Sprawl Makes Children Fatter

Sprawl and Obesity

Many decades ago, children could walk almost anywhere they wanted to go on a day to day basis. It was a short walk to school, to a friends house and maybe even to the park. Kids spent lots of time outside socializing and wandering from place to place with friends. Today this is no longer the case. Kids can hardly get anywhere without the help of a car. It's making kids gain weight.

The first study on sprawl and obesity was published in 2008 and it confirmed that residents who live in car dependent communities tend to weight more. One way to show this trend is the increase in school bus ridership. As school have become further and further from residences, children have needed to travel further and now about half of school-aged children ride the bus every day to get to school.

What do we do?

There is no simple way of solving this problem because really there are two problems, obesity and sprawl. The relationship between the two is not perfect; there are other factors which influence both sprawl and obesity. But one clear step that can be taken is moving people back into cities. Reducing dependency on cars increases walkability and decreases sprawl at once. However, even urban living does not really solve the problem. Some cities like New York and Boston are well suited for walking while others require you to use a car for almost everything even if you live downtown. 

Sometimes it is better to recognize that you have a problem before trying to search for a solution. These issues are complex and need to be fully understood before halfheartedly attempting to resolve them. 

Race and Access to Food Video

This video examines the relationship between race, income and food access. I hope you enjoy.

Obesity: The Last Form of Discrimination

Obesity Based Discrimination

I started thinking about this topic when I read a news article about Atlantic City, NJ last night. There is a casino that hires women (and some men) as models and calls them "Borgata Babes." In order to work as a Borgata Babe, the employee must participate in weekly weigh-ins and never gain more than 7% of their hire-date weight. When some employees were fired for gaining too much weight, they were dismissed from their jobs. They then took the challenge to court and lost!

In the United States, we have over they years learned that it is bad to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, income and just about everything else, but not obesity yet. In fact, only one state, Michigan, has laws that protect obese Americans from discrimination. For those who believe that it is acceptable to discriminate against those who are obese, a common argument is that you choose to become obese. In some ways this is true, but there are so many conditional circumstances such as income and metabolism that tip the scales strongly against some people.

Right now over 33% of Americans are obese and around 70% are overweight. These numbers are certainly not good, but let's look at some of the ways that obese Americans are discriminated against.

More likely to be perceived as incompetent: Many people look at those who are obese and think that they are in some way out of control. They are less likely to trust obese Americans than healthier weight Americans and when asked about intelligence, are likely to give obese people lower marks.

Skipped at Work: Whether for hiring, performance evaluations or promotions, obesity makes someone more likely to be ignored in the workplace. This is unfortunate because there is no evidence that obesity makes someone less competent. Some offices will even refuse to hire someone who is obese because they fear that they will have to pay more for health insurance.

Charged Extra: In case you have never noticed, seats in public places tend to be designed for skinny people. Seats are found in lots of places from movie theatres, to parks to subways to airplanes. Many people do not fit well in the "average" seat. As a result, many companies, most notably airlines, charge extra for obese customers. Rather than adjusting seat sizes, obese people are often charged for the price of two seats. An obese person is still one person, not two.

Hopefully in the coming years some of these forms of discrimination will change. A new study was just published that states that shaming obese people by calling them fat and things like that actually increases their chances of remaining obese.

Should Washington D.C. Build Taller?

Maintaining the D.C. Height Limit

I have spent a long time relatively split on this topic and only recently have made up my mind. When I think of D.C. I think of a beautiful medium density city that in many ways resembles European cities like Paris. But it is also easy to think that the city has nowhere left to grow, that the height restriction will prevent further development of the city. There are points to be made on both sides of the argument, but I believe that D.C. should not lift it's height limit, at least not significantly.

As you can see, many of the buildings in commercial areas of D.C. end up being exactly the same height. It is often remarked that buildings in this area feel rather wide and grand. But looking at the city, one cannot help but look up. Wouldn't building taller make the city more competitive and affordable?

No. And here are some reasons why.

D.C. Has Great Density Already

Looking at D.C. many people simply see a city without skyscrapers. A common argument is that building taller would allow the city to increase in density. But D.C. is already very dense compared to many American cities. In fact, it's density is about 10,000 people per square mile. Boston, New York and San Francisco exceed this number, but most American cities with skyscrapers do not. Building up may increase density further, but D.C. has already reached a point where public transportation and services are well spread. Too much density can lead to simple overcrowding, think Manhattan.

Room to Grow

Another argument for increasing building height in the District is that the city cannot support any more people and so housing is extremely expensive. While it is true that housing is expensive, it is because D.C. has recently become an extremely desirable place to live, not because it's population has reached some sort of limit. Right now the city has about 630,000 residents. In 1950 the number was about 800,000. There is much more housing stock available now than there was 60 years ago so the city can support at least 150,000 - 200,000 more residents without argument. Furthermore, many parts of the city are still low density and fall below the current building code. I would argue that in NW D.C. anything north of Georgetown has room to grow and anywhere north of U Street in NE D.C.

Taller Isn't Necessarily Cheaper

Many people believe that real estate prices will come down if there is a building boom. Simple supply and demand you might say; increasing the housing and commercial stock available will increase supply and so prices will fall. I have to disagree. If the entire city was torn down at once and replaced with huge buildings, there probably would be a temporary price depression. But as these new spaces filled (quickly), prices would come right back up and probably surpass current levels. There is no evidence that taller cities are cheaper. If this were true, New York and Boston would be very affordable! Many things affect prices of cities, not simply building codes.

