A couple hatches a plan to leave their conventional American suburban life and move to France; but the husband finds that he’s getting some recognition at his otherwise soul-crushing job and finds a way to put off the dream. Very bad things proceed to happen.
Sounds like a warning to a couple who want to take a month off to go to San Francisco but run into resistance from his job, doesn’t it? It does, according to many who, having seen the movie, couldn’t resist telling us about the story. And in some ways the book is indeed a tale of how suburban conformity can take away your life. But there’s another current in the book that warns from the other direction. The main characters, Frank and April Wheeler, are miserable in the suburbs because, well, they condescendingly despise their fellow suburban dwellers. It’s one thing to hate the conformists from a commune or an artists’ collective. You may be prick, but at least you’re an honest one. But what’s the happiness percentage among those who hate suburban life from the comfort of the white picket fenced house from which they take the train to and from their meaningless corporate job?
What Revolutionary Road does so well (and the book is, as a blurb on the cover says, "flawless") is not make you hate the stifling suburbs; it’s not even clear that the author, Richard Yates, thinks the suburbs are actually all that bad. What it makes you do is pity the poor souls who think condescending thoughts about people who are, in truth, just like them. So yes, there is a warning in Revolutionary Road, but it’s applicable to far more people than just those looking for a trip to escape for a while. It’s warning to anyone living a life that isn’t authentic or true. You can pull it off for a while, but eventually, living a lie will kill you.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Welcome O' Reilly! (?) (or, a shameless plug for myself)
So I love O'Reilly Media and its founder Bill O'Reilly. Even though I'm a lawyer who works on consumer credit, not technology, I buy a lot of O'Reilly books and have even considered subscribing to their online library called Safari.
So it was with great hope and excitement that I read about their new program to provide books and videos to bloggers in exchange for reviews (good or bad-this appears to be just like the review copies publishers routinely hand out to newspapers and other reviews and not like a sleazy campaign to get good bbog PR by giving free swag to bloggers).
I applied and hope they pick me despite a dearth of tech related stuff on my blog. In case they're looking I'd point to my reviews of Rework, Making Ideas Happen and my post about Anathem.
If I get picked you'll definitely see more tech on the blog!
So it was with great hope and excitement that I read about their new program to provide books and videos to bloggers in exchange for reviews (good or bad-this appears to be just like the review copies publishers routinely hand out to newspapers and other reviews and not like a sleazy campaign to get good bbog PR by giving free swag to bloggers).
I applied and hope they pick me despite a dearth of tech related stuff on my blog. In case they're looking I'd point to my reviews of Rework, Making Ideas Happen and my post about Anathem.
If I get picked you'll definitely see more tech on the blog!
UPDATE:
I'm in! First up is The Myths of Innovation by Scott Berkun!
Book Review: Making Ideas Happen
According to Scott Belsky, the main problem for many "creatives" is that they are good at having ideas and not good at turning them into something real. So, rather than write yet another book about how to generate ideas or find your muse, Belsky has written a book on how to make your ideas happen. (Of course, you knew that from reading the title.)
If this sounds like a big challenge for a short (230 page) book, it is. Belsky tackles a lot: there's a chapter on the "Action Method" which is yet another how-to-get-organized system. (Basically, you break your life into a series of projects and for each project you have your "action items" or to-dos, you have reference items, and you have "backburner" items for later.) Then there are chapters on dealing with others on a team; on harnessing a wider community; and on self-motivation. As a result, while the ideas in the book are great, they do feel a bit rushed. (Of course, Belsky has a website, the 99 Percent, and offers conferences, etc. to help you out and keep you coming back for more.) And the book is well organized, well written, and I wouldn't describe it as "dense" by any means.
Still, I couldn't figure out why it took me so long to plow through such a short book. Only in struggling to even write this review of it did I realize that the book has a rather dry, textbook like feel. It's just not very inspiring. Now, let me be totally fair here. Belsky admits upfront that he's not looking to inspire you. He assumes that the reader is someone who comes to the table with lots of ideas and motivation and just needs a structure in which to actually put those ideas into practice. And he doesn't really care if your ideas are brilliant or mediocre. In fact, he posits that someone like, say, Thomas Kinkade, the "painter of light" who produces some pretty awful kitschy art, has more "impact" (because he gets so much done) than a brilliant painter who doesn't actually do any painting (or doesn't get his work seen by others).
Yet, for me, the absence of inspiring quotes or ideas made reading the book seem like a homework chore. (Note, again, the rather functional and uncreative title, "Making Ideas Happen.") Yes, I have ideas for creative projects, but for many of us inspiration, not just execution, is still part of the battle. This is one reason why a book like Rework is so much more fun to read, even if it gives you less practical advice.
