On another Plan B on housing from Obama...

Sometimes, you can see nonsense right when it shows up. The latest proposal from the Obama administration, on providing government-backed help to homeowners to refinance their homes, is one of those.

There are appealing aspects to that, to be sure. It won't need Congress approval. It won't have immediate impact on the budget deficit shit-hole that this country is already in. It prevents more homes falling into foreclosures. It allows homeowners to unlock additional cash from their homes, so that they can use the new cash to continue their buying habits funded on debts, and more debts. At the proposed low rate of 4%, everyone would love it.

It gets me really peeved when I sees proposals like that. The main reason for the subprime crisis that started in late 2008, triggered by the collapse of Lehman, was due to unchecked mortgage lending to those who should never be qualified for a mortgage. When the economy goes down, when the prices start its free fall, these folks can no longer count on periodically refinancing the properties to take money out of this pseudo-piggybank. The market - the Invisible Hand, if anyone still believes in free market - is supposed to check this kind of reckless behavior. The credit is supposed to get tightened - as it is happening now - and these low-quality borrowers are supposed to get squeezed out of the system, allowing the system to slowly grow back to life again. For those who have diligently play by the system, who save up religiously hoping to get a chance to buy into the market, they are supposed to get rewarded by lower properties and lower mortgage rate.

All those are out of the window, when 2012 election is coming into focus, and Obama needs to do something fast, to fix the economy. The fix is supposed to be jobs - yes, job growth - so that unemployment can go down. When regular people start having regular, steady income again, they are supposed to be able to buy again. Naturally, that is much harder to do, given the intense competition (particularly in manufacturing) from other countries like China. Given its inability to grow jobs, Obama instead looks at housing...again.

For what it's worth, the proposal is essentially guaranteeing those low-quality borrowers, once again, that they would be underwritten. All they need to do, is to stop paying their mortgage, and wait for Obama to refinance their mortgage at 4%. It does not matter anymore, whether these folks can even pay for mortgages for 4% or not. Obama (and Congress) just wants to stop these properties from showing up on foreclosure statistics. In other words, it's government-funded private housing. In Asia, there's a term for that - it's called, public housing. No matter, Americans won't call it that because it's politically incorrect. They want government out of their life and off of their backs when it comes to taxes, but they want government help when it comes to financial difficulties.

Those in Obama administration know full well that, two years into this recession, those who can afford to (and qualified for doing so) refinance, have already done so. Those, like me, who never bought into the buying frenzy in properties before property market started crashing in late 2008. Those, like me, who refinancing in the succeeding two years, given the historical low rate. To put it another way, those who can't refinance now are the one who should not have qualified for it. However way you look at it, it's effectively free money and handouts from government to these folks. And that makes me quite angry.

And then there're talks, and more talks, of supporting the property market. I've ranted before in my journal, that there's no point in supporting the market, because when folks have jobs and money, when they need a place to stay and it becomes cheaper to buy than to rent, they will buy properties again. Obviously, we're not there yet - quite far from it, in fact. While property prices have come down alot (some as much as 50-60%, in some regions), there are other places where prices never crash, per se, and where they have gone back up again already. I'm one of those too, who bought a new place for investment.

In short, I'm slowly saving up, and investing in a limited scale, while ensuring that I have sufficient buffer to cover an extended period if things turn south (eg. job loss, rental units not renting out, etc). Sure, if Obama wants to help, I'm all for getting some free money. But all the government policies and regulations I see so far have been about protecting and even extending the reckless behavior that should not have happened in the first place. (That reckless behavior includes the much screwed-up compensation structure on Wall St, by the way.)

I don't think I'll vote for Dem or GOP in 2012 at all. Tea Party is too loony for me. For a change and to make a statement, if Ron Paul is in, I'll probably vote for him.

On the (un)importance of cubicles, telecommuting, et al...

How important is it, or how attached are we, to a cubicle? I've always asked myself that question, though I never really sit down and formulate my thoughts on that. The article in NYTimes today, on the rethinking of office workspace and cubicles, comes quite timely. I might as well add a few thoughts on that.

