Urban Rent Crisis

As I have moved closer to the end of my college career, I have spent a lot of time reading about life after college and trying to get a feel for what comes next for graduates. One thing that I have discovered is the high cost of living in many large cities where jobs are located. In larger cities, residents pay huge percentages of their income towards rent and it appears that the cost increases of housing outpace the overall cost of living increase between rural and urban areas.

Tiny apartments such as this one are becoming more standard in densely packed cities such as Boston, New York and San Francisco, but they still can cost upwards of $2,000 per month. Many of these small apartments are between 250-300 square feet. This is a high price to pay for living downtown. 

For people who cannot imagine themselves crammed into microapartments, costs can run even higher. In Manhattan for example, the average price of a one bedroom "regular" sized apartment runs about $3,000 per month. Most financial advisors will recommend that a person spend no more than about 25% of their gross income on housing. In order to afford a $3,000 per month one bedroom apartment, a person would need to earn around $145,000 per year. 

The situation in Boston is a bit less crazy. This map shows the distribution of rent prices around the city. Notice that darker red colors are located close to subway stops. In the heart of the downtown area, prices are approximately $2,000 per bedroom. 

Personally I wonder how anyone can afford to live in these cities without making huge financial sacrifices. It seems to me that it would be nearly impossible for college graduates to practice financial responsibility while trying to live in one of these expensive cities. Unfortunately, these areas are extremely appealing for college graduates and tend to have the best job markets as well. 

My Five Favorite New England Beaches

Best New England Beaches

As summer has recently begun and the weather has been beautiful, I decided that I would write about some of my favorite beach destinations in New England. Although the water tends to be cold pretty much everywhere, New England does have some really beautiful beaches.

1: Block Island Beach, New Shoreham, RI

Block Island is my favorite spot in New England for the summer. It is rather remote, taking about a half hour to reach by ferry from the southern coast of Rhode Island. This also makes the town and the beach one of the warmest summer locations in New England. In fact, Block Island is often referred to as the Aruba of the North. The best thing about the beaches here for me are the fact that the water tends to be very shallow which allows the water temperature to be much higher than other New England beaches. The island itself is also quite peaceful and relaxing so it serves as a great destination for people looking to have a calm getaway.

2: Herring Cove Beach, Provincetown, MA

Herring Cove Beach is another relatively remote beach located all the way at the end of Cape Cod. The beach tends to be relatively peaceful for most of the summer season. The best thing about this beach is that it actually faces due West, making it one of the only places along the East Coast that you can see the sun set over the water. Sunset actually tends to be the busiest time of day for this reason. The only downside to this beach is that the sand can be very rocky and rough in many places.

3. Hamton Beach, Hampton, NH

Hamton Beach is probably the most visited beach in New England. It is always full of young beachgoers and the town features a boardwalk that is full of different shops and offers a variety of activities. Every year this beach has a famous sand castle building contest and sets off fireworks over the water many nights. If you are looking for a big, bustling beach and don't mind cold water, Hampton is the way to go. 

4. Narragansett Beach, Narragansett, RI

Like Hampton, Narragansett Beach tends to be popular throughout the year. It is probably the most balanced beach of any that I can think of. The water is a reasonable temperature, the beach is populated but not too crowded and there is a nice mix of tourists and locals. Another great thing about this beach is that there is ample free parking and it tends to be easy to get to from major highways! Because it is the closest to me of any of the beaches on this list, it is the one where I spend the most time.

5. Plum Island Beach, Newburyport, MA

Plum Island is a great beach for vacationers. It tends to be full of people who are staying on the island for a long period of time and does not attract many day visitors. Located at the mouth of the Merrimack River, Plum Island offers a combination of swimming, surfing and fishing depending on where you are located on the island. This beach town tends to have a lot to offer for almost anybody. At the far end, the beach actually transforms into a nature preserve that is full of wildlife.

Understanding Workaholics

The modern person can suffer from a wide variety of addictions, most of which are universally regarded as unhealthy. There are people who drink too much, spend too much or exercise too much. All of these addictions bring more harm than good to a person and they are hard to break. One obsession that sometimes is brushed off as a positive trait however is being a workaholic.

A workaholic is someone who makes their career and earning potential their top priority, placing work above family, friends and even themselves. While the stereotype is that high-level executives are workaholics, this is not always true. Workaholics can be found at any level of an organization and often executives lead balanced and healthy lives. 

I believe that large cities tend to promote workaholism, particularly cities in the northeast such as Boston and New York. These cities are full of an educated workforce and high-wealth jobs. This can foster a very competitive environment which can lead employees to try to outperform one another. Sure, always trying to be the best can lead to job security, but it can lead to personal insecurity. Comparing not to ones own potential but the potential of others is a game that everyone is set up to lose, because someone always appears better.

One of the main reasons that it is acceptable to be a workaholic is that it seems in many cases to be an unrecognized problem. Many people are under the impression that being worked to exhaustion is the only way to achieve success. But at the end of the day, what is it that defines success? Is it a fat paycheck, or is it having a happy life full of strong relationships with family and friends? This question often goes unasked to the workaholic.

It is easy to focus on the positive sides of working too much alone; it is much more pleasant to imagine that there are no downsides. Balance is one of the most important things in life and this can only be achieved through honest self reflection.

Why Bigger Cities Drink More Coffee

Right now it's about 6:30 A.M. and I am sitting out on my porch enjoying a nice home brewed cup of coffee. I typically have this one cup in the morning and some days I will drink another small cup around lunchtime. I have seen some people however who seem to drink upwards of four cups a day and I wondered if this was at all unusual. It turns out that the answer is that it depends.

The average coffee consumption across the United States is about three small cups per day, but people who live in large cities tend to far outdrink those in smaller cities or rural areas. For example, coffee drinkers in New York and Chicago both drink an average of 3 times the national average! That is nine eight ounce cups of coffee per day! I found this fascinating in of itself but I began to wonder why.

