On memory of Wales...

It's amazing how sometimes just a simple smell or picture or short reading would bring back floods of memory. This morning, when I caught glimpse of the word Cardiff, then read on in the New York Times article on traveling to Wales and Cardiff, it did exactly that.

Years ago, I did a trip to Wales with college friends with fond memory. It's a pity I never jog down the route that we traveled. All the photos taken and the negatives were lost when I moved houses. I've lost touch with those college friends. All I have left is my memory of it.

It was the start of summer holidays from college, shortly after all the final exams were done. We started driving out from Coventry. I don't remember much of the food. But I remember well the castles that we visited, one of which was close by the water. We had walked up to the top of a castle tower, one of the few that had been restored at the time (since the rest of the castle were in ruinous shape and not fit for visitors, lest they might collapse, I bet). The sky was clear blue; the vista over the water never-ending. It's beautiful.

When we got to Wales, we stayed at the local B&B which were quaint English cottage and rowhouses (no pun intended about the English reference), one of which stood next to a running stream which is most lovely, with trees and grass so green, it's a feast to the eyes. The roads, as anyone who has ever traveled to Wales knows, are narrow, but everything was just so quaint. I love it. 

We stopped quite often along the way, with rolling green hills. It's rather deserted, but I never felt lonely. Perhaps it's the occasional stone walls or wooden fence that were put up to mark territory which bears indications of humanity and civilization. 

One of the places that we visited was a former coal mine that has long since been closed. We donned coalminer's helmets (with light in front), took the cage-like elevators straight down. The tour guide taught us a song that we sang on our way down. The sounds provided some cheeriness in an otherwise very grim environment where everything is black - it's coal everywhere afterall. When we reached the coal shaft, one of the things the tour guide asked us to do, was to turn off our headlights and to feel how dark it was. That complete darkness, albeit just half a second in duration, is suffocating. One can't help feeling claustrophobic. We proceeded to walking along dark tunnels, seeing more of the same black coal that stretch deep into the earth. 

That coal shaft tour didn't take too long. I was only too happy to finally come back up to the ground and see light again. I could not begin to fathom how it must have been like, to spend most (if not all) of one's life with the coal underground, which was exactly what happened to some animals and donkeys that were brought down to the coal shaft for transport and to reach low coal beams too small for adults. In those days, children routinely worked in coal mines since their smaller size allowed them to reach some hard to reach places via small tunnels. Life must have been awful.

After that, we went to visit the museum nearby where the history of Wales, impacts of coal mining (for good and ill), and how politics came into play (in particularly, the rise and fall of coalminers' union), were on display. I was not well-versed in that part of the Welsh history and how coal is intertwined with it, neither did I realize how the coalminers' union came about until that point. Truth be told, I never have too good an impression about unions in general, but as I read through its history, I've come to a better appreciation of how tough the livelihood of coalminers were, and how much exploitation went on before coalminers finally organized to fight back. Unions did serve its purpose, before Margaret Thatcher broke its back eventually.

The coalmining in Wales and unionization have stuck with me even to this day, even though that trip to Wales was long history to me now. It's educational as it gives me an appreciation and a different perspective of how unions were born out of the needs to level the playing field between coalminers and their mine owners, in the form of collective bargaining. Although unionization does not make sense in all industries, I do recognize the need for it in low-paying jobs that workers have no bargaining power at all.

Some day, I'd love to go back and visit Wales and England again. Those are places with some of my fond memories.

On actively managed funds vs passively managed funds...

I was reading this article today on LA Times about how actively managed funds have come up short (again) when it comes to performance since the big rebound of the market from its financial crisis in 2008, compared to passively managed funds.

I have always been rather cynical about actively managed funds, not only on how much higher the management fees are (compared to index funds), but also on how mediocre (or worse) their performance have been. The meltdown of the market in 2008/09 is perhaps my last straw, no doubt it's the same for most people who have money to invest. One of my IRA (rollover from 401k in one of my previous jobs) that I have left it as-is in actively managed funds had been "decimated," erasing ten years' worth of value that were added, effectively putting it on par with just the contribution amount from myself and my prior employer.

I've pulled out from those few funds, not because I panicked at the time (in 2008/09), but I was so fed up with the fund managers. I kept asking myself, what's the point of paying all these "managers" all these high fees all these times, delivering just mediocre returns even during the best of times (when the bull market was flying high), and performing far worse than the market and the index funds when the financial crisis hit. In the best of times, when literally every boat got lifted during high tide of bull run, I pay those high fees; in the worst of times, my portfolio takes the hit but these "managers" still take the fees. Effectively, the managers have all the upside, and I take all the downside. I realize at that point, that it wasn't me who panicked, but it was these darn fund managers who sold everything with the panic button. By selling when the market went down, these idiots had ensured that there's no way to rebound. If they have truly believed in the assets that they're holding, rather than just following the market, why selling them, and why selling them now in a fire sale? If they're just following the market, I can easily do that myself or use index funds.

This fund manager of mine, is Fidelity. Apparently they're not alone, because the same happened to my husband's holdings. His fund manager? Janus. Given how the actively managed funds in general had performed historically and since, I don't think Fidelity and Janus are alone in their sheep mentality to blindly follow the market.

'nuf said.

So then, I decided to withdraw all the money from all my other actively managed funds and consolidate, again not out of panic but out of this total weariness of how pathetic this whole fund industry is. I should have done this long time ago, but complacency and laziness got in the way - yes, lame excuses but when nothing blows up, rebalancing one's portfolio seems to be the last thing on my to-do list back then. To a large extent, the market meltdown in 2008/09 was a godsend since it prompted me to finally do something.

There have been so many other issues with the fund industry concerning transparency, including the issue of pricing of the funds, frontrunning their own clients, etc. There's just no way I would entrust my money with them anymore.

For a time, the Janus funds that my husband has had were doing alright - yes, it's just alright compared to the index, but he's lazy for a while, like myself - but something happened. The Janus funds had had change in management, and the new fund managers were even more mediocre than the predecessors. That's his last straw. I suppose in fund management, the funds are only as good as the managers who oversee them. I'm sure Peter Lynch would attest to that.

I should say though, that selective hedge funds could still thrive. They have the advantage of being totally non-transparent (which is counter-intuitive), allowing them to make all kinds of bets in all kinds of industries. But with big up's, it always comes with big down's. I don't feel like gambling anymore. I would rather settle for lower but more sustaining growth and yield.

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

Since 2008/09 when I pulled and pooled all my money out from the funds, I've managed them myself with self-brokerage. I spread them out over ETF (with more transparency in pricing in open market than mutual funds), index funds (with very low fees), and day-trade on selected stocks.

For a while, it works quite well. The markets have bottomed out from such low that they have nowhere to go but up. I built back up my portfolio a little bit for about 25-30% a year return, net of fees (brokerage fees for trades) for a couple years. Then again, even a dog can make money by going in with both feet during those two years. It doesn't take any genius at all.

Starting 2010, something occurs to me. It didn't feel right to me anymore since it felt more like casino gambling. Even good companies can get through gyrations of ups and downs in prices within short span of time that are totally without reasons. I'm sure the algo traders have a lot to do with it. I don't feel like gambling away those retirement dollars and praying for the best. Anyone who has some ability to spot trends and patterns in charts can easily see through this; that's what the algorithms do best anyways. The charts of almost 95% of the companies I look were all trending down, pointing to an inevitable pullback of the prices at some point. It has to. I don't want to be the one holding the bag.

