Over the past century, middle-distance training regiments were mainly inspired by theories that worked for exceptional contemporaries. During the 1920s, Finnish runners dominated the sport and introduced ‘interval training.’ This term, coined by German coach Woldmar Gerschler, had athletes running at 180 bpm and recovering at 120 bpm (even though the discovery of accurate heart-rate monitors was years ago). A Swedish subtype of informal interval training also developed called the ‘fartlek,’ which was performed informally “by feel” instead of formally on a track. In the 1960s, the dominant paradigm underwent a complete reversal. ​Lauded New Zealand coach Arthur Lydiard harshly criticized the high intensity of interval training because “you can’t train hard and race hard at the same time.” Instead, he emphasized a strong endurance base built by a high volume of continuous low- to moderate-intensity running. Since then, elite athletes have incorporated approaches into their training. However, ideal outcomes were usually determined through a ‘trial and error’ approach instead of guided physiological research.

Training load is the interaction between training intensity and training volume and can be divided into two categories. The external training load includes measurable aspects of training external to the athlete such as distance and speed. On the other hand, the internal training load represents the psychophysiological response produced by an athlete in response to the external load such as heart rate and blood lactate concentration [BLa]. External training load tracks the evolution of performance over time, but experts generally agree that internal training load is the most accurate indicator of effort for athletes. Current recommendations suggest that controlling training intensity via internal measurements provides the most optimal stimulus. This is exactly what Ingebrigtsen’s father did for years by measuring [Bla] during high-intensity training sessions and matching it with a certain physiological intensity.

In 1979, the widely popular anaerobic-anaerobic transition was introduced as a model for predicting the performance of endurance athletes. Since then, it has been updated with more benchmarks that can define lactate thresholds. On a 3-zone scale, lactate-threshold 1 (LT1) demarcates zones 1 and 2, while lactate-threshold 2 (LT2) separates zones 2 and 3. LT 1 represents the lowest intensity where there is a sustained increase in [BLa] because it is the upper limit of aerobic metabolism. During LT2, lactate production and elimination are in equilibrium and result in a rapid increase in [Bla].

Three primary training intensity distribution (TID) models have been proposed to explain the interaction between training volume and intensity in each of these zones.

Many elite distance runners have favored either the polarized or pyramidal methods to improve distance running performance. It should be noted that both follow the 80/20 principle that generally favors a high-volume, low-intensity approach. However, the Ingebrigtsens opt for a novel training model based on lactate-guided threshold interval training (LGTIT), which consists of 3–4 LGTIT sessions and a VO₂ₘₐₓ session per week. Although the underlying mechanisms between this training and performance are not well understood yet, it is hypothesized that muscles become adapted to clearing out lactate instead of producing it. This allows for more ‘higher-intensity’ sessions that will activate the same muscle pathways used on race day. Another advantage is that interval training conducted in z2 and z3 avoids high volumes of z4, which is associated with muscle fatigue generation and injuries. LGTIT cannot cover all the physiological adaptions from intervals, so a VO₂ₘₐₓ session is also included to reap the benefits of sprints.

Overall, the “Norwegian training model” isn’t a revolutionary insight — it’s simply an evolution in the next step of distance running that began 100 years ago. The Ingebrigtsen brothers incorporated Grschler’s heart rate ranges, Zatopek’s intervals, Lydiard’s aerobic base, and Bowerman’s hard day easy-day alterations. Alda and his colleagues provided a sample of a professional training week, but I wanted to provide a practical interpretation of this information for an intermediate/advanced runner like me instead. Although no control studies have been conducted yet, there is sufficient evidence that this model agrees with characteristics reported in contemporary scientific literature for trained runners.

Unlike my friend Stephen, purchasing a $200 blood lactate test kit does not sound appealing to me (especially since a pack of 25 test strips costs $50). The good news is that all runners have an exercise watch, and the first table shows that heart rate zones are a feasible measurement alternative. This blog provides several methods to calculate your maximum heart rate, and the percentages of this value can be compared to [BLa] measurements. When I’m not training for a particular race, I will run around 40 kilometers a week over 5 days to stay in shape (which excludes warming up and cooling down). This can be broken down into 3 intervals, one sprint, and a relaxed long(er) run on the weekend. Here’s my sample schedule, with an increased emphasis on higher-intensity interval training:

I recognize that the Ingebrigtsens are running 4 times my mileage every week, but there is No(r)way that we can’t learn from their training principles and incorporate minor adjustments in our weekly runs. After all, running is a sport where your main objective is to put one foot in front of the other as fast as possible. We just have to take it a step at a time.

