Are Fair Pay Agreements dead yet?

This post has been sitting in drafts for a while. Time to brain dump everything 2021 so that I can comfortably let my brain turn to mush over Christmas. But remember this post next year when this issue becomes big again.

A couple of weeks ago (or a lifetime ago in politics, depending on what speed your news clock runs at) BusinessNZ made the announcement that it will be pulling out of its role in the Fair Pay Agreements (FPA) system.

To refresh your memories, FPAs are the government's next step in its plan to bring about full communism by next election. 

Just kidding.

Essentially, FPAs are supposed to enable employer representatives and unions within a sector to bargain for minimum terms and conditions that will apply to all employees in that industry or occupation. In the Cabinet paper to establish approval to draft the legislation, BusinessNZ were identified as the 'default' employer representative: the representative that would come to the bargaining table if no other industry representative were willing to.

Back in July I wrote about how BusinessNZ's role in the process was a bit of an eyebrow raiser. Considering it had already publicly denounced the FPA system, it seemed deeply weird that it would take a pivotal role in enabling the system. As several commentators have pointed out, including this excellent Herald editorial, the only real surprise about Business NZ's withdrawal is that it took so long.

So what does all this mean for FPAs?

Welp, here's the Minister in charge replying to a press gallery journalist regarding BusinessNZ's move:

So... no need to worry. This almost sounds like a good thing for FPAs! First Union certainly seem super casual about BusinessNZ's announcement.

Here's the thing though: for collective bargaining to work, industry representatives do need to come to the table. Is that a realistic expectation? Federated Farmers were one of the first cabs off the rank to announce that they support BusinessNZ and will also refuse to be a negotiating partner.

It's easy to imagine a world where other industry reps follow that lead. Bargaining for something so fundamental puts a heck of a lot of pressure and reputational risk on the industry representative. Many industry reps have not traditionally played a collective bargaining role. And of those who do, it still requires institutional knowledge and experience to be able to bargain at scale, carrying responsibility for negotiating wages for an entire sector or industry. 

Are there any industry/employer representatives who are ready and willing to step up? Are there any other industry representatives who have strictly ruled the role out? That'd be useful public knowledge before an FPA bill is released for public submissions.

And then there's the option of going to determination: basically, if there's no industry representative to come to the table, the wages and conditions for an entire occupation and sector will be determined by a panel of Employment Relations Authority members.

Now, I don't want to get into semantics and the meaning of words (I'm still not over private taxi companies being counted as public transport by the way), but having the Employment Relations Authority set wages and conditions is not collective bargaining. There is no bargaining! Does this matter for FPAs? Well, you'd think so. Here's the objective of the system, as set out in the Cabinet paper:

Let's assume for a moment --and it's not a crazy assumption-- that a lot of FPAs end up being sent to determination because no industry representative was willing or able to come to the table. How would the Employment Relations Authority go about setting wages and conditions?

It's actually not straightforward at all figuring out what the objective of a sector/occupation-wide minimum wage should be, let alone how that translates into something binding for all employers. In fact, it's hard enough figuring out what the objective of the standard minimum wage is. In David Maré and Dean Hyslop's Minimum Wages in New Zealand: Policy and practice in the 21st century, the authors argue

A key challenge for evaluating the effectiveness of minimum wage policies is the lack of a clear statement of what minimum wages aim to achieve. Minimum wage policies can potentially contribute to several key policy objectives. They do not, however, operate in isolation, and their impacts depend on their interactions with other policy settings in areas such as industrial relations, tax and benefit policies, employment and training policies, and business support, making evaluation even more challenging.

The living wage has its problems too, in that it is a clunky calculation based on assumptions about household size, the status of other household workers, hours worked, consumption bundles (what people spend their money on), and national average rents. 

Coming up with a sector or occupation-wide minimum wage that is at all meaningful requires being really clear about what problem needs to be fixed, and having the economic tools available to assess whether that problem explains relatively low wages in that industry/occupation. That's no small task for the best economists in the country, let alone a panel of Employment Relations Authority members.

FPAs aren't dead yet.

But it's looking increasingly possible that the system will look nothing like the system that was originally envisaged: a collective bargaining system.

