11 ms·

The author is clearly well into the upper-middle class financially, talking about nannies and "solo beach days" on both coasts. Wow, how out of touch is the ty

by JPKab 10y ago

The author is clearly well into the upper-middle class financially, talking about nannies and "solo beach days" on both coasts. Wow, how out of touch is the typical New York Times writer these days. Poor and working class people have truly busy lives compared to professionals. We should all remember that.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
apsec112 10y ago
I think it depends a lot on the specifics. Of course, there are certainly lots of Americans who are both poorer than the author and work harder. But in the US, the very poorest people tend to be those who don't work at all, or only work part-time. People who live their whole life in a small town with one or two big employers, which move away when the economy crashes; people whose skills go out-of-date, and can't afford a retraining program; people who may be hard workers, but just really suck at interviewing, and always get rejected; people who want to work more, but their employer only gives them a few odd hours a day, and no one else wants to hire them when their schedule is unreliable; people who get job offers in other cities, but can't afford to move. This underclass doesn't work that many hours, and some would call them "lazy", but I think it's usually more like despair. It's terribly depressing to be broke, to not know if you can do anything other people see as valuable, and to have nothing better to do than watch TV or play video games.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  I come from poverty. There is a big difference between poor and working poor. The poor get handouts, the working poor get fines because they can't afford Obamacare. Then people wonder why the poor don't struggle their way to working poor.
  - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
    Whoever downvoted this comment doesn't understand it at all. The working poor are a revenue source. By keeping people indebted, they remain predictable consumers and fixed-income assets, like a human bond. The impoverished are effectively trapped by the welfare system itself, because it reduces benefits as incomes rise at a faster rate than can be made up by the equivalent amount of work. If the minimum wage was a living wage, like in Australia, then this wouldn't be a problem. But instead American welfare/min-wage clearly incentivizes staying just poor enough to keep getting benefits, or else you are actively making yourself poorer by working more. This is why so many Walmart employees are on food stamps.
    - jacalata 10y ago
      > the poor get handouts, the working poor get fines > many Walmart employees are on food stamps. Are you implying that Walmart employees are not 'working poor', or is the first sentence a dramatic over-generalization that doesn't contribute to the conversation?
      - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
        Minimum wage Walmart employees are often working poor. Poverty depends on perspective. Most Revolution-Era Americans were living in what we today would call extreme poverty. But you can have a tv and a smartphone today and still be quite poor, because of the difference in consumer cost between things we need and things we don't need. www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/17/the-stuff-we-really-need-is-getting-more-expensive-other-stuff-is-getting-cheaper
        jacalata 10y ago
        Yes, I agree that Walmart employees are the working poor. I don't understand how you can recognise that and also argue for the validity of this statement >There is a big difference between poor and working poor. The poor get handouts, the working poor get fines because they can't afford Obamacare. Then people wonder why the poor don't struggle their way to working poor.
  - brazzledazzle 10y ago
    I also come from poverty and in my experience there can be a dangerous area making just enough money to be disqualified from receiving assistance where you're just a few mistakes or irresponsible decisions away from having serious money issues. But there are also a whole lot of people that qualify for all kinds of assistance and don't ever even bother to check because they are hard working people and take pride in that. I think the solution is pretty simple: raise that income maximum well past where you would normally put it and make it trivial (like sign up on the internet trivial) for anyone who qualifies to receive assistance and make it just as simple to stop receiving it. Someone should be able to sign up and receive assistance on the next distribution cycle. This makes it easy for people in that dangerous spot to get assistance because you remove it and those with pride can get it quickly, easily and as temporarily as they want with no humiliation. Here's why: Today you must commit a lot of time and effort as well suffer humiliation to get assistance. You have to stand in line, wait in a waiting area, fill out forms and finally talk to a worker about what a fuck up you are. If you have kids and can't get/afford a babysitter your kids are right there with you losing their minds. If you can't take time off work you don't get assistance because this government office is closed in the evening and on weekends. It may be hard to imagine something worse than the DMV but that's exactly what this is. And then you have to deal with doing it all over again because they are looking for the tiniest possible reason to turn off your assistance and force you to appeal. Why is it so painful? Because welfare queens, drug dealers, drug users, lifers and frauds can't be allowed to get assistance even if the cost in terms of dollars and opportunity are much greater to prevent them from doing so. We've let it become about who we deem "deserves" it rather than a simple monetary calculation.