About the time, some properties in a few choice neighborhoods around where I live came on the market, and I like them. My husband isn't so thrilled. He feels that properties are too illiquid, with too much maintenance needs for his taste, and the financial burden is too long term. To be sure, they are all valid points; but they are also the usual talking points for why any investors should choose stock market over properties. Just talk to any financial advisors who want to invest your money to stock markets for fees and commissions, and you'll hear the same talking points. Anyhow, I went ahead anyways, and bought a few properties since 2010.

No one would have foretold exactly when the bottom of the property market would have been. Anyone who told you that they knew, is lying. It's simply impossibly to time the markets because no one has the crystal ball. In hindsight, property market pretty much bottoms out around the time I pull back from stock market and start buying properties around 2010 in my area. I would be the first one to tell you that I have absolutely no idea when that bottom might be; but it just feels right to me at the time. The prices were right historically. The properties are good (great property in great location and in great shape). Rental support is strong. The economy around my area has never gone down in the worst of times. The public schooling system also provides great support to the demand for properties in the area.

Looking back, buying the properties is a great move. Without the financial crisis, I would never have been able to buy so many good properties in good location in such short timespan, with strong rental and capital value that has increased between 10-30%, among the few of them. The mortgage rate is lower than ever. I can't be happier.

Better yet, the net rental return is 10%+ which is way, way better than plunging in the stock markets and hope for the best. I don't want to have a retirement portfolio that relies on dumb luck or leave it at the mercy of some dark pool manipulation. In fact, I could have quit my day job now, manage the properties, and have yet more monthly income than my current day job (high income bracket notwithstanding).

An added bonus is the ultra-low mortgage rate. It's almost like free money from the bank to fund my retirement. Amidst all the talk and blame game about the Fed under Bernanke for leaving the mortgage rate too low for far too long, and for not ending the stimulus program (now in its third incarnation in the form of QE3), I would have Bernanke to be thankful to. That said, I do feel there's certain truth in it, in that, the ultra-low rate environment is once again encouraging people to take unnecessary risks that they might not have otherwise been able to take, endangering others along the way (hello, big banks!). Am I one of those on this bandwagon? I might have been, I'm afraid.

One thing has to be said about the low mortgage rate: It's great only if you can get it. Banks have become such a pain to deal with, but I've come to appreciate that's what it should be. Banks should have vetted borrowers more stringently; back in the go-go days in pre-2008, even a dog can qualify for a mortgage. Federal government has fed the illusion by propositioning ownership nation (as George W Bush has advocated it so adamantly, much like he did with the Iraq War). For all the valid points that my husband has raised about the illiquidity of property market and the very long mortgage term, one has to have sufficient buffer to absorb any system shocks, rather than just praying and expecting property prices to always go up, as most subprime borrowers did, pre-2008, for either refinancing or flipping the property to bail them out. When markets turn against you, all these options would dry up, as a lot of people have painfully found out. Instead of simply talking up property ownership, these folks need serious education to learn the severe downside that comes with it.

In any case, my husband takes a different tact. He continues to hold his faith in stocks, though he has been burnt enough times now. I'm not so sure about relying on paper gains for retirement portfolio. It doesn't feel right.

On the brouhaha of government shutdown and looming debt ceiling, and the fight of them all...

I have not wanted to write about the now three-day-old federal government shutdown, the debate (or lack thereof) about it in Washington, and the looming debt ceiling (again!) that could throw many fish out of the economic water, but such is historic times and I feel certain compulsion to at least write down a few things to mark the time.

So, everyone right now knows about the federal government shutdown. Why? Because a small but very vocal minority in GOP - in the form of Tea Party a la Ted Cruz, Eric Cantor, and some such - has decided that they need to take the last stand against humanity (!!!). In order to force the defunding of Obamacare (which finally came into effect this Tuesday on 10/01/2013), they are willing to withhold passing the federal budget unless the line item of the defunding is attached. The Obama White House and Democrats would not budge. Afterall, Obamacare (more formally known as Affordable Care Act, or ACA) is a regulation that has passed both the House and Senate of the Congress, signed into law by Obama the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court.

Problem is, the more the rest of the country is coming to accept Obamacare, the more Tea Party hates it. (Actually, they hate everything that is remotely related to Obama anyways, so never mind much of the reason why.) The more validation ACA gets, the higher the poll numbers ACA gets, the deeper Tea Party digs in.

So, how do you stop a legislation from taking effect? Pulling the purse string, of course, which is exactly what Tea Party is trying to do now. Never mind that the government and the whole country are held hostage by it, Tea Party wants no part of the government anyways. To them, the government might as well shut down and go to hell. Instead, they prefer to deal with line items (like funding the continual opening of national monuments, while not caring about other vital functions like food safety, childhood programs, and research). Such is the irrational and unreasonable behavior of a two-year-old; apparently, Tea Party has topped that.

Perhaps the saddest part of it all, is that, the leadership in the House (with GOP majority) is unable to control these petulant Tea Party children. Those moderate and reasonable voices in GOP are being crowded out by the vocal histrionic and vitriol, who worries that if they don't pander with the Tea Party, they won't survive their next primary election. John Boehner, being speaker of the House, no doubt has the added worry about losing his speakership, should he fail to placard to these small minority group.

Personally, I cannot stand all the blatant lies on ACA that the GOP spread, and how a lot of average joes in America are stupid enough to believe all the lies they're told without even just cursory check. ACA is in no way perfect, and to me, it's not the kind of universal care I would love it to be (the same as, say, Australia), but people should at least give it a chance, the same way everyone is required to get car insurance if they want to drive a car.

I'd also be willing to bet, that the other main reason why Tea Party wants to stop ACA before it can take effect, is that, they fear that the public would come to love ACA the same way Medicare and Social Security had been. This will surely kill a key element of their platform of Tea Party and GOP, if they still have one, apart from being The Party of No. Apparently, the killing of the public option from ACA is not sufficient for them.

Thanks to Tea Party and the inept House leadership, we have a government shutdown that has no end in sight. Anything short of a market revolt from Wall St will not be enough to force their hands. And why not. With an increasingly self-sorting electorate in which these Tea Partyers got elected by their petulant (and oftentimes ignorant and very arrogant) electorate who wants no part of government, except to keep their medicare and social security and any other federal assistance (eg. underwriting of their flood insurance) alone, there's no political ramifications for them to behave in a more reasonable manner. In fact, the more hissy fit they throw, the more their electorate seems to love it. It's become their electorate's blood sport. In short, there's no adult left in the room, all that is left is a bunch of very petulant children.

That's why I was laughing out loud when I read this parenting tip to dealing with GOP tantrum which is timely and most pertinent. And that's exactly the response that any parenting experts would have advised Obama to do, which is to not negotiate (since there's nothing left to be negotiated) and to not get upset. If Tea Partyers think that they can get a rise out of this angry black man, they fail most miserably. For that, I applaud Obama, even though I'm not really a fan of his.

This is particularly true when the debt ceiling is looming in just a couple of weeks. If Obama or Democrats are to yield to Tea Party, what would become of the debt ceiling debate? I don't dare contemplate that prospect, of pandering to the tantrum of a child. It's simply wrong on all counts, morally, legally, politically.

