回国不到三周，在美国的那些日子已然恍若隔世，没有太多留恋，更多的是期待。

大概还在蜜月期，好像除了觉得包括房子在内的各种东西价格比心理价位要高以外，暂时还没有什么不适应的。其实是一个心态问题。已经有好几次被人问：都出国那么长时间了还回来干什么？不知有没有“是不是混不下去了才跑回来”的弦外之音。我想，我在国外还是能混的，也没觉着给那什么什么的丢脸，但会游泳的就一定要一直泡在水里么？

然而南京市敬爱的警察阿姨却不这么认为，非要假定我已经在国外定居，一定要我出示两年前在美国从学生签证转为工作签证的美国移民局文件才给我上户口办身份证。于是，一个中国公民在中国的土地上得出具美国政府的文件才能落户才能拥有自己的中国身份证，也算是奇闻一件。而国家一方面说欢迎留学生回国，但回来以后国家要怀疑你，程序上假定你一定是在国外定居了，非要自己国家的公民来举证没有别的国家的户口，也是非常具讽刺意味的。

回国前萍儿说，以后不能总用国内的短处比国外的长处，应该多反过来想想。深以为然。

肉食动物的新发现

—-
另：如果有朋友遇到过类似情况有办理的经验，请不吝指点一下。

上一次到北京还是两千年的时候，千禧年午夜和萍儿在某辆出租车里听广播里的主持人倒数计时，听见零点时相视一笑互祝新年快乐。

今晚的火车，又要去北京了。不知这次能住多久，是不是还像以前一样喜欢这个深厚大气的城市。

又是新年，在家休息。小小南在臂弯里已经睡熟了，小南专心致志地在第一百遍拼她的恐龙拼图。想想趁闲简单记述一下旅美十二年的历程，借此画上一个句号。

第一年。 一个人。好好学习天天向上，课余打一份工，体力活。不太喜欢和其他中国留学生交往，觉得来念研究生的都拖家带口婆婆妈妈的，交谈不是绿卡就是买房小孩上学问题，绿卡我是坚决不要的，房子和孩子在自己的肚子没有解决的情况下还是很遥远的问题。坚信本科毕业以后立刻回国，一天也不要在美国多呆。很不理解在美国呆上十年八年的老留。

第二年。 一个人，后来就变两个人了，回国的事情也就不那么迫切了。课余打两份工，从学校宿舍搬到校外一户人家的地下室住，买了辆自行车，每天带着老婆回家路上可以非常意气风发地从坡顶溜到坡底，当然上学路上骑车带人就比较地吃力。被地下室的臭虫叮得遍体鳞伤的时候很怀念在北京呼朋唤友的日子，对未来很迷茫不知道自己应该做什么。成绩不错，想过念博士但觉得自己到底不是那块料也耐不住五年的寂寞，试过赶互联网的大潮创业但发现其中的困难和艰辛不是单靠主观意愿就能克服的。

第三年。 两个人。一个人找了份正式的工作，另一个就可以正式地念书了。当时的互联网泡沫已经破灭，于是更加迷茫自己该做什么，想做什么，或者两者是否有交集。有了份程序员的工作就很侥幸了，先工作着，养家糊口再说。两千五买的十来年旧的车，一年里很天真地缝缝补补花了七八千。

第四年。 还是两个人，一个人上班一个人念书。经济宽裕了一些，终于买了辆新车，买车一星期后发生了911。机场开始神经质的安检，但俩人开着车北上缅因南下佐治亚西进芝加哥玩得不亦乐乎。开始觉得在大学里当程序员挺无聊了的。工作虽然稳定但是总觉得不甘心一辈子做到老。

第五年。 依然两个人，依然一个上班一个念书，继续攒了点钱，继续到处去玩。上班的那点事情已经没有什么挑战了，已然成为了熟练工种。后来念书的毕业了，上班的就可以仔细考虑到底要做什么了。

第六年。 终于两个人都工作了，好歹是个丁克，收入不高也不低，属于能够支撑一房两车但子女上学就要节衣缩食的那种。开始兼职念研究生并在本校的中国学生会里做事，给平凡的生活中加一些挑战。自己也开始婆婆妈妈，开始考虑房子和孩子问题和并继续考虑长远发展问题，意识到还是刻骨铭心地想回国的。

第七年。 继续双职工生活。在学生会的一年工作中充分体会到了助人为乐，独乐乐不如众乐乐，和与人斗其乐无穷的“三乐”道理，另得知本科时期的一好友毕业后潇洒地在北非游历一年然后进了哈佛法学院，于是豁然开朗。房子的问题最终搁置，一是当时价格涨得已经很厉害了，买不起，二是手上那点钱看来还是要投资到再教育中去。然而孩子的问题得到解决，是为小南。

第八年。 三个人。如愿以偿地回学校开始接受再次教育，虽然没有在北非游历，也没有进哈佛。但哈佛的那位老兄最终也没有当律师，而是做了互联网的创业。之所谓命运的交叉。入学后和八年前一样好好学习天天向上，期间喜见小南茁壮成长。绿卡我是坚决不要的，房子依然是很遥远的问题。坚信法学院毕业以后立刻回国，一天也不要在美国多呆。

