美国正出现一支长期失业大军
http://news.creaders.net/headline/newsViewer.php?nid=404933&id=929022&dcid=1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
华尔街日报 2009-09-27 23:27:48
电脑专家雅各布斯(Bill Jacobs)失业9个月来一直在找工作，却毫无所获。他突然想到，这9个月本身或许正是症结之一。
一个线索是今年夏天他与一位招聘人员的对话。第一个问题是，你是什么时候被裁员的？下一个问题就是，在那之后你怎么一直没工作？美国有近1,500万失业人口。尽管经济慢慢开始复苏，预计失业数据仍会居高不下。很多失业者面临的一个问题正是他们失业赋闲很久这一事实。
其中约有500万失业者属于经济学家所说的“长期失业者”，也就是失业27周甚至更久的人。尽管在目前的经济形势下，找工作已经很难；对那些失业时间较长的人来说，挑战更是艰巨。
他们的技能退化。开始意志消沉，并可能变成永久性的。一些潜在的雇主纷纷对他们避而远之。
由于士气低落，一些失业数月的人逐渐淡出了就业大军，转而提前申请工会退休金或社会保障福利，或是试图参加其他政府计划，比如社会保障为无工作能力的人提供的救济。
哈佛大学经济学家卡兹(Lawrence Katz)和芝加哥大学经济学家迈耶(Bruce Meyer)上世纪80年代进行的研究显示，一个人失业时间越长，找到工作的几率越小。卡兹说，失业6个月的人在下个月找到工作的几率要远远低于失业1个月的人。
现在的问题是：失业超过26周的人约占总失业人口的三分之一，为二战以来的最高比例。
卡兹、迈耶和其他研究人员还发现，失业者找到新工作后，预期的工资也往往会随着失业时间的增长而降低。
在面临这一难题的失业很久的成年人中，有越来越多的人似乎开始放弃努力。劳动力参与率──有工作或在积极找工作的适龄人员的比例──8月份为65.5%。据美国劳工部的数据，这是22年来的最低。
越来越多的人开始申请社会保障为无工作能力的人提供的救济。只要能提供证据证明自己有身体疾病，可能在至少一年内无法工作，就可以申请这项救济。随着婴儿潮时出生的人逐渐变老，参与该计划的人数在衰退前就已经开始上升；不过经济低迷导致申请的速度更快了。今年前8个月，社会安全局(Social Security Administration)收到了190万份无工作能力救济的申请，较去年同期增加23%。
麻省理工学院经济学家奥托(David Autor)说, 出现非常严重的衰退会让许多本可以继续工作的人申请无工作能力救济。它就像一张单程车票，申请以后你就等于退出了劳动力市场，进入接受政府救助的行列。
这类做法会对联邦支出产生影响。去年，社会保障总署(Social Security Administration)支出了约1,060亿美元的无工作能力救济金，相当于联邦预算的近4%。这个数字比4年前增长了三分之一左右。
社会保障总署首席精算师戈斯(Stephen Goss)说，该机构估计2009年至2011年期间，与没有出现衰退的情况相比，申请无工作能力救济的人数会高出约100万。如果批准率保持不变，这将在2011年末前新增加约50万名受救济者。
迄今为止，政府应对长期失业的措施主要是延长失业救济，这种支持手段能避免工人闹事，但却可能让一些人因失业而变得懒散，不再积极寻找工作。联邦政府将标准的26周的救济期延长了20周，对一些失业率较高的州，部分工人最长可享受79周的救济。
已失业15个月之久的缅因州电工劳伦斯(Phillip Lawrence)已处于最后一次延长期内，将面临没有选择的境地。
劳伦斯的职业生涯基本都在一家造纸厂度过。2008年6月失业时，他在一家造船厂工作，每小时工资16美元。他曾申请过零售商、医院和学校的工作，或尝试暖通等职业。
他说，找工作完全与身体条件有关。59岁的他觉得退休还太年轻，而学习新技能又太老了。他说，在我这个岁数，我不能指望再回学校读4年书了。
劳伦斯每周获得340美元失业救济，去年还通过转按揭获得了一些物业套现的现金。为了节约开支，他在家中以木柴取暖。为了有些事干，他会重新装修浴室或是建一条新的走廊。他说，这只是为了保持头脑清醒。
如果劳伦斯选择就此退休，他每月可以获得340美元的工会退休金，但会因提前支取而遭到罚款。他说，通过房屋转按揭获得的钱是他目前唯一的生存途径。
哈佛大学的卡兹说，更大的担忧是即使经济复苏后，我们可能也会看到很多人脱离了劳动力市场。
Monday, September 28, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Assessing the net value of children 美国社会养孩子回报率太低
Assessing the net value of children
The U.S. birth rate is falling. One explanation: a diminishing return on investment.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/31/magazines/fortune/children_value_benefits.fortune/index.htm
Fortune Magazine) -- What is the value of a child in modern Western industrial society? More specifically, what is the value of a middle-class or upper-middle-class or upper-class child in America? And does this have anything to do with the fact that the birth rate among American women has been falling for decades and that the age of first childbirth among educated women is far higher than among less-well-educated women?
Start with economics. People in a free society will choose to have more of something if its return exceeds its cost. On the other hand, people in a free society will choose to have less of a good or service if its value is less than its cost.
Now, what is a modern child? Obviously, not a good or service, but something more and also something less. Long ago, as we all know, humans had children because they liked having sex and because children had some value as assistant hunters and gatherers and keepers of the hearth.
Then, as society became more organized, families chose to have children because the parents (we assume) still liked having sex and the resulting children were helpful on the farm or the ranch or in the village smithy. The kids did not require much -- just food and shelter and occasional loving and cuffing about to keep them in line.
Now we can have sex without having children. That is a major factor in life, but by itself it does not explain why people do not necessarily want to have kids.
Maybe the reason is largely because raising modern children is such a major pain in the neck. For one thing, thanks to a variety of factors, often parents have to struggle like galley slaves to get their offspring into private schools and pay for them.
The private school parent also has to pony up for every kind of lesson -- ballet, horse, and music lessons, math tutoring, and chess club. The parent also has to drive the little ones to all of these events as well as to the "play dates" that lurk like unanesthetized colonoscopies in modern life. Then there is the most horrible event a healthy upper-middle-class American can have: social engagements with the parents of Junior's classmates.
In other words, we are talking about child rearing as part unpaid chauffeur, part torture.
Then there is college and a real course in horrors getting the darling in somewhere that won't embarrass you in front of your pals at the club. That's before paying for the school, which is a stunning slap in the face. Total college costs at a "prestige" school can easily touch $70,000 a year, real money for most people.
And after graduation day, what do you get for having the system holding you by your ankles and shaking all the money out of your pockets? You might have a son with a law degree who cannot get a job, a daughter with a film-school degree who works as a masseuse, or a musician who keeps you up all night with his drums.
You are very likely to have one who cannot spell "gratitude" and has a sense of entitlement that would make Marie Antoinette blush. How many of each kind have you observed with your own eyes? I might add that by pure luck, my wife and I do have a dutiful, helpful son and daughter-in-law. How this happened I am not quite sure.
But my son is an aberration, as far as I can tell. Look around you. The costs and benefits of having children in affluent America are wildly off kilter. Too much cost, too little reward. Often the cost-benefit analysis of children prints out "Get a German shorthaired pointer instead."
Many people are doing that, and the birth rate is collapsing. But if we stop having enough children, because their value is so low relative to their cost, the society grinds down. It's happening right now. The native-born upper middle class barely replace themselves in America, if they do at all. In a way we are committing suicide as a class, possibly in part because of the burdens of child rearing in modern life.
What is the net present value of a child in modern America? Often, it's difficult to find much, and thereby hangs a question mark over our future as a nation, at least as we have known it.
Ben Stein is an actor, lawyer, writer, and economist who also appears in commercials as a spokesman for various companies.
在现代西方工业社会中，一个孩子的价值是多少 更具体一点说，美国中产阶级，上中层阶级或者下层阶级中一个孩子的价值究竟是多少 这一点是否和数十年来美国妇女生育率持续下降，以及受过教育的妇女生育第一个孩子的年龄要比没有受过同样教育的人高得多的实事相关联
先从经济学的角度说起吧。自由社会的人将会选择更多回报超过成本的东西。反之，自由社会的人同样会不选择那些价值不及价格的商品或服务。
然么，怎样看待孩子呢 显然他们不是商品也不是服务，某些方面的特质是商品不具备的，某些方面还想由不及商品。远古时期，正如我们都知道的，人类要孩子一方面是生理需要，一方面也可以帮他们打猎，采摘和看守炉火。
然后，社会进化得更有组织性，家庭选择要孩子一方面还是生理需要，一方面是因为孩子们可以在农场，牧场或是铁匠铺中充当助手。孩子们的需求不多，不过是吃饱穿暖有地方住，偶尔给与他们一些爱抚，或是办错事时教训一下他们。
现在我们可以控制生育。但是仅凭这一点也许不能完全解释为什么人们不一定需要孩子。
可能一个主要的原因就是现在孩子给父母们带来了很多难题。其中之一就是，由于各种各样的原因是，父母们经常需要累死累活才能给后代提供到私立学校受良好教育的机会。
私立学校上学的孩子的父母也需要为各种各样的课程付费：芭蕾课，马术课，音乐课，数学辅导，还有象棋俱乐部等等。另外家长还要让孩子去接受诸如不施麻醉的结肠镜检查等各种医检。健康的中上层美国孩子的家长还必须面对这样的场面：和孩子同学的家长进行社交往来。
一句话，现代社会抚养孩子就意味着当免费的私人司机，还要受到各种折磨。
然后就是大学了。大学学费会让很多家长大跌眼镜。一所“有名望的”大学每年的学费动则就会到$70，000，这对很多美国人来说是相当可观的一笔数字。
接着到了大学大学毕业那一天，在受了这么多年苦，花了这么多钱后，你会得到什么呢 你儿子可能法学院毕业却找不到工作，女儿电影学院毕业很可能去当了按摩师，或者你可能有个音乐家儿子，整晚敲鼓让你没法睡觉。
你还很可能有一个不知感恩为何物，认为一切理所当然的孩子。这样的例子你一定亲眼看到了不少。笔者本人纯凭运气，有一对孝顺的儿子儿媳。我自己也不清楚怎会有这样的运气。
但是据我所知，我儿子纯属意外偏差。看看你的周围吧。富裕美国家庭抚养孩子的成本和收益大大不平衡。成本太高，收益太小。经常在作完养孩子的成本收益分析后，你会得到这样的结论：“不如去养条德国短毛猎犬吧！”
很多人确实是这样选择的，所以出生率下降了。但是因为养孩子成本收益率太低，就不抚养足够多的孩子，社会也会出现危机。现在已经出现了这种情况：本土出生的美国上中层阶级很少能子承父业了。由于在现代社会抚养孩子的负担太重，在某种程度上说，作为一个阶级我们正在自杀。
现代美国社会中孩子的现在净价值是多少 我们很难得出很高的价值。这也为美国的未来带来了一个问题。
The U.S. birth rate is falling. One explanation: a diminishing return on investment.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/31/magazines/fortune/children_value_benefits.fortune/index.htm
Fortune Magazine) -- What is the value of a child in modern Western industrial society? More specifically, what is the value of a middle-class or upper-middle-class or upper-class child in America? And does this have anything to do with the fact that the birth rate among American women has been falling for decades and that the age of first childbirth among educated women is far higher than among less-well-educated women?
Start with economics. People in a free society will choose to have more of something if its return exceeds its cost. On the other hand, people in a free society will choose to have less of a good or service if its value is less than its cost.
Now, what is a modern child? Obviously, not a good or service, but something more and also something less. Long ago, as we all know, humans had children because they liked having sex and because children had some value as assistant hunters and gatherers and keepers of the hearth.
Then, as society became more organized, families chose to have children because the parents (we assume) still liked having sex and the resulting children were helpful on the farm or the ranch or in the village smithy. The kids did not require much -- just food and shelter and occasional loving and cuffing about to keep them in line.
Now we can have sex without having children. That is a major factor in life, but by itself it does not explain why people do not necessarily want to have kids.
Maybe the reason is largely because raising modern children is such a major pain in the neck. For one thing, thanks to a variety of factors, often parents have to struggle like galley slaves to get their offspring into private schools and pay for them.
The private school parent also has to pony up for every kind of lesson -- ballet, horse, and music lessons, math tutoring, and chess club. The parent also has to drive the little ones to all of these events as well as to the "play dates" that lurk like unanesthetized colonoscopies in modern life. Then there is the most horrible event a healthy upper-middle-class American can have: social engagements with the parents of Junior's classmates.
In other words, we are talking about child rearing as part unpaid chauffeur, part torture.
Then there is college and a real course in horrors getting the darling in somewhere that won't embarrass you in front of your pals at the club. That's before paying for the school, which is a stunning slap in the face. Total college costs at a "prestige" school can easily touch $70,000 a year, real money for most people.
And after graduation day, what do you get for having the system holding you by your ankles and shaking all the money out of your pockets? You might have a son with a law degree who cannot get a job, a daughter with a film-school degree who works as a masseuse, or a musician who keeps you up all night with his drums.
You are very likely to have one who cannot spell "gratitude" and has a sense of entitlement that would make Marie Antoinette blush. How many of each kind have you observed with your own eyes? I might add that by pure luck, my wife and I do have a dutiful, helpful son and daughter-in-law. How this happened I am not quite sure.
But my son is an aberration, as far as I can tell. Look around you. The costs and benefits of having children in affluent America are wildly off kilter. Too much cost, too little reward. Often the cost-benefit analysis of children prints out "Get a German shorthaired pointer instead."
Many people are doing that, and the birth rate is collapsing. But if we stop having enough children, because their value is so low relative to their cost, the society grinds down. It's happening right now. The native-born upper middle class barely replace themselves in America, if they do at all. In a way we are committing suicide as a class, possibly in part because of the burdens of child rearing in modern life.
What is the net present value of a child in modern America? Often, it's difficult to find much, and thereby hangs a question mark over our future as a nation, at least as we have known it.
Ben Stein is an actor, lawyer, writer, and economist who also appears in commercials as a spokesman for various companies.
在现代西方工业社会中，一个孩子的价值是多少 更具体一点说，美国中产阶级，上中层阶级或者下层阶级中一个孩子的价值究竟是多少 这一点是否和数十年来美国妇女生育率持续下降，以及受过教育的妇女生育第一个孩子的年龄要比没有受过同样教育的人高得多的实事相关联
先从经济学的角度说起吧。自由社会的人将会选择更多回报超过成本的东西。反之，自由社会的人同样会不选择那些价值不及价格的商品或服务。
然么，怎样看待孩子呢 显然他们不是商品也不是服务，某些方面的特质是商品不具备的，某些方面还想由不及商品。远古时期，正如我们都知道的，人类要孩子一方面是生理需要，一方面也可以帮他们打猎，采摘和看守炉火。
然后，社会进化得更有组织性，家庭选择要孩子一方面还是生理需要，一方面是因为孩子们可以在农场，牧场或是铁匠铺中充当助手。孩子们的需求不多，不过是吃饱穿暖有地方住，偶尔给与他们一些爱抚，或是办错事时教训一下他们。
现在我们可以控制生育。但是仅凭这一点也许不能完全解释为什么人们不一定需要孩子。
可能一个主要的原因就是现在孩子给父母们带来了很多难题。其中之一就是，由于各种各样的原因是，父母们经常需要累死累活才能给后代提供到私立学校受良好教育的机会。
私立学校上学的孩子的父母也需要为各种各样的课程付费：芭蕾课，马术课，音乐课，数学辅导，还有象棋俱乐部等等。另外家长还要让孩子去接受诸如不施麻醉的结肠镜检查等各种医检。健康的中上层美国孩子的家长还必须面对这样的场面：和孩子同学的家长进行社交往来。
一句话，现代社会抚养孩子就意味着当免费的私人司机，还要受到各种折磨。
然后就是大学了。大学学费会让很多家长大跌眼镜。一所“有名望的”大学每年的学费动则就会到$70，000，这对很多美国人来说是相当可观的一笔数字。
接着到了大学大学毕业那一天，在受了这么多年苦，花了这么多钱后，你会得到什么呢 你儿子可能法学院毕业却找不到工作，女儿电影学院毕业很可能去当了按摩师，或者你可能有个音乐家儿子，整晚敲鼓让你没法睡觉。
你还很可能有一个不知感恩为何物，认为一切理所当然的孩子。这样的例子你一定亲眼看到了不少。笔者本人纯凭运气，有一对孝顺的儿子儿媳。我自己也不清楚怎会有这样的运气。
但是据我所知，我儿子纯属意外偏差。看看你的周围吧。富裕美国家庭抚养孩子的成本和收益大大不平衡。成本太高，收益太小。经常在作完养孩子的成本收益分析后，你会得到这样的结论：“不如去养条德国短毛猎犬吧！”
很多人确实是这样选择的，所以出生率下降了。但是因为养孩子成本收益率太低，就不抚养足够多的孩子，社会也会出现危机。现在已经出现了这种情况：本土出生的美国上中层阶级很少能子承父业了。由于在现代社会抚养孩子的负担太重，在某种程度上说，作为一个阶级我们正在自杀。
现代美国社会中孩子的现在净价值是多少 我们很难得出很高的价值。这也为美国的未来带来了一个问题。
Ben Stein discovers children are expensive
Ben Stein, the economic commentator still most famous for playing a boring high school teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off, is questioning whether people should have children.
In his inaugural column in Fortune, he tries to explain a declining birth rate in the U.S. as an effect of the rising cost of having children. But there's something missing from his quirky analysis.
Stein starts by pointing out how birth control makes it possible to have sex without children, thus letting women work longer before having children. Then Stein moves in for the cost-benefit analysis kill. After bemoaning the costs of raising an upper middle class child -- from horseback riding lessons to private college ($70,000 a year by his estimation) -- he notes that such an expensive upbringing often leads to an ungrateful and unemployed "adult" who lives at home. (He makes it clear, however, that this argument does not apply to him and his wife since they have done such a marvelous job of raising their son.)
I agree with Stein in part -- the cost of raising a child is really high and it's grown. But as an "economist", he leaves out the benefit side from his cost-benefit argument. This might be good politics because it leaves to the reader's imagination how he might put a number on how parents benefit from having children -- and frees him from the resulting criticism.
Instead, he alludes to ways of quantifying the benefits. He suggests that when parents worked on farms, children were valuable to the extent that they saved farmers from hiring laborers. But now there is no way to put a number on the value of children. If the children earn salaries and make profits on their investment decisions, none of that money flows to their parents.
So Stein should never have tried to apply a cost-benefit analysis to children -- or if he does so, he should go out on a limb and try to quantify their benefit.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/09/02/ben-stein-discovers-children-are-expensive/
Stein has some quirks of his own. As Gawker reported, he calls himself an economist even though he has no graduate training in economics -- he has a BA in the subject from Columbia. Perhaps the fact that his father, Herb Stein, was a trained economist has something to do with this exaggeration.
And he was recently fired as a New York Times columnist for appearing as a spokesperson in TV commercials -- such as one from FreeScore which gives consumers their credit score for free but charges them $30 a month for the credit report behind the score. But Stein has landed on his feet at Fortune -- which still shares parent Time Warner (TWX) with Daily Finance.
For the record, I am a big fan of having children and believe that while they are expensive, they're worth every penny even though I cannot find any economic justification for them.
In his inaugural column in Fortune, he tries to explain a declining birth rate in the U.S. as an effect of the rising cost of having children. But there's something missing from his quirky analysis.
Stein starts by pointing out how birth control makes it possible to have sex without children, thus letting women work longer before having children. Then Stein moves in for the cost-benefit analysis kill. After bemoaning the costs of raising an upper middle class child -- from horseback riding lessons to private college ($70,000 a year by his estimation) -- he notes that such an expensive upbringing often leads to an ungrateful and unemployed "adult" who lives at home. (He makes it clear, however, that this argument does not apply to him and his wife since they have done such a marvelous job of raising their son.)
I agree with Stein in part -- the cost of raising a child is really high and it's grown. But as an "economist", he leaves out the benefit side from his cost-benefit argument. This might be good politics because it leaves to the reader's imagination how he might put a number on how parents benefit from having children -- and frees him from the resulting criticism.
Instead, he alludes to ways of quantifying the benefits. He suggests that when parents worked on farms, children were valuable to the extent that they saved farmers from hiring laborers. But now there is no way to put a number on the value of children. If the children earn salaries and make profits on their investment decisions, none of that money flows to their parents.
So Stein should never have tried to apply a cost-benefit analysis to children -- or if he does so, he should go out on a limb and try to quantify their benefit.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/09/02/ben-stein-discovers-children-are-expensive/
Stein has some quirks of his own. As Gawker reported, he calls himself an economist even though he has no graduate training in economics -- he has a BA in the subject from Columbia. Perhaps the fact that his father, Herb Stein, was a trained economist has something to do with this exaggeration.
And he was recently fired as a New York Times columnist for appearing as a spokesperson in TV commercials -- such as one from FreeScore which gives consumers their credit score for free but charges them $30 a month for the credit report behind the score. But Stein has landed on his feet at Fortune -- which still shares parent Time Warner (TWX) with Daily Finance.
