may be failing.

Sometimes higher pay isn’t always possible. So one solution is to readdress one of the other hierarchal needs with a refreshed approach - Step in: employee empowerment.

An HFS Research article may have said it best: “The Bottom Line: Invest in creating the right conditions to shift from employee engagement to employee empowerment.”

It’s not just about employee engagement, which often translates to a one-way street of measurement, but employee empowerment. Here’s the beautiful intersection:

Employee empowerment programs are mutually beneficial if implemented correctly.

Studies show that employees are actively participate in formal employee advocacy programs, those who are highly engaged, outperform their peers by 77%.

77%? That’s incredible!

And for the employees... 

- 87% of employees recognize that participating in employee advocacy programs contributed to expanding their professional network.

- 86% of employees believed participating in a formal social media advocacy program helped their careers.

- 45% employees said they felt empowered and viewed as Thought Leaders after joining a formal program.

Why? Because a well-implemented advocacy program targets one of those key hierarchy steps: recognition. 

Employees are humans, and they have unique passions and interests that often overlap with the career they’re in. If you lean into those passions, empower employees with the autonomy to speak about their passions backed with real life experiences, tangible assets, and up-skill-training, you unlock an army of employees who are more satisfied in their jobs, happier in their personal lives, while the employer benefits from better brand reach, sales, loyalty, and higher recruitment success. 

“Employees can frame that content within their authentic style and voice and leverage it to make themselves look good. When employees are publically well informed, knowledgeable and up to date in their field, they begin to emerge as thought leaders and establish their personal brands. This also benefits the company.” – PTP Marketing

A more casual way to say it is: empower your passionate employees with cool things to talk about on social media, where their peers and loved one sees it, and you may see major upticks in all the KPIs that matter... because happier employees are better employees.

 And through the “Influencer Effect”, (another topic I’ve addressed in published case studies) they will make others happier, too. 

But remember: if your advocates are not genuinely passionate or if your program lacks strategic structure, your employee advocacy strategy will fail. 

And if you can’t manage expectations on work/life balance or recognition, make sure you’re paying them enough.

---

Research sources:

EveryoneSocial

HingeMarketing

Garnter

Ardent

IVYExec

Deloitte

Edelman Thought Leadership

Altimeter

Gallup

PTP Marketing

LinkedIn

MSLGroup

HRS Studies