Reference to original paper

• Casado A, Foster C, Bakken M, Tjelta LI. Does Lactate-Guided Threshold Interval Training within a High-Volume Low-Intensity Approach Represent the “Next Step” in the Evolution of Distance Running Training? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Feb 21;20(5):3782. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20053782. PMID: 36900796; PMCID: PMC10000870.

Note: This article is a summary of the aforementioned paper. None of these ideas are my own because they are all paraphrased from said paper.

A major proponent of SB 9 and SB 10 is State Senator Scott Weiner. Weiner believes that transit-oriented development (TOD) is a solution well-fitted to his goal of combating global climate change, as well as the affordable housing and homelessness crisis in California’s metropolitan regions. The concept of TOD first appeared in the 1980s, when academics and urban planners alike claimed it would increase transit participation and mitigate urban sprawl. However, the actual implementation of TOD in urban regions of California such as Southern California did not follow suit. Municipalities, metropolitan planning organizations, and even many developers were concerned about the viability in a region where driving was ubiquitous. Nevertheless, the first major instance of TRO development in Southern California that occurred was the Blue Line, which connected downtown Los Angeles to downtown Long Beach, in 1990. When the Blue Line was still in the phases of its own development, railroad proponents pointed out that the project would bring both physical, but also financial mobility to its surrounding inner-city residents (Loukaitou-Sideris 2013). However, more than four decades since the inauguration of the Blue Line, classic symptoms of urban decay are still pervasive in the areas surrounding its rail stations. The collective lack of commitment and initiative from municipalities, public-sector agencies, and transportation agencies created an unsound plan that doomed the line from the start. Much of the housing along Blue Line stations had environmental issues such as contaminated sites and incompatible land use that was not fit for housing. Social issues including, but not limited to poverty, unemployment, crime, and gang violence, detracted many investors. Low-income neighborhoods surrounding the stations primarily housed minority and immigrant residents, who were often removed from the political participation process and thus couldn’t air their grievances. Finally, a lack of both private and public capital combined with high land costs created properties that were outside of the price range of the majority of said low-income residents (Loukatiou-Sideri 2013). In California, TOD has had a history of delivering empty promises.

Based on the information available on SB 9, it is likely that it will have a minimal but negative effect on solving the affordable housing crisis. Senate Bill 9 was proposed by State Senator Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) and overrides single-family zoning ordinances to convert one house parcels to up to four housing units. To expedite the process, SB 9 exempts specific projects. However, a study Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley estimated that at most, 7% of parcels statewide could be converted under SB 9. Those numbers translate into 410,000 parcels and around 714,000 units (Metcalf et al. 2021). This study assumes that every available parcel is converted which is unlikely as out of these 410,000 parcels, only 110,000 would become financially feasible for individual property owners and property owners. Because of the lack of government funding to subsidize this conversion, it is economically viable to not pursue any development before and after SB 9. Although SB 9 seeks to remove either local or state laws to promote new construction, it relies primarily on private capital as a source of funding. Therefore, developers would be much more likely to target low-income neighborhoods, where properties would be considerably less expensive to purchase. These low-income neighborhoods, which include a vast majority of Black and Latino Californians, will lead to their rental properties becoming demolished which will push these residents away (Layne 2021). Profit-driven developers will upzone the property in terms of density but more importantly value, which originally residents can no longer afford. Tenants who once enjoyed rent control protections will be evicted and may end up homeless, furthering the homelessness crisis. This gentrification will only further socioeconomic inequality that is already rooted in the housing bias against Black and Latino tenants. The communities that SB 9 is supposed to help stand to lose the most.

Similar to SB 9, SB 10 also promotes high-density construction at the expense of vulnerable, low-income communities. SB 10 was the cumulation of a series of attempts (e.g., SB 827, SB 50, and SB 902) from Weiner that had previously failed. It aims to promote building at higher densities in “transit rich areas,” which include rail stops similar to the Blue Line. Most notably, SB 10 zoning changes aren’t subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Because CEQA mandates reports on the environmental impact of projects, it increases both the time and cost of development. However, similarly to the Blue Line, if CEQA doesn’t inspect properties, issues that make housing ill-suited for human habitation won’t come to the surface. And the ones who will pay the price both with their pocket and their health will be low-income communities. Overall, the quality of life for all will substantially decrease. By bringing people closer together to transit-rich areas, more people will be exposed to traffic-related air, noise, and light pollution. The urban heat island effect will remove the natural ventilation in cities. And energy grids will bear an unbelievable burden as they attempt to shift to more renewable sources of energy (Ng 2010). Without proper planning and funding, SB 10 will likely suffer the same fate as the Blue Line did decades ago due to its ambition.

