quiddities and agonies of the ruling class - a rolling new york times thread

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v134/tracerhand/Picture1.jpg

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/magazine/17foreclosure-t.html

not photoshop

Noticed that earlier today. My heart was not immediately bent.

is this thread sponsored by gawker

The only problem was money. Having separated from my wife of 21 years, who had physical custody of our sons, I was handing over $4,000 a month in alimony and child-support payments. That left me with take-home pay of $2,777, barely enough to make ends meet in a one-bedroom rental apartment. Patty had yet to even look for a job.

Found it very hard to read past this paragraph for the reason of my head being filled with visions of these two idiots burning in an eternal lake of fire.

the best part of that photo is the kid on dog in the background

little orphan annie back there

^yea srsly i didnt even notice that at first

guys do you realize what this means? the economic crisis is even affecting rich people! this means it is really newsworthy!! it's like when straight people started getting hiv!!!

what's a quiddity?

think of the barefoot girls laying on dogs on the porches of brick homes in silver spring, md. x-post

“I feel as if I am finally at home,” she exclaimed as soon as we moved into the house. She could settle down and do the things she had always been best at: making a new home, nurturing her children and loving me.

But eventually:

The frosted-crystal shade on a beloved Italian floor lamp was cracked. The dog had gnawed the leg on her Biedermeier chair.

The Khaki Class

Thread of ;_;

I can't really join in on any rich-people schadenfreude here, because it sounds to me like this guy is not of some far-distant social class, and the $4k alimony/child-support + take-home of $2.75k equation actually does sound pretty rough to me -- what's weird about it is to read the contention that this felt like a natural situation to wind up falling into; I suppose at that age and social situation it might, but of the many people I know who take home around that much money a month, I can surely tell you that not that many of them expect homes on it, and I'm not even just talking about the ones in New York.

I mean, judging by that equation we might estimate an income in the general neighborhood of $100k a year, which is certainly pleasant but not some sort of distant class of wealth and privilege whose travails I might comfortably laugh at.

On one hand -- ugh, fuck this guy.

On the other hand, I have to give him credit for a little reality check. I just paid off the last of my credit card debt and I have a fixed rate mortgage, so I need to quit waking up at 4 a.m. and worrying about money.

On the 3rd hand, nice work of him to pull his story together and sell it to W.W. Norton.

you've got three hands? surely you can swing a book deal out of that.

it's true, nabisco - he never really was that rich, especially by the standards of the new york times - but he sure lives and writes like he is. which is of course where the trouble started. getting a monthly keelhaul from the ex didn't help, either - i wonder if he writes about that in his book? - but i think this man's most basic problem was imagining that a take-home of $2500 monthly was enough to buy a half-mil pile. it's enough to make a casual reader think that the financial crisis really is a result of damn fools like him. in any case, this thread isn't for schadenfreude per se - but don't let that stop you - it's a record of what kinds of voices the new york times tends to lean on.

i'm struck by his weaselly evasion of responsibility - despite the mea culpa undertones, he makes his wonderful new lady friend sound like a spendthrift bitch and says that his total lack of financial awareness was a symptom of the "same infection" that brought low the titans of industry. fat chance, ed.

i think this man's most basic problem was imagining that a take-home of $2500 monthly was enough to buy a half-mil pile

not enough OTM in the world for this

loooool @ tracer hand: voice of the underclass

I had assumed we would start by renting a house or an apartment, but it quickly became clear that it was almost easier to borrow a half-million dollars and buy something.

n.e.way: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/garden/14aaron.html

ny times does seem to have a thing for pictures of the sprawled daughters of the leisure class in front of their itlianate mansions

sorry Lamp i missed the part where you had a point

my takeaway from this article is that our "elite" journos are often just as ignorant and greedy as the rest of us humps -- not to mention that i feel a bit smug seeing how shitty the media's coverage of the whole real estate/subprime mess was.

The Khaki Class

lol South

i don't know crap about this guy, nor do i care, BUT

when i was 22 i dated this very cute but not-very-smart guy. it was long distance, so we wrote a lot of letters (this was in the lol 90s). in one letter he told me that being with me made him feel "quidity". i smugly laughed a little because i figured that he meant "tranquility" and wow was this guy adorable for not being able to use a dictionary. then i looked up the word "quidity" and realized that it was real (although not what he meant, i am 100% sure)

this thread is the first time i have ever actually seen anyone use this word. the end.

maybe he was like "wow she thinks my made-up word means something.. what a dim-bulb"

what do you think he actually meant?

pretty sure he meant tranquility, like comfort (i remember this from context, but really this was a long time ago and i can't remember much about the situation aside from this strange misused word)

Megan McArdle on the piece. Judge for yourself.

Actually I kind of like her points?

ya i mean... not really sure why this piece is as contempt-worthy as some are making it out to be. it's kind of brutally depressing.

It is in a 'there-but-for' sense for sure. Not that I was ever going to try and be an economics reporter for the NY Times, but as time has passed I'm beginning to think the soundest piece of advice I've ever received in regard to writing was something J. D. Considine told me years ago -- 1993 or so -- in response to a random e-mail or two I sent him. He pretty much said, "Freelancing and journalism is very hard work and you should only pursue it on a full-time basis if you are willing to stick to that level." I'm honestly glad I heeded that and I think what you see in both pieces, regardless of whatever else feeds into their respective situations, reflects that.

At the same time, I'm trying to put my finger on what still jars about McArdle's response and it seems to be this sense of keeping up with the Joneses as paramount driving factor/potential excuse. At what point is leisure travelling to Europe, for instance, a 'minimum necessity' -- and I speak as one who's been there a number of times now. Still, I realize it's a sliding scale, says the person who has participated in a CSA thing with a local farmer for some years now.

Literal translation: quiddity = whatness

Ned, I read her response as being more about the foolhardiness of ever thinking ANY of those things are necessities. She seems to be (gently) chiding that whole tendency?

Yah... she's just sayin' that you hang with people for whom this is true, you wake up with fleas

I think maybe something to add to McArdle's response is that we have this general cultural tendency to view attention as somehow related to money, a connection that really falls apart when it comes to writers of all sorts -- it's very easy to withhold sympathy from people writing about their woes in public, as if they're coming from a position of privilege or just courting attention, but in plenty of cases they don't have much concrete privilege and writing about their experiences is just, you know, work.

he never really was that rich, especially by the standards of the new york times - but he sure lives and writes like he is. which is of course where the trouble started. getting a monthly keelhaul from the ex didn't help, either - i wonder if he writes about that in his book? - but i think this man's most basic problem was imagining that a take-home of $2500 monthly was enough to buy a half-mil pile.

Yeah, exactly -- although if I had to summarize a problem here it would basically be that a middle-aged family-man homeowner with a decent salary expected to continue living like a middle-aged family-man homeowner with a decent salary, even after a divorce that meant the bulk of his income was going to support a family home occupied by other people. This is an unrealistic and dumb expectation to seriously act on -- you'd think that $4k would be a good monthly reminder that situations done changed -- but I can totally have sympathy for the situation itself; that would suck. It would be painful to have to support the family home you used to live in and have to support yourself and your new family on a fraction of what you're earning.

The other thing is that -- while he can't and doesn't come out and say this directly -- his one list of charges makes me suspect a bunch of money was getting borrowed to maintain a certain lifestyle for the kids

I thought he said that very directly just by listing all those expenses! (I note though that he does seem to say even more directly that his wife did that too.)

Haha yeah, I guess the unsayable "direct" thing I had in mind was like "these KIDS were bankrupting us (that's right, Alex, I'm talking about you)"

I was going to jump past boggling at the beach house rental and wonder about the $700 at J. Crew, but I guess if you needed, like, one good suit and some decent sweaters for Christmas presents ... the world really does hold you to your socio-economic status, doesn't it -- even beyond nobody wanting to be the guy who gets divorced and suddenly has to start showing up to work in cheap suits, it'd be tough to be the guy making $100k who's like "I got you a candy bar for Christmas!"

yeah the erm narrative here is anyways at least partly "but banking professionals who should be my Friends and Advisors assured us it would be alright!"?

However fishy such blanket blame is in general, I'm not sure it's entirely misplaced re how things rolled out this cycle. At one point around 2006, I momentarily had a crazy amount of money in my account due to family property reorg stuff, and was by phone promptly invited to an "advisement meeting" with a dude at my bank, who tried to convince me he had the correct %ages I should place my assets in (all mediated by said bank, obv). (I still was in net debt though!) I was all very cynical and noncommittal, which is not due to my deep insight or anything, just because my current boss worked in a bank in the early 00s and has spilled much shit on how those outfits operate(d?). (My fave morsel: the guys who construct the deals don't actually inform the salespeople abt all potential downsides and builtin fees, as this may hurt their sales!)

I don't think this guy deserves much point-and-laugh, btw, though it is obv somewhat funny he writes on economics.

I don't know that that's a big surface narrative, given the "I wasn't duped" and the bit about how a banking professional's refinancing maneuvers actually worked to carve down some debt

it's about even someone who should have known better made some really dumb mistakes, which is always a story worth telling imo

Literal translation: quiddity = whatness

A weird thing about "quiddity" is that the first definition, "essence", seems to be the opposite of the second definition, "a trifling point". So it can either refer to the essence of something or a minor, trifling detail? Confusing. I have a feeling that it's a word that's rarely used correctly.

my point is that there are hundreds of thousands of people with stories just like this who don't write for the new york times and have six-figure salaries who are perhaps just a leeetle more representative of the mortgage fallout going on right now - my pointing and laughing is at the editors, not this poor schmuck

well, they wanted a personal, first-perosn story, so going with a new york times writer... kinda makes sense, no?

he will die at some point

can't write about that tho

That's a fair point, Tracer, but the fact that the Times can be willfully class-blind is hardly news to anyone who's ever read the Style section, for instance.

what is sadder loss or death

conceptually, I mean

loss is a kind of death, when u think about it??

imagine in that picture that the dog is dead but the money is lost

you can use death as a pillow but you can you the money you lost to get a bunch of people to type in the middle of the day

imagine yourself behind the wheel of a large automobile

uh oh i'm losing a life

actually, i am pointing and laughing at this guy too. sorry edmund.

