Starving the Monkeys: Fight Back Smarter

by Tom Baugh

  On the other hand, what if the dentists hired thugs to break the teeth of potential clients, thus necessitating repair? Then these dentists would join the ranks of the lawyers, the accountants, and the monkey electorate.

  Law In a law firm, no one is a high value idea worker. As with the tax preparation firm, no one inside can create a single thing, and only serve to mitigate harm, suppressing -ΔQ, to their clients, or inflict harm, increasing -ΔQ, on someone else's clients. The harm being inflicted is purely artificial, and usually stems from someone demanding some value to which they are not entitled.

  The influence of lawyers, the highest evolved form of the collective, on our society is far out of proportion to their knowledge of how to create value, which is minimal at best. Monkeys demand that their politicians, out of proportion to their representation, be lawyers in droves. We listen to the media pundits, most of whom are lawyers, especially in conservative circles.

  Worst of all, we demand that judges, both those in robes and those who sit in regulatory positions in commissions and special panels of all kinds, be lawyers. Judges in robes, as envisioned by the founders, were intended to sit in judgement, not of the individual, but of the collective which seeks to impose its will upon the individual. So long as the law was being applied impartially to individuals, the judge was to be silent. The judges were to act only when the law was twisted to single out men, or when the law itself was in violation of the rights of the individual.

  Now, we empower judges to destroy the individual, as well as extend the law when it is insufficient to oppress by itself. And we hire lawyers for this purpose, who are the most skilled among us at twisting reality to suit their purpose in the moment, to be judges to rule us. Instead of protecting us from men like them. It is from this perverted ethic that we empower commissions and panels to seek ways to extend the law even further against the individual. And the monkeys staff these bodies with lawyers as well.

  Those who know the least of any of us of how to create value we place in the position to most control those of us who do. Why? Because the mass of the monkey collective demands it. While we were learning how to create, lawyers were learning how to destroy on the behalf of their clients. Who better then, the collective reasons, to employ in positions of power to steal from us en-masse? Don't blame the lawyers. If they are locusts, it is only because the collective releases them upon our crops to eat on their behalf.

  I could go on and on, singling out each industry for abuse, and waxing poetic about the virtues of the thinker. I could continue praising the classic American worker, contrasting this individual to the perversion of this theme which has soaked into our national fabric today. The point is, though, that in whatever industry, the high-value idea workers are those who genuinely create value. All the rest just move stuff out of the way to one extent or another, while the worst ones actively get in the way of the idea workers. Briefly, then, here are some examples of support roles which exist just to mitigate -ΔQ, some of which I've touched on already.

  Administrative and Clerical Management exists solely to remove obstacles, or -ΔQ, from the path of idea workers. Once the executive level has set direction, assigned priorities and allocated resources, it is the role of management to exercise those policies as effectively as possible. Managers can only be idea workers to the extent that they creatively recognize obstacles and remove them. Some managers treat the idea workers in their charge as if they are cogs in the machine, when instead the idea workers are the machine itself. This misunderstanding can only place more obstacles in their path, and thus weaken the organization's ability to provide value to their customers.

  Human resource departments, like tax accountants and lawyers, are regulatory compliance workers who exist solely to mitigate -ΔQ. But, in their zeal, the workers in these departments often create additional -ΔQ. In their role, HR professionals often come to see themselves as advocates for the oppressed, a corporate version of social workers. Once this flip in attitude occurs, there is practically no limit to the damage which they can inflict upon even the most sensitive and tolerant organizations. For without oppressors and victims, from where would they get their pay?

  Clerical and other assistance worker positions were once formed to assist managers and executives and idea workers with the tedium of paperwork, as well as to provide creature comfort to assist the subconscious mind. Modern computer automation has more or less replaced their original core functions.

  "Mindy, please (get me/put back/tuck this in) the Abraham file," a function which is now performed by webservers and database engines.

  "Steve, draw up this plat and let's see if the lines close," a function which is now performed by drafting software.

  "Jane, get Evans on the phone," a function which is now performed by email or contact lists connected to speed-dial.

  "Sue, turn this sketch into a flyer, get a copy out to the team, and let's see how it looks," a function which is now performed by collaborative software.

  "Jan, call the staff and get them together for a meeting on Tuesday afternoon so we can check on their progress," a function which is now performed by task management software.

  "Ye hundreds in this room, perform these simple calculations over and over. By doing this, let's see if the hydrodynamics of plutonium implosion can destroy a city or end a war," a function which is now performed by numerical analysis software.

  Other ways in which clerical staff helped the idea workers are now considered taboo. This change was demanded, we are taught, by the clerical staff itself, or their well-meaning advocates, even as their other functions above were becoming obsolete.

  "Sally, bring some coffee in for the meeting please." This function is now considered demeaning despite how it assists the idea workers to reach their flow state, this creature comfort now satisfied.

  "Felicia, (take/pickup) my dry-cleaning, please," so that the idea worker could stay in flow longer, and thus create more value to pay Felicia's check.