For the record, I am a big fan of having children and believe that while they are expensive, they're worth every penny even though I cannot find any economic justification for them.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
华裔女会计师 北美职场发光
华裔女会计师 北美职场发光
http://news.creaders.net/immigration/newsViewer.php?nid=403909&id=926932
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
世界日报 2009-09-19 09:41:52
Angela Chang，这位美国注册会计师，同时也在国际前四大会计师事务所温哥华分部工作超过十年的北京女子，最近出版「CPA女子：北美职场篇」，将进入北美会计行业必备的窍门、会计执照的种类等，一一剖析，引导学子深入了解会计业及北美职场文化。
她表示，会计业已是北美前5%高薪的行业，更是不少学子嚮往的职业。她在书中举例美国教授Robert E. Kelley在1985年所出版的书「金领阶级员工」，以此来比喻「会计执照即是进入金领阶级的护照」。
但是她发现了一个事实，就是每年修读会计的亚洲大学生很多，但是真正成为会计师的却少之又少。Angela指出，据美国2008年会计师的供给需求报告，会计事务所中只有6%的亚洲人。因此，决定着手撰写该书。「写这本书之前，我读了100本的书，将所有会计执照取得的相关知识以及个人经验一併彙整，希望能帮助年轻学子，尤其是华人学子。」Angela说。
书中她一一分析会计师证照种类、证照选择要素、美国与加拿大证照系统的不同，甚至包括会计师晋升诀窍，毫不保留与读者分享。
拥有麦其尔大学金融及商业学士学位，及美国德州大学会计硕士学位的她，在知名会计事务所短短四年内即升上经理开始带人，旗下几乎全是白人员工。
如何做到？她说：「主动很重要。当我还在低阶的时候，我会主动提出要帮老闆安排会议，以及请老闆带我去开会，这样我就可以从旁观察学习。」她表示，自己会静静观察成功的人都在做什麽，后来发现成功的人经常打电话，主动联繫客户。这与习惯在办公室埋头苦干的亚洲人，完全不同。她强调，晋升的关键除了「基本工一定要练好」之外，尚包括重要会议一定要多发言，勇于表达己见。另外应永远与客户保持联繫，建立人脉。
身为女性会计师，她在书中也鼓励女性要及早累积财富，因为「财力、活力与魅力并存」。她认为经济能力不但影响美丽，也与魅力息息相关，更引用台湾作家刘忆如在「女人就是要有钱」中所述：「因为有了足够的经济能力，生命才能够有活力，能够实现自己的梦想。」鼓励女性，善加管理财务。
http://news.creaders.net/immigration/newsViewer.php?nid=403909&id=926932
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
世界日报 2009-09-19 09:41:52
Angela Chang，这位美国注册会计师，同时也在国际前四大会计师事务所温哥华分部工作超过十年的北京女子，最近出版「CPA女子：北美职场篇」，将进入北美会计行业必备的窍门、会计执照的种类等，一一剖析，引导学子深入了解会计业及北美职场文化。
她表示，会计业已是北美前5%高薪的行业，更是不少学子嚮往的职业。她在书中举例美国教授Robert E. Kelley在1985年所出版的书「金领阶级员工」，以此来比喻「会计执照即是进入金领阶级的护照」。
但是她发现了一个事实，就是每年修读会计的亚洲大学生很多，但是真正成为会计师的却少之又少。Angela指出，据美国2008年会计师的供给需求报告，会计事务所中只有6%的亚洲人。因此，决定着手撰写该书。「写这本书之前，我读了100本的书，将所有会计执照取得的相关知识以及个人经验一併彙整，希望能帮助年轻学子，尤其是华人学子。」Angela说。
书中她一一分析会计师证照种类、证照选择要素、美国与加拿大证照系统的不同，甚至包括会计师晋升诀窍，毫不保留与读者分享。
拥有麦其尔大学金融及商业学士学位，及美国德州大学会计硕士学位的她，在知名会计事务所短短四年内即升上经理开始带人，旗下几乎全是白人员工。
如何做到？她说：「主动很重要。当我还在低阶的时候，我会主动提出要帮老闆安排会议，以及请老闆带我去开会，这样我就可以从旁观察学习。」她表示，自己会静静观察成功的人都在做什麽，后来发现成功的人经常打电话，主动联繫客户。这与习惯在办公室埋头苦干的亚洲人，完全不同。她强调，晋升的关键除了「基本工一定要练好」之外，尚包括重要会议一定要多发言，勇于表达己见。另外应永远与客户保持联繫，建立人脉。
身为女性会计师，她在书中也鼓励女性要及早累积财富，因为「财力、活力与魅力并存」。她认为经济能力不但影响美丽，也与魅力息息相关，更引用台湾作家刘忆如在「女人就是要有钱」中所述：「因为有了足够的经济能力，生命才能够有活力，能够实现自己的梦想。」鼓励女性，善加管理财务。
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Fatwallet discussion about : Renting Forever - Never Buying A House
http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/finance/952329/
This is something I have been thinking of for a while and wanted to solidify some thoughts to start a new discussion. The premise of the discussion is renting forever.
Home ownership is something that has been said to me my entire life as a great thing. I grew up when home prices were going up 5% per year and then 10 to 20% per year and then 50% per year during the bubble. People talked about how great investments their homes were, and tax writeoffs and such.
Now that I am an adult and considering the possibility of home ownership, it seems almost ridiculous that anyone would want to own a home. I say this even excluding fluctuations in financial value of the home. Considering financial implications of downside, it makes the thought of homeownership seem ridiculous.
Reasons why I dont want to own a home:
1) Reduce embedded-ness to local municipality. If a new mayor comes in and changes things in a way I dont like, I can just move if I rent. Its much more difficult if you own a home. Traffic light cameras enter the city? Vote with my dollars and LEAVE. Pay the 1 month penalty to break the least and move a few miles to the next city. Write a letter to city hall with copies of my lease-termination letter and explain why I moved and will refuse to use businesses in their "police-state." Raise property taxes to support ridiculous projects or increased salary to councilmen? GOODBYE! By myself I look like a crazy person who will be ignored but imagine if 10 people moved. Or 100? Or 1000? Most people are sheep but I feel renting gives me leverage over the local government.
2) Reduce embedded-ness from state. If a new governor comes in and changes things I can leave. Its harder to find a new job in another state than simply commute a little further from a nearby city, but it's easier to do than selling a house/buying a new house and moving.
3) I dont want to take care of things. Mowing grass, fixing washer/drier, maintaining roof. No thanks. From everything I read, most new homeowners severely underestimate the costs of maintaining a home when running renting versus owning calculators. I have heard maintenance can run about 3% per year of the value of the home. The time-cost of taking care of things is also high. I could be using that time to get a promotion at work or get a second or third girlfriend on the side.
4) Eminent Domain. The chance of it happening is rare, but you dont really "own" the home. The government lets you live there and can take it from you at any time. I am moderately mentally ill and if I owned a home I would likely build an underground nuclear shelter and hide things in the walls and such. That's a lot of trouble to go through for something you cant really guarantee you will get to keep forever.
5) Property Taxes mean you never own the home. If you stop paying the taxes, the city takes the house from you. So really when people say "The house is paid off, I can retire" they mean "I have to pay property taxes forever." Considering taxes are only going up, its not something I want to lock myself into. 10 years into retirement, I dont want to sell my house to get a smaller place with less taxes. I realize taxes are built into rent prices, but with rent, I know I am going to be paying rent forever. With a house, you are still going to be paying forever.
6) Lack of flexibility in new jobs. Get a job offer in another state? Sure no problem, give me 9 months to sell my house and another 6 months to find a new house in the new area! Screw that! Rent and be flexible and able to move to where the money is!
7) You can rent a house if you want to live in a house. You dont only have to rent apartments or condos. All the arguments about it sucks to live in an apartment are negated if you rent a house.
8) Non-leveraged approach to investing. With a house, you have to put 20% down and have 5x leverage. If the house goes down, you are screwed. With an apartment, you can take the money you would have put as a downpayment, and invest it into REITs, Stocks, Bonds, etc in whatever risk-adjusted assset allocation you desire, without having to use leverage. Leverage is a terrible idea to use in investments. If you dont consider the house an investment (which you should NOT) then consider the lost opportunity cost of not being able to invest the downpayment into legitimate investments.
9) No Itemizing. For a lot of people, itemizing doesnt make sense unless you own a house. Thus by owning a house you are forced to itemize and forgo the $5k standard deduction. So if you are writing-off $10k in mortgage interest, you really only saved $5k additional write-offs.
10) You dont get to be an American hero on CNN.
11) Reduced Liability. If the girlscouts come to your door to sell you cookies and fall on your steps then they sue you for medical damages. WTF? I didnt invite you into my house. If you dont clean the ice on the sidewalk in front of your house and someone slips they sue you. REALLY? How do people fall for this nonsense. This is one of my biggest ones. Sure you have homeowners insurance, but this means that you MUST have home owners insurance forever. One might believe that after the mortgage is paid off, you can stop paying insurance and take the risk yourself. The bigger risk is NOT in a fire, but its in the gardener cutting his finger off on his pruning shears and suing you. Not a big deal in a lot of states but in Florida (where I would like to live), homeowners insurance is around 2% to 3% of the value of the home annually.
Biggest problems with not owning a home:
1) Reduced Creditor protection. In Florida, Texas, and a few other states, your home is 100% protected from creditors. Its nice to have $100k in cash in the bank, but I would rather have $90k in equity of my house and $10k in cash to look like a worse target for lawsuit.
The way I plan on mitigating that threat is to save any additional taxable money in tax-deferred annuities after maxing out 401k/IRA. Annuities in Florida are also 100% protected from creditors, and I get the advantage of deferring the federal taxes on earnings. A few companies such as USAA offer very low expense options with little downside for long-term investing. When I am ready to retire, perhaps at age 40 or 50, I can annuitize it and use the payouts for my rent.
2) Not being able to build that underground nuclear shelter I always wanted. I can use the extra savings to buy some land out in the sticks to build a cabin in and store my canned beans and ammo.
******************
rated:
posted: Sep. 13, 2009 @ 3:02p [link to this post]
The premise of the discussion is renting forever.Kind of like the argument about why own a cow if you can get the milk for free?
* reply
* quote
* Avatar
* blok
* Senior Member - 1K
alert mods
rated:
posted: Sep. 13, 2009 @ 3:12p [link to this post]
There is nothing wrong with renting, I own multiple investment properties and rent my personal residents for many of the reasons above. I would agree for the most part that owning a home is a complete waste of money, but when I am older and ready to settle down I will be buying/building my own home, but for now I am very content with renting.
* reply
* quote
* Avatar
* gotsmack
* Member
alert mods
rated:
posted: Sep. 13, 2009 @ 3:40p [link to this post]
TripleB, I agree with you, but there are some situations where it makes sense to buy though.
1. If you find the "Dream" place you deice to live for the rest of your life.
2. You're getting a crazy good deal in an area you're already loking to live.
3. You're just speculating that the prices in town are going to shoot up because something is happening in the area, such as building a new sports stadium or something.
Also I would never buy in an area that is not fairly developed, because why would someone buy from you later when they can just build a new house on a plot of land next door to you?
Here is a video of Peter Schiff discussing why owning during the bubble was a bad idea and noone listened to him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMclXX5msc
its a good video, but if you're short on time start watching from the 10:00 to 14:03
In a different video I can't find, he says that the only time he would buy is if you can use the $8k for new home buyers as a down payment and then walk away if the vlaue of the home falls.
This is something I have been thinking of for a while and wanted to solidify some thoughts to start a new discussion. The premise of the discussion is renting forever.
Home ownership is something that has been said to me my entire life as a great thing. I grew up when home prices were going up 5% per year and then 10 to 20% per year and then 50% per year during the bubble. People talked about how great investments their homes were, and tax writeoffs and such.
Now that I am an adult and considering the possibility of home ownership, it seems almost ridiculous that anyone would want to own a home. I say this even excluding fluctuations in financial value of the home. Considering financial implications of downside, it makes the thought of homeownership seem ridiculous.
Reasons why I dont want to own a home:
1) Reduce embedded-ness to local municipality. If a new mayor comes in and changes things in a way I dont like, I can just move if I rent. Its much more difficult if you own a home. Traffic light cameras enter the city? Vote with my dollars and LEAVE. Pay the 1 month penalty to break the least and move a few miles to the next city. Write a letter to city hall with copies of my lease-termination letter and explain why I moved and will refuse to use businesses in their "police-state." Raise property taxes to support ridiculous projects or increased salary to councilmen? GOODBYE! By myself I look like a crazy person who will be ignored but imagine if 10 people moved. Or 100? Or 1000? Most people are sheep but I feel renting gives me leverage over the local government.
2) Reduce embedded-ness from state. If a new governor comes in and changes things I can leave. Its harder to find a new job in another state than simply commute a little further from a nearby city, but it's easier to do than selling a house/buying a new house and moving.
3) I dont want to take care of things. Mowing grass, fixing washer/drier, maintaining roof. No thanks. From everything I read, most new homeowners severely underestimate the costs of maintaining a home when running renting versus owning calculators. I have heard maintenance can run about 3% per year of the value of the home. The time-cost of taking care of things is also high. I could be using that time to get a promotion at work or get a second or third girlfriend on the side.
4) Eminent Domain. The chance of it happening is rare, but you dont really "own" the home. The government lets you live there and can take it from you at any time. I am moderately mentally ill and if I owned a home I would likely build an underground nuclear shelter and hide things in the walls and such. That's a lot of trouble to go through for something you cant really guarantee you will get to keep forever.
5) Property Taxes mean you never own the home. If you stop paying the taxes, the city takes the house from you. So really when people say "The house is paid off, I can retire" they mean "I have to pay property taxes forever." Considering taxes are only going up, its not something I want to lock myself into. 10 years into retirement, I dont want to sell my house to get a smaller place with less taxes. I realize taxes are built into rent prices, but with rent, I know I am going to be paying rent forever. With a house, you are still going to be paying forever.
6) Lack of flexibility in new jobs. Get a job offer in another state? Sure no problem, give me 9 months to sell my house and another 6 months to find a new house in the new area! Screw that! Rent and be flexible and able to move to where the money is!
7) You can rent a house if you want to live in a house. You dont only have to rent apartments or condos. All the arguments about it sucks to live in an apartment are negated if you rent a house.
8) Non-leveraged approach to investing. With a house, you have to put 20% down and have 5x leverage. If the house goes down, you are screwed. With an apartment, you can take the money you would have put as a downpayment, and invest it into REITs, Stocks, Bonds, etc in whatever risk-adjusted assset allocation you desire, without having to use leverage. Leverage is a terrible idea to use in investments. If you dont consider the house an investment (which you should NOT) then consider the lost opportunity cost of not being able to invest the downpayment into legitimate investments.
9) No Itemizing. For a lot of people, itemizing doesnt make sense unless you own a house. Thus by owning a house you are forced to itemize and forgo the $5k standard deduction. So if you are writing-off $10k in mortgage interest, you really only saved $5k additional write-offs.
10) You dont get to be an American hero on CNN.
11) Reduced Liability. If the girlscouts come to your door to sell you cookies and fall on your steps then they sue you for medical damages. WTF? I didnt invite you into my house. If you dont clean the ice on the sidewalk in front of your house and someone slips they sue you. REALLY? How do people fall for this nonsense. This is one of my biggest ones. Sure you have homeowners insurance, but this means that you MUST have home owners insurance forever. One might believe that after the mortgage is paid off, you can stop paying insurance and take the risk yourself. The bigger risk is NOT in a fire, but its in the gardener cutting his finger off on his pruning shears and suing you. Not a big deal in a lot of states but in Florida (where I would like to live), homeowners insurance is around 2% to 3% of the value of the home annually.
Biggest problems with not owning a home:
1) Reduced Creditor protection. In Florida, Texas, and a few other states, your home is 100% protected from creditors. Its nice to have $100k in cash in the bank, but I would rather have $90k in equity of my house and $10k in cash to look like a worse target for lawsuit.
The way I plan on mitigating that threat is to save any additional taxable money in tax-deferred annuities after maxing out 401k/IRA. Annuities in Florida are also 100% protected from creditors, and I get the advantage of deferring the federal taxes on earnings. A few companies such as USAA offer very low expense options with little downside for long-term investing. When I am ready to retire, perhaps at age 40 or 50, I can annuitize it and use the payouts for my rent.
2) Not being able to build that underground nuclear shelter I always wanted. I can use the extra savings to buy some land out in the sticks to build a cabin in and store my canned beans and ammo.
******************
rated:
posted: Sep. 13, 2009 @ 3:02p [link to this post]
The premise of the discussion is renting forever.Kind of like the argument about why own a cow if you can get the milk for free?
* reply
* quote
* Avatar
* blok
* Senior Member - 1K
alert mods
rated:
posted: Sep. 13, 2009 @ 3:12p [link to this post]
There is nothing wrong with renting, I own multiple investment properties and rent my personal residents for many of the reasons above. I would agree for the most part that owning a home is a complete waste of money, but when I am older and ready to settle down I will be buying/building my own home, but for now I am very content with renting.
* reply
* quote
* Avatar
* gotsmack
* Member
alert mods
rated:
posted: Sep. 13, 2009 @ 3:40p [link to this post]
TripleB, I agree with you, but there are some situations where it makes sense to buy though.
1. If you find the "Dream" place you deice to live for the rest of your life.
2. You're getting a crazy good deal in an area you're already loking to live.
3. You're just speculating that the prices in town are going to shoot up because something is happening in the area, such as building a new sports stadium or something.
Also I would never buy in an area that is not fairly developed, because why would someone buy from you later when they can just build a new house on a plot of land next door to you?
Here is a video of Peter Schiff discussing why owning during the bubble was a bad idea and noone listened to him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMclXX5msc
its a good video, but if you're short on time start watching from the 10:00 to 14:03
In a different video I can't find, he says that the only time he would buy is if you can use the $8k for new home buyers as a down payment and then walk away if the vlaue of the home falls.
Monday, September 14, 2009
zt: paying off your debts
http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/finance/952265/
Our daughter was diagnosed with Autism last year. Since then we have been paying off all our debts to keep off the stress and wants to know if we are doing a right thing. we had investments into real estate, stocks, CDs, ESPP, ESOP, mutual funds etc. Ever since we heard the news, stopped investing further into real estate and stocks but continued the rest as it doesn't need much of our attention on a day-to-day basis. And, we wouldn't be able to take any further surprises atleast for time being.
Coming to loans, we owed 21k on credit cards, 14k on car, and 178k on mortgage. In the past year we were managed to pay off the credit cards, car and 32k on the mortgage (total of ~65k). We lived on rice 'n beans and cut off all the unnecessary expenses to reach the goal. The good thing is, we both enjoyed being living simple and celebrated every time we closed a loan. It also helped us to lose some weight and keeping us healthy 'n in shape.
So why are we doing it, and whats the plan going forward?
TWO main reasons - Peace and Planning for future. We would like to pay off all the debt, and start building wealth for my child that can last even after us. We would like to have a plan/system that supports through her life. I am 32 yrs and my wife(at-home) is 30 with one child(autistic) with an household income ~90k. Our next goal is to pay off around 50k further on the mortgage that brings down the loan to 100k. And, pay the whole mortgage in the following 2 yrs. We aren't open for any risky investments at this point and at the same time doesn't want to leave money in Savings/CD that yields 1-3% interest, rather payoff mortgage loan with 6% rate.
Please advice/suggest if we are doing a right thing, and let me know if you need further info.
I do see topics on paying off mortgage/debt etc, but its more on investment perspective and the family situations doesnt match with ours. Apologize if this is not the right forum to ask such questions, and appreciate if you could direct me to the right one.
********
Awesome progress so far. Just keep doing what you are doing... paying off your debts is a guaranteed return with no market risk.
Our daughter was diagnosed with Autism last year. Since then we have been paying off all our debts to keep off the stress and wants to know if we are doing a right thing. we had investments into real estate, stocks, CDs, ESPP, ESOP, mutual funds etc. Ever since we heard the news, stopped investing further into real estate and stocks but continued the rest as it doesn't need much of our attention on a day-to-day basis. And, we wouldn't be able to take any further surprises atleast for time being.
Coming to loans, we owed 21k on credit cards, 14k on car, and 178k on mortgage. In the past year we were managed to pay off the credit cards, car and 32k on the mortgage (total of ~65k). We lived on rice 'n beans and cut off all the unnecessary expenses to reach the goal. The good thing is, we both enjoyed being living simple and celebrated every time we closed a loan. It also helped us to lose some weight and keeping us healthy 'n in shape.
So why are we doing it, and whats the plan going forward?
TWO main reasons - Peace and Planning for future. We would like to pay off all the debt, and start building wealth for my child that can last even after us. We would like to have a plan/system that supports through her life. I am 32 yrs and my wife(at-home) is 30 with one child(autistic) with an household income ~90k. Our next goal is to pay off around 50k further on the mortgage that brings down the loan to 100k. And, pay the whole mortgage in the following 2 yrs. We aren't open for any risky investments at this point and at the same time doesn't want to leave money in Savings/CD that yields 1-3% interest, rather payoff mortgage loan with 6% rate.
Please advice/suggest if we are doing a right thing, and let me know if you need further info.
I do see topics on paying off mortgage/debt etc, but its more on investment perspective and the family situations doesnt match with ours. Apologize if this is not the right forum to ask such questions, and appreciate if you could direct me to the right one.
********
Awesome progress so far. Just keep doing what you are doing... paying off your debts is a guaranteed return with no market risk.
