In Silicon Valley, Millionaires Who Don't Feel Rich

Goes the headline yesterday in the New York Times.

This article is irritating and embarrassing (as one who is about to commence daily appearances in this neighborhood), imho, for a couple reasons.

First, the unsubstantiated complaint of 'not feeling rich' without a definition (or even an attempt at one) of what it is to feel rich. I'm not even asking that the interviewees stop to account for things like health, successful marriages, or happy children - let alone such obvious luxuries as running water, electricity, and health care. Even if we restrict the notion of 'feeling rich' to monetary wealth, as we must in order to be faithful to the article's premise, the effectiveness of the piece would be aided by some perspective.

I have been a member of an upper/middle class northern California family for my whole life, an undeniably fortunate position by virtually any standard. But still, through my naivete and skewed sense of need, wealth, and the state of "being rich" even I can see that these millionaires perhaps do 'feel rich' without knowing it. I would suggest that 'feeling rich' means not having to worry about one of the 2-3 family cars breaking down, knowing that such an event will not threaten one's employment or send one into bankruptcy. Having a paid-off house should count as 'feeling rich,' even having a back yard in this day and age and in this particular bay area community. Not having to worry about being able to afford the kids' education or a medical emergency. How can these things, particularly when taken together (after all, they come admittedly as a package deal for these not-rich-millionaires) not qualify as 'feeling rich?'

Not being able to keep up with the Joneses, history dictates, is a horribly misguided way to determine one's success or failure in life. It is a symptom of that ancient malady, greed, the perpetuation of which we have somehow still not learned to control. How it rose to the "Top 10 most emailed" list is beyond me, the only news harbored in the article for me is just how materialistic America's most wealthy communities have become and how blind to the struggles and prohibitive disadvantages suffered by those in our country and in others who truly are not rich in the monetary sense.

This is not to argue that those caught up in the Silicon Valley rat race fail to recognize just how fortunate they are. But rather that it is surprising that a publication like the New York Times would devote energy and space to such a frivolous and misguided topic. If it's meant to be serious, it's a sad commentary on the community. If it's meant to poke fun and sarcasm at the wealthy and shock the world at the selfishness of Silicon Valley executives, it is too narrow to be fair.

The second point of interest and disappointment for me came with the obvious and yet unmentioned gender divide the situation evokes. For once, the divide has nothing to do with income, but rather has to do with differing responses of men and women to SV-sized paychecks. Men tend to respond by pledging to increase their 60 hour work week to an 80 hour week in order to maintain a respectable place in the pecking order. Women, on the other hand, seem to engage in a back and forth between wondering whether they deserve such excess and worrying that their lives are passing them by and considering the possibility that perhaps a reduction in hours is called for.

Note the difference between this:

“Everyone around here looks at the people above them,” said Gary Kremen, the 43-year-old founder of Match.com, a popular online dating service. “It’s just like Wall Street, where there are all these financial guys worth $7 million wondering what’s so special about them when there are all these guys worth in the hundreds of millions of dollars.”

Mr. Kremen estimated his net worth at $10 million. That puts him firmly in the top half of 1 percent among Americans, according to wealth data from the Federal Reserve, but barely in the top echelons in affluent towns like Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton. So he logs 60- to 80-hour workweeks because, he said, he does not think he has nearly enough money to ease up.

“You’re nobody here at $10 million,” Mr. Kremen said earnestly over a glass of pinot noir at an upscale wine bar here.

And this:

Celeste Baranski, a 49-year-old engineer with a net worth of around $5 million who lives with her husband in Menlo Park, no longer frets about tucking enough money away for college for their two children. Long ago she stopped bothering to balance her checkbook. When too many 18-hour days running an engineering department of 1,200 left her feeling burned out and empty, she left and gave herself 12 months off.

Yet like other working-class millionaires of Silicon Valley, she harbors anxieties about her financial future. Ms. Baranski — who was briefly worth as much as $200 million in 2000 but cashed out only $1 million before the collapse of the tech bubble — returned to work in March.

Along with two partners, she founded a software company, Vitamin D, and already she is resigned to the sleepless nights and other stresses that await her. “I ask myself all the time,” Ms. Baranski confessed, “why I do this.”

That today she is worth around $5 million, said Ms. Baranski, who helped to put herself through school cleaning houses, “was unimaginable in my 20s.”