I've been telecommuting for more than eight years now, long before telecommuting becomes hot topic, work/life balance a vogue, and offshoring of work becomes prevalent. Most people express such envy for me when they hear how I can organize my work and life with much more ease.

I must say, the kind of flexibility is really valuable, particularly if one has kids at home. As long as the work is task- and goal-oriented, it should be relatively easy to allow workers to switch to telecommuting. Afterall, there is little point for companies to waste money in real estate, tie up the space, tie down the workers to the assigned cubes, and do the work that they could well have done anywhere else. It saves money, and it makes sense. Or so we thought...

But things do not always turn out so easily. My telecommuting path hasn't taken such straightforward path. Even though my work has always been task- and goal-oriented, the management of my last employer didn't let anyone telecommute. The office was quiet as graveyard (since little interaction is needed) since no one needed to collaborate often in order to get their job done. Everyone could have turned themselves into Dilbert and work at home in their pajamas. But the old-fashioned management wants to see bodies physically at their desk whenever they want by (even though it rarely happened). It doesn't make sense.

Having telecommuted for so long, I must say, I enjoy the flexibility, but I miss my cube. Even though I don't need to interact with others much while I'm doing my work, I still like to feel - yes, to feel - that I'm part of a larger community. For a long time, even though I telecommute, I still maintain my cube at work, albeit rarely used. My cube is my last hanging thread with a physical community that I used to call office. But since my telecommuter work status is officiated, I have given up my cube. The good thing is, I don't need to force myself to go back to office for a few days a month for no good reason. The bad (or good too) thing is, everything is now virtual. I do my work whenever I want, as long as I get it done, as per schedule.

Yes, that is quite quite nice. When kids are sick and have to stay home, or I need to attend PTO meeting for school, or when cars need to go to repair shop, or when I need to pop out to some grocery or run errands, or if I simply need to take a power nap, and some such, I can easily squeeze that into my day, and continue doing my work at night. I can get to continue building my career without sacrificing my family or personal life.

But - and there's always a but - I'm always on. Even though I don't need to be around, 24 x 7, I feel the compelling need to be online for work purpose. It's as if I feel the need to show others that, yes, apart from my assigned work, I can do more. Yes, it's all psychological. Telecommuters feel the need to justify their existence. In this day and age, when work can easily have been done 50 times cheaper by some no-name guy in India or China or Russia, the feeling of job insecurity is palpable.

Naturally, having a cube is definitely no guarantee any job security at all. But like I said, it's all psychological. It's as if the cube justifies our own existence. If you want to telecommute, you'd better be darn sure of your own self-worth. If you are an insecure person to start with, I can tell you that you won't feel good telecommuting at all, losing that opportunity to connect to someone and something physically.

Coming back to the topic of workspace, do I really miss my cubicle? Deep down, I know I still do. Cubicles (and rooms) are one very physical and powerful way to measure one's importance in the company's hierarchy. If I get my window or corner cube or room, if I get a cube or room twice the size of the guy next to me, I know instantly where I am in the pecking order. When everything is virtual in a telecommuting world, there's no way for you to tell, unless you're very sure of where you stand, in the large scheme of things.

So, while everyone's complaining about their cubes, and how they're tied down to it, they should be careful of what they ask for. Once you become virtual, your employer can get rid of you much more easily (as long as the next guy can pick up whatever work you're doing). That next guy can be in India, or China, or Ukraine, or Philippines, or Chile.

On poor economy and help to homeowners in mortgages...

The so-called policies put forth by GOP normally don't make much sense to me, but they're right about one thing: Obama shouldn't be pushing for mortgage modifications to help homeowners who are underwater, with big mortgages worth more than the underlying property. As it is, liberal media like NYTimes is advocating exactly that, that federal government should help struggling homeowners by forcing banks to modifying loans.