If California is to address its issue of density and affordability simultaneously in housing, permitting the building of tiny homes is a more realistic solution than SB 9 and SB 10. Currently, there are building codes in California that set minimum requirements for property sizes. However, by repealing or amending these regulations, tiny can help alleviate the enormous pressure on the housing rental market. With their low construction costs, tiny homes can enable many renters to become first-time homeowners (Sisson, Andrews, & Bazeley 2020). This bypasses the toughest hurdle of the housing crisis, but tiny homes also reduce environmental impacts. They take less raw material to produce and also less energy to maintain due to the energetic efficiency relative to larger homes (Tramley 2020). Because of their minimal land use, tiny homes can also be placed in suburban areas to combat sprawl as they aren’t limited to urban neighborhoods. One major complaint of tiny homes in suburban neighborhoods is that they depreciate the value of the surrounding land. However, this is due to the fact that they are not permanent fixtures of land under zoning laws. If this were amended, then they could transform into stable, continual investments that become part of the community (Stoggard 2021). Proponents of SB 9 and SB 10 argue that simply increasing the supply of housing will inevitably slow the increase in cost, if not reduce costs entirely. Single-housing zoning should be amended but for tiny homes instead, as they actually get to the root of the issue: affordability, not density.

There are many countries across the globe that have come up with different solutions to their respective affordable housing crisis. But Canada is an example of a country that has adapted its zoning laws to generate interest in tiny homes to aid its affordable housing crisis. The most notable example of this is Edmonton, Alberta. They introduced bylaws that allowed tiny homes on foundations and removed minimum property zoning laws. What is noticeable is that this act was introduced before the start of the pandemic (December 2019). Similar to America, Canada is undergoing an affordable housing crisis. The pandemic shifted many people’s perspectives into wanting a minimalistic lifestyle. Living in tiny homes forces homeowners to get creative with the lack of space. Through this, they rejected consumerism and other unhealthy lifestyles that were highlighted as necessary during the pandemic. However, this shows that this change was going to happen regardless. America is not the only country that is in need of tiny homes. It has proven to be a viable solution globally in many different regions too.

Over the past few years, perhaps no issue has been more contentious than the affordable housing crisis in California. If 100 different Californians were asked about it, likely 100 different solutions would be proposed. Currently, Governor Gavin Newsom is projected to fall well short of his ambitious goal of creating 3.5 million homes by 2025. But part of this is his own undoing by cosigning SB 9 and SB 10 and will likely cost him his job in the future. Although there is a myriad of different issues surrounding the housing crisis in California, they all stem from the absurd fiscal cost of housing today in California. If density is emphasized at the literal expense of affordability, other issues surrounding inequity will stem from this too. History such as the Blue Line has shown us that TOR produces mixed results, but innovative ideas such as tiny homes can be the creative solution we need for the future.

WP4 Rough Draft was originally published in The Ends of Globalization on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

The reason I’m interested in this issue is of course because it pertains to me to some degree. As an Asian-American student, I believe that the higher education admission system wrongfully places an emphasis on the ethnic background instead of socioeconomic context. It’s almost as if Asian American communities are punished for placing an emphasis on education. Although I do believe that diversity is linked to higher educational outcomes for everyone, the way that many institutions go about it actually drives inequality and is contrary to the mission statements of many universities.

What I currently need to explore is a middle ground between outlawing affirmative action entirely (as in California) and placing an outsized emphasis on it. Doing so will benefit all higher education systems and should hopefully lead to a monumental shift in the college admissions process. Although it is near impossible to create a perfectly egalitarian process since colleges (especially USC) will always prioritize legacy students, there are certain steps that be taken to increase awareness of these issues. From my experience, many students who aren’t Asian American simply aren’t aware of affirmative action at all.

