What is Happiness Worth?

As I stood enjoying the showmanship of Dave Grohl and the Foo Fighters, a thought kept popping back into my head; if money could buy happiness, this would be it. Sure this moment would pass and it did, but for those 2.5 hours, I was truly happy and I would gladly pay the ticket price again and again.

 In reflection of this amazing concert, two things struck me as interesting:

1. Dave's comments that he believed that Adelaide still had a rock and roll music scene;

2. The subsequent comments from AJ Maddah and random fans.

For those that don't know, AJ Maddah is the lead promoter for the Soundwave music festival. AJ Maddah has indicated that Soundwave may not be returning to Adelaide in 2016 due to poor ticket sales. As such, this essentially leaves Adeladie with two 'music' festivals; Stereosonic and Future Music Festival (Woopty doo *Sarcasm intended*). 

Which brings me to the point of this post; the question of whether you can put a 'price on happiness?' Or more specifically 'At what point do you stop paying for happiness?'

It would be unfair to make this assessment without a few assumptions. As such, one of my main assumptions is that people do not behave rationally - why else would we pay hundreds of dollars to see someone scream and play a guitar (the foo fighters are not exempt from this). However, I am of the belief that there is a tipping point; the point where the irrational becomes rational. That is why no matter what your beliefs, backgrounds, personal tastes and so on are, you may initially be 'irrational' compared to another but at some point everyone reaches the same rational position (as all money is finite).

Personally, I don't get a lot out of metal and punk (the majority of the Soundwave 2015 lineup). To me the majority of metal and punk is not about happiness but is instead about providing an outlet for frustrations and built up emotions. This outlet is definitely required for 'sanity' reasons so this then poses the question; why are people being so rational when it comes to purchasing (or not purchasing) Soundwave tickets?

Let's contrast this with the Soundwaves of 2011 and 2013 where 'mainstream' bands such as Queens of the Stone Age and 30 Seconds to Mars (2011) and Blink 182 and Linkin Park (2013) were in attendance. I would go so far as to say that unlike the recent headlining bands, these guys appeal to a wider range of people chasing 'irrational happiness.' As such, if you have a diminishing 'irrational happy pool' surely the number ticket sales would exponentially decrease when you consider rising ticket prices (economics 101).

This is also why I'm not surprised to hear that the festivals that are no longer providing 'widespread irrational happiness' are failing (see Big Day Out who tried to mash the molly enthusiasts with the hardcore rock n rollas and resulted in sending both groups home unhappy).

Even this guy can be happy

It might be an optimists view (money NOT being able to buy happiness is the pessimist's view) but I think everyone generally wants to be happy (even Voldemort is chasing his own version of 'irrational happiness'). As such, when promoters chase profits they can sometimes be blindsided about what truly sells an event; the provision of irrational happiness.

Let's now take this to a wider audience and consider sports by comparing horse racing and cricket. Two things are obvious here. Attendees of horse racing are not there for the actual races. It is the promise of fun and happiness (with winning money on a race being a side bonus) that ultimately sells the event. On the flip side, unless you are one of the privileged few that is able to hang out in the members area and get trashed off many a beer, chances are you won't be attending the cricket unless you are a fanatic (very much a niche market these days - Australia playing is the exception). It's extremely obvious which one is providing the 'irrational happiness' and which one provides the rational.

Let's also consider two of the best paid sports in the world; European Soccer and American Baseball. The salaries on offer here are astronomical compared to other sports around the world; to the point that people love to critique the wages paid, whenever there is even the slightest slip up from any sportsman. Ultimately, if the fan is paying the wages, its not the sporting ability or professionalism that governs the salary. It is the promise of irrational happiness and whilst this illusion exists, their wages will continue to be justified.

Interestingly, I think you could almost equate any monetary transactions as a trade for happiness (or at least future happiness). Why else would we pay 'overpay' for something if not for the assumption that everyone is chasing their own version of irrational happiness? Penny for you thoughts?