“I always ask myself, ‘Do I deserve it?’ ” she said. “It never feels like you do, because that’s a lot of money.”

The author chalks this up to 'some people feel differently' but this is a cop out. Much remains to be said about why, while men respond with renewed aggression towards achieving that elusive income level at which he will finally be equal or superior to his contemporaries, women muse that they never expected such wealth and are not sure they deserve it or, in some cases, even want it. Men respond with jealousy, women with a different source of dissatisfaction: worry and self-doubt. Neither of which are healthy or get to the heart of any important issues.

Clearly the distinction that I have drawn may be illusory and the result of a statistically insignificant sample size. Also admittedly, hashing out the science and social implications of this dichotomy would require a measure of surveys, research, and scientific, economic, social and psychological analysis far beyond the resources of this author. However it does a disservice to readers to incorrectly dismiss the issue as a difference of opinion between purportedly identically situated individuals.

How many lost&found mallard babies does it take to fill a teacup?

A pair of tiny abandoned ducklings found battling against waves after being washed out to sea are being nursed back to health - in a teacup.

The fluffy birds were saved from a watery grave when they were found by passing canoeist Chris Murray. He plucked the pair out of the sea and brought them back to land in his canoe. He then took them to Pennywell Farm, in Buckfastleigh, Devon, where they are recovering from their terrifying ordeal. The birds were washed into the sea via the Erme estuary.

Well, ok but you'd think they could splurge for a brownie pan or something right? At least a bowl. I guess it wouldn't have quite the media appeal. Both are named "George" btw.

Consumer Review: California Bar Exam (Part 1 of 2)

So it's been a while. I know. I gave the bar all I had, even my "blog time." I went at it all work-o-holic style, the stereotypical hermit's lifestyle for the duration of that ultimate leg of every law student's academic career. Worth it? So far I think so. I felt prepared so I was able to relax a bit as the big week approached. Whether it helped my performance remains to be seen.

Note to law students and potential law students: The bar exam is 17000 parts hype and 3 parts stuff you actually need to worry about. Believe me when I say this because I am an expert at being a worrier. Those worry-worthy things are a) make sure you get there on time, like for all SIX sessions, b) concentrate on what you need to do to eat and hydrate and sleep well during the three days so that you will maintain consciousness ('cause by the end of July you're running on fumes and going cross-eyed even before the exam starts - 18 hrs of consciousness is not as easy as it sounds), like make a meal plan that doesn't take much extra time on your part during the exam (example 1: I'll get room service because I can afford $18 meals + tip three times a day, OR example 2: pack like you're going on a three day backpacking trip....on Everest) and c) if you're taking it at the Sac convention center - good choice, but don't be a hero. Be a slacker and sign up late so you'll be closer to the water and bathrooms. I had to walk about a quarter of a mile if I needed hydration which put me in the unenviable position akin to that of someone stranded in the middle of a desert - do I go for water and risk collapsing before I find it? And if I collapse do I risk 'them' (the seemingly kind and unassuming little old people who are tasked with securing the premises and take their job about as seriously as they do bingo-calling) calling an ambulance and eventually finding out that I've hidden forbidden nutrients in the form of PowerBar 'Gel' packets stuffed inconspicuously in my bra? Or do I stay put to conserve energy and avoid a rule 12 violation on the Gel?

Seriously, it's all in the logistics. I've heard reports of people fainting and staying unconscious for 45 minutes, I've heard all kinds of vomit stories, like that the girls bathroom on the first day sounds like sunday morning in the dorms. Don't pretend like you don't know what I'm talking about. And I've also heard of people falling asleep, particularly on the multistate. It's a bizarre exercise.

The material is vast, overwhelming even. But just keep studying. It's like a language. You won't ever be called upon to get your head around all of it at once, you just need to know how to respond or at least how to fake it convincingly (seriously, this skill is rewarded) when they throw you that triple crossover. The only way to do it is total immersion. I think.

So it's over for now. Results don't come out for a very very long time. At which point I will unveil part 2.

