She stares down at her paycheck. Two weeks of work, after taxes and other deductions, the take home pay comes to $900. Fortunately, she shares her one-bedroom apartment with a roommate. The rent of the two-bedroom apartment currently stands at $1800, but the landlord already announced a rent increase after the holidays. Her $900 contributes to her half of the rent. The threat of taking up another part-time job lingers over her head. Why can’t she just work one job, when the corporation who employs her profits millions of dollars daily? What would happen if her roommate decides to leave? Or worse, suffer a life-taking event? After rent and paying for food and other essential commodities, she barely scraps by. Worse, her saving account remains smaller than an anthill. At least she’s alive and healthy, right?
She catches the bus and feels her stomach rumble. Dinner time! What’s on the menu today? Considering her finances, she looks over her limited options. McDs? BK? Subway? Unfortunately, her neighborhood doesn’t offer healthier options. Even buying groceries cost more than stopping for a meal at the tainted golden arches. She opts for a burger and fries. Until she can find supplementary income, she will need to satisfy her hunger with cheap eats. Her life is a revolving door. Return home, eat, sleep and return to work. Too tired from the day to do anything and lacking the funds for any other forms of entertainment. But, hey, she’s living the American Dream!
Welcome to the status quo in corporate America. Millions of Americans live day-to-day with the above reality. Rent requiring more than one income, forcing Americans to either live with a roommate, their families, or a take on a second job to stay financially afloat. Why? Because major corporations refuse to pay their employees a liveable wage. Worse, the same corporations they work for continue to support politicians who implement policies making low-income and middle-class Americans’ lives harder.
Presently, many rural areas in America rely on these big box corporations like Target and Walmart. Both companies are able to stock their shelves with essential goods and sell them to the consumer at lower prices compared to their local counterpart, who must pay more to stock the same commodities. For struggling families, they must choose between supporting these corporations for survival, or spending more for the local option. Why pay more when you can purchase more items for less? The choice becomes easy, even if it’s unethical. Enter Amazon. Another major corporation offering low prices on essentials with the convenience of free delivery. Even Amazon refuses to pay their workers a liveable wage despite earning billions during their quarterly profit reports. This represents America’s “rinse and repeat” economic cycle of life. Those forced to work for low wages also must shop at the corporations enslaving them. The best solution would be to demand a change from the government. Meanwhile, the government’s plans for economic relief hide behind a thick curtain.
The curtain lifts and reveals the politician these corporations endorse. Major companies endorse candidates who align with their profit agenda at the expense of stomping on their employees’ financial freedom. Most of the elected officials never create policies addressing wages, but work on tax breaks for the affluent businesses. Even the simplest motion of raising the federal minimum wage would help alleviate the financial burden millions bear upon their backs. However, the minimum wage remains stagnant at $7.25 (since 2009). Our current administration firmly believe tax cuts for corporation equals pay raises for workers (a myth shared with the American public since Reagan took office in the 80s). The only thing trickling down to Americans is more strife and financial woes. Perhaps it’s time for the next step from the American people.
Since Trump’s inauguration, there have been hundreds of boycotts to fight back against the systems that enslave us. With the holiday season upon us, we have choices on where to spend our money. We constantly rain down these corporations with our money. What would happen if we create a drought for them instead? Revoke from them every drop we pour? Instead, shower local and small business with our money. A single drop to smaller business would not do much, but a flood of profit transferred from larger corporations to smaller local business will send a message. We, the people, are pissed.
Yes, it’s a hard ask for many during the holiday season. If you want to see a change in our country, do what you can to support small and local businesses. Boycott, or limit spending, at the big box stores and corporation who pay to keep us enslaved to them. Especially if you live in rural America, where these corporations are your only source of commodities. Reach out to your friends and neighbors and build a trusted community to support each other during the holidays. Shop thrift stores over Target or Walmart. Use these times as a history lesson for your children, if you have any. Remember, unless we stand up for change, they will inherit what we leave them. You are not alone. It will take all of us to force change.
About the Creator
Iris Harris
An aspiring novelist. I enjoy writing ghost, horror, and drama. Occassionally, I dabble with some essays. You can find more of my work with the link below:
Keep reading
More stories from Iris Harris and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Tis the Season
She stares down at her paycheck. Two weeks of work, after taxes and other deductions, the take home pay comes to $900. Fortunately, she shares her one-bedroom apartment with a roommate. The rent of the two-bedroom apartment currently stands at $1800, but the landlord already announced a rent increase after the holidays. Her $900 contributes to her half of the rent. The threat of taking up another part-time job lingers over her head. Why can’t she just work one job, when the corporation who employs her profits millions of dollars daily? What would happen if her roommate decides to leave? Or worse, suffer a life-taking event? After rent and paying for food and other essential commodities, she barely scraps by. Worse, her saving account remains smaller than an anthill. At least she’s alive and healthy, right?
