The Line

OK, I'm ready to consult with the masses. Remember this blog post about being a woman in the accounting program? I mentioned some stories about male BYU students being super weird (verging on creepy)? This story is the one I want to talk about:

"In public accounting, you are usually assigned to a peer mentor who is a couple years ahead of you who can help answer your questions and is basically there to help you succeed. Apparently one student told his female peer mentor that No, he couldn't go out to lunch with her, because he is married and shouldn't be alone with other women. How. Awkward."

I want to know your thoughts on this situation, and on this general theme. I've heard men my age talk about how their parents have advised them to never be alone with a women. I think it's incredibly important to be careful in your relationships with members of the opposite sex because there is a real risk of developing feelings and making poor choices. But how does this apply in the workplace? Where is the line between being appropriate and inappropriate? Where is the line between being appropriate and being weird?

Personally, I think some people are way too intense in walking the line between appropriate and inappropriate. Naturally, you don't want to get anywhere close to "Inappropriate," but do you have to be so perfectly "appropriate" that you are pushing people away and making people uncomfortable and just being awkward?

Are you comfortable with the idea of having a business lunch with a member of the opposite sex? What about a lighthearted lunch with your supervisor to discuss your adjustment to your new job?

Can you be friends with members of the opposite sex at work? Can this friendship extend to getting lunch sometimes? If you say that's inappropriate, then is it appropriate to eat lunch in the break room together? Is it ok to talk at your cubicles?

How do you personally handle the "line"?

For me, the way to stay on the "appropriate" side of the line is as follows: Never bad mouth Greg to anyone, especially other men. Don't vent to them when I'm upset with Greg. Don't share deeply personal emotions with other men. Other than that, don't flirt with other men. Be nice and willing to talk and develop friendships. Other than that, I don't do anything I would be uncomfortable with Greg doing or that I would be uncomfortable with Greg knowing I was doing.

I am comfortable going to a business lunch with a mentor or supervisor of the opposite sex. I'm comfortable grabbing lunch from time to time with coworkers of the opposite sex. I'm not ok with the idea of me having a buddy at work that I'm always going out to lunch with, just the two of us. For me, I feel like if people know I'm married and know that I'm very happily married, that will be speak volumes in defining my relationships with my male coworkers. 

Now it's your turn. Men and women, married and unmarried, business professionals and students, moms and dads, employed and unemployed, etc. Where do you draw the line?

The Knee

Want to hear how I dislocated my knee cap? It was pretty sick.

It was the last combination of class on a day when I considered skipping ballet. It was a really fun combination and I was feeling good. I landed a tour jete on my right leg (like this). In ballet, we always turn out our feet and for some reason, even though I've done hundreds of tour jetes in my life, my toes ended up facing one way and my knee bent the other way and snap!.... Oh my gosh, it was so gross and it hurt so bad. At first, i thought I had broken my leg. All I knew was that I had landed on it and it bent the wrong way and it felt like it snapped. I couldn't even look at my knee because it looked deformed. I was such a little freaker outer.

Luckily BYU has an awesome athletic training room just for the dance department and the athletic trainer was nearby and came and put my knee cap back in place and then took me to the training room to look at it, ice it down, and wrap it up. I almost passed out several times because I'm a baby and have zero pain tolerance (I'm gonna be such a joke at delivering children). I went to the doctor and got a fancy schmancy knee brace that makes me look super hard core.

The first few days were rough, mostly emotionally challenging. I would limp around school all day and then come home and get so frustrated trying to navigate our small apartment, with my knee felling so unsteady and feeling so scared of it happening again. I hated asking Greg for every little thing, but at the same time, getting on and off the couch took forever each and every time.

I'm still gimpy. I can only bend my knee between 60 and 90 degrees. I'm supposed to start physical therapy but couldn't get an appointment until the end of this coming week. At this point, it hurts when I try to bend it and randomly every now and then for no apparent reason. It could be a lot worse - no crutches, no surgery, just a limp!

My cute little knee! This was before the doctor drained it - sick!

