AskDong

I realize where you live is a deeply personal choice, and many people have good and great reasons for living where they do. I myself and am unabashed of urban living, and urban living in larger more expensive cities. The reasons most often cited by people is culture. Personally, I’m not sold on culture. I feel that all places small and large have it’s own unique cultural offerings. The fact is also for all the museums in Boston, I hardly ever go to them. Culture, or at least museum culture, is certainly not the reason that keeps me in the city.

City living gets a bad rap for being more expensive. On the surface this is true. Rent and groceries are definitely more expensive in the city. I thought I would do quick comparison of what the cost of living is between different places. I used Google’s cost of living calculator with I actually spend a month. For health care, I made estimate of both my and my company’s contribution to insurance is.

Yikes! Good thing I don’t live in Manhattan. Cost of living calculators are rife with problems. These problems are magnified when dealing with cities. The biggest “problem” is not even a problem in the classic sense. Individuals will make different choices depending on where they live. For example if I lived in Lancaster, PA I’d probably drive to work. Here in Boston, I take the train to work everyday. A perfect apple to apple comparison would have me drive to work, and park my car for $600/month. However by virtue of the city I live in I can opt not to have a car, forgo gas, and be perfectly happy a month riding public transportation.

A similar analogy can be made to what is the biggest cost difference, housing. Not only does the cost of housing vary widely in a city even across a few blocks, the living arrangements are different. We can’t and shouldn’t assume that someone who lives in a 2 bedroom house in Grand Junction, CO will be getting a 2 Bedroom house in Manhattan. The fact is that most young people in the city will live with roommates to keep the cost of housing down. I realize many individuals might see this as tradeoff. I see it as just different if not better option. I’ve always liked living with people and even when I could afford to live alone, I still preferred living with others.

Now that I’ve deconstructed the idea that living in the city is so much more expensive than living in more “rural” areas, what are the benefits?

• Food - Cities have more and better restaurants. It’s hard to argue otherwise.
• Commute times - We typically think of commuting as between work and home, but commuting is also about commuting from home to activities like eating out, visiting friends, going to museums.

However, the best reason to live in a city are the opportunities that only a city can afford. The fact is that there are better job opportunities in cities, and more people to meet. This is not to say that it’s necessarily easy to get to know people in a city. It’s not, and I wouldn’t be surprised that most people have an easier time getting to know people in more rural areas. However, if one is willing to get out of his or her comfort zone cities offer the best opportunity to meet a wide variety of people, and network. The density of the companies means that the next better job is floor above or below, and the next person you meet might be that connection to that job. In my own career, I made a move across the street because I was friends with someone who worked at the new company. Today, I have my current position because I ran into a former colleague at a bar.

I think most people agree that parents have a financial responsibility to their children through at least the age of 18, and most people would probably agree that parents should bear at least some if not all responsibility through the end of college. Some parents take that responsibility a little too far as would seem the case here with the Blocks who gave their adult sons their Acura and mini cooper as they downgraded to a Honda Accord. I’ve always felt that parents who help their kids too much are in fact doing their children a disservice. Independence is more often than not a learned trait.

While the discussion of parental responsibility is common, the discussion of the responsibility children have to their parents much less so. Personally, I’ve always felt that children have as much responsibility for their parents as parents for their children. However, I will also acknowledge that it may be very much personal bias. Part of that bias is somewhat cultural being Chinese-American, but the greater part is just the type of relationship I have with my parents. My parents did not arrive in the U.S. until their early 40s, and made enormous sacrifices so that my brother and I are in the positions that we are. Few things make me happier than being able to give back to my parents. The financial ties I have to my parents are close and more flexible and fluid than what is typical in most families.

The question remains. What do we owe our parents? The simple answer is generally, “Alot.” However unlike children, parents are generally self sufficient through a good portion of a child’s adult life. They don’t need or don’t want anything from their children. More often than not they’re still trying give what they can to their children. The question for adult children is what can they give back? The most basic and one would think obvious is that adult children need to the be former rather than the latter, i.e. they need to be adults rather than children. Self sufficiency is the greatest gift that any child can give to his or her parents. That aside, theresponsibilities vary widely across families. What may be too much in one family is not enough in another.

