Sociologists have noted that race and gender have been more politicized in the U.S. than class. In contrast, class is highly politicized in Europe, leading to a much stronger labor movement. The weak labor movement in the U.S. is partly to blame for the stingy federal policies around vacation and holidays. The U.S. federal government dictates that employees are given exactly zero paid holiday and vacation days a year (that means, if you get such things, it is because your employer is being generous/in a benefits arms race with other employers). 

This is one of the reasons why I'm torn about whether or not I really want a "full-time" job. Working freelance can be stressful when you are between work, and health care is completely unaffordable, but at least you don't get stuck with a 72-hour work week and no vacation time. I think a lot of other people are starting to feel the same way. What good is a pile of money if you can't spend it? Would you rather make $100,000/yr with limited vacation and 72-hour weeks or $50,000/yr, 40-hour weeks, and full month off? Maybe full-time work is overrated. Maybe it's not even something one should aspire to have. Maybe the current model for full-time employment is creating poor results in our largely service-based economy.

The model we currently have pushes people to constantly make more money and work longer hours so they can buy more "stuff" and live in more expensive places. No matter how much money you make it will never be enough. But you could have a different model. You could have a model where people accurately value their own time. You could have a model where you get an extra month of vacation instead of a bonus.

Morgan Stanley, for example, is a gigantic corporation. As of the second quarter, it boasted total capital of $213.2 billion. It certainly has the ability to make good on obligations incurred by its many operating units. But earlier this month Morgan Stanley said it would turn over five San Francisco office buildings to lenders rather than pay the debt on them. Why? Morgan Stanley foolishly paid top dollar for the buildings in 2007, when prices were really high. The values have plummeted, and tenants are hard to come by. "This isn't a default or foreclosure situation," spokeswoman Alyson Barnes told Bloomberg News. "We are going to give them the properties to get out of the loan obligation." Smells like a strategic default to me.

After reading this article I started thinking about starting a credit counseling company and specializing in strategic default.

I was thinking we could have a radio ad:

Can’t pay off that car loan? We can help! We’ll sell your car for less than you owe and send the bank a check with a note that tells them if they want they remaining balance they can sit and spin. It’s that easy. You’ll be debt free in no time. Stop worrying about how you’re going to pay back those college loans, and just stop paying. Call today!

Good, right? You’re damn right it is.

Sometimes I get the feeling that the reason that huge corporations can get away with this kind of financial mismanagement is because it’s hard to wrap your head around what $213.2 billion means. You can’t visualize it. It’s an abstract number on some balance sheet. But when someone can’t pay back the $10,000 they have left on their car loan, it’s easy to understand how much money that is.

There’s an emotional component attached to a mortgage as well; since a person understands what it is they actually owe against, and what $100,000 buys them. No one has any emotional attachment to the trillions of dollars recently lost by investment banks.

As Slate's Daniel Gross highlights,

Most people underwater on their mortgages stay current "as a result of two emotional forces: 1) the desire to avoid the shame and guilt of foreclosure; and 2) exaggerated anxiety over foreclosure's perceived consequences." In addition, he notes, societal norms push individuals "to ignore market and legal norms under which strategic default might not only be a viable option, but also the wisest financial decision."

People are emotionally attached to their debt. Companies aren’t. Investment banks aren’t. All of the corporations which put the capital into capitalism lack the emotional attachment to debt that turn the gears.

I guess the moral of the story is this: If paying back your debts seems to amateur, consider just not doing it. If you find that idea morally repugnant, you can always do it like a true professional: incorporate, pierce the corporate veil, expense everything, and then just declare bankruptcy. Don’t be ashamed. It’s almost 2010. Stop paying your bills.

Look for more great financial advice in my new podcast titled Pro at Captailism. Coming soon to the iTunes Store. Maybe. I'll commit to doing it, but don't count on it.