My Family

The Family: A Proclamation to the World is a document that Mormons frequently refer to in their definition of what a family should be. There are a lot of parts of the proclamation that I like. I think families are extremely important. That being said, there are some parts of the proclamation that rub me the wrong way and that I just choose not to think about. There are other parts that actually don't bother me until people  interpret them very boldly and imply that their interpretation is the true interpretation.

"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children."

Here's the thing: I don't believe in assigned roles. I don't believe that as a woman, I have a designated role in our family. I don't believe that Greg has a designated role in our family. That's not to say Greg and I haven't taken on different roles in our marriage. I generally cook and do the laundry. Greg does the dishes and folds the laundry. We both clean. We grocery shop together. This works for us. I'm positive that the roles we have adopted will change over time. If I find myself as a stay at home mom one day, I'm guessing I will take on the laundry and most of the cleaning. But the key point is that these aren't our roles based on being a man or a woman. These are roles that we have adapted for ourselves based on our situation, our personalities, our schedules, etc.

I've heard people be so bold as to say "The role of a mother and father are completely separate, but equally important." Completely separate? So... a father shouldn't worry about nurturing his kids at all? A wife should never help provide for the family? Sorry kids, a burglar broke into our house, but I can't protect you because that's your dad's role. What the heck?!

I've always interpreted this clause as follows: "Children need to be taken care of. They must be provided for and protected. They must be nurtured. This is best accomplished when these responsibilities are shared between two parents."And, if you don't mind, I'll continue interpreting it this way.

Let me just conclude by saying this - just because you grew up in a family that did things one way and just because you want your future family to be that way does not mean that it is the only acceptable way to have a family. Just because your mom didn't work and was there to greet you with cookies on the table when you came home from high school does not mean every mom needs or wants to do that. Just because your mom was nurturing does not mean that every women is a sensitive ball of nurturing-ness. I just wish people would step back and open their eyes up to the fact that there are tons of good families, in the world and in the church, that each independently decide what works for them. There is not only one acceptable family.

As always, comments are appreciated, but don't be rude or patronizing.

A man's world

As a woman in BYU’s accounting program, I am one of the few. I’d say I’m part of the…25% or so. I haven’t had any really negative experiences in my time here. A few sexist jokes here and there, nothing more than I’ve heard anywhere else in life.

I have dealt with frustration in terms of not being able to relate to male recruiters and guest speakers, who are almost always men whose wives stay home with the kids. I’ve felt like people didn’t understand the unique issues facing an LDS woman interested in pursuing a career in business. But I’ve never felt like someone was telling me I belonged at home or that I didn’t deserve my place in the accounting program. I’ve never had my peers assume that I won’t pursue a career because I’m married. But, unfortunately, the weirdies do exist.

I’ve heard horror stories of women being explicitly asked by their peers why they took a man’s spot in the business school. I’ve heard people mention conversations they overheard where two students were discussing how it wasn’t fair that women were taking men’s spots. I even heard about a student telling a female professor that she shouldn’t be working, but should be at home.

Apparently the business school has been getting some negative feedback about the behavior of their students out in the field. In particular, a few students have been extremely awkward in interacting with their female colleagues.

In public accounting, you are usually assigned to a peer mentor who is a couple years ahead of you who can help answer your questions and is basically there to help you succeed. Apparently one student told his female peer mentor that No, he couldn’t go out to lunch with her, because he is married and shouldn’t be alone with other women. How. Awkward.

Another student told his supervisor that her low cut tops were making it hard for him to control his thoughts.

Can I just say that these are definitely the exception as opposed to the norm? The fact that these are only stories I’ve heard rather than stories I’ve experienced goes to show that the behavior is not commonplace. But can I also say that this is the type of behavior that results from a culture that hyper-sexualizes women through its lessons on women’s modesty and how it relates to a man’s ability to stay pure? These lessons can succeed in turning women into sex objects who must be avoided at all costs. To tell a female coworker than you can’t get lunch with her because she is a woman implies that you think women = sex. If your wife is so jealous of you interacting with other woman, apparently she also holds the unfortunately belief that women and sex are one and the same.

