AskDong

I’m at home right now, having taken the day off on well deserved single day respite. I’ve been extremely busy at work the past few weeks.  Hence, the paucity of posts.   Up to this past weekend when I traveled for Easter,  I had worked 21 days straight.   I had worked as late as midnight on some days.  In other words, I worked as much as lazy associate at a big law firm.

While It’s certainly makes sense that I would post less becuase work was taking up so much of time, to use work as complete excuse is not really true.  It’s not like I’ve done nothing over the past 4 weeks but work.  I’ve gone out to dinner with friends,  I’ve played bar trivia, I’ve drafted a fantasy baseball team, I’ve celebrated birthdays, I planned a vacation, I had dinner at home with my parents, I’ve watched TV - I’ve managaed to do quite a few things.  What I haven’t devoted much time to is this blog.

While I enjoy writing this blog, and derive a fair amount of satisfaction from it being read, it doesn’t score very well on the the following three categories.

1. Making Time - I don’t make time for it.  I never set aside
2. Priorities - It’s not a priority.  You can argue that you make time for priorities, but sometimes priorities are things that you’re willing to drop everything else for.
3. Mental Energy - Writing this blog takes a suprising amount of mental energy.  It’s not something I want to do after a long day of work.

I started this blog with the hope that I could post regularly, daily even, but I’ve found over the last  year that I just don’t have the mental energy to do so.    The blog is not a priority in the same way work, family and friends are, and it shouldn’t be.    When I was posted more frequently it wasn’t because it was a higher priority, or I made time for it.   I just had more mental energy, though mental energy is closely linked with having time.  

I think it’s likely over the next few months I’ll have a bit more mental energy as busy work season winds down a bit, and with that posts should become more frequent again.  If not, you’ll know why.

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 take more than my fair share of vacations. Last year I took about 3 one week or longer vacations. What I didn’t do very much was go away for the weekend. Vacations serve a utilitarian purpose. They are an opportunity to recharge. The daily grind is that for most people, a daily grind. Vacations can be great opportunity to break the what can be the monotony of work.

However, I’ll be the first to admit that I often have a hard time getting back to flow of things at work when I get back from Vacation. It’s hard at time to hit the floor running after a week in paradise. This year I’m thinking about taking more short vacations to augment my longer vacations. Short to me is 2 to 4 days.

So what do you prefer?

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.

I set a new record on consecutive daily weekdays posts On Wednesday. I only set it because I broke the streak yesterday when I failed to make a post.  Even though I set a new record, I can say with a clean conscience I’m am not in the Mitchell report.  Like Roger Clemens I have never tested positive for steroids, and unlike Roger my face has never been suspiciously puffy except after eating too much.

I’ve been extremely busy at work this past week, logging about 60 hours over the last 4 days. It’s kicked my ass. In general my work schedule is pretty good. I work 40-45 hours week, basically 9-6. I don’t need to be in exactly at anytime, and can easily take some afternoons off or show up late every so often. However because of the nature of my work, I go through some very busy periods. This past week was one of them, and I can look forward to another stretch of long hours in the few months after the new year. Times like this make me think, it would nice to know that I can be home by 6pm everyday. However then I think about not having the flexibility to sleep in every so often, and am glad that I have flexibility.

What do you prefer?