Friday, September 11, 2009
09年朱棣文哈佛毕业演讲 Steven Chu Harvard Commencement Address
Steven Chu Harvard Commencement Address
http://www.yeeyan.com/articles/view/adong/47533
声明：本文是在阮一峰的翻译基础上修改的。阮一峰的原作在这里。
http://www.ruanyifeng.com/blog/2009/0/remarks_of_stenven_chu_in_harvard_commencement_2009.html
他的翻译虽好，但是并没有把前半部分朱棣文搞笑的地方翻译出来。所以在这里重译。后半部分不再重译了。
我不清楚我自己能不能当得起哈佛大学毕业典礼演讲人的高标准。去年在此演讲的是亿万富翁小说家J.K.罗琳。她最早是读古典文学的。前年站在这里的是超亿万富翁慈善家比尔·盖茨。他是个电脑呆子。今年糟糕了，就剩下我了。我没钱，不过我起码还是个书呆子。
我感谢哈佛大学授予我荣誉学位，这项荣誉对我来说比你们想到的还要重要。你看，学术上我是我们家的异类。我的哥哥在麻省理工和哈佛拿了医学和哲学双料博士；我的弟弟在哈佛拿了法律学位。我本人得到诺贝尔奖的时候，我想我的妈妈会高兴。但并非如此。消息公布的那天早上，我给她打电话，她听了只说：“不错，不过你下次什么时候来看我啊？” 现在我在兄弟之中最后一个拿到了哈佛学位，也许这一次她可以满意了吧。
在哈佛大学毕业典礼上发表演说，还有一个难处，那就是你们中有些人可能对我从前人的演讲借用一部分有所不满。我请你们谅解我。这是因为我有两个理由。
首先，为了产生影响力，重复传递同样的信息很重要。在科学中，第一个发现者是重要的，但是成为公众所知的那最后一个做出这个发现的人也许更重要。
其次，一个借鉴他人的作者，跟随的是最优秀的前人的脚步。Ralph Waldo Emerson（爱默生，诗人）18岁就从哈佛毕业。他曾经写到：“我所有最棒的想法都被古人剽窃了。” 毕加索说，“好的艺术家借鉴，伟大的艺术家偷窃。”那为什么毕业典礼的演说者就需要更高的标准呢？
我向哈佛毕业生发表演说，这实在非常吊诡，因为如果当年要是我有胆子申请，哈佛一定会拒我。我的妻子是“Jean主任”。她曾经在斯坦福大学担任招生主任，她向我保证，如果有机会的话，她一定会拒绝我。当我把这篇演讲的草稿给她过目，她强烈反对我使用“拒绝”这个词.她从来不拒绝任何申请者。在拒绝信中她总是写：“我们无法提供你入学机会。”我实在搞不懂这两者的区别何在。毕竟，那些牛校的“招生主任”事实上就是“拒绝主任”。显然，我真需要好好学学市场营销。
不请自来的忠告
我的演讲将遵循毕业典礼演讲的经典结构。刚才是第一乐章——轻快的闲谈。接下来的第二乐章包括的是不请自来的忠告。这样的忠告不常被人珍视，很少有人铭记，更绝对不会被付诸实践。就像王尔德说的：“对于良好建议，唯一能做之事，就是把它送给别人，因为它对一个人自己来说没有任何用处。” 那么，忠告来了。第一，每当你取得成就的时候，不要忘记帮助过你的人。要感谢支持你的父母和朋友，要感谢那些启发过你的教授，而且尤其要感谢教的不怎么样的教授。有了他们，你就不得不自学。从长远看，自学能力是优秀的全面教育中必不可少的，这将成为你成功的关键。你应当去拥抱你的同学，感谢他们同你进行过的许多次彻夜长谈，这为你的教育带来了无法衡量的价值。当然，你还要感谢哈佛大学，如果你忘了，还有个负责提醒你的校友会。第二，在你们未来的人生中，培养一种慷慨大方的精神。在任何谈判中，都不要为了最后微小的一丁点利益讨价还价。不要把桌上的钱都拿走。在合作中，永远记住荣誉不是一个守恒的量。在一次成功合作中，任何一方都应获得全部荣誉的九成。
电影《Harvey》中，Jimmy Stewart扮演的角色Elwood P. Dowd，就完全理解这一点。他说：“多年前，母亲曾经对我说，‘Elwood，在这个世界上，你要么就做一个杠杠的聪明人，要么就做一个杠杠的好人。'” 这个嘛，我这些年都属于聪明人……我推荐做好人。你们可以告诉别人这是我说的。
我的第三个忠告是，当你马上开始生活的这个新阶段时，请跟随你的激情前进。如果你对任何东西都没有激情，就去寻找，找到之前誓不罢休。生命太短暂了，不能漠不关心的度过，你必须对某样东西倾注你的深情。我在你们这个年龄，是超级的一根筋，我的目标就是非成为物理学家不可。本科毕业后，我在加州大学伯克利分校又待了8年，读完了研究生，做完了博士后，然后去贝尔实验室待了9年。在这些年中，我关注的中心和职业上的全部乐趣，都来自物理学。
我还有最后一个忠告，就是说兴趣爱好固然重要，但是不应该是你的唯一目标。当你白发苍苍、垂垂老矣、回首人生时，你需要为自己做过的事感到自豪。你买到的物质享受，获得的荣誉，这些都不是自豪感的来源。自豪感只能来自那些你触摸过的生命，以及你在他们身上造成的改变。
在贝尔实验室待了9年后，我决定离开这个温暖舒适的象牙塔，走进我眼中的“真实世界”——大学。我对贝尔实验室的看法，可以引用描述Mary Poppins的话，“基本上在任何方面都十全十美”。但是，除了科学论文，我还想做出更多的贡献。我要去教书，培育我自己在科学上的后代。
我在斯坦福大学有一个好友兼杰出同事Ted Geballe。他也是从伯克利分校去了贝尔实验室，几年前又离开贝尔实验室去了斯坦福大学。他对我们的动机做出了最佳描述：
“在大学工作，最棒的部分就是学生。他们入校时生机勃勃，充满热情，思想开放，还没在生活的战斗中变得伤痕累累。虽然他们自己没有意识到，但是他们接受的是社会所能提供的最精华的教育。如果生命中还有一段时间是思想自由和充满创造力的话，那就是在大学里那段时光。入校时，学生们对课本上的一字一句毫不怀疑，渐渐地，他们发现课本和教授并不是无所不知的，于是他们开始独立思考。从那时起，就轮到我向他们学习了。”
我在贝尔实验室，斯坦福，伯克利教过的学生和博士后以及合作过的年轻同事，他们都非常优秀。他们中有30多人现在已经是教授了。许多人在全世界第一流的研究机构工作，也包括哈佛大学。我从他们身上学到了很多东西。即使现在，在少有的周末空暇时，我们剩下的生物物理研究组的成员还会和我在虚拟空间的以太世界里面相聚。
Madam President Faust, members of the Harvard Corporation and the Board of Overseers, faculty, family, friends, and, most importantly, today’s graduates,
Thank you for letting me share this wonderful day with you.
I am not sure I can live up to the high standards of Harvard Commencement speakers. Last year, J.K. Rowling, the billionaire novelist, who started as a classics student, graced this podium. The year before, Bill Gates, the mega-billionaire philanthropist and computer nerd stood here. Today, sadly, you have me. I am not wealthy, but at least I am a nerd.
I am grateful to receive an honorary degree from Harvard, an honor that means more to me than you might care to imagine. You see, I was the academic black sheep of my family. My older brother has an M.D./Ph.D. from MIT and Harvard while my younger brother has a law degree from Harvard. When I was awarded a Nobel Prize, I thought my mother would be pleased. Not so. When I called her on the morning of the announcement, she replied, “That’s nice, but when are you going to visit me next.” Now, as the last brother with a degree from Harvard, maybe, at last, she will be satisfied.
Another difficulty with giving a Harvard commencement address is that some of you may disapprove of the fact that I have borrowed material from previous speeches. I ask that you forgive me for two reasons.
First, in order to have impact,it is important to deliver the same message more than once. In science, it is important to be the first person to make a discovery, but it is even more important to be the last person to make that discovery.
Second, authors who borrow from others are following in the footsteps of the best. Ralph Waldo Emerson, who graduated from Harvard at the age of 18, noted “All my best thoughts were stolen by the ancients.” Picasso declared “Good artists borrow. Great artists steal.” Why should commencement speakers be held to a higher standard?
I also want to point out the irony of speaking to graduates of an institution that would have rejected me, had I the chutzpah to apply. I am married to “Dean Jean,” the former dean of admissions at Stanford. She assures me that she would have rejected me, if given the chance. When I showed her a draft of this speech, she objected strongly to my use of the word “rejected.” She never rejected applicants; her letters stated that “we are unable to offer you admission.” I have difficulty understanding the difference. After all, deans of admissions of highly selective schools are in reality, “deans of rejection.” Clearly, I have a lot to learn about marketing.
My address will follow the classical sonata form of commencement addresses. The first movement, just presented, were light-hearted remarks. This next movement consists of unsolicited advice, which is rarely valued, seldom remembered, never followed. As Oscar Wilde said, “The only thing to do with good advice is to pass it on. It is never of any use to oneself.” So, here comes the advice. First, every time you celebrate an achievement, be thankful to those who made it possible. Thank your parents and friends who supported you, thank your professors who were inspirational, and especially thank the other professors whose less-than-brilliant lectures forced you to teach yourself. Going forward, the ability to teach yourself is the hallmark of a great liberal arts education and will be the key to your success. To your fellow students who have added immeasurably to your education during those late night discussions, hug them. Also, of course, thank Harvard. Should you forget, there’s an alumni association to remind you. Second, in your future life, cultivate a generous spirit. In all negotiations, don’t bargain for the last, little advantage. Leave the change on the table. In your collaborations, always remember that “credit” is not a conserved quantity. In a successful collaboration, everybody gets 90 percent of the credit.
Jimmy Stewart, as Elwood P. Dowd in the movie “Harvey” got it exactly right. He said: “Years ago my mother used to say to me, ‘In this world, Elwood, you must be … she always used to call me Elwood … in this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant.’” Well, for years I was smart. ... I recommend pleasant. You may quote me on that.
My third piece of advice is as follows: As you begin this new stage of your lives, follow your passion. If you don’t have a passion, don’t be satisfied until you find one. Life is too short to go through it without caring deeply about something. When I was your age, I was incredibly single-minded in my goal to be a physicist. After college, I spent eight years as a graduate student and postdoc at Berkeley, and then nine years at Bell Labs. During that my time, my central focus and professional joy was physics.
Here is my final piece of advice. Pursuing a personal passion is important, but it should not be your only goal. When you are old and gray, and look back on your life, you will want to be proud of what you have done. The source of that pride won’t be the things you have acquired or the recognition you have received. It will be the lives you have touched and the difference you have made.
After nine years at Bell labs, I decided to leave that warm, cozy ivory tower for what I considered to be the “real world,” a university. Bell Labs, to quote what was said about Mary Poppins, was “practically perfect in every way,” but I wanted to leave behind something more than scientific articles. I wanted to teach and give birth to my own set of scientific children.
Ted Geballe, a friend and distinguished colleague of mine at Stanford, who also went from Berkeley to Bell Labs to Stanford years earlier, described our motives best:
“The best part of working at a university is the students. They come in fresh, enthusiastic, open to ideas, unscarred by the battles of life. They don't realize it, but they're the recipients of the best our society can offer. If a mind is ever free to be creative, that's the time. They come in believing textbooks are authoritative, but eventually they figure out that textbooks and professors don't know everything, and then they start to think on their own. Then, I begin learning from them.”
My students, post doctoral fellows, and the young researchers who worked with me at Bell Labs, Stanford, and Berkeley have been extraordinary. Over 30 former group members are now professors, many at the best research institutions in the world, including Harvard. I have learned much from them. Even now, in rare moments on weekends, the remaining members of my biophysics group meet with me in the ether world of cyberspace.
I began teaching with the idea of giving back; I received more than I gave. This brings me to the final movement of this speech. It begins with a story about an extraordinary scientific discovery and a new dilemma that it poses. It’s a call to arms and about making a difference.
In the last several decades, our climate has been changing. Climate change is not new: the Earth went through six ice ages in the past 600,000 years. However, recent measurements show that the climate has begun to change rapidly. The size of the North Polar Ice Cap in the month of September is only half the size it was a mere 50 years ago. The sea level which been rising since direct measurements began in 1870 at a rate that is now five times faster than it was at the beginning of recorded measurements. Here’s the remarkable scientific discovery. For the first time in human history, science is now making predictions of how our actions will affect the world 50 and 100 years from now. These changes are due to an increase in carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The Earth has warmed up by roughly 0.8 degrees Celsius since the beginning of the Revolution. There is already approximately a 1 degree rise built into the system, even if we stop all greenhouse gas emissions today. Why? It will take decades to warm up the deep oceans before the temperature reaches a new equilibrium.
If the world continues on a business-as-usual path, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that there is a fifty-fifty chance the temperature will exceed 5 degrees by the end of this century. This increase may not sound like much, but let me remind you that during the last ice age, the world was only 6 degrees colder. During this time, most of Canada and the United States down to Ohio and Pennsylvania were covered year round by a glacier. A world 5 degrees warmer will be very different. The change will be so rapid that many species, including Humans, will have a hard time adapting. I’ve been told for example, that, in a much warmer world, insects were bigger. I wonder if this thing buzzing around is a precursor.
We also face the specter of nonlinear “tipping points” that may cause much more severe changes. An example of a tipping point is the thawing of the permafrost. The permafrost contains immense amounts of frozen organic matter that have been accumulating for millennia. If the soil melts, microbes will spring to life and cause this debris to rot. The difference in biological activity below freezing and above freezing is something we are all familiar with. Frozen food remains edible for a very long time in the freezer, but once thawed, it spoils quickly. How much methane and carbon dioxide might be released from the rotting permafrost? If even a fraction of the carbon is released, it could be greater than all the greenhouse gases we have released to since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Once started, a runaway effect could occur.
The climate problem is the unintended consequence of our success. We depend on fossil energy to keep our homes warm in the winter, cool in the summer, and lit at night; we use it to travel across town and across continents. Energy is a fundamental reason for the prosperity we enjoy, and we will not surrender this prosperity. The United States has 3 percent of the world population, and yet, we consume 25 percent of the energy. By contrast, there are 1.6 billion people who don’t have access to electricity. Hundreds of millions of people still cook with twigs or dung. The life we enjoy may not be within the reach of the developing world, but it is within sight, and they want what we have.
Here is the dilemma. How much are we willing to invest, as a world society, to mitigate the consequences of climate change that will not be realized for at least 100 years? Deeply rooted in all cultures, is the notion of generational responsibility. Parents work hard so that their children will have a better life. Climate change will affect the entire world, but our natural focus is on the welfare of our immediate families. Can we, as a world society, meet our responsibility to future generations?
While I am worried, I am hopeful we will solve this problem. I became the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, in part because I wanted to enlist some of the best scientific minds to help battle against climate change. I was there only four and a half years, the shortest serving director in the 78-year history of the Lab, but when I left, a number of very exciting energy institutes at the Berkeley Lab and UC Berkeley had been established.
I am extremely privileged to be part of the Obama administration. If there ever was a time to help steer America and the world towards a path of sustainable energy, now is the time. The message the President is delivering is not one of doom and gloom, but of optimism and opportunity. I share this optimism. The task ahead is daunting, but we can and will succeed.
We know some of the answers already. There are immediate and significant savings in energy efficiency and conservation. Energy efficiency is not just low-hanging fruit; it is fruit lying on the ground. For example, we have the potential to make buildings 80 percent more efficient with investments that will pay for themselves in less than 15 years. Buildings consume 40 percent of the energy we use, and a transition to energy efficient buildings will cut our carbon emissions by one-third.
We are revving up the remarkable American innovation machine that will be the basis of a new American prosperity. We will invent much improved methods to harness the sun, the wind, nuclear power, and capture and sequester the carbon dioxide emitted from our power plants. Advanced bio-fuels and the electrification of personal vehicles make us less dependent on foreign oil.
In the coming decades, we will almost certainly face higher oil prices and be in a carbon-constrained economy. We have the opportunity to lead in development of a new, industrial revolution. The great hockey player, Wayne Gretzky, when asked, how he positions himself on the ice, he replied,“ I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it’s been.” America should do the same.
The Obama administration is laying a new foundation for a prosperous and sustainable energy future, but we don’t have all of the answers. That’s where you come in. In this address, I am asking you, the Harvard graduates, to join us. As our future intellectual leaders, take the time to learn more about what’s at stake, and then act on that knowledge. As future scientists and engineers, I ask you to give us better technology solutions. As future economists and political scientists, I ask you to create better policy options. As future business leaders, I ask that you make sustainability an integral part of your business.
奥Finally, as humanists, I ask that you speak to our common humanity. One of the cruelest ironies about climate change is that the ones who will be hurt the most are the most innocent: the worlds poorest and those yet to be born.
The coda to this last movement is borrowed from two humanists.
The first quote is from Martin Luther King. He spoke on ending the war in Vietnam in 1967, but his message seems so fitting for today’s climate crisis:
“This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This oft misunderstood, this oft misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man … We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late.”
The final message is from William Faulkner. On December 10th, 1950, his Nobel Prize banquet speech was about the role of humanists in a world facing potential nuclear holocaust.
“I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. The poet's, the writer's, duty is to write about these things. It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past.”
Graduates, you have an extraordinary role to play in our future. As you pursue your private passions, I hope you will also develop a passion and a voice to help the world in ways both large and small. Nothing will give you greater satisfaction.
Please accept my warmest congratulations. May you prosper, may you help preserve and save our planet for your children, and all future children of the world.
http://www.yeeyan.com/articles/view/adong/47533
声明：本文是在阮一峰的翻译基础上修改的。阮一峰的原作在这里。
http://www.ruanyifeng.com/blog/2009/0/remarks_of_stenven_chu_in_harvard_commencement_2009.html
他的翻译虽好，但是并没有把前半部分朱棣文搞笑的地方翻译出来。所以在这里重译。后半部分不再重译了。
我不清楚我自己能不能当得起哈佛大学毕业典礼演讲人的高标准。去年在此演讲的是亿万富翁小说家J.K.罗琳。她最早是读古典文学的。前年站在这里的是超亿万富翁慈善家比尔·盖茨。他是个电脑呆子。今年糟糕了，就剩下我了。我没钱，不过我起码还是个书呆子。
我感谢哈佛大学授予我荣誉学位，这项荣誉对我来说比你们想到的还要重要。你看，学术上我是我们家的异类。我的哥哥在麻省理工和哈佛拿了医学和哲学双料博士；我的弟弟在哈佛拿了法律学位。我本人得到诺贝尔奖的时候，我想我的妈妈会高兴。但并非如此。消息公布的那天早上，我给她打电话，她听了只说：“不错，不过你下次什么时候来看我啊？” 现在我在兄弟之中最后一个拿到了哈佛学位，也许这一次她可以满意了吧。
在哈佛大学毕业典礼上发表演说，还有一个难处，那就是你们中有些人可能对我从前人的演讲借用一部分有所不满。我请你们谅解我。这是因为我有两个理由。
首先，为了产生影响力，重复传递同样的信息很重要。在科学中，第一个发现者是重要的，但是成为公众所知的那最后一个做出这个发现的人也许更重要。
其次，一个借鉴他人的作者，跟随的是最优秀的前人的脚步。Ralph Waldo Emerson（爱默生，诗人）18岁就从哈佛毕业。他曾经写到：“我所有最棒的想法都被古人剽窃了。” 毕加索说，“好的艺术家借鉴，伟大的艺术家偷窃。”那为什么毕业典礼的演说者就需要更高的标准呢？
我向哈佛毕业生发表演说，这实在非常吊诡，因为如果当年要是我有胆子申请，哈佛一定会拒我。我的妻子是“Jean主任”。她曾经在斯坦福大学担任招生主任，她向我保证，如果有机会的话，她一定会拒绝我。当我把这篇演讲的草稿给她过目，她强烈反对我使用“拒绝”这个词.她从来不拒绝任何申请者。在拒绝信中她总是写：“我们无法提供你入学机会。”我实在搞不懂这两者的区别何在。毕竟，那些牛校的“招生主任”事实上就是“拒绝主任”。显然，我真需要好好学学市场营销。
不请自来的忠告
我的演讲将遵循毕业典礼演讲的经典结构。刚才是第一乐章——轻快的闲谈。接下来的第二乐章包括的是不请自来的忠告。这样的忠告不常被人珍视，很少有人铭记，更绝对不会被付诸实践。就像王尔德说的：“对于良好建议，唯一能做之事，就是把它送给别人，因为它对一个人自己来说没有任何用处。” 那么，忠告来了。第一，每当你取得成就的时候，不要忘记帮助过你的人。要感谢支持你的父母和朋友，要感谢那些启发过你的教授，而且尤其要感谢教的不怎么样的教授。有了他们，你就不得不自学。从长远看，自学能力是优秀的全面教育中必不可少的，这将成为你成功的关键。你应当去拥抱你的同学，感谢他们同你进行过的许多次彻夜长谈，这为你的教育带来了无法衡量的价值。当然，你还要感谢哈佛大学，如果你忘了，还有个负责提醒你的校友会。第二，在你们未来的人生中，培养一种慷慨大方的精神。在任何谈判中，都不要为了最后微小的一丁点利益讨价还价。不要把桌上的钱都拿走。在合作中，永远记住荣誉不是一个守恒的量。在一次成功合作中，任何一方都应获得全部荣誉的九成。
电影《Harvey》中，Jimmy Stewart扮演的角色Elwood P. Dowd，就完全理解这一点。他说：“多年前，母亲曾经对我说，‘Elwood，在这个世界上，你要么就做一个杠杠的聪明人，要么就做一个杠杠的好人。'” 这个嘛，我这些年都属于聪明人……我推荐做好人。你们可以告诉别人这是我说的。
我的第三个忠告是，当你马上开始生活的这个新阶段时，请跟随你的激情前进。如果你对任何东西都没有激情，就去寻找，找到之前誓不罢休。生命太短暂了，不能漠不关心的度过，你必须对某样东西倾注你的深情。我在你们这个年龄，是超级的一根筋，我的目标就是非成为物理学家不可。本科毕业后，我在加州大学伯克利分校又待了8年，读完了研究生，做完了博士后，然后去贝尔实验室待了9年。在这些年中，我关注的中心和职业上的全部乐趣，都来自物理学。
我还有最后一个忠告，就是说兴趣爱好固然重要，但是不应该是你的唯一目标。当你白发苍苍、垂垂老矣、回首人生时，你需要为自己做过的事感到自豪。你买到的物质享受，获得的荣誉，这些都不是自豪感的来源。自豪感只能来自那些你触摸过的生命，以及你在他们身上造成的改变。
在贝尔实验室待了9年后，我决定离开这个温暖舒适的象牙塔，走进我眼中的“真实世界”——大学。我对贝尔实验室的看法，可以引用描述Mary Poppins的话，“基本上在任何方面都十全十美”。但是，除了科学论文，我还想做出更多的贡献。我要去教书，培育我自己在科学上的后代。
我在斯坦福大学有一个好友兼杰出同事Ted Geballe。他也是从伯克利分校去了贝尔实验室，几年前又离开贝尔实验室去了斯坦福大学。他对我们的动机做出了最佳描述：
“在大学工作，最棒的部分就是学生。他们入校时生机勃勃，充满热情，思想开放，还没在生活的战斗中变得伤痕累累。虽然他们自己没有意识到，但是他们接受的是社会所能提供的最精华的教育。如果生命中还有一段时间是思想自由和充满创造力的话，那就是在大学里那段时光。入校时，学生们对课本上的一字一句毫不怀疑，渐渐地，他们发现课本和教授并不是无所不知的，于是他们开始独立思考。从那时起，就轮到我向他们学习了。”
我在贝尔实验室，斯坦福，伯克利教过的学生和博士后以及合作过的年轻同事，他们都非常优秀。他们中有30多人现在已经是教授了。许多人在全世界第一流的研究机构工作，也包括哈佛大学。我从他们身上学到了很多东西。即使现在，在少有的周末空暇时，我们剩下的生物物理研究组的成员还会和我在虚拟空间的以太世界里面相聚。
Madam President Faust, members of the Harvard Corporation and the Board of Overseers, faculty, family, friends, and, most importantly, today’s graduates,
Thank you for letting me share this wonderful day with you.
