The Economic Advantages of Insourcing: "Made in the USA"

While doing some research on labor practices for my American Studies class, I came across this article from NPR about outsourcing. It stated, that even though many people believe outsourcing is a way to save money (less labor costs), other complex costs can really add up. One of these costs is transportation. According to the article, natural gas is much cheaper in the United States. The price for the natural gas to run the factory overseas, in addition to transporting it across the world would be as much as four times more expensive than the cost of transportation across the United States.

While the prices for manufacturing goods in other countries may still be cheaper than producing them in the US, it is still interesting to take into consideration how other factors besides labor costs may affect the price of production. Besides reducing the cost of transportation, manufacturing products in the US also has environmental benefits, from the decrease of pollution. There is also a sense of patriotism involved with the label "made in the USA" I will be honest in that I do not own products that are only made in the United States. However, since reading this article, I started to think that "insourcing" would show that the US does not need to rely on other countries to make our goods; we are self sufficient.

I am curious to know what your thoughts are about the pros and cons of outsourcing. Do you think that more products should be made in the US? Or do you think that companies should save money and continue to outsource? Please comment below.

Being Multiracial in America

The race question in the US census 

America is commonly called "the melting pot" because of the population being comprised of people from all different ethnic backgrounds. In American Studies today, we discussed how people identify with their ethnicities and how they refer to themselves. As a biracial American, I refer to myself as half Filipino and half Russian. Easy. The hard part is when it comes to standardized testing or other scenarios (usually involving filling out forms) that only allow you to fill in the bubble for one race. Ideally, I would fill in "white" and "Pacific Islander." But in reality I'm forced to choose one. I don't feel that I identify with one side more than the other, so I always find myself pausing and thinking--then struggling to catch up and fill out the rest of the form when this question arises.

I find this interesting because, if the US is supposedly a "melting pot," why are people sometimes forced to identify with only one of the many races they may be? If there is going to be a question about race on standardized tests, there should at least be the option to fill in 2 spots, like how it's done in the US census (seen above). In fact, more American teenagers today are starting to identify as "multiracial," as seen in this article from the New York Times.  I think this is a positive thing because our country is unique in the sense that everybody has a different background. Being able to identify based on race or ethnicity gives people a sense of cultural and family pride
How do you identify based on race/ethnicity, and why? Why (or why not) do you think these kinds of identification are important in the US? Please comment below!!

Violence on Black Friday

After reading a post on Sean's blog about "black Wednesday," about people valuing their sales over their families on Thanksgiving, I started thinking about the recent news of 2 people getting shot on Black Friday in front of a Walmart store. Click here for the news article. It all started when a pair of two people began fighting another shopper for a parking space. The other driver pulled a gun and shot the couple. Luckily, the injuries were not fatal.  

I was shocked that someone would become so aggressive over a few sales. I think this says a lot about American values and materialism. It is a good thing to want to save money, but how far are people willing to go to save a few dollars? Camping out in parking lots, or even shooting someone over a parking space? It's almost as if people are valuing store-bought items over human life. What do you think people's actions have to say about materialism and values? 

The Meaning of Success

When walking to school this morning, I noticed something I hadn't seen before. One of the houses on my walk was in the process of adding a white picket fence around the property. My first thought after seeing this was, "typical." It seemed like such a stereotypical suburban thing, almost like a status symbol of success. This got me thinking: how do we, as Americans, define the word "success?"

In my case, I have been hardwired since childhood to believe that I must be a doctor in order to be successful. And while it is a known fact now that I have no plans of being a doctor, I still sometimes feel like going to med school would be the "right" choice.  We can't all be doctors, though. Does that make everybody who is not in the medical field unsuccessful? Of course not.


While I was considering blogging about this topic, I searched "white picket fence" on npr.org. The first result that came up was called "A Reality Check for Americans Obsessed With 'More'". You can listen to the recording below or read the transcript HERE (also embedded below). Peter Sagal brings up a good point about success. He says:

 I myself have more material wealth than 99 percent of all the human beings who have ever lived and I work in public radio. A medieval emperor would look at my stocked refrigerator, my closets filled with clothes, my powerful machinery, and immediately start coming up with ideas for a new Web site, so he could live the dream.

 If success is defined as material wealth, then there is no need to worry according to Mr. Sagal. While money should be taken into account, I don't believe it should dictate which profession somebody chooses. Personally, I would define success as personal fulfillment. One is successful if they are completing the goals they have set for themselves. How would you define success, and how does your definition compare with how (you believe) the country defines it? Please comment below!!

"Good" Wars and "Bad" Wars

Something I found interesting during my American Studies class's "Perilous Times" presentations was an idea Mr. O'Connor brought up about wars classified as "good" by American standards. It seems like the wars Americans tend to classify as "bad" are the ones where more of the people do not agree with America's involvement. For example, the Vietnam war was very controversial. Many people were upset by the Universal Military Training and Service Act. People did not want to be drafted to this war (in which they did not believe the US should be involved), and as a result, many people illegally destroyed their draft cards. Most people know of the Vietnam War as the most controversial war in US history. I think the controversy unglorified the US and caused shame for many people.

