I also quickly realized that Dad's income would no longer cover my bills. I needed a job. This lead to a long, unbroken streak of unimpressive employment opportunities. At one point I tried a night "maintenance" job at the health clinic right next door. After spending my first night on the job cleaning carpets only to have my boss tell me in the morning I'd done horrible work, I decided to never go back. Much to my chagrin, my boss stopped by every night for at least two more weeks looking for me. Work at the place right next door? Perception says, "the convenience and commute sound great." Reality says, "never work at the place right next door." As usual, my imagination painted a rosy picture reality never delivered. I don't want to give the wrong impression here, rather, I wish to illustrate the difference between perception and reality. Although I absolutely loved my college years, the reality I experienced differed from my perception of how it would play out.
I had an epiphany about my new company car the other day that relates to political theory, and this is where I need to ask folks to throw out their perceptions about company cars and focus on reality. I understand not everyone has a company car. I am also well versed on gift horses and studiously do my best to avoid gazing into their gaping mouths. Perception says, "hey, quit whining. You have a free car." Reality says, "that car is a vital component of my employment, like a stapler, desk, computer or anything else found in a standard workstation." In addition, if a company requires an employee to attend a meeting, some training or perhaps a conference they will usually pay the airfare, hotel, food and any other legitimate business expense associated with it. In the same vein, employees don't generally purchase the chairs they sit on or those fuzzy partitions covered with pictures and pushpins that make up their cubicle walls either.
In outside sales, travel is part of the job description and salesmen travel A LOT. That's just the job. We don't work in an office. For the most part, my car is my office. Many companies provide a means to defray the out-of-pocket costs incurred by their salespeople due to frequent travel. One way they accomplish this is through the company car. This is a vehicle owned or leased by the employer and driven by the employee. That's how the company I work for does it. Every month $60 gets deducted from my paycheck, and I pay back personal mileage at 10¢ a mile; it beats gas prices. However, I have a good friend who works for another company that approaches the problem in a different way. They give their salespeople a car allowance. They then use their monthly allowance to cover car expenses related to their jobs. Until recently, I though that method stunk compared to the company car method. After all, what if my monthly expenses exceeded my allowance? With the company car arrangement I never needed to worry about that.
My epiphany, the thing I had never realized before, is that these two car approaches exemplify the difference between "the individual"/self reliance and "government"/entitlement. In other words, company car represents big government, one-size-fits-all, we'll manage everything for you. Car allowance reflects small government, you know what's best for you, take responsibility and manage things yourself. The parallels don't end there. They go deeper still.
For example, take choice. The last time I had an opportunity to order my new company car was two years ago. I could choose between a small/mid-size (depending on who you asked) SUV or a sedan. I live in the northwest. It snows; sometimes quite a bit. I routinely need to drive over even snowier more hazardous mountain passes. I also have a wife, two kids and a bunch of family that lives anywhere from seven to thirteen hours away. For some reason they want us to visit often. Hey, we all have a bit of "crazy" in us. Now, based on these parameters the choice seemed simple—pick the SUV. But there's always a catch. If I wanted the SUV I would have to pay an upfront, nonrefundable $1,000 fee for a car I didn't and wouldn't own. But I would get to go online and choose the color! I didn't really have a choice. The sedan simply would not have met my needs.
A few weeks back I got an e-mail from fleet telling me that my vehicle had 90,000 miles on it and they would replace it with a different fleet vehicle with just 7,000 ticks on the odometer. Within a week I had a "new" SUV in my driveway, and just like that, some guy from Tacoma drove my $1,000 away. Time to again throw away perception and grasp reality. My company vehicle no longer has all-wheel-drive, but rather front-wheel-drive; not quite as safe or effective in snowy/icy conditions. It has a smaller four, instead of six, cylinder engine; fun for trying to pass slow vehicles or driving up steep mountain passes. It also has a much smaller cargo area; I can barely fit my products in the back for work let alone all the luggage that accompanies a wife, and two kids. This last difference necessitated the purchase of several hundred dollars worth of roof rack cross bars and a cargo carrier. At least some guy from Tacoma won't drive that money away. In neither scenario did I really have any choices. We'll certainly make due, but this latest vehicle borders on "inadequate" for both my work and my personal needs. Thank you large, faceless, government parallel.
