Rich People and the New York Times Style

I have this on-going love-hate relationship with New York Times. I love the paper for the most part, but I deeply hate the Sunday and Thursday Styles. It does two things make my skin crawl:
1) Figures youth trends out about a year late
2) Focuses on the ridiculous upper class

The first one I can let slide. It's kind of cute sometimes when they point out that mustaches are popular again about a year after that was true as well as neglecting to point out the asshole factor in all that. It reminds me of my parents using the word "Cool." You know they're trying but it just feels forced.

The thing that really makes me angry is their insistence on focusing on white, wealthy Manhattanites. There has been a long line of their societal "observations" which invariably feel like a debutant past her prime polling her friends during tea.

"Betsy, you really gave up work to be with your children!? That's fantastic!"

"Yes Mitzy, you know me, always wanting to be with my children."

"Oh, I feel like the silly feminists just didn't get it. This is my choice to be with my family, you know?"

"I know! And the fact that you have Juanita to help you out, it's like two mothers for your babies!"

"Exactly! It's fabulous. Really. And Juanita has finally stopped asking time off to take care of her gazillion children."

The only mothers who voluntarily stop working are the rich women who have that choice, especially as we slide into recession.

What really pushed me over the top this weekend was the article, "You Say Recession, I Say ‘Reservations!’" The article is about how some New Yorkers feel good about that fact that some people are losing their jobs at Bear Stearns, perhaps meaning people can afford houses with more rooms but-- more importantly to the New York Times-- you can get a dinner reservation!!! They then imply the average New Yorker who makes $46,480 a year should be terrified that the people making "seven- and eight-figure salaries" are going to leave the city.

I understand there are a lot of intricacies to the economy, and people losing their jobs at one firm doesn't mean the whole city will now be economically equitable. But the New York Times does a great job at chastising anyone who feels excited about that possibility. They draw frightening parallels to the 90's, 80's and 70's recessions that hit New York. What will we all do if, oh my god, middle income people start buying apartments in the city!!! They could be even be living RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO YOU.

This is, of course, great for most New Yorkers except for the Bear Sterners (who will probably be able to find another job, though they may take a huge hit and make only six figures) and Brokers (who should mostly all be shot). Here is the crux of their argument though:

That’s why the troubles at Bear Stearns are a mixed blessing for New York’s lower ranks. The same masters of the universe who have made housing so expensive have beefed up the tax base, its sanitation services and its police force. They have, in many ways, underwritten the “new” New York City of the late 1990s and 2000s, defined by pristine parks and low murder rates.

Right. There is no argument that the richest people in New York pay more in taxes, in straight dollar amounts, than the rest of us. But, you know what, I sincerely doubt they pay more percentage-wise of their income to taxes. And let's not forget in Bush's America the tax cuts go to the rich in the form of taxes on investments being reduced or removed. The percent that people in the seven to eight figure income range pay in taxes is going to be less than what I pay. But this also ignoring that if housing becomes more attainable, maybe people who live in public housing will see the opportunity for housing open up for them, thus increasing their children's since of stability, perhaps raising their chances in life and reducing the possibility they'll turn to crime.

The tax base will have trouble when there are lay offs of the rich, on a huge huge scale. But I sincerely doubt there will be enough to make a huge difference. And don't forget, if the taxes on the rich go up, they'll leave New York City (right mayor Bloomburg!?).

But that's unlikely. Were exactly will they be going? Europe? You think that the taxes in Europe are less than they are here? I don't think so. What will make them leave, though, is if our economy keeps going in the shitter. And maybe, you know, they'd stick around longer if health insurance was paid for by the state instead of private employers. Or, better yet, they might stick around here if buying a place to live was cheaper.