I feel for those folks ("non-essential" federal workers being the first hits) who have to pay the price for the Tea Party's tantrum. I'm getting so sick and tired of hearing all these in the news that I'm starting to tune out.

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

Why should I care about all these white noises? The ACA actually doesn't impact me, at least not at this point anyways, and I hope not in the future either. Being covered in an employer's plan, ACA has no impact to me personally at all.

What I do not want to see, is the way in which this government is being run, and how easily it can be hijacked by such small minority, and how spineless the GOP House speaker is in reining in these remnants.

All the hypocrisy and grandiosity that GOP and Tea Party claim, that they're speaking "for the American people" really makes me sick in the stomach. How dare they speak in such general terms. How dare they claim to represent all "american people" because certainly they do not speak for me on this issue. They can rightly say, yes, they're representing a few hundred idiots back home who are on unemployment benefits and medicare disability and food stamps, and who also do not want to have anything to do with federal government; but no, they do not speak for the american people.

What I most want to say, is to tell these people to just shut the feck up, and go back to their own rabbit hole. They can drink beers all day till their liver gives. They can shoot live human targets (of themselves), as Dick Cheney did to his pal, until they all die out as a mutant species. That would do humanity a great service, and Darwin will no doubt smile warmly to that. Oh wait, but they would want Medicare or Medicaid to cover for their hospital bills, wouldn't they.

On telecommuting et al...

However democratic we think our society might be, there will always be class warfare. It's easy for people to relate to. Just look at how often class warfare is being invoked by politicians, left, right, and center, and one can easily see why.

Mostly, I can understand why. The us-against-them mentality is rather fundamental in human nature. Examples are everywhere. Romney, perhaps, is one of the most recent flame-out, with his 47% remarks during his failed presidential bid. But the one that is most curious to me, is about telecommuting, where I find some weak arguments in comments relating class warfare to telecommuting. 

I've been telecommuting for more than 13 years now, before it even became vogue. Naturally I have a thing or two to say about the topic, given my own experience in it, particularly since the end of telecommuting in Yahoo, courtesy of its relatively new CEO, Marissa Mayer.

A few things are worth noting.

Let's be clear on this. Some jobs simply cannot accommodate telecommuting (eg. service sector), in particular, the ones that demands physical presence for the work. Some people's personality are ill-suited to be telecommuted (eg. those who are unable to work independently). There are yet others who are too inexperienced and new to the job to be telecommuting effectively.

When I first started telecommuting, it's done kind of under the table. My boss allowed me to do it due to my change in personal circumstances (rather than seeing me leaving the company), even though there's no official policy. That bred resentment in some quarters since some colleagues wanted to do the same, but were told it's not allowed. So, from a personal and from a company perspective, there should be a clear and official policy on telecommuting. That would make life much easier for everyone involved.

By the time I started telecommuting, I've been on the job for some time. I know the folks; I know my way around (ie. procedural stuffs). I can work both independently and in a team. There are official company tools that allow us to maintain presence online. It's not uncommon for us to ping each other online even if we can easily talk over the petition walls, if not for the simple reason that we can easily start chatroom and incorporate folks from other sites for lengthy discussions. 

More importantly, my work and results are measurable because it's very result-oriented. If the work is not measurable with definable goals, then it's hard for you (and your boss) to show what your worth is, really. To be sure, even if you go to office everyday, when the push comes to shove and company needs to downsize, those whose work can't be easily measured are likely to be amongst the first ones to be on the chopping board. And so, if your work is one of these, don't complain about your employer not allowing you to telecommute because it simply won't work; in fact, it might be detrimental to your long term career path.

Apart from official company policy, your boss' management style is just as important. You could easily have official telecommuter policy and the work can easily accommodate it, but if your boss doesn't like it, it's not on. Yes, this is just too bad since we do not have sufficient new age (wo)men to work just a little differently than the traditional conventional mode. 

Your boss' management style could also impact on your career path, should you take the telecommuter path. If your boss is not appreciative of your work without seeing your face, then you're not likely to have good performance reviews, and there goes your career path. 

Here, something must be said about leaning in, as Sandberg has advocated. I tend to agree that one has to be comfortable speaking up and advocating about one's achievement without sounding too boastful, regardless of whether you're a man or woman, but this is particularly necessary if you want to be a successful telecommuter since you need to demonstrate that you can still deliver the goods. That said, I cannot stand Sandberg's patronization, particuarly to women, as if women (telecommuters or otherwise) are not already doing this. What Sandberg has been lucky, when others don't, is that she's had bosses (eg. Lawrence Summers) who gave her the opportunity. As I said, it's as much about the boss' management style, as it is about yourself. If your boss is not supportive or receptive, it would be an uphill battle that you cannot win. My advice? Find another job. It's not worth your time trying to change someone (not your husband or boyfriend - as some girls or women might fancy they have the power to do, and definitely not your boss). Life is too short for that.

Some people would complain about telecommuters slacking off (hello, Dilbert! I love the Dilbert series), and abuse of the system. No doubt Marissa Mayer is one of these. But, ask yourself this: If I can deliver you the goods that I've promised you, by or before deadline, why should you care if I go grocery shopping for an hour or pick up my kids from school?  Why should you care if I do my work 8am in the morning or 11pm at night, so long as I get good quality stuffs done by the deadline? The long and short answer is, you don't and you shouldn't. Those who still insist on this, that telecommuters have to work specific office hours don't know what it takes (in terms of the nature of work). If your work really needs you to be there physically in specific office hours, then perhaps you shouldn't be telecommuting at all.

As a matter of fact, most telecommuters would attest to it, that they tend to work longer hours than they would otherwise do when they work in office. I know I do.  

That said, I don't like - I never like - video conferencing. I don't like - and I don't need - to see someone's face, for the sake of seeing some moving pictures. Audio conference bridge is good enough for me, and that's that. I'm one of those who prefer a short SMS for concise summary, rather than lengthy voicecall, with all the hello's and how-are-you's, just to tell me a quick line of info. Life is short; there's no time to waste. But if I really want to know someone, I'd prefer face-to-face because there's something unique about human physical interaction that can better foster camaraderie.

With all the inherent benefits of telecommuting that empowers individuals to have more control over one's life, all the time saved from the long commute (benefiting employees), all the precious property saved from maintaining physical cubicles (benefiting employers), it can get very lonely. Official policy aside, it's hard to build up trust and camaraderie among co-workers remotely. You can have all the video conferencing, audio bridge, online chats, and even virtual whatever, that you want, but it'll never replace face-to-face interaction and water cooler moments that Mayer has insisted that yahoo telecommuters had lacked. In short, you should get to know your colleagues well before shutting yourself out with telecommuting.

