138 karma · joined June 30, 2010
The way I see it there is a price/value curve where it's worth buying things at both ends.
At the high end you're paying a premium but you're getting a well designed and constructed item, which should last you a long time.
At the low end you're buying cheap crap but you're paying peanuts. You know there's no high end features, that it's not well made and if it breaks you just throw it out.
But in the middle you're paying more than the cheap stuff but you're mostly still getting crap, although here's it's likely to be 'branded' crap. Same thing as the cheap stuff, just more expensive.
So buy at both ends of the scale, not in the middle: buy cheap and get what value you can out of it, buy expensive and appreciate its value for a long time.
Say you determine which socio-economic quartile people lie in at the point they reach 65, and then target extra healthcare/benefits/resources at the bottom quartile (or fifth or whatever).
Can you increase their life expectancy to match that of the upper quartile, or have life choices (eg smoking, poor diet) before age 65 largely predetermined the life expectancy of the lower quartile group?
However I think there often is something different in the attitudes of people with rich and poor upbringings. But from the article the kid whose parents earn $125,000 and who was bright and went to a top tier school will likely have all the doors open to him and the self confidence to take advantage of it. Any attitude difference above that level of income is mostly accounted for by individual personality and intelligence. Someone however who was born to a working class family and grew up surrounded by people in blue collar jobs might not have the confidence or social network to climb as high. Or at least the path is noticeably steeper.
And on a personal note, I disagree with the comment "He has the right air about him, and the same freedom from anxiety and free-flowing creative energy of a college student because, for him, college (i.e. the time of life in which most middle-class peoples’ lives peak) never ended." At university things were just starting to get really fun. I'm mid thirties now and looking forward to the fun that's around the corner. Not only is the glass half full, but it's champagne and the cute waitress is coming round with refills.
Basically if you start in a little village then move to a small town your salary rises faster than the cost of living and so you end up slightly better off financially. Then if you move to a larger town you're slightly better off again. And so on as you move up in city size.
This relationship holds except for at the very top, where the curve flattens off and drops slightly. You're actually slightly worse off in the banner cities like LA/SF/NYC.
In other words you, as an individual, are paying a premium to live in those places. The sweet spot in the curve financially is the next tier of cities down. I suspect this curve might have some degree of regional variation and might be different in other countries too.
I'm a Kiwi and many of us head off overseas in our early twenties, usually with the intention of returning home in a few years. This 'Big OE' though is mostly because people want to see the world rather than because they want to move somewhere to improve their quality of life. So that's part of the explanation for the difference the study sees between migration between Western migrants and those from Asian regions say.
On their travels some people meet a pretty girl / handsome guy and so sometimes the new partner returns to New Zealand too and sometimes the Kiwi ends up staying in the new partners country. The decision in these cases is more a personal one than to do with any specific countries advantages / disadvantages.
1) Broadband speeds are good although maybe a little pricey by global standards (eg $55/month for cable, $60/month for ADSL. FYI 1 NZD ~ 1 SGD). The main cities (which generally implies Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch) have good universities and IT jobs. Also IT jobs pay well (that's compared to other local jobs, NZ salaries in general are lower than other larger western economies)
2) English is one of the official languages.
3) I dont know your age but there's a new Silver Fern visa for skilled migrants under 35 which allows you to move to NZ without a job offer (http://www.immigration.govt.nz/migrant/stream/work/silverfer...). With IT skills you should qualify for standard Skilled Migrant visas too.
4) New Zealand has a maritime climate (Köppen Cfb ie not too cold and not too hot) so is much cooler than Singapore. The country runs north - south so there's pleanty of variation in temperature. The main cities all get just over 2000 sunshine hours which is about the same as Singapore. However the rainfall of Auckland and Wellington is 40% less than Singapore and Christchurch is 60% less.
5) Kiwis have long admired those who have a go at starting their own company and take on the big fish. And as daliusd mentions it's easy to start a company.
6) Also there's plenty of easy direct flights from Singapore to New Zealand.
I knew a few people who worked on Wall St and they seemed to socialize with their co-workers too but I also knew one chick in publishing who had a similar experience to you.
Conversely I now live in Edinburgh and my team only goes out for drinks once in a blue moon. Of course much of it depends on personal circumstances such as if you're young and single or have a family with small children.
So, um I guess YMMV.
Remember most people are making the single biggest purchase of their lives, so if they're not prepared to do a LOT of research and due diligence then I kinda feel they only have themselves to blame.
The problem I see is that many people seem to think they can stick their head in the sand and buy in help. Unfortunately said bought help might have other motivations than their clients which can lead to problems (see 2007 real estate crash and Great Recession).
New Zealand has plenty of amazing scenery and it's all within a rather small country too which makes it pretty easy to get to and see. But that doesn't stop hordes of young Kiwis heading off on their Big O.E. every year. Actually it's bit sad to meet some of the young Kiwis and find they haven't seen much of their own country before they spread their wings and head overseas.
I agree though that it doesn't really work in all situations. Tom uses the example of two lanes merging into one for roadworks. Maybe some situations where it doesn't work are an example of poor road design by traffic engineers?
If you're interested in this there's a nice longer interview with Tom at Streetfilms http://www.streetfilms.org/tom-vanderbilt-talks-traffic or an hour long Google talk.
Or to put it another way, here's the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant softball team: "No one can give more than one hundred percent. By definition that is the most anyone can give..."
In time you'll get some of your life back, but it can take a while depending on the baby. It's worth it though as you'll be amazed by how much you come to love the little pup.
To me the amount of holiday/vacation is a Big Deal. I was lucky when I lived in the US that my company offered four weeks (and I could earn extra comp days doing weekend tech support). Although I once had the general manager ask me point blank how I was taking more time off for a trip to Peru, so I went through and proved I had enough vacation days left. He still didn't seem too happy about it though. Perhaps most people didn't use all their vacation days?
Lack of vacation days is one of the reasons I'd be uncomfortable about living in the US again, so I could definitely see myself taking unpaid leave every few years like TFA suggests or just quitting my job. Then I could do important things like visiting family in NZ or getting in some serious skiing.