Just read an interesting article in the WSJ, titled "Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior." Find it here.
It's an interesting article, and worth a read. Just wanted to share some (initial) thoughts.
One point that needs to be emphasized is the role and psyche of immigrants. If you think about the average immigrant to America, in general I would contend that he/she is an above average risk taker, ambitious, adventurous and eager to make a better life by stepping out of their comfort zone. (Before anyone goes crazy, I'm talking specifically of legal immigrants, but this may apply to all immigrants.)
In fact, most middle-aged immigrants who have the opportunity to move to the US (either through work or the Green Card lottery, etc) often leave behind great and comfortable livelihoods, careers, friends and families in order to give their children a better opportunity. Most immigrants move from developing nations where opportunities aren't easily available to even the best, brightest, and hardest workers. So, moving to the US is naturally a better choice. There is also a preconceived notion that the US is categorically a better place to live, no questions asked (though this attitude is changing somewhat).
So, immigrant parents often sacrifice a lot and have this mentality that they moved here (US) to improve the lives of their children. Thus, they do everything they can to push their children to their limits and beyond, especially academically, the topic of the WSJ's article. Anecdotally, I also think a lot of such immigrants are very highly skilled in their home countries and many pursue graduate-level education here to order to re enter the American workforce. So, academics are obviously at the top of their priorities. It's the safe route and the algorithm reads: go to the best college you can, the best grad school, and you'll make the best living you can.
As for sports and extra-curricular activities, e.g. theater, it's again the mentality of probabilities and lack of knowledge of how the industries here work. In developing countries, sports don't usually pay much (though that's changing). Theater/acting does not make much of a living. And while they can all make a great living if pros (NFL, Hollywood, etc), the odds of success are very low and the risks are very high. Along similar lines, I would also bet that children of these "Chinese mothers" often study science/math/engineering in college and a very small proportion major in the liberal arts i.e. History, English, etc, because the odds of employment are higher ex-post. Whether or not these effects carry on to the future generations, specifically, the second generation (F2 and beyond, for you geneticists), would be interesting to know.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
A new tax code
I have an idea to increase efficiencies for the Federal government. Instead of taxing individuals with a federal income tax, each state should be responsible for a share of the federal budget, and therefore contribute to it. In essence, the states would tax their citizens, and then pay into the Feds for their budget. The burden of each state would be determined just like the electoral college, i.e. you have more power in who becomes president, you pay more. Seems fair, doesn't it?
Having the states pay into a grander system can only lead to efficiencies. First, states are more vigilant about their budgets (except California, of course, the exception to every rule). Many have requirements to keep the budgets balanced. Having the states pressure the federal government to keep some restraint on spending would probably alleviate the drunken sailor spending. Additionally, since it's Congress -- made up of state representatives -- that passes spending measures, it will maybe be more in tune with economic realities. The state governors may also be able to knock some sense into the reps to keep spending at a minimum. Moreover, you get rid of the giant waste known as the IRS and its absurd tax code that is impossible to figure out unless you have studied it for years (i.e. you're an accountant).
Of course, the opponents of this idea will rush out saying it's unconstitutional blah blah blah. Change the Constitution in order to "create a *more* perfect Union."
Thoughts?
Having the states pay into a grander system can only lead to efficiencies. First, states are more vigilant about their budgets (except California, of course, the exception to every rule). Many have requirements to keep the budgets balanced. Having the states pressure the federal government to keep some restraint on spending would probably alleviate the drunken sailor spending. Additionally, since it's Congress -- made up of state representatives -- that passes spending measures, it will maybe be more in tune with economic realities. The state governors may also be able to knock some sense into the reps to keep spending at a minimum. Moreover, you get rid of the giant waste known as the IRS and its absurd tax code that is impossible to figure out unless you have studied it for years (i.e. you're an accountant).
Of course, the opponents of this idea will rush out saying it's unconstitutional blah blah blah. Change the Constitution in order to "create a *more* perfect Union."
Thoughts?
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Piano and Cello, Song for Sienna by Brian Crain
Recently found this song. I think it's a strikingly pretty tune.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Does Facebook Formalize your Life?
Recently, I have found that Facebook authenticates or formalizes something about you (or "makes it official"). Whether it's changing a relationship status, or adding education or work, putting something in there makes an automatic announcement to the world. I recently updated my profile and found it to be a rather serious matter to go in there and change things up. Quite nerve wrecking actually. It's like not only changing your biography, but doing so in a public manner and in real-time. Quite incredible that filling in a virtual, intangible blank that exists in some computer in the ether has that effect. Do you find a similar "Facebook-makes-it-official" effect?