On the other hand, the US won World War 2, which is classified as a "good war."  I think this war was less controversial since many Americans were in support of the war because of the attack on Pearl Harbor. I think America is seen as the reluctant hero in this war, which further glorifies the country.

What do you think classifies a war as "good" or "bad?" Please comment below.

Iconoclasm and the Civil War

In an earlier blog post, I brought up a topic that we had discussed in my American Studies class, Iconoclasm. As I said earlier, Iconoclasm is the term that describes breaking the myths that we learned as kids. Today, after seeing the Civil War group's civil liberties presentation in class, I found another example of iconoclasm. As kids, we learned about Abraham Lincoln, who we called "Honest Abe." We all knew the story of how a customer at his store payed him a few cents too much, and how he walked a mile to make sure he got the money back to them. 

The truth is that these stories from elementary school have little depth to them. I'm sure Abe Lincoln was still a very honest man, but not all the stories are happy. As said in the presentation, President Lincoln took many steps that limited civil liberties during the war. For example, in 1862 he signed the Confiscation Act, which punished people who spoke out against the Union Army.  While Abraham Lincoln was definitely not (the other extreme) a terrible person, it is still important to understand that he was not just the good, honest, perfect man we learned about in second grade.

Most famous kiss really is not as romantic as it seems

I came across this blog post  the other day, about the "most famous kiss." The "Kissing Sailor" is a famous photo of a sailor kissing a random woman, Greta Zimmer Freidman. It was taken on V-J Day, or Victory over Japan Day in 1945. For many Americans, this photo is iconic because it depicts the feeling of relief and happiness for the war to be over.

The post talks about how Greta did not know the man who kissed her. She described the moment, saying “It wasn’t my choice to be kissed. The guy just came over and grabbed!” This blog is making a claim that this event should be considered an act of sexual assault, and that the man had no right to grab her and kiss her.
I found this interesting because in my American Studies class, we had a discussion about Iconoclasm, the term that describes breaking the myths that we learned as kids. For example, in elementary school, we learn that Columbus was the man to "discover America." However, in high school we learn more about how he took over advanced ancient civilizations in the Americas. As kids, we are sheltered from the details of these stories because they are often very complicated, violent or unjust. 

The same thing applies with the "Kissing Sailor." It depicts the happiness after the war ended, but in reality, the sailor was drunk and the two were strangers. I think it is interesting how we automatically want to assume that the story is completely romantic and joyful without looking deeper into the reality of the situation.

The last thing I want to point out is that the blog I have been referring to is centered around feminism. Therefore, it might be very biased and exaggerated the situation to make it seem more like Greta was a victim. This is important to take into consideration, but I still find it interesting to know more about the back-story of the photo, instead of just accepting what you see at the surface.

How to Define Diversity?

After going on a field trip to Chicago with my American Studies class, we had discussions in class regarding the topic of diversity. What I noticed during these discussions was how many people used the word "diverse." The dictionary definition of the word is "Showing a great deal of variety," and I have to agree with some of my classmates. In the North suburbs of Chicago, there is generally not very much racial diversity, to be specific. In Wilmette, the population is  predominantly Caucasian. Asians make up 9% of the population, African Americans 1%, and Latinos/ Hispanics about 2%. 

When looking at the demographics of Chicago as a whole, the city is very racially diverse. As of the 2010 Census, the population is about 31% Caucasian, 32% African American, 28% Hispanic, and 5% Asian. When looking at the city as a whole, it is racially diverse. However, the fact is that Chicago is one of the most segregated cities in America. Pilsen, a neighborhood located in the lower West side of Chicago, is 82% Hispanic. Andersonville, located in the North side, is primarily composed of Swedish immigrants. Although the city has a wide variety of ethnicities,  it is segregated into smaller sections, usually based on race.

Going back to the discussion in class, many people stated that where we live in the North Shore is much less diverse than communities in Chicago. But is it really? Yes, the North Shore has less diversity than the city as a whole. But I think that the individual communities in Chicago are just as segregated as Wilmette is. A place like Pilsen just as un-diverse as the North Shore. The difference is the race of the majority.

This brings up my last point. Do we tend to define diversity as simply having people of color in a community (instead of having people of many different ethnicities)? If a town is 100% African American, would people say it is more diverse than Wilmette?

Feel free to comment below, I would love to hear your thoughts!

Chicago Symphony Orchestra Musicians on Strike

Yesterday, on Saturday September 22nd, members from the Chicago Symphony Orchestra reportedly went on strike less than two hours before a performance. The reason for the strike was a new three year contract which involved changes in salary and health benefits. With the contract that had just ended, the average salary of a CSO musician was around $197,000 per year. Many symphony-goers were disappointed that the concert was cancelled because there was no prior warning of the strike. According to THIS article, when the ticket holders showed up, the musicians were standing outside the symphony center on Michigan Avenue with picket signs. About 3000 people were planning on attending this concert.

