Credit Crisis Confessional

One of the most talked about articles of the week is from the NYT Magazine. In "My Personal Credit Crisis" economics writer Edmund L. Andrews unravels his tale of financial woe. It's a poignant and well-written piece that mirrors the trap so many Americans fell into during the housing bubble.

There are a number of odd things about the story, as some have already noted. One is that the writer claims to have a yearly income of $120K, plus NYT stock to cash out for a down payment, yet for some reason was bringing in less than $3K/month. This just doesn't add up.

True, he was on the hook for $4K a month in alimony and child support payments. However, it's still amazing that he was only left with $2777/month, as he claims in the story. Alimony expenses come out pre-tax, and so he should've been left with $6K/month. With so many dependents and two mortgages he ought to have qualified for plenty of tax breaks. So let's say worst case he is out 30% in taxes. That should've left him with at least 4,200/month, and probably more. Maybe not enough to afford a half million dollar house, but his second wife also had full-time work most of the time--some of it quite well paid.

Then there were the fights and recriminations with his wife over her spending. Yet, when he enumerated the types of expenses they had, they hardly seemed excessive. Contrary to his own self-flagelating description of it, the beach house expense wasn't all that over the top--it was $1,600 total for him and the kids. Other than that, they bought some clothes and food. They didn't refurnish their house--in fact, they brought in all their old stuff. And from the way he describes it, they didn't do much to renovate the place, either--just the opposite. They let it go to seed.

So, what was really going on with Mr. Andrews? Part of it, I'm going to guess, is that there were other expenses involved that he is not copping to in this article. Perhaps they will be more fully explained in the book. Or maybe he'll continue to gloss over them, in which case my trust in this narrative will slip even lower.

Of course, what makes the story juicy and ironic is that we're not just talking about a common shlub. This is an economics reporter for the venerable New York Times. In other words, if anyone should've known better, it was this guy.

But wait ... wasn't everyone reporting that housing prices were likely to keep on rising? Aside from a few notable naysayers, this sunny outlook was the norm. If anything, an economics reporter would be even more prone to subscribing to this point of view. Not that it should be this way, but human nature being what it is, this is hardly a shocker. Not only that, but he probably got used to thinking in very big numbers--billions and trillions. In my own small way, I experienced this as well. Reporting on Silicon Valley for Red Herring, I began to talk about "millions" as if they had very little value.

"Oh, they were only funded at $5 million," I would say, not really hearing myself.

Another angle on the story is that much as it is written in a highly confessional style, the author has done a good job avoiding some of the obvious questions about what kind of person he was, and is. What was his attitude towards money over the course of his life? What drew him to dedicate his life to writing and thinking about money? Perhaps he had oh, I don't know, a few small hangups about it? Just a thought...

When he described his cold sweat panic attack over money, I couldn't help thinking that maybe what he needed to do first was to take a step back and examine his responses. Panic attacks are their own type of affliction--and they often hit us in situations that others might not consider worthy of panic. His wife's reaction seems to support this. Of course, we can now step back and judge her to be the one who was in denial, but was it really that healthy for him to torment her about every little expense? Was it spending that took them down, or an overall unhealthy relationship to money on both their parts--his especially?

Anxiety tends to pursue us through our lives. If we dispense with one trigger, we find (or create) a new one. In short, this was a very psychological journey that he was experiencing--maybe even a spiritual one.

Again, perhaps more will be revealed in the book length version of the story. Considering the strong response this feature got, I'm sure it will sell well. I'll probably pick up a copy--though to save money I'll just check it out of the library.

Justifying Fearmongering

This has been some pandemic. First there were the headlines--splashed across the tops of newspapers across the USA. "Pandemic!" they screamed. "Hide your children!" "Paint your walls with Pine-Sol." "Pre-emptively kill yourself so you don't have to live through Armaggedon."