I thought about the main reason that people drink coffee and it seems in general that besides enjoying the taste, most people drink coffee for the energy boost that comes with ingesting caffeine. A cup of coffee can do two things, wake up a person who has low energy due to sleep deprivation and energize a person who receives a normal amount of sleep. This makes sense in terms of larger cities. Check out my post about cities that get too big.

People who live in larger cities report higher levels of stress and are more likely to be required to work long hours at a job. Working 50, 60 or more hours a week can be exhausting and drain energy; people really should not work more than 40. The solution: grab a cup of coffee. Additionally, those who work long hours are less likely to have the time to sleep enough each night, which can lead to feeling groggy and again needing more coffee. In this regard it makes sense that cities like New York and Chicago drink so much coffee.

Another thing about big cities that encourages coffee consumption is simply related to stress levels. There is so much hustle and bustle in large cities that people must always be alert and aware of their surroundings. Not to mention the fact that it can be stressful to get around due to road and pedestrian traffic. Letting your guard down in a big city is more likely to bring a negative result. Once again coffee serves as a great way to keep vigilant.

Overall it seems that Americans love coffee regardless of location, those who live in more crowded areas simply indulge more. One of the main things to watch out for about coffee is the price! Drinking three or four cups of Starbucks coffee per day can easily amount to a $10 habit.

Planning a Cape Cod Vacation?

If you have ever been to Massachusetts during the summer or known anyone from Massachusetts, you have likely heard great things about Cape Cod. Known as a popular vacation spot for New Englanders, Cape Cod is a long narrow island off the southeast coast of Massachusetts that fills with beachgoers and tourists every weekend during the summer. I have often heard people who are not from Massachusetts do not actually find "The Cape" to be as enjoyable as do natives and I happen to agree.

One thing that Cape Cod does have going for itself is that it is naturally beautiful. Beaches surround the land and the towns that dot The Cape have a historic charm. But in my opinion, this is about all that Cape Cod has. 

I remember my first time going to The Cape a few years ago and getting stuck in terrible traffic for three hours. This was my first memory. Though one may think this is just bad luck, I assure you that this will happen almost anytime you travel to The Cape. There is a long stretch of Route 6, the only main route travelling The Cape, that is just two lanes divided by yellow cones. As tens of thousands of drivers clog this narrow roadway, traffic is sure to ensue. 

In stark contradiction to the stress caused by the congestion, many people own or rent vacation homes on The Cape because they feel that it is a relaxing place to be. Massachusetts and New England in general are known for a fast pace of life and everything moves much slower on Cape Cod. There are few activity options that are not directly related to relaxation so for people who like more active trips there is very little to do. Not to mention that it is innately not relaxing to spend a weekend on The Cape,  leaving late Friday and driving for 2 or 3 hours trying to avoid traffic and then doing the reverse on Sunday morning. 

Many people simply enjoy going to The Cape to enjoy the beaches. Cape Cod in particular is known for its dramatic tidal shifts, which I actually find to be fun to watch. But let's face it, New England beaches are cold no matter where you go. But Cape Code beaches are colder than many other nearby beaches in Rhode Island and Connecticut. In June the average water temperature is about 60 degrees!

None of this is to say that I hate Cape Cod, I do still enjoy going sometimes. After all, I am from Massachusetts. I just do not think that it deserves quite the hype that it receives as being the best vacation spot in New England. For some people, Cape Cod is really perfect, but do not let this fool you into thinking that everyone will enjoy The Cape. Before planning a vacation to The Cape explore other options to make sure that you are getting the most out of your time away from work.

Importance of Living Close to a Hospital

When I was growing up, I remember the day that my friend broke his collarbone and needed to be rushed to the hospital. An ambulance came by and everything turned out okay, but I remember waiting about 20 minutes for the it to arrive. It then would take another 20 minutes to get back to the hospital. After all, I lived in a small suburb and the nearest hospitals were miles away. Overall it probably took 45 minutes from the time of the injury to the admission to the hospital. It was just a broken bone so this was not a big deal, but I realized that no matter what had happened it would take this long. With more serious conditions 45 minutes could mean the difference between life and death.

In general, hospitals are located primarily in cities. Smaller clinics tend to be located in remote rural areas far from cities and these clinics offer some of the emergency services of larger hospitals. There are some populated areas that are an hour or more away from hospitals. When living or visiting these areas it seems to me that the best bet is to hope that nothing goes wrong. Imagine having a heart attack or a stroke and being this far from a hospital; the chances of a successful recovery diminish with each minute.

High quality health care is one of the most important services that one can receive. In the United States, over 15% of GPD is spent on healthcare costs, making it one of the largest expenditures of both the people and the government. One of the best ways to ensure a long and healthy life is to take advantage of these services simply by being located in an area with easy access to major hospitals. While suburbs can sometimes open space, clean air and less crime, I believe that all of these benefits amount to less than the need for fast access to a major hospital.

Obesity and Access to Food

Yesterday I spent some time talking about the fact that many Americans live in areas that are designated as food deserts where they struggle to find access to grocery stores. Today I wanted to look into this a bit more by bringing in obesity and seeing if there truly is a relationship between living in a food desert and likelihood of being obese. Here is what I found.

I will start again with a map of the food deserts in order to provide a solid reference point.

And here is a map of obesity trends across the country.

These maps do not show a perfect overlap, but it definitely suggests a relationship between struggling to find food and being obese. This map seem counter-intuitive. Wouldn't being further from food sources indicate people would be less obese? 

No. Regardless of location everybody has to eat, but being further from grocery stores simply affects what gets eaten. When it is really challenging to purchase healthy foods, people sometimes choose the ease of shopping at closer convenience stores which are full of options that have less nutritional value. When actually making it to a grocery store, people living in food deserts may purchase items that last longer and many of these items are typically less healthy than items that go bad more quickly.