It's funny that this guy gets himself into such deep shit but when the financial crisis comes it's actually a relief to him. For one thing, he can console himself with the spectacle of so many other supposed financial experts who screwed up at least as badly as he did. And more significantly, the banks are too swamped with delinquent borrowers to follow up on his case - so he has basically been living in the house rent-free for the past 8 months.

ya it's pretty crazy that that's how the story ends, i was expecting some sort of bankruptcy followed by a pledge of renewal or something remotely redemptive like that but it shocked me that it ended with him in this bizarre institutional limbo.

that there are hundreds of thousands of people with stories just like this who don't write for the new york times and have six-figure salaries who are perhaps just a leeetle more representative of the mortgage fallout going on right now

This is definitely true, but there is part of me that thinks ... well, even leaving aside the Times's readership -- or the fact that one of the notable things about the current situation is that its impacts are being felt higher up the economic ladder -- there's also the way it's all called into question the sustainability of a whole mainstream/normal middle-class existence that is built on suddenly shaky things like debt and home values. That is probably worth thinking about, and possibly edifying for middle-class people who are recognizing a shakiness to their economic lives that they hadn't previously had as big of a worry about.

Is 66% of your income anywhere near normal for alimony/child-support? I don't know anyone paying alimony (lol broek friends), but child support doesn't net them (everyone I know is on the receiving end) much.

should have used that credit line on a better divorce lawyer, amirite

I don't know that that's a big surface narrative, given the "I wasn't duped" and the bit about how a banking professional's refinancing maneuvers actually worked to carve down some debt

A fair enough point. The mania obv went beyond the professionals.

Talking of which: I don't know how recruiting works in this kind of business -- my biased, stereotypical prejudice says that you get the young people who are willing to work like 50 hrs weekly unpaid overtime etc from ambition alone, thus having no memory of even the Asia crisis, let alone the dotcom and the 80s yuppie downfall, thus by induction extrapolating bubble arising into Law of Nature or something. I dunno.

xpost nabisco correct on "normal middle-class" stuff after what I responded to btw. But they can't take away our Internet can they??? :p

A weird thing about "quiddity" is that the first definition, "essence", seems to be the opposite of the second definition, "a trifling point"

Haha good spot there, maybe this is a general defusing thing about words asserting importance -- see also moot (adjective):

1 a: open to question : DEBATABLE b: subjected to discussion : DISPUTED
2: deprived of practical significance : made abstract or purely academic

i suspect the second "quiddity" meaning might be contaminated with a sense of "quibbling" via misuse?

or else the identifying an object's "what-ness" is, in itself, a trifling pursuit?

je ne sais quid

i suspect the second "quiddity" meaning might be contaminated with a sense of "quibbling" via misuse?

Herring looks mighty red to me. Sorry.

Yup, we know what stuff which is what it is is (OR DO WE?).

There is a neverending demand for words meaning "thing I can't get worked up about", and obv the learnèd world (it's academic! it's just semantic!) is a fair source for this. (I like the pluralization "quiddities" btw!)

my guess was it was some 'liquiddity' pun or something?

Thread author! please inform on your intended meaning of quiddity!

1: whatever makes something the type that it is : essence
2 a: a trifling point

exactly the midpoint of these: trifling details that tell the tale; habits of the tribe

there's also the way it's all called into question the sustainability of a whole mainstream/normal middle-class existence

dude this guy writes for the new york times and pulls down $100K - he is not "normal"!

it wouldnt be controversial to call supporting a fam on 100k/yr in the nyc metro area "normal middle class"

actually he made more like $120,000 and the new light of his life made $60,000. not to mention the stock options.

(the house is in maryland.)

and the kids lived with the ex iirc

he wanted to pretend the monthly ass-whuppin his wallet was getting from his ex just didn't exist i guess

but i gotta say, it's a little hard for me to really put myself in his shoes

maybe a trunk full of j. crew cardigans would put me in the right frame of mind

i guess he should just lay down and die huh

(the house is in maryland.)

DC metro area is sufficiently comparable to NYC metro area that max's point is pretty much the same. Silver Spring is in Montgomery County, which is $$$$ to live in.

so that makes him a normal middle class dude? ...

his story is really about his failed marriage and his unwillingness to face his new situation - something you can fall into regardless of salary bracket - but he's trying like hell to make it sound like he's been forsaken by wild circumstance

and the editor waves it into print as testimony from the front lines of financial desperation

For the demographics of the place, sure. Montgomery County is full of millionaires. It's like the sixth-richest county in America. $120,000 would be a pretty middling salary there.

xxp

oh this guy was interviewed on all things considered today. i missed the beginning of the interview and was all confused as to why he kept invoking "the love of my life" as the reason he was in dire financial straits. he used the phrase "the love of my life" like nine times in two minutes, guys.

According to this, median income in Mo Co was $91,835 in 2007, $30,000 higher than the median for the state. So he was making more than the median, but not much more. Also, cost-of-living index there is 123.8, based on a US average of 100. For comparison purposes, New York County, which includes Manhattan, has a COL index of 187 and a median income of $64,217.

oh this guy was interviewed on all things considered today.

well knock me over with a feather.

Let's not get into an argument about average salaries, given that I never said his was average. I said, speaking of economic events over the past couple years:

it's all called into question the sustainability of a whole mainstream/normal middle-class existence that is built on suddenly shaky things like debt and home values

^ I think the above is true for a pretty broad range of incomes, from families bringing in $60k a year to families bringing in $180k -- the latter family is surely financing nicer stuff, but the fundamentals of a debt-based and home-value-centric middle-class existence are pretty similar, and I don't think they change significantly until you hit a kind of wealth that goes far beyond A Nice Income and enters a whole other kind of financial organization.

If you ask me how "normal" I think he is, I would probably say -- for those same reasons above -- that I think most American families bringing in $120k-$180k a year (especially, yes, in some specific places) live an economic life that's not so markedly different from their normal/mainstream middle-class peers who bring in less. The houses are bigger and the cars and clothes nicer and the vacations longer, but the fundamentals or debt and assets won't vary too much, I don't think.

I agree, though, that the main glaring thing here is the special circumstance that more than half of his income was suddenly going to alimony and child-support payments.

oh this guy was interviewed on all things considered today. i missed the beginning of the interview and was all confused as to why he kept invoking "the love of my life" as the reason he was in dire financial straits. he used the phrase "the love of my life" like nine times in two minutes, guys.

Yeah, I heard that segment and the "love of my life" stuff was interesting. Sounds a lot like he's trying to talk himself into believing it, considering that there's a lot of resentment for her bubbling under the surface of that NYT book excerpt. Sounds like she wouldn't or couldn't accept the austerity measures he knew they needed to institute, and he was too much of a pussy to insist.

So basically by "normal" I mean:

(a) being dependent on debt to cover not only a slightly inflated standard of living, but more necessary things like bills, repairs, things for children, etc., and

(b) having your financial existence completely tied into homeownership, home value, equity, and debt leveraged against that real estate

which I suspect describes more or less the bulk of American families

btw can someone explain me alimony in This Day And Age etc etc in anything other than extraordinary circumstances?

(btw i get it in e.g. 20-year marriages where one party developed a career and the other faire'd the menage... but i know people who were married briefly and young and are still paying out to their former spouse. it just seems weird.)

Yeah, I heard that segment and the "love of my life" stuff was interesting. Sounds a lot like he's trying to talk himself into believing it, considering that there's a lot of resentment for her bubbling under the surface of that NYT book excerpt. Sounds like she wouldn't or couldn't accept the austerity measures he knew they needed to institute, and he was too much of a pussy to insist.

yeah, but his shitty divorce isn't her fault. maybe she resents him!

i think this guy may have made a lot of dumb decisions in his life, just sayin'.

A+++ truth bomb

Sure, he might have been median income for the DC 'burbs - but he was still stupid enough to a) live there and b) buy too much house for the area.

'Unwilling to accept life situation/actual income bracket, makes bad life decisions, decides to gamble everything on too much mortgage to support new life/family he shouldn't be" = wait, he is pretty much the face of the mortgage/credit crisis! Except that he's extra stupid because he admits to knowing his lifestyle was impossible to maintain and that he was already teetering on the brink before he took out $2700/month in a mortgage. (Not sure if that's his actual mortgage, not including taxes - which must be horrible by themself.)

In November 2005, she was hired as a full-time editor at a nonprofit organization with a salary of $60,000 a year. The problem, I told Bob, was that things were so bad that even Patty’s new job wouldn’t be enough to rescue us. Chase was now charging us 13.99 percent on our platinum card, and the rate on our SunTrust card was up to 27 percent.

2005! This still wasn't even the height of the market! And seriously how the fuck do you have a card with a 27% rate?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v134/tracerhand/Picture2.jpg

i mean

wait that's not an onion piece is it?

(though it does suggest a sense of humor peeking out from under the gray lady's hem)

the new wife would probably be doing fine on her own (sans lunkhead) with that $60,000 -- that's enough to rent a nice apartment and have a decent clothing/entertainment budget even in an expensive city. hell, i'll take it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v134/tracerhand/Picture1-1.jpg

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104192406

(also, quiddities? you mean quibbles?)

keep up, gabby!