Then, there was a general shuffling of feet and clearing of throats as the reality sank in that this was not exactly a threat to life as we know it. Turns out that most of the "confirmed" cases of pig flu were now reconfirmed as being unconfirmed. Or, put another way, Mexico had it all wrong. There was a paltry 45 deaths from the so-called swine flu, not the 150 that was originally reported. Other than that, most cases have been mild, and the spread of the virus has significantly slowed just a few weeks into the "epidemic." Only one non-Mexican has died of the flu, and this was someone who for some reason we didn't get a whole lot of info. about, except that the CDC seemed to be saying that her case wasn't cause for alarm.

The next phase was the finger pointing. With the press already being hammered for its failure to report on the economy in any meaningful way, now it was going to have to explain itself for once again buying into--and heavily inflating--the hype. Let's face it, fear sells papers like nothing else. I was in the news business. I know how this works. You're going to keep reading, watching, etc-ing if a story might turn you personally into a statistic. Now the press was caught red-handed doing just this.

Here's where it got really weird. There is now a spate of articles (here's one example from Reuters) coming out which are taking the following position: "Yes, we did overplay the threat. But the effects of all this fear-mongering were positive. People now know to be afraid of viruses, and are taking far more precautions. So, it actually was a good thing we totally screwed this one up."

This is the point at which science, economics, and, really, any study of human behavior goes completely out the window. First of all, as I pointed out in an earlier post, stress takes a toll on human health. Fear is perhaps the hardest on our systems of all the stressors. This is good for our health? I don't think so.

Second, what exactly were the precautions that people took? More frequent handwashing (no doubt with anti-bacterial soap), greater usage of anti-bacterial sprays and hand sanitizers, and staying home from work/school. Well, call me crazy, but the last I checked, there was a rising fear that all of these anti-bacterials could lead to the creation of "superbugs"--in other words, viruses that no one had the natural defenses to fight anymore. Is this sensible caution, or germ-phobic overreaction that could actually cause a real pandemic in the future? You decide.

Finally, I would ask this: does crying wolf every time someone gets the flu keep the public well-informed? Or, is the more likely effect that we'll start discounting these potential health emergencies in the future--even when an actual threat appears?

I have been disappointed and frustrated with the state of health and science journalism for years, but to me this is a new low. Would be nice if someone would show just a tiny bit of remorse and promise to do better next time. Guess I'll keep dreaming.

Pandemic Madness - Not Again?!

It's 2009, just three years since we were warned of a worldwide Avian flu pandemic that would wipe out vast swaths of the population. Birds were slaughtered by the millions, causing immense harm to farmers across Asia. Any American foolish enough to travel to Asia during this outbreak was subsequently quarantined when they returned, just as they were during the previous non-event known as SARS, which also was supposed to bring on pandemic-style Armaggedon. How many have died from Avian flu so far? The terrifyingly vast number of 257.

OK so, phew. Somehow we made it through both of those scares alive--though who knows how many weeks or years of our lives we each lost as a result of the stress hormones we secreted in response to the panicmongering the media handed out to us.

Now, there's a whole panic-demic on our hands. This time the culprits are innocent little piggies. Already, there are reports of mass slaughter of these animals. And of course, we can only begin to imagine the lost revenues to Mexican tourism that are piling up as cruise lines change their routes, flights are canceled, and so on. Great timing for Mexico, which is also getting hammered for its drug violence.

Meanwhile, the good people at Novartis, makers of TheraFlu and various vaccines are no doubt jumping for joy right now, as are other flu vaccine manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur and MedImmune. Buy stock in those companies if you know what's good for you.

So, not to rain on everyone's parade all at once, but let's take a look at the facts for a brief moment before returning to our regularly scheduled all-fear all-the-time programming:

The swine flu death toll so far includes: 159 people, all of them Mexican citizens.
This is approximately 0.00014% of Mexico's total population of 109,955,400.

No one else has died, even though there are confirmed cases in the U.S. and around the world. Maybe I should repeat that. No one else, that is, no non-Mexicans, have died from this. Not only that, but among the 2,500 cases of swine flu in Mexico, only 6.3% have died.

In California, there have been 19 cases of swine flu, all nonfatal. That is .000035% of our state's population. Yet, apparently the Governator has seen fit to declare a "state of emergency" over it. (Thanks @jameane for doing that calculation.)