This is an unfortunate problem in the country because it is extremely complex. For decades American obesity rates have been rising, but in some areas it simply is not economically feasible to build supermarkets. This may be one of the more subtle contributing factors to the trend of urbanization in the United States; people move to cities as they become frustrated with their nutritional struggles. 

American Food Deserts

Today is Sunday and as usual I was running low on food. Conveniently, Sunday also tends to be the day that I am able to go grocery shopping. So I made the simple decision to get dressed, grab my keys and head to Whole Foods. I live in Worcester and the nearest Whole Foods is in Framingham about 40 minutes away. I had plenty of time to think about food during the long car ride and at first I felt annoyed that there is no Whole Foods in Worcester. I know that the food there is expensive, but I really think that it is worth it to pay a little extra to make sure that you are getting great quality food. And then I thought more about how many Whole Foods are in the country in general. This is what I found.

I know this map may seem cluttered, but notice how huge sections of the country are missing a Whole Foods location. I am not suggesting that Whole Foods locations are the only measure of nutritional value access, but this figure hints at a broader issue.

Throughout the country, there are many places that are located 20, 30 miles or even further from the nearest grocery store. People living here need to drive upwards of a half hour to shop for food! I know that on a hot summer day like today I worry on my 40 minute drive that my food may not all last in the car, but imagine what it is like to have no other choice. Not to mention that in some of these areas, many people also do not have car access. In such areas, sometimes the only possible sources of food are found at gas stations and convenience stores that are usually stocked with expensive snacks and few healthy options.

These areas are known as food deserts. Most people that I know cannot imagine that this is possible because Massachusetts is so densely populated that most people need to travel no more than 3 or 4 miles to the nearest grocery store. But here is a map of the United States from the US Department of Agriculture showing areas formally designated as food deserts. 

Areas highlighted in green represent food deserts. Notice how the two maps compare. Areas with Whole Foods Markets tend to be far away from designated food deserts. And again notice that in New England there are almost no food deserts compared to most other parts of the country. The more rural the area, the more likely that residents do not have access to supermarkets. This has dramatic implications when it comes to obesity, diabetes and just health in general. 

Stay tuned for a post about how access to food options is an important factor in reducing obesity rates.

Strip Malls vs. Starbucks

Some of the most beautiful cities in the world are those that seem to have a soul. Some of these cities, like Boston, make the cut because they have a disorganized charm while others such as Shanghai are known for the modern feel. Regardless of what makes a particular city special, the thing that my favorite places have in common is that they are all unique and have something that cannot be mimicked by another place.

This for example is a picture that captures the essence of Shanghai.

It appears to me that at some point, cities and to a greater extend suburbs forgot what it meant to have a unique feeling. In came developers. Sprawling neighborhoods emerged of houses that not only looked the same as one another, but looked the same as others in other towns and even in other parts of the country. This is not limited to residential development; strip malls and chain restaurants populate huge tracts of land. Standing in one of these malls one would have no way of guessing if they were in Florida or North Dakota, except maybe for the temperature!

True it may be cheaper and easier to build standardized developments, but it also takes the heart out of an area. The appeal of an area is lessened as it imitates the style of everywhere else. This type of development can drain the life out of a city.

While this trend seems to roll along, some retail companies have notably bucked the trend. My two best examples of this are Apple and Starbucks. When visiting a location of one of these stores, you know that you are sitting and drinking your favorite coffee or shopping for a nice computer, but you also know where you are. These stores are built to represent the feel of the company while respecting the environment that they are found in. Apple has been able to build stores inside of the Louvre and Grand Central Station. These locations represent a fantastic balance between standards of design and urban cultural awareness that other new developments should seek to emulate. 

That Prestigious Suburban School May Undermine Your Success

I tend to spend a lot of time envisioning the rise of cities and the decline of present day suburbia. But one topic that I have not discussed so far is the structure of the education system in urban areas as it compares to rural areas. Right now, suburban public schools nationwide far outperform urban schools and this is one reason that many families choose to live in the suburbs. Private schools are often located in cities and are a way for wealthy families to send their children to good schools but this further increases the cost burden of living in cities.

Urban school districts do tend to serve a variety of students from different income levels and ethnic groups. Because of the way that cities tend to exist today, many of these students that attend urban public schools come from lower income brackets and a higher percentage of students fall below the poverty line than students in suburban schools. Unfortunately there is a strong relationship between race, income level and academic performance. With higher percentages of students from lower socioeconomic groups, average academic performance tends to be lower in urban schools.

My overall point is that one must look past averages.

The public school system receives most of it's funding from a combination of tax dollars and government funds. Despite the fact that urban school districts tend to preform at lower levels than suburban schools, they also often receive more funding. Urban schools also tend to serve much greater numbers of students than do suburban schools. These factors together often mean that inner city schools can offer a greater variety of courses and programs to students than suburban schools. A common misconception about urban schools is that teachers are under-qualified. However, teachers in urban districts tend to receive higher salaries than those in suburban areas. Many highly skilled teachers choose to teach in cities for this reason.

But wait, does this mean that urban schools can actually be better than suburban schools? Yes.

Imagine that two high school students have similar academic abilities and both are high performers. One student goes to a suburban school and the other goes to an urban school. The student that goes to the suburban school may feel limited in the number of challenging courses that they can take. Since the school is so small it cannot offer a wide variety of electives and advanced placement classes. On the other hand, the student who attends an urban public high school feels more challenged because the school offers more opportunities. The suburban student graduates 3rd in a class of 100 students an the urban student graduates 5th in a class of 500. Both students worked hard and impressed college admissions departments, but the student from the urban school was accepted to colleges with higher rankings. In this scenario the student from the urban school had a better outcome.

While this may not be the average case, I believe that averages are misleading in the education world. It is challenging to objectively compare schools based on average results because the demographic prints of city schools are so different from schools in the suburbs. I feel that it is much more important and telling to compare the prospects of similar students.

Ultimately when deciding where to raise a family, school district statistics can be overwhelming and I feel that often these statistics have a large role in determining where children are raised. Despite the fact that it seems nearly counter-statistical, I feel that urban school districts may actually be able to serve students better than suburban schools in many cases.