Washington D.C. is a beautiful city. Few can argue with that. It is one of the most unique places in the United States and has a feeling that no other city can replicate. The building restriction is one of the things that really helps to define the city as it stands today. Lifting the limit could undermine the character of the city itself and change it's significance in the eyes of America.

Cities are Safer than Suburbs

Why it's Safer to Live in the City

Now you may see this title and be a bit skeptical, but a new study asserts that this is true. If you don't believe me, check out this article by National Geographic. At first, I was skeptical as well. But when you dive into the facts, this seemingly illogical idea begins to make much more sense.

But haven't we learned for decades that the best way to keep our children safe was to move out to the suburbs? How can cities really be safer?

Fewer Car Accidents: 

There are a number of factors that tip the scales in favor of cities, but by far, the biggest reason that cities are statistically safer is that they provide a lower risk for car accidents. In 2011, over 32,000 Americans died in car accidents. Logically, the more you are in a car, the more likely you are to die in a car accident. Because suburban and rural residents depend on cars for everyday needs, they spend significantly more time in cars, making them much more likely to die in car accidents. If you live in a city and use public transportation, your risk of dying in a car accident drops to near 0. 

Now you may say so what? I'm not worried about car accidents, cities are just simply more dangerous. Its true that cities have more crime per capita, but accidental deaths caused by cars are still real deaths. They must be factored into the equation. Just as a note, city dwellers using public transit are more likely to die in these types of accidents, but the rates and severity of these accidents are much lower than of cars.

Quicker Saves:

This can really mean a variety of things, but it comes down to the idea that if something bad happens to you in a densely populated urban area, you are more likely to get help quickly. This bad thing could be a fire, a shooting, a heart attack or almost anything else. If for example you have a heart attack in New York City, you will be close to a hospital and more likely to survive than if you live in say rural Maine. Response rates for accidents can really mean the difference between life and death. Rural areas tend to have slower response times because emergency services have to cover larger areas and are thus more likely to be far away from where the accident occurs.

Fewer Suicides:

There tend to be higher suicide rates in rural areas compared to urban areas. Suicides tend not to be among the leading causes of death, but they still contribute to the final total. Nobody knows for sure why rates are higher in rural areas, but one possible explanation is isolation. People benefit from social connections and these relationships can help to ward off depression. Being far from others in rural areas may increase depression and suicide rates by default.

I have to say that when I first read this new study I was surprised. In as much as I advocate for living in cities, I was among the majority of Americans who had the misperception that rural areas are safer. Be informed, spread the word. 

Public vs. Private Beaches

Private Beaches and Property Rights

Today I was at the beach having a pleasant time. There was some commotion and the eventual result was a scene that looked something like this...

That's right, my friends, other beach-goers and I were enjoying the beautiful day when we were all asked to clear the beach. A man called the police to assert his property rights. Apparently this man owned a small parcel of land, with no house on it, sandwiched between two public beaches. Effectively he ordered us off of his land which he himself was not using and prevented people from moving freely about the beach.

So as a result I decided to open up a discussion about property rights and beach etiquette. 

Know the Rules: I think that this is probably the most crucial part of the beach access debate. In some areas, by law, beaches cannot be private at all, while in others, private beaches are the norm. Before arguing over whether or a rule is fair, one must understand the rule. 

By the way, the beach that I was in is in Rhode Island and the state specifically recognizes the right of passage by the public across private beaches via the high tide line. A simple application of this rule may have resolved the tensions that built today. 

Become an Informed Consumer: If you are the type of person who wants privacy at the beach and does not want to be bothered with others, it may be best to buy land that is far away from public beaches, not in between them. If you own the only parcel of land that separates two public areas, you are bound to run into easement issues whether or not this property happens to be along the water. 

Be Respectful: This one goes both ways. I would say that if a property owner wishes people to leave his or her property, it makes sense that the public should comply. However, it also makes sense that a landowner should not call the police to remove people from land that he is not using as was the case today. 

Overall I think that it is unfortunate that people cannot just learn to share space appropriately. In general, people always have enough room on the beach to have enough fun without imposing rules on others. 

Conservatives are Happier than Liberals

Why Conservatives are Happier

Happiness is a very interesting topic. Everyone would like to think that they are happy and often, people would like others to perceive them as happy. It is a very subjective emotion that is challenging to quantify other than through self represented answers. It would be very easy into making it look on paper as though you were more or less happy than you were. 

Despite these challenges, researchers have amassed enough data to make a striking claim about happiness. Conservatives are happier than liberals. Several new studies point to this as well as older studies by Pew Research and the Journal of Psychological Science that spanned long periods of time. During the period of 1980 - 2013, conservatives always reported themselves as being happier than liberals. 

Happiness over Time

As you can see from this graph, conservatives (Republicans) always reported higher levels of happiness than liberals (Democrats). But why is this? Let's look into a variety of factors that could be responsible for the happiness gap.

Marriage: More than half of conservative adults are married while less than half of liberal adults can be counted as wed. Marriage, independently of political beliefs, has a strong positive effect on happiness. Those who are married are more likely to have strong social support systems and people to rely on in times of need. Married couples are also more likely to have children, which in the long run also tends to increase happiness.

Religion: While liberals will not like to acknowledge this, religion actually makes people happier. Often times those who are religious have a sense of hope and ease about them. Religion can also help bring communities together and like marriage create social support systems for times of need. 