On the other hand, my friend had the opportunity to choose any vehicle he wanted. He could assess both his work and personal needs and then make a selection that met both. He didn't need to rely on some "bureaucrat" or manager to make those decisions for him and then try to figure out how to make that indiscriminate decision work for him. He had his allowance that he could apply to car payments, insurance, maintenance, new tires or just fuel if he wanted. He knew the total amount and could figure out the best balance to fit his unique circumstances. How inefficient is that? His employer only needs someone, whom they already employ, to continue processing expense reports they already process instead of hiring services from a fleet management firm.
Another deeper parallel, is vehicle maintenance and upkeep. My wife loves a clean car and I at least keep the interior "picked up," but not overly clean. The outside is a different matter. I hate to wash cars. Besides, I'm just going to drive somewhere tomorrow and get bugs, dirt, grime, de-icer or something else nasty all over it. So why bother? My wife still harries me to wash it, and maybe once a quarter, when it gets real filthy, I oblige her. Why should I waste my time, effort or money to keep someone else's car clean for them? I'm happy as long as I can see through the windshield and it gets me to my next client's office. Sure, this sounds unappreciative, but when is the last time you offered to keep your neighbor's car clean for him? I already paid my company $1,000 for the privilege of driving their car and I pay them another $60 each month for that same privilege whether I want to or not. Why should I now pay more just to clean it for them?
One day, as I drove down the freeway, the car started making a weird, high-pitched, screeching noise. "Hmm, I wonder what that is," I asked? Several days later I was almost as irritated by the sound as my wife, and decided to get it checked out. I called fleet. They called the local dealership. The dealership called me. We set up an appointment for several days later to take the car in. Then I called fleet back to let them know which day I'd arranged to take it in to the dealership. The dealer also called fleet to get authorization. Fleet called me back to say I could "take it in." For the meantime, they said to just keep driving it. If they didn't seem to care what additional damage that might do, why should I? That was just making arrangements to take the car in and doesn't include any of the rigmarole surrounding what was wrong with the vehicle or which repairs fleet would eventually authorize the dealer to make.
The repair process can be tedious enough that I've occaisionally ignored little things like warning lights. Thanks for the info, but I need to be 200 miles away tomorrow and I'm still 90 miles away from home right now. Often the pesky lights disappear when I turn off and restart the car. One time I accomplished this feat while coasting down the freeway in neutral. Keep in mind I'm not deliberately mistreating the car, I just need a little more out of it. I still have schedules and deadlines I must meet, so it behooves me to keep it running, but that's it.
Conversely, we purchased my wife's car. I change the oil every three to four months even though we're nowhere near the recommended 3,000 miles. If anything starts to act up, I take it very seriously. If I can't repair it myself, I'm happy to pay someone to fix it right as soon as possible. If my company car breaks down I make a phone call and they take care of everything. So what do I have to lose? I'm just out a bit of time on the side of the highway. However, I don't want my wife's car breaking down anywhere or causing my wife any problems. I'd have to pay for that tow so it's easier and less expensive for me to just prevent that from happening. Incidentally, we also keep my wife's car clean--right down to wax and buffing. The difference is it's my car and it therefore matters to me.
Unlike me, my friend with the car allowance keeps his work car clean, and makes fun of how dirty mine is at the same time. I'll even go so far as to suppose he doesn't mess around when his work car makes a weird noise or when a "check engine" light comes on. After all, it's his car and he has a stake in it. He doesn't have to waste a ton of time making lots of truly unnecessary phone calls and begging to get it fixed either.
I argue that one can draw the same parallels with all sorts of things; education, welfare and health care to name a few. Each of those things has the equivalent of a "company car" or a "car allowance" option. I once heard someone ask the question, "which is worse, an unfair, unjust private system or an unfair, unjust public system?" If my company car analogy has any validity, then I have to choose the unfair, unjust private system. It gives me a sense of control over my own destiny. I feel responsible for my own decisions and the consequences of those decisions. I tend to take better care of things that affect me personally and I have a stake in. I can spend my time making decisions that are "right" and "efficient" for myself and my family. Most importantly, when something unfair or unjust happens to me, I can do something about it. I'm not stuck with just one giant, unfair, unjust, inescapable public system. I'm not hindered by arbitrary, one-size-fits-all, no exceptions allowed, regulations or even a dispassionate, faceless bureaucracy. I have options. Basically, when it comes to my next job I want a car allowance instead of a company car, and when it comes to government I definitely want a "car allowance" instead of a "company car."
As I wrote that last paragraph, I think I had a second epiphany. I've always considered myself a realist. I also believed I was analytical, questioning and skeptical enough to avoid being easily fooled. I'm absolutely astonished by how EASILY the allure, convenience and entitlement of a company car has duped me over the last eight years. How else have I been fooled into surrendering my liberty?
