조후혁의 블로그

I remember that my mother used to ask this question at the end of almost every purchasing transaction. I did not feel embarrassed at that time because she got something out of it most of time – another bag of lollies for me at least. I was fortunate that I understood the ‘customer value proposition’ in an early stage of my childhood, which allows me to extract more benefits by effectively ‘asking for more for less’. At the end of the day I got more than what I actually paid for, that was all that matters for me.

However, as I grew older, I realized that there is a negative correlation between my perceived image and bargaining. If I ask for more discount and often, then I would be perceived as a cheapskate. The fear of having my image besmirched was almost unbearable hence I naturally diverted away from the principle of ‘nothing wrong with asking for more for less’. One day I decided to analyse why I chose to abandon the principle that I adhered to for almost 25 years. The reason was obvious – my value proposition has changed when my financial status has changed.

I recall tracking every single expense, including a pack of chewing gum. One day I arrived at the outer realm of ‘financial freedom’, I ceased tracking expenses and abolished the budget that I used for almost 10 years. My value proposition has been shifted from ‘gaining more for less’ to ‘protecting my reputation’. Instead of asking for a discount, I learnt an artistry of making the seller offer me a discount voluntarily. I tended to enjoy the purchasing experience (intangible) than the actual outcome (tangible). Rather than having myself recognized as once-off customer who is not welcomed to return, I built an image of highly regarded loyal customer. I felt good at least for couple of years.

One day I was at home alone and decided to requisite some time for myself to assess my financial position since I have not done it for a while. I almost dropped my very expensive Riedel Vinum Montrachet glass when I was looking at my American Express card statement as well as the account balance of my savings account. One has more and one has none. The suffocating moment prolonged for about 5 minutes and suddenly I came to my senses, and I started asking myself this question – ‘How did I end up here?’

I was blinded. I was not able to see anything. I was not able to make a logical and sound financial decision because I was in the shadow of my foolish egoism and dandyism that completely eclipses my abilities to distinguish what is considered as a good value proposition. Building a formidable reputation and having myself recognized as a successful business man in an early stage of my life was more important than having my debt reduced and investing more in tangible assets such as shares and properties. Needless to say it was one of the worst investment decisions I ever made in my life.

Now I ask for a discount on every opportunity I get. Don’t I care about the negative correlation between my perceived imaged and bargaining? Not anymore. My foolish pride is an intangible asset and it depreciates exponentially if I have no tangible and liquid assets like cash, this is the lesson I learnt and it was ‘priceless’.

They lived happily ever after로 끝난다. 오늘 오후 얼마전 직장을 옮긴 거래처 사람 두명과 애기를 하던중에 유아들이 읽는 동화책들이 얼마나 unrealistic하고 헛된 망상에 빠지게 만들며, 또 어른이 되어서 그들의 사고에 어떤 영향력을 끼치는가에 대해서 잠깐 애기를 했다. 결론은 유아들에게 Hans Christian Andersen (안데르센)이 지은 동화책들을 completely ban하자는 결론이 나왔다. 그들과 함께 나온 내용을 머리속에서 지워지기전에 몇가지 적어본다.

1) 내 딸은 예쁜 공주고 내 아들은 왕자이다.
2) 공주는 항상 예쁘고 왕자도 항상 잘생겼다.
3) 신데렐라 같이 하류인생 살다가도 남자 잘만나면 인생 역전은 한방이다.
4) 이상적인 권선징악을 추구하지만 절대로 정의가 항상 이기는 것은 아니다.
5) 왕족에게는 신용카드도 모기지도 없었다.
6) 갈이 살면서 병에 걸렸다든지, 부부사이의 갈등, 죽음에 대한 것은 절대 언급 되지 않는다.

부모의 입장에선 자기 자신이 가장 소중하고 최고이며 대부분 객관적인 판단 능력을 상실 (혹은 무시)하고 비교를 하기도 하며, 자녀들에 false identity를 심어 주기도 한다. 여기서 흔히 사용 되는 호칭이 바로 ‘공주’와 ‘왕자’이다. 만약 당신의 자식들이 안데르센이 지은 150편의 동화책을 읽었다면 그들은 이 세상에서 자기가 가장 아름답고 가장 잘생기고 우월하고 모든것을 갖춘 귀족이라는 착각속에 빠지게 된다. 왕자나 공주가 되려면 자기 아버지가 왕이 되어야 하는데, 자유경제자본주의/민주주의 사회에서 왕족은 단순히 symbolic 한 figure일뿐 권력도 능력도 없는 그냥 허수아비 같은 상징을 뿐임에도 불구하고, 부모들의 잘못된 호칭과 동화책을 통한 잘못된 사상주입에 의해 그들은 어렸을때부터 ‘공주병’과 ‘왕자병’에 감염이 된다. 그리고 무엇보다 부모에 대한 잘못된 기대치를 형성 시키며 부모의 능력치 = 존경심이라는 잘못된 비례 관계가 성립된다.

예전부터 어른들이 하신 말씀이 기억난다. ‘예쁘면 공부 못해도 되지만 못생겼으면 공부라도 잘해야 된다’라는 말씀. 그리고 이것에 mutate된 형이 또 있다. ‘공부 못해도 좋다. 예쁘면 부자집에 시집 갈수 있고 인생 역전 한방에 가능하다’라는 말씀. 난 과연 이 말들이 어디서부터 발생 했을까 고민 했는데 그 해답은 생각보다 가까운곳에 있었다. 바로 ‘신데렐라’이다. 불쌍하게 계모와 언니들에게 미움을 받으면서 자란 신데렐라가 왕자랑 결혼해서 인생 한방에 역전한 케이스가 아이들에겐 어떤 사상을 잠재적으로 심어 준다고 생각하는가…..