Hold that thought for next year, and pray we won't all be too distracted with Covid to notice the legislation coming through.

Vaccine certificate rules chuck taxi drivers under the bus

I really feel for taxi drivers right now.

While many businesses are having to shut up shop because they do not want to turn away unvaccinated* customers, taxis have the opposite problem: they're not allowed to turn away the unvaccinated. 

This week the Taxi Federation called on the government to remove the prohibition on taxi drivers (which includes rideshare drivers) being able to require vaccine passes and turn away unvaccinated passengers. RNZ reports:

Covid-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins said taxis were considered public transport and therefore did not require My Vaccine Pass.

"The government has been careful to balance the need to keep people safe from Covid-19 while ensuring everyone can access food, medicine and transport."

My initial reaction? This seems nuts. 

After a bit of thinking, I still think this is nuts. But it also gets to some gritty issues around what constitutes a life preserving service, the regulation of private businesses, and trading off different people's rights against each other. 

What constitutes a life preserving service?

Oh no. I fear debating this is about as straightforward as MBIE trying to define what counts as an essential service. Here's how taxis seem to fall into the criteria:

The linked briefing is the most fitting official document I've managed to find on the topic (if I got this wrong, I'm only willing to take half the blame: finding any kind of information on the traffic light system seems to lead to endless clickholes).

Now, I don't think anyone except the meanest anti-anti-vaxxers would argue with the intention of the policy. But the way the policy is applied is going to capture a lot of non life-preserving travel. Taxi drivers aren't just prohibited from turning down an unvaccinated passenger who needs to get to the supermarket or doctor. They're prohibited from turning them down fullstop.

And I'm not a transport expert, but it hurts my brain trying to think of how private businesses can be counted as public transport. I thought I knew what public transport meant: services provided by or contracted by central or local government. When I think public transport, I think buses, ferries and trains. Is Uber now public transport? When did this happen? My entire understanding of private enterprise is ruined.

Definitions aside, I'm also not psyched about just having a blanket prohibition on rejecting unvaccinated passengers. I get why policy wonks like it: it's administratively simple and easy to communicate (because the traffic light system is so easy to follow so far), and easy to enforce. But tidy policy isn't necessarily good for taxi drivers when it exposes them to more risky events than necessary.

Taking away choice about risk tolerances

There might very well be taxi drivers who are willing to take on the risk of unvaccinated passengers. But there are clearly also drivers who are worried, and who are uncomfortable taking on that risk. Not to mention drivers who are old thus vulnerable, or who live with people who can't get vaccinated themselves.

And for the sake of argument, I see the situation of taxi drivers as fundamentally different to the risks taken on by doctors, nurses, or police: they never signed up to protect and save lives. Nor are they comparable to supermarkets where physical distancing is a lot easier to enforce. They're not even comparable to bus drivers who are contracted to perform a public service.

In normal times, there are only limited circumstances under which taxi drivers can turn down a passenger (and now that I think about it, I'm not sure I'm 100% cool with that regulation either, but one battle at a time). But importantly, one of those reasons is if they believe their personal safety is compromised.

Surely the risk of catching Covid is an example of personal safety being compromised? And if not, remind me again why the unvaccinated have fewer rights occupying other businesses under the traffic light system?

Vaccine mandates are a mucky business, but equally mucky is banning the right of private businesses and individuals to take on extra precautions in order to feel safe. 

I think the word "feel" here is significant: perceptions of safety have an element of subjectivity. Even if a new study comes out tomorrow saying vaccinated people are just as risky unvaccinated people (vaccine sceptics, don't come at me with said study. I'm aware of the claims, and I'm aware of the critique of the claims), I'd still back the right of individuals to take their own precautions in an extremely uncertain environment.

On the one hand, the government is stopping people from taking on risks that they might be willing to take on. But on the other hand, it is also forcing people to take on risks that they are unwilling to. I mean, force is a strong word. I take that back. Taxi drivers can always just go out of business and become unemployed.

Trading off different people's rights

At the heart of most important Covid responses is the trading off of human rights. I for one am willing to give up a little bit of freedom in the short run if it means a safer, more freedom-filled life in the long run.