#Hanbaobao

Follow me to stay up to date:
Instagram: @the_over_correction
Facebook: facebook.com/theovercorrection

Alternatively, any sharing of a post using the share bar below would be greatly appreciated and would be greeted with multiple imaginary high 5's.

Your Ego's Best Friends

For many people, the word 'ego' is a negative subject and is often associated with prejudicial judgement - think Kanye. Contrary to this belief, I like to argue that 'ego' is good. Ego is what drives you in life and essentially decides whether you succeed or fail. However, just like any person, your ego is easily influenced by his best friends and it is this influence that essentially feeds your ego.

Is Facebook the right friend for your ego?

Resentment is one of your ego's friends. However, unlike another best friend; ambition - who continually pushes your ego to succeed), resentment is that toxic friend your ego should have dumped years ago. Fortunately for you, resentment isn't always around. He's like one of those friends that blow in and out of town but when he's in town, you two are inseparable and it only gets worse the longer he's around.

Chasing an achievable long term dream?

Let me give you a classic example. Think back to a couple of years ago and find someone that you thought you were at a similar level with. It could be sporting ability, career success or even dollars in the bank account. Now think about what's happened in the following two years and where you stand in comparison to said person. Chances are, if you chased an achievable long term goal, you will be further ahead of that person; especially if that person chased short term success. As a consequence you may now find that your relationship dynamic has now changed. Gone are the days where you saw each other as an equal and instead you now resemble an uncomfortable relationship. This is because egos ugly friend resentment, is in town. 

Are you getting further ahead?

This situation is magnified as your friend's fast success is probably starting to burn out (if it hasn't failed already). On the flip side, your longer term plans start to bear fruit and the gap between you two begins to widen at an exponential growth rate. The wider this gap gets, the deeper the resentment and the greater control resentment has over their ego. Now instead of ambition fueling both of your egos, you have one person's slowly getting poisoned by resentment.

Resentment stops us from going back to a beginner

I think resentment is one of the hardest things to admit. Most of us would rather build sideways with no further progress than to admit we made a shit decision and start again from a perceived 'lower' position. This is our ego being consumed by resentment instead of listening to ambition; who knows that you need a few failures before you can have true success. Unfortunately, there is no quick fix here and the only way this problem is solved is if ego can ditch itself of resentment. 

Similar to the 5 stages of grief, everyone must work their way through the stages before they can reach the final stage of 'acceptance.' If this can be achieved, then and only then can ego truly shed itself from the clutches of resentment and allow ambition to drive it to success.

Should win out every time

If this doesn't apply directly to you, I'm sure you have a couple of friends that you know this is currently happening to. The sooner they figure this out, the sooner it will make everyone happier. Life is definitely too short to let resentment get in the way of ambition.

#Hanbaobao

Follow me to stay up to date:
Instagram: @the_over_correction
Facebook: facebook.com/theovercorrection

Alternatively, any sharing of a post using the share bar below would be greatly appreciated and would be greeted with multiple imaginary high 5's.

Is Workplace Discrimination Really Discrimination (Part 2)

In the discussion of whether the idea of 'appropriate discrimination' is acceptable in the workplace, I wanted to introduce two concepts that would form the basis of my argument. I first presented the idea that every company or business is selling something. I then discussed the defining component of a sale, which i quantified as being dependent on trust. Part 2 of this series will introduce the second idea, I alluded to in Part 1.

Let's begin.

2. Who is the Most Trustworthy?

In Part 1 we learnt that intimacy was required in order to develop trust. By this rational, the person that is most intimate is the most trustworthy.

So then, maybe the question really is not 'who is the most trustworthy,' but instead is, 'who do we want to be the most intimate with?'

I would say that the person 'we want to be the most intimate with', is the person that is going to make us look the best in front of other people. 

So if we superficially look at society (yes, that's all society is), we can by and large agree that the ones who have, look better than the ones who have not. As such, we therefore desire to be more intimate with the one who have. 