Anyways, my main point in this post was just to say how wonderful the professors are in handling these situations. This year they cancelled regular classes in the Junior Core and spent the time talking about not being weird (it included interacting with members of the opposite sex among other topics that students seem to struggle with). I’ve had professors completely call out students for making sexist jokes. I’ve had professors remind students that the male:female ratio in our accounting program is not representative of the ratio in the profession and to get used to working with women. I’ve always felt like my professors were my advocates. On top of that, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had teachers bring up the topic of homosexuality and preach about how students need to get over themselves and put their own feelings aside and love everyone.

So can I just say that despite this university being sponsored by the church, I have been so impressed with how progressive my teachers are (well... progressive for Mormons!).

There you have it, a little bit of insight into the business school.

I love going to football games. I am so glad that Greg is into football games, so I have a buddy at every game. I used to end up going to a lot of sporting events by myself... pathetic. I have friends, but none of them are into football, or any other sports for that matter. So I was a humongo loser at every game and always felt so pathetic and lonely. 

Anyways. Greg and I have all-sports passes with our friends. They have a 1 yr old daughter and sweet connections for better seats, so we usually don't end up sitting with them. Meaning we should really have two extra seats next to us and plenty of room. Yet somehow, at every game, we get stuck crammed in between this huge group that just wants to move around, hug, and talk for the whole game. It wouldn't bother me so bad if they actually sat in their seats. But no. They just cram as many people as possible into a row, until we're all shoulder to shoulder and I'm feeling extremely uncomfortable. Hello, I don't know you people. I don't want your butt anywhere near me.

It seriously makes me irate. Like contemplating shoving them down the bleachers irate. Ok, I would never do that... but I did think about it. Instead, I just held my ground, even when the chick next to me kept trying to scoot towards me to make more room for her group. There might have been some minor elbowing. I know the rational response would be to simply ask them to scoot over, but shouldn't they just get the freaking hint? "Hmm this girl was here first and now I'm practically sitting on her lap... that probably means there isn't room for me here." And even if I did ask them to scoot, there was no room for them to go. Plus I'm just passive aggressive like that with strangers.

This brings me to my conclusion: people are so incredible unaware of their surroundings and it drives me crazy. Have you ever been walking behind a group on campus who are deep in coversation and keep stopping, starting, changing pace? Or walking towards a group who refuse to move over to give you room on the sidewalk? Or walking down the stairs behind someone who makes an abrupt stop to send a text message? Or people who stop to talk right in front of a door you need to get through?

People of Provo. Wake up and smell the roses. And stop getting in my way. Please and thank you.

Wealth

It makes me sad and a little bit troubled to see how much people demonize wealth. I think there are definitely people who seek wealth in selfish and greedy ways that hurt the people around them. But wealth in and of itself is not bad.

Wealth is a beautiful motivator. We all like to be able to buy the things we want. We desire to have a house in a safe area where we can be comfortable. We strive to care for our family. We save money for that awesome "thing" we must have. Having wealth allows us to accomplish our goals. It allows us to make donations and serve. It allows us to vacation with our family. Making money allows us to save for retirement, so that one day we can have an income without working. Desiring wealth is something we all have in common. No matter how much money you have, you have to admit that money is very important to you... right? I know it's important to me. I need money to pay the bills, buy groceries, take care of the car, pay for school, and to have fun.

Because we all need money to take care of ourselves, if you take away the ability to gain wealth, you take away motivation. When you tell people that no matter how hard they work, they'll make the same amount of money and have the same opportunity for promotion, they lose motivation. When you tell people who are in an incredibly difficult (and important) line of work that they don't deserve the money they are making and attempt to take it away, you lose a lot of those talented, bright, and hardworking people.

It's interesting that we complain about how wealthy people are while simultaneously enjoying our iPhones, watching the NFL, receiving first class medical care and prescriptions that save our lives, playing on our computers, and checking facebook. Do you think these things would be around if wealth wasn't at stake? Would companies and researchers invest millions of dollars to bring us what we want if there was nothing in it for them?