I am not sure I can live up to the high standards of Harvard Commencement speakers. Last year, J.K. Rowling, the billionaire novelist, who started as a classics student, graced this podium. The year before, Bill Gates, the mega-billionaire philanthropist and computer nerd stood here. Today, sadly, you have me. I am not wealthy, but at least I am a nerd.
I am grateful to receive an honorary degree from Harvard, an honor that means more to me than you might care to imagine. You see, I was the academic black sheep of my family. My older brother has an M.D./Ph.D. from MIT and Harvard while my younger brother has a law degree from Harvard. When I was awarded a Nobel Prize, I thought my mother would be pleased. Not so. When I called her on the morning of the announcement, she replied, “That’s nice, but when are you going to visit me next.” Now, as the last brother with a degree from Harvard, maybe, at last, she will be satisfied.
Another difficulty with giving a Harvard commencement address is that some of you may disapprove of the fact that I have borrowed material from previous speeches. I ask that you forgive me for two reasons.
First, in order to have impact,it is important to deliver the same message more than once. In science, it is important to be the first person to make a discovery, but it is even more important to be the last person to make that discovery.
Second, authors who borrow from others are following in the footsteps of the best. Ralph Waldo Emerson, who graduated from Harvard at the age of 18, noted “All my best thoughts were stolen by the ancients.” Picasso declared “Good artists borrow. Great artists steal.” Why should commencement speakers be held to a higher standard?
I also want to point out the irony of speaking to graduates of an institution that would have rejected me, had I the chutzpah to apply. I am married to “Dean Jean,” the former dean of admissions at Stanford. She assures me that she would have rejected me, if given the chance. When I showed her a draft of this speech, she objected strongly to my use of the word “rejected.” She never rejected applicants; her letters stated that “we are unable to offer you admission.” I have difficulty understanding the difference. After all, deans of admissions of highly selective schools are in reality, “deans of rejection.” Clearly, I have a lot to learn about marketing.
My address will follow the classical sonata form of commencement addresses. The first movement, just presented, were light-hearted remarks. This next movement consists of unsolicited advice, which is rarely valued, seldom remembered, never followed. As Oscar Wilde said, “The only thing to do with good advice is to pass it on. It is never of any use to oneself.” So, here comes the advice. First, every time you celebrate an achievement, be thankful to those who made it possible. Thank your parents and friends who supported you, thank your professors who were inspirational, and especially thank the other professors whose less-than-brilliant lectures forced you to teach yourself. Going forward, the ability to teach yourself is the hallmark of a great liberal arts education and will be the key to your success. To your fellow students who have added immeasurably to your education during those late night discussions, hug them. Also, of course, thank Harvard. Should you forget, there’s an alumni association to remind you. Second, in your future life, cultivate a generous spirit. In all negotiations, don’t bargain for the last, little advantage. Leave the change on the table. In your collaborations, always remember that “credit” is not a conserved quantity. In a successful collaboration, everybody gets 90 percent of the credit.
Jimmy Stewart, as Elwood P. Dowd in the movie “Harvey” got it exactly right. He said: “Years ago my mother used to say to me, ‘In this world, Elwood, you must be … she always used to call me Elwood … in this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant.’” Well, for years I was smart. ... I recommend pleasant. You may quote me on that.
My third piece of advice is as follows: As you begin this new stage of your lives, follow your passion. If you don’t have a passion, don’t be satisfied until you find one. Life is too short to go through it without caring deeply about something. When I was your age, I was incredibly single-minded in my goal to be a physicist. After college, I spent eight years as a graduate student and postdoc at Berkeley, and then nine years at Bell Labs. During that my time, my central focus and professional joy was physics.
Here is my final piece of advice. Pursuing a personal passion is important, but it should not be your only goal. When you are old and gray, and look back on your life, you will want to be proud of what you have done. The source of that pride won’t be the things you have acquired or the recognition you have received. It will be the lives you have touched and the difference you have made.
After nine years at Bell labs, I decided to leave that warm, cozy ivory tower for what I considered to be the “real world,” a university. Bell Labs, to quote what was said about Mary Poppins, was “practically perfect in every way,” but I wanted to leave behind something more than scientific articles. I wanted to teach and give birth to my own set of scientific children.
Ted Geballe, a friend and distinguished colleague of mine at Stanford, who also went from Berkeley to Bell Labs to Stanford years earlier, described our motives best:
“The best part of working at a university is the students. They come in fresh, enthusiastic, open to ideas, unscarred by the battles of life. They don't realize it, but they're the recipients of the best our society can offer. If a mind is ever free to be creative, that's the time. They come in believing textbooks are authoritative, but eventually they figure out that textbooks and professors don't know everything, and then they start to think on their own. Then, I begin learning from them.”
My students, post doctoral fellows, and the young researchers who worked with me at Bell Labs, Stanford, and Berkeley have been extraordinary. Over 30 former group members are now professors, many at the best research institutions in the world, including Harvard. I have learned much from them. Even now, in rare moments on weekends, the remaining members of my biophysics group meet with me in the ether world of cyberspace.
I began teaching with the idea of giving back; I received more than I gave. This brings me to the final movement of this speech. It begins with a story about an extraordinary scientific discovery and a new dilemma that it poses. It’s a call to arms and about making a difference.
In the last several decades, our climate has been changing. Climate change is not new: the Earth went through six ice ages in the past 600,000 years. However, recent measurements show that the climate has begun to change rapidly. The size of the North Polar Ice Cap in the month of September is only half the size it was a mere 50 years ago. The sea level which been rising since direct measurements began in 1870 at a rate that is now five times faster than it was at the beginning of recorded measurements. Here’s the remarkable scientific discovery. For the first time in human history, science is now making predictions of how our actions will affect the world 50 and 100 years from now. These changes are due to an increase in carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The Earth has warmed up by roughly 0.8 degrees Celsius since the beginning of the Revolution. There is already approximately a 1 degree rise built into the system, even if we stop all greenhouse gas emissions today. Why? It will take decades to warm up the deep oceans before the temperature reaches a new equilibrium.
If the world continues on a business-as-usual path, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that there is a fifty-fifty chance the temperature will exceed 5 degrees by the end of this century. This increase may not sound like much, but let me remind you that during the last ice age, the world was only 6 degrees colder. During this time, most of Canada and the United States down to Ohio and Pennsylvania were covered year round by a glacier. A world 5 degrees warmer will be very different. The change will be so rapid that many species, including Humans, will have a hard time adapting. I’ve been told for example, that, in a much warmer world, insects were bigger. I wonder if this thing buzzing around is a precursor.
We also face the specter of nonlinear “tipping points” that may cause much more severe changes. An example of a tipping point is the thawing of the permafrost. The permafrost contains immense amounts of frozen organic matter that have been accumulating for millennia. If the soil melts, microbes will spring to life and cause this debris to rot. The difference in biological activity below freezing and above freezing is something we are all familiar with. Frozen food remains edible for a very long time in the freezer, but once thawed, it spoils quickly. How much methane and carbon dioxide might be released from the rotting permafrost? If even a fraction of the carbon is released, it could be greater than all the greenhouse gases we have released to since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Once started, a runaway effect could occur.
The climate problem is the unintended consequence of our success. We depend on fossil energy to keep our homes warm in the winter, cool in the summer, and lit at night; we use it to travel across town and across continents. Energy is a fundamental reason for the prosperity we enjoy, and we will not surrender this prosperity. The United States has 3 percent of the world population, and yet, we consume 25 percent of the energy. By contrast, there are 1.6 billion people who don’t have access to electricity. Hundreds of millions of people still cook with twigs or dung. The life we enjoy may not be within the reach of the developing world, but it is within sight, and they want what we have.
Here is the dilemma. How much are we willing to invest, as a world society, to mitigate the consequences of climate change that will not be realized for at least 100 years? Deeply rooted in all cultures, is the notion of generational responsibility. Parents work hard so that their children will have a better life. Climate change will affect the entire world, but our natural focus is on the welfare of our immediate families. Can we, as a world society, meet our responsibility to future generations?
While I am worried, I am hopeful we will solve this problem. I became the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, in part because I wanted to enlist some of the best scientific minds to help battle against climate change. I was there only four and a half years, the shortest serving director in the 78-year history of the Lab, but when I left, a number of very exciting energy institutes at the Berkeley Lab and UC Berkeley had been established.
I am extremely privileged to be part of the Obama administration. If there ever was a time to help steer America and the world towards a path of sustainable energy, now is the time. The message the President is delivering is not one of doom and gloom, but of optimism and opportunity. I share this optimism. The task ahead is daunting, but we can and will succeed.
We know some of the answers already. There are immediate and significant savings in energy efficiency and conservation. Energy efficiency is not just low-hanging fruit; it is fruit lying on the ground. For example, we have the potential to make buildings 80 percent more efficient with investments that will pay for themselves in less than 15 years. Buildings consume 40 percent of the energy we use, and a transition to energy efficient buildings will cut our carbon emissions by one-third.