Less Cynical (Less Aware): This one will really depend on your own ideology. In a broad sense conservatives are most likely to see systems functioning properly. This means that they have faith in statements such as "you can get as far as you want as long as you try" or "everyone has a fair shot." This sense of optimism or ignorance, whichever you prefer, can greatly increase ones feelings of personal satisfaction. Feeling that the world is a just place would make anybody happier!

I have to say that this new surprised me! I consider myself to be relatively liberal and so I suppose I would have liked if things turned out the other way. But regardless I think that it is interesting to observe the relationship between things that otherwise may be left unseen. 

American Road Grids

Are Grids Better or Worse?

One of the best indicators of where in the United States you are can come from paying attention to the roads. Streets that tend to twist and turn in no comprehensible pattern are often found in the Northeast, while the Midwest and Plains states are known for perfectly engineered rectangular blocks that stretch for miles. There are distinct advantages for both ways of building.

Road Grid Map

This map is interesting because it shows the specific dividing lines between grid and non gridded systems. The atlantic coast for the most part is built without a system and so is the gulf coast of Texas and the California coast. Otherwise, the country generally conforms to a grid structure. As a side note, Ohio is by far my favorite; they seem to wrap the state in a maze of non gridded, local grids and national grids.

Benefits of Grids

Almost without question, grids are most efficient. It is always easy to get from one place to another when roads follow a strict grid, particularly when traveling North - South or East - West. Diagonal movement can actually be quite challenging in a grid system. Another benefit of grids is that areas become quite easy to zone and plan for development. When sections of land are blocked into very specific sizes, developers can create reusable plans that can apply to many areas.

Downsides of Grids

Boring. I think that is probably the easiest way of saying it. There is almost no originality in a grid system. Everything tends to look the same or at least similar and creative architecture almost never appears. This can actually lead to confusion; because roads and landscapes do not tend to be unique it is very challenging to know where you are and to judge how far you still have to travel to your destination if you do not have a navigation system.

Benefits of Being Off Grid

My favorite thing about living off the grid in New England is the sense of uniqueness that tends to come with it. Buildings tend to be all different sizes and shapes because often they become wedged between streets in odd alignments. Towns and cities easily develop into their own special places that are not easily replicated. Two towns or cities right next to one another can develop in such different ways that residents can attach to a clear local identity. These communities also tend to provide great support for those who chose to walk from place to place.

Downsides of Being Off Grid

It can be a mess. Getting anywhere by car can be a real challenge. If you do not know exactly what route you should take to get somewhere, you can get very lost and confused. A couple of months ago I had to drive from Cambridge to Newton (both just outside of Boston). The GPS told me the trip was about 7 miles and it took me 40 minutes. I probably never stayed on a single street for more than 45 - 50 seconds. Boston is one of the most extreme examples, but this is not all that farfetched for being off grid. As much as I like grids, it would not be fair not to mention that it is inefficient as well. All of this wasted time and distance surely counts for something. 

Conclusion

In this debate I can never really make up my mind. I am torn between my love of efficiency and my love for New England unique designs. I don't know if I will ever really decide. I tried to present the pros and cons so that you can make up your own mind.

Rent or Buy?

Buying is not Always Best

Homeownership has long been a strong component of the American dream, but over the past decade or so, homeownership rates have been declining for a variety of reasons. Many people lost their homes during the recession and others are too mobile to go through the hassle of buying a home in a single location. As Americans, we have the idea that owning a home is one of the key markers for success and that we will be better off if we choose to buy a home. This is not always the case. I will go into a discussion further, but if you don't believe me, check out this calculator by the New York Times.

There are a variety of reasons that you could be better off renting a home than buying. As you might see from this map, the decision is not always clear cut in favor of buying. Let's discuss some key factors.

Rent vs Buy Map

1. Location

In some locations in the country, you could pay more to rent a home than to buy the same home. There are a variety of market conditions that may influence this. In a situation like this, it is important to be aware that your budget, even if unchanged, will buy different things in the rental vs. owner markets. This is not a be all end all factor for everyone, but it is important to be aware of. 

2. Mobility

How long are you going to stay in one place? In general, the longer that you stay in one home the more financially attractive it becomes to buy. This is because when you are paying off a 30 year mortgage, you pay mostly interest in the beginning; equity does not begin to accumulate quickly until after year 10. That means that if you sell before 10 years, you will have accumulated little equity and the transaction costs of selling and buying may outweigh these equity gains. 

3. Lost Opportunity Costs

This one may be the most subtle but most important. When saving for a home, we usually try and accumulate a down payment as fast as possible by stashing cash in the bank. Once we buy the house, we tend to feel that we are "paying ourselves" and that gives us less of an incentive to save. In general, it is cheaper to rent than to buy. Imagine that you have the choice to buy a house for $1200 per month or rent for $1000 per month. If you rent, you can invest that extra $200 per month, which will likely appreciate faster than the value of the home. If you are consistent, you can make a lot of money this way over time. This idea however gets flipped in markets where it is cheaper to buy than rent!

Despite our apprehensions about renting, there are certainly times that it works out to be a better option than homeownership. Americans should stop putting themselves into mental boxes because when you think narrowly, you can avoid making the best decisions.

Detroit Battles Bankruptcy and Decline

Can Detroit Be Saved?