Nevertheless, as a government worker there was one quote that I felt was worth the price of the book alone. "Bureaucracy was born out of the human desire for complete assurance before taking action." Not exactly inspiring but something that should replace those pictures of the President in every government office. Insights like that got me to take notes on this book (I said it was like a textbook) and I will keep the book and refer back to it. So I would recommend it -- just be sure to set aside some time to be inspired somewhere else.
If this sounds like a big challenge for a short (230 page) book, it is. Belsky tackles a lot: there's a chapter on the "Action Method" which is yet another how-to-get-organized system. (Basically, you break your life into a series of projects and for each project you have your "action items" or to-dos, you have reference items, and you have "backburner" items for later.) Then there are chapters on dealing with others on a team; on harnessing a wider community; and on self-motivation. As a result, while the ideas in the book are great, they do feel a bit rushed. (Of course, Belsky has a website, the 99 Percent, and offers conferences, etc. to help you out and keep you coming back for more.) And the book is well organized, well written, and I wouldn't describe it as "dense" by any means.
Still, I couldn't figure out why it took me so long to plow through such a short book. Only in struggling to even write this review of it did I realize that the book has a rather dry, textbook like feel. It's just not very inspiring. Now, let me be totally fair here. Belsky admits upfront that he's not looking to inspire you. He assumes that the reader is someone who comes to the table with lots of ideas and motivation and just needs a structure in which to actually put those ideas into practice. And he doesn't really care if your ideas are brilliant or mediocre. In fact, he posits that someone like, say, Thomas Kinkade, the "painter of light" who produces some pretty awful kitschy art, has more "impact" (because he gets so much done) than a brilliant painter who doesn't actually do any painting (or doesn't get his work seen by others).
Yet, for me, the absence of inspiring quotes or ideas made reading the book seem like a homework chore. (Note, again, the rather functional and uncreative title, "Making Ideas Happen.") Yes, I have ideas for creative projects, but for many of us inspiration, not just execution, is still part of the battle. This is one reason why a book like Rework is so much more fun to read, even if it gives you less practical advice.
Nevertheless, as a government worker there was one quote that I felt was worth the price of the book alone. "Bureaucracy was born out of the human desire for complete assurance before taking action." Not exactly inspiring but something that should replace those pictures of the President in every government office. Insights like that got me to take notes on this book (I said it was like a textbook) and I will keep the book and refer back to it. So I would recommend it -- just be sure to set aside some time to be inspired somewhere else.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
The Mobile Mortgage, a response
My sister-in-law Erin wrote a very interesting blog post about her idea for a mobile mortgage. Basically people who want to (a) own a home and (b) move a lot end up building equity much more slowly then people who stay put for 30 years. This is because when you first get a mortgage (or any loan) you pay mostly interest and only over time does more of your payment go to principal. So why not bring the loan along with you when you move?
I wrote out a response that was too big to fit in the comments box on blogger so I thought I'd put it here. (Then I accidentally deleted it so this is draft # 2.)
I really like the idea of the mobile mortgage and I think it makes a lot of sense for people who expect to move a lot. So that got me wondering why the mobile mortgage doesn't exist today. I can think of a few reasons though I'm not sure any of them are insurmountable.
The first reason is that since a mortgage is secured by a house there would be some cost and risk involved with appraising the new house to ensure that it supported the loan amount. Smaller, regional banks that hold on to their loans may not be comfortable with taking the risk on a house that is outside their normal service area. For banks that sell loans to investors (which is most of them) the appraisal shouldn't be a problem because it's no more or less likely to be accurate than the initial appraisal was. Of course, the borrower would likely have to pay for the appraisal, but they'd do that anyway in buying the new house. This would also give the bank or the loan servicer a potential veto over the borrower's new house, but if the borrower doesn't like that they can just get a new mortgage as they would have done in the status quo.
Perhaps a bigger problem is that banks in some sense don't want people to stay in a 30 year loan for 30 years. Banks have a problem with "duration matching." A bank has to raise money to lend to people and they do this mostly through deposits which are short term (that is, people frequently move money in and out). But the money the bank lends is much longer term, like a 30 year mortgage. (Actually, most loans only last about 5-7 years because people move or refinance within that time on average.) As short-term and long-term interest rates move around, the bank runs the risk that it could end up paying a higher rate on its deposits than it's earning on its loans. There are two possible solutions for the bank. One is to make the mobile mortgage's interest rate variable and tie it to a shorter term rate. However, this may be unpalatable to borrowers who could see their mortgage payment change rapidly and substantially. Another solution is to seek out investors who are looking for longer-term assets. One would expect that the mobile mortgage would last longer because people keep it even when they move. (Of course, when rates fall people may refinance out of their mobile mortgage to get a better deal so a variable rate may be necessary to ensure the longer duration.) Anyway, with so much financial innovation it shouldn't be insurmountable to structure something that works.