Minister Hipkins said that "the government has been careful to balance the need to keep people safe from Covid-19 while ensuring everyone can access food, medicine and transport."

In the case of taxi drivers, the decision seems pretty stark: a taxi driver's right to health is less important than the unvaccinated's right to life preserving services.

As the Taxi Federation puts it:

"We are being forced to provide a service to those that consciously refuse to protect themselves and others, willingly threatening the safety and wellbeing of our communities."

In an ideal world, you wouldn't need to make a trade-off: both sets of rights are important and both sets of rights ought to be advanced. It's stating the obvious to point out that this isn't an ideal world.

Is there a better way?

Full disclosure: I do not work in Covid policy, do not want to work in Covid policy and I don't envy those who have to work on these types of problems every single day. This stuff is hard. But there seem to be at least a few options on the table:

• Narrow the scope. Don't force taxi drivers to drive the unvaccinated to their mates' houses (I was about to say the pub, but they can't go there anyway) or wherever they go for fun these days (the park?). But do ensure they accept trips to actual life preserving services like the doctor or supermarket. 
• Don't count private businesses as public transport. That's an option. And if there are areas that aren't well serviced by public transport, I don't see why private businesses should bear the cost (if they choose not to). My first best option is to allow private businesses to choose whether to require a certificate. Call me a free market radical, but I'd be surprised if taxi drivers who are keen to just make a living wouldn't service those areas once the gap in the market has been identified.
• KiwiRide. I didn't say this was a good option. But rather than sticking an arbitrary public transport label on private businesses, why not at least start formally contracting them to provide what is apparently an important public service.

Maybe my options suck. But at the very least, I think this issue highlights the flipside of vaccine mandates. The government is exercising enormous powers to minimise Covid risks. But those powers can also prohibit individuals from exercising their own ability to take precautions to minimise risks in the same way.

*A note on wording: I'm using the term unvaccinated to refer to those who choose to be unvaccinated. In my mental model, people with vaccine exemptions should be treated equally to the vaccinated.

Human Rights Commission is hiring an economist

So, the Human Rights Commission (HRC) is advertising to hire a senior economist [edit: was advertising! I started writing this up yesterday but the ad has been pulled from its website today]. First reaction: I think that's great! I was genuinely excited and intrigued when I saw this advertisement pop up.

Let me explain. You see, I haven't heard much from the HRC lately. Which is a bit surprising. This is a pretty important time for having a national conversation on legitimate limitations on human rights: vaccine certificates, vaccine mandates for certain industries and occupations, lockdowns, and curtailing anti-lockdown protests. 

For what it's worth, I have been broadly comfortable with where NZ has landed on a lot of these matters (although the handling of Auckland is getting messier by the day and I don't envy the decisionmakers). That's more based on gut feelings about the benefits outweighing the costs. But human rights is more HRC's domain than mine, do they have a position on this? 

More importantly, does HRC really want to cede public commentary about the human rights implications of vaccine mandates to the likes of Damien Grant? I wouldn't think so. And yet, here we are. 

I see that there's some advice on the HRC website that looks pretty good, but it doesn't cover the latest traffic light settings which call for vaccinations in a lot more situations than the ‘high risk' occupations currently described (MIQ and border workers, healthcare, disability support and education settings). The website's guidance says

This approach to balancing rights will of course depend on the particular issue and context. For example, the Human Rights Act applies differently to public decision-makers compared to private entities, such as businesses. What is ultimately important is that human rights guide decision-making, whether by government decision-makers or businesses. The Human Rights Commission encourages businesses, service providers and employers to seek legal advice to ensure their Covid-19 policies do not breach the rights of others.

Which is...very safe advice. But it'd be useful to know what human rights are at stake, instances where human rights might need to be balanced against each other, and possible grounds for limiting rights. We've got some court judgments coming through that test these waters, but given this is all pretty new I think it's worth making the public aware of the universe of possible interpretations. 

And more recently, HRC expressed concern that the Government’s new traffic light system does not give priority to ensuring high vaccination rates among Māori before easing restrictions. I've got no strong allergic reactions to advocating for high vax rates, especially for a vulnerable group. Ensuring that everyone who wants to get vaccinated is able to, or that people receive the right information and guidance to make an informed decision about getting vaccinated, seems like the right way to go to protect the right to health. 

