TaN: As I dig into my experiences in dealing with the average Filipino-on-the-street (usually in my neighborhood), I am gradually beginning to see and understand the reason for Mr Duterte’s extensive and instinctive use of (his so-called) “gutter” language. In many occasions, I likewise had resorted to such distasteful and self-degrading language because I realized that it is the only (kind of) language most Filipino-on-the-street would understand and respond to.
It is sad but true that even among the learned and well-educated, there are many who tend to take you for granted if you speak to them in a tone and manner that is considered well-mannered. But this is not the only sad thing. Another sad fact is that Mr Duterte seems to be unable either to switch it off (and on), to tell when and/or where it is appropriate and effective and not, or to comprehend the purpose of language and its principles.
First, language is a medium with the purpose of conveying a message from a sender or proponent to one or more receivers and can be transmitted in a variety of methodologies, such as verbally/orally and in writing. It is important to remember and understand that the language to be employed must be appropriate to the recipient — i.e., it is not for the sender to choose the language to use but the receiver.
Gutter language may be (appropriate and) effective to address slum or ghetto dwellers but they have little or no or even the opposite effect when used on the upper crust of society — “upper crust” refers to those who come from a line of being wealthy and not the noveau riche. Moreover, even if the recipient is able to understand the message using a language that is unappealing to the said recipient, the fact that the language is repulsive may produce an undesired effect or response — like when insulting words pepper an explanation of an controversial issue or expletives are included in a message intended to persuade people.
The sad thing here is the fact that many (average) Filipinos are easily impressed and won-over by tough-talk and tough-talkers. Filipinos are still predominantly very juvenile in their maturity level and are very much personality-based in their preferences/ This explains a lot why, despite their best and sincere efforts, messages are still being either ignored (due to repulsion by the embedded bad words) or misunderstood (due to mis-appreciation because the bad words’ meanings intermingle and interfere or modified the intent or purpose) or contradicted (due to hurt feelings or sensitivities so contradiction is chosen out of spite or disgust).
In conclusion, for all intents and purposes, this tendency and propensity of the (average) Filipino — which makes up the great majority of the population — to make choices and have preferences based on personality and tough-talkers has kept Filipinos from developing as a society, as a people, and as a nation. If it is not the reason then it is certainly one of the most significant reason hindering our development and eventual taking our place among the world leading nations..
TaN: Quota systems (in the work force), especially in sales or marketing, is such an injustice and unfair labor practice. Although it is legitimate, legitimacy does not make it right or ethical. Legitimacy only because there is a valid reason for it. However, the problem is not in its existence but in its implementation. [In this temporal world, as I have always maintained, only man can be good and bad, right and wrong, moral and immoral. Everything else is amoral and, depending on the utilization, can go either way. It is man’s (true) intention and implementation or utilization that determines the difference.]
Quota systems force or compel the (probationary) employee to pursue (minimum) goals and sales — frequently difficult but not totally impossible — that benefit the business. However, should the employee fail to meet the established quota, s/he usually gets laid off — or, if the employer is considerate, will either give him/her another chance, transfer him/her to another position that does not require quotas, or lower the quota level.
Should the employee get laid off (due to inability to meet the quota), the ethical question now is what happens to the hard work or clients that s/he was able to get for the business? There is no question if the quota involves simple sales items — because due compensation would have been reflected in their regular pay — but what if what is involved is a client? The client would continue to bring revenue to the company but the employee will no longer receive any credit for it.
So quota systems have their reasons and advantages and are ethical in certain situations. This means that the quota system should be carefully and properly applied so as to ensure the employee is not short-changed.
TaN: There can never be inclusive economic growth in a labor-intensive economy, whereas inclusive growth is neither a guarantee nor a surety nor automatic in a capital-intensive economy. In fact, in any temporal system, there is no guarantee whatsoever for as long as good people remain apathetic or non-vigilant.
In a labor-intensive economy, labor is cheap while materials are expensive. In contrast, a capital-intensive economy is reversed.
It is because labor is cheap and materials are expensive that, in a labor-intensive economy, talented and creative or innovative people do and will not be able to develop inventions and technology to improve themselves — not to mention become competitive and rival capital-intensive economies.
Because materials are expensive and labor is cheap, funding for inventions and gadgetry usually have to come either from savings (from salary) or investments (from capital-intensive economies). Moreover, the invention prototype has to be thought-of and designed carefully because it is expensive for the trial-and-error method of developing and perfecting any invention.
It is for this reason why most new products and technology originate from capital-intensive economies — because trial-and-error methods are possible only when materials are cheap otherwise you have to make sure you get it on the first try, the prototype. But this is not the case. More usually than not, there will be several attempts before a functional prototype will be “perfected”. This is why cheap materials is essential for inventions and innovations.
In a labor-intensive economy, it is frequently on the receiving end of technological innovations because the innate talents of the people cannot afford multiple trials to build a working prototype due to expensive materials. There is no shortage of talents and skills but these cannot make up for the expensive materials commonly needed to produce a working model.
Moreover, it is likewise due to the expensive materials that prevent labor-intensive economies from developing their full potentials and improving their (average) quality of life. [Due to the nature of labor-intensive economies, they tend to be in a vicious cycle that dooms them to remain in an ever-developing or underdeveloped status — for as long as they are labor-intensive.]
Further, labor-intensive economies may eventually spiral deeper downwards where labor becomes even cheaper and cheaper, partly because of its characteristic of runaway population growth. Without external intervention and/or internal political will and determination, labor-intensive economies will not be able to extricate themselves from the morass and will keep deteriorating.
However, capital-intensive economies are not much better — unless really well-managed — because they tend to breed greed and affluence and seclusion. Greed because we all know how (love of) money corrupts our morals; affluence because the tendency is to be wasteful as materials are cheap so it tends to make people uncaring about the environment and think resources are infinite (so why observe the 3Rs of the environmental movement and mindset); and, seclusion because it will eventually poison the mind and heart to ensure continued prosperity and the good life and fear that others will want a piece of the(ir) pie.
Finally, it is best that a balance be struck between capital and labor or eliminate it totally and return to the ancient (but advanced) system of communalistic social existence — i.e., the principle of: From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs. [Note: “Needs” and not “wants”.] This is truly sustainable development and growth (for all).