I'm no economist, but the policy makes little sense to me. What's more important to the economy is jobs and the income generation, and not wealth protection (ie. protecting the value of the property). Albeit all the reports that property prices have come down alot, in some states, significantly lower than the peak at 2008, the price level is still considerably higher than what it used to be. Those artificially inflated prices were propped up by outsized leverages that needs to be rid from the system. The market has its way of finding its equilibrium by having prices come down (and supply increasing) to a level where demand can meet. It's unreasonable to expect the government to step and get banks to artificially lower the outstanding mortgage or interest rate on the loans (thereby forcing banks to eat the losses), in order to allow the carpetbaggers to stay in their properties. In the logic of the government, doing so would provide much needed support to the property prices. When people feel wealthier, they'll spend again, so the thinking goes.

There is also the push to get banks to lend again. Given that general financial conditions of the populace are still rather dire, it's only fair and prudent that banks don't want to lend. I don't see much problem with that. Obviously, if banks are getting effectively free cash from government, with an obligation to lend, it could be a different matter.

To be sure, it doesn't matter how low the property price level goes, any sane person won't jump onto a 30-year fixed mortgage if s/he is not sure whether their job is safe. Afterall, that's the prudent and right thing to do. As the contemporary thinking goes, people should buy properties again, if it's low enough. If you ask me, I'd tell you, that is but one of the many factors that I would consider long term fixed investment like real estate.

In this respect, both GOP and Dem/Obama are suspects, in pushing for mortgage help to underwater homeowners. It amounts to a move to appease voters to buy their votes. I don't buy that. I don't want the burden and responsibility to get push down to the future generations.

On the faded glamor of air hostesses...

There will always be things that one can look back with nostalgia, yet at the same time, quite happy to see their passing. The high glamor of air hostesses yonder is probably one of them.

There was a time, decades past, when air travel is high drama and luxury. It was so expensive and inaccessible that only the rich and famous can afford it. The exclusivity of it has lent prestige of all flight crew (pilots and attendants alike), allowing them not only the chance to fly to other parts of the world (woooow...), but the chance to dress up to serve the rich. It matters little that there's so much sexism and discrimination that was inherent in it. Air hostesses had to be single, tall and beautiful, skill and talented.

While I'm no hardcore feminist, I'm happy to see the liberalization of that profession. Come to think of it, flight attendants (as they are called now) are but there to serve customers and to maintain order inflight. Why should it matter if it's a man or woman; or, if s/he is single; or, if s/he is 5'7" or 5'1"? With the liberalization of air travel, it's become so cheap to fly coach that passengers are mostly just cheapo.

The loss of civility among airline passengers is probably one for nostalgia; but the loss of glamor for flight crew isn't.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When I was little, I once dreamt of being an air hostess too. I'm glad that little passion didn't last very long, and that I haven't followed that longing. These days, I mostly just feel pity for flight attendants (particularly the female ones), some of whom are still required to wear makeup, tight outfit, pantyhose, heels, while serving meals to customers. I see no glamor in it at all. In fact, I would find it more like torture, if I were to dress up like that, serving meals.

On the foreign students walkout from summer work program...

I was reading the news this morning, about the students walkout from a chocolate factory that is part of their J-1 summer work program. I don't mean to sound mean or crude, but I'm not sure if I'm totally sympathetic.

For all we hear, these foreign students from different countries, pay a handsome fees to come to America for a summer work program. They expect too earn handsomely, have fun jobs, do traveling, experience the culture, make friends. Instead, they get crappy factory assembly jobs, work night shifts, hardly have time or make enough money to go out or make any friends or experience the culture. They are not happy, and I won't be surprised if they want their money back.

The first thing that comes to mind when I read the news was, they got what they're coming here for. This is the American culture. We work till we drop. These foreign students can't ask for anything more accurately reflecting what's really going on in America. If they think, by paying $6000 for a J-1 visa fees, they would come in, get a cushy white-collar job that pays them (enough to cover the medical school tuition, as one foreign student has put it), they must be either dreaming, or smoking god-knows-what.

And, hey, they can make friends in the factory too. I remember fondly of the summer jobs in factories that I used to have when I was in high school. Sure, it's long hours and it's tough, but it's also fun since they're all in it since students made up half of the workforce in the factory during the summer months.

