Cities Come In Strange Shapes

This video shows examples of some cities that have really bizarre boundaries.

My Trip with Public Transportation

America Has a Long Way to Go

I often write about the benefits of public transportation and insist that it is quite often the best way of traveling from place to place. So I decided to try something new, and I took a vacation where I travelled only by public transportation. I traveled by foot, bus, train and subway around the northeastern United States.

Overall my trip looked something like this.

I took a train from Worcester - Boston, a bus from Boston to NYC, a bus from NYC - D.C. and finally came home via a bus from D.C. - Boston and a train back to Worcester. I spent two nights in New York and three in D.C. While in each of these cities I traveled only by foot and through the subway.

I am not sure whether to be impressed with or disappointed by the public transportation that I took throughout my trip. On the plus side, the trip was extremely cheap and all of my traveling, including the subway fares for the week cost less than $100. I found this to be really convenient. On the flip side I realized that unfortunately I could have traveled much faster by car. For example, my final trip from Washington to Worcester from end to end lasted about 17 hours for me, but had I driven the trip would have been only around 8 or 9 hours depending on traffic.

Future Developments

Right now I will admit that despite my best efforts to travel via public transport, it was really inconvenient even in the highly developed northeast corridor of the country. In other areas I'm sure that the problems are even worse. While it was possible for me to get to all of my chosen locations, it was always a challenge and I am not sure if I would choose to travel this way again. This being said, many of my transportation options, such as Megabus, were not available even just 5 or 10 years ago. I see a lot of potential for this country and particularly the Northeast to expand public transportation options over the next decade so that eventually it will even be preferable to take trips this way rather than driving. 

Reasons to Love Boston

Why Boston is a Great Place to Live

I've lived in New England for my whole life and it is only in the past few years that I have first come to appreciate Boston. Despite the fact that I live about an hour outside the city, I make it a point to commute in at least twice a month to take advantage of all of the different things that the city has to offer. Out of anywhere that I've travelled to, I think that so far Boston is my favorite city. Here are some reasons why this is my favorite city.

Walkability: This is key in my mind to the success of any city. While most cities build mega-highways through downtown that cut off pedestrians, Boston is a city designed for walkers and bikers. Speed limits for cars are low and it is always easy to get from place to place on foot. The subway system provides aid for destinations that are too remote. But overall, the city is one of the best places for just wandering around for a day. Boston was ranked the third most walkable city in the country!

Distinct Neighborhoods: Boston is hundreds of years old; in some neighborhoods you can feel as though you should be about to witness the Revolutionary War while in others your feel 100 years in the future. If you can afford it, Boston can offer you housing in almost any type of area whether it be a single family detached home, high-rise luxury condo or grand brownstone. Each part of the city has it's own unique feeling. 

Entertainment: Often times when I have nothing to do I will go to Boston just to eat, shop and walk around. In most cities I would get bored after a few hours of strolling, but Boston has such great shops and restaurants that it can keep you looking for more all day. The city has a great balance of chain stores and restaurants with unique bistros and boutiques. There is always something to satisfy you whether you are seeking novelty or familiarity. At night the city comes alive with almost unlimited options for dancing, socializing and even karaoke!

Progressive: Walking around Boston you can almost feel the culture of the city. It is one of the most liberal and accepting cities in the country; it makes you feel almost as though you are walking through a European city. The city feels very safe and does not try to keep anyone out. The citizens are politically active and the city really gets involved with the larger community.

Cities Disrupt Sleep

I would like to think that the entire world could exist living in cities, so I become disappointed when I realize that there are downsides to urban life. Cities are certainly not "natural" places for us to live and as a result they can interfere with some of our natural functions. Life in cities can actually disrupt natural sleep patterns.

Major cities can be lit up almost 24 hours per day. When you walk around at night, you may not even have the perception that it is dark outside. Being constantly surrounded by light can interrupt the body's natural circadian rhythm. As a result, we wake up feeling tired almost everyday when it's time to go to work. 

The human body naturally is set to follow guidelines of sleep from the sun. Before electricity, people would wake up earlier and go to bed earlier, not spending much waking time in the dark. But now as our lives are full of artificial light, sleep patterns have become much more irregular and sleep disorders have become more common. Most people who live in bright urban areas tend to wake up later and fall asleep later than people living further from urban centers. It's not exactly clear why this happens, but the consequences can be frustrating as people struggle to wake up on time in the morning and fall asleep at night.

Heat Increases Crime

Why Heat Increases Aggression

This topic has implications for those living in cities as well as for people in rural areas. I wanted to talk a bit about the relationship between heat and crime. While it has been establishes that cities are safer than rural areas, both types of areas experience spikes in crime during heat waves and during warmer months in general. 

One of the first studies about heat and aggression was this one shown in the graph. As you can see, hotter weather tends to lead to more riots. Similar studies have been conducted in many cities. Houston, TX for example studied the increase in murder rates that tend to occur during the summer months. So interesting, but what exactly is it that makes people more aggressive in the heat?

Heat Increases Testosterone Production: The hotter it is outside, the more the body naturally produces testosterone. Particularly in men, testosterone production is linked to aggression. The more testosterone a person has, the more statistically likely they are to act in an aggressive way. 

Increased Time Outside: When temperatures rise, more people come out from their homes. Interactions between people increase and alone this enough can increase the likelihood that someone will be involved in a crime. When there are more people in an area, the percentage of people committing crimes may stay the same, but total crimes may increase. Heat almost artificially boosts population by bringing people together.

More Irritable: This one is perhaps the most subjective, but lots of people struggle to sleep when it is too hot. Many people do not have air conditioners and so in the summer have to sleep in extreme temperatures. Heat can make it harder to fall asleep, leading to less sleep per night. When people get less sleep they tend to be more short tempered and irritable. This can lead people to act in more aggressive ways towards others.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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!

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.