We are revving up the remarkable American innovation machine that will be the basis of a new American prosperity. We will invent much improved methods to harness the sun, the wind, nuclear power, and capture and sequester the carbon dioxide emitted from our power plants. Advanced bio-fuels and the electrification of personal vehicles make us less dependent on foreign oil.
In the coming decades, we will almost certainly face higher oil prices and be in a carbon-constrained economy. We have the opportunity to lead in development of a new, industrial revolution. The great hockey player, Wayne Gretzky, when asked, how he positions himself on the ice, he replied,“ I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it’s been.” America should do the same.
The Obama administration is laying a new foundation for a prosperous and sustainable energy future, but we don’t have all of the answers. That’s where you come in. In this address, I am asking you, the Harvard graduates, to join us. As our future intellectual leaders, take the time to learn more about what’s at stake, and then act on that knowledge. As future scientists and engineers, I ask you to give us better technology solutions. As future economists and political scientists, I ask you to create better policy options. As future business leaders, I ask that you make sustainability an integral part of your business.
奥Finally, as humanists, I ask that you speak to our common humanity. One of the cruelest ironies about climate change is that the ones who will be hurt the most are the most innocent: the worlds poorest and those yet to be born.
The coda to this last movement is borrowed from two humanists.
The first quote is from Martin Luther King. He spoke on ending the war in Vietnam in 1967, but his message seems so fitting for today’s climate crisis:
“This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This oft misunderstood, this oft misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man … We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late.”
The final message is from William Faulkner. On December 10th, 1950, his Nobel Prize banquet speech was about the role of humanists in a world facing potential nuclear holocaust.
“I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. The poet's, the writer's, duty is to write about these things. It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past.”
Graduates, you have an extraordinary role to play in our future. As you pursue your private passions, I hope you will also develop a passion and a voice to help the world in ways both large and small. Nothing will give you greater satisfaction.
Please accept my warmest congratulations. May you prosper, may you help preserve and save our planet for your children, and all future children of the world.
穷二代”18条标准
网友列出“穷二代”18条标准{ZT}
http://www.xcar.com.cn/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=10416216
晒富、飙车撞人，少数“富二代”的行为引起社会公愤，某地花钱为他们开培训班的做法更是在网上被炒得沸沸扬扬。20日凌晨3点左右，与“富二代”概念相对的博文《“贫二代”（穷二代）的标准》在网上一经发布，就受到网友关注。
博文作者石述思是北京某媒体工作者。石述思对穷二代的定义是：那些没有致富的产业工人或者农民，他们的子女如今有很多仍属于弱势群体。他说：“如果符合其中部分标准，那就需要高度警惕，努力鼓起生活的风帆，最终还要靠你的努力。”
·七夕情人节告白赢大奖 ·美女时尚秀火热征集
博文中“穷二代”的18个标准：
1.在各种“拼爹”(注：比拼老爹，指学得好不如有个好爸爸)游戏中失败。
2.感到当农民工和大学生区别不大，于是勇敢地放弃高考。
3.别人说：家里钱不是问题；你说：问题是家里没钱。
4.寒暑假，经常需要到田里收庄稼或在城里打工挣学费。
5.有当城管的冲动，能罩着天天被驱逐的父母。
6.经常有扼住命运喉咙的冲动，但每次喉咙都被命运扼住。
7.如果读过《红楼梦》，最受触动的应该是晴雯的判词：心比天高，命比纸薄。
8.对“宁当富人三奶，不嫁穷人”的说法强烈认同。
9.从不思考“永远有多远”这样的蠢问题，却经常为明天发愁。
10.在城市经常被取笑甚至欺负，熟悉各种人的白眼。
11.从迷恋个人奋斗到觉得奋斗根本改变不了命运。
12.最熟悉的交通工具是农用车、火车和长途大巴。
13.熟悉人民币分币的购买力。
14.家里往往有没有户口的兄弟姐妹。
15.有仇富心理，并十分痛恨贪官，觉得他们不仅夺取了你父辈的财富，更夺取了你翻身的机会。
16.害怕自己尤其是家人生病，特别是慢性病，因为没医保。
17.经常看《读者》之类的“心灵鸡汤”，但好多姐妹为生活选择了“出卖自己”的方式。
18.大体认同这样一种说法：生活中的一切事情，都要靠自己的双手解决，无法反抗就要学会接受。
http://www.xcar.com.cn/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=10416216
晒富、飙车撞人，少数“富二代”的行为引起社会公愤，某地花钱为他们开培训班的做法更是在网上被炒得沸沸扬扬。20日凌晨3点左右，与“富二代”概念相对的博文《“贫二代”（穷二代）的标准》在网上一经发布，就受到网友关注。
博文作者石述思是北京某媒体工作者。石述思对穷二代的定义是：那些没有致富的产业工人或者农民，他们的子女如今有很多仍属于弱势群体。他说：“如果符合其中部分标准，那就需要高度警惕，努力鼓起生活的风帆，最终还要靠你的努力。”
·七夕情人节告白赢大奖 ·美女时尚秀火热征集
博文中“穷二代”的18个标准：
1.在各种“拼爹”(注：比拼老爹，指学得好不如有个好爸爸)游戏中失败。
2.感到当农民工和大学生区别不大，于是勇敢地放弃高考。
3.别人说：家里钱不是问题；你说：问题是家里没钱。
4.寒暑假，经常需要到田里收庄稼或在城里打工挣学费。
5.有当城管的冲动，能罩着天天被驱逐的父母。
6.经常有扼住命运喉咙的冲动，但每次喉咙都被命运扼住。
7.如果读过《红楼梦》，最受触动的应该是晴雯的判词：心比天高，命比纸薄。
8.对“宁当富人三奶，不嫁穷人”的说法强烈认同。
9.从不思考“永远有多远”这样的蠢问题，却经常为明天发愁。
10.在城市经常被取笑甚至欺负，熟悉各种人的白眼。
11.从迷恋个人奋斗到觉得奋斗根本改变不了命运。
12.最熟悉的交通工具是农用车、火车和长途大巴。
13.熟悉人民币分币的购买力。
14.家里往往有没有户口的兄弟姐妹。
15.有仇富心理，并十分痛恨贪官，觉得他们不仅夺取了你父辈的财富，更夺取了你翻身的机会。
16.害怕自己尤其是家人生病，特别是慢性病，因为没医保。
17.经常看《读者》之类的“心灵鸡汤”，但好多姐妹为生活选择了“出卖自己”的方式。
18.大体认同这样一种说法：生活中的一切事情，都要靠自己的双手解决，无法反抗就要学会接受。
巴菲特抛股买债 股票持有为五年来最低
巴菲特抛股买债 股票持有为五年来最低
http://finance.creaders.net/newsViewer.php?nid=402817&id=924611
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
广州日报 2009-09-09 15:17:43
数据显示，伯克希尔·哈撒韦公司第二季度卖出股票数量超过买入数量。它在股票上的投入已下降到五年多来的最低水平。
与此相反，去年秋天正当许多投资者纷纷离场之际，巴菲特却建议人们购入股票。当时，巴菲特投资数十亿元入股高盛公司，随后投入通用电气数十亿元。
尽管目前巴菲特拒绝预言股市短期走势，但他上星期接受采访时说，“我们还没有摆脱问题”。他回顾过去一年的教训时说，“我们还没有让经济回到正常发挥作用的地方”。
“投资策略的转变暗示巴菲特开始忧虑了。”《纽约时报》援引巴菲特传记作者爱丽丝·施罗德的话说。
巴菲特对股市的忧虑并非毫无来由。事实上，近期包括高盛、美国银行、摩根士丹利等大行在内的分析师均争相提醒投资者，美股现阶段估值已经太高，有超买情况。
数据显示，美股自3月份急升逾五成，创下70年来最急升势以来，标普的市盈率已急升至19倍，为2004年后的新高。
不过，彭博社对1500位分析师的调查显示，标普成分企业明年盈利将会上升25%，明年市盈率（PE）因而跌至13.5倍，为1989年以来的最低水平。
相对分析师的乐观心态，经济学家却审慎得多，预测明年美国经济增长平均值仅2.3%，两者分歧明显。
巴菲特卖股买债暗示其开始忧虑经济前景，但另一方面， 华尔街大型债券商近期却大幅减持美国国债，以套取资金增持回报率更高的企业债券，反映出债商对经济前景有一定信心，导致资金再次回流至高风险资产，务求获得更丰厚回报。
根据美国联邦储备局的8月份统计数字，包括高盛、美银在内的18家主要国债交易商，手持的国债净空头部位急增至105亿美元，而此前的6月净多头部位达到936亿美元的纪录高位，短短两月创下美联储自1997年收集有关数据以来的最大逆转。
债券市场向来最能反映投资者对经济的信心。此前经济景气之时，债商对国债兴趣不大，反而透过卖空国债，来对冲手中的大量企债及按揭抵押证券。
对此，全球最大期货经纪商MFＧolb投资总监Ｄonald Galante直指，随着恐慌平息，目前资金又开始回流至高风险资产。今年美国企债市场异常活跃，至今共有9260亿美元企债获得发行，创下历史新高。
若要令投资者“弃国债取企债”，违约风险较高的企债自然要提供较国债更高债息，美林企业及高息债券指数显示，目前两者的平均息差水平已大幅收窄至3.82厘，远低于3月的8.09厘高位，这反映随着经济有好转迹象，企业已经能以较低的借贷成本筹集资金。
http://finance.creaders.net/newsViewer.php?nid=402817&id=924611
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
广州日报 2009-09-09 15:17:43
数据显示，伯克希尔·哈撒韦公司第二季度卖出股票数量超过买入数量。它在股票上的投入已下降到五年多来的最低水平。
与此相反，去年秋天正当许多投资者纷纷离场之际，巴菲特却建议人们购入股票。当时，巴菲特投资数十亿元入股高盛公司，随后投入通用电气数十亿元。
尽管目前巴菲特拒绝预言股市短期走势，但他上星期接受采访时说，“我们还没有摆脱问题”。他回顾过去一年的教训时说，“我们还没有让经济回到正常发挥作用的地方”。
“投资策略的转变暗示巴菲特开始忧虑了。”《纽约时报》援引巴菲特传记作者爱丽丝·施罗德的话说。
巴菲特对股市的忧虑并非毫无来由。事实上，近期包括高盛、美国银行、摩根士丹利等大行在内的分析师均争相提醒投资者，美股现阶段估值已经太高，有超买情况。
数据显示，美股自3月份急升逾五成，创下70年来最急升势以来，标普的市盈率已急升至19倍，为2004年后的新高。
不过，彭博社对1500位分析师的调查显示，标普成分企业明年盈利将会上升25%，明年市盈率（PE）因而跌至13.5倍，为1989年以来的最低水平。
相对分析师的乐观心态，经济学家却审慎得多，预测明年美国经济增长平均值仅2.3%，两者分歧明显。
巴菲特卖股买债暗示其开始忧虑经济前景，但另一方面， 华尔街大型债券商近期却大幅减持美国国债，以套取资金增持回报率更高的企业债券，反映出债商对经济前景有一定信心，导致资金再次回流至高风险资产，务求获得更丰厚回报。
根据美国联邦储备局的8月份统计数字，包括高盛、美银在内的18家主要国债交易商，手持的国债净空头部位急增至105亿美元，而此前的6月净多头部位达到936亿美元的纪录高位，短短两月创下美联储自1997年收集有关数据以来的最大逆转。
债券市场向来最能反映投资者对经济的信心。此前经济景气之时，债商对国债兴趣不大，反而透过卖空国债，来对冲手中的大量企债及按揭抵押证券。
对此，全球最大期货经纪商MFＧolb投资总监Ｄonald Galante直指，随着恐慌平息，目前资金又开始回流至高风险资产。今年美国企债市场异常活跃，至今共有9260亿美元企债获得发行，创下历史新高。
若要令投资者“弃国债取企债”，违约风险较高的企债自然要提供较国债更高债息，美林企业及高息债券指数显示，目前两者的平均息差水平已大幅收窄至3.82厘，远低于3月的8.09厘高位，这反映随着经济有好转迹象，企业已经能以较低的借贷成本筹集资金。
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
在美国大学得全“A”的十大精准绝招
在美国大学得全“A”的十大精准绝招
http://bbs.creaders.net/newland/bbsviewer.php?trd_id=400147
送交者: 愤怒的绵羊 2009年09月08日19:56:40 于 [新 大 陆] 发送悄悄话
以下10点诀窍来自书中特别有用的部份，除了能帮助你的成绩在未来雇主面前显得更加好看，这些建议本身也有助於建立良好的学习态度。
一、在第一堂课準时出现，并且全神贯注，如果你不喜欢这门课路线，请快速退选换成另一门。“让你的暑假或寒假再延长个几天，这当然很好。” Jacobs 和 Hyman说，大学生在开学第一天一定要到校。他们强调，“你必须严正以待，并且特别注意教授告诉你的事情，尤其是他怎麼打分数，以及这门课究竟关於什麼。如果教授的授课内容很难理解或特别无聊，或者他假设学生什麼都会了，那麼你应该快点离开这教室，找寻更适合的课程。”
二、不要為了拿更多的A，而选了一堆简单的课程。作者特别指出，对於一些很好过关的课程，学生在选择的时候应该有个上限，因為你的主修未来会逐渐要求你进入更深奥的领域，因此打好基础是重要的。
三、不要逃避写很多报告的课程。许多人在上大学之前，事实上没有好好学过写作，但这是人生中相当重要、且不应逃避的技能，不过作者提出了一个更实用的原因：拿一些要交报告的课程，可以让你的时间更有弹性，并且分散掉你的工作量，不会让所有事情都集中在考试期间。
四、你想要的课已经额满了，也不要轻易的放弃。Jacobs和Hyman提供了非常精确与聪明的法则，敎你与教授或助教协商的时候，你该怎麼说或不该怎麼说。想要进入已经额满的课程，你可以说的理由包括：这是你最后上这门课的机会了、你一直都很希望上这门课、你已经上了先修课程并且非常喜爱、或者就单纯地告诉教授你听说了许多好评；但千万不要说：我需要选一些星期二及星期四个课，尤其下午两点的最好。
五、经常且聪明地利用教授的办公室时间。在多数的大学中，规定教授和助教必须每週提供办公室时段，让学生可以自由前往提问，如果你适时地出现，教授会认為你对课程充满了兴趣，而不是漠不关心或者还在状况之外。因此想要得到好成绩，在你私下的认真学习之外，不如也使用这种“明显”的方法与教授对话，绝对能带给你立竿见影的效果。
六、亲自去上课与做笔记。这是作者最强调的重点，他们认為，不必介意你用什麼方式做笔记，也不必担心你有没有抄下每一个字句，但是请特别注意授课的内容结构以及技术名词，千万不可依赖你在书店就能买到的上课笔记，也不要试图以替室友洗衣服来交换他的笔记。
“意识到自己必须做笔记，这是敦促你不要逃课的最大动力。”作者指出，做笔记能让学生保持警醒，你必须知道，不管是教授发的、或是你室友写的笔记，通常都会遗漏掉一些重要的内容。
七、参加讨论的目的，不仅是去认识可爱的异性同学。这些讨论或会议有助於了解课程内容，也能帮助提升你的成绩，在讨论的过程中，请对主题专注，如果你总是在发言，那麼请试著少说一点，事前做好充分準备，如果这个话题是你不清楚的，请你就跳过它，不要把课堂讨论当成运动竞赛，也不要為了问问题而问问题，更不要蛮不在乎地宣称你没有準备好。
八、找出考古题。Jacobs and Hyman用“双手入宝山”来形容这个窍门，他们指出，这并不是要你闯入教授办公室窃取真正地考题，相反地，学生必须瞭解，教授有可能提供以前的考题，图书馆、读书会、宿舍、或是曾经拿过同一门课的朋友，也可能拥有你需要的考古题。
九、在开始写报告前，先用脑子做好分析。这应该是这本书最棒的建议了，许多大学生认為，在他们开始思考之前，最好先去一趟图书馆，事实上，最好的报告是在学生个人的想法中发展出来。试著回想与主题相关的个人经验，在晚餐时与朋友来点脑力激盪，或是探索那些你觉得不合理的说法，教授通常会把A评给原创的内容，而找寻新鲜想法的绝佳去处就是你的脑子！
十、如果你对成绩有疑问，请小心处理。作者认為，多数关於成绩的争执都是没有意义的，你不如把时间花在跟教授讨论改进办法上，但如果你真的想要要求一个更好的成绩，请使用正确的原因。Jacobs和Hyman认為好的理由包括：教授算分错误、教授漏看了一页答案、或是错认了你所回答的问题。但下面这些理由就相当地糟：考试不公平、给分标準太严厉了、你的朋友温习的时间与你差不多却得到更好的成绩、或是你需要一个C才能留在垒球队裡。
http://bbs.creaders.net/newland/bbsviewer.php?trd_id=400147
送交者: 愤怒的绵羊 2009年09月08日19:56:40 于 [新 大 陆] 发送悄悄话
以下10点诀窍来自书中特别有用的部份，除了能帮助你的成绩在未来雇主面前显得更加好看，这些建议本身也有助於建立良好的学习态度。
一、在第一堂课準时出现，并且全神贯注，如果你不喜欢这门课路线，请快速退选换成另一门。“让你的暑假或寒假再延长个几天，这当然很好。” Jacobs 和 Hyman说，大学生在开学第一天一定要到校。他们强调，“你必须严正以待，并且特别注意教授告诉你的事情，尤其是他怎麼打分数，以及这门课究竟关於什麼。如果教授的授课内容很难理解或特别无聊，或者他假设学生什麼都会了，那麼你应该快点离开这教室，找寻更适合的课程。”
二、不要為了拿更多的A，而选了一堆简单的课程。作者特别指出，对於一些很好过关的课程，学生在选择的时候应该有个上限，因為你的主修未来会逐渐要求你进入更深奥的领域，因此打好基础是重要的。
三、不要逃避写很多报告的课程。许多人在上大学之前，事实上没有好好学过写作，但这是人生中相当重要、且不应逃避的技能，不过作者提出了一个更实用的原因：拿一些要交报告的课程，可以让你的时间更有弹性，并且分散掉你的工作量，不会让所有事情都集中在考试期间。
四、你想要的课已经额满了，也不要轻易的放弃。Jacobs和Hyman提供了非常精确与聪明的法则，敎你与教授或助教协商的时候，你该怎麼说或不该怎麼说。想要进入已经额满的课程，你可以说的理由包括：这是你最后上这门课的机会了、你一直都很希望上这门课、你已经上了先修课程并且非常喜爱、或者就单纯地告诉教授你听说了许多好评；但千万不要说：我需要选一些星期二及星期四个课，尤其下午两点的最好。
五、经常且聪明地利用教授的办公室时间。在多数的大学中，规定教授和助教必须每週提供办公室时段，让学生可以自由前往提问，如果你适时地出现，教授会认為你对课程充满了兴趣，而不是漠不关心或者还在状况之外。因此想要得到好成绩，在你私下的认真学习之外，不如也使用这种“明显”的方法与教授对话，绝对能带给你立竿见影的效果。
六、亲自去上课与做笔记。这是作者最强调的重点，他们认為，不必介意你用什麼方式做笔记，也不必担心你有没有抄下每一个字句，但是请特别注意授课的内容结构以及技术名词，千万不可依赖你在书店就能买到的上课笔记，也不要试图以替室友洗衣服来交换他的笔记。
“意识到自己必须做笔记，这是敦促你不要逃课的最大动力。”作者指出，做笔记能让学生保持警醒，你必须知道，不管是教授发的、或是你室友写的笔记，通常都会遗漏掉一些重要的内容。
七、参加讨论的目的，不仅是去认识可爱的异性同学。这些讨论或会议有助於了解课程内容，也能帮助提升你的成绩，在讨论的过程中，请对主题专注，如果你总是在发言，那麼请试著少说一点，事前做好充分準备，如果这个话题是你不清楚的，请你就跳过它，不要把课堂讨论当成运动竞赛，也不要為了问问题而问问题，更不要蛮不在乎地宣称你没有準备好。
八、找出考古题。Jacobs and Hyman用“双手入宝山”来形容这个窍门，他们指出，这并不是要你闯入教授办公室窃取真正地考题，相反地，学生必须瞭解，教授有可能提供以前的考题，图书馆、读书会、宿舍、或是曾经拿过同一门课的朋友，也可能拥有你需要的考古题。
九、在开始写报告前，先用脑子做好分析。这应该是这本书最棒的建议了，许多大学生认為，在他们开始思考之前，最好先去一趟图书馆，事实上，最好的报告是在学生个人的想法中发展出来。试著回想与主题相关的个人经验，在晚餐时与朋友来点脑力激盪，或是探索那些你觉得不合理的说法，教授通常会把A评给原创的内容，而找寻新鲜想法的绝佳去处就是你的脑子！
十、如果你对成绩有疑问，请小心处理。作者认為，多数关於成绩的争执都是没有意义的，你不如把时间花在跟教授讨论改进办法上，但如果你真的想要要求一个更好的成绩，请使用正确的原因。Jacobs和Hyman认為好的理由包括：教授算分错误、教授漏看了一页答案、或是错认了你所回答的问题。但下面这些理由就相当地糟：考试不公平、给分标準太严厉了、你的朋友温习的时间与你差不多却得到更好的成绩、或是你需要一个C才能留在垒球队裡。
Friday, September 4, 2009
zt: 为什么妻子不爱我们了?
为什么妻子不爱我们了?
http://lady.qq.com/a/20090821/000028.htm
http://lady.QQ.com2009年08月21日09:22 南方人物周刊 彭苏 我要评论(1564)
在所有离婚案件与诉讼中，女性提出的比率高达70%-80%
本刊记者彭苏实习记者马李灵珊发自北京广州
随着“砰”地一声巨响，天花板上的华丽吊灯终于承受不起，盘踞其上厮打一团的罗斯夫妇，俩人连同吊灯重重地跌落下来。
人之将死，余情未了的罗斯先生试图将手滑向妻子雪白的肚皮。
孰料，从始到终都在向他宣判离婚的罗斯太太，纵使此刻也绝不妥协，她恶狠狠地把他的手甩开去……
“我理解这种感受。”7月29日夜，大雨滂沱。
北京方庄芳群园的一所公寓内，幽暗中，苗颖盯着液晶屏幕上的《罗斯夫妇的战争》，幽幽地说。
这部在1989年走红、以黑色幽默的手法揭示了婚姻血淋淋一面的美国电影，苗颖已观看了无数遍。
应该说，她与剧中的罗斯太太一样，在10年前的离婚战役中，态度主动强硬，立场坚定不移。
她提出的要求，也与文中的其他受访者们无有二致——报道必须用化名，不许拍照，乃至拒绝提供她们前夫的任何联系方式。
净身出户也要离开你
“我是离婚那年来的北京，算是老北漂了。”而今，苗颖年过四旬，刚刚与情人分手，普通话里略带川音。
她每天打拼奔波在门头沟与昌平两地，辛苦所得仍付不起北京高昂的房价，仅能支撑她的房租、一家小型贸易公司的经营，以及她与儿子的日常种种开支。
苗颖总是强调，“不管以后混得怎样，都不会后悔和那个人离婚。”
她也再三言及，她的成长经历——重庆某部队大院中长大，家教严谨，自小内向，喜爱文学等等——使得她年轻时单纯、爱幻想。
她深以为，正是这种性格特质，为她婚姻的不幸埋下了伏笔。
“那男的当时是军人，分配到了四川一个小县城劳教所里当狱警。因为我们头两年是通信交往，家里人并不看好这事。他在信上说，自从他到劳教所工作后，心情十分沮丧，关押的罪犯都判有期徒刑，如果我离开了他，他就是无期。”
抱着一腔“救赎”的情怀，大学毕业的苗颖从大城市调到了小县城，来到了狱警的身边。
据她说，结婚当天，她从仓促寒碜的乡村婚礼上开溜，偷偷蹲到小河边痛哭了两个小时，“从那时起，我知道我的婚姻是一个错误。”
但苗颖秉持了60年代生人的某些思想观念。“婚姻如果是一种契约，那么无论如何，我必须恪尽职守。”
结婚10年，丈夫目睹了苗颖在机关里工作上进，成绩斐然。他承认她是一个出色的贤妻良母。
苗颖却一点点感受到身边躺着的这个男人——“极端自私和猥琐”。
“关键是他不爱孩子。这点让我特别受不了。我记得有一年冬天，孩子放学回家，只因为忘记关好门，他从沙发下摸出两只鞋，劈头盖脸地朝孩子头上抡过去。孩子吓得哇哇大哭，我心疼极了。后来我才明白，他在我面前很自卑，又挑不出我的错，所以把气撒在孩子身上。”
苗颖的糟心事更在后面。“有一天，他的所长打电话给我，通知我赶紧到他们单位去一趟。”
所长告诉她，这回是她的男人犯案了。她手脚冰凉地展开了前夫的口供，里面他不仅坦白了自己的贪污行径，还交代他与一个犯人的家属长期通奸。