Yesterday I discussed strategies cities can use to combat a declining population, but today I wanted to focus on one city in particular, Detroit. Once the fastest growing city in the world, Detroit has now become America's fastest shrinking. It reached a peak population of near 2 million people in the 1950's, but has since declined to about 700,000. This week, the city officially filed for bankruptcy, making it the largest American city ever to do so. Let's look at some of the root causes behind Detroit's continued decline.

Detroit Decay

1. Decline of Automotive Manufacturing

Detroit has long been known as Motor city, the capital of the automobile industry. For decades, American companies dominated the auto industry and most of the largest American companies were located in Detroit. These companies provided nearly endless manufacturing jobs that were stable and offered good pay but did not require much education.

As the world has become more global, American companies faced pressure to compete by outsourcing manufacturing. Today there are almost no manufacturing jobs left in the city. The slow decline has pushed up the poverty and unemployment rates. The current unemployment rate stands at 16.3%. As these economic changes were occurring, nobody did anything to try to reroute Detroit.

2. Outrageous Expenses

As the city slowly lost it's jobs, it continued to commit to paying huge sums of money for pensions and public benefits. As of right now, Detroit is defaulting on $18 billion worth of debt, almost half of which comes from unfunded pension plans. Nobody took notice that the city was in dire straits and so the city kept overspending for decades hoping that everything would be okay.

3. Corruption

While all of this was happening, Detroit elected some of the country's worst public officials. Many of Detroits officials embezzled money or did other things to put themselves before the needs of the city. Instead of helping the situation or even just keeping things the same, many of the mayors and other high ranking Detroit officials contributed to making the problems much worse.

4. Abandonment

Over 70% of the population is gone! 70%. That's a huge number. The city is coping with more unoccupied space than occupied. Huge swaths of neighborhoods are empty and even downtown hotels have boarded up. This has greatly increased crime; Detroit ranks among the most dangerous cities in the country. It also means that public services are nearly nonexistent. Police take an average of 1 hour to respond to emergency calls and over 60% of city ambulances are broken!

Detroit faces a long road to recovery. It appears at this point that because the city's problems have been largely avoided for 60 years, bankruptcy is one of the only ways out of the mess. If the city moves successfully through bankruptcy proceedings, Detroit may avoid it's seeming inevitable fate of becoming the first American city to be shut down and forgotten.

Dealing with Shrinking Cities

Defending What's Left of Declining Cities

Despite the fact that we like to imagine that over time cities always become larger and more prosperous this is not always the case. In the United States an entire region of cities has been declining in prestige and population for about 50 years. This area is the upper midwest and is known as the Rust Belt. Cities such as Detroit (more on that later), St. Louis, Youngstown and Flint have been shrinking for decades. Public officials have either turned a blind eye or just hoped that trends would reverse. As these areas lost manufacturing jobs that were at the base of the economy, they have been forced to cut back.

I wanted to show you a picture of Detroit specifically. It is the highlight of urban decline and it's population has dropped from a peak of 1.8 million to around 700,000.

This is only one neighborhood, but it is largely representative of the whole city. Notice that a once full residential neighborhood stands with fewer than 50% of the houses remaining. This problem plagues Detroit. The city has a large size but because residents are so dispersed and density is low, city services are strained.

But what do we do?

1. Accept Shrink

The first step to fixing any problem is always acknowledging that it exists. Clearly some cities have a dramatic shrinking problem. Often times, city boundaries were created large to accommodate high density population; it makes sense that if it was known that the population would shrink, the city would have been designed smaller.

2. Centralize  

This could be a challenge. I propose literally moving people out of the abandoned reaches and into the urban core. This will do two things. First, it will allow the city to cut services to outlying areas because they will truly be abandoned. Secondly, increased density in a central urban area will make the city FEEL bigger. This can help residents to cope and may restore some faith in the community. Bringing people together may also increase business activity in the central core of the city.

3. Defend What's Left

Rather than continuing to reduce the size of the central core, revitalize downtown and make the city more livable. Make the center of a city that people want to come to and want to stay in. Rebuilding downtown and bringing a in new businesses will bolster the economy and hopefully help to stop the exodus. If this does not happen, the city will probably keep shrinking!

It is certainly not easy to deal with a shrinking city and by no means is shrink the "fault" of urban designers. Many factors relate to why people may want to leave a city. It sometimes takes radical and creative approaches to turn things around. My next post will be about Detroit and it's specific dilemna.

Young Wives Live Shorter Lives

Why The Age we Act is Important

Age is a fickle fiend. Chronologically, it is a number. Biologically, it is represented physiologically. Healthwise, it can be counted by the number of ailments a person suffers. Emotionally, it is how we feel. So what is age really? It is all of these things.

Most often, we think of age in terms of the number. If you are asked your age you are more likely to say "I am 35" than "I am beginning to get wrinkles" or "I have high blood pressure but am otherwise healthy." It is simply normal to think of our age in the most simple of ways. But the older we get, the more we realize that people that are the same numerical age as we are can appear quite different.

Let's for now examine age in a different way: social behaviors. What I mean is let's think about age in terms of the way that we interact with others. I will use the simple example of parenthood. Let's compare two theoretical women. Woman A marries at 22 and has a child at 24, woman B marries at 35 and has her first child at 38.

It turns out the children of these two women were born in the same year and attend school together with several other children. A group of 10 children become friends in Kindergarten and as a result, their moms become friends as well. The average age of these moms is 35; woman A is 29 and woman B is 43.

