Letters to the Editor
KayWWW
Published Letters: 208 Editor's Choice: 75
-
Research Location?
[Read the article: No race to the bottom]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Andrew, you said that a "major" reason for moving R&D to China and India is because there are emerging markets in China and India. But why does that matter when it comes to research? Consider drug research. Chemists and biologists in the US work on research that results in drugs that are manufactured and sold all over the world. Once those years of research results in a viable drug, the information needed to make that drug is sent to a manufacturing plant - which could be located next door or around the world. It doesn't add any value to have the research facility physically located near the end consumer. It may be a valid reason to locate manufacturing plants nearby, but not R&D. Would a company need to have R&D facilities in the US to research drugs for American consumers and R&D facilities in China to research drugs for Chinese consumers? Not really. It's an excuse.
As far as salaries going up in India and China, that's a valid concern, but there's a long way to go before salaries there equal salaries here. American workers have to deal with the cost of living here - it doesn't get matter what you get paid, it matters what you can buy with that amount of money. It's unlikely that salaries in China and India will rise to the point that they'll equal salaries here, when American workers have to pay rent and buy groceries etc. at the price level of the US market.
-
Artistry Still Counts
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Arakawa's performance deserved the gold. It wasn't just the jumps - as Dick Button would say, her edges were outstanding. If Cohen or Slutskaya had skated perfectly, they might have beaten her, but I think Arakawa's skate would have placed her near the top regardless.
Arakawa's win and Cohen's silver may also quiet some of the criticism of the new scoring system. Arakawa won with a combination of athleticism and artistry, and showed that it's possible to succeed under the new system with a fairly traditional program. Cohen and Slutskaya received almost identical points for jumps, but Cohen got the edge because of her skills in other areas, as well as her "heart".
I thought that the hysteria over the new system was overblown anyway - the conflict between athleticism and artistry has been going on for years. (Look back at some of the criticism of Tara Lipinski in 1998.) The new system may award points in a more transparent way, but it's not that different fundamentally. Artistry is still worth half of the score, and if anything, the new system gives more emphasis to spins and footwork and less to jumps. The commentators have just been focusing on the point values because it's an unfamiliar system - and it gives them something to talk about.
-
Some Superficial, Some Not
[Read the article: Good night and good frock?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Oscars are a guilty pleasure for me, and I watched some of the pre- and post-interviews. George Clooney was asked, by several reporters, what designer he was wearing. (He nearly always wears Armani, so there's not much to say.) He was asked plenty of other inane questions, along with the political ones. I also saw Reese Witherspoon asked intelligent questions about her movie - not political questions, but questions about June Carter, her character, her approach to acting, etc. E! may not have asked those questions, or shown them on TV, and that's an issue itself, but it's not that Witherspoon was never asked an intelligent question, or that Clooney was only asked serious questions.
-
Good For Everyone
[Read the article: A truce in the "Mommy Wars"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Everybody loves to feel superior to someone. I sometimes joke with my parent friends that the only thing that stay-at-home moms and working moms can agree on is that they're both infinitely superior to the single and childless. Maybe that explains the condescending comments I sometimes get from mothers about my choice not to have children.
I have a lot of sympathy for mothers who want to change the corporate world to be more flexible. Even though I don't have children myself, I think supporting children is important. But the secret to doing it may be to extend those benefits to everyone, not just mommies. Maybe this is just selfish on my part, being single and childless. But I look at benefits like flex-time, and I think "everyone could benefit from that, not just mothers. And it would could make all workers more productive and happy". Maybe I could use it to avoid commuting traffic, or feed my dog, or take care of elderly parents. Why should it matter to the company how I use that time? But the company where I work only allows this benefit to parents. I think presenting these options as helpful to everyone would make them more supported and more likely to be adopted. (Although these days, workers seem to be more likely to lose benefits than to gain them so maybe it's a lost cause.)