신데렐라는 착했다. 춥고 배고 팠고 울면서 지냈다. 그런데 이런 신데렐라 앞에 마법사 할머니가 나와서 풀 메이크업과 드레스, 마차와 유리구두를 만들어 주었고 무도회장에서 왕자를 만나게 되었다. 애석하게도 우리가 사는 이 세상엔 이런 마법사 할머니는 존재하지 않는다. 아마도 이런것을 보고 ‘로또 맞아다’라고 표현 할것이다. 만약 현대 사회에서 신데렐라 같이 마법사 할머니가 언젠가는 나타날것이다라는 소망을 가지고 하루하루를 살아가는 것은 착한것도 성실한것도 미련한 것이다. 스스로 인생을 바꿀 돌파구를 찾지 않고 막연한 기대를 가지고 누구에게 기적을 바라는 것은 미련한 짓이다. 2014년에 이런 일이 있다면 신데렐라는 왕자님을 만날 기회는 커녕 양언니가 자리를 먼저 차지 했을것이다. 왜냐하면 돈이 있으면 얼마든지 꾸밀수 있고 성형이 가능한 사회이며, 힘없는 정의는 악에 지배를 받을수 밖에 없는 것이 현실이다.

동화책에 나오는 시대 배경이 언제인지는 모르나 그때는 신용카드도 모기지도 없었다. 아니 왕자와 공주에게는 이런 금전적인 제한이 적용 되지 않았을 것이다. 최고의 신분을 가지고 최고의 조건을 가지고 사는데 무슨 걱정이 있을까. 부부간의 갈등을 보면 금전적인 요소가 대부분 문제의 시발점이 된다. 즉 금전적인 제약이 있기 때문에 live happily ever after가 불가능한것이다. Constraint는 conflict를 가져온다. Conflict는 타협 해서 무마할수 있지만 타협은 쌍방의 조건을 완벽하게 충족하지 못해 제시된 일종의 단기적 해결책일뿐이며, 여기서 ‘불만족’이라는 씨를 뿌리고 쓴뿌리에서 쓴열매가 열린다. 동화책엔 왕자와 공주가 금전적인 문제 때문에 갈등을 겪었다든지, 불륜이라든지 시기, 질투, 고부간의 갈등이 절대로 존재하지 않는다.

인생은 달콤하지 않다. 이왕 쓴맛을 볼것이면 일찍 보고 현실을 직시하고 적응/대응하는 능력을 키우는 것이 상책이다. 누군가 나에게 이말을 해주었는데…. 아하 기억난다. 바로 마키아빌리.

Getting up early to catch 6:50am bus is never found to be easy. Perhaps my usual breakfast (a small bowl of rice, soup and a can of tuna) is inadequate to increase the glucose levels in my blood promptly or the heel that I climb to the bus stop feels like climbing Mount Everest. Nevertheless my brain never seems to be functional until 7:30am at least.

This is how the story starts. I was at the bus stop and waiting for either 602x or 612x bus. When the bus approaches, quickly assessing whether any seat is available or not is only logical but somehow I miserably failed to execute this routine exercise. The moment I stepped on the platform of the bus, I realized the chance of listening to 2NE1’s voice has gone beyond recall or desire – ouch….. undoubtedly there was no seat to sit on.

I decided to position myself near the disabled seats which would give more space for an ’emergency maneuver’. I saw a student of North Sydney Girls Selective High School on the disabled seat, who was busy with working on her assignment. Soon I sensed a strong disturbance in the force, and the phrase “Excuse me” invaded my ear drum in the most unpleasant and irritating fashion. I looked at the subject who just spoke and started to analyze her based on her appearance.

Perhaps I was influenced by my friend Phillip who recommended watching the ‘Mentalist’. For a moment I pretended to be Patrick Jane – about 5″8′ tall, late 20s , blonde hair, excessively thick eye liners and contrasting eye shadows, and thick foundation suggest that she seems fashionably conscious yet to develop her own style. She was carrying an outdated LV tote which is probably borrowed from her sister because she could not afford it with her salary. How did I know this? Do you recall wearing a ID card on your neck in public when you started a new job? Yes, she started a new job because the neck strap holds the ID is new and untainted.

I cannot recall exactly what she said but the substance was ‘giving your seat because you are a student who travels with a free bus pass’. While what she said is valid but it can be circumstantial and it matters how the message is delivered. The bus was full and the student wasn’t sleeping or playing with her mobile phone but focusing on her assignment. Immediately packing her belongings and giving a seat away seems impractical and counter-productive at that time yet the angry woman continued to demanding the student to release her seat in condescending tone. The poor student had no choice but to start packing and continued saying “I am sorry”. People around her said nothing and did nothing.

I immediately thought of what Edmund Burke said “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” which provoked me to take a decisive action. I took out my bus ticket and gave it to the student and said “This is your ticket and you paid for it, and you have the right to remain on your seat.” I turned to the angry woman and said “As you can see demanding her to release the seat has been revoked effective immediately.” She was emotionally compromised and repeated “This is ridiculous”. I answered “Yes, which is your attitude. Picking on a weak student and expressing an impulsive comment in public that often misfires and ends up humiliating yourself.” She spoke no more afterwards.

Just right before getting off the bus, the student said “Thank you very much for helping me Sir.” and I answered “You are most welcome. However, I strongly recommend to complete your homework at home as the word suggests, not on the bus.” I walked to the driver and bought another ticket to complete the transaction.