We now have a social group of moms who range in age from 29-43. Despite the fact that numerically they are all different ages, their lives center around similar activities and they are all very engrossed in being mothers of young children. Let's assume that these moms all join the Parent Teacher Association and become very close. In a social sense, these women behave the same and they all feel the age that emotionally corresponds to being a new mom. The "average" new mom in this group is 35 and so all of the moms more or less act in a way consistent with being about 35. The 29 year old feels older than her numeric age and the 43 year old feels younger.

Over time it will become more and more apparent that people will act consistently with the age that they feel. Feeling younger than you really are will help keep you healthier because you will be doing "young" activities which tend to be more active while acting older will start to slow you down! Effectively, Woman B who had her child at 38 will be more likely to live a longer life than Woman A who had her child at 24.

Don't believe me? Check out this study by the University of Michigan!

Why we pay more for Brand Names

Brand Names as Status Symbols

Have you ever wandered into CVS when you were sick in search of cold medicine? If so, there was probably a point when you noticed that you could purchase CVS brand medicine or brand name products like like Advil or Tylenol. Often times, the brand name products cost 20, 30 or maybe even 50% more; they also usually contain the same mix of ingredients as CVS brand items. But regardless, we buy them.

But why? Everyone knows that brand name products are more expensive and usually exactly the same!

I think that it is about status. People want to be perceived as being successful and in America, success means having money. People want others to think that they have extra money so that they can feel good about themselves. So, when you are walking around in the store putting items into your cart, you choose brand name items that are more expensive because you subconsciously feel that others are watching you. I think that people tell themselves there are other reasons such as "I trust this product" or "I worry about the quality of generic products" but I think that much of the decision is based on image.

Take a look at this graph. It shows that the gap between brand name and generic medication prices has actually risen in the past few years. Brand names are becoming more "exclusive" while generic products are becoming cheaper.

It is hard to really say why people make certain decisions. But one thing is for sure: if you buy brand name products, you will end up with less money. It's an interesting paradox if you ask me.

Sex in Advertising

Sex Appeal Makes us Shop

In my last post I talked about the disconnect in advertising, but today I wanted to more specifically examine the way that sex is used in ads. Sometimes it seems appropriate to use some sex appeal when trying to sell something, particularly when the product is related to physical attractiveness, but sometimes it seems pretty far off base.

Before we look into specific ads, it begs to be asked if using sex in advertising works. YES. Sex is the strongest psychological trigger that humans have, so using sex as a way to showcase a product will make a potential consumer more likely to pay attention. It almost always works at least this well. Sometimes, when ads are well done, they can make you feel on a more subconscious level as though having the product will transform you into the attractive person in the ad.

So now that we have decided it works, let's see some ads! I will start with some harmless ones, but if you keep reading through, I will show you some that really cross the line!

Ad 1: California Sun

I would say that this ad is pretty harmless. It's display relates to the product; the woman is shown wearing a bathing suit on a beach and the ad is for a tanning product. It's a good fit, the woman appears satisfied and all together the ad is not unrealistic.

Ad 2: Abercrombie and Fitch

This one is a little bit stranger than the one before it. It is a clothing advertisement so a bit of sex appeal would make sense. A bit. This ad shows about 4 inches of jeans and a belt, not a great way for Abercrombie to display what it's clothes look like! The rest, maybe 2 feet of space is just a man's chest. Looks great, but it's a stretch to say this is really a clothing advertisement.

Ad 3: Toilet Paper...

I love this. Two nearly naked people standing near a toilet in a toilet paper ad. If you ever asked me what the least sexy thing was I may have said toilet paper. But to this company it does not seem to matter. Toilet paper will do NOTHING to make you sexier. I see no reasonable case for this ad. But still, I would say this is at least harmless.

Ad 4: Dolce & Gabbana

I believe this ad was posted in 2007 and as far as I know it is universally seen as extremely controversial. Okay so it passes my measure of showing clothing, but pay attention to the scene. The woman is being forcefully held down by a man who is lurking over her while others watch ominously in the foreground. This conjures up images of a gang rape. It says to men, "wearing these clothes will make you attractive enough that you can have power over women" and it says to women "no matter how good you look you are weak, men will take advantage of you, enjoy it." Bad.

Even after this I have to say the worst is yet to come. This time in the form of a video.

 

Louis Vuitton. Tell me this isn't the saddest ad you've ever seen. It shows a drugged up woman wandering the streets and having sex with a man in a car and then glamorizes it. This woman is a prostitute wearing designer clothes. This ad has clearly stepped over the line.

I hope you've enjoyed these ads, let me know your thoughts in the comments section below!

Uncovering the Advertising Trap

How Advertisers Misrepresent the World

Here I was sitting on my computer the other day planning out the things that I would buy after I graduate and I decided I would love a new BMW. I read all about their program to give college graduates a discount and I thought wow this is great, and after all it is in American blood to shop endlessly. But then it hit me all at once. I cannot afford a BMW. Why? Because I'm 19! No 19 year olds should be expect to be able to afford a BMW!

I thought more into this and I began to see very clearly that there is a huge disconnect in advertising. Ads almost invariably focus on youthful people who in many cases cannot reasonably expect to afford the things being shown. If I were to purchase a new BMW at a young age, I would probably be set far back in my short-term financial goals.