Sometimes, I don't know about the kids and young people these days, who would not (and could not) handle even low-paying or boring work that might be transient or entry level. Everyone expects to make quick bucks in a hurry. Everyone expects to become the next Bill Gates after a few years. Oftentimes, I get tired just hearing the whining of the younger generations, simply because they are asked to put in the sweat.

Yes, yes, I know I sound very unsympathetic, and I'm over-generalizing. Of course there are honest, young students who would do what it takes. But it's often those who aren't, who would scream the loudest for "their own rights." The Chinese factory workers are getting good at it. Maybe they should be sent back to China to get their summer-work program.

On a truly relaxing vacation...

As is often the case, workdays and school days are more rhythmic and easier to handle than vacations. We can keep at the schedule and activities. It's busy, but manageable. It's usually that sick days, or school holidays, or vacations, are much more stressful.

I haven't had a truly relaxing, real vacation for quite a long time. In fact, that has ceased to exist since our firstborn which was years ago. When the kids were younger, it's hard to get any vacations at all. Afterall, they're growing so fast that their schedule, needs, taste and preferences are changing every few months; it could be hard to keep up. Their attention span is short, and physically they don't last for more than half a day before they crash. It's when the kids get to maybe 9-10 in age that things can get easier to handle.

It's under this pretext that I experience a truly relaxing vacation for years. The kids are getting bigger now, that they don't want to do summer day-camps anymore. (They say it's boring.) I can understand it, since alot of day-camps are more like babysitting pen for pre-teens. Granted that they try to organize different activities for kids, it's often just touch-and-go. But I don't want to organize those educational camps for the kids in the summer, where they would drill on life or academic skills. Summers should be the time for kids to chill and have fun.

So, for a change, this summer, we took two different trips, one to a big city, and one to rural country.

We did the usual in the city. Visits to museum, water park, lots of restaurants. I love museums, but kids' attention span is still rather limited. At least they're at an age where they can go off on their own periodically to check out exhibits, and we would meet up again. And the water park was a blast, and help to kill off their excess energy, fast. We would bathe in the shade on sunny days while the kids ran off from one game to another, and we wouldn't have to be the doting parents, for a change. Decision which restaurants to go to is easy. Kids actually don't give much thoughts about which restaurant we're going to, as long as it has lots of meats.

And then, we have the country trip with a totally different experience. We slaughtered a sheep; built our own fire for bonfire and BBQ; camping out; milking and herding cows; feeding pigs and chickens; even playing in creek and stream. There's alot of home cooking, with all the fresh ingredients from local produce. I even got my wish to see another shooting star (since my first/last time when I was little), and found Big Dipper for the first time on my own (no, I'm not very good at identifying constellation). In hindsight, it's not a bad thing that we're totally cut off from the world, given that there's little to no internet access. That's how we can enjoy the here-and-now. I can't ask for more.

The good thing about it is, we don't need to plan out our day. We'll check the weather at the start of day, and do whatever that Mother Nature would allow us. I haven't relaxed like that for years now. It's awesome.

On inter-racial marriage, and other thoughts...

Sometimes, it's hard to imagine ourselves in someone else's shoe. Granted that interracial marriages (particularly those involved white men and women from other races) were taboo in the bygone days, I have - perhaps rather naively - expected that most urban dwellers, in particular, those who are professionals, should have overcome most, if not all, of the obstacles. Apparently, that's not the case.

Or perhaps, it's not really a taboo for Asian women. In fact, alot of them still consider marrying a white man as a classy act. This is in large part a remnant of the colonial and post-colonial days, when white men living in Asia were predominantly well-off expatriates who live large. Just ask Wendi Deng, Rupert Murdoch's ambitious third wife, who was able to literally springboard herself from poor coastal China, stealing one husband 31 years her senior in LA to get a green card, then stealing Murdoch to become the rich wife that affords her the money and fame to fix with the other celebrity, rich and famous. As Deng Xiaoping once put it, "do not care if the cat is black or white, what matters is it catches mice." For Wendi Deng, who cares if the meal ticket is 30 or 40 years her senior - as long as she gets the money and fame, that's good enough. Even if it means doing cat-fights in public on camera, like those rural peasant women do in China, what matters is, she needs to protect her meal ticket. If Murdoch kicks the bucket today, she could end up having peanuts (instead of the reportedly $1 billion payout to Murdoch's second wife from their divorce).