Higher Education Inequality was originally published in The Ends of Globalization on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

At the time IKEA was founded, competing furniture companies offered personalized service and advice in ostentatious showrooms where salespeople competed for commissions. Kamprad, however, realized that people in his province were willing to exchange these amenities to cut costs. Over time, IKEA has adapted its frugality to help visitors with their shopping experience. It provides its customers with pencils, paper, tape measures, store guides, catalogs, strollers, and shopping bags. This Swedish way of shopping is supported by Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, which labels Sweden as an individualist society where “there is a high preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of themselves and their immediate families only.” These discretionary tools, along with the limited amount of sales representatives present, allow customers to choose what “lagom” or “the right amount” means to them. As customers move through the store, IKEA’s unique “one-way” layout also isn’t an illusion of choice. Although the layout is designed to guide customers in a “natural” path that runs through the entire store, there are also shortcuts strategically placed between showrooms. This allows customers to choose their own unique adventure and builds upon the customization of IKEA’s shopping experience. This appeal translates well to the United States, where the furniture company netted $3.310 billion in 2019 across 52 different locations (second only to Ashley Home Furniture). It’s no coincidence that according to Meik Wiking, chief executive of the Happiness Research Institute, “[Lagom] to the [Swedes] seems to be what freedom is to Americans.” The characteristics of lagom that IKEA represents are interpreted by American consumers as the freedom of choice and allow the Swedish company to seemingly uphold American individualism.

Despite the commercial success of IKEA in the United States, the overwhelming individuality of some American consumers actually punishes the company. These consumers are “very demanding and tend to reward markets that go out of their way to address individual tastes and needs.” (Ferrell and Hartline, Marketing Strategy 5th Edition) For them, both the shopping experience and the products themselves need to be personalized. However, IKEA has operated primarily as a standardized business with limited degrees of local adaptation since it arrived in America. According to a Washington Post article in 1986, “[IKEA] has continued to build according to Scandinavian specifications, a practice that means that some of the tables are taller and the beds (and the otherwise well-designed bed linens) narrower than those made by American manufacturers.” Adapting its offerings and stores to local tastes is directly at odds with IKEA’s cost-conscious operating strategy and disrupts the balance of the five dimensions of its “Democratic Design” (function, form, quality, sustainability, and low price). For other Americans, the color of the furniture also doesn’t do them any favors. Since the post-Modernist movement of the 1960s, American architecture was a “contrast between established norms versus individualism and self expression.” (Ilmiah, The Cultural Meaning of American Architecture) However, the neutral and monochromatic color palette of Scandinavian design is contrary to the American notion of individuality. For some consumers, IKEA clashes with the diversity of the American lifestyle that extends to both the private and public spheres.

Once IKEA customers make it past the furniture showrooms, they arrive at the open-shelf warehouse on the bottom floor. With its grandiose scale and vast appearance, the warehouse’s associated land cost and traffic access is the main reason why the vast majority of IKEA stores are located outside of city centers. Although it’s designed to maximize efficiency and profits, its appearance also appeals to the imagination of American consumers. Any windows that appeared in the showrooms are notably absent, and these sources of natural light are replaced by artificial ones. The beige flat packs, with their foreign names and mysterious parts, create a sense of intrigue for shoppers. And the maze-like monotony eventually leads customers unambiguously to the checkout, with heavy machinery scattered along the way. The American imagination stems from Jackson Turner’s frontier thesis and was “generated by this justification of American exceptionalism.” (Massip, The Role of the West in the Construction of American Identity: From Frontier to Crossroads) Today, exploring IKEA’s warehouse and its otherworldly looks evokes the sentiments that were once expressed when reminiscing the American West. All of these distinct elements of IKEA’s warehouse are unique to its business model and draw upon the American imagination.

Lastly, the process of transforming a flat pack from IKEA’s warehouse to a finished product in the home creates a sense of attachment to the furniture owner. Although IKEA does offer delivery services, they provide free rented car racks that encourage customers to bring home their flat packs themselves. Once the furniture is brought home, the do-it-yourself approach that is the hallmark of IKEA creates a sense of accomplishment in the piece of furniture that the consumer carefully selected, transported, and eventually assembled themselves. Admittedly, some customers view self-assembled furniture as of lesser quality and are willing to pay for the convenience that traditional furniture retailers provide. However, these customers are often older with more savings and are not part of the young audience that IKEA tries to attract with its cost-conscious philosophy. In addition to this, these younger audiences are also still influenced by the notions surrounding the classic phrase “self-made man” (coined by Henry Clay in 1842) that is used to “describe individuals whose success lay within the individuals themselves, not with outside conditions.” Americans take immense pride in their own accomplishments and give respect for self-achievements, not “achievements based on rights of birth.” (Kohl, The Values Americans Live By) Therefore, the sustained success of IKEA in the United States can also be attributed to the sense of ownership that the entire process instills in its customers.