Redefining Urban and Political Boundaries

I have a somewhat radical idea about how to increase overall efficiency in the United States. The nation is currently divided into fifty states that are all responsible for making laws that apply across the entire state. In some cases, when considering a new law or regulation, states are really only responsible for one geographic region, such as Rhode Island generally represents the Providence metropolitan area. Other states, such as Texas with its few large cities and hundreds of miles of farm in between, have to consider multiple urban centers and rural areas together when making decisions. It seems to me that in a  broad sense the federal government should bind the nation together, but that further subdivisions should have meaning that derives from the land itself.

What I propose is an actual separation first between urban and rural areas. Many rural areas tend to be either farms or lands reserved for some sort of physical production of a good. It does not make sense to have the same regulations in place for these areas as it does for urban centers. For example an urban area that falls under the jurisdiction of several cities may want to regulate street parking. To be most efficient this should be done at the state level so that it can apply equally across all of the municipalities within the densely populated area. Unfortunately, this would also serve to regulate parking in rural areas of the same state. See the problem?

A somewhat close example to what I feel is best can be found in the state of Virginia. Although it's rural areas are separated by county, it's rural areas are divided from it's urban centers through the use of independent cities. These cities could for instance make parking regulations that would not affect the rural areas surrounding them. Here is a map of Virginia's solution with independent cities shown in red..

In order to create the ideal solution that I envision, Virginia should merge large chunks of it's rural counties together to form geographically regionalized rural areas. The end result would theoretically be several "states" or simply separate political districts that are divided by functional region with urban political districts interspersed throughout them in the current locations of Virginia's independent cities.

Here in the case of Virginia, we would see five geographic divisions that would continue North and South into surrounding current day states with independent cities dispersed in red areas throughout the larger region. This change would ultimately make the political process flow more smoothly because it would create some sort of standardization within a district. 

Washington D.C. : America's Best City For Young People

The morning sun passes through the large windows of the mid-rise apartment, no taller buildings cast shadows onto the facade or into the wide streets of the city. Looking out from almost any point, one can see the impressive structure emblematic of a vibrant history. People stop by their local cafes, passing briefly en route to their jobs, wearing suits that live up to the grandeur of the buildings in which they work. This is a snapshot of life in Washington D.C.

While it goes without saying that life in Washington D.C. is not perfect by any measure, the city has so much to offer, particularly for people in their 20s. Over the past 20 years the city has grown rapidly and a lot of this growth has come from young age groups. The median age of city residents is 33, compared to almost 40 nationwide. This rapid growth has increased real estate prices, but it has also brought many new amenities and services to the city. 

Because the federal government is located within the city, unemployment rates are notoriously low, currently are 5.3%. The government provides stable jobs through almost any economic climate so residents of the city tend to have great employment prospects. The federal government is also known as being one of the best places to work; employees get much better benefits than employees at most private companies. 

Despite being so big, the city is so well planned in its design that it truly feels like an eclectic city of neighborhoods. No two areas of the city are quite the same and almost the entire city is composed of medium density development. Walking around the city, one can feel the culture shift every few blocks. The city feels much more European than any other American city. The development pattern is a bit less efficient than highly developed citys like New York, but it is much more aesthetically appealing. 

D.C. also has a wide array of choices for entertainment. The city is full of clubs, bars, restaurants and music venues of all different types. No matter what your preference, you can likely find your niche in D.C. To bolster these offerings, the subway or "Metro" remains open until 3 A.M. on the weekend. While not perfect, the Metro is rather expansive and can get you within walking distance of most developed sections of the city. 

Along with everything else, D.C. has a pleasant climate. The average high temperature for the year comes in at 66. The city does experience all four seasons, but the swings between hot and cold tend to be more moderate due to the proximity of the city to the ocean.

All of these things have probably continued to perpetuate the growth of Washington D.C. and this growth will likely continue into the future as the city becomes increasingly attractive for those who are starting out their professional lives.

Why Wealthier Couples Have Fewer Children

The costs of raising a child from birth through age eighteen are staggering. This year the estimated cost of raising a newborn from birth to age 18 tops $250,000. This number does not account for financial support that parents may and often do provide later in life such as the cost of a college education, which bring the total to well over $300,000. One might assume these high costs may indicate a positive correlation between economic status and number of children; however, the inverse is actually true.

Despite the high economic cost to child raising, lower income households throughout the United States and abroad all tend to have more children than households of higher income levels. This type of contrast between expectations and statistical realities serves as a reminder to perform deeper analysis of conditions before drawing conclusions. In this case, there are a number of confounding variables that upon consideration, indicate the likelihood for wealthier couples to have fewer children.

Higher Education Levels: There is a positive relationship between education and income. This means that people who have higher incomes are more likely to have spent extra years pursuing education than those with lower incomes. Increasing the duration of full-time academic pursuits pushes back the start date for careers. Delaying working tends to delay marriage which in turn pushes back the age at which at a highly educated woman is likely to have her first child. Ultimately the gap between marriage and menopause decreases therefore giving an educated women fewer opportunities to have children. Less educated and lower income women tend to have a longer period available for the "traditional" process of career, marriage and children.

Better Planning: Women who have higher incomes tend to have better access to contraceptive measures. In higher income brackets, women are more likely to have health insurance and thus more likely to have more options in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Higher income women of higher education levels are also more likely to be aware of the cost of raising children and are thus likely to place stricter limits on the number of children they plan to have.

Less Need: Historically, one reason for having children was to ensure that parents would be taken care of as they aged. Women would have many children conscious of the fact that some may not live to see adulthood. As mortality rates dropped both for infants and adults, having numerous children increased the likelihood that one or several of these children could support aging parents. Higher income families are more likely to have the financial resources to provide for themselves into old age and so the idea of relying on children for financial support is less material.