And so, in a way, to the credit of Mayer, yes you want co-location of staff to move fast and to bounce ideas. And yes, if you're a startup, you always - always - want co-location of staff because that's the quickest way to get things done, and get ideas validated. BUT, yahoo is not a startup; it hasn't been a startup for more than a decade and a half now. I'd even be willing to bet, the most impediment of innovation in yahoo is not the lack of water cooler moments, but the increasing red tape and bureaucracy that always come with big companies. That kind of bureaucracy that provides some sanity to a bloated workforce in the form of framework and structure also poses rigidity that startups normally don't have. If Mayer really wants to foster innovation, taking a first move of abolishing telecommuting is very wrong-headed. If I were a yahoo employee, and if I were to have some innovative idea inside my head, and if yahoo pisses me off that badly, I would just leave and start my own startup. Why would I bring it up inside yahoo and see the innovative idea whittled down to oblivion up the management hierarchy? And what's that going to gain me, even if the great innovative idea gets green light for a project inside a big company? A pat on the shoulder or some lame promotion in a company that's been going downhill for more than a decade now? If I'm an ambitious enough, I won't even bother doing that inside a big company. There is nothing that face-to-face is going to help on this at all, as Mayer has somehow advocated that bringing back all the telecommuters into office will help achieve.

To be sure, this problem is not specific to yahoo, because it happens to every other big tech; hence, their difficulty in fostering growth organically. But, as a woman, as a poster girl in the corner office, as a new mother who is supposed to most appreciate the work-life balance, Marissa Mayer has certain succeeded in offending just about every quarters (myself included, from outside of yahoo). 

Let's be honest with this too, that employers' first mission is not about employee happiness or convenience. They are here to make a profit, happy employees or otherwise. For all the talk of work-life balance, it's good for publicity. Some companies are better at it, but policies can easily change on a dime with a new boss in town (hello, yahoo!). Given that reality, individual employees should realize that, they can ask for telecommuting all they want, but it has to work in the larger context of the employer's business. If work nature won't allow it or if boss' style is not conducive, it doesn't matter if the employee is less happier working in office. Employers can't care less; as simple as that. Just ask Marissa Mayer to see if she cares (which I'm sure she doesn't).

With all these, I'd say this: I would not recommend telecommuting to everyone. It has nothing to do with class warfare (the chosen few who can do it, and all the rest who can't), even though it's true in general that telecommuting jobs tend to be knowledge jobs (case in point, IT) that pay higher. I'd much rather people push for flexi-time than strict telecommuting. Look at it this way, telecommuting is nice because it allows flexibility and more control over one's life. That's what it is afterall, to make it work for both the individual and the company. It's supposed to be a win-win. 

After my employer has officiated its telecommuting policy and I've become a telecommuter (that comes with the benefits of expense reimbursements of everything that I need to work remotely, with no questions asked), I would still go back to office from time to time, if only just to have lunch with my fellow co-workers, not because I have to, but because I want to. As I said, there's nothing like face-to-face interaction, and you never really know a person unless there's some physical interaction. For those who said you don't need it, you're just kidding yourself. Never mind the big-expense team building exercise, just a nice team lunch will go a long way. And you also want your boss to still remember you're on his/her team. Good work is all well and good, but we also need to do some advocating for ourselves. In marketing parlor, it's almost like a branding exercise. Surely I'm not the only one who can do good work (maybe even some folks in India or Ukraine can do the job too), but I want my boss to know not only is my work good, but it's because of me (!!!). This is different from leaning in (which you can easily do remotely).

I've worked in startups for a number of years too; I do understand the rationale behind what Mayer has tried to achieve. I'd say, for my startups, I would want to have all staff co-located. Truth be told, if you have a group of dedicated staff (oftentimes mostly young single adults) who move fast and get work done, they would more often than not camp out in office out of fun, rather than asking you about telecommuting policy or whether you provide health insurance. I know this sounds discriminatory and might even sound offensive to others, but it's the truth (even though I'm no longer a young single adult who prefers to camp out of office). Do I really expect people to do that, as a matter of course? No. But it sure as hell shows dedication, backed up by results (yes, always - always - check the results!). Here, I'm not even talking about face time; I'm talking about results.

Telecommuting can also be a two-edged sword, not necessarily for me, per se. I have the skills necessary for my job and my employer wants me; that's all well and good. The same cannot be said of some rookie fresh grad in entry-level job. These days, if an entry level job can be done remotely, you can be quite assured that those jobs would have been shipped out to some low-cost countries for 1/10th of the salary and little to no benefits. In fact, for the longest time now (at least for the past 6-8 years), the trend has been that those more experienced ones like me have been mentoring fresh grads in remote countries so that they can do the work someday on their own. There isn't even any attempt to hire in US. (So, yes, I'm very cynical about the whole lobbying push by the high tech industry to increase H1B limit.) Without entry level jobs, fresh grads in US would never have the chance to build up the skills and experience, as I have done in times past, and the younger generations would never be able to attain the nirvana of telecommuting as I have enjoyed, with a salary that puts me in high income bracket. It's a two-edged sword that works for me, but it'll cut into the generations to come. I have much worries about this, not for myself, but for younger kids, including my kids. 

On low-budge way to feed family...

I was quite touched by the report of a single mother whose blog chronicles her attempt to feed her family (herself and her young toddler son) with A$17 a week.  I was moved by the emotions that go with hunger, and working poor, all while trying to keep one's head up high and maintaining some sort of dignity.  I can only imagine how tough that must be, of the single mother's attempt to do the right thing, yet hamstrung by support and opportunities.

There's one thing I cannot agree with her more: Most people think that it's expensive to feed the family well, that it must be cheaper to feed the family with junk food, rather than cooking at home; this notion is quite far from truth.  This lady has proved how wrong that notion can be, and I can second that.

Although our situation is different from hers and I don't have to count pennies when it comes to grocery shopping, I'm always cognizant to grocery and food prices. And although I'm not a chef type of cook, my husband and I tag-team to do grocery shopping and to cook for the family. In general, I'd say, we only spend about $100 a week on grocery, and the most expensive item is actually fruits (not meat).

How do you keep grocery bill low, yet having fresh food on the table for every meal? I've come to realize that, one key thing is, to keep an open-mind.  I don't have a "shopping list" when I go grocery shopping. I only keep shopping list for things that I run out (eg. toilet papers, or seasoning, or cooking oil); those are the "essentials" that I must have. When it comes to food, fruit, and vegetables, I never have shopping list. (About the only food items that I really have on my shopping list, is milk and eggs.)

I do realize that we're lucky to live in metropolitan area of the city, yet not in inner city. Supermarkets and food stores have weekly markdowns. Since we live fairly close by the stores, we can take more frequent trips, rather than once a week, for example. Particularly when it comes to meat, it'll get marked down when it's closer to expiry date. Those are what I'd get. The trick? You freeze it down in freezer. Then you can have it whenever you need it (although you do have to cook it fairly fast after it's de-frozed). But, you can't do that with vegetables and fruits, although you can slow down their ripening process by putting them in fridge.

What that means is that, what I cook is dictated by what I can get on that day (when it's on sale) or what's in the freezer or fridge. If you plan ahead for a day or two, you would know what you can cook. But, if you go to the store, with some specific dish in mind, so that you're going in just to search for ingredients, then yes, you'll have to pay the price. I don't shop that way.

I've heard some other tricks from other cultures too.  Like the Indians would cook enough curry to last the family for a whole week, and just put it in the fridge for use (for lunch and dinner). That way, they can buy (and cook) in bulk.

Some food ingredients are so versatile, that you can literally make different dishes out of it. I like soups. So, I like to soak a whole chicken in boiling water for about 30 minutes, take the chicken out, and you can have juicy white chicken meat for anything (as a dish itself, or for salad, etc). The soup would become soup base for vegetables like carrots, potatoes, celery or onion. For a young family of four, that could last you for almost two days. This way, you can have a meat dish (chicken), veggie, and soup. It's perfect for us.