From the start, IKEA has been guided by its “Democratic Design” principle which seeks to achieve a balance between all five of its dimensions. Today, this balance is not always equal, but that is probably for the best. Since IKEA launched its People & Planet Initiative in 2012, it has been well ahead of the international curve in terms of acknowledging and addressing sustainability issues. Through developing responsible sourcing programs, continuing to improve resource utilization, and dramatically reducing greenhouse gases in absolute terms, it is currently on the trajectory of its goal of becoming a circular and climate-positive business by 2030. Despite the stark contrast between Swedish and American lifestyles and therefore consumer spending habits, IKEA has seamlessly translated across the Atlantic without compromising its core beliefs. Let it serve as a reminder that multinational corporations can return profits to their shareholders while focusing on sustainability efforts. Popular to contrary belief, the two aren’t mutually exclusive.

The Key in IKEA was originally published in The Ends of Globalization on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Historically, white-collar workers have worked on-site in offices; however, the pandemic has completely reversed this trend as most workers experienced remote work for the first time. Although working remotely does have its drawbacks such as high rates of burnout, its appeal is that it gave employees the freedom to choose when and where to work. According to Martha Maznevski, a professor of organizational behavior at Ivey Business School, white-collar professionals “[made] a choice during the pandemic between ‘good and better’” because of “ennui and desire for growth.” The flexibility of remote work was not an illusion of choice. It allowed many workers to achieve a sustainable work-life balance and second-guess the role that works previously played in their lives. But this psychological shift alone could not have prompted a significant change, as job security was a priority for many at the start of the pandemic. It had to be coupled with the financial flexibility that increased for many remote workers during the course of the pandemic.

For the past few decades, income and wealth inequality has been steadily on the rise in the U.S. and the pandemic was no exception. The nature of remote work lends itself to white-collar workers who, on average, experience greater monetary compensation and job security compared to their blue-collar counterparts. According to research by the JPMorgan Chase Institute, although low-income families made a “much larger increase in relative terms,” their savings weren’t permanent because they went into the pandemic with the “thinnest financial buffers”. Higher-income families (defined as those earning more than $68,896), on the other hand, had a median balance that was “roughly 40 percent higher in September than two years earlier.” During the pandemic, white-collar workers were allowed to increase their savings and disposable income as a result of stimulus checks, a stock market boom, as well as fewer consumer choices that highlighted the true distinction between “wants” and “needs” in America’s capitalist economy. This financial leverage finally allowed them to act on their psychological impulses to shift their relationship with work, resulting in a massive demographic shift across the country.

With millions of Americans suddenly working remotely, many took the unprecedented opportunity to move in a new direction — literally. After commutes were cut out of the equation, it appears that many workers are moving forward and not moving back. According to a 20,000 person survey conducted by UpWork, a freelancing platform, “54.7% of people are moving over two hours away or more from their current location, which is beyond daily or even weekly commuting distances for most.” This is in line with the growing notion of achieving work-life balance by mentally but also physically separating the two. People aren’t simply moving out of metropolitan areas into surrounding suburbs, but that’s not to say that such metropolitan areas aren’t experiencing emigration: “Among those currently living in a major city, 20.6% say they are planning to move.” This translocation of human capital will have astronomical implications for corporate America moving forward. If they aren’t willing to offer remote work, another company with a competitive salary certainly will.

In the past few months, many tech, media, and finance companies (which traditionally employ white-collar workers), have abandoned their plans to return to the office. Instead, as the pandemic fades, they’re planning for a hybrid of remote and on-site work. According to Nick Bloom, an economics professor at Stanford University, “​​The number of person-days in the office is never going back to pre-pandemic average, ever.” Despite widespread burnout, his research states that self-reported productivity has steadily risen over the past two years, suggesting that remote workers are adapting. He’s also found that the most popular hybrid model has been a Tuesday-Thursday office week. For workers, its appeal doesn’t stem from a “four-day weekend.” Instead, it’s the flexibility to travel on Monday and Friday while continuing to work. Now, ordinary weekends are being treated as longer holidays, and the five-day workweek is slowly dissolving into a three-day office week within a longer workweek.

Some argue that moving forward, companies will simply offer more compensation for employees to return to the office. Many CEOs are willing to pay for this premium because they believe that the human connection with bosses, colleagues, and clients simply doesn’t exist in a virtual setting and is vital to maintaining the “corporate culture” of accountability. Although they are correct in their assertion that remote work can’t replicate human interaction, what they fail to recognize is that financial compensation is not worth disrupting work-life balance for many. According to a survey conducted by Blind, an anonymous professional network, 64% of professionals would prefer the option to work from home over a $30K compensation increase. Although the significance of $30,000 varies considerably by profession, there appears to be a general consensus among the white-collar workers that Blind attracts. As previously mentioned, many remote workers have already invested in housing hours away from their offices. Millennials and Gen Zers are also placing an increasing emphasis on corporate sustainability and increasing greenhouse emissions through office commutes is antithetical to this idea. But workers shouldn’t be the only advocates of remote work.