Look at this crazy BMW ad that I found. It is in fact so descriptive of what I am trying to get across that I am tempted to just stop writing. This advertisement features an attractive young couple in the act of making love, but the woman's face is replaced with a picture of a BMW. This ad says "Buying a BMW is sexy and you should do it because it will make your life better." Well, it will make you life better with a perhaps 300 or 400 dollar car payment if that's what you mean. I will later do another post on sex in advertising.

On the flip side of this, we are primed to make judgement about older people doing "young" things and driving "young" cars. If we see a 60 year old man driving a BMW we may think it's strange. Reality check, that's normal. That is the real target audience for luxury cars because older people can afford to buy them.

The world of advertising has flipped our perceptions of life backwards and we do everything that we can to hold onto our youth. I think people should become more comfortable with living as themselves and being able to make choices without falling into an advertising trap.

What Price Would You Pay For Fun?

Cities are Fun

Yesterday I mentioned that one of the downsides to living in a city is that there are often more restrictions than when living in rural areas, but on the flip side, cities tend to be much more fun as well. Most large cities offer a variety of different services that appeal to almost anyone. Things to do could be visiting parks, museums, shopping, trying new restaurants and cafes, exploring different neighborhoods or enjoying nightlife.

For the past decade or so, cities have increased their "fun" offerings in hopes of appealing to younger crowds of people. In general this has worked in many areas and young people really want to move downtown after graduating from college. 

One of the problems with this is the cost. Cities are extremely expensive. Adding more and more fun activities to one's day only increases prices further. What is interesting to me is that people in their 20s are the most likely to want to engage in many of the activities that cities offer, but they are the least likely to be able to afford these things. It seems that there is a disconnect between desires and abilities. The older you get, the more money you are likely to have but the less you will be enthralled with the idea of living close to the urban core. 

My next post will examine the phenomena behind the disconnect between age and money. 

Big Cities Lead to Less Freedom

Cities Require More Laws

For the most part, I try to be as logical as possible. I profess myself to be a huge supporter of cities and urban lifestyles, but today I wanted to examine a noteworthy disadvantage of city life. It turns out that the more tightly packed people are, the more laws are enacted. Thinking on a simplistic level this makes sense.When people have less personal space, more boundaries need to be set in place to manage and fairly allocate this space.

I chose this rather daunting sky-level view of New York City to remind everyone of just how crowded cities can be.

Let's consider some common regulations that are found in cities, but usually not in urban areas.

Noise Restrictions

Leash Laws

Parking Regulations

Strict Recycling Mandates

Rental Limitations

Utility Limitations

Transit Zones: Pedestrian vs. Bike vs. Car

Depending on the specific city, there may be more or less crowding specific legislation. But regardless, most of these legal codes do not exist in rural areas since they tend to correlate with lack of space. Take parking regulations for example. Small towns tend to have an abundance of wide roads that experience low traffic; parking cars on streets overnight does not cause any disruptions. On the other hand, many cities have narrow multi-lane streets that are always congested. If a car were to park here for any amount of time, chaos would ensue. 

While I still think that cities win out, it is important to be fully aware of the trade offs that come from moving from urban to rural and vice versa. Tomorrow I will write a bit more about what benefits cities have to confer that rural areas cannot provide.

Top 3 European Travel Destinations

Best European Cities for Tourists

I will start this post with a disclaimer, I have not actually travelled to any of these places. Yet. I am still in college and right now there is no way that I would be able to afford to travel as much as I would like! I'm sure that when I am older and actually can afford plane tickets to travel, my perception of my favorite places will change, but based on my own research and desires, here are a list of the 3 European destinations I would recommend visiting.

1. Monaco

I wanted to start with Monaco because it may be a destination that some may feel is a bit obscure. And it is. This picture actually captures the entire country, which is less than 500 acres. Monaco is a resort paradise located near the French city of Nice on the French Riviera. It has a mild climate year round and a unique mix of local, French and Italian cultures. Monaco is known for having great casinos and nightlife.

2. Copenhagen 

Copenhagen is a medium-sized city located along the Baltic sea. It is the capital of Denmark and known as being one of the happiest and most liberal cities in the world. Copenhagen is a city of bikes and friendly people. The city is also known for being environmentally friendly city. Despite all of these good things, I would recommend only visiting in the summer months as winters can be quite cold this far north. 

3. Prague

Until recently I never would have thought much of Prague, I simply lumped the Czech Republic in with Germany and Austria. However, one of my best friends is about to move there to teach English as a second language and so I took another look at the city. It is absolutely beautiful. Looking at photos, I cannot think of a more picturesque city. Prague is filled with medieval elements, stone bridges, castles and cobblestones. It also may be the first European city that I have the chance to visit this winter! 

Check Out my Other Travel Posts Here!
Planning a Cape Cod Vacation?
My Five Favorite New England Beaches
Cheapest Ways to Fly

Worcester City Square

Worcester Redevelopment Effort

Despite having spent most of my life in central Massachusetts, I always thought that Worcester was one of the worst places to go. I viewed it as a run down, shrinking and lifeless city where nobody would want to live. To my own defense, for most of my life Worcester really did not have a lot to offer. It's train station served no trains, it's mall had more rats than stores and despite being the second largest city in New England, it was difficult to access from almost any highway.

Fast forward 20 years. From the time I was born in the early 90's until now, Worcester has begun to make a dramatic turnaround. Some major steps: trains now use the train station, JetBlue is operating at the airport, the horrible empty mall has been torn down and the city now connects to another highway. If you are not from around here, you may read these things and think "what's so exciting about that?" Let me tell you, it's exciting because nobody ever expected it to happen in a city that was once so bleak.