By Iris Harris2 months ago in The Swamp
France Steps Back as G7 Summit Is Rescheduled to Avoid Clash With White House UFC Event
In an unexpected twist that has raised eyebrows across diplomatic circles, France has agreed to step back from its preferred scheduling as the G7 summit was moved to avoid a direct clash with a White House–hosted UFC event. The decision, while seemingly procedural, has sparked wider debate about political priorities, international symbolism, and how global diplomacy increasingly competes with high-profile domestic events for attention. The Group of Seven (G7) — comprising the United States, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, and Japan — is traditionally a stage for coordinated responses to the world’s most pressing challenges. From wars and climate change to economic instability and technological regulation, the summit is meant to project unity and seriousness. That is why the rescheduling, reportedly prompted by a clash with a major UFC event linked to the White House calendar, has drawn both criticism and bemusement. How a Scheduling Conflict Became a Diplomatic Issue According to diplomatic sources, France had initially proposed dates for the upcoming G7 meeting that aligned with its broader foreign policy agenda. However, those dates conflicted with a high-profile UFC event scheduled to take place with strong White House backing. Rather than competing for political attention — particularly from U.S. leadership — negotiations led to a decision to move the summit. France, as a key diplomatic player within the G7, ultimately agreed to “tap out,” a phrase borrowed from mixed martial arts that has been widely used by commentators to describe the outcome. While the term adds humor to the situation, the underlying implications are far more serious. At its core, the episode highlights how domestic political events in powerful countries can influence international diplomacy, sometimes in unexpected ways. The White House, Spectacle, and Soft Power The involvement of a UFC event — a sporting spectacle with massive popular appeal — points to a broader trend in modern politics: the blending of entertainment, image-making, and governance. Sporting events have long been used as tools of soft power, from Olympic Games to World Cups. However, the idea that a global diplomatic summit would be rescheduled to avoid clashing with a combat sports event hosted around the White House is a striking illustration of changing priorities. For U.S. officials, the UFC event reportedly carried significant domestic political value, attracting media attention, high-profile guests, and a large public audience. In an era where optics and engagement matter as much as policy substance, the White House appeared unwilling to divide focus. This placed allies like France in a difficult position. Insisting on original dates risked reduced U.S. engagement at the summit — something no G7 country wants, given Washington’s central role in global decision-making. France’s Calculated Compromise France’s decision to accept the rescheduling reflects diplomatic pragmatism rather than weakness. French officials are well aware that the effectiveness of a G7 summit depends heavily on full participation and attention from all members, particularly the United States. By stepping aside on scheduling, France avoided a potential scenario where the summit would be overshadowed, poorly attended, or perceived as secondary. Still, critics argue that the move sets an uncomfortable precedent, suggesting that entertainment-driven political events can take priority over multilateral diplomacy. Supporters of France’s decision counter that diplomacy is about choosing battles wisely. Preserving unity and ensuring productive discussions, they argue, matters more than symbolic rigidity over dates. Reactions From Other G7 Members Other G7 nations have reacted cautiously, with most avoiding public criticism. Privately, however, diplomats have expressed concern that the episode reflects a deeper imbalance in how global governance is conducted. Some European officials worry that repeated concessions could weaken the perceived seriousness of forums like the G7. If summits are seen as flexible around domestic political calendars — particularly those tied to spectacle — their authority may gradually erode. At the same time, countries such as Japan and Canada are said to have supported the compromise, emphasizing the importance of maintaining smooth relations and ensuring the summit remains effective rather than symbolic. What This Says About Global Leadership Today Beyond the immediate scheduling issue, the incident offers insight into the evolving nature of global leadership. Politics today operates in a crowded attention economy, where leaders juggle international crises, domestic pressures, and media-driven events simultaneously. The clash between a G7 summit and a UFC event may seem trivial on the surface, but it reflects how political capital is increasingly tied to visibility and public engagement. Leaders must balance governing with maintaining relevance in a fast-moving media landscape. For traditional diplomatic powers like France, this shift can be frustrating. European diplomacy often emphasizes process, continuity, and institutional strength — values that can clash with more performative political styles. Critics Warn of Slippery Slope Critics argue that accommodating such conflicts risks normalizing the sidelining of diplomacy. Today it may be a UFC event; tomorrow it could be an election rally, a media appearance, or another high-profile spectacle. They warn that global challenges — from ongoing conflicts to climate emergencies — demand sustained, focused leadership. Anything that dilutes the importance of forums designed to address these issues could have long-term consequences. Some commentators have also pointed out the irony of world leaders struggling to align schedules at a time when global cooperation is more urgently needed than ever. Conclusion: Symbolism Matters France’s decision to step back as the G7 summit was moved to avoid clashing with a White House UFC event is more than a quirky headline. It is a reflection of the changing dynamics of power, attention, and symbolism in international politics. While the rescheduling may ensure better participation and smoother logistics, it also raises uncomfortable questions about what global leaders prioritize — and how diplomacy competes with spectacle in the modern age. As the G7 eventually convenes, the real test will not be the date on the calendar, but whether leaders can rise above distractions and deliver meaningful action. Still, the episode will linger as a reminder that in today’s world, even the most serious global gatherings are not immune to the pull of entertainment and domestic politics.
By Muhammad Hassanabout 19 hours ago in The Swamp
FPS: The Last Flame Challenge Winners
Welcome to our first Winners Announcement of the year and to the final challenge in the Fall Poetry Series. The Last Flame invited writers to sit with endings, using fire as a central image to consider what remains when something burns out: ash, warmth, memory, silence, or the faint promise of what comes next. The strongest pieces treated endings as gradual rather than sudden, allowing them to flicker, dim, and linger.
By Vocal Curation Team4 days ago in Resources
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.