When done right, remote work can also be a huge boon to businesses, not just their employees. The cost associated with on-site business operations such as office space, equipment, and travel reimbursement is drastically reduced for remote/hybrid companies. In fact, the Global Workplace Analytics Telework Savings Calculator finds that a company can save on average $11,000 annually per remote worker who telecommutes just 50% of the time. With this extra capital, companies can also afford to attract quality workers. By removing the geographical barriers to job openings, employers can select from a more diverse and talented pool of applicants. And when the whole hiring process can be conducted virtually, this also allows smaller employers to “mitigate skills gaps, like multi-language fluency, that may be present in their immediate area.” (CMS Wire) As the pandemic has shown us, many companies lacked adequate contingency plans to respond to an emergency. The option of remote and even hybrid work ensures that such a circumstance will not arise in the future.

Although progress between employers and employees has traditionally moved at a glacial pace, the pandemic has catalyzed a fundamental shift that is here to stay. Moving forward, workers will undoubtedly have the autonomy to choose between on-site and remote work or a hybrid of the two. As corporate accountability has shown us, companies should exercise greater responsibilities than simply returning profits to their shareholders. They must also be responsible for the well-being of their employees and the environment. The pandemic has shown us that these two ideals aren’t a zero-sum game, as companies recorded record profit margins throughout the pandemic. Once Gen Zers enter the workforce, remote work won’t be a privilege anymore. It will be a right.

Why Remote Work Is Here to Stay was originally published in The Ends of Globalization on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Specifically, the social contract between employers and employees is being rewritten as power is being handed to employees. 4 day work weeks are being rolled out in limited but promising samples. Especially due to the interconnectivity of the world today, having 5 day work weeks and 9–5 hours don’t make sense with time zones. If productivity is either increased or constant and people workers remain much happier, then I believe the current structure of work will fundamentally shift. Commutes also waste a huge amount of time that can otherwise be spent getting sleep or exercise, both of which should benefit the morale and overall wellbeing of employees.

Stimulus checks have been lauded as something that allows millions of lazy Americans to just sit at home and collect money. However, it actually is allowing people to take their time and decide what is best for them. People are being much pickier with their careers and want benefits and flexibility that will allow work to not feel dead end. With increased benefits and flexibility, there is a lot less stress on employees as they won’t have to work about basic services they need to provide themselves with. The increase in remote jobs is likely directly correlated to the increase in emigration out of high-rent cities with apartments so people can finally enjoy a nice home.

The Great Resignation was originally published in The Ends of Globalization on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

The Great Resignation ICEY was originally published in The Ends of Globalization on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

“Always,” I replied. “I’m hopping on Discord right now, join the call when you’re ready!”

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, this was often what my iMessage history would look like with my friends. Most days after Zoom University, we’d spend countless hours playing together as a way of keeping in touch during quarantine. One of the titles we picked up, Rainbow Six Siege, enhanced us due to its hyper-realism and the parallels it drew from Tom Clancy’s books. In a game as complex as Siege where both sides are constantly adapting on the fly to each other’s tactics, ingenuity isn’t only encouraged, it’s a necessary element of winning. What people fail to recognize about video games today is that video games are as much of an art form as any entertainment field out there.

It should be noted that gaming was a growing way people were connecting with each other before the pandemic, and the pandemic was the fertile ground for these relationships to fully blossom. It became one of the few economic sectors that have withstood the fiscal effects of the pandemic and have led to more than two-thirds of adults and three-quarters of children in America playing video games. However, as with any mass form of media and entertainment, governments seek to limit its influence through regulation and even censorship. Foreign markets, specifically China, have had much heavier content restrictions in regard to video games. And with Beijing passing recent laws limiting gaming time for minors to less than 3 hours a week, it is clear that the direction they are headed towards is fundamentally at a crossroads with Western video game developers. Therefore, video games should be developed for specific regions as opposed to the whole globe, as it allows both video game developers and players a greater degree of artistic expression.