But, given it is surely part of their analytical framework, it was disappointing the HRC weren't explicit about what other human rights they've balanced their concerns against.

Besides this recent media appearance, the HRC seem to be avoiding the elephant in the room: there's another niggly bit about the traffic light system that people are worried about. It's the idea that vaccination will be compulsory for some activities. Actually, a wide range of activities. Whether you agree this is good or bad thing, you have to agree that this is big. 

I thought maybe that's why HRC are looking to hire an economist. Big issues like this involve striking a fair balance between multiple interests -- all protected by different bits of human rights law. Limiting the exercise of some human rights can be acceptable if the response is proportionate. Who better than an economist to look into the proportionality of responses? Economic frameworks are useful in analysing the trade-offs between multiple interests. I really thought this is where they were going with the advertisement.

Economists have done some good work in  this area. If you haven't caught it already (it would be rude of me to presume that you do not regularly read the latest working papers coming out of the National Bureau of Economics), there's a great piece looking at the extent individual preferences for protecting  rights and civil liberties are elastic to health insecurity. In other words, how individual preferences for protecting human rights and liberties might change (or on the flipside, be resistant to change) when there is a health threat like Covid. There's a lot of potential for NZ work to be done in the area: what are the specific trade-offs people make? What are the differences in elasticities between different demographic groups? What are the contingent factors that can tip the scales? If you're as excited about this paper as I am, you might be interested in their finding:

Turning to differences across sociodemographic groups within countries, we find that individuals disadvantaged by education, income, or race (in the United States) are less willing to sacrifice rights than more advantaged individuals. The smaller elasticity of Black Americans with respect to health insecurity may be surprising given the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on communities of color, but is consistent with a longstanding struggle for equal rights and few substitute means for accessing political power (e.g., lobbying or donations) outside of exercising traditional democratic freedoms. 

This suggests that the ability to sacrifice rights in times of crisis may be better characterized as a “luxury good” than a sacred value. 

A deeper understanding of how people are valuing certain human rights (and why) seems like useful information for HRC to have up their sleeve. 

And let's be honest, HRC probably could have done with an economist before Covid times too. Remember in 2019 when they called for free early childhood education for all, fair pay agreement contracts for all, and raising the minimum wage to a living wage? I believe the Act Party called for the HRC to be abolished after that paper (OK, you caught me, I'm only linking to this article because the editors picked a hilarious picture of David Seymour to accompany the piece). All of these arguments would be a lot more compelling if HRC could assure the public that they'd run the numbers and were convinced that the benefits outweighed the costs, and done some thinking about who bears the costs and benefits and whether that's justified.

But anyway, I'm getting ahead of myself. I've read the job description and I'm not fully convinced that this is the work the HRC economist will be engaging in. The ad has disappeared between yesterday and today, maybe because the position has been filled. But here's a screenshot. 

I suspect the pool of economists who have "demonstrable experience in advising on the implications of Te Tiriti and colonisation on economic wellbeing" is pretty small. 

Whoever fills the advertised position, I hope they can bring the concept of proportionality into HRC's regular analysis. I don't want to sound clichéd, but these are unprecedented times, and the HRC has a potentially important role in advocating for how to balance competing human rights and duties.

Oh, and to avoid any doubt: no, I did not use this post as the cover letter for my application.

This is what happens when you tell women they're bad at math

Boy have I found a sexy economics paper to share with you all.

And by sexy I mean interesting, provocative, useful and upsetting. With a splash of Bayesian statistics. (why, what do you mean by sexy?). 

As is typical in economics, the authors have tried to hide its sex appeal with the title: A (Dynamic) Investigation of Stereotypes, Belief-Updating, and Behavior, by Katherine B. Coffman, Paola Ugalde Araya & Basit Zafar. But do not be fooled! 

What's the paper about?

This paper looks at how men and women update their beliefs and choices based on feedback on their verbal skills and maths. It addresses the gender gap in beliefs about skills, gender gaps in appetites for competition based on those skills, and the gender differences in how men and women change their beliefs and choices when they get feedback on their skills.

What's the big finding?