“事情发生后，朋友们纷纷劝我与他离婚。并且我还知道了，那男人曾四处传播我是性冷淡，以此想引诱她们上床。我那时连性冷淡是什么都不懂。我把最好的青春给了他，他让我一直以为性生活就那么几个动作。直到我遇到了上一任情人，才真正体会到了性高潮。”
对于离婚，苗颖倒是相当冷静，“我好像翘首以待他出事似的，总算抓住把柄能从中解脱了。”
无论前夫是跪地求饶，还是软硬兼施，苗颖离得毅然决然，而又格外洒脱。
“他把结婚证藏匿起来。他知道我好面子，觉得离婚是件丑事，不想让单位出示证明。于是我上诉法院，申请解除夫妻关系。”
“我对他明说，除了儿子，我什么都不要，一切家当全部归他。不知我这样做，算不算‘净身出户’呢？”她心酸地笑道。
《1999年民政事业发展统计公报》显示：自1980年起，中国离婚人数为34.1万对，1990年上增为80万对，1999年是120.1万对……
苗颖无疑是当年百万离婚大军中的一员。
“1999年时，结婚、离婚跟今天不同。人家说现在结婚就是‘九块钱’，离婚值个‘十元钱’（工本费）。我们那会协议不成后，须经法院受理，再捱上一个月的调解期，才能盼到裁定——双方解除夫妻关系。”她说到“盼”字上深深吸了一口气。
80年代以来，中国离婚案实行了无过错离婚改革，首次提出将夫妻感情确实破裂当作离婚的法定标准。2001年《中国婚姻法修正案》再次强调，要以婚姻关系破裂为离婚标准。2003年的《婚姻登记条例》，又大为简化了民政部门办理协议离婚的手续。
与实施离婚改革相应的是，据中国民政部统计，从全国平均看，1979年离婚率为4%，1999年达到13.7%，2003年达到15%以上……2000年离婚人数为121万对，2003年为133.1万对，2005年为161.3万对。
根据国家民政部统计，2008年全国共有1049.9万对夫妻结婚，而离婚的夫妻则有226.9万对。每5对佳侣新婚燕尔之时，就有一对夫妻分道扬镳。而如果把研究对象缩小到大城市和经济发达省份，离婚比率只会更高。而从民政部门与法院了解到的信息则表明，在所有离婚案件与诉讼中，女性提出离婚的比率高达70%至80%。这个数字，颠覆了我们之前对于传统婚姻中女性逆来顺受的所有幻想。换句话说，城市女性，特别是京沪粤等发达地区的都市女性是将城市离婚率推高的“主力军”。而从离婚人口的职业特征比较分析中看出，在各职业大类中，离婚率排在前三位的分别是专业技术人员，办事人员和有关人员，国家机关、党群组织、企事业单位负责人。
但是男女之间离婚率在职业大类的排序不太相同，其中女性离婚率最高的是国家机关、党群组织、企事业单位负责人，仅就广东省一地调研分析，这一职业群体的女性离婚率达到28.67‰，是男性同类职业离婚率的3.83倍。而这一职业群体的另一特性，就是都受过良好的教育，有着一定的社会地位，经济情况良好。
“改革开放以前，中国人思想比较保守，整体离婚率偏低。到了21世纪之初，男性提出离婚的比例开始逐年升高。而在此基础上，女性主动提出离婚，较之以往也呈现了上升趋势。我干这行4年了，接触到的离婚案中女性原告方最多时，是与男性原告者人数持平。”北京中银律师事务所专门承办离婚案的张志胜律师谨慎地拿捏其中的尺度。
“作为一个关注于婚姻家庭法律领域的女性律师，我几乎每天都要接触各种离婚案件的诉讼与咨询。近两三年我发现了一个现象：女性当事人主动提出离婚的越来越多，而男性当事人中以消极和被动姿态来面对不和谐婚姻的人也越来越多，这样的案件在我2008年和2009年上半年的受案中比例竟然达到60%以上。”北京盈科律师事务所合伙人余婧律师在EMAIL中回复。
而早在2002年，北京昌平法院从2001年4月至2002年4月间审理的离婚纠纷案件中随机抽取了100件。在调查中发现，女性作为原告主动提出离婚的明显多于男性。
从2006年到2009年，厦门市两级法院审理的离婚案件中，为数一半的案子为女方主动提出。天津市法院抽查10年内办理的离婚案中，近7成案子的女性属原告方。
即使在农村，2007年5月，也有记者在湖北随州、襄樊、老河口、荆州、洪湖等县市法院采访，发现农村家庭离婚案件占整个民事案件的一半以上。而这些离婚案件中，几乎有90％以上是女方主动提出。
(本文来源：南方人物周刊)
中年危机
60后的女性如果主动提出离婚，多半因为丈夫有了严重外遇，到了有家不回的程度。再就是遇到了暴力倾向。她们中有人经过十几年甚至更长的痛苦煎熬，又有外界的鼓励和支持，才会主动提出离婚。
“男人在40岁后，一般事业有成的情况下，女人却已经步入人老珠黄时期。而男人在外却会遇到许多年轻貌美的女子。‘找小三’现象在当今社会蔚然成风，许多女人咽不下这口气，最终选择了离婚。”詹春云说。
另一个原因则是双方对婚姻的期许程度不同，“中年男性一般在社会上压力比较大，回家之后很难再有心情来哄老婆开心，但女性在遇到压力后，却想要得到心理上的宽慰与得到丈夫的开解和支持。这种期许程度的不同往往会导致许多分歧和争吵。最终导致女性提出离婚。”
70后的性问题
而在广东婚姻家庭研究会常务理事郑晨看来，70后经历了改革开放的一代，思想观念比60后开放，相应整体离婚率也在上升。这一代人历经了下海经商等冲击，是积累财富的一代。他们的生活压力比较大，竞争压力也很大。目前人到中年，常常出现“中年危机”等等现象。
“性格无法调适，心理和性需求无法得到满足，是离婚的主要原因。对财产这一代人看得比较重，都会据理力争。”郑晨说。
“这一代人还有个很有意思的现象，经常会出现连续性的婚姻，就是离婚后又投入新一段的婚姻，常常会结离婚好几次。因为这一代人是很渴望婚姻和爱情的，但理想和现实又常常碰壁。离婚后又害怕自己老无所依，所以再投入下一段婚姻。”郑晨分析。
另一个值得注意的事实是，在詹春云的案例中，婚姻上的问题50％出在性上。在这些性事问题上，95％是心因性的，只有5％是器质性的。
“现代女性的性需求上升。尤其是中年女性，其日益成熟的性心理和身体方面的需求迫使其向丈夫需索更多。但男性在30-45岁期间，其事业上正是上升阶段，心理与身体双方面的压力都增大。经常性无法满足女性的性需求。这样的情况下，女性无法忍受糟糕的性生活，愤而要求离婚的比率也在上升。”詹春云说。
即使真的找不着伴，这个婚还得离
“无论如何，离婚女性依然属于弱势群体啊。”某婚恋网站的负责人龚海燕不以为然。
她坦言相告，她的网站在上海曾为离异者们举办过数次相亲聚会。
“后来实在办不下去了，因为到场的男女比例是1：4。这个社会真是不公平，男人离婚后还能找到未婚女性为伴。而女人一旦离婚，不管是其他人，还是她本人，似乎都认为自己只配找离婚男士了。”
“即便真的找不到伴，我也要离这个婚。”在网站的小型会议室内，北京姑娘陈婷斩钉截铁的口吻，与她温婉的容颜似不相符。
此前，她刻意地站起身秀了秀身材——白色T恤紧裹着丰腴的胴体，待坐下去后，腰肢上立即堆起了两层肉圈。
“你知道么？我结婚前不是这样，那会儿的身材忒标准忒棒。”
女人减压的方式无非两种：一种是购物，一种是吃东西。
“离婚前的一段日子，由于暴饮暴食，导致内分泌混乱，我一下子胖了30斤，脸上长满痘，气色灰暗。整个人的精神状态陷入了极其糟糕的地步。”说话间，陈婷低头抚摸起手腕上一串串的佛珠。
陈婷是一家知名外企的商业谈判代表。婚姻上，她遇到的问题与苗颖相似——丈夫频繁出轨。
“去年不是有部电影叫《双食记》？正好我们家亲戚懂医。我曾想过每天在他的饭菜里偷偷下点药，把他弄成阳萎才解恨。后来朋友劝我，千万别这样做，否则后果不堪设想。”
与苗颖不同的是，陈婷发现前任出轨是在婚礼筹备前的一个月。
“他和一个有夫之妇关系暧昧，被我从手机上发现了。事后，他也向我认错来着，说他是爱我的，那只是好玩罢了。眼看新房快装修好了，亲朋好友都知道我们要办喜事了，再说从感情上，我也难舍弃他呀。”
这是一场高干子弟与富家女举办的豪华婚礼，不过，现在陈婷形容为“忒没劲”。
“我老感到有块阴影跟着我。婚后，我们做爱都没有以前甜蜜了，而且我坚持一定要他使用避孕套。有时他想亲亲我，我下意识地推开他，别，别，您千万别这样。”
阴霾渐渐加深，是女友一次玩笑性的测试。“在喝酒聊天时，她说现在的男人们都靠不住。你敢不敢试试你的先生？”
潜意识作怪的陈婷回答道：有什么不敢？试就试呗。女友当即用自己的手机给陈婷的先生发去了短信。
“我前任长得很帅，是一个投资咨询师，经常到外面为人讲课。我女友在短信中告诉他，曾听过他的课，很崇拜他，想约他一起喝茶等等。他真就回了短信。接着一周时间，我女友当着我面发短信给他，他一一回复。直到有一天，他俩相约上酒店开房。我女友说，你等着瞧吧，他今晚准对你特好，还会跟你请假。”陈婷说。
那晚，前夫果真不负女友的预言，声称第二天要出差办公。“我不动声色地看着他冲我撒谎，懒洋洋应着那就去吧。”
等到了第二天，陈婷携两位女友出现在酒店时，她的前夫当即瘫在了床上。
打那以后，我们谁都没提这事。同住一个屋檐下，两人分房睡觉。我承认事情挺无聊，可心里难受得不行。”
前任对她真诚表示，他很珍惜这段婚姻，希望两人冷静冷静。她默许了，“权且再给他一次机会吧。”
事实偏偏又令她失望了，“有一天他忘了关电脑，QQ不停闪现勾得我心慌，我打开后发现了新情况。”
事态延展到QQ上的女主角径直在手机里对她叫嚣时，“我连哭都哭不出来了。”陈婷无奈地笑着。
前夫如同往常，起先打死不承认，随后又是一系列地赔礼道歉。
“他死活不同意离婚。于是我诓骗他，你看看我现在这样，如果不离可能连命都没了。我们不如离吧，没准还有复合的机会。”
在离婚协议达成，卖掉他俩共同拥有的座驾那天，陈婷在出租车里，泪如雨下。
“离婚后他找过我，我拒绝了。他提出，要不我们做情人吧。我觉得太可笑了。都到了这步，我说什么都不会回头了。”她抿起了下唇。
前夫曾忿忿地说，尽管他花心，仍然把婚姻留给了她，选择和她生活在一起。她的收入比他高，超爱购买名牌的习惯让他忍受着压力。没成想，沦到她反而抛弃了他。
“我找过心理医生，我检讨过自己，现在虔诚地信起了佛教。”陈婷说她早已不再青睐于任何名牌了。
“事物还得要看本质，否则外表再精致也没多大意思。”她说。
“我赞成作家王海鸰的观点——婚姻的破灭不是因为第三者出现，而是婚姻本身存在着重重问题。”沈娟说。
“沈娟”是她主动为自己起的化名，“我是一个追求完美的女人。”接下来讲述中，她时不时要冒出这句话。
虽与陈婷同为70年代生人，沈娟的离婚案无疑要更为复杂。
因为棘手的不是她的先生执意不肯离，也非财产分割，而是争夺儿子的抚养权。
“我和我先生都是IT工程师。我俩早在大学时期就认识了。那会我不太爱说话，他比我更不爱说话。我觉得他挺老实的，又攻读的是同一领域，所以我答应了他的追求。
我们在读完研究生后结了婚。我是北京人，他是外地人，所以我分到了事业单位，他进了一家民企。工资待遇差别不大。
主要是我跟他妈搞不好关系。他妈是个咋咋呼呼的老太太，嫌我闷，假清高。生完孩子后，他妈住进我们家，美其名曰帮着照顾孩子，实际上，矛盾一桩桩跟着来。
生活上琐事甭提了。我慢慢发现，他变得更加沉默寡言。我们之间的性生活也越来越少。我问过他是不是身体不好，他解释说工作很累，过一阵子就好了。我也是干这行的，很了解其中的辛苦。加上我本身不是需求强烈的女人，没有追问下去。
说来你不相信，我们这样躺在一张床上，3年没有夫妻生活。我和他早上同开一辆车，晚上他接我回家。我一心扑在了事业上，满以为他也是如此。
后来的事嘛……总之，我不费吹灰之力解开了他的电脑密码，居然看到他和他们单位的一个女同事在床上的录像视频。
说来奇怪，但凡一个女人看到那样的东西都要崩溃的。我却一点不生气，也不吃惊。我真正警觉的是，我不知从什么时候起，对他、对这段婚姻全无感觉了？”
在2008年，中国法学会婚姻法学会副会长蒋月在结束对“改革开放三十年离婚”的课题研究后，针对女性主动提出离婚现象，她特别强调，“在女性主动提出离婚的案例中，也有相当一部分是遭受家庭暴力、婚外恋等身心虐待之后被动提出的，那是她们不得已的选择，而不是她们喜欢这样。不过这也算是社会进步的一种表现，说明女性自立自强思想成熟了，她们能够自主决定自己的婚姻，对离婚后将要面对的生活也做好充分的思想准备。”
蒋月的观点为北京盈科律师事务所的余婧所认同，她进而言之：
“女性主动提出离婚一方面反映了现代女性更加注重婚姻的质量，尊重内心感受，关注自己精神世界的需求，不委屈、不将就。另一方面，也是女性的经济收入提高的体现。经济是基础，女性在经济上完全独立，家庭地位也就相应提高。在一些经济发达地区和城市，尤其是白领阶层，女性的收入基本与男性持平，甚至还高于男性，这是女性追求高质量的婚姻或面临不幸婚姻时勇于说‘NO’的主要原因。”
“过去女性有许多都是在家中做家庭妇女，即使出外工作，生活圈子也相对单一。能接触到的异性数量在婚后也相应减少。但如今有了网络，加上许多妇女的工作都开始渐渐需要与大量异性打交道。相应诱惑也会增多，许多人在婚后才找到了自己的真爱。或者发现自己的丈夫在事业、经济、社会地位、长相等等方面不如别人，产生比较，于是相应离婚数量也增多。”婚姻分析师詹春云说。
“本身当代社会处于一个社会转型期，经济、政治、文化等都在高速变化与发展。夫妻双方随着时代的变化也在变化，当一方的变化速度快于另一方时，夫妻双方的思想与物质等不再同步，婚姻就会出现裂痕。而女性比较敏感，更容易意识到这一裂痕，于是更容易提出离婚。”詹春云说。而大量的离婚案例涌现与社会观念的转变让女性相信即使离婚，她们也不愁找不到更好的归宿。对离婚的恐惧心理消除之后，她们更难以忍受糟糕的婚姻生活。既然离婚后完全可以找到更好的选择，为什么还要在一个无法满足需求的男人身上浪费时间呢？
“挑战亲情”底线的80后
而言及80后的婚姻时，婚姻研究者使用频率最多的一个词是——闪婚。
“明显的感觉是80后的女性对于离婚的态度较为轻松。尤其是85后的。她们对婚姻的认识不再神圣和严肃，闪婚闪离的大有人在。”余婧说。
郭玥大学毕业后，一个人去广州工作。因为合租房便宜，就和另一个年纪相仿的小伙子一起租了个二室一厅。同样身在外地的两人因为寂寞，很快走到了一起。房子租约在一年后到期，两人一合计，不如结婚算了。一起买个房子，还可以一起还房贷。认识一年零两个月，他们就领了结婚证。
“现在想想，结婚前我其实就有点后悔了。”现在28岁的郭玥回忆起前夫，还是气不打一处来。“他特别小气，我是女人啊，和他一起缴了首付，贷款也是一人一半付。让他们家把买电器的钱出了，他还叽叽歪歪，说买电器按他们那的风俗都是女方家出。这是我陪嫁的嫁妆。他怎么不说娶我还要彩礼呢！”
结婚前，虽然两人也大吵了几次。但热恋期的人总是容易彼此原谅。两人还是热热闹闹地结了婚，过起了日子。
但好景不长，男方在老家寡居的母亲想要到广州来和他们住在一起。郭玥好心，为婆婆买了块新毛巾，却被婆婆指责：“你嫌弃我脏，我们娘儿俩以前都是用一块毛巾的，到这来就被你嫌弃。”气得够呛的郭玥当时就想离婚。忍了半年之后，越演越烈的婆媳矛盾终于耗尽了她和丈夫所有的耐心。
“现在回忆起来，我又好气又好笑。常常就是他妈没事儿，挑我毛病说我不做家务，要和我吵架。我在家从来都是我妈做，凭什么到这儿来伺候她啊。我说请钟点工，他妈又说我浪费奢侈。他还老站在他妈那边。我本来工作一天就够累了，回去还得和他还有他妈两个人做斗争，太崩溃了。我能怎么办？这种老公不要也罢。”
郭玥离婚的时候，还不满25岁。她和丈夫的婚姻只维持了11个月。“还是单身好。”郭玥点燃了一支烟，说。她是在和丈夫离婚后学会抽烟的，卖掉了夫妻双方共同拥有的那套房产和所有电器后，两人平分了钱。她自己在工作单位附近租了套房子，独居。
“单身自由。而且不用迁就任何人。以前我结婚的时候，家里就一个电视，晚上他妈要看电视我就没得看。现在，我想看就看，不想看我开着也不用给别人看！”说这话的时候，郭玥的神情里闪过一丝寂寞与哀怨。
网上流传甚广的一个帖子“数数80后那些匪夷所思的离婚理由”中，列举的几个案例就颇具代表性。“因为丈夫打鼾”和“早上起来霸占卫生间”时间过长，都成为了80后离婚的理由。
“80后对婚姻的看法相对轻率与随意。他们一般相识的时间较短，在没有对彼此有足够的认识之前就可以步入结婚殿堂。但在激情消退后，现实问题就会立刻涌现。另一方面，80后生人大多数都是独生子女，在成长的过程当中，父母一般比较娇惯。他们没有学会与同龄人相处，在家庭生活中自理能力也较差，遇事不懂得退让，在婚姻生活中的忍耐度相对也较低。所以夫妻双方极易发生摩擦与冲撞，又因为都不懂得退让，所以很难化解矛盾。80后女性更加看重自己的独立生活空间，离婚对于她们来说，根本不是一件难以接受的事情，结婚和离婚，都只是她们生活中经历的两件事情而已。另一方面，城市生活压力的增大，让许多80后夫妻之所以结婚就是为了共同买房还房屋贷款。这种因为某种物质需求而凑合在一起、缺乏感情基础的婚姻本身就是空中楼阁，极易破裂。一旦遇到外界的诱惑，或者经济情况得到改善，又或者发现两人性格不合，婚姻就会立刻破裂。许多年轻夫妻现在都是独自在异乡打拼，父母亲戚都不在本地。结婚离婚遇到的阻碍都较少。而由于城市生活压力的加大，许多夫妻在结婚的头几年都不会要孩子，少了孩子，女性的牵挂就少了很多。提出离婚的阻力也少了。”詹春云说。
“另外，80后的离婚中还有很重要的一点是媳妇学不会与婆婆相处。80后的一代人以自我为中心，人格上往往有缺陷，与老年人的摩擦频发。婆婆对媳妇的要求一般都比母亲对自己女儿的要求高，自然会产生争执。婆媳矛盾是许多女性提出离婚的重要因素。‘挑战亲情’的唯一后果只能是失败。80后的男孩子一般都比较依赖母亲，‘老婆可以再找，妈妈只有一个’这种想法很普遍。而男性在这种婆媳关系的处理上往往也不成熟，很容易引起问题。”詹春云说。
郭玥尝试过几次“一夜情”，不过她说，“次数不多，因为我嫌脏，也担心不安全。”现在她有固定男友，双方没有正式同居，各有各的住处。每个星期会有三四天，在某一方的住处过夜。“这种生活很好。我们能彼此满足对方的性需求。也能彼此照顾。还不用负太大的责任。”郭玥说。
这或许是80后的另一特征，他们对性的需求远比他们的父辈们开放与坦诚。尤其是80后的女性们，一扫中国传统女人“谈性色变”的羞涩，健康、坦荡而真诚地看待性。
郭玥说，她也有朋友就因为丈夫的性能力不好而提出离婚。也有朋友因为与丈夫在性方面的契合，而一直将就着过下去的。“男人嘛，性能力不好，和女人还有什么分别？”
我们只想你能和我们平等沟通
“哈哈。面对婚姻问题，如果你想追究真相，便会迅速发现，自己卷入了一个怪圈。因为男女双方各执一词，各有各的道理。婚姻是两个人的事，又不止是两个人的事。”
安顿在1998年出版婚姻话题《绝对隐私》时，曾一度引起了社会强烈反响。
如今，再论主动提出离婚的女性们，安顿讲道——
当现代女人们的学历、地位、财富等凌驾于男人之上时，她们对婚姻的要求也相应提高。观念相同，情趣相投成了她们重点考虑的方面。她们不愿意凑合下去。婚姻对她们来说是一个淘汰的过程，即离婚，淘汰不好的前任。找寻更好的下一任。
男人的观念也有了改变。他们不得不变，否则女人就会提出离婚。他们必须明白，现代女性越来越不被操控，她们在婚姻中要的是爱，自由与尊重，这是促进女人走进婚姻的重要原因，也是她们幸福感的来源。
“现在的女人怎么那么要强？以前只听过休妻。这倒好，如今都快成休夫了。一次出轨，她二话不说，说离就离。”广州，一位自称被前妻“剥削”干净的男士牢骚满腹。
他耿耿于怀的是，从民政局办完离婚的那天，前妻连家门都不让他趟进一步。而是让他等在楼下，在小区路人的异样注视下，从楼上把衣服行李扔给了他。
他却并不知道，类似他前妻的女性们在走进律师事务所的咨询室前，律师们往往会事先备好面巾纸，因为99%的来访者讲述自己婚姻时都会泣不成声，泪流满面。
“不管女人是主动还是被动离婚，在我眼中都是不幸。一个女人对第一次婚姻充满了向往，而不是奔着离婚去的。”张志胜说。
“虽然提出离婚的女性增多，但绝大多数女人仍视自己为婚姻中的受害者。她们多数认为离婚的过错在于男性。真正正视自己问题的女性还是少数。”余婧也说。
曾有婚姻中受挫的女性向女作家王海鸰求教，“她们说男方如何如何不好，该怎么办？”
这位以写《中国式离婚》而著名的女作家极端地说：“我的忠告是，如果那个男人打她打到快残废了，那肯定是毫无感情可言了。可是如果你离开他连饭都吃不上的话，那你还是不要离开他。因为两害相权取其轻，婚姻不光是感情的承载，它还是生活的承载。物质的承载。”
——我觉得女性尽管提出离婚的多了，但是渴望找到一个相伴一生的人还是女性，这里有一部分是女性的生理特征决定的，也有社会定位的因素在起作用。
——不管女人是什么年代生人，人性的变化实是微乎其微。女人不要去刻意取悦男人，那注定会失败。吸引才会成功。要在坚持做好自己与取悦之间寻找一个“度”。
“这个‘度’又怎么把握呢？其实女人真想要获得婚姻的幸福，在我看来很简单。既不要凌驾于男人之上，也不要居于男人之下，不去做作，平等地沟通，平等地生活。如果那时，男人还拒绝与你交流的话，你就主动提出离婚。”张志胜摊开手说道。
这些时段，容易离婚
①结婚后两年之内。这就是所谓的“闪离”现象，主要原因就是双方在结婚前没有了解透彻对方。结婚之后才发现许多对方的缺点，无法忍受，最后愤然离婚。
②生育孩子的两年之内。因为生育孩子及照顾婴儿期间，家务繁重。而双方事业又都处于上升期，两人常常会产生摩擦。刚为人父母又不懂得处理压力，自己也尚未成熟，所以容易导致离婚。
③结婚后5-8年，即所谓的“七年之痒”。工作后双方的心理需求与性需求都进一步提升，而“审美疲劳”或由于激情消退后双方对彼此的忍耐到了限度，因此离婚。
④结婚后15年左右。“中年危机”导致的“剪刀差”现象，一方的心理与性需求高过了另一方所能给予的。以及“421家庭结构”，造成压力极其繁重，双方心理都比较容易崩溃。女方的“更年期”导致男方不能忍受，以及“第三者”现象。
（受访人：全国妇联妇女研究所编审、中国人力资源研究会女性人才研究会理事曲雯采访人：实习记者马李灵珊）
这些方法，避免离婚
①结婚前可先“试婚”，同居半年到一年以上的时间，再决定结婚。结婚要慎重，对对方的身份背景性格等了解透彻。
②离婚也可采用“试离婚”，分居半年到一年以上的时间，确定双方都不适合再离婚。
③修改现行婚姻法，在结婚和离婚中都给出缓冲期。领了结婚证或办理离婚手续后，隔一段时间再生效，给双方都留出充足的思考时间。
④夫妻双方应对彼此的心理和生理都给出足够的关怀。如果遇到婚姻问题，应该有耐心去共同解决，求助心理医生等。要用积极的态度去解决问题，而不是把问题越拖越久，最终演变成更为严重的问题，以离婚收场。
⑤80后的夫妻应该在婚姻中学会忍让与包容，少以自我为中心，多为他人考虑。中年夫妻则应该纾解压力，莫让工作压力演变成为家庭压力，最终压力加倍，导致离婚。
（受访人：上海沪家律师事务所主任、全国律协民委婚姻法论坛副主任、《婚姻办理婚姻家庭业务操作指引》课题组副组长贾明军采访人：实习记者马李灵珊）
(南方人物周刊)
http://lady.qq.com/a/20090821/000028.htm
http://lady.QQ.com2009年08月21日09:22 南方人物周刊 彭苏 我要评论(1564)
在所有离婚案件与诉讼中，女性提出的比率高达70%-80%
本刊记者彭苏实习记者马李灵珊发自北京广州
随着“砰”地一声巨响，天花板上的华丽吊灯终于承受不起，盘踞其上厮打一团的罗斯夫妇，俩人连同吊灯重重地跌落下来。
人之将死，余情未了的罗斯先生试图将手滑向妻子雪白的肚皮。
孰料，从始到终都在向他宣判离婚的罗斯太太，纵使此刻也绝不妥协，她恶狠狠地把他的手甩开去……
“我理解这种感受。”7月29日夜，大雨滂沱。
北京方庄芳群园的一所公寓内，幽暗中，苗颖盯着液晶屏幕上的《罗斯夫妇的战争》，幽幽地说。
这部在1989年走红、以黑色幽默的手法揭示了婚姻血淋淋一面的美国电影，苗颖已观看了无数遍。
应该说，她与剧中的罗斯太太一样，在10年前的离婚战役中，态度主动强硬，立场坚定不移。
她提出的要求，也与文中的其他受访者们无有二致——报道必须用化名，不许拍照，乃至拒绝提供她们前夫的任何联系方式。
净身出户也要离开你
“我是离婚那年来的北京，算是老北漂了。”而今，苗颖年过四旬，刚刚与情人分手，普通话里略带川音。
她每天打拼奔波在门头沟与昌平两地，辛苦所得仍付不起北京高昂的房价，仅能支撑她的房租、一家小型贸易公司的经营，以及她与儿子的日常种种开支。
苗颖总是强调，“不管以后混得怎样，都不会后悔和那个人离婚。”
她也再三言及，她的成长经历——重庆某部队大院中长大，家教严谨，自小内向，喜爱文学等等——使得她年轻时单纯、爱幻想。
她深以为，正是这种性格特质，为她婚姻的不幸埋下了伏笔。
“那男的当时是军人，分配到了四川一个小县城劳教所里当狱警。因为我们头两年是通信交往，家里人并不看好这事。他在信上说，自从他到劳教所工作后，心情十分沮丧，关押的罪犯都判有期徒刑，如果我离开了他，他就是无期。”
抱着一腔“救赎”的情怀，大学毕业的苗颖从大城市调到了小县城，来到了狱警的身边。
据她说，结婚当天，她从仓促寒碜的乡村婚礼上开溜，偷偷蹲到小河边痛哭了两个小时，“从那时起，我知道我的婚姻是一个错误。”
但苗颖秉持了60年代生人的某些思想观念。“婚姻如果是一种契约，那么无论如何，我必须恪尽职守。”
结婚10年，丈夫目睹了苗颖在机关里工作上进，成绩斐然。他承认她是一个出色的贤妻良母。
苗颖却一点点感受到身边躺着的这个男人——“极端自私和猥琐”。
“关键是他不爱孩子。这点让我特别受不了。我记得有一年冬天，孩子放学回家，只因为忘记关好门，他从沙发下摸出两只鞋，劈头盖脸地朝孩子头上抡过去。孩子吓得哇哇大哭，我心疼极了。后来我才明白，他在我面前很自卑，又挑不出我的错，所以把气撒在孩子身上。”
苗颖的糟心事更在后面。“有一天，他的所长打电话给我，通知我赶紧到他们单位去一趟。”
所长告诉她，这回是她的男人犯案了。她手脚冰凉地展开了前夫的口供，里面他不仅坦白了自己的贪污行径，还交代他与一个犯人的家属长期通奸。
“事情发生后，朋友们纷纷劝我与他离婚。并且我还知道了，那男人曾四处传播我是性冷淡，以此想引诱她们上床。我那时连性冷淡是什么都不懂。我把最好的青春给了他，他让我一直以为性生活就那么几个动作。直到我遇到了上一任情人，才真正体会到了性高潮。”
对于离婚，苗颖倒是相当冷静，“我好像翘首以待他出事似的，总算抓住把柄能从中解脱了。”
无论前夫是跪地求饶，还是软硬兼施，苗颖离得毅然决然，而又格外洒脱。
“他把结婚证藏匿起来。他知道我好面子，觉得离婚是件丑事，不想让单位出示证明。于是我上诉法院，申请解除夫妻关系。”
“我对他明说，除了儿子，我什么都不要，一切家当全部归他。不知我这样做，算不算‘净身出户’呢？”她心酸地笑道。
《1999年民政事业发展统计公报》显示：自1980年起，中国离婚人数为34.1万对，1990年上增为80万对，1999年是120.1万对……
苗颖无疑是当年百万离婚大军中的一员。
“1999年时，结婚、离婚跟今天不同。人家说现在结婚就是‘九块钱’，离婚值个‘十元钱’（工本费）。我们那会协议不成后，须经法院受理，再捱上一个月的调解期，才能盼到裁定——双方解除夫妻关系。”她说到“盼”字上深深吸了一口气。
80年代以来，中国离婚案实行了无过错离婚改革，首次提出将夫妻感情确实破裂当作离婚的法定标准。2001年《中国婚姻法修正案》再次强调，要以婚姻关系破裂为离婚标准。2003年的《婚姻登记条例》，又大为简化了民政部门办理协议离婚的手续。
与实施离婚改革相应的是，据中国民政部统计，从全国平均看，1979年离婚率为4%，1999年达到13.7%，2003年达到15%以上……2000年离婚人数为121万对，2003年为133.1万对，2005年为161.3万对。
根据国家民政部统计，2008年全国共有1049.9万对夫妻结婚，而离婚的夫妻则有226.9万对。每5对佳侣新婚燕尔之时，就有一对夫妻分道扬镳。而如果把研究对象缩小到大城市和经济发达省份，离婚比率只会更高。而从民政部门与法院了解到的信息则表明，在所有离婚案件与诉讼中，女性提出离婚的比率高达70%至80%。这个数字，颠覆了我们之前对于传统婚姻中女性逆来顺受的所有幻想。换句话说，城市女性，特别是京沪粤等发达地区的都市女性是将城市离婚率推高的“主力军”。而从离婚人口的职业特征比较分析中看出，在各职业大类中，离婚率排在前三位的分别是专业技术人员，办事人员和有关人员，国家机关、党群组织、企事业单位负责人。
但是男女之间离婚率在职业大类的排序不太相同，其中女性离婚率最高的是国家机关、党群组织、企事业单位负责人，仅就广东省一地调研分析，这一职业群体的女性离婚率达到28.67‰，是男性同类职业离婚率的3.83倍。而这一职业群体的另一特性，就是都受过良好的教育，有着一定的社会地位，经济情况良好。