I was listening to On Point with Tom Ashbrook talking about how young people are having kids later in life. I would fall in this demographic. I’m yet unmarried, and don’t have children. I just turned 32, and can’t imagine being a Dad until I’m at least 34. Apparently 52 percent of 1st time college educated mothers are over the age of thirty these days.

While the discussion centered around the debate if better or worse for parents to wait until they are older, many of the topics were centered around money. As is often the case many decision involving close relationships (in this case the creation of a child/parent relationship), money is important part of that relationship, especially in the case of children. There were arguments from both sides. A younger woman who decided wtih her husband to have kids earlier rather than later felt that their youth allowed them to be more flexible in spending. They were able to make do with IKEA and Craigslist for their furniture needs -furniture that doesn’t need to be protected from the destructive tendencies of most three year olds. On the other hand, many “older” parents are more mature and feel better prepared financially for the burden of children.

While older parents might be more financially secure, they are also likely to be more set in their ways. Older parents with years to spend money on themselves may find it harder to cut back than younger parents who never got used to spoiling themselves. Raising children is not easy and involves sacrifice. Is it easier tosacrifice at 25 or 35? I’m hoping it’s easier to make sacrifices at thirty five given that at this point in my life, I have no choice in the matter.

One the bigger issues embedded in the parenting question is a career dilemma Women are often unfairly put in situation of choosing between career and family. While the choice should apply equally to both men and women, more often than not it’s the woman who has to choose. Many woman feel that they have to delay starting a family in order to jump start a career. Interestingly one caller to the show, a young mother, thought she would have leg up because she would be ideally situated in her early thirties, finished with the most grueling years of parenting, when others would be pulled parenting needs. Yet, many parents feel like there’s no choice at all. Tom’s producer, Julie Diop, who was featured on the show spoke of her own situation. She’s a producer for public radio show, and her husband a private school teacher. Living in the costly northeast, it would be difficult for them to live on either income alone.

There are number of criteria that we often look at when we choose someone to date, partner with, and or marry. Beyond the superficial, most of us want someone who shares our values. What are these values?

• Similar Faith in God?
• Relationship with Family?
• Work Ethic?
• Kindness?
• Dealing with Money?

Most people don’t think of the latter, but in many regards it might be most important quality to look at.  Marriage or a life partnership is in many regards as much a financial relationship as a love connection.  More importantly, a person’s relationship with money is often very telling of more important character traits, and is definitely the most quantifiable.  We can’t measure quantitively how honest someone is.  But we can check out someone’s FICO score.  We can’t quantify kindness, but we can know how much someone has given to charity.

When we date someone, we have a unique opportunity to observe how someone spends his or her money.  Right off the bat, the dance around who pays for the first date is often quite telling.  As a guy, I have generally expected to pay and certainly plan on paying if I was the person who asked.  The issue of who actually pays is less important than how people go about it. In my experience there are people who expect stuff, and those who appreciate stuff.  I rather be someone who appreciates rather than expects.

Equally as important as how someone deals with money within the confines of a relationship is how money is dealt with outside of the relationship. While we might all like to believe we’re kind and generous to fault.  We’re not, and sometimes it’s actually better that we date someone who isn’t either.  It’s more important that we date someone who is of a similar mind.

Above is what I call scale of self. Typically we define someone who is selfish as someone who only thinks about him or herself, but the term can be applied more broadly. Being “selfish” on this scale is about prioritizing. A guy could be generous to wife and himself and shortchange his friends and family.

Nobody should be with someone who’s all the way on one end of being selfish, only thinking about him or herself. However the person on the other end, Mother Theresa, is not a great match for the majority of people either even if she weren’t dead and a nun.  Given that most people have limited time and money, generosity requires sacrifice that has to come from somewhere.  The sacrifice is not limited to just that one person but potentially the the ones who he or she is close to.  Someone who is always thinking about everyone has less time to think specifically about someone in particular.

I know I rather be with someone who is generous to friends, families, and even strangers at some cost to us.  However that is not true of everyone.  Other couples work well together they are on the same page about putting each other first. Know where you are on the selfish scale and know where you want your partner to be.  Watching how someone spends money is one of the best ways to size someone up.

Just wanted to wish everyone a merry Christmas on what is a warm and sunny day in the Boston area.   I hope everyone enjoys time well spent with family and friends.   The shopping is done, and now is the time to appreciate the personal connections we have in this time of rest.