Women, Marriage and Prosperity

Why Poor Women Have A Harder Time Rejecting Marriage

Over the past several years, many Americans have seen their dreams put on hold. Individuals within our society often struggle just to keep afloat, despite the many things that weigh them down. Unfortunately for women, marriage, or rather, the lack thereof, has become one such weight.

It would be nice if love was the only factor in the modern marriage game, but unfortunately it is not. For women especially, socioeconomic status plays a huge role in whether or not a marriage will occur and why. Let me explain.

Sarah and Mary

Let's consider two women on opposite ends of the income ladder, Mary and Sarah. Mary is a successful lawyer who lives comfortably in a spacious Manhattan condo. Sarah is a single mother of two who works at a fast food restaurant and at a Walmart. Despite their hectic lives, both women fall in love. As her relationship gets more serious, Mary begins to contemplate marriage. She considers whether or not binding herself to a man will restrict her independence, slow her career progression or contribute in some way to a male dominated world. As Sarah contemplates marriage, she thinks of raising her two children on two incomes rather than one. For Sarah, the prospect of marriage could mean not having to worry about going to bed hungry.

Both women are in love, but their relative needs are quite different. The wealthy Mary has the privilege of considering marriage in an abstract way, and wondering how it may affect her future lifestyle. Mary has a lot of power in deciding whether or not to get married. Struggling Sarah on the other hand, sees marriage as a question of love, but also one of opportunity. Sarah's decision on whether to marry has an immediate and tangible affect on her own lifestyle and on that of her children. Effectively, she has less power.

Now of course, Sarah and Mary are completely made up. But their stories parallel the reality of being a woman in America. Without using a value-judgment, the fact remains that married women tend to have brighter economic outcomes than unmarried women. And for women floating around the poverty line, this matters a lot.

Compare the top line to the bottom line: married working woman vs. unmarried working woman. Think back to struggling Sarah and imagine the improvement in her life and her children's lives if she moves from the red line to the green line. Mary, who is already floating above the green line, does not care.

Judgment Free Reality

My goal here is not to claim that poor women should get married or that men should rescue women from their sad lives. These numbers are in many ways representative of the persistent and unfair gaps in pay between men and women. But regardless of how fair or unfair these numbers are, they are reality. Sure we can and should work to make changes here, but for right now, marriage is an important predictor in lifestyle.

When I said judgment free I lied, I do have one judgment before I close. Our society always teaches young girls to want marriage and to hope for it. Girls dream about their wedding days and plan them out for years. But what about young boys? Our society never tells boys that love is important. We teach boys to follow their dreams and make big changes in the world with their careers. For boys, love is taught to be an afterthought. Perhaps this is the real problem. 

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. 

Love in the Urban, Modern World

Love vs. Economic Opportunity

In my posts I tend to focus a lot on the technical aspects of urban planning, but it is important to think about how our increasingly urban society actually effects us as people. Over the last 50 years we have become both more urban and more mobile; this can often present unique challenges to people in serious relationships, especially when children are involved. There was a time not so many years ago when men were expected to bring home all of the income for a family and things were less complicated as a result. If a job opportunity presented itself far from home, the man would take it and his wife and kids would follow. While moving around like this would still effect the family, the effects have become even greater today as more and more relationships are composed of two income-earners.

We are Increasingly Mobile People

Now more than ever before, Americans are likely to have a variety of jobs between the beginning and end of their careers. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average person can now expect to have between 12 and 15 jobs in their lifetime. These jobs could all be in the same area, but that seems unlikely. It has also become much harder to find a stable job over the last ten years, which makes it harder for a person to turn down the opportunity to relocate for a new position. The Census Bureau estimates that after age 18, the average American will move 9 times. 

How Love Fits In

Imagine this. You are an eager college graduate ready to take the best job that you can find. You find one job that you are happy with but you know that every few years you will need to move to a totally new area and that you will have to do lots of traveling. This sounds like a great opportunity and you have always wanted to travel. It would be so easy for you to move from place to place and you are excited about the prospects of seeing the world.

But not so fast. Your significant other, also a recent grad, has a similar opportunity with a different company. Now what?

In 1950 the answer to this question would have been easy; the situation surrounding it would be in all likelihood very different. A man would have this great opportunity and he might already be engaged or married after college to a woman who he would expect to bear children and stay at home. The man would have taken the job and his wife or girlfriend would have followed.

But now that women and men have the same (hopefully) opportunities in the workforce, this is so much more complicated. Not to mention the fact that there are so many new relationships that were not acknowledged years ago. We could be talking about a homosexual pair or a pair with a large age gap. The world is no longer so black and white. 

Now What?

Right so it is extremely complicated. Both people have the opportunity to take jobs in different cities and both people want to focus on their careers. One person could follow the other, but they would likely have to give up some of their career opportunities. Many couples try to avoid this problem, but it is almost bound to come up at some point when the world has become so mobile.

In this situation you have a variety of choices, none of which are clearly better than the others and each requires a lot of sacrifice. You could both take the jobs and enter into a long-distance relationship or break up. You could try to prioritize careers by who will make the most money (what a depressing conversation). Or you could both skip out on your offers and continue to search for jobs in the same area. 

It comes down to a very dreary choice: for love or prosperity? There are many cases where you can end up with both, but you will have to make a leap of faith in one direction or another and hope that the other part will follow. No matter what choices are made, there is ample opportunity for resentment either of one's partner or of one's career. 

As of now, I cannot think of an efficient or reasonable solution to this modern love problem.  

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.

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.

Rent or Buy?

Buying is not Always Best

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

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

Rent vs Buy Map

1. Location

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

2. Mobility

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

3. Lost Opportunity Costs

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

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

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.

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.

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. 

Why Smartphones Make our Lives Worse

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

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

           

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

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

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

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

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.