More from McArdle, who has read the book.

Andrews spends a lot of time defending not feeling bad, because after all, the banks shouldn't have lent him money. This is true, they shouldn't, and anyone who did should be profusely apologizing to their shareholders. But when you read the book, what you discover is that while the book is ostensibly about our Great National Borrowing Binge, for Andrews, the debt is really a sideshow. He couldn't afford to get married. At all.

After his alimony payments, Andrews was taking home $2770 a month, or about what I took home when I was a junior web editor at The Economist. On this, he expected to support a wife and several children who came attached to a meagre $700 a month in child support.

And from the comments:

---

mrmanley May 18, 2009 3:09 PM

This is the point I make when I say that middle-aged men need to think very deeply before they marry again, especially to women who have children from another marriage. In a financial sense, marriage is all downside to the man: huge expenses, legal obligations, dealing with the ex and the ex-extended family, and very little protection if (when) things go south. As I said in another thread: you better be in love, chum, because your love is all that's going to keep you warm when she takes all your s**t after the divorce.

I forget which comic first made the observation, but men would often be better served by simply picking an attractive female at random and then simply giving her half his assets. It would save time and emotional wear and tear.

But the heart wants what it wants, and expenses be damned.

(Why, yes, I am divorced. How can you tell?)

Bergamot (Replying to: mrmanley) May 18, 2009 3:17 PM

"Why, yes, I am divorced"

It's hard to imagine why...

he was still stupid enough to a) live there

wild guess about major factor in this: kids; DC public schools vs. DC suburban public schools

how the fuck do you have a card with a 27% rate

make one late payment

new wife would probably be doing fine on her own (sans lunkhead) with that $60,000

given that she has multiple kids in custody and is allegedly the one with the spendy habits, not so sure about this

make one late payment

in 2008/2009, sure. but this is in 2005, when revolving credit issuers were falling all over themselves to get in on the whole giving-money-away party. you couldn't open a mailbox without a dozen ZERO ZERO ZERO APR offers spilling out. that's aside from the UNSECURED LOAN UP TO $20K!!! and "o hai here are some checks" etc etc "offers"

i understand he had some credit challenges but the only way you can be holding a 27% apr card in 2005 is if you just like and enjoy touching hot stoves.

well if you're asking why he wouldn't convert that to something lower-rate, the answer given in the article is pretty much that he did (by borrowing against home equity, paying off cards, and then refinancing the house at a lower rate)

I don't think he is that wicked a bastard or that different from most. I wish I had made better decisions, too, and it's way easier o hold everyone else to some Warren Buffet standards than it is to do it yrself.

^^^ this

What bugs me about saying that 100K/year is middle class in NYC or DC is that living in those places is a luxury, not a right. There are lots of places in this country where 100K a year is rich. You might look down on those places and not want to live there, and I wouldn't blame you. And maybe you wouldn't be able to do the kind of work you want to do in those other places. But not getting what you want is a lot different than saying the middle class lifestyle in the US is slipping away.

what if you're born in those places? and your whole family is there? and it's all you know?

$20K a year is a lot to make in some parts of the world too you know...

and chances are if dude lived somewhere cheaper, he would be making less for the same type of job, so what's your point really?

What bugs me about saying that 100K/year is middle class in NYC or DC is that living in those places is a luxury, not a right.

tell that to the people who were born there and can't afford to move (or have job security there, or just don't fucking want to be displaced)

xposts

Ha! Hahahahah. Living in an inner city area (if they're still called that) is a "luxury"? How modern of you.

i say this as someone who was born there -- i really feel for other natives who are being squeezed out.

south bronx = luxury!

I thought the thread was about the ruling class, b/c the article is about educated people who are choosing where to live?

and yeah, living wherever you want, instead of just going where the jobs are, is a luxury, in the economy that we're a part of.

i wouldn't conflate "educated" and "ruling class."

Yeah, that's the thing -- there are lots of job sectors and skill sets where if you weren't making X pay in a more expensive urban area, you'd either be jobless entirely someplace cheaper, or making a salary that was adjusted to the lower cost of living elsewhere, or probably doing a different sort of job entirely. (If a dude makes $100k covering a DC beat for the Times, what's the advice here -- "why don't you just live someplace less expensive and commute in from West Virginia?" Or is it "why don't you make less than half that covering something for a West Virginia paper?")

When people point out the higher cost of living in these urban centers, all they're saying is that the salary figure can't be directly compared to the same figure some other places. It takes slightly more to afford the same standard of living you could get a bit more cheaply elsewhere. This isn't a big deal, just sort of something to keep in mind about the numbers.

I'm just trying to follow the title of this thread and the article that it links to.

living wherever you want, instead of just going where the jobs are, is a luxury

This DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS WHAT YOU JUST SAID, because if you are a journalist who covers national-level economics, DC is where the jobs are, and someplace less expensive is "wherever you want" -- like I said, there are lots of industries and skill sets where you're more tied to expensive urban areas. That's not something that needs to be pitied, or anything, it's just where people are, but when they're making $Xk/year it's handy to remember such things.

I don't know what the advice is, nabisco: it's a really tough question! But I think we should avoid a sense of entitlement to do the kind of work we want to do. If we can, it's wonderful.

and yeah, living wherever you want, instead of just going where the jobs are, is a luxury, in the economy that we're a part of.

where are the jobs, anyway? call centers in india? sweatshops in cambodia?

that was an xpost but I think it applies to your newest post too. It's great to be able to be a journalist who covers national-level economics. It sucks that those markets command more than journalism jobs pay.

get bent, do you think you have a right to a job wherever you want, doing whatever you want? You're making it sound like this is a no-brainer.

no, i'm just saying "going where the jobs are" isn't that easy when there are no jobs! also i don't think it's wrong to want to work at something you're actually trained/skilled/educated in.

btw I'm trying hard not to sound like a cock, if we were talking I think my tone would be cool but in type there isn't the right nuance.

Basically I look at it like this. There are 3 competing factors here:

Job X that I want to do
Standard of living Y that I want to have
Location Z that I want to live in

What to do when these clash? At best we make a tradeoff and give one up. At worst we give up all three.

like nabisco said, some people's area of expertise is national politics, and their brains and souls would atrophy pretty quickly if they had to work in a small town and cover the cats-stuck-in-trees beat.

It's totally not wrong to want to work at something you were trained for! Right now I'm really lucky that I get to do that. My tradeoff is that I live someplace that I wasn't trained for and that is totally undesirable to most educated people. I'm fortunate that I could make the tradeoff of giving up a good location in order to do the work I want to do. I know people who give up doing what they want, though, to live where they want. I don't think there's an easy solution to this clash.

Euler, I know very few people over the age of 25 (and pretty much none over the age of 30) who feel in any way entitled to do whatever job they want: most everybody winds up in a particular field with a particular skill set and a sad awareness that there is no easy option of switching horses and starting again at entry level in a completely different field

There may be some urbanites who would benefit from going off and becoming simple cabinet makers in rural Pennsylvania or whatever, but someone who has successfully worked his way up to a well-paid staff position at the nation's most prestigious newspaper is probably not one of them

xpost - I'm not even talking about brain atrophy, necessarily, but if your choice is between, say, a prestigious job for $100k in a high-cost area and a "lesser" one for $50k in a low-cost area, it's not necessarily a difficult choice. This doesn't mean we have to pity the $100k person, it just means we should remember that he/she is not just flat-out earning "twice as much" as the $50k person, due to cost-of-living issues!

I mean, it's not so complicated: there are towns where my current wages could easily afford me a house and a nice car; the issue is that in those towns I could not command my current wages; in fact, my current wages are in part based on the elevated cost of living here!

nabisco, I'd just say that living in a desirable area (that's why it's high cost) is a good in itself, and should be thought of as extra pay. So $100k in a great city has extra value than $100k in a shitty city.

this thread just took a turn for the retarded.

why do you say that, Jim?

So $100k in a great city has extra value than $100k in a shitty city.

no i see euler's point... but i guess what kind of annoyed me isn't what he's saying in particular but the general moralizing / schadenfreude that seems to be a common response to this kind of article...

Jim, I'm just trying to make the point that comparing a NYC salary to, say, a central Pennsylvania salary, isn't just a matter of comparing dollars and what you can buy with those dollars.

yeah s1ocki I feel you, I'm trying to hard to talk about this without being too moralizing or schadenfreudey, and obv. failing.

Ha, perhaps, Euler, if you're inclined toward that kind of area/lifestyle, then sure! But I'm not sure how huge of a difference this makes in the notion that we should probably factor cost-of-living issues into our mental pictures of how different salaries compare.

i see euler's point too, but the house, dog, porch, yard and possibly family I will never have all beg to differ.

I suspect that most people on ILX would not choose to live in rural America if they could avoid it.

and yet there are loads of ILXors who live in less-expensive environs

sigh

I mean I guess your point is that rural America isn't the only locale less expensive than a top ten US city. Ok, cool. My point, and if this is moralizing then so be it, is that if you have to live in an expensive place to do the work you want to do, then it's improper to maintain that you're "only" middle class when making say 100k there. You're getting value for doing that work and living in that desirable locale. I can see that you'd want that value to be $$$ also.

no, my point was despite your assertion that ILXors would prefer to live in super-expensive urban areas, plenty of them nonetheless live, work, or study elsewhere, which would suggest that they're doing exactly what you suggest -- and what most adults wind up doing at some point -- about living where the opportunities or jobs or possibilities are

I think you think you're being argued with about something you're not being argued with

The bit I'm probably kind of arguing with you about right now is this idea that many people make aggressively entitled decisions about feeling like they deserve to live in expensive areas; maybe a few people go after a certain lifestyle that way in their early 20s (and why shouldn't they?), but I think most adults know what their options are and make serious decisions about them, and if they have tastes or roots that hold them to urban areas that are hard to afford, they know their situation and own those decisions accordingly (and I don't begrudge them some griping about the yard or garage they'll never have, or how a certain salary just doesn't go that far, any more than I begrudge Midwestern small-towners a gripe or two about wishing stuff was open later at night or that they could get some better Indian food or that the community theater isn't the best entertainment on earth)

if you have to live in an expensive place to do the work you want to do, then it's improper to maintain that you're "only" middle class when making say 100k there. You're getting value for doing that work and living in that desirable locale. I can see that you'd want that value to be $$$ also.

