Archive for June, 2009

As I’m nearing completion of the first draft of 168 Hours (my book that’s coming out next year from Portfolio), I’m starting to load content at the website, My168Hours.com. Nothing snazzy, graphically, so far, but I will be posting there regularly over the next year in the lead up to the book’s launch. Please have a look and check back frequently.

I was quoted in Marci Alboher’s Yahoo blog on Friday which asked “Are dads the new working moms?”

While media accounts of changing gender roles often focus on images of stay-at-home “Mr. Moms” (always depicted as bumbling around in aprons), the real shift is more that men now think they need to combine working and caregiving — even when they are their families’ sole or primary breadwinners. Two generations ago, many fathers believed that earning a paycheck was their contribution to the family, full stop. Now, it is not socially acceptable at all for a man to refuse to change diapers.

Of course, there is a lot more to childcare than changing diapers, and moms in 2-income families get particularly bitter about the fact that they’re usually responsible for remembering that babysitters need to be called, that there isn’t milk in the house, etc. But as Marci pointed out, one consulting company pitched her a Father’s Day idea about various male executives who flew home from meetings for soccer games. That’s a long way from believing that earning a paycheck is all you need to do to support a family. Moms don’t believe that, even though the vast majority of women now earn incomes. So why should men?

I have a column in this morning’s USA Today called “The Permanent Recession.”

My thesis? While lots of people think American schools are lousy, we tend to think the problem lies with other kids’ schools. While only 22% of Americans give the nation’s schools an “A” or a “B,” a full 72% give their eldest child’s school a good grade. But when you look at international comparisons, it’s not clear these good grades are justified, even for what most of us would consider “good” schools (i.e., those that give lots of homework, have AP classes, send kids to Ivy League colleges). The top 10% of American 15-year-olds score way below the top 10% of 15-year-olds in other rich countries such as Finland. This means that kids who’d make the honor roll here, who might qualify for gifted programs, would be considered, at best, B-team material in South Korea.

This is a problem, because we live in a global economy. Those better-prepared South Koreans are, in fact, going to be competing with US kids in the labor market of the future. While the US economy does efficiently turn high achievers into high earners, our underachievement has an economic cost. According to a recent report by McKinsey, if US students did as well as Finnish and Korean students, our GDP could be 9-16% higher. Just for comparison’s sake, the current recession is likely to shave about 3.7% off GDP.

Also interesting? This international gap is much larger than America’s black-white achievement gap. Yes, there are big problems at poor, urban schools. Too many black children are not challenged to achieve their potential. But guess what? Very few rich white kids are challenged at anything near the level they can handle either. I think that’s a real shame, and — if McKinsey is to be believed — really expensive, too.

Early last month, I learned that Vanderkam-Conway Baby No. 2 will be another little boy. While that does mean I’ll be completely outnumbered in this household, friends have pointed out a silver lining: I may yet escape the whole Princess cultural juggernaut.

While little girls have always loved playing princess, in recent years this has exploded as a marketing category. Disney re-packaged its movie heroines as a princess set and, as I learned from Megan Basham’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Friday called “Bringing Up Princess: Turning Girls Into Narcissists,” even Christian retail outlets are pushing “God’s Girlz” princesses and T-shirts noting that one gets to be a princess as a daughter of the King. She laments the idea of parents “who put their girls on a pedestal” and allow the “notion of privilege that goes along with it.”

I find it funny, though, that Basham is taking a stand against princesses, given the whole thesis of her recent book. I reviewed Beside Every Succesful Man for The American a few months ago. The subtitle of this tome is “getting the life you want by helping your husband get ahead.” The idea is that you should throw yourself into promoting his career so ultimately… you don’t have to devote your life to such mundane things as working for pay. Sounds a bit princess-y, no?