How much does that cost?  A bigger whole chicken, about $9, maybe. One pound bag of carrots, $2.50 (that can last 4 meals easily). Five pound bag of potatoes, $4.5 maybe (that can last a number of meals). Onion, $.69 per pound. So, for lunch and dinner for two days, it's something like $9 + $2.50 + $1.40 + $2 (if you can eat lots of potatoes). That's less than $15 for lunches and dinners for two days. Here, I'm not even talking about buying food that is close to used-by date. These are fresh stuffs. You get the idea.

(Yes, I learn that trick from my mom, of soaking the whole chicken in boiling water for 30 minutes, then take it out. Don't soak it too long though; otherwise, the meat of the chicken will get tough. The skin must be left on. The meat would retain the juiciness and flavor, the same way you would get in Chinese restaurant for the plain white chicken that comes with condiment of ginger, scallion, and oil. My kids love it. *yum*)

Oh, and if you worry about this chicken+soup+veggie repertoire would take a long time, you're wrong. You don't even have to be in the kitchen when all these are being cooked. Essentially, you get the water to boiling point, turn off the stove, then drop the chicken in, set the timer to 30-40 mins (you might need a bit longer if the chicken's meat is thicker), then walk away. When the timer beeps, you take the chicken out, then drop all the rinsed veggie and potatoes in, plus a bit of chicken stock, and get them in slow boil for a little bit. Again, you can set the timer, and walk away. How long it takes depends on how soft you like your veggie to be. For me, I bring the soup (with veggie in it) to a boil, then turn off the stove and let it sit. That way, the veggie is cooked but won't get too mushy, and the soup won't get too mushy and thick either. You can easily prepare this at night after the kids have gone to bed, and have them all ready for meals tomorrow. I like doing that kind of hassle-free, quiet type of cooking at night, with a bit of radio or music on. It's quite relaxing. That's my kind of kitchen therapy. This is also one of the most energy-efficient recipe, in which you hardly need to use much utility.

Another alternative is salmon and avocado sushi roll. All you need is a slap of salmon fillet (which can make a lot of sushi rolls), seaweed wrap, a couple of avocado, and Japanese sushi rice. Making the sushi roll is a no-brainer, and you can prepare it overnight, ready to eat the next day. It's fresh; it's healthy; it's filling too. To me, this is way better than making sandwiches. My kids love this too. (This is the only time in which my son would eat avocado.)

And how much would this be? Salmon fillet is normally $12.99 per pound, but oftentimes go on sale for $7.99 - $9.99 per pound. You buy two pounds of it, and it's more than enough for sushi rolls for more than two days. One pack of sushi seaweed sheets has loads - and I mean loads - of seaweed that it could last us for weeks. Same for a bag of sushi rice which I only cook enough for the sushi every time. Avocado, between $1 - $1.50 per. Some people like to do california-roll style, and substitute it with cucumber which is much cheaper and give it the crunchiness. What it comes down to is, it's really not that expensive either. Tuna is more or less the same price.  (I'm sure sushi aficionado is going to go bananas about calling this "sushi," but hey, food is food. Then again, salmon avocado sushi rolls are everywhere in Sydney, I'm sure it's going to drive them nuts; maybe those folks should avoid visiting Sydney altogether. To me, whatever works, works.)

There are other healthy, yummy, yet cheap recipes too. Get some salmon head, or some other big fish head and bones that are sold on the cheap. (Sometimes they can be as low as $0.99 per pound.) Boil them for a bit (30 minutes would do) to get the soup base which would make a very nice and light soup. If you like to nibble on the fish meat too, so much the better, although fish meat tends to get tough fairly quickly after boiling. When the soup base is ready, you can put in things like tofu and seaweed, or even watercress. It only takes maybe another 10 minutes of boiling after the tofu and seaweed are put in.

The cost? If you get them on the cheap, say, $0.99 per pound, you can get a few pounds for just a few dollars. (Regular price is something between $1.99 to $2.99 per pound.) Tofu in a pack of 4, maybe $2.50. Seaweed and watercress are not expensive either. This soup + ingredients is even cheaper than the chicken soup, but you'll get loads of protein and veggie.

And of course there are other ingredients that you can make soup base out of, including pork bones. (Oxtails are yummy but they are never cheap.) Some ingredients go particularly well with each other. Watercress goes well with oxtails or bones soup since it cuts the heaviness of the soup. Fish soup goes with ingredients that are "lighter" in flavor (eg. tofu and seaweed, even winter melon or papaya - yes). Chicken soup is fairly neutral, and it's perfect base for chinese herbal soup or western-style generic "chicken soup". (You can add different herbs in them, and it'll become a different soup, although you do need to be mindful of which herbs go well with which!) Soups are so versatile that you can do whatever you like with it, and they are so easy to make. In terms of veggie, carrots and onions go with almost any soup, though I don't normally add veggie to chinese herbal soups. Better yet, it's actually better to use bones for soup (as they are more flavorful), rather than the actual meat; it's better for the environment too to use every part of the animals that have gone on the chopping board to be our food, rather than throwing them away.

If you're super-energy conscious, then you should avoid ox bones or pork bones or oxtail soup, because they literally require you to boil it - bring it to hard boil, then slow boil - for at least three to four hours. But they are yummy in their own ways. You have to boil them until the meat falls off from the bones, and the soup turns semi-milky white.

So, to be honest, I never quite understand why people would always say it's expensive to feed the family with fresh food, or that junk food is cheaper. Sure, you won't always get what you want on my menu, but neither would you pay more for it than at MacDonald's, for example. I like the kind of unplanned surprises when I go grocery shopping when I see some cheap ingredients, I would go a-ha for yet another dish. It's quite fun.

That said, if you have to have your fix in finer things in life, like salmon or tuner or lobster or or scallop or porterhouse steak when they're not on sale, then your budget will surely be dictated by those prices which are not cheap. (Reminder: it's not a good idea to freeze down the salmon or tuna, then use it for sushi or sashimi because the texture won't be the ideal for it after the freezing process. Most everything else, you can freeze down for later use.)

In general, I don't restrict my grocery shopping to just one repertoire. If you spread it out over, say, the course of a whole month, you can quite easily incorporate other higher-priced food items too.

As to the very low-budge menu (with things like beans) that the abovementioned single mom has championed, I truly salute her. All it takes is ingenuity.

I like it that, with an open mind, every time when I go grocery shopping, I'll decide on-the-fly what dishes we'll have, sometimes even mixing ingredients up which can be quite fun. It literally forces me to make things up on the go. Unlike my husband who likes cookbooks, I'm more an intuitive person. Sometimes we would dine out, and when we try new dishes, and he would ask me how I think the dish is made; I would give him general steps (of how I think it's made), and he'll go try it out at home. And then he'll make adjustments to the steps to perfect the dishes at home. It's not unlike doing experiments in labs.


PS:  We miss the porterhouse steak in Sydney which is about half of the price in US. The meat is always so tender. My kids and I love it cooked very rare; they say the texture of rare steak is almost like fresh salmon, and they're right. :)

PPS:  One thing you should be mindful of is, you should scoop up the oil from the animal soup (chicken or pork bones, for example) since you don't want to have those fat in your body. Oil from the fish is good for you; so, leave it in the soup. If you cook veggie in the soup, a bit of oil in the soup is good.

