So, you’ve decided to make a few bucks on the side as a street musician? Well how can you call yourself a musician when you’ve sold your artistic integrity to material desires? Only joking.

Making money on the streets (as unappealing as that might sound) can be an excellent way to take in some extra cash for something you love to do. First off though, let’s discuss the difference between earning tips and getting a salary.You might choose to put out a tip jar, but unlike deciding to get a job, this is by no means a guarantee at earning money. Even if you’re good. Even if you’re brilliant.

In 2007, a violinist played in a Washington DC metro. He played for 43 minutes and made $32 and 17 cents. Not bad one might think. Not bad until one is informed that the violinist was Joshua Bell, an internationally acclaimed virtuoso playing a $3.5 million violin, no less. His tickets usually sell for around a hundred or more. He has filled some of the most prestigious symphony halls in the world but on the streets, in street clothes, with only his music to validate his name, the public has deemed him to be worth just over $32.

If you’re interested in making the big bucks, you have been sorely misinformed as to what it means to play on the streets. No one has ever referred to street musicianship as profitable — or if they did they meant it in a spiritual, touchy-feely way, not in the “pay the rent” or “buy food” sense of the word.

So you might not be making bank here, but why not make a dollar or two while you’re sharing your talent? You can be your own boss! You can buy yourself a hard-earned candy bar on the way home! And this is all exciting and wonderful as long as you remember one imperative truth: The money does not make the musician.

Don’t let anyone convince you that you are worth $32 and 17 cents, or $5, or nothing. It simply isn’t an accurate way to measure your musical talent. It’s hard to quantify whether you’ve added joy to an atmosphere or created a fleeting moment of peace for someone walking by. It is regrettably easy, however, to count how many dollars have been thrown into your case.

If you can’t separate the value of money from the value of art (which is admittedly incredibly hard to do as the artist) then it might be best to just sidestep the whole mess and leave the tip hat on your head.

Keep in mind though, that there are some selfless reasons to consider playing for money. Believe it or not, some people are more comfortable when you have a jar or a case open for tips — it means that they can deduce their own role in the whole equation. Nothing is more uncomfortable than turning someone down when they offer you money or them having to interrupt you because they couldn’t find the tip jar.

I once had a man walk up to me with a smile and a five-dollar bill after I finished a song. I thanked him and looked around awkwardly for my bag or guitar case. In that moment, driven by some logic-crippling attack of social anxiety, he wadded up the five and shoved it into the hole of my guitar. He smiled again as if pleased with his problem solving abilities and then sauntered away with a friendly wave.

I don’t know if this was an act of impatience or a rather aggressive attempt at humor but it took me a few slow, embarrassing minutes to fish out the crumpled cash. Since then I always make sure to take money graciously and without hesitance, lest I let some other stranger leave me and my guitar feeling strangely violated.

Money is a complicated matter, even when we don’t want it to be. It can turn sex into prostitution, lying fanatics into politicians and art into a commodity. We all want to say that we are bigger than money. Hell, if there was a world where we bargained with love, music and cable, you know I’d be the first to sign up. But unfortunately we live here on earth and money is important to us. Which is all fine, as long as we realize that there are things of far greater significance.

To share music and not money with ELLY OLTERSDORF, contact her at eroltersdorf@ucdavis.edu

October is very much here and I am spending the entire month changing costume ideas for Halloween. I will eventually end up going as an obscure film character that maybe a shocking number of five people will recognize. But if you don’t take Halloween as seriously as I do, then you can go with some classic costumes: pirate, superhero, zombie or ghost.

But, if you’re a young lady, you have the option to go as a sexy pirate, sexy superhero or sexy member of the living dead.

 However, I have met many girls who would prefer not to have their sex appeal as the highlight of their costume, and choose to shirk risque counterparts to traditional favorites. These girls have snuck off to the men’s aisle as an alternative. This practice has originated from a time as early as middle school, when we’re slightly precocious about our burgeoning sexualities.

Remember the time when you first started reading “young adult” novels and felt your first transition into adulthood. It was around that time, in the seventh grade, when “young adult” was the section in department stores where I had to start shopping. I was too big to fit into any kids-costumes so I had to try on outfits from this new area. When I actually donned my half-angel, half-devil dress, I kept pulling down the hemline because I felt like my underwear was in brazen display.

This is probably fun at an adult costume party but it wasn’t fun being that self-conscious while taking pictures with my friends and getting judgmental stares from parents everywhere. I was too young to realize I was being sexualized, but I had a vague suspicion that that was the uncomfortable weight of the stares that I felt. What was I to do? Nothing else fit me.

