Happiness is a subjective question that is bred with choice and circumstance. The question, “does work life depend on choices we make or on forces outside of our control” has only one clear answer: choice. A person makes conscious choices and those choices create their reality. Despite the subjective nature of reality and happiness, choice is something that is clear-cut. A person chooses their job; they choose the area in which they live to find that job (city vs. country; opportunity vs. limitation), and they choose the house they buy in this location. Such assessments about choice can clearly be found in Thomas Friedman’s essay “The Inflection is Near?” in which he states, “the whole growth model we created over the last 50 years is simply unsustainable economically and ecologically” (Friedman 1).
Here, Friedman directly addresses the idea of choice by stating that “we” created this mess; not fate, not destiny, not forces outside of our control or circumstances that are irrelevant to human’s natural desire to choose. Friedman goes on to state that “we have created a system for growth that depended on our building more and more stores to sell more and more stuff made in more and more factories in China…” (Friedman 1). Here again, Friedman addresses the reader as “we,” as in, we choose our path, our fate, our usefulness.
The economic crisis to which Friedman references is built upon choice; this is especially true in a capitalistic society in which a person’s individual wealth can be mettled out as being a direct result of a person’s choice. Thus, if happiness and business coincide in the same question, then there is an implicit implication for free will as part of the design in the question’s discourse. In support of this statement Friedman states that “we created a way of raising standards of living that we can’t possibly pass on to our children” (Friedman 1).
Robert Reich states that the business world is changing because of the shift from companies to global corporations and that the business man who once thrived on individual sales can no longer keep up with the global economy (Reich 486); however, the point that sits behind this point is that a person has to adapt to new business practices everyday in order to be apprised as to the company’s future, the stock rate, HR development, retention rate, and media. It’s not as if the global economy has made the salesman obsolete, like Reich suggests; it’s more that the global economy has made salesmanship more high-impact. By diversifying one’s portfolio a salesman is able to correspond and make transactions between countries, which is just a short leap from making transactions between company’s in different states. Reich does state that the face of the workforce is changing, “also vanishing are lower and middle-level management jobs involving routine production” (Reich 489).
Through this scope of thinking many middle-job Americans lost their positions because of this shift in business; however, it must also be noted that this shift in business has given rise to various new jobs. These new jobs include foreign investors and bankers and companies wanting or rather needing to hire American businesspersons to “do routine production in the United States” (Reich 489). Foreign companies such as Sony, Philips, and Toyota are creating new business in America and therefore they’re creating new jobs. Thus the premise of the question dealing with forces outside of a person’s control does not necessarily apply. These forces have always been present in society, capitalists or otherwise. Businesses shift, federal direct investment allows from globalization of economy, and the businessperson involved must adapt. Adaptation is the key to surviving.
In business there is never a sense of security; security is a falsehood that deprives a person of choice. Everyday a worker has the option to go to work, not go to work, look for a different job, etc. And everyday a manager has the choice to hire a new employee, fire an employee, ask for a promotion, etc. And everyday a business CEO has the choice to uproot their company and move it to a foreign country, to hire more workers, etc. The only upset in choice would perhaps be unions, but here again the company has the choice to not become a union, and the workers have the choice to become or not become union.
Choice allows for a person to create happiness but only if they activate their power of free will. In business it may be difficult to separate choice from fear or greed, but it exists as a clear option. Business are not randomized, capricious entities, but follow the economy. A worker’s choice in which company they want to work for based on their history, projected sales and movement, as well as their investment history, should factor in when choosing to work there. Education breeds smart choices.
A workers does not leave their fate in the hands of a corporation or something as arbitrary as “outside forces”; they educate themselves on the company they’re going to be working for, and if they don’t like what the company is doing, their business practices, the CEO, their FDI, investments, etc. then they do not have to work for that company. Wealth is based on choice. If fate or outside choices are responsible for a person’s work life then unemployment, economic downfall, and a whole host of other elements would be the fault of a company but a person has a choice to improve their life. That’s the capitalistic way.