Yeah, but if you're living as close to the bone as Our Hero who kicked this thread off, you don't get to enjoy the amenities that you're insinuating are part-and-parcel of the lifestyle there. Sure, in the Silver Spring area you can get into DC and use the free Smithsonian museums and national monuments, but otherwise you're not doing a lot of going out to eat or seeing shows, you know? Even less so in New York!

The that, somehow, the "value" of the city you live in is part of what makes you middle class or not is really o_O.

I mean, my wife and I moved out of the DC metro area back to Cleveland in 2007 exactly because of cost-of-living issues, but we don't find ourselves THAT much better off, because while I was able to keep my salary with an interoffice transfer, she took about a 25% pay cut.

what was the other thread where you guys fought about exact definitions of middle class based on cost of living a few months ago?

(not suggesting you guys should take it to that thread btw)

I suspect part of the nugget of the issue is actually just how and what people want to consider "middle class." And I think the way some of us are using it is probably to denote that ... well, for a LOT of this country, actually, a family bringing in $100-150 will be doing better and have nicer things and be significantly more comfortable than statistical norms, their style of living will likely be fundamentally similar to families bringing in less. Some places that would definitely stretch the boundaries of "upper-middle," but in lots of places it wouldn't actually cross whatever boundary it is that would make that family's life and finances particularly distinct from more solidly middle-class incomes.

Ha, 'middle class' in my mind means the thing beyond living paycheck to paycheck, the point you can finally get a little lifestyle inflation going.

I read some study that said almost everyone but the v richest & poorest thought of themselves as middle class.

In the U.S.

edmund is ruling class: he writes for the new york times and lived like a pasha for decades

Abbott, I'd agree with that reading of middle class. The trouble is with what counts as a "style of living" as nabisco put it, and how we determine when a style of living is "fundamentally similar to [the style of living of] families bringing in less". I'm reading "style of living" not just as "how many square feet is your residence" or "how much does your car cost" but also as "what foods do you typically eat and how good are they" and "what entertainment options are there where you live". In Chicago or NYC you can get fab Indian food, say, for about what it would cost elsewhere in the country, but it'll be significantly better than the same, on average, in say Dayton OH or Topeka KS, if it's available at all in the latter places.

Then I guess a def of middle-class that I am getting from the talk in this thread: 'middle-class' means you can uproot yourself & move somewhere else & find a new job & maintain what (in a cost/benefit analysis) is a similar standard of living?

OBV everyone has different personal values/desires for life. ie I want a modestly sized house bcz I hate cleaning, and I don't really foresee myself making so much bank I can have a big-ass pad AND pay people to clean it.

Modest = like an office and a big kitchen in addition to bedroom.

Okay now I'm just blabbing, sorry y'all.

From Haggling over Hipsters to Meditating on the Middle Class: A Message Board Grows Up

edmund is ruling class: he writes for the new york times and lived like a pasha for decades

look obv it isnt cool of him to have stolen your reservation for that place outside carcassonne for the only two weeks in august 07 u could get away and i dont want to defend this goober but u r being retarded about this dude - "ruling class" um he lives off his wages and his main asset is (was) his house thats middle class

i had high hopes for pics of cute dudes in $800 pink pants and trend articles abt dog yoga itt thnx 4 ruining it every1

carcassonned

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/movies/19hollywood.html?hpw

Locals joke that the only slimming down this town knows is liposuction, but the higher-end shopping districts quickly disprove that theory. Robertson Boulevard, home to the celebrated Ivy restaurant, has 12 storefronts empty or emptying on just a five-block stretch. On Montana Avenue in Santa Monica, about 30 boutiques are either closed, about to close or vacant, according to the merchants’ association.

those stores were terrible anyway; no one wants to spend $100 on a flimsy t-shirt with some bedazzling.

i'm fascinated by "boutiques" -- i think most of them are run by bored rich housewives who don't know what the hell they're doing.

those stores were terrible anyway; no one wants to spend $100 on a flimsy t-shirt with some bedazzling.*

*in 2009

my point is salary (which, pre-divorce, was hefty nonetheless) is not the full definition of class: this guy is part of the country's elite intelligentsia

I'm not sure where you get your ideas about me Lamp or why you think they're relevant but I would appreciate it if you crawled out from my jock

Yeah, but see, again, depending on where you live, $120,000 per year is hardly "hefty." As a raw number it LOOKS hefty, but cost of living can eat it up right quick. Unless you have other regular income streams from, say, investments, and if you have to check your bank balance regularly to make sure you can afford those martinis on Friday, I'd say you're still middle class. Or at least just on the cusp of upper class, but hardly "ruling class."

if i live in tracers jock, and make $100k/yr, am i middle class?

eah, but see, again, depending on where you live, $120,000 per year is hardly "hefty." As a raw number it LOOKS hefty, but cost of living can eat it up right quick.

yes

Unless you have other regular income streams from, say, investments, and if you have to check your bank balance regularly to make sure you can afford those martinis on Friday, I'd say you're still middle class.

i don't think most ppl making 125k have to check their balance regularly for martinis, unless they've got kids, and then they're probably not out drinking martinis

Or at least just on the cusp of upper class, but hardly "ruling class."

'ruling class' no, upper middle class definitely

" this guy is part of the country's elite intelligentsia"

uh

he's a well-paid but otherwise ordinary journalist. he may or may not be smart, but he's not an elite anything. "intelligentsia"

o wait, 125k for 2 is middle class

if that's the situation here

Yeah, but see, again, depending on where you live, $120,000 per year is hardly "hefty." As a raw number it LOOKS hefty, but cost of living can eat it up right quick.

Cost of living can eat that right up, but you have a lot of control over what your cost of living is. Obv. you don't have total control: health care, food and shelter, e.g. As a father of three in a single-income family I don't really get what kids have to do with the costs, unless you're committed to private schooling in which case we're surely talking luxury, no?

As a father of three in a single-income family I don't really get what kids have to do with the costs

where do you live again?

As a father of three in a single-income family I don't really get what kids have to do with the costs

do you let your kids walk around naked

ah euler theres the disconnect--in new york you dont actually own your kids you have to rent them from the city for as much as 25k/yr

I don't get it, Euler, are you saying you have three kids and they don't make a dent in your bottom line?

http://herokids.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/oliver-twist-gruel.jpg

this dude is just finishing up an hour call-in program on NPR's On Point (WBUR BOSTON) and he is not provoking much sympathy (which, he hastens to add, is not his intent)

It's clear that he is not of the ruling class: the Ruling Class think they are Jesus and break into song and dance given the opportunity.

i am the country's elite intelligentsia all by myself

mostly this guy seems like a boob who leveraged his personal failings into a book deal, which seems to be a popular strategy nowadays

raise your hand if you have financial problems and no book deal?

arguing about whether this guy is upper/middle/lower/ruling(???) class is retarded - we already know exactly how much money he makes, where he lives and what his expenses are. we don't have to define him by some vague term. he is a dude who makes 100k and lives a certain lifestyle in a certain part of the country - whether or not he's 'upper middle class' won't reveal anything we don't already know. the ilx version of arguing about whether joy division are goth.

Like we don't do that too.

a boob who leveraged his personal failings into a book deal, which seems to be a popular strategy nowadays

https://www.booksonboard.com/BoB_site_root/book_covers/300/6531.jpg

plus ça change...

Locals joke that the only slimming down this town knows is liposuction

die

miss u l.a., don't miss ny times articles about u

just because people in other cities are ugly doesn't mean u have to take it out on los angeles, nytimes

Here's basically what I think about this. I don't mean to seem like I care about material things, like social status. I just want four walls and adobe slabs for my girls.

McArdle again:

At the end of his book's harrowing account of mortgage mistakes and credit card crises, Edmund Andrews writes: "While our misadventure had certainly been more extreme than those of many other Americans, our situation was not all that unusual." And indeed the book reads like the story of an American Everyman, easily sucked in to the alluring world of easy credit as he struggled to blend a new family. The terrifying implication is that it could happen to you--to anyone who leads with their heart and not their head.

But en route to that moral, it turns out the story has been tidied up a little. Patty Barreiro, Andrews' wife, has declared bankruptcy twice. The second time was while they were married, a detail that didn't make it into either the book or the excerpt that ran in last Sunday's New York Times Magazine.

It continues from there.

That seems to be a pretty big omission.

Whatever else you want to say about this guy, he was at least polite and diplomatic enough to be nice and vague about his situation, and not call his book Alimony for the Ex-Wife and Bankruptcy for the New One: I Blame Them and Should Have Been a Bachelor

what i'm taking away from all this is that the financial crisis was exacerbated, if not caused by, dimbulbs and women

if not and perhaps even

Edwards responds and McArdle responds back.

McArdle otm. "All that happened in 1998, and it obviously had nothing to do with the story in Busted. It never even occurred to me to mention it" doesn't pass my smell test, for what that's worth.