Over the next three to five years I expect the city to continue it's transformation, moving from it's current shall I say average status to an ideal place for young people. But why you ask? A project called CitySquare is planning to revitalize all of downtown Worcester. By the way, its going to cost over 500 million dollars... But it's going to turn this

Into This!

In all reality, the city is tearing down the decades empty mall to build a mixed use and pedestrian friendly development area. At first, I did not believe it would happen, but many buildings have actually been completed. So far, the hospital downtown has opened a state of the art cancer facility and a brand new huge office building has gone up for Unum. 

Looking towards the future, the city has plans to continue this buildout over the next 8 or so years and fully demolish and rebuild about 12 acres worth of land, which explains the high price tag. Even outside of the immediate downtown area, Worcester continues to build many new buildings and employment prospects are looking bright, particularly in the health sciences field. 

I really hope that my predictions are accurate and that CitySquare continues with it's great progress, because this will make Worcester a really great place to live.

If you want to learn more about Worcester, check out some of my other articles about the city!
Worcester or Boston: Space vs. Appeal
Why Does the Mass-Pike Avoid Worcester
How Worcester is Keeping College Students

Why Live in a Disaster Zone

Natural Disaster Areas

Over the past several years it seems that the United States has been met with a variety of different types of weather related disasters. While these disasters have been higher in number and frequency than in the past, they have continued to strike similar areas. I have begun to wonder why people have decided to remain in many of these areas.

Historically, many people settled in areas near water that are most prone to flooding because waterways were a main economic boon that allowed for commercial development. This is not as true today, but many major cities are still located along these flood prone areas. Many Americans also live in other disaster prone parts of the country such as "Tornado Alley" in the Great Plains States. The following map shows disaster declaration and FEMA funds per area of the country.

If these patterns continue over a long period of time, I believe that people may begin to move away from these disaster prone areas in search of greater security. 

Universal Healthcare will keep us Alive Longer

Healthcare Increases Life Expectancy

To finish my series on healthcare and life expectancy, I wanted to write one more article about heath insurance. First I should start by saying that the United States is among one of the only developed countries without universal healthcare. In this same group of countries, our life expectancy numbers appear low and our growth has been much slower.

People can engage in political battles over "Obamacare," Medicare and Medicaid and I will not pass judgement. I just want to provide some information that might help you to form your opinion. I want to show you on a county by county basis what percentages of Americans lack health insurance. When I say lack health insurance, I will give a real world example. You feel a lump in your arm and are concerned so you go to the doctor. The doctor tells you that she needs to run some blood work and remove a piece of your lump for a biopsy. The blood work will cost $450 and the biopsy $900. You have a car that costs $300 per month and your mortgage costs $1,000. What will you buy this month?

Now, let's take a look at the numbers.

Notice anything? The Northeast and Midwest seem to have the best rates of health insurance coverage. Notice the South, specifically Florida, Texas and New Mexico. Many parts of these states have between 30 - 50% uninsured residents!

Now my favorite graph of life expectancy by county. Take a good look at this if you haven't already seen it in my last two articles.

Look at these maps on a county by county basis and notice the general trends. Higher rates of health insurance coverage tend to mean longer life expectancy. I feel that it is generally safe to infer that as "Obamacare" takes effect, people currently without insurance will start to live longer.

One more quick thing I want to discuss is the fact that America wastes billions of dollars each year on health related costs, much of this waste is generated because not everyone has access to preventative care. If the health insurance system functions properly, Americans will have access to preventative care and tax money will be saved on costly late in the game procedures that are used to save lives.

How a Fat Paycheck Can Buy You 20 More Years of Life

Wealthier American Live Longer

Yesterday I wrote about how Americans in some parts of the country live for 82 years, while in other parts only live for about 62 years, if you need a refresher check out my post here. Today I plan on overlaying life expectancy statistics with those of other factors such as income and obesity. I will start by showing the change in life expectancy over time.

1985 Life Expectancy

2010 Life Expectancy

The first thing that I want to point out is the dramatic change in the map between 1985 and 2010, sort of. In almost every area of the country, life expectancy rose by over ten years during this period. But now focus on Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana and notice that these numbers barely budged. In a few counties in these states, life expectancy actually declined in the 25 year period.

Obesity statistics are not as widely available for the whole country dating back to 1985, but even the following map from 2010 should be telling.

American Obesity by County 2010

Notice that the three states with the lowest life expectancies are also the states shown in the darkest red coloring on this new map. In red counties, more than a third of adults are obese; if we include people who are simply overweight this number approaches 70%. It appears that obesity does directly relate to shorter life expectancies. America has become more obese over time and much of the increase has been concentrated in the south. It seems as though some of the gains in medical technologies nationwide are being offset in the south by increasing obesity rates.

Finally let's examine income. This map is from 2008 and shows median income by county. I think you will notice a trend here.

2008 Median Income by County

Once again it appears clear that there is an almost direct relationship between higher incomes and longer life. Almost all of the counties with life expectancies below 70 in the United States fall below average on the median income scale. 

One way to tie all of this together is the fact that it is much cheaper to buy unhealthy food than healthy food. People living on lower incomes are more likely to eat cheaper and thus less healthy which in turn can correlate with a spike in obesity. If you want to learn more about obesity and food access, check out this link.

To continue this series on health, I will further investigate medical costs and differences within healthcare itself and report back tomorrow with more information.