第九年。 依然三个人。两个大人都回学校充电了。一年间在密歇根和芝加哥之间穿梭往返，如果租车行能积攒里程的话估计能换购小半辆新车了。小南聪明好学懂事，很欣慰。

第十年。 还是三个人。两个大人都毕业了，各自都有回香港和去纽约的机会，两者之间摇摆不定了很久，最终觉得商学院毕业的在纽约的机会好一些，一年以后转回香港的把握也很大，遂举家迁往纽约。

第十一年。 三个人。两个大人都重新开始工作，经济危机开始，除了年终奖外没有受到直接影响，但回国计划变得遥不可及。所幸还都喜欢新的工作，小南也很喜欢新的幼儿园。

第十二年。 变成四个人了。小小南的到来和回国计划的复苏几乎同时进行，所谓双喜临门。如果不出意外的话年内终于能回国了。

回头看来确实走了不少弯路，但正如英谚所说，getting there is half the fun，经历的风景不错，而且所幸一路有人陪伴走来，也没落下什么，算是完整的十二年一个轮回吧。其后又是一个全新的开始，又是一路新的风景。

I’ve been watching the housing market in China for a while and reading about the conflicting predictions (and the supposed reasons supporting these predictions) of the direction of the price. I tend to think that, based on the ridiculously high price-to-rent ratio alone, this is a huge bubble waiting to pop, but would love to be proven wrong.

My simplistic thinking is as follows. Economists like to think in terms of long-term equilibrium and the short-term distortions that depart from and return to the equilibrium. For consumers, the long-term choices are: owning a residence versus investing the same amount of money and renting a residence using investment income. The long-term equilibrium should be that the consumer is indifferent between the two.

Some may say that Chinese families prefer to own rather than rent. Notwithstanding the fact that currently “land ownership” under Chinese law is equivalent to a 70-year fixed-term assignable lease, I am willing to discount the rent option to account for the preference, but that does not explain the large disparity between the price to purchase and the price to rent we currently see in the housing market in China.

Some argue that there’s this “inelastic demand” for housing and limited supply. They overlook the fact that the only thing “inelastic” about demand for housing is that people need basic housing, whether by owning or renting. An example illustrates the point. It is indisputable that food, like housing, is a basic necessity, and there is a certain element of “inelasticity” to it. But the inelasticity ends at the basic food supplies, which can be purchased from the market as needed. No one would argue that the demand in higher quality food (e.g., organic food) is inelastic, or that to ensure a constant supply of food one must own the land that produces it. Same with the housing market. Demand for basic housing is inelastic, but demand for housing in a desirable neighborhood or a convenient location is not. And people can fulfill the need for housing by purchasing piecemeal from the market (i.e., renting), much like going to the food market every week for food supplies, without owning the piece of property that produces the commodity.

Yet some say buying a residence is a good investment. I think this may be true for those whose investment portfolios are sufficiently large and diversified. But for someone who needs to invest his life savings (and those of his parents), i.e., many prospective buyers in the housing market in China constituting the so-called “inelastic demand,” I am not sure if putting all one’s eggs in one basket is a wise decision. Most people would never borrow a large sum of money from the bank to invest solely in the real estate sector of the stock market, yet many are willing to do exactly the same and invest in just one or two properties, the value of which is affected by even more factors and subject to even higher volatility than the real estate sector as a whole. It’s a risky investment that may pay off handsomely, as has been the case in the past several years, but the tide can turn quickly, as we’ve seen in the real estate markets and stock markets elsewhere.

The only thing left, I think, that would explain the high housing price and relatively much lower rent, is speculation. And when the market goes up on nothing else but broad-based speculation, it’s called a bubble. People speculate that the housing prices will go even higher, so they now buy and hold in the hopes of making a profit later by reselling. And when they buy, they inflate demand and drive up the price, so even those who do not buy for speculative purposes and has no need to buy immediately now feel an immediate need to buy before the price goes up too high, further inflating the immediate demand (at the cost of weakened future demand).

=========
Separately, I’ve been thinking about the legal market in China lately. The job market there (and here in New York) now is very much different from when I started law school and interviewed for jobs. But for Chinese law students here in the US, I think the outlook is even better than before.

Again, look at this from a supply and demand perspective. Demand for U.S. trained, bilingual Chinese attorneys who are willing to commit to Asia will only increase over time as the cross-border transactions increase in both number and complexity. Supply will remain low because of (1) the language barrier, and (2) the cost of the legal education, neither of which is likely to change in the foreseeable future.

Language. Law school and law firm work is language-intensive. I think the Chinese students who are most likely to succeed in law school are the English majors (or those who have a far better command of the English language than the average non-English majors) and those who have lived in an English speaking country for some time. I have seen non-English majors coming directly from China doing very well in U.S. law schools, but they are the rare exceptions rather than the rule.

Cost. Three years of JD now cost at least 180k without financial aid. (One year of LLM is less expensive, but the LLM degree is also a lot less marketable.) This is still a very large number for a lot of Chinese families. The AccessGroup loan program that used to be available to foreign law students without US residents as co-signers was terminated recently. So even fewer Chinese students can afford (or borrow enough) to attend law school than before.

======
I guess there is a lot of truth in “buy low, sell high,” after all. The housing market is high, the legal market is low. Thinking of which one to buy into and which one to sell out of?