Wowowow is she working hard to report this evenhanded. His roundabout response is pretty douchey (and evasive).

er, evenhandedly

The more she presents about this all the more I'm kinda astounded.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/nyregion/08trustafarians.html

williamsburg: full of entitled assholes!!

i always used 'trustafarian' to refer to white kids with dreads and subsidized weed habits (nyu lol)

"trust fund babies/bitches" works okay.

actually a lot of that article rang kind of false to me--are there really a lot of people like this?

“They say, ‘You want me to work eight hours?’ ” Mr. Illades said. “There is a bubble bursting.”

i just like to lol at all the landlord and developers who conspired to build like a dozen new condo buildings within two years, half of which have become abandoned construction.

that sounds like an onion article

Area Man LOLs at Developers

biggest lol: "my parents have money and support me financially -- no one must know my secret shame"

gotta maintain that cred, right?

hardly a new phenomenon, I know, I just enjoy how the article lays it out there in this anthropological fashion -- "tribal custom dictates you don't talk about daddy's money"

obviously the stigma's not that bad if the NYT can get people on record about it.

that or kids in williamsburg will say anything to get in the times

the girl in the photo is auditioning for ... what? a mumblecore porno?

she's a playwright

like that chick in... that one mumblecore film.

which fucking sucked.

'hannah takes the stairs'

kind of redundant writing 'thnat mumblecore film that sucked' amirite.

you tell me Mr. Mumblecore, I've never seen a Mumblecore movie.

chick from article

http://www.freewilliamsburg.com/archives/2008/08/misha_calvert.html

you tell me Mr. Mumblecore, I've never seen a Mumblecore movie.

― Mr. Que, Tuesday, June 9, 2009 8:59 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i saw it for ca$h

okay Mr. Mumblecore

if she were my offspring i'd cut her off too

no daughter of mine steals colt .45

snape kills mumblecore?

haha i knew i recognized that chicks name

no wonder she was willing to talk to the nyt

u mean mumble

I'm with Max, btw, in terms of reading this and finding it slightly hard to believe this type represents quite as high a percentage of the Williamsburg population as is suggested. (Getting sort of scoffy claims from third parties about this demographic's willingness to work real jobs also seems unconvincing to me, or anyway incomplete.) Maybe I'm just naive and Midwestern about these things, though.

I'm also trying to decide: if I had investments that provided me with $3-10k of income per month, would I be awesomely productive and fit? Hideously obese? Drug-addicted? Bored and aimless and depressed? Incredibly well-read? I do know one or two people who have the money to not-work and actually focus their time and accomplish cool things; I so don't trust that I'd have the personality to do that. I would probably watch loads of TV and be really depressed, and then occasionally spend a bunch of money on clothes to make myself feel better.

she seems horrible obv, but 'misha calvert' is a really great name imo

"snape kills mumblecore?

― harbl, Tuesday, June 9, 2009 9:10 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink"

loooool

well it seems like the article collapses a whole range of experiences, from "mom & dad help out a little with rent each month" which is like, who cares, all the way to "mom & dad set up a trust fund that means i dont ever have to work" which is like, infuriating but whatever--and im sure its possible that the latter kind would flip at the idea of having to work a regular job but the former it seems likely are already working fairly regular jobs (and are likely based on what i know about williamsburg and people my age also doing some kind of creative art/writing/designer wallpaper as well) and may now just have to get more hours or devote less time to their artisan ice cream making or whatever.

theres a germ of an interesting in that article somewhere, about how the unbelievable amount of cash in this city and the country as a whole has probably supported a much larger hipster "population" or "culture" in NYC than ever before--but i dont think parents and trust funds have as much to do with it as the sort of unbelievable number of "media"/"creative professional" jobs that were created (and have now been lost) over the last 10+ years that allowed people to sustain themselves doing sort of "artsy" things with and around other "artsy" people

^^^good post

Posted by: hammond's organ | August 12, 2008 05:10 PM

I am sorry did the chk not clear that week from mommy and daddy... poor little misha and her hot pants. i hope you fall onto the L train tracks.

I am sorry did the chk chk chk not clear

Yes, the all over aspect of the article was little annoying to me. I know plenty of responsible non-rich-kids who get some help from their parents with rent sometimes, or who have periods of living at home in between jobs, or because they prioritize paying back insane student loans with their small salaries over having their own places. Having a decent relationship with your family and being unable to buy into a real estate bubble that really just ended on entry level wages is sooooooo not the same as not working because of your trust fund.

That said, I also found it hard to believe the ridiculousness of some of those examples...but the world is full of odd situations, just because something sounds like a caricature doesn't mean it can't happen.

something that is getting lost in this discussion is that the brooklyn ale house makes amazing bloody marys

The Onion headline could be something like: Sustainable Knitting Store Unsustainable

^ and one

ha ha as soon as I saw that article I knew it was gonna be on this thread
. . .

Back to the first article - this guy is making more than $100k a year. He nets $2750/mo. That's after the $4k in alimony/child support and tax withholding, which is probably quite a bit.

"I'M FLUENT IN 3 SECTIONS, ACTUALLY"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v134/tracerhand/Picture4-1.jpg

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/nyregion/16bigcity.html?_r=1

guh parents are so crazy.

meme roth is just crazy; i think its independent of the fact of her children. she's the one who freaked out that jordin sparks existed the year she won idol.

yeah, that woman's made a name for herself being crazy about diet & obesity. sucks that she's making her kids' school lives miserable as a result.

wow what a fascist

You're probably bound to grow up that self-centered if your name is MeMe.

i like that you can read her name (in all small letters) as "meme." i also think it would be funny to force feed her doritos.

Ms. Roth’s message is hardly outlandish: There is an obesity epidemic, and there are probably better ways to celebrate a child’s birth than sending a passel of kids into sugar shock in the middle of math class.

agreed. every third grader should bring in their mom on their birthday so they can reenact the birth. it's educational.

'MeMe Jr. was a C-section, so we're going to cut her out of this sleeping bag to show how she was born."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/may/24/meme-roth-obesity-nutrition

"Every picture of Angelina Jolie shows her children eating a bag of Cheetos. How dare the richest, most educated people who have access to everything do this to their kids?"

lol what fucking planet are you on exactly?

tru lols @ angelina being the 'most educated'

Right, I say. So how about lunch?

She squirms visibly. "You're taking me where I don't want to go ... What works for me doesn't work for a lot of people."

Well, you've said that, I insist, so taking that into account: lunch? Roth hesitates. "I discovered when I was in college that I work best when I get a workout in and eat after that. Sometimes I'll delay when I eat until I get a workout in. But I don't let a whole day go by without running four miles."

OK, I go on, but supposing you couldn't work out until four o'clock in the afternoon - would you not eat until after that?

"I might."

I look at my watch. It's 3.30pm. Alarm bells start to ring in my head. How about today, I ask. Have you eaten at all today?

Roth is a little quiet.

"No," she says.

There is a pause.

"But I feel great!"

All I will add is that I'm happy for her children that this article has appeared in the Times so that years later they will have something to show their therapists.

I look at my watch. It's 3.30pm. Alarm bells start to ring in my head. How about today, I ask. Have you eaten at all today?

I generally don't like journalistic ambushes but have to hand it to the reporter on this one, this is cracking

maybe she's a breatharian

Is anyone saying that that woman clearly has an eating disorder? And is inflicting it on her children, and trying to inflict it on everyone else's?

I mean making yourself pay for a meal by running 4 miles is really fucking disordered eating. And possibly masochism.

http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2007/05/09/525442/MeMeRothSouthBeachBathingSuitRun.jpg

if you can imagine the mere size of the meal she consumes after a 4mi run, yeah the eating disorder is pretty apparent

but this is how she "finds she works best" and god forbid we judge her for her mechanical compulsion to maximum efficiency

"i find that my mind is sharper and my predatory instincts heightened when my stomach is digesting its own lining. as an outspoken crazy food pundit, i find this strategy works best for me. and for my brand."

she doesn't look very toned for a runner.

the doughnuts her children were once given in gym,

tbf junk food in gym class is pretty bullshit

competitive eating is a legit athletic activity

She's attractive, in a Lois Lane-meets-Ann Coulter way

Is it considered healthy for a woman to have visible ribs?

it is considered wealthy to look like you don't really work

MeMe Roth, a publicist

MeMe Roth, a publicist...

she doesn't look very toned for a runner

why because her body is eating itself

barbara ehrenreich on the nouveau poor v. the already poor:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/opinion/14ehrenreich.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

phrase "recession porn" in first paragraph = tl;dr/going to vom.

They're blonde, they're in the Hamptons and they have a website.

"flouncy summer evening" and "Range Rover" in one sentence = stopped reading

started reading

that article was CONFOUNDING imo

I had to quit after that one chick wet herself naming a couple of designers.

this is the best example of the stuff in this thread i've seen yet:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/magazine/14food-t-000.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=chicken%20meatball&st=cse

unbelievable. dude moaning about having to shop at trader joe's and not being able to afford $14 bottles of milk anymore. god "cooking with dexter" is the most insufferable column in the paper.

I feel that article Ned posted didn't emphasize enough that the woman covering the Hamptons was, in fact, from Nebraska

everyone in new york is from nebraska - it's a given

The Onion headline could be something like: Sustainable Knitting Store Unsustainable

― Garri$on Kilo (Hurting 2), Tuesday, June 9, 2009 8:04 PM (1 week ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

from the article i just linked to

Buying sustainably raised beef and sustainably squeezed milk and sustainably hatched poultry is a way of life that, these days, I just can’t sustain.

omg cooking with dexter

i was thinking "this guy doesn't know how to cook" until i saw he is some kind of recipe guy

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/us/22smartphones.html

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/06/22/us/22smart.xlarge1.jpg

Very few companies have policies on smartphone use in meetings, which leaves it up to employees to feel their way across uncertain terrain.

unbelievable. dude moaning about having to shop at trader joe's and not being able to afford $14 bottles of milk anymore. god "cooking with dexter" is the most insufferable column in the paper.