American Geographic Health Gap

Regional Differences in Life Expectancy

When considering life expectancy, numbers are usually quoted at a national basis. For example, the United States has a life expectancy of 78.64 years, currently ranked #33 in the world. Japan, country #1 has a life expectancy of about 83 years, while country #100 has a life expectancy of about 71.5 years. The spread from 1 to 100 is only slightly more than 10 years, which does not seem like much. But what happens when we examine life expectancy on a more localized basis? The findings in the United States may surprise you.

We live as long as the Japanese and as short as the Haitians!

2010 United States Life Expectancy by County

Take a moment to really look at this map and digest this. In the wealthiest healthiest parts of the country, San Francisco, Washington D.C., Boston and Colorado, Americans live for more than 82 years. But in the South, particularly in the Mississippi River Valley and throughout Appalachia, the average person only lives to about 62.

We saw a gap of just over 10 years in the life expectancies of the top 100 countries. But within the United States, we could be as high as #1 or as low as #155, all depending on geography. These staggering numbers are just another example of how inequality ravages the United States, dividing people not just by race, wealth or education, but also by likelihood of living to see their 80th birthday.

Stay tuned for another post tomorrow that further examines life expectancy and how it relates to other factors.

Wealth and Energy Savings

Wealthier Americans Spend Less on Energy

A couple of years ago my family renovated our kitchen. Included in our new kitchen was a set of brand new energy efficient appliances all of which came with tags stating energy usage. For example, our dishwasher claimed to use only about $25 worth of electricity per year. If we assume the average dishwasher uses about $50 - $60 per year in energy, this is a savings of over 50%. Let's assume that my dishwasher cost $700 and an average dishwasher costs $400. If I am saving about $30 per year on energy costs, after 10 years of owning the more efficient dishwasher, it will have paid for itself.

This concept was true not only of my dishwasher, but of all of my other appliances. I know that this in fact is a common trend. Spending more up front on energy efficiency will allow long term savings. After say 15 years of having a kitchen full of high-quality appliances, one will actually have paid less than someone who created an average kitchen up front. 

I suppose that I find this a bit disconcerting. In cases like these, being wealthy actually ends up in a way creating more wealth by generating long term savings. Because not everyone can afford the most efficient appliances and homes, most people end up paying more than they need to over the long term and have lower quality standards than wealthier individuals. Not only do those in lower income groups suffer because of costs, the things that are bought in lower price ranges tend to have more problems and require more repairs over their lifetime thus adding another cost to lower income households. 

On the other hand, if you have extra cash to spare, it might be worth it to upgrade some of your things because you can view these purchases as investments. It seems that many people seek to increase their net worth by increasing income, but it is just as acceptable to spend money to decrease expenses. I personally feel that cutting expenses in ways like these energy upgrades may be more helpful in certain situations. If a person was to become unemployed, they would probably maintain their lifestyle for longer if they were used to living with low expenses rather than a high income.

City vs. Rural Homes

In my post yesterday I talked a bit about the fact that Americans have the largest homes of any country in the world. But I have also written about the fact that living in cities can be extremely cramped and expensive. So today I decided to talk about the differences between living in the city and in rural areas in terms of space.

Ultimately, homes are much larger in the suburbs and in rural areas compared to cities. For example, in Boston, prices can run upwards of $1,500 per month per bedroom for an apartment or condo. In the far reaches of the Greater Boston suburbs, $1,500 per month can buy a four bedroom house and leave you with money to spare.

This difference in home sizes used to play into the idea that people in the suburbs were wealthy while those in the cities were poor. For a long time, this general idea held largely true. More recently, poverty rates have increased in suburbs while cities have seen increased gentrification. Now a family of four may live in a nice four bedroom suburban home but may be in a worse financial situation than a similar family cramped into a two bedroom apartment in a city. 

It seems that perception of wealth may be changing and therefore so are the material items that people value. For the better part of American history, having an impressive house was among the most important status symbols. But now as many people are electing to have smaller, more humble homes to live closer to cities, it appears that other factors, such as eco-friendliness or perhaps access to public transportation, are redefining American status. 

American Consumerism: Why We Shop

The United States has long been plagued by one of the lowest saving rates in the developed world. After hitting a low of 1.5% in 2005, this rate has since increased slightly to around 3%. What this means is that generally, Americans barely break even despite earning incomes that average higher than most other countries. To further put this into perspective, 48% of Americans have more debt than savings, giving them a negative net worth.

But what do Americans spend all of their money on? All of this.

We feel the need to purchase more than we can afford even after the recent financial crisis. Americans seem to have an obsession with keeping up with one another. Wealth is a huge status symbol in the United States as it signifies ones success at navigating the capitalistic system. Easy credit and a culture of loans makes it easy for people to pretend that they make more money than they do, living beyond their means.

One of the most common ways for Americans to splurge is through the purchase of luxury homes or McMansions. The average size for an American home is about 2,300 square feet, compared to about 800 square feet in the United Kingdom. Many Americans would not even consider living in an 800 square foot house.  

Many other cultures place more value on other things such as education, family ties or social abilities. In these countries, residents are less likely to purchase out of insecurity because financial status is not a top priority.

Ironically, Americans who spend more money than they make as a way to prop up their lifestyle end up actually having no money at all. Across the United States, people routinely become bankrupt and lose their homes to foreclosures because they are in over their heads. Trying to appear rich can end up keeping you poor!