When we look at this upper echelon of society (the haves), we also see that it is very male dominated. Now, if we equate that to a company, this means that management (upper echelons) in companies will invariable be male. So when we think about who males generally want to look better in front of, I would say it is other guys. This 'Wanting to be the King' mentality means that men only want to be intimate with someone that will make them look better in the eyes of other men. 

Keeping with the company analogy, the decision makers of a company (who are predominately men) will only want to be intimate with people (predominately coworkers) who in the decision makers' eyes, have the skills to help further the decision makers' careers. 

To summarise, by this rationale, the person that makes you look the best, is the person you want to be the most intimate with and therefore this is the most trustworthy person. So who is person? This person is a male who is the most desirable of all; i.e. the who has the best combination of brains, looks, height, charisma and power - 'The Ultimate Man.'

Society has obviously come a long way since these days where the aforementioned conclusion was accepted as fact. However, this old fashioned thinking still exists in the workplace; especially in the upper echelons of society and businesses. This doesn't mean you can't succeed if you don't fit the required stereotype. There are plenty of cases where it has happened. It does however, mean that you have to be smarter than the average competitor.

This concludes Part 2. I will use the ideas presented in Parts 1 and 2 to make my case for whether 'appropriate discrimination' should be allowed in the workplace and how you can overcome it. Stay tuned for Part 3 - The Conclusion.

#Hanbaobao

To stay up to date with all the latest posts follow me on:
Instagram: @the_over_correction

Facebook: facebook.com/theovercorrection

Alternatively, any sharing of a post using the share bar below would be greatly appreciated and would be greeted with multiple imaginary high 5's.

Is Workplace Discrimination Really Discrimination (Part 1)

Today's topic has been inspired by a dedicated reader. Thanks for the great ideas people.

I've been tossing up how to present this and I think I've now worked out my opinion. It's going to take three parts so i apologise for the delay in getting to the conclusion. Parts 1 and 2 will present two ideas or thought processes that will allow me to make my final argument in Part 3. Hope that makes sense, let's begin.

Workplace discrimination is discrimination. There's no question about it and it should not be allowed. However, if we look at it another way, maybe there is a place for 'appropriate discrimination.'

I want to stop here and present the first idea.

1. The Beauty of Trust

No matter what working environment you are in, your company or business is in one way or another, supplying a service to a customer who then buys that service. There's no way around it. It's just simple business. Many sales equals a successful business. However, the key thing to remember is 'what is the key point to a sale?'

Would you trust this?

I say it's trust. Trust can mean many things. It could be the trust that you are getting the information you paid for. It could also be the trust that the seller has been completely honest with you. It could also be the trust that that you are getting the quality that you require. No matter what the sale is, if there is no trust there is no sale.

Now let's take this to the next level.

I say that trust is a function of intimacy, reputation and risk. By this I mean:

Trust = (Intimacy x Reputation)/Risk

The average person will have no control over reputation so let's assume that is constant. 

This means that the two variables that influence trust are intimacy and risk.

A. Intimacy

Intimacy is your personal connection to the customer or client. How intimate you are will decide how much trust you get. 

B. Risk

Risk is the opposite of intimacy. As such, the higher the risk the less trust you will get. 

The conundrum of all this is exactly how much trust someone needs for the sale to happen. By this, I mean a low risk transaction does not need a huge amount of intimacy to ensure the sale goes ahead (think cafes, supermarkets and mid priced clothing stores). Similarly, a high risk transaction, needs a huge amount of intimacy for the sale to go ahead (think large business acquisitions).

So now you should have an understanding of what constitutes trust and the requirement for a sales transaction. This concludes Part 1.

Stay tuned for Part 2.

#Hanbaobao

To stay up to date with all the latest posts follow me on:
Instagram: @the_over_correction
Facebook: facebook.com/theovercorrection

Alternatively, any sharing of a post using the share bar below would be greatly appreciated and would be greeted with multiple imaginary high 5's.