This was horrible. He made it sound like Trader Joes was the absolute worst option available to him and the food was cheap and nasty -- he should write another column when his pay gets cut to the point when he has to shop at Aldi.

this is the best example of the stuff in this thread i've seen yet:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/magazine/14food-t-000.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=chicken%20meatball&st=cse

unbelievable. dude moaning about having to shop at trader joe's and not being able to afford $14 bottles of milk anymore. god "cooking with dexter" is the most insufferable column in the paper.

― some dudes are bigger than others (s1ocki), Sunday, June 21, 2009 12:04 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

i dont understand how this even gets printed - ive never read this column before so idk what it's like but if this guys editor i get this column and go "yeah so what's the point" - this shit is why newspapers are dying - not only was this column printed on millions of papers but they paid two people to do a photo illustration which was also printed on millions of papers! to let us know that some jerk off can't afford organic cow milk or what the fuck ever anymore! - you have to be so wrapped up in yourself and yet so out of touch to write that column and then think that it's an acceptable piece of work

that smart phones article... they should honestly just blow up the new york times. just the whole building. did they ever write a "kids are texting during class! what do we do?" article or is that also coming?

i can't even mindlessly highlight text when im reading articles on the web site cuz then a window pops up giving me the dictionary definition of "the"

hahahaha ^ - i am so busted - have this exact problem

Your search for to invite peril. In Hollywood, both the Creative Artists Agency and United Talent Agency ban BlackBerry use at meetings. Tom Golisano, a billionaire and power broker in New York St returned 0 results. Find more information about this topic at Answers.com.

If you're that concerned about freshness, you can skip the Starbucks and bottled juices. I'm not knocking either, but both can easily be replaced by something fresher and cheaper.

Also, how can you run four miles a day without weight training? I can't run two miles several times a week without working on my quads, otherwise my knees will tear up.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/07/23/business/23wells-190.jpg

"We might have made $35 chicken soup, but we couldn’t quite face the prospect of a long-simmering stockpot on a Tuesday night. We get tired early these days."

i can't even mindlessly highlight text when im reading articles on the web site cuz then a window pops up giving me the dictionary definition of "the"

― whiney g. gordon liddy (J0rdan S.), Monday, June 22, 2009 7:19 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

hahahaha ^ - i am so busted - have this exact problem

― Tracer Hand, Monday, June 22, 2009 7:21 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

me too :/

This was horrible. He made it sound like Trader Joes was the absolute worst option available to him and the food was cheap and nasty -- he should write another column when his pay gets cut to the point when he has to shop at Aldi.

― Sir William of Joel (Nicole), Monday, June 22, 2009 6:41 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

seriously. what i wouldn't give for a trader joe's!

trader joes has pretty shitty produce

ya but cheap wine

so

"hey guys, i made some chicken meatballs! take that, recession!"

also, "supermarket spices" oh heavens no god forbid

There's a Trader Joe's right across from where I work and up the road from where I live, along with a Mitsuwa and when absolutely necessary a 7-11 = covered for all eventualities.

i have a wicked green market a 10 min bike ride away and a really good grocery store around the corner so im not sweating it but i always dig going to tj's and checking out all their wild and woolly products

i got mad at him when he said "rich, life-affirming stock" because i hate when people talk about food like that

I hate reading about it from some douchebag, but then someone cooks for me on a cold night and because they love me and want to share fellowship & use up some shellfish, and I'm handed a bowl of amazing somethingorother made for me by hand and I feel like if I were dead, that food would bring me back from beyond the grave, and then words like "life-affirming", though still treading a fine line, do seem to apply.

ya i think life-affirming is a fine thing to say about food. i mean it's not really an exaggeration.

i kinda wanted to spit when dude lamented that he needed to use more spices because it was not flavorful enough when cooked simply, alice waters RIP

i would still get mad at you xp

Pretty sure I can live with that.

haha well food is certainly nourishing but to say that it affirms life is laying it on a bit thick -- it's not like he's acknowledging his place in the food chain, "this $35 chicken died so that we may live" sorta sentiment

i dunno man it affirms life 4 me

it's one of the things that makes life worth living + added bonus of actually keeping me alive

i mean if it isn't, what is?

i agree, but i understand that not everyone loves food as much as me

some ppl just eat because they have to

those people are kind of lame fwiw

eh i'm just being fussy over applying personality & agency to foodstuffs, if anything then "lifestyle-affirming" would be most appropriate here

Thinking baout spices, was just reading a critique of CS Lewis's characterization of the Calormenes, and I never realized but he makes a huge point of them smelling like garlic and onions to show their evil foreign-ness, and I guess Lewis was infamous for only approving of extremely bland English home-cooking!! The inherent evillity of the Oriental, the Muslim, the foreigner who eats funny. "I had to add lots of spices" guy can STFU for so many reasons.

I'm more disturbed at the idea of someone keeping stock in their fridge for weeks and diligently re-boiling it every three days TBH. Maybe doing this affirms something deep inside.

Yah, that's what your freezer is for I mean cmon dude.

haha i know

"One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important. " -Bertrand Russell

Stop trying to prove a need for yr existence, guy, whoah srsly.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/07/23/business/23wells-190.jpg

His son Dexter:
http://www.pastdeadline.com/images/2008/01/07/dexter1.jpg

Hey perfect, an LA equivalent also published in the Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/fashion/21rockkids.html

Thanks to unperson for pointing this out on Twitter -- a favorite bit:

Indie music has a long and storied history in Southern California, dating back to the punk scene that flourished in Orange County in the late 1970s...

Hudson Franzoni, 17, started drumming five years ago. To encourage his development, his parents built him a studio at their home in the Malibu hills.

is that kid playing a bassoon in that picture

i don't know but they're at a fucking playground

i always thought this band - http://www.discogs.com/artist/Home

would do great in this fuzzy-sweater, regressive, feeb rock age we live in - and i like them! - but they were ahead of their time

can i just say that--at least before the ridiculous $35 chicken piece--I really like the Cooking with Dexter series! It's been interesting, especially compared to what passes for food writing in the NYT magazine these days.

no, sorry, you can't say that

mods, please delete

i like the old recipe / new recipe column

i don't know but they're at a fucking playground

pretty sure thats someones backyard

xp come on, really?

I think I judge food writing these days strictly if it makes me want to cook, and those never do

and i'm usually a hesser stan

ya it's more interesting to me thanr eading about some guy's brat making string beans

i usually ignore the article and read the recipe--the articles almost ALWAYS suck

i've been liking 'the cheat'--especially the fish tacos piece

we have made the fish tacos at least 6 or 7 times since the recipe came out

fish tacos of the ruling class

haha

I still haven't made them! Mostly because my wife is breastfeeding and convinced she can't have cabbage.

well if we're going to talk about it, this was really the LOLiest bit imo:

Michael Shuman, the bassist for Queens of the Stone Age who went to Campbell Hall, is the son of Ira Shuman, a producer of “Night at the Museum” and the new “Pink Panther” films. The band is signed to Interscope Records and performs its psychedelic-tinged hard rock around the world.

I hope that description makes it into a QOTSA press release at some point.

ps Josh Homme's rant on Interscope from 2007 always bears repeating: http://www.antiquiet.com/interviews/2007/12/antiquiet-interviews-josh-homme-of-queens-of-the-stone-age/

yeah I had looked at the fish taco recipe and gone "meh"; Mr. Que, however, cooked up a batch and goddamn are they delicious. The sauce is really, really, really good.

Anyhow I came onto this thread hoping there would be more MeMe stuff.

More batshit crazy woman, please!!!

i can't even mindlessly highlight text when im reading articles on the web site cuz then a window pops up giving me the dictionary definition of "the"

― whiney g. gordon liddy (J0rdan S.), Monday, June 22, 2009 7:19 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

hahahaha ^ - i am so busted - have this exact problem

― Tracer Hand, Monday, June 22, 2009 7:21 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

me too :/

― some dudes are bigger than others (s1ocki), Monday, June 22, 2009 8:48 AM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

^^^

Out, damned spots.

oh the anguish, the torment, the seasonal steam-cleaning

How dare you mock being CLEAN:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/07/01/garden/02dirt600.1.jpg

“Since we are not about to impose the remove-your-clothes-and-change rule on our guests, we tend to not entertain strangers that often. Our interior world stays much cleaner that way.”

Taking sides: beige furniture vs. friends

"...Our interior world stays much cleaner that way."

Reads as though written by George Saunders.

"interior world"

Mr. All White immediately reminded me of this (starting at around 5:10):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXumyShhj60

All white or beige is so sterile, it would drive me crazy (even without the constant maintenance involved).

the article doesn't even go into why rich new yorkers go in for light colored carpet & upholstery -- pretty sure it's BECAUSE they are so expensive to maintain & keep clean, denoting status. the article presents some strange normative idea rich ppl prefering white because, what, they have more refined taste?

bcz they like to pretend they are in a '70s tardis

you do need to have a pretty sweet place and expensive stuff for a super-white scheme to look good

The nice thing is maybe you might not be as blinded by the bright sun when you left your house.

but how sad for millionaires, being tinged with the same soot as the common beggar, if the rich can't stay clean then who can??

I hope that dude is a bear.

I hope that dude isgets eaten by a bear.

― kind-hearted, sensitive keytar player (Abbott), Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:25 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

foyers with benches is a good thing for anybody. I hate walking into my apartment and standing in the door way struggling to take off my shoes, my jacket, my bag, put down my umbrella, all without walking 2 more steps into the apartment where I'd inevitably get everything wet.

and it's not even raining out is the worst part

meme roth might be insane but the points in that article (about the food at the school) seem pretty valid to me; but I live in Berkeley so what do I know.