Friday, December 10, 2010
Uh, Who is the President?
So, apparently Mr. Obama (the current president, I think) invited Mr. Clinton (President, 1992-2000, I think) to The White House. While Mr. Clinton spoke, Mr. Obama excused himself and left the press room, whereupon Mr. Clinton spoke in front of The White House podium, even taking questions from reporters. Um, has Mr. Obama's administration lost its mind? Did they not watch The West Wing? So, who is in charge? Clinton? Obama? Both? What? Who? Yep, confuzzled.
Are you?!
Thursday, December 09, 2010
Gifts and Responsibilities
"Wealth is an advantage, but it also is frankly a responsibility." --Nicolas Berggruen
WSJ reports that Zuckerberg, Facebook's co-founder, has pledged to give away the majority of his wealth to "The Giving Pledge," which is "an effort organized by software mogul Bill Gates and investor Warren Buffett to persuade the world's rich to boost their giving (WSJ)."
The list of the current 16 billionaires is interesting. More interesting, perhaps, are their accompanying letters and motivations, which basically boil down to the Berggruen's quotation above: being wealthy is nice, but it comes with responsibility. Yours truly certainly believes so (though he will not be contacted by Buffett and Co. for obvious reasons) and commends these 16 individuals. In particular, I single out Larry Ellison of Oracle, whom I have always viewed as a snob, both because of his aggressive business practices and his sailing hobby. Good for you, Mr. Ellison.
Surprisingly, several household billionaires names haven't come around yet: Steve Jobs (Apple), The Waltons (Wal-Mart), Sergey Brin / Larry Page (Google), Steve Balmer (quite surprising given Gates' position in the deal), Michael Dell (Dell, though maybe he's trying to figure out how to use his money to save his company from impending doom), Paul Allen (Jobs' old friend). Let's get this clear though: just because one is not on the list, does not mean that they don't do their part. Though it would be a nice cohesive gesture.
Bottom line: Bravo Billionaires. But, keep the cold calls going.
What do you think: Is it mostly your billion or should society be allowed to share in its fruits?
WSJ reports that Zuckerberg, Facebook's co-founder, has pledged to give away the majority of his wealth to "The Giving Pledge," which is "an effort organized by software mogul Bill Gates and investor Warren Buffett to persuade the world's rich to boost their giving (WSJ)."
The list of the current 16 billionaires is interesting. More interesting, perhaps, are their accompanying letters and motivations, which basically boil down to the Berggruen's quotation above: being wealthy is nice, but it comes with responsibility. Yours truly certainly believes so (though he will not be contacted by Buffett and Co. for obvious reasons) and commends these 16 individuals. In particular, I single out Larry Ellison of Oracle, whom I have always viewed as a snob, both because of his aggressive business practices and his sailing hobby. Good for you, Mr. Ellison.
Surprisingly, several household billionaires names haven't come around yet: Steve Jobs (Apple), The Waltons (Wal-Mart), Sergey Brin / Larry Page (Google), Steve Balmer (quite surprising given Gates' position in the deal), Michael Dell (Dell, though maybe he's trying to figure out how to use his money to save his company from impending doom), Paul Allen (Jobs' old friend). Let's get this clear though: just because one is not on the list, does not mean that they don't do their part. Though it would be a nice cohesive gesture.
Bottom line: Bravo Billionaires. But, keep the cold calls going.
What do you think: Is it mostly your billion or should society be allowed to share in its fruits?
Wednesday, December 08, 2010
Race to Nowhere
A great article on an increasing popular documentary, Race to Nowhere, on the circus that has become high school and the enormous pressures faced by teens to always be on, always be doing something, always be "going, going, going"... not sure where. I think this is probably more true of the very sad but get-ahead-at-any-cost East coast, and parts of the west coast where you're judged by the amount of vapor you exhale.
Article from The NY Times appears here.
Enjoy!
Article from The NY Times appears here.
Enjoy!
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
Monday, December 06, 2010
On Health and Education
2 articles of note: one on personal health (destressing using breathing), and the other on making the world a better place via education.
On personal health: Click here.
On Improving Global Education: Click here.
On personal health: Click here.
On Improving Global Education: Click here.
Thursday, December 02, 2010
Wikileaks Cast of Characters
Want a Who's Who amongst Global Wikileak Characters?
Here's your chance: CNN has done a good job.
Don't worry, there's not much text to read -- just a picture and a short description.
Here's your chance: CNN has done a good job.
Don't worry, there's not much text to read -- just a picture and a short description.