On the decline of men...

A short while back, I read an article online about the decline of men, but I can't quite remember where it was.  It could be The New Yorker, or The Atlantic, or Salon.  No matter; apparently, there's even a book written about it.

I haven't felt compelled to write about it because all those articles and books speak mostly in such general terms, about how there are now more girls go to college than boys, how there are seemingly less eligible men available for marriage, and some such. Mostly, they never hit home. I'm like, "yah yah, I've heard that story before, next please."

And then I realize something.

This past summer when we spent the summer in Australia, catching up with a number of old friends and family and relatives, something stacks up.

One story after another - and these are real life anecdotes - it came to me that more than a handful of those good guys have "fallen."  These are guys I know; guys who are only now entering middle age and who seemingly did all the right thing.  They were competitive and ambitious, did well in school, went to college, got a decent job after graduation, started family and now have kids, and they were supposedly on their upward trajectory in both corporate ladder and station in life.  In other words, they are not your average pushovers or weaklings.  These are hunters and seekers; they are survivors.

How then, do we account for the job loss, mostly due to layoff and redundancy, through no fault of their own, resulting in a loss in focus, self identity and ego, all of which commonly tie so tightly with a decent job for men?

No doubt there's something to be said about the economic recession almost universally for the past 4-5 years since the Lehman collapse in 2008; but in a number of cases, the "fallen" stories came way before economy hit a snag.  These are also happening in different parts of the world; some in Asia, some in North America, some in Europe, some in Australia.  There is no geological pattern to this conundrum.

As a result, some family broke up; some resulted in divorce.  The women (with the kids) mostly move on with life; the guys, in their middle age, are stuck in neutral.  Most of the wives (whom we knew personally too) cited the fact that the husbands "have changed so much," but all they would do is to become couch potato.  I have no doubt that quite a few of them probably suffer depression as a result, and it's hard for the wives to adjust to it.

This phenomenon - very unscientifically observed by my own eyes - is different from those that are more easily surveyed, like the declining number of young adult males going to college, and what-not.  All these also fly in the face of the supposedly still rampant income inequality between men and women, which is still a very real issue in the real world.

Sure, corporate structure changes, restructuring happens all too often, and it's not uncommon to see the whole division offshored, or even a whole line of business dropped. Unless you're the chieftains in the corner office who make those decisions, there isn't a lot that average foot soldiers can do; hence, the conundrum of all these good men.

What we can do, and what we should have done, is to prepare for the bad times, precisely bad times like layoff, loss of income, being forced to change fields, or worse. These guys have had such uneventful life (albeit through hardwork, in both school and work), that they and their families never expect such "bad luck" to bestow upon them. As a result, the men are stunned and don't know how to react.  Interestingly, it's almost always the wife who is invariably more flexible and adaptable, and who is also the first to snap out of the bad situation.  Perhaps there's no coincidence that, in 10 out of 10 cases when divorce happens, it's the wife who initiates it.

I'm always very cognizant about such "bad luck."  I've seen it first-hand.  Back in the 1960s when serious riots broke out in Hong Kong, and public confidence had reached such low point that most everyone who could get out of Hong Kong had got out of Hong Kong.  (But of course, the few chieftains, like Ka-shing Li, who stayed the course, had been able to consolidate their power base even more.)

During those riotous days, my dad remained unemployed for more than a year.  How was a family of seven, with five kids to feed, to survive?  Thanks to the foresight and ingenuity of my mom, she had spearheaded some side businesses while the days were still good, so much so that our family could continue to strive during those dark days.

Thankfully, my dad bounced back to work after the '67 riots days, but that family experience stays with me.  No one could have foreseen such geopolitical instability. Certainly no one wants to foresee the main source of family income to vaporize in a flash; but that's quite conceivable, particularly in these days when the source of which comes more often in the form of globalization.

For the longest time since my early 20s, I've made investments. To some, my investments almost take on a frantic pace across different industries. And I've learnt to multi-task, so that I don't have to rely on just one career. That philosophy has served me very well so far.

That would be one of the main things I teach my kids, that they have to learn to deal with uncertainty, be able to multi-task, be flexible and adaptable to changes, and to start investment early on in life. There's much wisdom in the idiom, save for the rainy days. Afterall, as Heraclitus famously put it, "the only constant in life is change."  Those are the disciplines in life that, to me, is much more than telling the kids to go get a college degree.

On the landslide Labor election loss in Australia...

We've spent this past summer in Australia.  It's a country we love; a country I love.  But having lived some two decades as Australian expat in US, I've always found the experience almost a bit strange and surreal every time we visit.  Australians love talking US politics; most of them follow news in US very closely.  Perhaps to Aussies, it's like talking weather, the politics in US means nothing personal, never anything too messy and too close to home.

The kids love the beach and water, and Sydney has everything to offer.  There is nothing to hate, and everything to love, about the weather.  Imagine a winter when it's warmer than springtime in New England, with rain mostly comes overnight, and all clear blue sky 98% of the time.  But Sydney, where I've spent years there before moving to US, has changed.

Property prices have gone through the roof.  I was floored when told the prices (mid A$600k+ in inner city west).  I have no idea how the locals can afford their mortgage, with prices so high, and mortgage rate 5%+.  Salary generally cannot keep up with the stratospheric rise in property prices, and for some, not even with inflation.  The still red-hot property market reminds me of US in the pre-Lehman days.  Cost of living is so darn expensive.  College education for foreign students is the highest in the world.  Australian private debt load is among the highest in the world.  The country - its government, and by proxy, its people - survive on borrowings.  Sounds familiar (hello, US; hello, Europe)?

One could argue, isn't that so in US or even Greece?  Well, that's quite true.  One could also argue that Australia has done remarkably well in the past 4-5 years since the GFC, as it's called there, almost in an perversely affectionate way.  It's continued to grow amidst downturn and recession in US and Europe.  AUD was riding high. Unemployment was remarkably low.  In general too, Australians are a bit more restrained than Americans when it comes to borrowings. They also have the benefits of a much better social safety net than Americans who have to either sink or swim. What more can one ask for, you would say.

But of course, when one does even just a closer cursory look, cracks are everywhere. Australia, under the Labor government for the past six years, essentially rode the easy wave on the back of the growth of China.  China has effectively gobbled up every minerals and natural resources that Australia has to offer when the rest of the world stops buying.  Australia, as a whole, has it easy and never has to make difficult decisions on how to expand the underlying economy, or cut spending, or make tough decisions or necessary reforms, or a combination of all that.  Most everyone in Australia is drinking the kool-aid that this time they're different, that they really are immune to economic downturn, riding the alternate and staggering wave of the West (US/Europe) and Asia (China/Japan).

If you talk to any local Aussie, most everyone would also tell you how much they hate the carbon tax, so much so that Labor is willing to push Julia Gillard out, and reinstall Kevin Rudd, the guy who himself was pushed out by Gillard only two years before. Yes, that's the kind of craziness that one normally won't see in US, but in keeping with the odd tradition of the British parliamentary system, that can happen quite often.  In any case, that goes to show how shallow the bench is, and the lack of talents Labor Party has.