Ah, but I have digressed...

But the point is, for Asian women like Wendi Deng, there is no taboo in the interracial marriage. It's actually a status symbol.

It's an interesting read, of the article in Wall Street Journal on black professional women's plight of insufficient qualifying black men to marry, resulting in a surprisingly high ratio of black professional women remaining single, or "marrying down" (ie. marrying men of professions that pay substantially less). Perhaps the most surprising findings in the article are that, there are so many little details about black women and their thought process, that has never occurred to me. Topics like, hair, chocolate babies, even sticking with black men as a political statement. The other interesting note in the article is the suggestion to these professional black women, that they should seriously consider marrying out of their own race. Not only would that reduce the number of black women (ratio 2-1 in professional circles) pursuing available black men, but it would reduce the "power" in which black men have traditionally held all the cards in choosing whichever black women of their choosing.

I must admit, I was rather surprised by how I feel about the reports in the article. I feel sad to the plight of those black professional women who might feel trapped (even subconsciously) by their own history and culture. I would bet you, there won't be as much odds stacked against a Chinese woman, should she want to pursue a man of another race. Again, go ask Wendi Deng.

To put things in perspective, some of the plights are not unique to black women. Traditionally, professional women of all the other races face the same issue of not having enough available professional men to choose from, as mates and partners. Not sure where all the eligible and available men have gone. For the blacks, the article could argue that a large number of black men are incarcerated. But that's not the case with professional men of other races. Perhaps a good number of them have come out of the closet and declare themselves gay.

I'm still trying to figure this one out.

On 3-D movies...

Recently, I brought the kids to watch a few movies. It's one of the summer must-do's for them. Thankfully, there are a few that they would jump to go (Harry Potter final installment, Cars 2), while others aren't so hot (Kung Fu Panda 2).

I must say, though, going to the movies is getting pricier these days. On top of the actual ticket price increase, now theaters are charging hefty premium for the same movies, but in 3-D. My only response is, who cares.

Sure, sure, you can always find some of those people who value highly of their movie experience. I'm guessing, those must be the same people who must have home entertainment and home theater system. I'm a rather complacent person, when it comes to that. I want a good movie, and good movie to me is more than just CGI. In other words, I'm not one of the willing crowds who pay to see extra visual effects. My kids don't care much either.

And then there are those annoying 3-D glasses that get in the way of my own spectacles, mostly just giving me dizzying headache. I would in fact pay extra to not see 3-D.

I don't think I'm alone though.

A few weeks ago, I went to see the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 with the kids. I picked the 2-D schedule. Granted that it's a very popular movie, I had not expected the theater to be completely full. (In fact, that was among the few times when I sat in a theater that was full house.) The movie was good, well-rounded on all fronts, 2-D notwithstanding. Throughout the day, there were only two screenings for 2-D, everything else in 3-D. I found out later that the 3-D showing (which was about half an hour later than the 2-D show that we're watching) was less than half full. That in itself should be a good indicator and a tell-tale sign.

Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson does have a point, in pushing for lower 3-D ticket prices. But of course, if movie studio and theater owners can get away with charging audience more, they would; hence the dissing of Spielberg and Jackson's position by Jeff Katzenberg in that same article.

Perhaps it's just too bad, that Katzenberg doesn't get it. If he or anyone thinks that they can keep raising the prices, even by doing a little more in showing some 3-D effects (however well made it might be), they're quite wrong. I, for one am more than happy to wait for the DVD on netflix. Afterall, I'm not one of those who must have the first edition of everything - iphone, anyone? - and I don't need 3-D to make me love a movie. To be, 3-D is just sugar-pop.