Here's the clanger because I don't believe in saving the conclusion until last: when women receive bad feedback, especially in math, they update their beliefs and choices more negatively than men do. They are also more likely to remember negative feedback in the future and let it guide their decisions.

As a grown woman with a complicated relationship with math, this hit hard. Math and I carry a lot of baggage. 

But let's go back a bit...how is the paper different from what we know already?

Here's the stuff that's already been established in previous literature:

• There's a gender gap in labour market outcomes, even amongst the highly skilled (and yeah, there's a whole pool of literature in what explains that gender gap which I won't get into).
• Women are less likely to major in high-earning STEM or business fields.
• Women are significantly less likely to opt into competitive tournaments than men, and growing evidence suggests men tend to be more over-confident than women on average.
• Providing feedback about performance can reduce gender gaps in competitive tournament entry in laboratory settings. But lab settings have tended to be one-off situations.
• When participants take an IQ test and receive feedback on their performance, one month later, beliefs are more responsive to positive than negative feedback, and positive feedback is more likely to be accurately recalled. 

What makes this study different from similar literature on gender gaps in beliefs and competitive choices:

• The authors investigate how the effects of feedback dissipate over time, and how the fade-out (if any) may depend on the stereotype of the domain (verbal abilities as a typically female domain and math as a typically male domain) and gender. 

So what did the study actually do?

I think I'm going to have to quote at length here, because I don't think my rewording can do this experiment justice. Here's a simple (I mean...simple is a relative concept here) explanation of what they study is trying to do:

Our experiment is inspired by many educational settings, where students take introductory courses in different domains, receive noisy feedback, and then decide what to specialize or compete in. We use a stylized, controlled environment to mimic important features of this setting, producing several advantages. 

First, we observe individual measures of ability in both domains. Second, we observe exogenous changes in the individual’s information set (which are quite hard to isolate in non-experimental settings), allowing us to cleanly study belief updating. Third, we have precise measures of beliefs. And, finally, we have well-defined measures of payoffs for the chosen domain as well as for the counterfactual domain - this offers us an advantage since counterfactual payoffs are, by definition, not observed in the field. 

Our design allows us to collect detailed information about beliefs, choices, and recall at different points in time in both a female and a male-typed domain. This allows us to ask whether there are differences across men and women and/or differences across the associated stereotype of the task. Thus, we present results in terms of two gender gaps: the male − female gap (average differences between men and women) and the gender-congruence gap (average differences between individuals in the gender-congruent domain and individuals in the gender-incongruent domain). Both gaps are potentially important for understanding gender disparities in educational and career settings of interest.

And in plain English? 

The experiment took place in two sessions, one week apart.

In the first session, participants (university age) take two assessment quizzes: one in math and one in verbal skills. Next, participants report their beliefs about their absolute (do they think they did well?) and relative performance (do they think they did well relative to their peers?) in each domain. The experimenters next inform participants that they will take a second round of quizzes one week later. 

Participants are then given a series of choices about how they would like to be compensated for their future performance in round 2. This is meant to measure choices around appetite for competition and pay-for-performance:

• First, they choose between being paid for math performance under a piece-rate scheme or for verbal performance under a piece-rate scheme ($1 per correct answer). This indicates their preferred domain.
• Next, the experimenters elicit participants' willingness-to-accept competition in each domain using price lists. Participants make a series of choices between receiving either $1 per correct answer in verbal (math) or entering a competitive pay scheme in math (verbal). The competitive option pays $X per correct answer in math (verbal) if they place in top the 40% of performers in the Round 2 math (verbal) quiz, but 0 otherwise. For each domain, we vary X from $1.5 to $4 across the rows. This indicates their willingness to compete with their peers.

Some participants then receive feedback about their relative performance (i.e. their performance relative to their peers). The peer reference group is randomly computer-generated, so the participant learns whether they performed better or worse than a random peer. Randomness is key here because the participant has no idea about average performance: they don't know if they got lucky or unlucky with the computer-drawn peer. So the information is useful, but noisy.

For half of the sample of participants who received feedback, the experimenters ask participants to update their beliefs about performance and choices (see above) again immediately after the receipt of this feedback. 