Let’s consider Rainbow Six Siege again for a moment. The game is clearly tailored for Western markets with the appearance of skulls, drugs, and blood spatters that often appear throughout gameplay. Not only are these elements critical to the lore of many operators (or characters), but removing them would directly dilute the player’s creative experience. Although traditional forms of artistic expression, such as narrative arcs, 3D modeling, illustration, and dynamic music would still occur, they would feel much more restricted and confined. Despite the fact, Ubisoft, the video game developer of Siege, announced plans to remove these specific aesthetics because they were preparing for an Asian launch of the game. But Ubisoft kowtowing to Chinese censors sparked immediate and widespread community backlash that left them no choice but to cancel their initial plans. Siege is just one example displaying how Western and foreign (and specifically Chinese) markets are too diverse to streamline one global version of the game.

The reason why artistic expression for not only Siege but video game “shooters” in general is so important is that they require a vibrant and active community with feedback from both players and developers. Most other gaming categories don’t need to be heavily censored. And shooters are often PvP (player versus player) experiences, which require balancing certain characters or core gameplay mechanics as to not make the meta of a game overreliant on just one aspect. Doing so stales the competitive nature integral to PvP games because there is less choice and inevitably results in the decline of certain video games. There needs to be a healthy discourse between all parties involved. But if players believe that developers are not making a concerted effort to address key issues of games and are “busy” censoring aesthetics instead, they are going to be less inclined to air out their grievances. The freedom of choice is what keeps the shooters “honest.” Without it in respect to the traditional forms of artistic expression, it is difficult to imagine having it in a gameplay sense either.

Generally speaking, the story of Siege and its audience parallels the story of Triple-A games in the 21st century. Capitalism has created fierce competition between companies to maximize profits for shareholders and results in corporate leaders throwing out their moral compass in order to do so. Total revenue is equal to price times quantity, so a simple way to increase the profitability of a video game is to increase the global player base. What they either fail to recognize or choose to ignore is the fact that both players and developers alike detest video game censorship. Doing so not only waters down the content and experience of the game but it ruins its integrity from a moral point of view. Therefore, many video games are inherently structured as zero-sum games. Tailor certain aspects to a global audience, and you risk alienating the original fan base responsible for the growth of the game in the first place. Western and Chinese audiences are simply incompatible at this current point in time.

Admittedly, leaving foreign markets out of the equation will likely lead to the isolation of certain player bases. Global eSports competitions such as the Six Invitational which is essentially the “World Cup” of Rainbow Six Siege, are the pinnacle of competitive gaming and reflect the love for the game that is shared by people all around the world. However, as is the case with many eSports competitions for shooters, China is not represented. This fact, along with the lack of a casual audience and following for the game there, create a self-reinforcing loop that establishes how China’s appetite for popular Western games is overperceived. As previously mentioned, investing in Chinese audiences for the majority of titles is inherently a sunk cost due to the zero-sum nature of the audiences. A global set of video game standards, simply put, is too idealistic to undergo today. With the trend that the Chinese government is headed towards, they are placing a clear emphasis on limiting the sphere of influence that not only video games, but any form of mass media and entertainment has on the Chinese people.

This discussion reveals that the current trajectory of many video games shooters is headed towards a breaking point in the near future. Shooters, which are often played with friends due to their PvP nature, have only increased their prominence in recent years in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Video games are one of the last forms of entertainment with a high degree of autonomy and agency left standing today. But video games must also be recognized not only as a form of entertainment but also as a form of artistic expression now. Although it sounds backward, restricting video games and adapting them only to specific regions would promote the greatest net enjoyment out of its player base.

Maintaining Creative Expression and Integrity in Video Games was originally published in The Ends of Globalization on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

As the 21st century progresses, video games have steadily increased their prominence in the entertainment industry. It became one of the few economic sectors that have withstood the fiscal effects of the pandemic and have led to more than two-thirds of adults and three-quarters of children in America playing video games. However, as with any mass form of media and entertainment, governments seek to limit their influence through regulation and even censorship. Foreign markets, specifically China, have had much heavier content restrictions in regard to video games. With Beijing passing recent laws limiting gaming time for minors to less than 3 hours a week, it is clear that the direction they are headed towards is fundamentally at a crossroads with Western video game developers. Therefore, video games should be addressed through national laws and regulations as opposed to a global governing body, as it allows both video game developers and players a greater degree of artistic expression.

