Singles Documentary Overly Focused on Marriage

I ordered “Single: a Documentary Film” from Amazon in the US since it was unlikely to be sold by Amazon, UK, in the immediate future. A couple of years ago I had ordered Maxed Out and In Debt We Trust from the US for similar reasons. To this day, those DVDs are still not sold on this side of the pond, unlike all the other more mainstream DVDs.

Despite the Amazon estimated delivery date of late November to early December, the DVD arrived at my door a few days ago. I’ve watched it and can now see why this would appeal to those frustrated with their single status, or those repeatedly pestered by parents and colleagues with that most hated of questions at weddings: “When will it be your turn?”

But perhaps this is where the documentary fails to deliver. By focusing on the question of why people are delaying marrying, the documentary examines how women have become more independent and how we (both men and women) have been culturally indoctrinated to expect everything from an exclusive pair bond – the soul mate concept. So at the same time that women can afford to take greater care over who they end up marrying, both single men and women are being conditioned to not stop looking until they find their ideal match. However, the viewer is left feeling that this is the norm, and although alternatives to seeking happiness through marriage are given a passing mention this whole area is left under explored.

The concept of happiness through couplehood is further reinforced by the documentary’s structure. It begins with interviews of experts, social commentators, and journalists interspersed with clips of singles in New York and London expressing how everything about the search for a romantic partner has changed.

Single 20-something female New Yorker: “I know a lot of  people who are 30 – single women, great, attractive, great careers, and they just aren’t ready. They want to, you know, fulfil their own dreams and travel and do some of these things before having to commit to someone and start their own family life.”

Christine Whelan: “Women and the majority of students in college. They are the majority of college graduates, and in fact the majority of people who get their Master’s degrees are also women. Women are also rising in the ranks in every field, professional degrees, etc.”

The film ends with a selection of those experts expressing their opinion that marriage will not decline and in effect be strengthened by these changes. It was as if the producers and editors of the documentary wanted to end on an optimistic note, but as a consequence this merely contributed to the tranditional meme – fullfilment through marriage.

Stephanie Coontz: “I think that delayed marriage is a sign that Americans value marriage more than ever before…”

Peter Francese: “… most marriage that have occured in the last 10, 15, 20 years are likely to last a lifetime.”

Of course if the viewer was paying close attention to all that went before, the above comments would not be an indication that the risks of marital breakdown have suddenly diminished and that it is now safe to enter the water. Marriage is only appearing to be a more reliable route to happiness because a lot more work is being done prior to that union, and because many are opting out of marriage all together. But you’d have to be a keen listener. Much of the film was devoted to the pressure to marry by a certain age including the alleged child rearing drive of most women, but a fair amount of time was spent explaining how recent changes in the way people find romantic partners has raised everyone’s expectations to unrealistic levels. Everything from the paradox of choice on internet dating sites, to easy availability of pornography, gets blamed. But there was some lip service to the fact that the pairing of romantic love and marriage is only a very recent development, however this view was limited to the 20th to 21st century and gives only  a tiny glimpse of the long history of changes in the role of marriage in Western civilization. The type of union that today’s post-feminism young adult, with all their technologically driven sense of entitlement, is encouraged to seek is very much an experiment that society is conducting for the very first time. No one can really predict how successful anyone embarking on this untrodden path will be.

So it was a bit disappointing that so much time in a documentary title “Single”, was spent redefining marriage in the 21st century. But perhaps the closing quote paves the way for a followup DVD:

Stephanie Coontz: “…but as a society we have to come to terms with the fact that marriage is no longer the only game in town.”

Apparently there is already a film in the works that hopefully seeks to explore the other “game in town”, but it is not a direct sequel as it  is produced by an entirely different team of film makers. The film is called “Seeking Happily Ever After“, due for release next year:

The film makers talk about what inspired them to make the film:

If instead of focusing solely on redefining marriage for singles, they are focusing on how singles are redefining life fulfilment as not being necessarily through marriage, then I know for certain what DVD I’ll be ordering from the US next year.

Flip flopping economy?

US tenants gain new rights in foreclosure

This past week, US President Obama signed into law the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act which among other things would allow tenants to stay in their residence for 90 days after the bank forecloses on the owner from whom they had been renting. Before this law was passed, tenants basically had no rights during a foreclosure and often have little or no warning when an eviction order is served. They are given little more than the time it takes to change the locks to vacate the property, as shown in this Current TV Vanguard special. How long must British renters who are caught up in the buy to let metldown wait for the UK government to afford them a similar privilege in the event of landlord default?

As always with new laws passed with the best of intentions, there are wrinkles:

For their part, lenders applaud the new notice provision, but are unclear when the 90-day clock starts, said Francis Creighton, vice president of the Mortgage Bankers Association. The foreclosure process can last more than a year, and the law isn’t specific on when notice to the tenant must be given.

While Creighton said renters are “blameless” in these situations, honoring their leases could disrupt a foreclosure sale as new owners try to move in. Other times, lenders have no idea renters live in the properties, Creighton said, because the landlords claimed the property was their primary residence, not a rental, to qualify for a lower mortgage rate.

Most banks, in addition, don’t have property management departments, so collecting rent, keeping up with renter complaints and maintenance is outside their business.

“If the boiler doesn’t work, then they will have to take care of it. Lenders aren’t set up to do this,” Creighton said.