So can we all just take a breath and calm down, please? Ask yourself, how many people have died of run of the mill, regular flu this year? I don't know the exact number, but I'm guessing it's in the thousands. How many generally die each year of, I don't know, bubonic plague. I looked that one up, it's 15-20 per year in the US alone.

Look, fear is a hard one for the human system to endure, so what about saving it up for some stuff that is actually scary? Like, for example, the fact that despite Obama's stimulus efforts, our economy is still in the pits? Or, I don't know, the extremely high likelihood that poor children around the world could die at any moment due to poor nutrition and sanitation? In fact, that's happening right now as we speak--a poverty pandemic is causing infants and children to die in many, many undeveloped nations, and even in some very wealthy countries.

OK I have said my piece. Go back to your regularly scheduled programming folks.

The weird and the wacky this week

If that alliterative headline didn't catch your eye, I don't know what's wrong with you. In any case, here are my picks for the weirdest and most surprising headlines of the past week (or so):

Fact, not fiction, rules the brain (except for gamers). A new study shows that in general, the human brain places more importance on real people than on fictional ones, according to PhysOrg.com. Thus, we know that Cinderella isn't as real as George Bush, who in turn is not as real to us as our mother. (Their example.) However, the article states that: "personal relevance is not unequivocally related to what is real, since some individuals may experience personal relevance in certain fictional realms, such as in religion or chronic computer gaming. For instance, for a chronic gamer, a World of Warcraft character could yield greater activation in the amPFC and PCC [reality-oriented regions of the brain] than a real person of low personal relevance would." (Emphasis added--and gamers, please do take heed.)

Totally tubular. From Boing Boing--Audiophiles, and folks who want to risk electrocuting themselves can follow the steps laid out at Instructables.com on how to build their very own stereo tube amp from spare parts. The post starts out with this tantalizing line: "Ever wanted to build a highly dangerous, inefficient, and essentially obsolete piece of electronics?" Oh, well, in that case, what are we waiting for?

Terminator beware. And speaking of tubes, contributor Brandon Keim reports in Wired on the development of carbon nanotubes--structures that are incredibly strong, lightweight and flexible. These tubes can be used for everything from artificial limbs with "smart" muscles to solar cells. Perhaps the Governator can make use of them to save future generations of the world from the high cost of electricity.

Robofish to the rescue. As long as we're on the subject of '80s sci fi movie references, there's a new robocop on the block, and this one is sniffing out pollution. According to Britain's Daily Mail, schools of robotic fish may be released into the Thames to pick up signs of pollution. Reports the Mail: "Each fish ... will be packed with pollution sensors that can electronically 'sniff' harmful chemicals in the water." The robofish will travel in schools and alert each other via wifi when pollution is detected. (Thanks @bcaulfield for that tip.) Let's just hope no one decides to tempt them with a PCB-packed fly and cook them up for dinner.

Snow men behaving badly. Finally, two separate snow-bites-man-related stories caught our attention this past week. First, take a look at this series of videos depicting grown men riding around in the snow on retooled on children's toy cars--and clearly having the time of their lives. (Thanks @davegraham for tweeting that tip.) And in a second, related story, a Canadian man was ordered to tear down his backyard snow fort because it posed a fire hazard. (From NPR's "Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me quiz.) Talk about having WAY too much fun.

And speaking of which, shouldn't you be getting back to work?

A similar version of this post appeared on my client blog, OnlineStorageOptimization.com

Game Break!

Life in tech can be tough, and for the bright minds within it, a mini-vacation from reality can be good therapy. Today's post will take a look at some of the more intriguing and futuristic distractions available right now. That way, you can at least read about the idea of having fun, even if you don't have time to have any.

Virtual gunplay. First up, the newest from LEGO - "Augmented Reality" glasses enhance game play with computer generated images allows kids to shoot each other's real toys, releasing aggression and maybe giving the toymaker a leg up on the encroaching competition posted by Nintendo, et al. Thanks Gizmodo for that tip.