Aside from my personal anecdote, this is problematic on a societal level. Because Mean Girls describes Halloween as an excuse for girls to dress up as slutty versions of animals, making us seem vapid and unoriginal. Because costume versions of Disney princesses and other of our childhood characters such as Minnie Mouse, Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street and Hermione from Harry Potter are made to be sex symbols.

Our lives before puberty shouldn’t be the sexual ideal because that brings a whole set of problems with beauty expectations, such as the desirable pre-pubescent hairless body. Serious professions that are typically male-dominated (e.g. medicine, criminal justice) are caricatured in sultry ways. Women can’t get the respect they deserve in these highly specialized fields if they are pre-conceived as objects that are meant to be ornamented in sexy ways. And let’s face it, it’s kind of ridiculous that there are sexy hamburger costumes.

The Halloween costume industry is not the main contributor to the body manipulation our commercialistic culture is capable of. It’s troubling that many markets and industries thrive off of the usage of woman as sex objects. The effect of the porn industry is subtle yet pervasive enough that it becomes normal for Victoria’s Secret advertisements to be more geared towards the titillation of men than it is aimed towards making their main consumer group excited to buy their products.

Not a lot of girls look like Victoria’s Secret models, and possibly feel like they aren’t the target demographic for these commercials. In fact, it’s a method of poking at our insecurities to sell a product. Bras are marketed to us more for the purpose of making our breasts appear larger and rounder rather than offering us comfort and support.

Taking masculine underwear into account, Calvin Klein models may sport some really provocative crotch shots but the advertisers don’t tell men that their boxers would make their penis look bigger. Men just don’t have to worry about that sort of thing.

On a large scale, Halloween has become an awkward occasion where most girls’ costumes look like lingerie. It’s just another situation where girls have to keep on adjusting their bra straps or pulling down their dresses when they’re clearly not enjoying themselves. If you want to show your naughty side during Halloween that’s fine! I mean, it’s not like we can go trick or treating anymore. We need our thrill from somewhere. All we are asking for here is a little more variety, a little less objectification.

Email MONA SUNDARA at msundarav@ucdavis.edu and share some of your creative costume ideas!

On Sept. 24, University of California announced that a 1.5 percent decrease in take-home pay will take place for members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) 3299, the UC system’s largest union representing over 8,000 service and patient care workers.

This paycut will affect the lowest-paid employees in the entire system, most of whom earn an average of $35,000 a year. The decision came after a year of bargaining on behalf of AFSCME 3299 for higher compensation.

The UC defends this paycut as part of “pension reform.” And at first glance, that makes sense, right? These are tough economic times, and UC employees are simply tightening their belts for the sake of fiscal responsibility.

By the way, did we mention that 700 of the UC’s highest paid employees receive larger salaries than the President of the United States?

For the past year, AFSCME 3299 has campaigned for higher wage and more extensive health coverage and has met resistance throughout their efforts. The UC’s decision seems like a final attempt to scare service workers into silence — to take every possible avenue in order to remove collective bargaining rights.

Our leaders cry fiscal responsibility and argue their service compensation packages are competitive, but most of their service workers take two jobs just to stay afloat.

Yes, these are hard times. Yes, the UC is strapped for cash.

But is imperative that we remember that while the UC is responsible for enormous funds, it’s is not, first a foremost, a business. It is a public educational institution.

As the largest public university system in the nation, it is our responsibility to set the standard for how our employees are treated, from custodians to chancellors.

In regard to the Oct. 10 issue of the California Aggie and the “TAPS increases parking prices for 2013-2014” article, I am questioning the facts reported by TAPS resulting in the increased parking prices.

Although I understand that fewer permits being sold can certainly contribute to the need to raise prices, I also understand that permit prices may need to be raised to assist with the 20% salary increase of [Transportation Demand and Marketing Coordinator] Leslie Mancebo. As a UC employee, Mancebo’s salary data is public knowledge; thus her 2011 salary of $44,770.00 increased by $8,972 to $53,724 in 2012. This increase seems to be significantly above and beyond the typical UC Davis employee salary increase.

Within the article, TAPS failed to disclose how many fewer permits invoked this rate increase.  Instead, TAPS seemingly uses a magician’s sleight of hand and quotes other less-specific figures (such as the annual budget and the number of increased goClub memberships) as a diversion away from what they specifically claim to be the major contributor to the increased rates. This makes it seem like TAPS is hiding something, possibly the real reasons behind their rate hike. Perhaps some investigative journalism is required here to bring the truth to light.

Aren’t staff and students entitled to know how many fewer permits were sold between 2011 and 2012? I want to know these figures so I can to plug the numbers myself and see if they really add up to the sum that TAPS says they do.

– Anonymous UC employee and parking permit holder