It is unclear whether families make the choice to have fewer children simply because they are wealthier or if being wealthy is a causative factor for having fewer children. No matter which direction is the cause, this relationship likely explains the slow decline in the number of children per family throughout the world. Eventually this may slow the rate of global population growth and even out age pyramids for countries with large imbalances.

Why Optimistic People Live Longer

Comparing life expectancy to life outlook has always been a topic of debate. Some people claim that optimists live long and healthy lives while others feel that pessimists will outlive their brighter counterparts. It is true that pessimists are more likely to take time to plan for negative events, but optimists do a much better job at handling adverse situations. Here are some reasons which may reinforce the claim that optimists live longer. 

Increased Relationships: Optimists tend to have more deep and lasting friendships than do pessimists. People like to surround themselves with others who can bring up their mood and help them out through times of distress. Having a strong social network can help even the most optimistic people get through tough life events. Pessimists who are less likely to have these strong relationships are more likely to weather tough events on their own.

Less Stress: Pessimists spend a lot of time planning for bad events and uncertainty, but all of this planning can lead to stress and chronic anxiety. Focusing on worst case scenarios is always emotionally draining. People who are more stressed are more likely to suffer from high blood pressure or experience heart attacks. Stress can also negatively affect metabolism, so those who are more stressed may also be at increased risk of obesity. Those who are stressed are more likely to become sick and are often less capable of warding off disease.

Better Balance: Optimistic people are easier to please and satisfy than many pessimists. As a result many optimists find satisfaction from simple things and may worry less about becoming rich and having material possessions than pessimists. This leads optimists to be less likely to overwork themselves and more likely to have extra time to devote to living healthy and more balances lives.

While studies will probably continue to churn out conflicting information about the life expectancies of optimists vs. pessimists, I feel that these factors give optimists an edge.

Reasons to Travel to Europe

For most of my life I have wanted to travel to Europe. My desire stems from studying maps and learning about history as a kid. I remember being fascinated by Greek and Roman history and learning about many various european cultures. For most of my life this remained a dream, but this winter I may finally have a chance to spend a few weeks abroad. Here are some reasons you (and I) should spend some time exploring Europe.

It's Cheaper than you Think: Round trip flights to Europe from the United States can be found for less than $800 if you plan far enough in advance. I am looking for tickets from Boston to London for December, during the holidays, and tickets are still less than $900, (about the cost of 9 nice sweaters). Once you arrive in Europe, it becomes extremely cheap to stay. According to Hostels.com/europe, many cities have hostels with great reviews for $5 - $10 per night! If you can stay for more than a week, the expensive flight can quickly be offset by room expenses.

Gain a New Perspective: Often people spend most of their lives in one country or even one small region of a country, New England in my case. While the area you live in my be comfortable and pleasant, other areas can offer extremely different experiences. Most people become accustomed to their own culture and way of life and can gain so much from learning the customs of people who live differently. This sense of discovery can foster an appreciation for diversity as well as of one's own cultural identity.

Travelling in a foreign country is a way to challenge your own perspective on life and gain new ideas. If you stay in one place for your whole life, you may not develop a full sense of happiness because you have nothing to compare it to. While travelling you may discover that you want to relocate to a new place or you may develop a newfound love for your home country or city.

Gain a Sense of Independence: Having the opportunity to travel, especially to a country where you are unfamiliar with the language, provides a pathway to becoming more independent. Being somewhere totally new will force you to think in ways you may never have thought and use skills that you may not have used before. Interacting with locals and making your way through a foreign land without help can make you proud and feel capable of accomplishing more than you thought possible of yourself.

Carpe Diem: If you are thinking about travelling, whether it be to Europe or elsewhere in the world, my advice is just to do it. Life only comes once and if you have an opportunity to go somewhere you have always wanted to go, just do it. I realized recently that when I am much older and look back on my life, I want to know that I did all of the things that I always wanted to do and so I am trying to live by my own advice. Sure, it may be expensive, but there are ways to save money. People tend to enjoy experiences more than their material belongings. Besides, who needs all of those sweaters anyways?

Want a Raise? Be More Attractive

Attractive People Earn More

There is a long-standing stereotype that those who are more attractive earn higher salaries for similar work than those who are less attractive. While you may want to believe that this is simply a myth, it is actually reinforced by statistics. Unfortunately this is a complicated issue because there is also a relationship between level of attractiveness and productivity so this wage gap cannot easily be qualified as discrimination.

Attractive People Get Noticed: This may be one of the key subjective reasons why more attractive people make more money. If two interview candidates with similar skill levels apply for a position, the interviewer is more likely to recall the one with better looks. Once in a position, coworkers and supervisors are more likely to spend time chatting with more attractive employees. Customers are more likely to buy products from or give positive reviews to attractive employees. This extra attention helps attractive people to get hired and to be noticed for the contributions that they make.

Attraction Confidence Boost: Attractive people also tend to be more productive and this may be a result of their self-confidence. Those who are attractive are likely to have higher self-confidence about their work than those who are less attractive because they are more likely to be noticed and appreciated. The attention that attractive workers receive reinforces itself and leads to attractive people feeling better about their own work and responding to their own self-perception.

Overall, attractive people make about 3-4% more money than unattractive people. This amounts to about $200,000 over the course of the average career. It is difficult to separate attraction and productivity and therefore it is challenging to address this form of salary discrimination. It is up to each individual to try to control their responses to more or less attractive people. I hope that having a conscious understanding of this issue can help prevent people from making subconscious judgements about employees based on their levels of attractiveness. 

Why Smartphones Make our Lives Worse

Over the past several years, owning a smartphone has transitioned from being a status symbol to a necessity. Smartphones today represent an integral part of society; many people rely on their phones for important everyday tasks. Yet while smartphones continue to increase in popularity, they actually have a negative effect on society as a whole.