Measures such as this will also keep renters, who could otherwise have exercised their non-rental options (stay with family or friends) , in the rental market and thus help slow the precipitous collapse in the housing bubble.

Buy to Let imploding?

Commuting in and out of London for my job does take its toll. At around two hours each way, I am tempted to take advantage of falling rents in London now that there are so many property sellers that have reluctantly entered the lettings market. They cannot get the price they were originally expecting as prices are crashing after the bursting of the housing bubble. But perhaps I should be more cautious about becoming a London tenant as there are still significant counterparty risks. Tenants generally have few rights in a repossession and the decade long buy to let boom implies that there are a lot of BTL speculators in the system that are now facing receivership. The process of flushing out the amateur property investors seems to be picking up as BTL repossessions are increasing. Probably not a good time to consider renting in London where the bubble had grown quite large indeed and still has quite a way to fall.  Small wonder that there is pressure to give tenants more rights especially when it comes to BTL repossessions where a tenant will be given a minimum of two months to find an alternative residence. If this comes to pass perhaps I’ll reconsider.

Explaining the financial crisis to kids

I’m ashamed to admit it, but I grew up knowing very little about how banks operate and how the global system of finance worked. It was not until in my mid 30s did I begin to appreciate money as debt. I’m now looking for simple explanations for the current financial meltdown aimed at kids (or ignoramuses such as myself).

At a very basic level we have Enspire’s introductory video on the credit crunch:

Although this explanation glosses over many of the details, at a very high level of abstraction it is essentially correct. Enspire’s next video attempts to delve into more detail as to why the quality of mortgages soured and also why banks were still so willing to issue loans to lower quality borrowers:

Several factors played a role in incentivising the growth of an unsustainable bubble. Low introductory interest rates encouraged higher risk borrowers to buy houses they could not really afford, mortgage broker fees encouraged over selling of mortgages to borrowers in spite of their high risk of default, and securitisation encouraged banks to buy mortgage debt.

That last point does need some further explanation – why were banks so eager to buy mortgage debt from each other? If a mortgage backed security is simple enough it is easy to trace back to the homeowner and assess the risk, however many banks had exposed themselves to the mortgage industry through derivative products called Collateralised Debt Obligations. In my opinion, the easiest to understand explanation for how these financial instruments worked was put together by Paddy Hirsch, senior editor of Marketplace Public Radio. His explanation included also the CDO of a CDO (or CDO squared) derivative product. I’ve even read of CDO cubed products being sold to investment banks. Banks further convinced themselves that they were not taking on too much risk thanks to hedging of bets they made on CDOs through the use of Credit Default Swaps – also brilliantly explained by Hirsch.

A very important player in both the CDS and CDO markets are the ratings agencies. They were incentivised to give the highest rating to the CDO products by the issuers who paid them fees for the service. Furthermore, the downgrading of counterparties in CDS arrangements by the ratings agencies often forces the insurer to scramble for more collateral which can quickly lead to a downward spiral toward bankruptcy, as explained by BBC’s Nigel Casidy. This probably had a big part to play in the downfall of Lehman Brothers, and also has AIG teetering on the brink.

Given its roots in the mortgage industry, one would have thought that the credit crunch contagion would have been contained within the housing sector. How did subprime defaults in American lead to a run on a bank in the UK? This financial meltdown primer by Say It Visually explains how a change in legislation allowed ordinary deposit based banks to also act as investment banks and so the contagion spread to the entire banking system:

Similar relaxation of banking regulation in the UK had a very similar detrimental effect on the solvency of financial institutions. So no surprise that the British have their own unique way of explaining complex economic problems to simple folk like me:

Get rich slowly, guaranteed?

Five years ago there were 4 couples — each had the same combined income and had identical debt burdens. They all followed the same gameplan of living within their means and playing the property market.

One earner in Couple A is struck down with an illness, temporarily halving the income. Debts start to mount, and they’re forced to downsize property, as debts rack up. Soon they cannot even pay for health insurance, worsening injury leads to permanent job loss and an eventual spiral downward into bankruptcy.

Couple B have a child and decide they have to move house to a better neighbourhood that has good schools. But so is every double income couple with children and there are not enough houses in good schooling districts. They are priced out of the market as a result and must either rent, or take on an interest only mortgage. They choose the latter but then later find themselves in debt when interests rates rise. The housing bubble then bursts and they’re forced to foreclose anyway. They must look for a better schooling district for their kid as the wave of foreclosures is causing crime to rise in their neighborhood.

Couple C buys a house with the intentions of renting out a room to help pay for the mortgage which they know they won’t be able to afford on their own (i.e. buy-to-let mortgage). Unfortunately everyone has the same idea and soon there is a glut in rental property, so they’re forced to lower rents to ensure they have a paying tenant. Interest rates rise in the booming economy but rental income is not keeping pace with interest payments. Soon the couple finds themselves in debt as recession looms, threatening their own salary and the wage levels of potential tenants.

Five years later Couple D are well on their way to becoming millionaires and owning 3 properties. They want to tell everyone how easy it is to do what they did so post it on their blog. Everyone reading it says this is good advice, since it worked for them so it must work for anyone who tries it — that is, anyone who has managed to write about their own success 5 years later on a blog. (If couples A, B, or C have blogs, people don’t seem to be linking to them for some unknown reason.)

And now we know there is no excuse for not being rich, since the economic conditions of the next 5 years will be exactly like those of the previous 5… no?