  "Bob, get over to my house and cut the grass, please. While you are there, wash my Infiniti if you would," are all functions which enabled the idea worker to stay in flow longer. In addition, this maintenance task, when completed, presented a successful image to those who relied on her the most. Including her family as well the clients she would entertain that evening.

  In many cases, the sight of an attractive and subtly sensual young woman attending to their creature comforts sent the further creature comfort message of "All is well in our tribe. Enjoy and prosper." And in so doing both comforted the idea workers and motivated them to excel to impress. Even females in power, executives, management and idea workers alike, secretly enjoy a sweet, pretty, intelligent girl serving them, if for no other reason than the feeling of status it gives them. "Now earn that status and think," the message subtly implies to both genders. And the sweet thing was successful only to the extent which she used her mind to foster this productivity. In her work she traded her talent to those who would most recognize her value, punishing the ungrateful and rude by her departure.

  Personal services such as these have now been defined as abusive, and akin to employment rape, presumed advocates of these poor workers shrilly claim. Even imagining such service is considered demeaning and programmed into us as unacceptable. And so, the clerical and assistant functions which cannot be automated away have been regulated away. This leaves only a shell of their former utility, as we then put speaker-phones and intercoms and harassment suits into their hands instead. Thus, creativity suffers twice.

  Software and Information Technology Along the way, information technology (IT) positions evolved as the worthwhile functions of clerical and assistant positions became automated. After all, someone needed to write that software to analyze all those punchcards. The first software workers were true idea workers, and generated enormous amounts of +ΔQ in their own right.

  Most of the software professionals, at first, wrote the software which enabled the purpose of the organizatio
n, such as the database software which replaced filing. In so doing, for a brief period of time they were true idea workers, creating +ΔQ in the form of new machinery which the other workers would operate. Only this time, the machinery was the software which enabled other idea workers, rather than presses and drills and conveyer belts. At some point, this first generation work would be complete, the database and numerical analysis and project management machines now humming away in service.

  But then, a schism developed as regulatory compliance grew to fill the void which computer automation created. Some software workers began to work on the systems which managed the growing complexity of taxes, or managed the employee records to track harassment risks. This class of software workers became no better than the tax accountants or the lawyers, who only exist to mitigate sources of ΔQ. With the regulatory landscape always changing and encroaching, the employment of this kind is seemingly without bound.

  Over time, the software machinery turned its output to grinding out compliance products. Each organization turned its efforts to building virtual factories, with blinking lights and whirring tape drives, which did nothing but obey. It would be just as absurd if a car-maker built an entire manufacturing plant to create shiny new automobiles which reached a lobby where a loading dock should be. There, the cars are smashed into shiny new bits by regulators who operated presses built by the further slavery of others for this purpose of destruction. And yet, because most of us never see the compliance machinery of computers and software, we don't see the absurdity of it. Nonetheless, the collective benefits, as only the large, who pay their ransom in the form of jobs, can afford its cost.

  As these electronic compliance factories grew in size and complexity, the pointlessness of it all began to infect the minds of the software professionals themselves. Over the years, the quality of work began to drop as the tools seemed easier and easier to use. Memory expanded, computers became faster, software trickery such as ever-changing operating systems and development tools made keeping up with these advancements seem more important than correctness.

  "Computer problems" entered the lexicon as an excuse, when no one would think to say, "well, Bill just dicked it up again." Excuses and lack of situational awareness would have been considered fatal to software written for the companies' strategic use. Yet these same excuses seemed reasonable when applied to a product which would be smashed as soon as it was finished.

  Armed with this excuse, the software professionals, many of whom created the computer problems in the first place by their growing laxity, began to be seen as functionaries who fed the machine rather than its skillful trainers. So the skillful artisans, overpaid in the eyes of the collective, were weeded out as the field was opened to more and more industrialization of the software industry. Importation of those whose parents were slogging around in rice paddies or polluted rivers, but now ordained as essential skilled workers because of the expense of hiring experts, didn't help.

  The strategic software, growing only as new efficiencies could be imagined to rest on the old, advanced only slowly. For decades, new databases, merely larger or more feature-rich versions of the previous ones which were working fine the day before, were marketed as the salvation of all. Only rarely did a true innovation arise which enabled the idea workers in the field; most innovations were just hype intended to scare executives into expensive overhauls. Without a sufficiently large stick, however, many wouldn't have paid these ransoms.

  The stick was compatibility, a manipulation which signaled the entry of the suited monkey into the world of software. No one would think to coerce a leather artisan to throw out his old tools every few years, only to replace them with a set containing punches and mallets with heads at different angles. It might take him months or years of awkward adjustment to regain his former skill. Yet, just as he was comfortable with using them a few years later, we might demand he throw them out again to buy another differently awkward set.

  And yet, exactly this same kind of nonsense infected the world of software. The result? Continued buggy software as the developers struggled to keep up with the ever-changing operating systems and development tools. These developers were hardly able to prevent new bugs from creeping in as they molded the old to fit the new. Never mind fixing any of the old bugs, or implementing new strategic features. They didn't mind much, though, this meant job security. Or so they thought.