One of the most important capabilities of a smartphones is that they give people the opportunity to have constant access to e-mail, which can cause a lot of stress. This can allow people to continue to interact with their professional lives at any time during the day. While constant e-mail access can arguably make businesses run a bit more smoothly, it means that working professionals with smartphones can no longer escape from their careers. According to a 2011 article by the New York Times, because of smartphones “work has invaded the home and the boundary is likely never to be restored.” This can put a lot of pressure on employees to remain constantly connected to work. This lack of time for relaxation can lead to employee burnout and decreased productivity as well as decreased quality of family interactions.

           

Although smartphones can provide a wealth of information at fast speeds, this can reduce the ability for people to think independently from their devices. When having a conversation about one topic or another, one can now simply take out their phone and search for relevant information. While this certainly seems convenient at face value, it reduces our capacity to recall information that is stored in our memory. According to an article by Forbes Magazine, a 2011 study showed that workers who abstained from e-mail and smartphones for a week were less stressed and more focused on tasks than their colleagues. Like any other muscle, the brain needs exercise and smartphones provide it the opportunity to rest. Over the long term, this may have negative effects on memory and recall.

Smartphones are designed to increase the ways in which people can communicate with one another and while they have been successful in this regard, they have inadvertently lead to a decrease in the quality of this communication. According to Public Radio International “smartphones have increased the amount of interaction we have, but have decreased the quality of that interaction.” With increased access to the Internet, smartphones have helped fuel a growth in social networking websites such as Facebook and Twitter.

One way to quantify the change in communication is to examine phone contracts. When signing up for a smartphone contract with Verizon Wireless, consumers used to be able to purchase unlimited Internet data for thirty dollars per month. In addition, consumers would choose how many minutes they would like to be able to talk on the phone per month and would be charged in a tiered system. However, in 2012 Verizon introduced a new Share Everything plan and did away with the old system. In the new Verizon smartphone plans, consumers get unlimited voice minutes for a charge of zero dollars per month and instead pay in a tiered system for data. One may ask why Verizon would shift like this. The answer lies in the fact that Verizon smartphone customers now spend much less time talking on their phone than browsing the Internet. In an attempt to maximize profits, Verizon shifted it’s contracts to reflect this change in it’s consumers. In effect, social media posts and text messages are quickly replacing more personal phone calls.

While smartphones have increased people’s access to technology, this has not yielded positive results. Smartphones are designed to supplement and enhance human communication, but in effect they are overtaking it.

Benefits of a 40 Hour Workweek

As promised, I decided to write a post about reasons why employees should not overwork themselves. It is fairly common for high-level executives or professionals such as doctors and lawyers to work significantly more than 40 hours per week. In some companies this practice is frowned upon while in others it is encouraged. Does working 50, 60 or 70 hours actually make employees productive? 

No.

Every person has a limit to how much they can produce in a given period of time. For most people, working 40 hours per week is the way to be most efficient. 40 hours seems to most people a reasonable amount of time to commit to working in a given week; work less than this amount and less will get done, but work more and productivity per hour will quickly begin to decline. Although output per hour will drop, wouldn't overall output still rise? 

Not for long.

Working under pressure people can perform well for short periods of time, but they wear out. This is essentially a distinction between acute stress and chronic stress. An employee who is working on an important project that requires an extra five or ten hours on a given week may feel activate acute stress; this will allow them to actually produce much more than usual as their body responds. However, if this situation were to drag on for three or four weeks, their body would enter a state of chronic stress. People who are chronically stressed perform at lower ability levels than those who are not stressed. Chronic stress increases the likelihood that a person will get sick. People who are stressed from working long hours are probably tired as well. Sleep deficits also contribue to a drop in productivity. After a month of working 60 or more hours per week, a person will likely be so fatigued, stressed and worn down that they will actually be less productive than when they worked for 40 hours. Their families will probably not be happy either!

These long work hours have become more common over time for Americans. Look at this picture from The Huffington Post which shows an increase in the number of hours worked between the 1970s and today.

Some high-level executives have in fact rejected the trend of working long hours. Take for example Facebook COO Cheryl Sandberg. She is a working mother who leaves the office every day by 5:30 to have dinner with her family. She claims that for years she was afraid to share this with people because they might think of her as lazy. Regardless of her "unmotivated" work ethic, she has managed to rise to near the top of Facebook. This certainly shows that it is possible to have both career success and a life on the outside.

If you are still not convinced of the benefits of a 40 hour workweek, try both for a month and see how you feel at the end!

Exposing The Leisure Gap: Time vs. Money

We all know the stereotype of lawyers and high-level executives working six or seven day weeks, often for ten or more hours per day. But we also know that prestigious positions come with high salaries and lots of benefits. On the other hand consider those who work lower level positions. These employees are often paid hourly and are not encouraged to work more than 40 hours per week. The result of this matrix is that the rich end up with lots of money but no time to spend it, while the poor have lots of time but no money to spend. We will now examine whether this is truly a stereotype, or whether it is actually true.

First let us consider the fact that the United States differs sharply from other western nations. In Europe, most employees get more than four weeks of vacation per year, in the United States, the average employee gets 12 days off per year. Interestingly enough, Americans, like the Japanese, do not use all of their vacation days. Note the photo below that shows the difference between America and Europe. Fifty years ago, this tendency for Americans to work more than Europeans did not exist.

Now it is important to look at the differences that exist within America, comparing those at the top of the earning pyramid with those at the bottom.

Between 1985 and 2007, total leisure time for the most educated Americans, who typically earn the most money, declined by 1.2 hours to 33 hours per week. During the same period, leisure for the least educated Americans increased by 2.5 hours to 39 hours per week. Not only is there a significant difference between the highest and lowest earners, but this difference has increased rather than decreased over time. 

This difference may reflect the tendency for salaried employees to feel pressured into working longer hours as they obtain extra responsibilities. Employers try to squeeze as much work out of these high level employees as possible because they are a high fixed cost; working 40 or 80 hours per week makes no difference to the payout from the employer.