Meme Roth : Food : Morbs : Politics

Even when you agree with them they make you wish you didn't.

sad times ;_;
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/business/08nantucket.html?em

The RopeWalk, a restaurant owned by Joe Pantorno, is serving breakfast for the first time to try to lure more customers

!!

FUCK THAT

NEVER

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v134/tracerhand/Picture6.jpg

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/fashion/09baby.html

No longer is it necessary to buy a thousand-dollar changing table in order to prove your parental savvy and breadth of love; if anything, the opposite is true.

this article makes me want to vomit

many readers are rethinking vomiting and forgoing food digestion

has this sort of thing always been a feature of the NYT, or is it getting worse?

yes and yes

the style section is relatively new; has become markedly more appalling in the last 10 years - to the point where it's such easy pickins it's almost not fair

it's so stupid i get the feeling they're doing it deliberately

i hate to say it but when a news organization requires you to have a master's degree just to work the coffee machine and make copies, this is what you get

hahahah

"observers of baby consumerism" are quick to point out that babies, as a demographic, are not very discriminating shoppers and will likely choose the product that most easily fits in their mouth

seriously what is an "observer of baby consumerism" and is the pay any good

i used to read the nyt more regularly and would wonder all the time, "don't they know?" but maybe they don't! it's like they think this stuff is real life

that's now i choose products too lol

*how

how do you make money by blogging about your baby?

why do first-time parents write books about becoming parents?

i am generally suspicious of ppl whose whole identity is subsumed by their role as parents but i guess having baby-brain 94/7 affords certain niche marketing advantages

"your baby changed your life? your baby is the most important thing and your concern for your baby consumes your every waking thought? omg me too! you should really buy my book."

ugh sorry, apparently that article has driven me crazy

No srsly it's okay. I spent last week w a baby and baby people and it's a little overwhelming even totally outside the issue of Style Section Retardedness.

My mother is 100% okay with spending her day entertaining the baby, talking in a high voice to him, and keeping him occupied and doing stuff. It's exhausting even to watch her. And she's GREAT at it -- I can't imagine having to be around someone who was not only obsessed w their baby but also bad at being natural doing it.

has this sort of thing always been a feature of the NYT, or is it getting worse?

― caek, Thursday, July 9, 2009 6:15 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

it was kind of tolerable pre-recession when it was just stories about rich people being rich (even tho it was pretty ridiculous that they expanded it to two sections a week instead of just one) but know that its stories about rich people being poor its like taking a cheese grater to your eyeballs

No longer is it necessary to buy a thousand-dollar changing table in order to prove your parental savvy and breadth of love; if anything, the opposite is true.

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 9 July 2009 10:00 (3 hours ago)

"No longer"

whew.

i love babies btw

without defending the style section ... in terms of whether the massive increase in spending on all manner of baby stuff is "real life," the answer is definitely YES. and not just among people who can afford thousand-dollar changing tables. go into any babies r us or buy buy baby. so however obnoxious some of the rhetoric might be, i think the article's talking about an actual mass phenomenon. i mean, even just the widespread existence of big-box baby retailers tells you that. and of course they're the kind of places getting hammered by the recession. if the story'd been written by the business section it might read differently (i.e. better), but i don't think what it's saying is exactly omg-how-silly.

What's the statute of limitations on that? 'cause I didn't do it when it was necessary.

i understand that babies are expensive, that's not what i meant by "real life." i meant the 'agonies of the ruling class' phenomenon in general

er i meant increase in baby spending is real life

xpost, maybe you're right about that. I guess not enough of my friends have babies for me to be aware of this (although one person I know went a little nuts with the cloth-diaper equipment and accessories). I guess I still assume that most people will get secondhand stuff for their babies and not spend absurd amounts on designer strollers because that's how I grew up. I still think most people probably don't, although maybe a large percentage of the demographic that reads the Times don't.

People spend at varying levels depending on resources, but the percentage of $$ going toward baby items, and the number of toys and amount of stuff that's considered appropriate for babies, have probably both been slid up the scale quite a ways.

yeah. the designer-stroller phenomenon specifically is a primarily urban thing -- suburbanites don't have sidewalks to show them off on. but any middle-class baby shower of the past 10 years would show you all kinds of baby goods and services of dubious necessity.

Not only are children named after their grandparents these days, but all those Rubys, Sadies and Harrys at the playgrounds may end up thinking like them as well.

A second-hand Bugaboo Cameleon will do that.

laurel i just feel that the parents interviewed are totally into framing their personal opinions with the preface "as a parent" and are giddy about having crossed the threshhold of being able to judge other parents because no one can challenge them with "well you don't have kids" anymore

the economic piece is just superfluous and weird -- 2nd hand shit costs less money, consumerism is culturally pervasive, yes, but the fact that we're talking ant babies doesn't / shouldn't really contribute any moral conscience re: these issues

abt babies. not ant babies.

laurel i just feel that the parents interviewed are totally into framing their personal opinions with the preface "as a parent"

haha, spend some time on mommyblogs.

or, don't.

Nearly all of Chase’s belongings are hand-me-downs or were bought secondhand, from the onesies to the fully tricked-out Bugaboo Cameleon — the top of the line Dutch stroller that the Hildenbrands bought on a listserv for a fraction of its $900 price tag. Mrs. Hildenbrand said that a good salary wasn’t reason enough to spend money that might not always be there.

“We want to hedge in case something does happen,” she said.

Perhaps the most ridiculous thing about this article -- this anecdote shows not one iota of "reflection" or anti-consumerist sentiment. The Hildenbrands probably paid more for their used top-of-the-line status stroller than many people pay for new ones. They're just trying to save money in case of a depression.

I still assume that most people will get secondhand stuff for their babies and not spend absurd amounts on designer strollers because that

Yeah this is the basic assumption I've always had as well, so the article reads very strange and otherworldly to me. I guess if you plan on having lots of kids it makes sense to buy nice strollers since you'll reuse them, but at a core level isn't the basic groundrule that everything you buy your baby will be useless in a year or two anyway cause that's how babies work?

need more articles about talking ant babies imo

laurel i just feel that the parents interviewed are totally into framing their personal opinions with the preface "as a parent" and are giddy about having crossed the threshhold of being able to judge other parents because no one can challenge them with "well you don't have kids" anymore

Sorry, yeah, I didn't explain myself but yr comment above is what I was thinking of as "unnatural" behavior around babies -- ie self-conscious, motivated by being heard or seen to be the parent of a baby, and so on.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_EYMAdo4Ms84/ScMz91hEFdI/AAAAAAAADdY/TJKp1LtKR8M/s400/BabyCostumeAnt1x.jpg

Style section:NYT::funnies:your local paper::editorial page:WSJ

this article = "rose is rose" ???

The first friend of mine w/child to whip out 'as a parent' will be made to wear a sandwich board saying I AM NEEDY, CONGRATULATE ME FOR BREEDING PLEASE.

It's just as annoying to me as having to whip out 'as a Christian', 'as a woman' or anything similar - a form of emotional manipulation that really has no place in whether or not their argument or point is valid.

i only really like the thursday styles section for the critical shopper and the pictorials like the one about ivey leaugers in the 60s but i cherish its existence. i mean how else would we know what $400 shoes are the best?????

as a parent and social scientist, i am deeply concerned that we might be on the cusp of raising a new generation of depression-era babies.

Jesus christ, I didn't even notice that. "Social scientists" is so clearly a euphemism for "people who get paid to help sell shit," (hence the "concern").

why do first-time parents write books about becoming parents?

i am generally suspicious of ppl whose whole identity is subsumed by their role as parents but i guess having baby-brain 94/7 affords certain niche marketing advantages

― fade away & r80-8 (elmo argonaut), Thursday, July 9, 2009 6:40 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

"your baby changed your life? your baby is the most important thing and your concern for your baby consumes your every waking thought? omg me too! you should really buy my book."

― fade away & r80-8 (elmo argonaut), Thursday, July 9, 2009 6:42 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

^^agree with all this

there's a girl i used to work with who is a recent first-time mom and she has been writing all of these baby-rearing and "new mom" lifestyle pieces for a couple of online websites, and they're all excruciating.

"i never thought that i, jaded cosmopolitan that i am, could ever embody the mushiest stereotypes of motherhood but lo and behold i do, and you know what - i love it" (pls extend to 300 words - Ed.)

MICAH HILDENBRAND and her husband, Eric, are corporate lawyers who live in an affluent neighborhood in Washington and drive a Lexus SUV. But when their son, Chase, was born...

<3 <3 <3 the Style section's exquisite feel for the subtle pisstake.

it's a lot like bushwick bill says:

Now if it wasn't for moms i wouldn't have no world
You stood tall through it all, so you go, girl
I know things ain't all they used to be
I had to slow my roll, see, trouble's getting used to me
I gots to make you a proud mother
No more crack slanging, i gots to be a proud brother
And take control of my destiny

thing is: i think that lede is totally sincere, just establishing the economic status of the couple being discussed

unless i'm missing something, in which case it is really really subtle

The writer isn't responsible for them having named their son Chase, which in my mind is the keystone of the whole thing being ridiculous.

Speaking of subtle pisstakes, how did I not notice before that the high-end stroller brand is called fucking BUGABOO?

xpost I dunno... "their son Chase" is just so on the nose... I mean, they could have picked any well-off working couple, but as a set of signifiers the Hildenbrands are almost too good to be true.

PS I'm sure they're very nice people.

1. An object of obsessive, usually exaggerated fear or anxiety

chase citibank hildenbrand

Columbia did an expensive ski jacket called the Bugaboo years ago, though -- so as a product name it probably went right by me.