  At least Bob had a chance to convince his manager to not use Material Z. He could at least point at figures on a data sheet and make his case. The executives who increasingly relied on software, though, had no chance. Without any objective way to argue against this new feature or that new paradigm, the executive was easy prey to rabid salesmen. And glowing literature which extolled the virtues of new operating systems or objectoriented design or client-server architectures.

  It wasn't that these new things were necessarily bad. In the hands of a skilled artisan, an object-oriented design methodology could produce exceptional results. But in the hands of a monkey this same paradigm could easily destroy your relationship with each and every customer. A scalpel in the hands of a skilled surgeon could save your life. But this same tool, handed to a monkey, might shred every piece of furniture in your house. Some of these new tools were the equivalent of taking the scalpel away from the monkey, and handing him a laser. Now he could destroy at a distance.

  Each new must-have feature, some necessitated by regulatory compliance, some by the fear of the competition armed with better tools, came with the ransom of compatibility. This ransom was readily paid by executives and managers who lacked the time to learn enough to protect themselves as they struggled to keep up with new ways to be sued out of existence.

  Our ancient leather artisan might need a new tool from time to time, as old ones broke or new needs arose. A thicker harness for an ox might need a new punch for a larger rivet, for example. In that time, the artisan might make the new tool himself, perhaps by modifying an old one. Worst case, he would visit the local blacksmith and commission a new head to his specifications, including to fit a handle shape he found useful.

  Early software was like that; the artisan made what he needed at the time, or sought the assistance of a specialist to help him. But the complexity of the software itself placed much of it out of reach of the individual artisan, much as if the leather tools were mysteries to be used, but never understood. In that world, a new punch must be bought from a tools vendor, who could decide to only provide that tool with a handle curved to the right, perhaps. Then, our artisan would be faced with a choice. He might purchase the new tool and use it awkwardly. Or he could purchase an entire set of tools, each with right-curved handles, and hope to one day use them all skillfully again.

  Sometimes the choice itself was denied. Should the artisan break a tool (lose the disks after a computer died) or hire a new apprentice, then the new set could only be purchased with handles curved to the right. Eventually, this combination of factors would compel even the most ardent artisan to give up and refit his entire shop with the newly curving tools. Only to have the cycle repeat when the tool vendor chose to start making tools curving to the left.

  Free trade would have solved this. Such nonsense can only happen when free trade is suppressed, because at some point a tool vendor in a neighboring village would decide to take over the entire market simply by not being unreasonable. And free trade would make sure that he stayed that way, lest he risk his own supplanting by another.

  But, as we have seen over and over, the modern economy is not one of free trade, however much the collectivists might claim that it is, blaming free trade for the flaws which they demanded. Only a decade or so ago, it was still possible for an innovator to introduce a startling new approach which threatened the growing software establishment. The few success stories we heard back then were predominantly those who were gobbled up by the larger players.

  Today, to those who might wish to start supplying software tools and operating systems to eas
e the pain across the industry the barriers to entry are already too high to surmount. And now the gulf is too wide, so wide that the larger players hardly notice the fray anymore, their position secure amidst a foam of version and compatibility changes.

  To serve this market, so many features and window-dressings must be provided that no individual or small group of individuals can undertake the task. Should they succeed on technical merit alone, their product could not be priced sufficiently low to overcome the fear of compatibility from the masses. These masses, often stung by compatibility in the past, have learned to fear that such innovative teams might have missed some detail harmful to them, should some unexpected incompatibility arise later.

  Should even this fear be overcome, the team would spend its time in its own compatibility race as it sought to implement new must-have features hyped by the originals. Eventually, they would exhaust themselves in this chase. Or, should they staff large enough to reach the market faster, they would find themselves subject to the same spiraling costs of compliance which larger staffs bring. Then, should they reach the pinnacle, they would find themselves, to preserve their own market, immersed in the same compatibility tricks which they sought to erase.

  Throughout it all, the software Bob was at even more of a loss. Now, given the changing environment of software, even the rawest novice could claim proficiency with a newly hyped tool. The hapless manager, not understanding how or why Bob might disagree, could only see merit to hiring the groundling who lacked Bob's depth. Cheaper labor and new software became the rule, as the costs of the new mounted ever higher and with progressively less satisfying results. In the face of these influences, the software Bobs continue to fade away. The cost? More and more defective products festooned with glittering lights and sexy curves.

  To co-op anyone who might stand in their way, the software giants now bestow upon the lowly servant self-defined certifications of expertise. As certified professionals, these workers hawk their proficiency with managing the raft of bugs which litter their chosen master's software and operating systems, rather than provide original value to those who write their checks. They are ticks on the software dog, and present themselves as ordained high priests of the art. They merely serve to operate the machine, installing software or replacing computers, shadows of their former selves who once were the loyal aides of their employer rather than their vendor.