The other half of the sample that receives feedback leaves the first session without providing updated beliefs or choices. 

All participants return for the second session one week later. In the second session, participants share their beliefs and choices again, including those that did not receive feedback in the first session.

All participants then take the two Round 2 quizzes. Participants are also asked to recall the feedback they received in each domain at the end of the second session

What were the results?

Apart from the headline finding, here are some other interesting results:

• Men and women respond similarly to positive feedback if the have the same starting point, and they update their beliefs and choices similarly in response to positive feedback.
• The impact of bad news fades less over time than the impact of good news, particularly for women (relative to men) and for individuals who receive bad news in incongruent domains--women who receive bad news about their math skills, men who are bad at verbal skills-- (compared with congruent domains).
• Women's beliefs about their performance are more pessimistic than men's, and women are less willing to compete.
• Immediately after feedback, gender gaps are somewhat reduced, particularly for beliefs. However, in the week following feedback, gaps grow back toward their starting point. In particular, gender gaps in choices one week later are indistinguishable from gender gaps at baseline.
• The results are not driven by simply forgetting the feedback: 88% of feedback is accurately recalled one week later.

So to round it all up:

If we take a man and a woman with the same performance and the same initial beliefs, then provide the same bad news, the woman holds more pessimistic beliefs about herself one week later compared to the man. Similarly, even if we hold fixed performance and initial choices, women (compared to men) are less willing to compete one week after bad news. 

Now what?

As the authors allude to, these findings have implications for understanding how men and women might choose their fields of study, and subsequently, the gender ratios in certain domains and overall differences in labour market outcomes. 

I mean, this is just one study. It doesn't tell us the state of the universe. You'd need more studies looking into the same thing to know if we're really onto something here. 

But at the very least, I think this study helps us think about the multiple points where gender gaps can take place, emphasises the need to investigate how prior beliefs develop in the first place, and urges better thinking on how to cushion the long-lasting effects of negative feedback. 

I took a break, and now I'm back

So... I took a break from this blog. I didn't mean to. But leading up to lockdown, life got busy. And then during lockdown my brain got a little fuzzy and it's taken a while to get back into good habits. But I started this blog for a reason and it feels too early to give up on something without giving it my all. 

So this piece is me, trying to get things back on track. 

I'll start with a roundup of all the things I've been contemplating, reading and watching over the last two months (damn, how are we near the end of September??).

Stuff I read

Well, I read less than I have been for most of the year as my long term relationship with the library was put on hold and also, the aforementioned lockdown fuzzy brain. But the few books I did read were awesome and appropriate for my mood.

How to not die alone: The Surprising Science That Will Help You Find Love, Logan Ury

A somewhat bleak choice during lockdown. But I really enjoyed this book, and would happily recommend it to any single ladies out there because surely I'm not the only one on the planet in need of a little guidance.

How to not die alone is a very practical guide to dating and relationships, drawing on behavioural economics. Given I'm normally sceptical of both dating advice and behavioural economics, it's a miracle I'm such a fan (slight digression but...I think a lot of the instincts around behavioural economics are basically right and the approach is laudable but my gripe is that some people really stretch the conclusions and put way too much weight on theories that are sometimes based on shonky psych studies).

I loved the economics sprinkled throughout the book, and even though I remain sceptical of some of the studies (I cringed when the famously debunked 'paradox of choice' jam jar study was mentioned), I was willing to buy into many of the concepts. 

I also realised I've been an idiot by failing to conceive of the dating universe as just one big matching market. And as a Kiwi Indian over a certain age, my market's already thinner than others. And there are a bunch of other economic concepts that fell out of that: signaling, network effects, search costs, optimal stopping theory. I wish I'd done this analysis sooner. It seems so obvious now: the lowest cost, highest reward option for me right now is dating. 

Please look forward to my forthcoming paper on the economics of the dating market for Kiwi Indian women. I'm going to have to put in a lot more research.