Bruce Wayne Yourself. What looks to be the first truly great Batman video game is due out in June--or May 31 for the XBox collector's edition. The preview alone for "Batman: Arkham Asylum" could make you reserve a copy for yourself, and this review would probably clinch it. (Thanks @Storagezilla for the heads up on this one.)

Fun with a Mac Mini. Call this a project rather than pure entertainment, but Stephen Foskett today detailed on his Packrat blog how he took the new 2009 Mac Mini base model and souped it up into a cherry speed demon for a total cost of $701. For those with the chops, this looks like fun.

What's next on iPhone. Today's Apple iPhone OS 3.0 preview event offered some games that will be upcoming on the new iPhone. So far, none look mindblowing, but this live feed from Engadget may yield a few more as the day wears on. The multiplayer game "LiveFire" sounds like it has some potential.

Colbert Goes to the Graveyard: If you only have a few moments, you can take time out to watch this interview on the Colbert Report with Neil Gaiman, author of The Graveyard Book, Coraline, the Sandman comic series, and so on and so forth. Die hard fanboys/girls can also follow him on Twitter and find out what he's having for breakfast.

OK, end of break. Get back to work!

Photo: Gizmodo

Note: this post is also on my client blog: Online Storage Optimization.

Tweet You Very Much

Twitter is a powerful tool, not to mention a great distraction ... er, method of connecting with others. If a show biz personality who is just learning email can get 70K followers in 24 hours, then clearly anyone can dive in and have fun. Yet, Twitter can also be a headache-inducing, information-spewing overload machine, especially for those of us who use it to keep up with the latest tech trends.

To deal with this, Twitter has made some updates, such as home page search, which can be helpful. Yet, it's still hard to keep one's head above water with all the noise out there (insert continued mixed metaphor here). Heck, it can even be overwhelming to figure out which tools to use to manage one's Twitter accounts and usage.

For all of this, the TwiTip blog is a solid source for advice on how to keep the info deluge under control. Today's post dealt with the many Twitter-based tools and honed it down, offering 10 MORE Must Have Twitter Tools. One item on the list that's already generating some discussion is TwitterSnooze. This service puts some of your more, shall we say, prolific followers on a pause button so you don't have to receive their tweets for a period of time--something that's less cruel and final than unfollowing someone. The downside is that the person you've snoozed will be alerted on the day you "unsnooze" them. Therefore, the folks at TwitterSnooze suggest you send the following card:



Tasteful, don't you agree?

Another way to keep your head from exploding due to overload is to get into a hash tag room of interest, such as this one. These are becoming more popular and keep your follows under control to some extent. A variation on this is the Retweetist, which aggregates the most popular retweets going around the twit-o-sphere at any given moment.

And speaking of retweets, here--in case you live under a rock and haven't yet seen this--is Ellen talking about Twitter:



Note: this post also appears in a slightly different form on my client blog, Online Storage Optimization.

Is This You?

Marketing guru Robert Middleton makes a number of extremely helpful suggestions on how to build a web site that works. I've invested in his web site toolkit, and I recommend it for anyone who is writing and/or developing their own site. Perhaps his best suggestion--and I suppose I'm giving away a bit by mentioning this--is to speak directly to one's ideal clients, asking them whether they see themselves in what you have to offer.

I still don't have my site built, but I see no reason to ask the question "Is This You?" in a blog post, where there's room for comments and responses.

1. Do you have the feeling that there's all this social media stuff you're supposed to know about, but somehow you're not onto it?
2. Does the word "Twitter" make you break out in hives?
3. Do you spend half your day Tweeting, updating your Facebook page, blogging, and revising your web site, and yet have made little or no progress meeting your business goals such as attracting the right customers or increasing revenues?
4. Are you breaking new ground in some way with your business, and therefore having trouble getting anyone to understand where you fit in the overall context of your industry?

OK, I'll leave these for starters, but would love to hear whether any of these questions ring true for you. Feel free to Tweet me @sunshinemug about this, or leave a comment right here. Looking forward to your responses!