Many people who hate wealth say teachers should make more money. Why should teachers make more money? Because their job is incredibly important! So why do they need more money? So more people will want to be teachers and so the field will attract more and better people! So we agree - wealth is a motivator.

Here's the thing. With a few exceptions, people don't become wealthy without contributing in some way. People aren't being paid gobs of money to sit around and eat bon bons. They're being paid to run business to bring you what you want. They're being paid to save lives. This is kind of an old statistic, but As of 1996, 80% of millionaires were first generation rich.

As my friend Jessica said, the poverty cycle is real. I know this and I don't think that we should say, "Suck it up, everyone has an opportunity to become rich, and if you're not it's clearly because you didn't try hard enough." No! There is a very obvious poverty cycle that strangles the success of many bright, hardworking people. But I do know that some people do rise up from this cycle. I know even more people rise up from lower middle class and middle class homes to make more for themselves.

But what happens when we as a nation decide that wealth is evil? At that point, who will strive to rise up from their surroundings? Who will be motivated to get an education in order to get a good job? What will happen when we tell people to not worry about working hard because making more money than someone else is bad? Who will try to rise up from poverty then?

If you want to tax the rich to help take care of people who are struggling financially, fine. But don't tax the rich because you think they don't deserve their money.

[As always, I'm very interested in your thoughts. As one person with the insights of only my life, my point of view can be very limited.]

Supply side economics

By: Greg

In this blog post, I want to look at what is and isn’t “supply-side economics,” also known as “trickle down economics.”

The fundamental idea behind supply-side economics is that investment spurs growth. What do I mean by investment? Investment means spending money now to generate more production in the future – in other words, we choose to consume less today so we can consume more tomorrow. A few examples of investments include: factories, cement trucks, education and training programs, roads, etc. I would suggest that few people buy a factory just because they like factories. They buy them so they can make more stuff. The factory is an investment – it involves spending money today in order to get more in the future. All of these investments increase output per person. If we have more stuff but the same amount of people, then we are all richer.

Read that last sentence a few times until it sinks in.

A common fallacy is to think “Well, all that extra stuff we’re making will just sit on the shelf because people can’t afford it!” But remember, if there is more stuff and the same number of people who want it, the stuff gets cheaper and we buy more. If this doesn’t make sense please comment and I will explain further.

So what government policies would encourage increased investment in the economy? Most economists (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-policies-economists-love-and-politicians-hate  proposal three) agree that one of the best ways to promote investment and hence growth is to cut or remove corporate taxes. Businesses are the world’s investors, so if you like to promote growth, tax them less. Many people think we should tax corporation because they are led by greedy, overpaid executives and we don’t like that. But, if you think someone is overpaid, tax them, not the company they run.

Another policy would be to decrease the capital gains tax rate (a special, lower, tax paid on earnings from stocks). The impacts of this policy are harder to see, but when we buy stocks we are investing in a business which allows them to invest that money as they choose. Advocates of supply side economics are highly against capital gains taxes.

Notice that we didn’t mention giving heavy income tax breaks to the super rich. This practice is not true supply side economics! Though it can be argued that they are the most likely people to invest the money which would in turn grow the economy, this is a more indirect and sloppy approach. Though there are other reasons why we wouldn’t want to tax the heck out of the rich, they don’t relate to supply side economics.

100% pure, unadulterated supply side economics would go so far as to advocate getting rid of the income tax for all income levels. Why? Any form of income taxation discourages work. (You might wonder how the government would be funded under this practice – tax revenue would come from increased consumption taxes like sales taxes).

As a review, supply side economics holds that economic growth first requires investment. Investment is choosing to consume less today so we can consume more tomorrow. Good investments increase output per person which makes us all richer because there is more stuff for less money. Supply siders believe that we can promote investment by reducing corporate and capital gains tax rates.

That’s it! Let me know if you any questions and I would be happy to explain anything that doesn’t make sense.

Coming next: an explanation of demand side economics