Australians hate paying the high taxes too, as much as the GOP and Tea Party do, but they also love their medicare, social security, and welfare. Surely, the money has to come from somewhere, and somehow someone has to pay for it.  But no one wants to hear anything of that.  That's why there seems to be this strange affinity of Australians with GOP, even though Australians in general have no idea what the real agenda of GOP really is. No matter. For some unknown reasons, they think GOP is equivalent to the Liberal Party; that might well be the high ideal of John Howard, but it's certainly far from truth.

And then there is the immigration policy, in which Labor is seen as all too weak and lenient to illegal immigrants, all of whom claim to be "refugees," as a matter of course. Hardworking locals feel mightily slighted, seeing their taxes going to fund welfare for the refugees. When immigrants arrive, all they care about is making babies and claiming welfare; that's the general impression anyways. In the suburb where my parents live, which is south of CBD, the demographics have completely changed, so much so that it's now more than 95% Chinese, mostly from mainland China, the rest of which are from Middle East and India.  Surely, they're busy making babies, lots of them.  On one occasion when I went to the local library where a kids' event was held, more than 150 babies and toddlers were there. There was only one white baby (with both Aussie parents); maybe 4-5 Indian babies and muslim babies with their mothers; the rest were all mainland Chinese babies with grandparents (more welfare, naturally) all speaking loudly in mandarin in the library. Yes, that library even has a "Refugee Welcome Zone" banner in front of its entrance.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not racist. I'm Asian descent afterall. But I can quite understand why the local Aussies (even those who were immigrants themselves, like myself, and moved here decades ago) feel the angst, the kind of powerlessness when one is under siege. Forget about assimilation.  Forget about multiculturalism. It's more like colonization.

On the economic front, with the evaporating surplus and the impending slowdown in China (that drives the Australian economy largely fueled by commodities) and boat people (that most can hardly be called "refugees") arriving all too frequently, changes are afoot.

It's not hard for even a 5-year-old to figure out that there'll be voters' revolt in the September election. Afterall, Liberal Party has always touted itself as a better steward in economic policy. Tony Abbott, its current Liberal leader, pledges to get tough on illegal immigrants (starting with towing of the rickety boats that they largely come from before they make landing).  He also pledges to do the mission impossible of not raising taxes and growing the economy and returning to surplus (at some undefined point in time in the future) at the same time. I highly doubt that he can deliver. I'm flabbergasted when I learn of his proposed six-month maternity leave worth some A$75k, aimed no doubt at wooing female votes. If you don't call it desperate attempt, I don't know what is. In any case, anyone with just passing knowledge of simple mathematics (like my grade school kids do) would tell you that he's just pledging the same kind of voodoo economics that is not meant to be.

Sadly or not, this is extraordinary times.  Australians are desperate to do something - anything - different.  Disgusted by the infighting and weak leadership of Labor, they'll try anything, anyone who would offer a different story (like the ones that Abbott is trying to sell), however unbelievable it is, they would buy it.

And so, the story goes, that Labor suffers landslide lost, and Liberal takes office, for a change.  But as Bob Hawk has aptly pointed out, this election is not an election that Liberal wins, but an election that Labor loses.  Given the weak leadership in Abbott and even weaker leadership in Rudd, I'm not surprised at all. Is that the best that the Australian parties can offer, I often wonder.

The saddest part to me, is that Australia has squandered away opportunity after opportunity in remaking itself, to expand its economy beyond what it has always been. And I'm not talking about just Labor, because Liberal shares plenty of blame during those times. For decades now, I'm still waiting for progress to happen.

This time around, when we visited Sydney, on the eve of the election, I see significant demographics changes (which suggest an immigration policy that does not care much increasing the quality of its human capital, but more in line with keeping Australia increasingly as a "refugee zone" for humanitarian high ideal). Property prices rise. Sky-high cost of living. It's turning into a mini-Hong Kong that is overrun by the dual flow from mainland China: hot money that chase up the property market, and unskilled labor looking for more handouts. This is all while salary level remains stagnant, in real terms. There are cafes in almost every 2-3 shops on street level - forget about Starbucks in US, do Australians these days really drink that much cappuccino that costs at least A$3.50 a pop, the equivalent amount of which has become the running joke (or not) of the yuppie class in US who can afford that much for a coffee, and the rest of the populace who can't?  In Australia, it's become the norm. There are also a medical clinic or doctor's office one every few shops on the street or in the mall, milking the federal medicare system. Public transportation like trains has become so expensive, costing more than A$4 one-way going to the city, that I might as well rent a car. Those are the changes I see. How do locals survive all these?

What I don't see, is any material changes in the Australian economy.  Oligopoly still dominates in banking, telco, retail, even mining.  There is scarcely any new industries sprouting, like the IT boom that fuels the rest of the world for the past decade.  When I look at the public companies trading on ASX, it's still mostly the same old, same old trading symbols. If Abbott (or anyone, for that matter) wants to talk economy, I would love to post the question "Where do you see the new jobs to be coming from?" In comparison, at least Obama tries, albeit backfiring badly his attempt in nurturing the green energy sector. What has Australian government done in this regard that's worth noting?

As the economic boom in China is fading into lower growth (perhaps at a more sustainable pace), it's going to cut off the legs of Australian economy below its knees. For all the talk of the two-speed economy (the mining boom in western Australia, and everywhere else), even that mining boom is sputtering. What's the next step? Can Abbott provide some insight on that, rather than just some vague notion of being business friendly, or pro-market?

I'd say, reducing taxes - and reducing taxes alone - won't do much to encouraging new business growth, Mr Abbott. It's no secret that the big guys never pay taxes, same in US, same in Australia, the way Google Australia pays zilch taxes is the same as GE in US. Big corporations in every sector are good at extracting resources, making profits, then do a bit of financial engineering to vaporize the profit in thin air, so you shouldn't look to them for tax support.

More often than not, I find the discontent (hatred, even) of the carbon tax rather silly (irrational, even).  Most everyone dislikes it as robbing-mary-and-helping-paul type of wealth redistribution.  But then, so is everything else that really is going on in Australia, when most everyone receives some kind of "handout" from government, even if they would not admit it.

Is Australia going down the same path of Greece, appeasing voters with handouts, funded by more and more borrowing, and an increasingly bloated government, all while the country is falling further and further behind in competitiveness and productivity?

As slight digression, why would anyone consider John Howard the great Liberal steward (supposedly) in economy when he hasn't really done anything much memorably, except introducing GST, allowing pest like Pauline Hanson to fester, and being the lap dog of George W Bush in terms of foreign policy?  For all that everyone praises about Howard, all I saw in this guy was a racist bigot, pardon my french. Abbott might not be as overt as Howard, but he's a cut from the same cloth.

I don't expect to see any material changes from the new Abbott government. Sure, Rudd the big-ego clown should go, but Abbott is no white knight. It's more like the lesser of two evils. The Liberals never have a plan; much like idiotic Bush who never had a plan when he started the war in Iraq.

It is on this, that I worry most for Australia. Yes, the government is changing hands, but is Australia going to be better off? Decades later now, when I look at Australia, amidst all the growth (albeit with ups and downs) around the world, Australia seems to be just treading water (on top of its pile of minerals). How long can Australia milk on that, I always wonder. I long for the day when Australia can break out of that easy life, and to become competitive in the real world, and not just rest on its laurel to be the surf dude.