“改革开放以前，中国人思想比较保守，整体离婚率偏低。到了21世纪之初，男性提出离婚的比例开始逐年升高。而在此基础上，女性主动提出离婚，较之以往也呈现了上升趋势。我干这行4年了，接触到的离婚案中女性原告方最多时，是与男性原告者人数持平。”北京中银律师事务所专门承办离婚案的张志胜律师谨慎地拿捏其中的尺度。
“作为一个关注于婚姻家庭法律领域的女性律师，我几乎每天都要接触各种离婚案件的诉讼与咨询。近两三年我发现了一个现象：女性当事人主动提出离婚的越来越多，而男性当事人中以消极和被动姿态来面对不和谐婚姻的人也越来越多，这样的案件在我2008年和2009年上半年的受案中比例竟然达到60%以上。”北京盈科律师事务所合伙人余婧律师在EMAIL中回复。
而早在2002年，北京昌平法院从2001年4月至2002年4月间审理的离婚纠纷案件中随机抽取了100件。在调查中发现，女性作为原告主动提出离婚的明显多于男性。
从2006年到2009年，厦门市两级法院审理的离婚案件中，为数一半的案子为女方主动提出。天津市法院抽查10年内办理的离婚案中，近7成案子的女性属原告方。
即使在农村，2007年5月，也有记者在湖北随州、襄樊、老河口、荆州、洪湖等县市法院采访，发现农村家庭离婚案件占整个民事案件的一半以上。而这些离婚案件中，几乎有90％以上是女方主动提出。
(本文来源：南方人物周刊)
中年危机
60后的女性如果主动提出离婚，多半因为丈夫有了严重外遇，到了有家不回的程度。再就是遇到了暴力倾向。她们中有人经过十几年甚至更长的痛苦煎熬，又有外界的鼓励和支持，才会主动提出离婚。
“男人在40岁后，一般事业有成的情况下，女人却已经步入人老珠黄时期。而男人在外却会遇到许多年轻貌美的女子。‘找小三’现象在当今社会蔚然成风，许多女人咽不下这口气，最终选择了离婚。”詹春云说。
另一个原因则是双方对婚姻的期许程度不同，“中年男性一般在社会上压力比较大，回家之后很难再有心情来哄老婆开心，但女性在遇到压力后，却想要得到心理上的宽慰与得到丈夫的开解和支持。这种期许程度的不同往往会导致许多分歧和争吵。最终导致女性提出离婚。”
70后的性问题
而在广东婚姻家庭研究会常务理事郑晨看来，70后经历了改革开放的一代，思想观念比60后开放，相应整体离婚率也在上升。这一代人历经了下海经商等冲击，是积累财富的一代。他们的生活压力比较大，竞争压力也很大。目前人到中年，常常出现“中年危机”等等现象。
“性格无法调适，心理和性需求无法得到满足，是离婚的主要原因。对财产这一代人看得比较重，都会据理力争。”郑晨说。
“这一代人还有个很有意思的现象，经常会出现连续性的婚姻，就是离婚后又投入新一段的婚姻，常常会结离婚好几次。因为这一代人是很渴望婚姻和爱情的，但理想和现实又常常碰壁。离婚后又害怕自己老无所依，所以再投入下一段婚姻。”郑晨分析。
另一个值得注意的事实是，在詹春云的案例中，婚姻上的问题50％出在性上。在这些性事问题上，95％是心因性的，只有5％是器质性的。
“现代女性的性需求上升。尤其是中年女性，其日益成熟的性心理和身体方面的需求迫使其向丈夫需索更多。但男性在30-45岁期间，其事业上正是上升阶段，心理与身体双方面的压力都增大。经常性无法满足女性的性需求。这样的情况下，女性无法忍受糟糕的性生活，愤而要求离婚的比率也在上升。”詹春云说。
即使真的找不着伴，这个婚还得离
“无论如何，离婚女性依然属于弱势群体啊。”某婚恋网站的负责人龚海燕不以为然。
她坦言相告，她的网站在上海曾为离异者们举办过数次相亲聚会。
“后来实在办不下去了，因为到场的男女比例是1：4。这个社会真是不公平，男人离婚后还能找到未婚女性为伴。而女人一旦离婚，不管是其他人，还是她本人，似乎都认为自己只配找离婚男士了。”
“即便真的找不到伴，我也要离这个婚。”在网站的小型会议室内，北京姑娘陈婷斩钉截铁的口吻，与她温婉的容颜似不相符。
此前，她刻意地站起身秀了秀身材——白色T恤紧裹着丰腴的胴体，待坐下去后，腰肢上立即堆起了两层肉圈。
“你知道么？我结婚前不是这样，那会儿的身材忒标准忒棒。”
女人减压的方式无非两种：一种是购物，一种是吃东西。
“离婚前的一段日子，由于暴饮暴食，导致内分泌混乱，我一下子胖了30斤，脸上长满痘，气色灰暗。整个人的精神状态陷入了极其糟糕的地步。”说话间，陈婷低头抚摸起手腕上一串串的佛珠。
陈婷是一家知名外企的商业谈判代表。婚姻上，她遇到的问题与苗颖相似——丈夫频繁出轨。
“去年不是有部电影叫《双食记》？正好我们家亲戚懂医。我曾想过每天在他的饭菜里偷偷下点药，把他弄成阳萎才解恨。后来朋友劝我，千万别这样做，否则后果不堪设想。”
与苗颖不同的是，陈婷发现前任出轨是在婚礼筹备前的一个月。
“他和一个有夫之妇关系暧昧，被我从手机上发现了。事后，他也向我认错来着，说他是爱我的，那只是好玩罢了。眼看新房快装修好了，亲朋好友都知道我们要办喜事了，再说从感情上，我也难舍弃他呀。”
这是一场高干子弟与富家女举办的豪华婚礼，不过，现在陈婷形容为“忒没劲”。
“我老感到有块阴影跟着我。婚后，我们做爱都没有以前甜蜜了，而且我坚持一定要他使用避孕套。有时他想亲亲我，我下意识地推开他，别，别，您千万别这样。”
阴霾渐渐加深，是女友一次玩笑性的测试。“在喝酒聊天时，她说现在的男人们都靠不住。你敢不敢试试你的先生？”
潜意识作怪的陈婷回答道：有什么不敢？试就试呗。女友当即用自己的手机给陈婷的先生发去了短信。
“我前任长得很帅，是一个投资咨询师，经常到外面为人讲课。我女友在短信中告诉他，曾听过他的课，很崇拜他，想约他一起喝茶等等。他真就回了短信。接着一周时间，我女友当着我面发短信给他，他一一回复。直到有一天，他俩相约上酒店开房。我女友说，你等着瞧吧，他今晚准对你特好，还会跟你请假。”陈婷说。
那晚，前夫果真不负女友的预言，声称第二天要出差办公。“我不动声色地看着他冲我撒谎，懒洋洋应着那就去吧。”
等到了第二天，陈婷携两位女友出现在酒店时，她的前夫当即瘫在了床上。
打那以后，我们谁都没提这事。同住一个屋檐下，两人分房睡觉。我承认事情挺无聊，可心里难受得不行。”
前任对她真诚表示，他很珍惜这段婚姻，希望两人冷静冷静。她默许了，“权且再给他一次机会吧。”
事实偏偏又令她失望了，“有一天他忘了关电脑，QQ不停闪现勾得我心慌，我打开后发现了新情况。”
事态延展到QQ上的女主角径直在手机里对她叫嚣时，“我连哭都哭不出来了。”陈婷无奈地笑着。
前夫如同往常，起先打死不承认，随后又是一系列地赔礼道歉。
“他死活不同意离婚。于是我诓骗他，你看看我现在这样，如果不离可能连命都没了。我们不如离吧，没准还有复合的机会。”
在离婚协议达成，卖掉他俩共同拥有的座驾那天，陈婷在出租车里，泪如雨下。
“离婚后他找过我，我拒绝了。他提出，要不我们做情人吧。我觉得太可笑了。都到了这步，我说什么都不会回头了。”她抿起了下唇。
前夫曾忿忿地说，尽管他花心，仍然把婚姻留给了她，选择和她生活在一起。她的收入比他高，超爱购买名牌的习惯让他忍受着压力。没成想，沦到她反而抛弃了他。
“我找过心理医生，我检讨过自己，现在虔诚地信起了佛教。”陈婷说她早已不再青睐于任何名牌了。
“事物还得要看本质，否则外表再精致也没多大意思。”她说。
“我赞成作家王海鸰的观点——婚姻的破灭不是因为第三者出现，而是婚姻本身存在着重重问题。”沈娟说。
“沈娟”是她主动为自己起的化名，“我是一个追求完美的女人。”接下来讲述中，她时不时要冒出这句话。
虽与陈婷同为70年代生人，沈娟的离婚案无疑要更为复杂。
因为棘手的不是她的先生执意不肯离，也非财产分割，而是争夺儿子的抚养权。
“我和我先生都是IT工程师。我俩早在大学时期就认识了。那会我不太爱说话，他比我更不爱说话。我觉得他挺老实的，又攻读的是同一领域，所以我答应了他的追求。
我们在读完研究生后结了婚。我是北京人，他是外地人，所以我分到了事业单位，他进了一家民企。工资待遇差别不大。
主要是我跟他妈搞不好关系。他妈是个咋咋呼呼的老太太，嫌我闷，假清高。生完孩子后，他妈住进我们家，美其名曰帮着照顾孩子，实际上，矛盾一桩桩跟着来。
生活上琐事甭提了。我慢慢发现，他变得更加沉默寡言。我们之间的性生活也越来越少。我问过他是不是身体不好，他解释说工作很累，过一阵子就好了。我也是干这行的，很了解其中的辛苦。加上我本身不是需求强烈的女人，没有追问下去。
说来你不相信，我们这样躺在一张床上，3年没有夫妻生活。我和他早上同开一辆车，晚上他接我回家。我一心扑在了事业上，满以为他也是如此。
后来的事嘛……总之，我不费吹灰之力解开了他的电脑密码，居然看到他和他们单位的一个女同事在床上的录像视频。
说来奇怪，但凡一个女人看到那样的东西都要崩溃的。我却一点不生气，也不吃惊。我真正警觉的是，我不知从什么时候起，对他、对这段婚姻全无感觉了？”
在2008年，中国法学会婚姻法学会副会长蒋月在结束对“改革开放三十年离婚”的课题研究后，针对女性主动提出离婚现象，她特别强调，“在女性主动提出离婚的案例中，也有相当一部分是遭受家庭暴力、婚外恋等身心虐待之后被动提出的，那是她们不得已的选择，而不是她们喜欢这样。不过这也算是社会进步的一种表现，说明女性自立自强思想成熟了，她们能够自主决定自己的婚姻，对离婚后将要面对的生活也做好充分的思想准备。”
蒋月的观点为北京盈科律师事务所的余婧所认同，她进而言之：
“女性主动提出离婚一方面反映了现代女性更加注重婚姻的质量，尊重内心感受，关注自己精神世界的需求，不委屈、不将就。另一方面，也是女性的经济收入提高的体现。经济是基础，女性在经济上完全独立，家庭地位也就相应提高。在一些经济发达地区和城市，尤其是白领阶层，女性的收入基本与男性持平，甚至还高于男性，这是女性追求高质量的婚姻或面临不幸婚姻时勇于说‘NO’的主要原因。”
“过去女性有许多都是在家中做家庭妇女，即使出外工作，生活圈子也相对单一。能接触到的异性数量在婚后也相应减少。但如今有了网络，加上许多妇女的工作都开始渐渐需要与大量异性打交道。相应诱惑也会增多，许多人在婚后才找到了自己的真爱。或者发现自己的丈夫在事业、经济、社会地位、长相等等方面不如别人，产生比较，于是相应离婚数量也增多。”婚姻分析师詹春云说。
“本身当代社会处于一个社会转型期，经济、政治、文化等都在高速变化与发展。夫妻双方随着时代的变化也在变化，当一方的变化速度快于另一方时，夫妻双方的思想与物质等不再同步，婚姻就会出现裂痕。而女性比较敏感，更容易意识到这一裂痕，于是更容易提出离婚。”詹春云说。而大量的离婚案例涌现与社会观念的转变让女性相信即使离婚，她们也不愁找不到更好的归宿。对离婚的恐惧心理消除之后，她们更难以忍受糟糕的婚姻生活。既然离婚后完全可以找到更好的选择，为什么还要在一个无法满足需求的男人身上浪费时间呢？
“挑战亲情”底线的80后
而言及80后的婚姻时，婚姻研究者使用频率最多的一个词是——闪婚。
“明显的感觉是80后的女性对于离婚的态度较为轻松。尤其是85后的。她们对婚姻的认识不再神圣和严肃，闪婚闪离的大有人在。”余婧说。
郭玥大学毕业后，一个人去广州工作。因为合租房便宜，就和另一个年纪相仿的小伙子一起租了个二室一厅。同样身在外地的两人因为寂寞，很快走到了一起。房子租约在一年后到期，两人一合计，不如结婚算了。一起买个房子，还可以一起还房贷。认识一年零两个月，他们就领了结婚证。
“现在想想，结婚前我其实就有点后悔了。”现在28岁的郭玥回忆起前夫，还是气不打一处来。“他特别小气，我是女人啊，和他一起缴了首付，贷款也是一人一半付。让他们家把买电器的钱出了，他还叽叽歪歪，说买电器按他们那的风俗都是女方家出。这是我陪嫁的嫁妆。他怎么不说娶我还要彩礼呢！”
结婚前，虽然两人也大吵了几次。但热恋期的人总是容易彼此原谅。两人还是热热闹闹地结了婚，过起了日子。
但好景不长，男方在老家寡居的母亲想要到广州来和他们住在一起。郭玥好心，为婆婆买了块新毛巾，却被婆婆指责：“你嫌弃我脏，我们娘儿俩以前都是用一块毛巾的，到这来就被你嫌弃。”气得够呛的郭玥当时就想离婚。忍了半年之后，越演越烈的婆媳矛盾终于耗尽了她和丈夫所有的耐心。
“现在回忆起来，我又好气又好笑。常常就是他妈没事儿，挑我毛病说我不做家务，要和我吵架。我在家从来都是我妈做，凭什么到这儿来伺候她啊。我说请钟点工，他妈又说我浪费奢侈。他还老站在他妈那边。我本来工作一天就够累了，回去还得和他还有他妈两个人做斗争，太崩溃了。我能怎么办？这种老公不要也罢。”
郭玥离婚的时候，还不满25岁。她和丈夫的婚姻只维持了11个月。“还是单身好。”郭玥点燃了一支烟，说。她是在和丈夫离婚后学会抽烟的，卖掉了夫妻双方共同拥有的那套房产和所有电器后，两人平分了钱。她自己在工作单位附近租了套房子，独居。
“单身自由。而且不用迁就任何人。以前我结婚的时候，家里就一个电视，晚上他妈要看电视我就没得看。现在，我想看就看，不想看我开着也不用给别人看！”说这话的时候，郭玥的神情里闪过一丝寂寞与哀怨。
网上流传甚广的一个帖子“数数80后那些匪夷所思的离婚理由”中，列举的几个案例就颇具代表性。“因为丈夫打鼾”和“早上起来霸占卫生间”时间过长，都成为了80后离婚的理由。
“80后对婚姻的看法相对轻率与随意。他们一般相识的时间较短，在没有对彼此有足够的认识之前就可以步入结婚殿堂。但在激情消退后，现实问题就会立刻涌现。另一方面，80后生人大多数都是独生子女，在成长的过程当中，父母一般比较娇惯。他们没有学会与同龄人相处，在家庭生活中自理能力也较差，遇事不懂得退让，在婚姻生活中的忍耐度相对也较低。所以夫妻双方极易发生摩擦与冲撞，又因为都不懂得退让，所以很难化解矛盾。80后女性更加看重自己的独立生活空间，离婚对于她们来说，根本不是一件难以接受的事情，结婚和离婚，都只是她们生活中经历的两件事情而已。另一方面，城市生活压力的增大，让许多80后夫妻之所以结婚就是为了共同买房还房屋贷款。这种因为某种物质需求而凑合在一起、缺乏感情基础的婚姻本身就是空中楼阁，极易破裂。一旦遇到外界的诱惑，或者经济情况得到改善，又或者发现两人性格不合，婚姻就会立刻破裂。许多年轻夫妻现在都是独自在异乡打拼，父母亲戚都不在本地。结婚离婚遇到的阻碍都较少。而由于城市生活压力的加大，许多夫妻在结婚的头几年都不会要孩子，少了孩子，女性的牵挂就少了很多。提出离婚的阻力也少了。”詹春云说。
“另外，80后的离婚中还有很重要的一点是媳妇学不会与婆婆相处。80后的一代人以自我为中心，人格上往往有缺陷，与老年人的摩擦频发。婆婆对媳妇的要求一般都比母亲对自己女儿的要求高，自然会产生争执。婆媳矛盾是许多女性提出离婚的重要因素。‘挑战亲情’的唯一后果只能是失败。80后的男孩子一般都比较依赖母亲，‘老婆可以再找，妈妈只有一个’这种想法很普遍。而男性在这种婆媳关系的处理上往往也不成熟，很容易引起问题。”詹春云说。
郭玥尝试过几次“一夜情”，不过她说，“次数不多，因为我嫌脏，也担心不安全。”现在她有固定男友，双方没有正式同居，各有各的住处。每个星期会有三四天，在某一方的住处过夜。“这种生活很好。我们能彼此满足对方的性需求。也能彼此照顾。还不用负太大的责任。”郭玥说。
这或许是80后的另一特征，他们对性的需求远比他们的父辈们开放与坦诚。尤其是80后的女性们，一扫中国传统女人“谈性色变”的羞涩，健康、坦荡而真诚地看待性。
郭玥说，她也有朋友就因为丈夫的性能力不好而提出离婚。也有朋友因为与丈夫在性方面的契合，而一直将就着过下去的。“男人嘛，性能力不好，和女人还有什么分别？”
我们只想你能和我们平等沟通
“哈哈。面对婚姻问题，如果你想追究真相，便会迅速发现，自己卷入了一个怪圈。因为男女双方各执一词，各有各的道理。婚姻是两个人的事，又不止是两个人的事。”
安顿在1998年出版婚姻话题《绝对隐私》时，曾一度引起了社会强烈反响。
如今，再论主动提出离婚的女性们，安顿讲道——
当现代女人们的学历、地位、财富等凌驾于男人之上时，她们对婚姻的要求也相应提高。观念相同，情趣相投成了她们重点考虑的方面。她们不愿意凑合下去。婚姻对她们来说是一个淘汰的过程，即离婚，淘汰不好的前任。找寻更好的下一任。
男人的观念也有了改变。他们不得不变，否则女人就会提出离婚。他们必须明白，现代女性越来越不被操控，她们在婚姻中要的是爱，自由与尊重，这是促进女人走进婚姻的重要原因，也是她们幸福感的来源。
“现在的女人怎么那么要强？以前只听过休妻。这倒好，如今都快成休夫了。一次出轨，她二话不说，说离就离。”广州，一位自称被前妻“剥削”干净的男士牢骚满腹。
他耿耿于怀的是，从民政局办完离婚的那天，前妻连家门都不让他趟进一步。而是让他等在楼下，在小区路人的异样注视下，从楼上把衣服行李扔给了他。
他却并不知道，类似他前妻的女性们在走进律师事务所的咨询室前，律师们往往会事先备好面巾纸，因为99%的来访者讲述自己婚姻时都会泣不成声，泪流满面。
“不管女人是主动还是被动离婚，在我眼中都是不幸。一个女人对第一次婚姻充满了向往，而不是奔着离婚去的。”张志胜说。
“虽然提出离婚的女性增多，但绝大多数女人仍视自己为婚姻中的受害者。她们多数认为离婚的过错在于男性。真正正视自己问题的女性还是少数。”余婧也说。
曾有婚姻中受挫的女性向女作家王海鸰求教，“她们说男方如何如何不好，该怎么办？”
这位以写《中国式离婚》而著名的女作家极端地说：“我的忠告是，如果那个男人打她打到快残废了，那肯定是毫无感情可言了。可是如果你离开他连饭都吃不上的话，那你还是不要离开他。因为两害相权取其轻，婚姻不光是感情的承载，它还是生活的承载。物质的承载。”
——我觉得女性尽管提出离婚的多了，但是渴望找到一个相伴一生的人还是女性，这里有一部分是女性的生理特征决定的，也有社会定位的因素在起作用。
——不管女人是什么年代生人，人性的变化实是微乎其微。女人不要去刻意取悦男人，那注定会失败。吸引才会成功。要在坚持做好自己与取悦之间寻找一个“度”。
“这个‘度’又怎么把握呢？其实女人真想要获得婚姻的幸福，在我看来很简单。既不要凌驾于男人之上，也不要居于男人之下，不去做作，平等地沟通，平等地生活。如果那时，男人还拒绝与你交流的话，你就主动提出离婚。”张志胜摊开手说道。
这些时段，容易离婚
①结婚后两年之内。这就是所谓的“闪离”现象，主要原因就是双方在结婚前没有了解透彻对方。结婚之后才发现许多对方的缺点，无法忍受，最后愤然离婚。
②生育孩子的两年之内。因为生育孩子及照顾婴儿期间，家务繁重。而双方事业又都处于上升期，两人常常会产生摩擦。刚为人父母又不懂得处理压力，自己也尚未成熟，所以容易导致离婚。
③结婚后5-8年，即所谓的“七年之痒”。工作后双方的心理需求与性需求都进一步提升，而“审美疲劳”或由于激情消退后双方对彼此的忍耐到了限度，因此离婚。
④结婚后15年左右。“中年危机”导致的“剪刀差”现象，一方的心理与性需求高过了另一方所能给予的。以及“421家庭结构”，造成压力极其繁重，双方心理都比较容易崩溃。女方的“更年期”导致男方不能忍受，以及“第三者”现象。
（受访人：全国妇联妇女研究所编审、中国人力资源研究会女性人才研究会理事曲雯采访人：实习记者马李灵珊）
这些方法，避免离婚
①结婚前可先“试婚”，同居半年到一年以上的时间，再决定结婚。结婚要慎重，对对方的身份背景性格等了解透彻。
②离婚也可采用“试离婚”，分居半年到一年以上的时间，确定双方都不适合再离婚。
③修改现行婚姻法，在结婚和离婚中都给出缓冲期。领了结婚证或办理离婚手续后，隔一段时间再生效，给双方都留出充足的思考时间。
④夫妻双方应对彼此的心理和生理都给出足够的关怀。如果遇到婚姻问题，应该有耐心去共同解决，求助心理医生等。要用积极的态度去解决问题，而不是把问题越拖越久，最终演变成更为严重的问题，以离婚收场。
⑤80后的夫妻应该在婚姻中学会忍让与包容，少以自我为中心，多为他人考虑。中年夫妻则应该纾解压力，莫让工作压力演变成为家庭压力，最终压力加倍，导致离婚。
（受访人：上海沪家律师事务所主任、全国律协民委婚姻法论坛副主任、《婚姻办理婚姻家庭业务操作指引》课题组副组长贾明军采访人：实习记者马李灵珊）
(南方人物周刊)
zt: 出轨后 男人和女人都在想什么
出轨后 男人和女人都在想什么
http://blog.myspace.cn/e/403666518.htm
2009/02/19 23:40 [杂谈 ]
吸引、再吸引，男人和女人终于跨出了实质性的一步。灵与肉的结合让男人和女人都感觉很满足，整夜的缠绵，双方恨不能付出所有的能量来表达内心的爱恋。此时的男女真的忘记了所有的一切，爱也在欲望中升腾。天很快就亮了，女人望着熟睡中的男人突然有一种陌生感，女人心想：我们的爱到底会坚持多久？男人被女人的叹息惊醒，突然翻身继续和女人缠绵，女人仿佛又忘记了一切，这时仿佛只有激情的心跳才能掩饰住自己内心的不安。终于平静了，男人起身，冲澡穿衣。而女人也在准备着状容。男人抽烟，继续看着这个让自己迷恋很久的女人，心想：下次还要见她吗？
出轨以后，男人和女人都在内心里产生了不同的想法。上床也许使爱情暂告一个段落，男人终于没有了神秘感，只有了肉体的快感。而女人心中却增加了一份依恋，也许女人真是滞后性动物，总是把身体交付出去的同时，也把心用了进去。
男人疲惫地回到家中，面对贤惠的妻子，突然有了一种内疚也带有一丝的紧张。男人终于决定先放一放这段感情，重新理一下自己的思路。这时的女人也带着一丝疲惫回到家中，面对着冷漠的老公和空空的房子，女人突然感到一丝落寞。女人继续回味着夜晚的疯狂，女人的心在犹豫：我到底是怎么了？为什么痴迷那种感觉呢？难道说对这个家真的没有爱了吗？
几天以后，女人突然想男人想的发疯，却不见男人的一个电话。女人的心一阵慌乱：难道这种爱真的坚持不了多久？女人终于忍不住给男人打了一个电话，而男人的声音只是冷冷的，女人的心凉了，胡乱说了几句就挂了电话。女人突然感到很伤感：为什么所谓的爱这么的残酷？难道真的是自己看走了眼？他怎么没有了从前的热情？女人真的苦恼极了。于是，又打电话质问：你到底怎么了？为什么这么冷冷的？男人笑：没什么啊，只是这几天忙！女人再次失落：那什么时候可以看见你？我想你了！男人：忙过这几天再说吧！女人默默地放下电话，心里失落极了。女人真的很怕男人说忙，女人也不知道自己究竟有多少的耐心来等待这份爱的结果。那边的男人同样在想：我是不是还要继续下去呢？终于男人也按耐不住内心的欲望，再次去见女人。于是，缠绵又一次开始，重复着以前的重复。
终于有一天，男人突然感觉很累，疲惫的心想到了家的温暖。而这时的女人却被男人偷去了灵魂，家再也留不住她的心。女人的心一天比一天贪，终于有一天女人想得到男人的所有，包括一个婚姻的承诺。于是，女人忍不住说出了自己内心的想法。男人呆了，愣愣的。随后男人轻轻搂了一下女人：让我再想想，毕竟她在我最困难的时候就跟了我，我不能那么没良心，我不可能离婚的。女人无奈的笑：那就当我没说。可是从此以后，女人却发觉男人越来越冷，直到有一天彻底逃跑。至此，女人终于明白，没有氧气的爱，终会窒息死掉。
在现在这个情感多变的年代里，人们有时候真的不敢确定自己的感情。男人和女人总是在想：为什么会在错的时间遇到对的人，而双方却没有能力来承担这份爱的责任呢？其实，婚外情也只不过是被打过折的爱，双方都没在其中投入过多的感情，人们总是被其中的潜规则所打 倒，爱情也由此变得不再纯粹！而没有阳光照耀的爱，怎么能够长久呢？男人和女人毕竟都在其中惨杂了太多的杂念和欲望，以至于所谓的爱情很快就会夭折，只留痴情男女空叹息而已！
http://blog.myspace.cn/e/403666518.htm
2009/02/19 23:40 [杂谈 ]
吸引、再吸引，男人和女人终于跨出了实质性的一步。灵与肉的结合让男人和女人都感觉很满足，整夜的缠绵，双方恨不能付出所有的能量来表达内心的爱恋。此时的男女真的忘记了所有的一切，爱也在欲望中升腾。天很快就亮了，女人望着熟睡中的男人突然有一种陌生感，女人心想：我们的爱到底会坚持多久？男人被女人的叹息惊醒，突然翻身继续和女人缠绵，女人仿佛又忘记了一切，这时仿佛只有激情的心跳才能掩饰住自己内心的不安。终于平静了，男人起身，冲澡穿衣。而女人也在准备着状容。男人抽烟，继续看着这个让自己迷恋很久的女人，心想：下次还要见她吗？
出轨以后，男人和女人都在内心里产生了不同的想法。上床也许使爱情暂告一个段落，男人终于没有了神秘感，只有了肉体的快感。而女人心中却增加了一份依恋，也许女人真是滞后性动物，总是把身体交付出去的同时，也把心用了进去。
男人疲惫地回到家中，面对贤惠的妻子，突然有了一种内疚也带有一丝的紧张。男人终于决定先放一放这段感情，重新理一下自己的思路。这时的女人也带着一丝疲惫回到家中，面对着冷漠的老公和空空的房子，女人突然感到一丝落寞。女人继续回味着夜晚的疯狂，女人的心在犹豫：我到底是怎么了？为什么痴迷那种感觉呢？难道说对这个家真的没有爱了吗？
几天以后，女人突然想男人想的发疯，却不见男人的一个电话。女人的心一阵慌乱：难道这种爱真的坚持不了多久？女人终于忍不住给男人打了一个电话，而男人的声音只是冷冷的，女人的心凉了，胡乱说了几句就挂了电话。女人突然感到很伤感：为什么所谓的爱这么的残酷？难道真的是自己看走了眼？他怎么没有了从前的热情？女人真的苦恼极了。于是，又打电话质问：你到底怎么了？为什么这么冷冷的？男人笑：没什么啊，只是这几天忙！女人再次失落：那什么时候可以看见你？我想你了！男人：忙过这几天再说吧！女人默默地放下电话，心里失落极了。女人真的很怕男人说忙，女人也不知道自己究竟有多少的耐心来等待这份爱的结果。那边的男人同样在想：我是不是还要继续下去呢？终于男人也按耐不住内心的欲望，再次去见女人。于是，缠绵又一次开始，重复着以前的重复。
终于有一天，男人突然感觉很累，疲惫的心想到了家的温暖。而这时的女人却被男人偷去了灵魂，家再也留不住她的心。女人的心一天比一天贪，终于有一天女人想得到男人的所有，包括一个婚姻的承诺。于是，女人忍不住说出了自己内心的想法。男人呆了，愣愣的。随后男人轻轻搂了一下女人：让我再想想，毕竟她在我最困难的时候就跟了我，我不能那么没良心，我不可能离婚的。女人无奈的笑：那就当我没说。可是从此以后，女人却发觉男人越来越冷，直到有一天彻底逃跑。至此，女人终于明白，没有氧气的爱，终会窒息死掉。
在现在这个情感多变的年代里，人们有时候真的不敢确定自己的感情。男人和女人总是在想：为什么会在错的时间遇到对的人，而双方却没有能力来承担这份爱的责任呢？其实，婚外情也只不过是被打过折的爱，双方都没在其中投入过多的感情，人们总是被其中的潜规则所打 倒，爱情也由此变得不再纯粹！而没有阳光照耀的爱，怎么能够长久呢？男人和女人毕竟都在其中惨杂了太多的杂念和欲望，以至于所谓的爱情很快就会夭折，只留痴情男女空叹息而已！
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
zt: 养儿不如养狗：美国社会养孩子回报率太低
http://news.creaders.net/headline/newsViewer.php?nid=401956&id=922813&dcid=23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
养儿不如养狗：美国社会养孩子回报率太低
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
澳洲日报 2009-09-01 16:58:55
在现代西方工业社会中，一个孩子的价值是多少 更具体一点说，美国中产阶级，上中层阶级或者下层阶级中一个孩子的价值究竟是多少 这一点是否和数十年来美国妇女生育率持续下降，以及受过教育的妇女生育第一个孩子的年龄要比没有受过同样教育的人高得多的实事相关联
先从经济学的角度说起吧。自由社会的人将会选择更多回报超过成本的东西。反之，自由社会的人同样会不选择那些价值不及价格的商品或服务。
然么，怎样看待孩子呢 显然他们不是商品也不是服务，某些方面的特质是商品不具备的，某些方面还想由不及商品。远古时期，正如我们都知道的，人类要孩子一方面是生理需要，一方面也可以帮他们打猎，采摘和看守炉火。
然后，社会进化得更有组织性，家庭选择要孩子一方面还是生理需要，一方面是因为孩子们可以在农场，牧场或是铁匠铺中充当助手。孩子们的需求不多，不过是吃饱穿暖有地方住，偶尔给与他们一些爱抚，或是办错事时教训一下他们。