Want some McSurance with your Fries?
Slate has a fantastic article on so-called "mini-meds" that are not quite full health insurance but more of an "insurance" on paper.
McDonald's offers hourly workers at its 1,500 company-owned restaurants four health-insurance options... Only one of these options (annual premium: about $6,000 per year, obviously more than most hourly workers can pay) is "comprehensive" (i.e., real) insurance. The other three are mini-meds. The cheapest option (and the one nearly all its hourly workers opt for) cost $710 per year in 2008... and had an annual benefit ceiling of $2,000. The other two options cost $1,332 and $1,947 per year and had annual benefit ceilings of $5,000 and $10,000.
...the sliding premiums for the three insurance options available to corporate suits and some restaurant managers but not to hourly employees actually begin at levels below those paid by hourly workers for mini-med plans even though the suits' policies contain no annual benefit limits. That's right. Some nonhourly employees at McDonald's pay less for their real health insurance—with no annual limits and, indeed, an employee out-of-pocket maximum of $4,000 for covered expenses—than the schmucks shoveling French fries and flipping Big Macs pay for fake health insurance with annual benefit limits of $2,000, $5,000, and $10,000, and no employee out-of-pocket maximum for covered expenses. Oh, and the absolute highest health premium the suits might pay ($1,435 for higher-earning employees in the "no deductible PPO") is less than a quarter the premium McDonald's expects the schmucks to pay for the only policy hourly workers can opt for that isn't a mini-med.
Much more in the article available here.
So the question is, is mini-med better than nothing? I say no, absolutely not. Here's why (from article):
Rockefeller answered with the analogy of a car whose brakes don't work 10 percent of the time. "Your brakes have to work all the time," he said, "or else you're not going to drive the car." The point he was trying to make, however awkwardly, was that it's no use saying insurance works out really well for the 90 or 98 percent of policyholders to whom disaster doesn't strike if it works out really badly for the 10 percent or 2 percent to whom disaster does strike, because the main reason we buy insurance in the first place (Duh!) is because we might end up being that 10 percent or 2 percent.
That point was driven poignantly home by Eugene Melville, a witness who works part-time for a big-box retailer that he declined to identify. Melville, who choked up several times in the hearing room, said he purchased through his employer a mini-med policy from Aetna with a $20,000 annual limit. In July, Melville said, he went to the doctor "for what I thought was an injury from a car accident." The doctor noticed a lump in Melville's neck, ordered up a biopsy, and diagnosed Melville with oral cancer. Melville figured he had close to $20,000 left to spend on the recommended treatment, but he quickly learned that within that $20,000 ceiling there were smaller ceilings—$2,000 on hospital lab tests, surgical supplies, and drugs; $2,000 for outpatient treatments such as chemotherapy—that effectively prevented him from using his mini-med insurance at all. Eventually he enrolled in a program for the medically indigent that did not offer the surgical options recommended by his doctor. The kicker, Melville said, was that Aetna sent him a letter suggesting that his oral cancer was a preexisting condition.
It's simply criminal. The minimum wage is $7.25. Working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, that's a gross income of $15,080. Pay some Federal Income tax, state income tax, Medicare, and FICA, and you might be lucky to take home $1000 a month. Pay rent, utilities, etc, and... well, you see where this is going. Either offer a real plan that can be used, or don't offer anything at all. The illusion of insurance is probably the worst. It's like thinking Santa really exists. You could say they know exactly what they're getting into, to which I reply, when was the last time you read and can recall every detail of any of your insurance policies?
Next time you order a double cheeseburger and large fries, think about that, will you?
McDonald's offers hourly workers at its 1,500 company-owned restaurants four health-insurance options... Only one of these options (annual premium: about $6,000 per year, obviously more than most hourly workers can pay) is "comprehensive" (i.e., real) insurance. The other three are mini-meds. The cheapest option (and the one nearly all its hourly workers opt for) cost $710 per year in 2008... and had an annual benefit ceiling of $2,000. The other two options cost $1,332 and $1,947 per year and had annual benefit ceilings of $5,000 and $10,000.
...the sliding premiums for the three insurance options available to corporate suits and some restaurant managers but not to hourly employees actually begin at levels below those paid by hourly workers for mini-med plans even though the suits' policies contain no annual benefit limits. That's right. Some nonhourly employees at McDonald's pay less for their real health insurance—with no annual limits and, indeed, an employee out-of-pocket maximum of $4,000 for covered expenses—than the schmucks shoveling French fries and flipping Big Macs pay for fake health insurance with annual benefit limits of $2,000, $5,000, and $10,000, and no employee out-of-pocket maximum for covered expenses. Oh, and the absolute highest health premium the suits might pay ($1,435 for higher-earning employees in the "no deductible PPO") is less than a quarter the premium McDonald's expects the schmucks to pay for the only policy hourly workers can opt for that isn't a mini-med.
