Paying People not to Drive

Using Money to Get Cars Off the Roads

I recently wrote a post about traffic congestion and how small decreases in driving levels can lead to huge reductions in traffic. A study had found that even when given the option to take public transportation to work and that even when it would be cheaper and result in less travel time, Americans prefer to travel by car. Instead of just hoping that people would get off the roads, the government could step in and start paying people not to.

Yes I'm talking about a government subsidy. Before you write me off as crazy I would like to remind you that the government subsidizes all types of things, such as not to grow crops.

If we could reduce driving by even 5% during rush hour, commutes would be much more pleasant for the other 95%. I believe that the best way to go about a program like this is to develop a contract of some sort where a driver agrees to take public transportation in a city say 1 day per week and on that day not drive and in exchange the city could pay for the cost of his or her transportation. One caveat is that this program could only work in very dense cities with good transportation networks such as New York, Boston, Chicago and San Francisco.

I have a budget plan as well. This program would not be free and I do not advocate increasing the deficit. I think that in cities that enact this program they should also create a density gas tax. Gas stations would be charged a gas tax in proportion to the density of the area. The tax would be highest in the densest areas because it is in these areas that public transportation usage would help the most and therefore those who do choose to drive and fill up in these areas would have to pay extra. In return this money would go into a fund to pay for the public transportation subsidy.

My plan may be radical, but I bet it would make everyone's days go a bit smoother and faster on the roads. 

Ban Cars from City Centers

Reasons to Ban Cars

I was doing some reading yesterday about how London has a goal of becoming the first car free city by 2050. I began to wonder why other cities were not doing the same thing. I strongly believe that cars are on the decline, but not everyone has realized it yet. New ideas come and eventually the old must go. In the late 1800s many people theorized the end of cities because of horse pollution. Then miraculously cars appeared and horses vanished and for the next 100 years everybody loved cars. But not it is time to start pushing cars the way of horses.

Eventually we would want our cities to look like this. High density areas full of pedestrians, bikers and anyone wishing to use public transportation. While you may be skeptical, I admit that this would not work for every city, but where it does it would be much more efficient than car use and heres why.

Money Savings: According to Investopedia it costs the average American over $9,000 in today's dollars to own a car per year. Given that the average American brings in somewhere between $45 and $50 thousand per year, cars can eat up around 20% of pay. Imagine how much you could save becoming independent of a car. In some cities this is already possible. If you live near Boston's subway line, an unlimited monthly pass costs $70, or $840 per year or 10% of owning a car! Now public transportation may be less luxurious than driving a car, but if it bothers you that much you could always ride a bike or walk for even less money.

Energy Savings: This comes in really two forms. One is that all of a sudden we do not have to worry so much about earth using up all of it's resources. Of course, people outside of cities will still be driving, but overall numbers will go down and perhaps oil prices will fall. This affects you even without a car because oil still powers planes and trains.

Pollution Reduction: I thought this was similar to energy savings, but that it was important enough to get its own category. One of the biggest complaints about cities right now is air quality issues and a big part of the polluted air comes from motorized vehicles. Imagine suddenly there are no cars and pollution would drop dramatically. For anyone who cares about reducing carbon emissions, this is a big deal.

Increased SPEED: I really wanted you to see this one! Right now you may be thinking okay sure but cars are so fast. They are not. Cars can go fast, but only in the absence of other cars. If you really think that you can go fast in a car in the city you are crazy. For example, according to the New York Times traffic in Manhattan tends to move between 7 MPH and 13 MPH. 13 was achieved on days like New Years. You could run that fast. Public transportation and bikes already exceed these dismal car speeds and improving their networks will only serve to increase their speeds in the future.

Safer: Off to the side we have to consider safety. You are much more likely to die in a car than while using public transportation. You are also more likely to kill someone else and then go to jail. Actually, you are more likely to not only hit a person, but maybe a storefront or a monument or some other thing that will cost you your life savings to repair. This should not be the primary reason to reduce car use, but it certainly should not be ignored. 