Masala lab: The science of Indian cooking, Krish Ashok

This book was good! It's all about the science behind Indian cooking and why we cook things a certain way and in a certain order (and when it's OK to break the rules). It's almost disturbing how much I learned from this book. Why am I only now learning about how to layer flavours? Or that powdered spices are pretty much just aromatic sand (OK, I probably did know this one but have been too lazy prep my own masala and a part of me still wishes I didn't know the truth). It's a good book for younger generations who didn't grow up learning to cook the traditional way and absorbing all the basic instincts. It's also a good book if you're like me and feel that understanding the science behind something makes it even more wonderful (my appreciation of wine, for example, increased tenfold once I read about the science and geography behind it).

I think I'm going to have a lot of fun using the lessons from this book. One thing I took away from it is to treat your cooking like a science experiment: change one or two variables at a time to see how the final result fits with your preferences. I like this because it takes away the crushing disappointment of cooking a less-than-amazing dahl or curry because it's all just part of the experimentation process. Plus, experimenting helps with troubleshooting exactly when in the process the recipe went awry.

Year of yes, Shonda Rhimes

I picked this book up from the library after lockdown because I felt like I needed a bit of motivation. And I'm still thinking about it which makes it a good book and if it's a good book then I should make sure other people hear about it too. The premise of the book sounds a little corny: Shonda Rhimes, a highly successful and publicly acclaimed woman, commits to saying 'yes' to everything for entire year. Thankfully, the book's so much more than that. First, Shonda Rhimes is a beautiful and compelling (and funny!) writer so even if the content was bad it would've been a good read. Grey's Anatomy fans will love the Christina Yang references too. And this is the perfect book for introverts. Her descriptions of her once debilitating fear of public speaking vibed just a little too well. The main takeaway for me was just understanding a bit more around the default preferences of introverts and the importance of challenging those defaults sometimes.

Things I've been watching

I'm ashamed of how much Netflix I've managed to get through. And worse, how easily my brain slipped back into binge watching after years of training myself out of the habit. But it's done now, and I did discover some gems. This is a very abridged list.

Om Shanti Om

I wrote a whole roundup of excellent Indian films and didn't include Om Shanti Om. I've avoided this epitome of Bollywood for a long time because I assumed it would be too campy for my tastes. I won't lie. It's pretty campy. But also so, so good with a decent storyline to boot. Maybe chalk it up to lockdown, but I went into this film feeling pretty drained. But part-way through the film I found myself grinning. Actually grinning (yes, for those who have seen the film, it was during That Song). And I experienced this new and weird sensation which I think was pure joy? If you're new to Bollywood I recommend watching this after watching some of the big titles, as I think this is a film that rewards people who know their Bollywood. And if you're like me and have watched a bit of Bollywood but somehow skipped over this one, I implore you to correct this immediately.

Love is Blind

I got deeply invested in the relationships in this reality TV series and quickly developed reckons. The concept is about blind dates where couples "fall in love" without seeing each other, but the real juice comes with tracking their relationships when they can see each other and interact in the real world. Good escapism and incredibly binge-worthy.

The Bold Type

The series follows three millennial women working in the journalism industry. As a millennial woman myself, this hit all the right feels: career wins and struggles, having great mentors, the absolute beauty of female friendships, wokeism and not wokeism, and the highs and lows and grey areas of dating. 

Daughters of Destiny

Thank you, Netflix for giving me a little perspective. This is a documentary series about the Shanti Bhavan school in India which educates children from the 'untouchable' caste. I would have been perfectly satisfied with a documentary that talks about the importance of education for upward mobility in India, and the importance for girls in particular. But the documentary goes deeper in following the journeys of a set of girls through their education and home lives, and learning to straddle two very different worlds. That is, two very different worlds in India: the educated class and those who haven't had that opportunity. There was more than one 'oof' moment for me watching this series, and you find yourself rooting for those who are able to escape their circumstances while despairing for those left behind. As I said, this is a good watch for those needing a bit of perspective: this is why we fight for freedom and individual dignity.

The Mindy Project

This series needs no introduction or description, right? There are many episodes and I watched them all. 

Plans for the blog moving forward

No plans, as such. Except a conscious refocusing towards stuff that interests me or that I care about. If that happens to be policy or politics-related stuff then I know that it'll vibe with certain readers. But if what gets me back into the habit of writing happens to be roundups of my favourite Mindy Project episodes, then I guess we will all just have to deal with it.