现在我们可以控制生育。但是仅凭这一点也许不能完全解释为什么人们不一定需要孩子。
可能一个主要的原因就是现在孩子给父母们带来了很多难题。其中之一就是，由于各种各样的原因是，父母们经常需要累死累活才能给后代提供到私立学校受良好教育的机会。
私立学校上学的孩子的父母也需要为各种各样的课程付费：芭蕾课，马术课，音乐课，数学辅导，还有象棋俱乐部等等。另外家长还要让孩子去接受诸如不施麻醉的结肠镜检查等各种医检。健康的中上层美国孩子的家长还必须面对这样的场面：和孩子同学的家长进行社交往来。
一句话，现代社会抚养孩子就意味着当免费的私人司机，还要受到各种折磨。
然后就是大学了。大学学费会让很多家长大跌眼镜。一所“有名望的”大学每年的学费动则就会到$70，000，这对很多美国人来说是相当可观的一笔数字。
接着到了大学大学毕业那一天，在受了这么多年苦，花了这么多钱后，你会得到什么呢 你儿子可能法学院毕业却找不到工作，女儿电影学院毕业很可能去当了按摩师，或者你可能有个音乐家儿子，整晚敲鼓让你没法睡觉。
你还很可能有一个不知感恩为何物，认为一切理所当然的孩子。这样的例子你一定亲眼看到了不少。笔者本人纯凭运气，有一对孝顺的儿子儿媳。我自己也不清楚怎会有这样的运气。
但是据我所知，我儿子纯属意外偏差。看看你的周围吧。富裕美国家庭抚养孩子的成本和收益大大不平衡。成本太高，收益太小。经常在作完养孩子的成本收益分析后，你会得到这样的结论：“不如去养条德国短毛猎犬吧！”
很多人确实是这样选择的，所以出生率下降了。但是因为养孩子成本收益率太低，就不抚养足够多的孩子，社会也会出现危机。现在已经出现了这种情况：本土出生的美国上中层阶级很少能子承父业了。由于在现代社会抚养孩子的负担太重，在某种程度上说，作为一个阶级我们正在自杀。
现代美国社会中孩子的现在净价值是多少 我们很难得出很高的价值。这也为美国的未来带来了一个问题。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
养儿不如养狗：美国社会养孩子回报率太低
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
澳洲日报 2009-09-01 16:58:55
在现代西方工业社会中，一个孩子的价值是多少 更具体一点说，美国中产阶级，上中层阶级或者下层阶级中一个孩子的价值究竟是多少 这一点是否和数十年来美国妇女生育率持续下降，以及受过教育的妇女生育第一个孩子的年龄要比没有受过同样教育的人高得多的实事相关联
先从经济学的角度说起吧。自由社会的人将会选择更多回报超过成本的东西。反之，自由社会的人同样会不选择那些价值不及价格的商品或服务。
然么，怎样看待孩子呢 显然他们不是商品也不是服务，某些方面的特质是商品不具备的，某些方面还想由不及商品。远古时期，正如我们都知道的，人类要孩子一方面是生理需要，一方面也可以帮他们打猎，采摘和看守炉火。
然后，社会进化得更有组织性，家庭选择要孩子一方面还是生理需要，一方面是因为孩子们可以在农场，牧场或是铁匠铺中充当助手。孩子们的需求不多，不过是吃饱穿暖有地方住，偶尔给与他们一些爱抚，或是办错事时教训一下他们。
现在我们可以控制生育。但是仅凭这一点也许不能完全解释为什么人们不一定需要孩子。
可能一个主要的原因就是现在孩子给父母们带来了很多难题。其中之一就是，由于各种各样的原因是，父母们经常需要累死累活才能给后代提供到私立学校受良好教育的机会。
私立学校上学的孩子的父母也需要为各种各样的课程付费：芭蕾课，马术课，音乐课，数学辅导，还有象棋俱乐部等等。另外家长还要让孩子去接受诸如不施麻醉的结肠镜检查等各种医检。健康的中上层美国孩子的家长还必须面对这样的场面：和孩子同学的家长进行社交往来。
一句话，现代社会抚养孩子就意味着当免费的私人司机，还要受到各种折磨。
然后就是大学了。大学学费会让很多家长大跌眼镜。一所“有名望的”大学每年的学费动则就会到$70，000，这对很多美国人来说是相当可观的一笔数字。
接着到了大学大学毕业那一天，在受了这么多年苦，花了这么多钱后，你会得到什么呢 你儿子可能法学院毕业却找不到工作，女儿电影学院毕业很可能去当了按摩师，或者你可能有个音乐家儿子，整晚敲鼓让你没法睡觉。
你还很可能有一个不知感恩为何物，认为一切理所当然的孩子。这样的例子你一定亲眼看到了不少。笔者本人纯凭运气，有一对孝顺的儿子儿媳。我自己也不清楚怎会有这样的运气。
但是据我所知，我儿子纯属意外偏差。看看你的周围吧。富裕美国家庭抚养孩子的成本和收益大大不平衡。成本太高，收益太小。经常在作完养孩子的成本收益分析后，你会得到这样的结论：“不如去养条德国短毛猎犬吧！”
很多人确实是这样选择的，所以出生率下降了。但是因为养孩子成本收益率太低，就不抚养足够多的孩子，社会也会出现危机。现在已经出现了这种情况：本土出生的美国上中层阶级很少能子承父业了。由于在现代社会抚养孩子的负担太重，在某种程度上说，作为一个阶级我们正在自杀。
现代美国社会中孩子的现在净价值是多少 我们很难得出很高的价值。这也为美国的未来带来了一个问题。
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Why Investors Need to See the Light and Slow Down
Why Investors Need to See the Light and Slow Down
by Jason Zweig
Monday, August 31, 2009
Don't be happy; worry.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average is up 46% since March 9, when the world itself seemed to be coming to an end. In the entire 113-year history of the Dow, only six rebounds have been bigger and faster. But the swiftness and magnitude of this bounce-back aren't reasons to be cheerful; they are reasons to be cautious.
In March, stocks traded as low as 11.7 times their average earnings over the previous 10 years, adjusted for inflation, according to finance professor Robert Shiller of Yale University. That put the market at its lowest valuation since January 1986. Today, however, stocks are selling at 18.4 times Prof. Shiller's measure of earnings. That isn't only up hugely from March but is above the long-term average of 16.3 times earnings.
More from WSJ.com:
• Taxman Turns to Social Networking Sites
• Lessons of the Financial Crisis
• CVS Fills a Presciption for Profits
Robert Rodriguez, chief executive of First Pacific Advisors in Los Angeles, says that in March, investors feared getting crushed in a further decline. Now all they seem afraid of is missing an even greater rally.
Mr. Rodriguez is convinced that the consensus -- economic recovery by early next year at the latest -- is wrong. "People are talking about whether the shape of the recovery will be a 'V' or a 'W' or even a 'square root,' " he says, "but I think we are in what I call a 'caterpillar economy.' It will be up and then down, up and then down. We will be far from normal for a very long period of time. People deploying capital will end up destroying capital."
I am not as worried as Mr. Rodriguez, but it is at times like these, when a rising market sweeps our spirits up with it, that investors need to evaluate their emotions and consider whether their beliefs and actions are justified.
In August, corporate insiders -- officers and directors of public companies -- sold nearly 31 times as much stock as they bought. From last September through this past March, in the depths of the bear market, that ratio was just 2 to 1, according to TrimTabs Investment Research of Sausalito, Calif. The long-term average is about 7 to 1.
The people who run companies don't know exactly what the future holds, but they do know more about their own firms than outsiders do. If they are furiously selling, how eagerly should the rest of us be buying?
It is well-known that investors chase past performance, buying whatever has just made the most money for other people. What isn't commonly understood is that investors also chase their own past performance, buying more of whatever they themselves have made the most money on.
Research by economist David Laibson of Harvard University shows that 401(k) participants tend to add significantly to whichever funds they already own that have gone up the most. "Investors expect," Prof. Laibson says, "that assets on which they personally experienced past rewards will be rewarding in the future, regardless of whether such a belief is logically justified."
That is exactly what seems to be happening now: In June, according to Hewitt Associates, 401(k) participants put 41.0% of their new contributions into stocks. In July, as the Dow shot up 725 points, they pushed that rate up to 42.3%. Participants also cut their contributions to "lifestyle" funds that keep a portion of their assets in bonds and cash.
The market's latest hot streak makes the future feel predictable, but it isn't. The Dow had an uncannily similar 46.5% gain in the 117 days that ended April 9, 1930; it lost almost 51% over the next year. Another 47% upswing in 1971 led to a long, choppy decline of more than 37%. The market also could go nowhere, as it did for months after a similar-size gain in 1975. Or it could hit new heights, as it did in 2004 after rising 47% from the lows of 2002.
In his classic book "The Intelligent Investor," the great money manager Benjamin Graham wrote that "the investor with a portfolio of sound stocks should expect their prices to fluctuate and should neither be concerned by sizable declines nor become excited by sizable advances." If you can't exercise that kind of emotional control, then by Graham's definition you aren't an investor at all.
I see nothing wrong with dollar-cost-averaging into this market, purchasing a fixed amount every month -- especially in a low-cost stock index fund. But to buy more of what has gone up, precisely because it has gone up, is to fall for the belief that stocks become safer as their prices rise. That is the same fallacy that led investors straight into disaster in 1929, 1972, 1999, 2007 and every other market bubble in history.
The market's light has turned yellow. Don't try to run it.
Write to Jason Zweig at intelligentinvestor@wsj.com
by Jason Zweig
Monday, August 31, 2009
Don't be happy; worry.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average is up 46% since March 9, when the world itself seemed to be coming to an end. In the entire 113-year history of the Dow, only six rebounds have been bigger and faster. But the swiftness and magnitude of this bounce-back aren't reasons to be cheerful; they are reasons to be cautious.
In March, stocks traded as low as 11.7 times their average earnings over the previous 10 years, adjusted for inflation, according to finance professor Robert Shiller of Yale University. That put the market at its lowest valuation since January 1986. Today, however, stocks are selling at 18.4 times Prof. Shiller's measure of earnings. That isn't only up hugely from March but is above the long-term average of 16.3 times earnings.
More from WSJ.com:
• Taxman Turns to Social Networking Sites
• Lessons of the Financial Crisis
• CVS Fills a Presciption for Profits
Robert Rodriguez, chief executive of First Pacific Advisors in Los Angeles, says that in March, investors feared getting crushed in a further decline. Now all they seem afraid of is missing an even greater rally.
Mr. Rodriguez is convinced that the consensus -- economic recovery by early next year at the latest -- is wrong. "People are talking about whether the shape of the recovery will be a 'V' or a 'W' or even a 'square root,' " he says, "but I think we are in what I call a 'caterpillar economy.' It will be up and then down, up and then down. We will be far from normal for a very long period of time. People deploying capital will end up destroying capital."
I am not as worried as Mr. Rodriguez, but it is at times like these, when a rising market sweeps our spirits up with it, that investors need to evaluate their emotions and consider whether their beliefs and actions are justified.
In August, corporate insiders -- officers and directors of public companies -- sold nearly 31 times as much stock as they bought. From last September through this past March, in the depths of the bear market, that ratio was just 2 to 1, according to TrimTabs Investment Research of Sausalito, Calif. The long-term average is about 7 to 1.
The people who run companies don't know exactly what the future holds, but they do know more about their own firms than outsiders do. If they are furiously selling, how eagerly should the rest of us be buying?
It is well-known that investors chase past performance, buying whatever has just made the most money for other people. What isn't commonly understood is that investors also chase their own past performance, buying more of whatever they themselves have made the most money on.
Research by economist David Laibson of Harvard University shows that 401(k) participants tend to add significantly to whichever funds they already own that have gone up the most. "Investors expect," Prof. Laibson says, "that assets on which they personally experienced past rewards will be rewarding in the future, regardless of whether such a belief is logically justified."
That is exactly what seems to be happening now: In June, according to Hewitt Associates, 401(k) participants put 41.0% of their new contributions into stocks. In July, as the Dow shot up 725 points, they pushed that rate up to 42.3%. Participants also cut their contributions to "lifestyle" funds that keep a portion of their assets in bonds and cash.
The market's latest hot streak makes the future feel predictable, but it isn't. The Dow had an uncannily similar 46.5% gain in the 117 days that ended April 9, 1930; it lost almost 51% over the next year. Another 47% upswing in 1971 led to a long, choppy decline of more than 37%. The market also could go nowhere, as it did for months after a similar-size gain in 1975. Or it could hit new heights, as it did in 2004 after rising 47% from the lows of 2002.
In his classic book "The Intelligent Investor," the great money manager Benjamin Graham wrote that "the investor with a portfolio of sound stocks should expect their prices to fluctuate and should neither be concerned by sizable declines nor become excited by sizable advances." If you can't exercise that kind of emotional control, then by Graham's definition you aren't an investor at all.
I see nothing wrong with dollar-cost-averaging into this market, purchasing a fixed amount every month -- especially in a low-cost stock index fund. But to buy more of what has gone up, precisely because it has gone up, is to fall for the belief that stocks become safer as their prices rise. That is the same fallacy that led investors straight into disaster in 1929, 1972, 1999, 2007 and every other market bubble in history.
The market's light has turned yellow. Don't try to run it.
Write to Jason Zweig at intelligentinvestor@wsj.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)