Public Housing Complexes vs. Housing Vouchers: What's Better?

Why Housing Vouchers Beat Public Housing Complexes

One of the biggest problems that cities have tried to deal with over the last 50 years is what to do with poor residents. There are conflicting ideas about what to do here and the main objective is to reduce crime. Starting around the 1950's, common logic was to build huge towers and place needy families together, think Cabrini Green in Chicago. In this scenario, police knew exactly where the dangerous area was and could step up patrols. Several decades later, these complexes began to be replaced increasingly with voucher systems. Poor residents could live anywhere in the city and became more spread out, but police worried that they would not know where to look for crime.

Cabrini Green, Chicago

It turns out that breaking apart these mega-complexes such as Cabrini Green has been a good things for urban poverty. Despite the fears of middle and upper class residents about their neighborhoods being "polluted" with vouchers, crime rates have declined in cities that have closed their housing complexes and here are some reasons why.

No More Black Holes: Black holes are my nickname for housing complexes because that is how they behave. They literally capture all that is bad in an area and concentrate it all in one place. If you live in a housing complex, you ARE the housing complex. You live in a dangerous environment and everyone that you know lives a similar lifestyle. You have no hope for rising out of the cycle of poverty and are trapped. Simply taking people out of these concentrated bad areas does a lot to improve chances for successful lives.

Break Up Gangs: Say we have two gangs that are fighting for control of a complex. Suddenly, the complex is torn down and residents are dispersed evenly throughout the huge city. Now there are no more gang territories and any theoretical gang concentrations are bisected by blocks of middle and upper class residents. Rather than cities falling into despair as people worried, gang violence actually calms down. Many people are in gangs because they can't escape; creating physical barriers is one huge deterrent to gang retention and formation.

Better Schools and Role Models: This one is most important for children that are growing up in poverty. Living in housing complexes they probably attend school with others like them and are likely surrounded by uneducated people. Moving into a more affluent area, they can attend better schools, receive more attention from teachers and seek to emulate students who may have more support systems at home. Instilling positive images and thoughts into a child is one way to increase his or her likelihood of rising out of poverty.

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.

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. 

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!

Building Up or Building Out

The most common category of complaints that I hear about cities is regarding crowding vs. spread. Some cities like New York seem just too tightly packed while others like Los Angeles spread across vast distances and become extremely inefficient. These are two extremes, but cities tend to fall all along this spectrum and rarely do cities seem to achieve perfect balance.

So which is better? Build massive skyscrapers in a tiny area thereby crowding streets with pedestrians and blocking sun from roads or designate hundreds of square miles for sprawling cities where most builds are detached and less than four or five stories tall? Let's start by examining the issue with both types of cities.

Hong Kong

Hong Kong can easily be designated as a crowding city. The population density is about 16,500 per square mile. To put this in perspective, the average population density across the United States is 88 per square mile. Notice in this picture of Hong Kong, almost all construction is in the form of skyscrapers. Looking out of a window you are very likely to be looking into an adjacent building rather than into the sky. Despite the fact that the city is so built up, not all land is used. The higher elevations around the corners of the photo are virtually undeveloped.

Los Angeles

Los Angeles on the other hand can be seen as a city of sprawl. It is still tightly packed, but because of the low density development, the population density is about 8,000 per square mile. At this level there is plenty of open space, but travelling from place to place can be a nightmare. Cities with such a spread cannot support the vast public transit systems of more dense cities and car traffic can overwhelm the roadways as a result.

Both types of cities have clear problems and may seek to emulate the other type of city. It is relatively challenging for cities to achieve a balance between the two extremes and I do not have a perfect solution to these problems.

My favorite ideal solution is one that I so far have not found in any city. I envision a city with a medium / high density residential urban core, something where the buildings average perhaps 15 stories. Within this central area, cars would not be allowed and so all roadways would be fully open to pedestrians. These walkways would be wide so that the sun would never be blocked by shadows. Around the residential core would be three or four separate downtown areas that are high density. Each of these clusters of downtown would be grouped by industry; for example, one cluster may include banks and financial services while another may be pharmaceutical and biotech companies. Essentially this city would look like a bowl from the sky. This may seem a strange idea, but I would like to see it put in place as an experiment.