I'll just throw a wrench in the gears and say that in order to create second-hand strollers _somebody_ has to buy strollers new from the store, and who else if not people who have enough money that it's not a crippling expense? I can't really object to this. My kid rides in a bike trailer that cost several hundred bucks, which I bought new. As far as I know there doesn't exist a bike trailer that doesn't cost this much. I don't use it to show off, I use it so I can get my son to school on my way to work without using the car. Yep, I could have bought a used one on Craigslist. But when my kid's too big for it, I'll give it to a friend who needs one, or sell it on Craigslist, and then somebody else will get one free or cheap.

Oh, I forgot to say "AS A PARENT."

every parent knows about the bugaboo, regardless of whether you have one or not - the lowest end model is like $300. i try not to judge though, sometimes grandparents can be very splurgish. it's crazy with strollers, actually. in a city that's like the one big baby purchase that is immediately see-able and it is totally, totally impossible not to compare what you got with what others have got, and it is almost equally difficult to avoid conferring a sense of superiority on yourself regardless of how the comparison works out. i.e. "god what imbeciles - a $500 baby buggy" vs "ooh, it's not even a mclaren - sucks to be them" ew ew ew ew ew what the fuck

btw cards on the table - i have the mclaren techno xt

God, what an imbecile.

:D

god knows what hideously deprived mindset my child will develop

i don't necessarily think buying new things for your baby is bad -- i think the problem comes from valorizing second-hand purchases as being more socially responsible / better for your child. for many ppl, buying second-hand is a necessity but for the ppl in the article, it's a conscious deliberate choice. it's still consumption & no less conspicuous expect what is being displayed are "social values" rather than "social status".

expect = except

this article allows these people to frame their choice as being conscientious, and still allows them to note that it's just a choice and not a necessity b/c they're still upper-class.

Someone brought her grandson to my office to visit us today and he was in a Quinny stroller. She just rolled her eyes and said, "None of MY money went into that thing, I can promise you THAT." She's great.

Aside from special occasion wear little kids really do not need many new clothes and I'm sure these people are in consignment places looking for baby Lacoste shirts. But wanting a medal for it? Showy.

People's whole stroller/pram thing and expense doesn't really bug me, the same parents would spend mucho dinero on their own bicycles, which don't get used virtually every day for 3 years like your average buggy. Also, crap buggy hard to use, so might as well have a good one.

If I had to take the subway with a baby and a stroller, I'd insist on one that could climb stairs on its own. I mean, for the money.

http://media.techeblog.com/elephant//ul/6685-450x-ibot_1.jpg

parenting/mommy blogs are great for schadenfreude for the childless.

i have personally resolved never to take my stroller on the subway. good god.

yes suzy. for those who travel on foot a good stroller is u&k.

we had trouble setting it up in the store and a guy came over to help us, dressed in an expensive suit, expensive watch, assiduously buffed fingernails. he said he had the same kind. i was like "oh yeah? so is it good?" and he got kind of a faraway look in his eyes and said "it has its uses. it's kind of our 'second stroller'."

haha tracer

In the past year or so, a Whole Foods opened on our block, and suddenly there is this major influx of "stroller people" - mainly women about my age or a bit younger, that have one or two kids and groceries packed into the stroller or stroller accessories, pushing it up a somewhat steep hill. So yeah, I can see having a nice stroller if you're going to use it a lot.

yah, seriously, large cargo compartment under stroller is #1 unanticipatedly crucial stroller feature.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_-iyxlepjOfk/SPp7nuE5f3I/AAAAAAAAAMo/MRWNtZXew3M/s400/segway-baby-stroller.jpg

to be fair that segway was 2nd-hand

lol!

that picture reminds me of frogger

OMGWTFLOL. I have not lived in America since the advent of SEGWAY. Pics like this make me think there's no coincidence.

Whenever I see a picture of someone riding a segway in an urban environment, I think how easy it would be for someone to mug them.

The only people I have ever seen on Segways with my own two eyes are police, I think.

Wait, you guys actually see people riding segways? The only time I've ever seen one in person involved Target parking lot security, and I don't think that lasted very long.

i ride a segway to and from work

yeah ... I've never actually seen anyone on these, I've only seen pictures.

Wait, you guys actually see people riding segways?

Usually at transportation locales -- train stations, airports, etc.

sarahel in providence the private security detail for the downcity business association rides segways these days

you should meet me sarahel i ride my segway to every fap

i saw a whole tour group of like a dozen ppl on segways, i turned a corner on my bike and there they were, sort of practicing, they all looked ashamed

I've only seen police and tourists (you can rent them here) on Segways.

xp elmo - I don't think that would work very well in Oakland.

there's a segway rider in my neighbourhood in provincial england. idk what his deal is.

we had trouble setting it up in the store and a guy came over to help us, dressed in an expensive suit, expensive watch, assiduously buffed fingernails. he said he had the same kind. i was like "oh yeah? so is it good?" and he got kind of a faraway look in his eyes and said "it has its uses. it's kind of our 'second stroller'."

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 9 July 2009 19:00 (29 minutes ago)

um, er ... coff ... we have, uh, three strollers. but that's for two kids. and down from four a few months ago! we're going to get rid of one of the other ones, we really only need two -- the big-ass sturdy one and the easy-to-collapse one for buses, subways, etc. (taking them on subways isn't really that hard, btw, as long as the stroller is light enough. just haul it up and down the stairs.)

sometimes i see people riding segways around hollywood or los feliz here in l.a. they always look really serious about it.

(by "down from four" i mean strollers, not kids...)

there's a segway rider in my neighbourhood in provincial england. idk what his deal is.

― FREE DOM AND ETHAN (special guest stars mark bronson), Thursday, July 9, 2009 2:38 PM (27 seconds ago) Bookmark

is he your lord

(by "down from four" i mean strollers, not kids...)

Jeez ruin the joke why don't you.

is he your lord

― goole, Thursday, July 9, 2009 9:39 PM (43 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

no: his stables are the envy of the kingdom.

hang onto the big-ass sturdy one and coach him into becoming an nfl lineman and reap the $$$

the only people i've seen riding segways here (in northern NJ) have been cops. we also have an overabundance of "stroller moms," not to mention folks who ride their bikes on sidewalks (instead of on the road like they're supposed to do).

the easy-to-collapse one, send him to silicon valley and get more $$$$

i have seen segways in teh czech republic

where i do not live, and that is no coincidence

the easy-to-collapse one, send him to silicon valley and get more $$$$

― enbba champions (omar little), Thursday, July 9, 2009 7:42 PM (26 seconds ago) Bookmark

my parenting book: the foldable child

will he fit in the overhead compartments of planes?

and/or storage compartments of overpriced strollers?

I've only seen police and tourists (you can rent them here) on Segways.

― congratulations (n/a), Thursday, July 9, 2009 3:37 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark

Why would anyone want to rent a tourist?

Reverse exploitation obv.

why are police on segways?

why are they on horses?

why didnt they make the cl with a clutch?

parenting/mommy blogs are great for schadenfreude for the childless.

― incomprehensible Kool-Aid swallower (sarahel), Thursday, July 9, 2009 2:59 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark

^^^^^

As a non-parent, it just amazes me to see the Urban Assault Vehicles people are pushing their kids around in. I mean, I'm pretty sure I was pushed in something that looks a lot like this:

http://www.prammuseum.com/images/tukhandle1.gif

_somebody_ has to buy strollers new from the store,

I wonder how many fancy strollers were purchased by parents and how many were shower gifts.

yea i feel like the doting grandparent also is a hueg portion

there's a segway rider in my neighbourhood in provincial england. idk what his deal is.

― FREE DOM AND ETHAN (special guest stars mark bronson), Thursday, July 9, 2009 8:38 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

cambridge?

when we bought our fancy stroller (not that fancy!), the saleslady was sure to let us know that jon stewart had bought the same one the week before...

(and it worked, because here i am repeating it.)

did she say why he returned it?

ar ar.

i will stop talking about strollers now. there are few things dorkier than talking about strollers.

mypokemansletmeshowuthem.jpg

there's a segway rider in my neighbourhood in provincial england. idk what his deal is.

― FREE DOM AND ETHAN (special guest stars mark bronson), Thursday, July 9, 2009 8:38 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

cambridge?

― caek, Friday, July 10, 2009 5:30 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

y

That's hardly "provincial"!

it's mroe bedford than bed-stuy

that's also exactly where i'd expect to see a segway in the uk. dork central.

my old neighborhood had a segway store right next to the dog bakery

that's also exactly where i'd expect to see a segway in the uk. dork central.

― caek, Friday, July 10, 2009 12:20 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

loooool

right next to the dog bakery

How cruel!

Oh please.

And there was a follow-up.

I think that's a pretty good article actually, for what it is

what didnt you like abt it ned?

i wonder if their letters editor would describe this thread as "populist backlash"? i mean seriously, they must know, right?

It is -- refreshing amount of unrestrained skepticism and does an excellent job of letting the people hang themselves with their own rope.

(xpost)

Less disliking the article than some of the...shall we say 'characters' involved, and the assumptions on the part of their clientele. However two to one says that the skeptical tone of this article exists only because the economic crunch -- a year ago this would have been nothing but glowing profiles. Agonies of the ruling class indeed.

"Hey wait we can't really afford this any more...you think they might have been lying to us?"

was hoping for more college interview fashion advice tbh

“It’s annoying when people complain about the money,” the Vermont-based counselor, Michele Hernandez, said. “I’m at the top of my field. Do people economize when they have a brain tumor and are looking for a neurosurgeon? If you want to go with someone cheaper, or chance it, don’t hire me.”

When people say stuff like this, you don't really have to write anything.