I mean really, think about it. Cinderella is the ultimate princess fantasy. A girl is taken from her toil amid the cinders and, because she is prettiest and dressed the nicest at the ball, she catches the eye of the handsome prince. In the bloody original non-Disney version of the tale, her step-sisters mutilate their own feet to fit into the glass slippers, since as their mother points out, when you are Queen you won’t have to walk. In other words, you won’t have to work. Of course, the birds tell the prince to look back, there’s blood on the track, and Cinderella’s foot fits the slipper even without amateur surgery. But the fundamental princess fantasy remains: If you are pretty enough and play your cards right, a man will come rescue you and support you so you can end your labors.

This seems to be precisely the thought process of the New York Times brides Linda Hirshman profiled in her “Homeward Bound” piece for the American Prospect several years ago, that I blogged about a few weeks ago (see below). These women — who’d labored as lawyers, businesswomen, etc. — were not on short career breaks because they were tending small children (which, admittedly, has many non-princess elements to it, as I’ve found while cleaning up poop after accidents in the bath tub). As she wrote, “Half my Times brides quit before the first baby came. In interviews, at least half of them expressed a hope never to work again. None had realistic plans to work. More importantly, when they quit, they were already alienated from their work or at least not committed to a life of work.” In other words, they weren’t about to head back when the kids hit kindergarten.

As Katie Couric pointed out in her speech to the Princeton class of 2009, there are many practical problems with this idea that a man is a financial plan, including that he can die, become disabled, leave you or lose his job. But leaving aside that, there is a lot of joy to be gained from achieving professionally as well as personally. I don’t see why women should aim to experience this joy second-hand, basking in their husbands’ success, as Basham’s book suggests. If we’re going to indulge in princess stories, I prefer the one of Empress Maria Theresa of Austria who most historians agree was the most capable of the Hapsburg rulers. Back in the 18th century, though she did some things that might strike us as barbaric now, she also instituted many social reforms in her empire including compulsory education, a more lax penal code, and relief for the serfs. She consolidated Austria’s rule and preserved the empire for years to come — while bearing 16 children, 10 of whom survived to adulthood. By all accounts, she had a reasonably happy marriage. She was one of the few 18th century monarchs who married for love. While her marriage was far from perfect, having 16 children requires sustaining a certain level of fondness over the years.

There’s no getting around the fact that little girls love sparkly tiaras. But I suppose, as a good feminist mom, one can try to steer the princess phase more toward monarchs like Maria Theresa and away from Cinderella. She had her crown, but didn’t just get “the life you want by helping your husband get ahead.” She made such a life on her own.

Steven Burd, the CEO of Safeway, has a fascinating op-ed in this morning’s Wall Street Journal called “How Safeway is Cutting Health-Care Costs.” He notes that health care spending has risen from 9% of GDP in 1980 to 18% in 2009; I don’t think anyone would claim we’re twice as healthy as we were 30 years ago. Indeed, this is the problem.

He cites some stats that I had not seen before, but which quantify the obvious. First, 74% of all costs are confined to four chronic conditions: cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity. Of these, 80% of cases of cardiovascular disease and diabetes are preventable, 60% of cancers are preventable, and more than 90% of obesity is preventable. Note that none of these is 100%. Obviously, the kid with leukemia did not do anything to cause it, or the non-smoker who drew the unlucky lung cancer card in that blackjack game called life. But you can acknowledge these numbers without blaming the victim. The person who drinks a liter of Coke for breakfast every day for decades, never exercises and develops Type II diabetes is going to find that being diabetic stinks even if his or her behavior had something to do with it. Wouldn’t it be better to align incentives to prevent suffering in the first place? If this happens to boost the bottom line of the insurer — be it Safeway or the government — that’s great, too.

The problem is that most health insurance has not worked on the auto insurance model, where a speeding ticket can double your rates. Partly this is because many of us get our health insurance through an employer and we don’t want our employers tracking our physical health. It would definitely be a little creepy to have your manager making a note every time you ordered soda instead of water with lunch. We also don’t like the idea of classifying what counts as bad bahavior or not. My husband and my decision to have children drives up the cost of insuring us, even if my healthy behaviors (exercise, diet, not smoking) make these pregnancies low risk.