Still, the idea of the mobile mortgage raises even more interesting and deeper points about what it means to own a home. One reason to own a home is to "build equity" and when home prices were appreciating steadily this seemed like a great thing to do. Going forward however, it's not at all clear that the home as an investment is the best deal, compared with renting and investing the money you save in, say, the stock market. (A home mortgage is a good form of "forced savings" in that it's easy to spend the "stock-market-investment money" than it is to skip your mortgage payment. But lots of people did find that they could take out home equity loans and pay off credit cards and buy cars so it's not clear that the forced savings works anymore for mortgages.) Mainly though, I don't think people want to own a home solely as an investment. They don't want to have to negotiate with the landlord about painting the living room green. Or more substantially, they don't want someone raising the rent or just deciding to kick them out when the lease is up. And psychologically people feel more rooted and permanent and stable in a home they own. They also tend to care more about their neighborhood and community. (Although this may be an American phenomenon. In Europe people rent long-term and seem to feel perfectly rooted.)
These psychological reasons would explain the 10-year interest-only mortgage which, to me, is financially akin to renting from a bank. (Not quite because you still get to paint the living room and you can keep any appreciation in the house when you sell it, but if the house price doesn't go up you've built no equity for 10 years.)
A professor at my law school has written an interesting paper called Homeownership 2.0 that discusses ways to come up with something that isn't full ownership, but also isn't a rental or even a long-term lease. It would be interesting to see if this could be put together with a mobile mortgage and give people the best of both world between renting and owning.
I wrote out a response that was too big to fit in the comments box on blogger so I thought I'd put it here. (Then I accidentally deleted it so this is draft # 2.)
I really like the idea of the mobile mortgage and I think it makes a lot of sense for people who expect to move a lot. So that got me wondering why the mobile mortgage doesn't exist today. I can think of a few reasons though I'm not sure any of them are insurmountable.
The first reason is that since a mortgage is secured by a house there would be some cost and risk involved with appraising the new house to ensure that it supported the loan amount. Smaller, regional banks that hold on to their loans may not be comfortable with taking the risk on a house that is outside their normal service area. For banks that sell loans to investors (which is most of them) the appraisal shouldn't be a problem because it's no more or less likely to be accurate than the initial appraisal was. Of course, the borrower would likely have to pay for the appraisal, but they'd do that anyway in buying the new house. This would also give the bank or the loan servicer a potential veto over the borrower's new house, but if the borrower doesn't like that they can just get a new mortgage as they would have done in the status quo.
Perhaps a bigger problem is that banks in some sense don't want people to stay in a 30 year loan for 30 years. Banks have a problem with "duration matching." A bank has to raise money to lend to people and they do this mostly through deposits which are short term (that is, people frequently move money in and out). But the money the bank lends is much longer term, like a 30 year mortgage. (Actually, most loans only last about 5-7 years because people move or refinance within that time on average.) As short-term and long-term interest rates move around, the bank runs the risk that it could end up paying a higher rate on its deposits than it's earning on its loans. There are two possible solutions for the bank. One is to make the mobile mortgage's interest rate variable and tie it to a shorter term rate. However, this may be unpalatable to borrowers who could see their mortgage payment change rapidly and substantially. Another solution is to seek out investors who are looking for longer-term assets. One would expect that the mobile mortgage would last longer because people keep it even when they move. (Of course, when rates fall people may refinance out of their mobile mortgage to get a better deal so a variable rate may be necessary to ensure the longer duration.) Anyway, with so much financial innovation it shouldn't be insurmountable to structure something that works.
Still, the idea of the mobile mortgage raises even more interesting and deeper points about what it means to own a home. One reason to own a home is to "build equity" and when home prices were appreciating steadily this seemed like a great thing to do. Going forward however, it's not at all clear that the home as an investment is the best deal, compared with renting and investing the money you save in, say, the stock market. (A home mortgage is a good form of "forced savings" in that it's easy to spend the "stock-market-investment money" than it is to skip your mortgage payment. But lots of people did find that they could take out home equity loans and pay off credit cards and buy cars so it's not clear that the forced savings works anymore for mortgages.) Mainly though, I don't think people want to own a home solely as an investment. They don't want to have to negotiate with the landlord about painting the living room green. Or more substantially, they don't want someone raising the rent or just deciding to kick them out when the lease is up. And psychologically people feel more rooted and permanent and stable in a home they own. They also tend to care more about their neighborhood and community. (Although this may be an American phenomenon. In Europe people rent long-term and seem to feel perfectly rooted.)
These psychological reasons would explain the 10-year interest-only mortgage which, to me, is financially akin to renting from a bank. (Not quite because you still get to paint the living room and you can keep any appreciation in the house when you sell it, but if the house price doesn't go up you've built no equity for 10 years.)