Let me also give a shout out to barbri who has likely never been so embarrased in the duration of its existance. Not only did they not at all correctly predict what would be on the exam....they made predictions about what would 'surely not' be on the exam that turned out to be brutal and absolute mistakes - like more than one. So the diligent among us were scrutinizing our civ pro, trusts, crim pro, and california distinctions (several new california law topics were added to the bar starting with the july sitting), letting our property, con law, and crim law outlines collect dust when really, the opposite would have been wise. We listened when Barbri said we would see anywhere from two to four MBE subjects tested on the essays (all six appeared. ALL six, with contracts tested twice). We listened when they told us there would surely be a crim pro question, but in any case no crim law. And when they mused about how con law would not be on the exam, and if it was, it would defintely not be on first amendment. So you can imagine our delight when we turned the page to essay 4, thinking surely there MUST be some cal-law questions coming up, only to find an in-your-face-bar-bri crim law/1st amendment crossover.

I never thought I'd say this, but for me, and for this particular sitting, fully 90% of the points I manage to accumulate will come from studying PMBR materials. Which brings me to my PMBR review. Get the materials on ebay or amazon or wherever. Don't pay for the course. Materials are money, but they run kind of a sketchy operation. Which is overpriced but that goes without saying in bar-review land which, by all accounts seems to be immune to anti-trust law. Although I should reserve judgment on PMBR- they were just bought by Kaplan which should reduce the sketchiness (at the same time reinforcing my suspicion about the anti-trust immunity).

Also don't believe bar bri when they say the wait for the results is the 'hardest leg' of the bar exam journey. I'm finding that it's actually not that bad so far. I mean you know, it's a little hard to sleep in ALL the way 'till 11. And I couldn't tell you where my watch is and sometimes when I have to write the date on something, I'm at a loss and feel kind of blond. That's a problem. Also, I don't think it's good for me to be spending so much guilt-free time watching TV and reading novels and magazines. I've returned to that pesky old habit of showering daily. I've received a lot of exposure to the sun lately. I'm losing touch with my old, safe defaults 'can't,' and 'not today, maybe next week,' which have been increasingly replaced with words such as 'yes,' and 'ok' and potentially 'Hi, I'd like to buy a ticket to Hawaii.' But please don't worry, I think I will pull through, despite my inexperience.

And DON'T listen to your dean of students when she responds to your comment that 'bar review isn't THAT bad' by assuring you that "oh, it'll get worse." Jealousmuch of us finally getting to feel excited that our career is just beginning, full of opportunity and paid-off loans? It's a fleeting moment Ms. O, please just let us have it.

That's it, there's really not much more to it. I'm happy to have survived. I'll be happier to survive results. Tune in this fall.

Another wild thing named George

What is it about that name that makes it the default for little lost things? See post here.

Cute picture of the week

I'm back. More on that later. For now I just want to introduce a new series. I try to stay away from being extra cheesy but somethings I just can't resist. I have an instinctual and uncontrollable "awwwwww! how cuooooooote" reaction to pictures like this and can't keep them to myself but don't want to spam everyone who's not interested. So here 'tis.

It's worth 'clicking to enlarge' - yup that's a mini horse under the belgian, the smallest one alive. Or so says the british press.

Where were they then?

From the show that started it all (and by 'it all' I mean America's obsession with lip-synching pre-teen popstars), I bring you the stars of Kids Incorporated....

Then:

Stacy and Love on the set

And now:

Jennifer Love Hewitt

Fergie

Don't be like the MBA students

Just a bit of advice I'd like to give my colleagues who are in the very midst of their final round of finals.

So Duke has produced some winners this year, hasn't it (a-hem-lacrosseteam)? Have you ever wondered how it would even be possible to cheat on an open-book, take-home exam? Well, here's how to not...

Thirty-four first-year business graduate students at Duke University cheated on a take-home final exam, a judicial board has found, in what officials called the most widespread cheating episode in the business school’s history.

The final was an open-book test in a required course in March, with students told to take the exam on their own. But many students collaborated, in violation of the school’s honor code, according to a ruling last week by the judicial board of the Fuqua School of Business at Duke.

School officials declined to identify the course, the professor or the students, citing confidentiality in judicial board matters. But they indicated that the professor had noticed similarities in the answers by the students, who are candidates for a master’s in business administration.

Nine of the students face expulsion, according to the ruling, which was distributed within the business school on Friday. Fifteen students were suspended for a year and given a failing grade in the course; nine were given a failing grade in the course, and one got a failing grade on the exam. Four students accused of cheating were exonerated.