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

To round out my private pet peeve...

I'm mighty peeved about the high costs of broadband that I have to pay while I'm visiting. I cannot believe myself, when I had to keep tab of how much bandwidth I used, so as not to exceed the 15Gb threshold of the 4G wi-fi I bought. I couldn't even do any real work at home. It's 21st century, for goodness sake. Australians deserve better than this. Why wouldn't Australians question the status quo?

I'd love to see more funding going to research efforts like CSIRO rather than just stuffing dollars in refugees' pockets to keep them afloat.

As to what Australia should do with immigration policy, it has to be a bit more selective. Apart from its valuable minerals and natural resources, a country is all about its human capital (just look at what Singapore can do with its small but versatile population and sensible policy). I also strongly believe in assimilation, the process of which would stop if the amount of new migrants of the same race/ethnicity, legal or otherwise, reaches some tipping point (probably when it gets to 60% or so from a single ethnicity in a single area). The indigenous and locals would start moving out, leaving behind only the new migrants who don't have to assimilate at all. Australia must do something about this. Here, I'm not even talking about specific race. This could be Chinese, or Arabs, or Greeks, or Indians, or Brits, or Irish, or Italians, for that matter. If you want true multiculturalism and real assimilation, you have to avoid that from happening. You don't want permanent under-class from festering, like those happening in various European countries, which is one sure way to foster terrorists who feel marginalized by society.

Expanding tax basis is generally a good thing (hence, the praise for GST, about the only contribution by John Howard), and it's irrational why everyone is so dead set against the carbon tax. Although with the poor job of marketing and executing the carbon tax by the Gillard/Rudd government, it's not surprising at all.

For all the great nature in Australia, it should take the lead in climate change. Oddly enough, most Australians are not tuned to even basic recycling as a conservation effort. That's really shameful because Australia will probably be among the first countries to get affected by climate change like the rise in sea level.  (Remember the ozone hole, anyone?) While I'm no fan of Julia Gillard, I see the beauty in carbon tax. Previously, Australia is the highest emitter in the world on a per-capita basis; yet after the carbon tax, it's gone down to a 10-year low, all achieved within a year's timeframe. Gillard deserves praise and guts for doing the right thing and showing leadership in that. Those Gillard haters are just being inert and regressive, as simple as that. A lot of Australians blame carbon tax for increasing the cost of living. But I'd say, if they have not already jumped up and down about the issue of high cost of living prior to carbon tax, they really have no say in it, because that's already high enough. All they're seeing in the carbon tax and Gillard are just the right scapegoat for the wrong reason.

Is anyone listening??? I kinda doubt it...

Back from hiatus...

Oh boy, I've almost completely forgotten - and have totally neglected - my blog.  I'm quite certain now, that when one is busy, journal writing is the first task to forfeit. I don't like tumblr or similar facilities with short posts. When I write my thoughts, I write. I don't do short bursts.

So much has happened in the news.  The Edward Snowden leak: major news, though with the central character having as big an ego as Julian Assange, the wikileaks guy, I'm quite put off by it. The impending strike to Syria: déjà vu (Iraq, anyone?). The not-so-curious case (and trial) of Bo Xilai: *yawn* (a Chinese political attempt, closely reminiscent to the trial of The Gang Of Four, to show the world that they have rule of law, when literally everyone knows that it's all a rule of people, over Bo, the loser in the latest political power struggle; everyone knows those in the upper echelon is just as corrupt). Or even trash news like the new baby of Prince William and Kate Middleton (as if I care...).  The list goes on.

With all those, I should have jogged down my thoughts more often. 

But after a summer-long vacation to Australia, my thoughts are on the latest election result which just came out yesterday.  More on that next...

On the sterilization of disabled children, and other thoughts...

I have not intended to jog down my thoughts on a subject like this, but such is the case after I read the Sydney Morning Herald article on the controversy over parents' request to have their disabled children sterilized.

No doubt, the topic is controversial enough, with the horrific legacy of eugenics.  The idea of wholesale cleansing of human gene pool is repulsive to me, to say it mildly.  No one should be allowed to play god like that.

And then, there is the question of loving parents' wishes, to have their disabled children sterilized, the intention of which cannot be further from eugenics practiced in other times like the Nazi era and the Holocaust.  These parents would request sterilization on their disabled children, out of noble, loving and very practical concerns.  As the article rightly notes the comment from one of such parents, who wonder out loud, of what would have become of the caring baby, if the disabled parent(s) cannot even care for themselves?  Most likely, the burden of the caring, of not only the baby but the disabled  parents, would fall on the grandparents and the society at large.

For those who voice opposition to these parents' wishes, out of humanity concerns, that these disabled children should enjoy basic human rights and enjoy sexual relationship much like anyone else, I'm sure they are not the ones who would bear the burden of the caring, should accidental pregnancy happen.  It's so much easier to cast the first stone, to be arm-chair quarterback and second-guess someone else's decisions and intentions.

I would not have wished ills to anyone, though at heart, I'm just simply pragmatic.  Forget about eugenics, forget about human rights.  Not that I'm saying the minority like the mentally retarded are incapable of being loving human beings; I only think of a future situation from a very practical perspective.  As it is, very able-bodied people around the world have had a hard time surviving the increasingly harsh competition in society, to strive and thrive.  The chances for those less equipped (like the economically deprived) are much reduced, let alone the ones who might not physically and mentally up to even just simple tasks.

My litmus test has always been that, I would imagine myself in someone else's shoe, and fathom how I would handle the situation.

I've asked myself, if I were the parent, would I have done the same to my disabled child and request sterilization on the child? Almost without a doubt, my reflex as well as decision after much thoughts are still the same, which is that, I would not much hesitate to ensure my disabled children are sterilized, in order to prevent them from being burdened by "accidents."  It's almost a no brainer to me.

On the other side of the coin, I've been wondering if I would feel that kind of resolute determination, should I be the disabled children.  I don't doubt that disabled children would have their own sexual needs, though I doubt if they realize what it means to be a parent.  Sterilization would perhaps provide the best solution to the sometimes impossible situation.

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

I have perhaps particularly stronger feelings towards such topic.  In a building near I live, there's a day facility for disabled adults.  The disability ranges from mild retardation to severely disabled physically.  I'm unsure if the facility is run privately or not, but there are quite a high ratio of staffing.  Sometimes when I'm in the building, I can hear the disabled folks singing songs.  Whenever I see them in the corridor or out and about in the elevator, they are always happy and cheery (both the disabled folks and the staff).

To be sure, I'm quite happy to learn of such facility that provides excellent care to the disabled.  On the other hand, I have no doubt in my mind that none of these disabled folks would have been able to handle a baby and to see through the baby to adulthood. Afterall, each of them need at least one staff to assist them in normal routine (like walking down the stairs).  From a very practical perspective, do I subscribe to those human rights activist's notion, that these disabled folks should have their rights to bear babies, just so that they can do what everyone else does?  No, I honestly don't.  I don't want to pretend that they should have what everybody else has because, let's be candid, they are special in their right, requiring very special care.  From my vantage point, I see it as cruelty, for subjecting them to menstruation or pregnancy or childbirth and childrearing.  I really do.

To me, all it comes down to, is commonsense.  As simple as that.