The wage gap may also be partially explained by this same phenomenon. The difference between the highest and lowest quintiles of wage earners in America is now greater than ever before. Companies wish to save money by hiring the fewest number of high salary wage earners. For example, a company needs 80 hours of work per week for a particularly challenging job. They could either higher two executives at $150,000 per year for 40 hours per week, or they could force one person to complete the work of two people over 80 hours and pay $250,000. The company sees an annual $50,000 cost savings theoretically without a decrease in quality. Because this is a standard practice, the employee takes the job with the high salary and becomes overworked.

Meanwhile, lower-level employees wages have risen only slightly over the past 30 or so years. During this time, gains in technology and education have allowed these employees to become much more productive. Some of the productivity gains are seen by salary increases, while others are forwarded to employees in the form of fewer working hours. Employers for hourly workers have no desire to work these employees for more than 40 hours per week because they will have to pay overtime. 

Will this trend continue over time, or will employers begin to reduce the working hours of the highest earners, therefore reducing the wage gap? Stay tuned for a post about why working more than 40 hours per week is actually less productive.

Reasons to Adopt a Four Day Work Week

The longtime standard corporate workweek has been from Monday to Friday, 9 to 5, 40 hours per week. In theory, this structure is very democratic, offering a great balance between work and life outside of work. During the workweek, 8 hours are for work, 8 hours are for sleep and 8 hours are for everything else. But after factoring in rush-hour traffic combined with long commutes, late meetings and everyday activities such as eating or taking a trip to the gym, many people are left with only an hour or two before bed. By the time Friday hits, many people are exhausted and often the two day weekend is not enough time to recharge before starting the next week.

Why not try something new?

In 2008, Utah implemented an interesting idea in it's public sector: employees began working four days a week for ten hours per day. The overall working time remained the same, but the week became more condensed. Over 80% of employees in Utah favored this change and the state actually recognized increased productivity from workers. In 2011 the state government changed hands and the policy ended, but many companies have begun to copy or at least offer a four day workweek for employees. Here are some reasons why.

It is Less Expensive:

Put simply, it costs money to keep buildings open, powered and heated. Keeping an office open for five days a week means five days of utility related expenses. Closing an office for one of these days is a way to instantly reduce this expense. Consider the U.S. Post Office which planned to cut Saturday mail delivery. This was estimated to save 2 billion dollars per year by simply delivering more mail on other days.

Employees Can Be More Productive:

Having three days out of seven to rest and not have to worry about working would be wonderful for employees. They would have extra time to unwind and enjoy the parts of their life that are not focused on working. When employees know that they will be working for ten hours per day instead of eight, it leaves less time to try to schedule other things and more time to actually focus on working, and because the week passes so quickly, employees can be more driven to be productive and not waste time. This can lead to an overall rise in productivity.

Less Absenteeism:

Sickness can happen any day of the week and the more days a person spends working, the more likely that their sickness will fall on a workday and that they will not report in for work. Also, if employees have an extra day off, it becomes easier for them to schedule things such as doctors appointments for one of their non-working days.

Gas and Commute Savings:

An employee who travels an hour to work each way per day spends ten hours per week driving to and from work. This employee probably also uses substantial gas each week commuting. Cutting one day from the week would reduce commute time and gas costs by 20%. I cannot think of anyone with a long commute who would not appreciate these savings. Additionally, wear and tear on cars would be reduced so maintenance costs would drop while car lifespan would increase.

Worcester or Boston: Space vs. Appeal

It seems that for every major city, people struggle with a major decision. Should I live in an expensive tiny apartment so that I can experience all of the great things about the city, or should I move to a cheaper area that has less to offer? Rather than discuss this problem in a broad sense, I prefer to focus on the Massachusetts version: Worcester vs. Boston.

I started thinking about this idea yesterday as I was climbing Mount Wachusett. It was a clear day and at the top of the mountain I looked and in the foreground I could see Worcester but in the same view further towards the horizon I could see the skyscrapers of Boston. These two cities are less than an hour apart, but they feel like two different worlds.

Boston:

Worcester:

Both are nice pictures, but even from these shots, it is easy to see that Boston is much larger. Worcester has about 175,000 people and Boston swells above 1,000,000 during the workday. Boston is a city with a strong history, great opportunities and a European flair not found in most American cities. Worcester also has a great history, but it is a city that is an emblem of the industrial working class.

For decades Worcester was a city in decay. Businesses and restaurants would routinely close and grand old houses would fall into disrepair. Recently the city has begun to make a comeback, but it is still a long way from a world class city. Boston on the other hand is a city known for being a pioneer of innovation and modern living, offering organic markets, upscale boutiques and modern high-rise apartments.

For these reasons, many people, particularly those in their 20's, choose Boston. This may seem a simple decision, but consider cost-of-living.

As a college student living in a nice three bedroom apartment in Worcester, my roommates and I paid a total of $1,160 per month. In many parts of Boston, it is difficult to find a tiny studio apartment for the same price. It may cost upwards of a million dollars for a two bedroom condo in a nice building in downtown Boston, but many large four bedroom homes in nicer neighborhoods of Worcester sell for $200,000. Unless you have enough money that money is not a discussion point, this earns Worcester a lot of value. In Worcester you may not have immediate access to the finer things in Boston, but if you live in Boston you probably cannot afford those luxuries. People living in Worcester can enjoy a higher standard of living for a lower price.

Personally I cannot decide what is more important. Affordability or Amenities?

Ending Suburban Sprawl

The American dream: go to college, get a job, move to a nice house in the suburbs. Like this.

Here is a picture of a Phoenix suburb. Houses sprawl endlessly into the desert taking up more and more space and moving further from the urban core. An even more dramatic example is this picture of suburban Los Angeles.

When will it stop? It has become extremely challenging to actually move between the suburbs and the city center. 

Suburbs are extremely inefficient and cannot continue to spread outwards from city centers. In Los Angeles, it takes 30 minutes without traffic to reach downtown from the outer edge of the city. Considering suburbs that extend outside of the city limits, commuters can often drive upwards of an hour to work each way. Not only is it annoying to spend two or more hours commuting a day, it is unnecessary. 