Gaming was a growing way people were connecting with each other before the pandemic, and the pandemic was the fertile ground for these relationships to fully blossom. Every day, my friends and I would spend countless hours playing video games with each other as a way to stay in touch. One of the games we picked up, Rainbow Six Siege, enchanted us due to its initial hyper-realism and parallels to the books. But at the same time, Ubisoft announced that they were preparing for launch in Asia, which meant changing specific aesthetics in accordance with Chinese censors. They eventually canceled these plans due to widespread community backlash. In this, they displayed a national approach towards video game regulation that doesn’t cater to Chinese markets because it allows their Western players a greater degree of expression.

This brief case study highlights the push and pull dynamic between video game developers and their corporate overlords. It has been well documented that developers themselves detest the censorship of their ideas, which reflect their own core beliefs. However, they begrudgingly agree, usually in fear of losing their job. Corporations today only care to maximize shareholder profits and throw out their entire moral compass in order to achieve this one goal. So if publishers don’t recognize the freedom and creativity that video games bring to the table, then consumers surely will. Many first-person shooters, for example, thrive off of the vibrant community interaction and feedback from players and developers. The intent of both parties is the same: to maintain the competitive and creative integrity of the game. A national approach towards video game regulation that doesn’t bend to foreign censors will increase relations between everyone involved in video games.

Admittedly, leaving foreign markets out of the equation will lead to the isolation of certain player bases. Global eSports competitions such as the Six Invitational (for the aforementioned title Rainbow Six Siege), an event similar to the World Cup in which the best teams from each region compete, bring in huge streams of revenue across multiple regions (North America, Latin America, Asian-Pacific, etc.). Invitationals such as these are the pinnacle of competitive gaming and reflect the love for the game that is shared by people all around the world. However, there often is not even a Chinese team represented in the competition of these titles. This, along with the lack of an audience for the game, are a self-reinforcing loop that establishes how Chinese audiences actually don’t have as great of a perceived appetite for Western video games as many believe. Language, cultural, and social barriers already lead to fundamentally different preferences between the player bases. Corporations currying favor with foregin markets will directly lead to less player positivity and engagement with the community in Western ones. Investing in Chinese audiences for the majority of titles is inherently a sunk cost and one that is too idealistic to undergo. A global set of video game standards is simply put, too idealistic today. With the trend that the Chinese government is headed towards, they are placing a clear emphasis on limiting the sphere of influence that not only video games, but any form of mass media and entertainment has on the Chinese media.

Video games have become an increasingly prominent way in which younger generations express themselves. Players and developers should have the liberty to do this without anything holding them back. Although national regulations and policies threaten to alienate a subset of the gaming population, their perceived influence is greatly overexaggerated. Moreso, decisions should be driven by what is best for the majority of consumers, not what is best for a company’s bottom line. The industry’s current trajectory is headed towards a dangerous path that is heavily moderated and doesn’t exercise the free will of its constituents. As one of the last forms of entertainment with a high degree of autonomy and agency, it is more vital than ever that it remains this way.

Maintaining Creative Integrity and Expin Video Games was originally published in The Ends of Globalization on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Support for video game regulation and censorship has often been linked to moral panic. Nationally, many governments attempt to limit the distribution of the content of video games due to the perceived sociological effect that “violent” video games have on young children, especially male teenagers. China has recently enacted the most stringent laws, allowing children to only play three hours of video games that often fall during 8–9 PM on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. But many companies have also been appeasing Chinese censors and have streamlined their video game designs to remove”unfavorable” aspects. Today, video games are a multi-billion dollar industry, but the formula that attracts audiences in Western markets may leave untapped potential in other ones, mainly China. For example, Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six Siege had only one global launch and as the game grew, developers tried to modify parts of the game to expand their audience to China. However, any changes would affect the global audience and due to backlash, they eventually folded on the idea. When video game censorship is viewed as a necessity in order to release a product in certain markets, how do developers minimize censorship and maintain global audiences? And especially when pieces of legislation related to video games only filter it, what prevents the inevitability of certain video games from becoming over-filtered?

Video game developers are in a catch-22, as it is impossible to cater to regional sensibilities without maintaining universal freedom. It isn’t difficult to imagine that developers themselves want to maintain the artistic creativity and freedom that any form of entertainment or media brings. But for companies at the end of the day, all that really matters to them are their profit margins. Commercial video game success simply depends on the quantity of a product and the price at which it is sold. Therefore, leaving out certain markets is essentially profitability suicide and a recipe for corporate and shareholder backlash. There could be options in a video game that allows for various levels of censorship, but governments like being in the driver’s seat and not placing the “burden” of freedom of choice on the consumer. There is no simple one-size-fits-all approach — if there was, there would be no need for this post.

The Paradox of Video was originally published in The Ends of Globalization on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.