Nonetheless, Safeway decided to see if they could lower costs on some obvious risk factors by bribing their employees. Rather than cast their variable rates as penalties for the unhealthy, the company labeled them as discounts for those making good, trackable choices. These include tobacco usage, healthy weight, blood pressure and cholesterol levels. These markers all have a fair amount of data supporting them. Employees who wish can be tested for the four measures, and receive a discount off their premiums if they pass (data is collected by an outside party and not shared with management, Burd notes). If a person passes all four tests, annual premiums are reduced $780 for individuals and $1,560 for families. If a person fails any or all of the tests, that person can be tested again in 12 months. If he or she passes or has made progress, the company issues a refund.

Net result? Safeway has held health care costs constant for four years, while most American companies’ costs have increased 38%. Obesity rates and smoking rates are roughly 70% of the national average. Again, while this is saving Safeway money, it’s hard to believe that in a world where many people say they want to lose weight or quit smoking, the employees aren’t also benefiting from having all their incentives aligned.

I understand that there are lots of details to be worked out, and hard cases to be dealt with before such plans are adopted more broadly. But if Pres. Obama is trying to make us all even more responsible, financially, for each other’s health care, then the fact that someone lights up a cigarette or refuses to exercise does affect everyone else. The public has a right to demand some accountability in return.

My Scientific American column, “Where Are They Now?” continues to run, profiling former finalists in the Westinghouse and Intel Science Talent Searches.

A few interesting recent ones:

Helen Wiersma: Fighting Weeds — And Mental Illness

This remarkable young Stanford biochemist is pursuing her PhD while battling severe bipolar disorder. She’s determined to treat it like any other chronic illness — no reason to limit your dreams!

Joe Buff: A Lifelong Interest in the Navy Comes Full Circle

Buff now writes edge-of-your-seat submarine thriller novels — a bit of a career change after 20 years as an actuary.

Katharine Duderstadt: From the Peace Corps to a PhD

This physics teacher’s story has an interesting side point — if you have a science PhD, it might be more possible to re-enter the workforce after a stint as a stay-at-home mom than it is with other careers.

Katie Couric had some interesting words for the Princeton class of 2009 when she spoke at the recent Class Day, with a special message for the ladies:

“I’m sure you are all graduating with big career goals. You may also have a dream of being married and having a family, and at some point the career may take a backseat. There is no more challenging, rewarding or important job than being a mom. I just want to say this — sometimes dreams of domestic bliss are interrupted by reality. People get divorced. People die. You need to protect yourself. I was very happily married to a wonderful man. He was diagnosed with colon cancer and nine months later, he was gone. I was a single mom with two very young children. This was not part of the plan. Luckily, I had a career and therefore the financial independence to support my children. Many women in my situation are not nearly as fortunate. And while I don’t mean to be a Debbie Downer, I want you all to be prepared for the unexpected and approach some of the big life decisions you’ll be making with your eyes wide open.”

For what it’s worth, I tend to agree with her. You can, of course, buy a hefty life insurance policy, and sign a contract with your husband guaranteeing compensation in the event of a divorce for lost earning power. But breadwinners can simply lose their jobs, too, as we’ve been seeing frequently in this recession. If mom then has to go back to work at a much lower compensation level than she would earn if she’d been fully employed the whole time, the whole family can be in dire financial straits. Apparently some people in the audience thought it was inappropriate for Couric to direct this statement mostly at the graduating women, but given that one recent survey of young Princetonians found that most women planned to dial down their careers while raising their children, and most men did not, it seems fine to me.

By the way, one of the key messages of 168 Hours is that there really doesn’t need to be any dialing down. You can dial up your career and family life at the same time. I’m glad to see Couric at least pointing out some financial reasons to do so!

My article from the spring 2009 City Journal finally went up online. It’s called LAPD High, and looks at a handful of police-sponsored magnet schools in Los Angeles that have managed to post very high graduation rates for at risk kids. You can read the story here.