It seems that Americans are finally feeling fed up with the suburbs and beginning to move back to city centers. As cities grow from the center, they can offer more and better services to their residents. Living in a community like the ones pictured in these photos is becoming an unattractive venture. I hope that the trend of downtown urbanization continues over time.

European Political Unification

Europe is an interesting place because right now because the countries of the European Union are standing at a critical juncture. Currently many of the member states of the European Union share a currency, the Euro, and thus have a unified monetary policy. From the introduction of the Euro in 1999 until about 2008, this system worked fine. However, when the world ran into financial meltdown in 2008, the Eurozone also began to suffer.

This is a current map of the Eurozone.

Many countries in the southern portion of the Eurozone such as Greece, Italy and Spain used the financial health of the northern Eurozone countries of Germany and France to borrow money that they could not afford to repay. When the financial crisis hit, the actions of Greece, Italy and Spain not only affected themselves, but also affected the countries in the northern Eurozone who had been responsible with money.

This system is extremely fragile and is unfair to countries like Germany. Europe needs to at the very least adopt a fiscal policy for the Eurozone. This would mean that a centralized Eurozone bank would make financial decisions that all Eurozone countries would need to follow. This would leave Europe in a state of fiscal union but not political union. For Europe to show itself as a true world economic power, I believe that it must also take steps towards a political unification.

If Europe decides to make joint monetary decisions, but does not stand on the same page politically, there could be many conflicts of interest. It would be a good step for Europe if it decides to unify financial policy, but any developments in this area would be unstable without political cooperation. Europe has already taken steps towards acting as a single unit with the Euro, but they can make more progress if they take the next step towards a political union.

If the Eurozone is unified as one political body, it would assert the strength and value of the Euro. This could increase trust from other countries and help to stabilize financial markets in Europe. For the past six years Europe has been in economic turmoil and it is time to take dramatic steps to help pull the continent out of depression. I believe that a politically unified Europe, while challenging to develop, could only help the economic situation in Europe.

Boston's Urban Ring Project

For anyone who routinely rides the T in Boston, you probably understand many of it's problems. The green line routinely breaks down, trains never seem to stick to a schedule and there always seem to be interruptions in service. These things are all annoying, but by far worse is the fact that when riding the T, in order to change routes, you must ride all the way downtown. For those of you who are not familiar, I will share a map.

This picture shows a map to scale of the T. The white circles in downtown Boston are the only interchanges between lines. This makes the T practical only for those who need to get from their homes to downtown and back. For example, to get from Riverside at the end of the green line to Alewife at the end of the red line, you would need to travel 40 minutes inbound on the green and then another 20 outbound on the red. This seems illogical. 

The current setup of the T restricts commerce. If it were easier to move between the cities surrounding Boston, these areas would experience higher economic growth rates and the entire metropolitan area could prosper. Funneling traffic into just one place only creates congestion and frustration.

One idea that has been suggested is known as the Urban Ring Project. This is a proposition to expand T service to connect the current lines in a ring, allowing for easier access to areas that are not just downtown. This is a map of the proposed expansion.

The ring project itself is the new yellow line. This would make travel so much easier for people in and around Boston. You will notice that this full expansion would also expand existing lines and create a new purple line. These new routes can be hoped for, but the ring I believe is most crucial to economic success. The cost of building a new subway line would be very high, but Boston has a history of expensive public works projects. In fact, Boston is home to the first subway line in the country. With a subway that started in the late 1800's, it seems that it is time for a modern upgrade so that Boston can continue to be a pioneer of urban success.

When Cities Get Too Big

Many of the things that I talk about relate to the benefits of urbanization, and there certainly are lots of benefits. But is there a point that cities can grow so large that they become unmanageable? Cities can be efficient because they bring together all different types of people with different knowledge and skills, which allows many types of industries to flourish. My guess is that somewhere between 5 and 10 million people, cities actually start to become less efficient for the following reasons.

Diminishing Returns: As the number of people available to fill a certain function increases, each additional person adds less to the value of the function. For example, say that one out of every one million people becomes a dog whisperer. The first one or two dog whisperers in a city may provide great benefit to those who wish to have their dogs trained; however, adding say ten more dog whisperers to a city will not provide much additional benefit because they are not needed. The value of each dog whisperer declines, but the waste that they produce remains constant.

Congestion: One of the great things about cities is that they can pack lots of people into a small area by building up. However, one problem is that no matter how high into the sky buildings stretch, in order to move from one building to another, people must always go to the ground floor and then either walk, take public transportation or drive to their destination. In this layout, a theoretically unlimited number of people can live in apartments and work in their offices without feeling cramped, but nothing can truly reduce the congestion on streets. Eventually even walking short distances becomes difficult. Consider New York City where it is nearly impossible to drive, subways are always packed and it is a struggle to walk a single block without bumping into someone. This can further limit the amount of distance a person will travel and rather than being able to move about the city, a person may feel confined to the few blocks around them because of the frustration and time it takes to go anywhere else. This can actually reduce the value of the services that are too far to reach.

Disasters: The largest cities have the most to lose in cases of disaster, and misfortunate can take many forms be it hurricane, blackout, terrorist attack or snowstorm. Any of these events can cripple an area, but the largest cities have the most to lose. While a blackout in a small town may simply encourage residents to sit in their homes and light candles, I can recall the massive New York City blackout from several years ago. The streets flooded with people and cars and everyone became stuck everywhere. Nobody could move and the city was full of panic. It was a complete mess. Situations like this can strongly interrupt the flow of life in large cities.

I remain a strong advocate of urbanization because I think that in most cases the benefits outweigh the costs. But in the modern era where cities have the resources to expand upwards of 5 to 10 million people, we must create new ways to attack these problems. The way that cities are currently designed, they have limits. In order to push the population limit higher, cities will need to plan some new and creative solutions.