Although the circumstances were completely different, the Symphony's strike reminded me of the CPS teachers' strike. Just like the Symphony's ticket holders that were left without a performance to watch, thousands of students and parents were affected by the CPS strike. When my American Studies class saw the play "Jitney" in the Court Theater in Chicago, there were some CPS students who were out of school while their teachers were on strike. I thought it was interesting to think about the audience members' different reasons for attending the play. We were there to make connections to our class, while they were there because they did not have class. It is not just the strikers who are affected. In the struggle for better pay and benefits, I think it is important to remember that there are always people left hanging--those who depend on the workers.

An American Dad

...and dad?

When it comes to parenting, it seems like more emphasis is always put on the mother. In the Olympics, after almost every commercial or interview, you hear: "P &G: Proud sponsor of moms." This is only one example out of many. Maybe it has something to do with a woman physically carrying a child during pregnancy. But what about dad? According to a recent New York Times article, dads do in fact play a major role in the health of an unborn child. Using mice (unfortunately) as test subjects, certain experiments were conducted to see the effect of a male's lifestyle on the health of its newborn. "Male rats that are starved before they're mated produce offspring with less blood sugar and altered levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 (which helps babies develop)." The connection also exists with age. "Children of men over 50 were 2.2 times more likely to have autism than children of 29 year olds." Factors like health and age do affect a males sperm cells, which ultimately affect the child. Although dads do not physically carry their children, they obviously do play a very large role in their development.

Why is it then, that dads do not get as much general attention as moms? After asking my dad this same question, he responded simply: "I think it's because kids tend to spend more time with their moms." And why is that? Because although the fight for total equality is happening in America, gender roles still exist today. Traditionally, women were expected to stay home and cook, clean, and care for the kids. Since the men were supposed to be out working all day, moms got the attention for raising children. Although many, many women work today, there are still more stay-home moms than dads. According to this ABC news source, in 2008 the ratio was 38 stay at home moms per 1 dad. However, the point of this article is that the ratio of dads who stay home to care for kids is growing. I think this, among other things, is evidence that in America, gender roles are slowly equalizing.

America: Work vs. Health?

About a week ago, my Spanish teacher was talking about how after eating lunch, people in Spain take the siesta. A siesta is a midday nap or resting period. In Spain, people usually work from 9-2, then go home, eat lunch with the family, and take a nap. During this time, the entire country is asleep--stores are closed, nobody is on the streets. They then return to work at about 5 until 8. According to the CIA World Factbook, Spain has the 15th highest life expectancy (81 years) in the world. However, productivity in Spain is significantly lower than America's and the other European nations.

In contrast, typical American working hours are from 9-5 with about a half-hour or 45 minutes for a lunch break. Unlike Spain, the USA has a very high productivity, but the life expectancy is lower. I think there is a direct correlation between working hours, productivity and health/life expectancy. This just goes to show how unalike Spain's and America's value systems are. Do Americans value work and money over personal health? Personally, I think more time should be spent on reducing stress and overall health, but would that cause the country's productivity to lower?

Typical rush hour traffic in Chicago

America and the Wilderness

Today, I went hiking with my dad in Wisconsin. Hiking is one of my favorite activities because I love the feeling of being surrounded by nature. However, today during the long drive to Wisconsin, I noticed something I hadn't thought about before. Much of the drive to Kettle Moraine was characterized by fields of monotonous farmland, dotted with cattle and the occasional house.

The drive to Kettle Moraine

The next thing that irked me was the fact that once we had started our 9.5 mile hike, there were a few times when (even when I thought we were well into the woods) cars on the road were still audible. I wondered, how close to the road are we? Even the purity of the woods had been exploited by humans. While we were hiking, once in a while I would notice that the pine trees were arranged in orderly rows. Since trees don't grow in such straight lines, they had to have been planted by humans. In fact, companies use this forest to plant pine trees for lumber. 

While I did really enjoy today's hike, I couldn't help but be reminded of Chris McCandless from Into the Wild and how he intended on being "lost in the wild(163). It is very ironic because he ended up being so close to human civilization in Alaska. As Krakauer describes, "Less than thirty miles to the east is a major thoroughfare, the George Parks Highway. Just sixteen miles to the south, beyond an escarpment of the outer range, hundreds of thousands of tourists rumble daily into Denali Park over a road patrolled by the National Park Service" (165). While I do respect McCandless's intentions of being at one with nature, I think it is sad that he was not able to fulfill his goal of being fully submerged in the wild, away from civilization.With over 22 million acres of natural prairie diminished in Illinois alone ("Praries of the Midwest") and satellite GPS programming to tell us where we are at all times, I wonder: in this day and age in America, is it really still possible to get "lost in the wild?" Please leave a comment and tell me what you think!

Sources:
Into the Wild by John Krakauer

"Praries of the Midwest": http://www.mvr.usace.army.mil/missriver/Education/Prairies%20of%20the%20Midwest.pdf