A professor at my law school has written an interesting paper called Homeownership 2.0 that discusses ways to come up with something that isn't full ownership, but also isn't a rental or even a long-term lease. It would be interesting to see if this could be put together with a mobile mortgage and give people the best of both world between renting and owning.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Book Review: How Proust Can Change Your Life
Having never read a word written by Marcel Proust, it may have seemed a strange choice to read a book about his book(s). What's more, there seems to be a cottage industry in writing books with the name Proust in the title. There's Proust & the Squid
; Proust was a Neuroscientist
and probably others. (Plus Steve Carrell as a Proust scholar in the movie Little Miss Sunshine
.)But this book by Alain de Botton seems to have been first out of the gate, and it's not a "Proust And Something" book, it's just about Marcel and his novel. I bought it impulsively after reading the opening in the bookstore because I thought it was so well written. And I stick by that judgment even though the rest of the book slowed down for me. De Botton writes engagingly and humorously about Proust's life and also illustrates life lessons using characters from In Search of Lost Time. But, unsurprisingly, I feel that I would have gotten more out of the book if I'd read the source material. The chapters claim to tell you "How to Love Life Today" or "How to Take Your Time" or "How to be Happy in Love." De Botton takes each of these themes and shows us what Proust had to say about it in his novel and how he succeeded or failed at doing the same in real life. It would all be rather tedious in the hands of a boring author, but de Botton is fun to read and you feel a bit like your sitting in his kitchen having a nice book club with him, except you haven't read the book so you're faking it a bit and nodding politely.
The opening chapter, "How to Love Life Today," is wonderful. It tells the story of a French newspaper that asked a number of famous authors what they would do if a meteor were headed to Earth that would soon end us all. Proust's response is that such a thing would be wonderful because we all delay and put off life with the sense that we have all this time. If we knew our end was imminent wouldn't we rush off to do all those things we mean to but haven't gotten around to. Take that trip, kiss that girl, do that one thing you always wanted. This isn't a surprising response, and de Botton points out that Proust wasn't a particularly adventurous fellow and didn't much take his own advice. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't. Here's what de Button has to say about it:
Feeling suddenly attached to life when we realize the imminence of death suggests that it was perhaps not life itself which we had lost the taste for so long as there was no end in sight, but our quotidian version of it, that our dissatisfactions were more the result of a certain way of living than anything irrevocably morose about human experience. Having surrendered the customary belief in our own immortality, we would then be reminded of a host of untried possibilities lurking beneath the surface of an apparently undesirable, apparently eternal existence.
However, if due acknowledgment of our mortality encourages us to re-evaluate our priorities, we may ask what these priorities should be. We might only have been living half a life before we faced up to the implications of death, but what exactly does a whole life consist of? Simple recognition of our inevitable demise does not guarantee that we will latch on to any sensible answers when it comes to filling in what remains of the diary. Panicked by the ticking of the clock, we may resort to some spectacular follies.
Of course, de Button's book is an attempt to draw lessons from Proust to help us avoid those follies and it's worth the read.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Book Review: 48 Days to the Work You Love
In our continuing search to make our lives happier and better, Nicole and I have been checking out from the library a number of books about improving your work life. 48 Days to the Work You Love by Dan Miller is one such recently-read endeavor.
Miller is a Christian and the book has a Christian theme and lots of Bible quotes. Non-Christians may find this off-putting but, it's worth getting over that because anyone could profit from reading the book. First, the Christian stuff is easy enough to skip. But more importantly, the Christian perspective to work life is probably one that a great number of non-Christians would appreciate anyway, belief in God not required. What I mean is that Miller's perspective is (a) money doesn't buy happiness, even at work; (b) we all have a calling or vocation, (whether it comes from God or not you can decide); and (c) we will only be truly successful doing work we love in accord with our calling. Consequently, if we are doing what we love (what God made us for if you will) we will find ourselves joyously serving others rather than counting out the days to retirement.
Of course, lots of books say this kind of thing, but Miller also gives practical advice on resumes, interviewing, and job hunting. My favorite piece of advice was about resumes. Miller recommends constantly updating your resume even if you love your job. The resume becomes an exercise in taking stock of where you are in your career and what skills you have developed. This focus on skills is also important. If you're stuck not just in a job, but in a career you don't like, how can a resume that lays out your experience and progress in that particular field help you land any other kind of job? Miller suggests rewriting your resume to focus on skills rather than on chronology. (I like this idea and the book has helpful samples to view, but a skills-based resume is pretty uncommon I think. I wonder if employers feel like you're hiding something with an unconventional resume?)
The worst that could be said about this book is that Miller has synthesized a lot of traditional career information you could get elsewhere and then "Christianized" it to sell to a target audience. But his synthesis is a good one, as is his perspective, so there's no reason not to check this book out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)