How Money Can Buy Happiness.. Sort Of

Sometimes used as a way to persuade children into following a career that they love rather than one that will ensure wealth, parents say money will never buy you happiness. Adults tell this to other adults as well, usually friends who seem very unhappy despite boatloads of money. In these situations, the advice-givers are probably correct. Being wealthy does not bring happiness; no matter how fat the paycheck, work takes up a significant amount of time and if you hate it, the money probably does not matter.

But, there is more to it than that. Sometimes, money really does make us happy.

Imagine for a moment someone on the other side of the coin, someone who struggles to eat every week and never knows how they will pay their rent. They have no money in the bank and if their car were to break down they would have no way of fixing it. These people struggle along always wishing that they had just a few more dollars to fend off their financial anxiety. Money really would make them happier.

In reality, most people do not truly fall at either end of this spectrum; most lie somewhere in between. We know that more money does not satisfy the rich, but money brings great joy to the poor, but what of the middle? It turns out, money can buy happiness up to a salary of about $70,000. Nationwide, this is the approximate income level where people stop feeling anxiety about money. A person making $70,000 can expect to afford their basic expenses including car payments, mortgage payments and bills while still having some money left over each month and having some retirement savings. Effectively, people making this much money have their needs met and any further increases in wage would likely go towards "extra" unnecessary purchases such as for example buying a bigger house or nicer car. These types of extras do not actually add any happiness.

While $70,000 is still more than the average American pulls in each year, the median hovers around $50,000, it is still not an unimaginable level of income. It does not take extreme wealth to achieve this financial independence. Of course, in certain areas such as New York City or Boston, $70,000 would not be enough to achieve this standard of living, but it is a generally good fit for most of the country. Next time someone says that money will make them happier, think about their current lifestyle before responding!

Cities are Great for Families

Why Families Should Move to Cities

When deciding to have children, many couples make the decision to leave the city and move to the suburbs in order to attempt to give their children a more positive upbringing. Many children are then raised in small towns where the people are relatively homogenous. They never learn that peoples lives can be different from their own and that there are other acceptable ways of living. While suburbs do tend to be safe and foster feelings of community, people who spend their whole life living here may end up with a narrow focus.

It occurred to me when I left for college that perhaps I was one of these people. I assumed that everything in my new city was dangerous and that the people were somehow different from the people in my town. I was wrong. Over time I realized that it was wrong to have looked down on cities just because I was not from one. The friends I have made who grew up in the city have a totally different, and I would argue more mature, worldview.

Growing up in a city does not make the same person achieve less in life, it simply shows that people live different lifestyles. Children who grow up in cities may be more tolerant of others who are unlike themselves because they are surrounded with such people. Rather than thinking that everyone is and upper middle class white person like I did (my town is 98.2% white), they will see people from different racial, ethnic and income groups. Having an appreciation of diversity is so important because it can allow you to be much more open as a person and less closed off from people and things that are unfamiliar to you. It is certainly important to make sure that children are raised in a safe and supportive environment, but most cities have neighborhoods that are very safe for children.

Over time I believe that the American ideal image of suburban life will begin to change. Since the financial crisis beginning in 2008, it appears that in fact suburbs have begun to lose their appeal and their population. There is no saying whether or not this trend will continue for sure, but I believe that people are realizing all of the benefits of city life and are deciding to leave the suburbs, with their families, for good.

Urban Rent Crisis

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

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

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

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

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

Understanding Workaholics

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

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

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

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

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

Planning a Cape Cod Vacation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obesity and Access to Food

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strip Malls vs. Starbucks

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

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

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

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

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

Redefining Urban and Political Boundaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Wealthier Couples Have Fewer Children

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Optimistic People Live Longer

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

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

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

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

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

Reasons to Travel to Europe

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

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

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

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

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

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