Much more in the article available here.
So the question is, is mini-med better than nothing? I say no, absolutely not. Here's why (from article):
Rockefeller answered with the analogy of a car whose brakes don't work 10 percent of the time. "Your brakes have to work all the time," he said, "or else you're not going to drive the car." The point he was trying to make, however awkwardly, was that it's no use saying insurance works out really well for the 90 or 98 percent of policyholders to whom disaster doesn't strike if it works out really badly for the 10 percent or 2 percent to whom disaster does strike, because the main reason we buy insurance in the first place (Duh!) is because we might end up being that 10 percent or 2 percent.
That point was driven poignantly home by Eugene Melville, a witness who works part-time for a big-box retailer that he declined to identify. Melville, who choked up several times in the hearing room, said he purchased through his employer a mini-med policy from Aetna with a $20,000 annual limit. In July, Melville said, he went to the doctor "for what I thought was an injury from a car accident." The doctor noticed a lump in Melville's neck, ordered up a biopsy, and diagnosed Melville with oral cancer. Melville figured he had close to $20,000 left to spend on the recommended treatment, but he quickly learned that within that $20,000 ceiling there were smaller ceilings—$2,000 on hospital lab tests, surgical supplies, and drugs; $2,000 for outpatient treatments such as chemotherapy—that effectively prevented him from using his mini-med insurance at all. Eventually he enrolled in a program for the medically indigent that did not offer the surgical options recommended by his doctor. The kicker, Melville said, was that Aetna sent him a letter suggesting that his oral cancer was a preexisting condition.
It's simply criminal. The minimum wage is $7.25. Working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, that's a gross income of $15,080. Pay some Federal Income tax, state income tax, Medicare, and FICA, and you might be lucky to take home $1000 a month. Pay rent, utilities, etc, and... well, you see where this is going. Either offer a real plan that can be used, or don't offer anything at all. The illusion of insurance is probably the worst. It's like thinking Santa really exists. You could say they know exactly what they're getting into, to which I reply, when was the last time you read and can recall every detail of any of your insurance policies?
Next time you order a double cheeseburger and large fries, think about that, will you?
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
Idiotic threats
CNN.com reports that:
Senate Republicans promised Wednesday to block legislative action on every issue being considered by the lame-duck Congress until the dispute over extending the Bush-era tax cuts is resolved and an extension of current government funding is approved.
Politicians are stupid. Period. This reminds of the mid-1990s when Newt Gingrich shut down the government. Okay Republicans, go ahead. Block everything so that your special interest groups and those who need the tax cut least come before all else in the agenda.
The funny thing is that deep at heart I'm probably a fiscal Republican, but the crazy nonsense that goes on in the Grand Ol' Party makes me cringe. Not that the Dems are any better either, by the way.
Senate Republicans promised Wednesday to block legislative action on every issue being considered by the lame-duck Congress until the dispute over extending the Bush-era tax cuts is resolved and an extension of current government funding is approved.
Politicians are stupid. Period. This reminds of the mid-1990s when Newt Gingrich shut down the government. Okay Republicans, go ahead. Block everything so that your special interest groups and those who need the tax cut least come before all else in the agenda.
The funny thing is that deep at heart I'm probably a fiscal Republican, but the crazy nonsense that goes on in the Grand Ol' Party makes me cringe. Not that the Dems are any better either, by the way.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
I'm back! And, are some dentists crooks?
Wow. It's been over a year since I last posted. Horrendous. But, I would like to come back and restart posting. I have found that it is incredible and often jaw-dropping to see posts several months/years ex-poste. And, it makes for quite the diary/memory bank. Too bad this can't be a pensieve.
For today, I'll leave you with this: Dentist visit soon? Watch what you wish for.
Enjoy!
For today, I'll leave you with this: Dentist visit soon? Watch what you wish for.
Enjoy!
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
The most useful airlines link
The most useful link while making airline reservations, ever: here.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/06/24/airline.fees/index.html
Still to come: Obesity Charge. Enjoy!
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/06/24/airline.fees/index.html
Still to come: Obesity Charge. Enjoy!
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Never stop learning
"We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time."
--T.S. Eliot, The Four Quartets
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time."
--T.S. Eliot, The Four Quartets
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)