- bodyfour 10y ago
  The historical trends of leisure-time vs income are very interesting. Lots of different economic forces at work there -- http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21600989-why-rich-now-have-less-leisure-poor-nice-work-if-you-can-get-out http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21600989...
- faceyspacey 10y ago
  That view that it it's "terribly depressing to be broke" and all the despair the poor in America feel because they can create no value could only be thought up by us smug hacker news software creators. I know first hand that much of the poor are content to live off the government, never had any aspirations and ultimately don't need much to survive and be content enough. They don't know what they don't know and therefore they don't suffer from the despair of not being the next Steve jobs. That was never on their list. They are truly ignorant enough to be content with video games. I'm not talking everyone but this probably is the majority. Things work and all you need is to be able to hold a minimum wage job for a few years at a time and when you get fired you can take a few years off while another friend or family member is on deck, meanwhile you're contributing food stamps the whole time, 6 months of an unemployment check, money from a few scams here and there, electricity bill deductions and many other such benefits you can get if you are below the poverty line. These are all meaningful contributions you can contribute well past the 6 months of paid unemployment. You have to understand you also have old people in the household collecting social security at $1k per month. There are not only other people not working, but other non-workers coming up with money and resources. It becomes just as normal for a working-age male to not be working as grandma. After all we aren't talking 1 person or couple cramped into an over priced San Francisco apartment. In short, the family doesn't need as much money and everyone bands together, and can go for a very long time bringing in very little money. And though totally in the hands of the "public" health care system whose bills they will never pay if they get into an accident, they are more than content with tv and stolen movies/shows via apps like "ShowBox" until that happens, and even after. They have near zero ounce of fight in them for anything more, certainly not to be the prolific CEO or CTO of a tech company. That's far out of their field of vision. I am one that believes to not aspire to something is not healthy. So for now ignoring the other psychological issues surrounding the more privileged all feeling disproportionate pressure to be somebody, I'll just say the opposite extreme we are discussing now is worse and it's out of ignorance. An ignorance most here can't understand or have forgotten. A true "ignorance is bliss" syndrome. To us it may look like that as a result they are content to live in squalor. The truth is the squalor of those living standards have risen. It all just feels normal to them. What I call "poverty trap sweet spots" certainly do exist in America.
  - 10y ago
- icantdrive55 10y ago
  "to not know if you can do anything other people see as valuable" 1. I have never met a rich person that could offer me anything other than a loan. Someting they don't like to do. (I live in Marin County. The place your founder will end up if successful. These people can't change a tire. They are as useful as the proverbial wart on a toad. They have one ability most poor don't have; they are masters at taking money from the poor/middle class and getting in their bank account. They are also masters at hiding their lack ethics/morality--for the most part. Some are born rich. Some have high barriers to entry--like a medical degree, in a dubious speciality. The drug dealing Psychiatrist come to mind? My neighbors would be the first to perish in a catastrophe. I honestly wonder what skills they offer society. They always fall back on we provide the jobs. Jobs that usually don't have a future, and turn the poor into working poor. Many work for for profit housing, for profit education, and for profit medical system.(All services that I feel shouldn't have a profit motive.) They are Titans in the financial world. So few provide livable jobs. Many destroy jobs, for their own enrichment, But the majority? I can't figure out what in the hell they do. I know their wives, and kids are misserable. 2. I have never met a poor person who couldn't fix my car, repair my house, repair my website, etc. I don't think I have ever met a poor person that didn't have more skills than my neighbors. They just don't know how to capitalize on them. Or, will never be given the opportunity to capitalize on any of their skills, or good ideas. They will always be at the mercy of the people with money. Usually a a seed fund consisting of a few thousand dollars on a credit card at 29%. Some days, it enrages me. I do know this, I haven't found one who I could stomach being friends with. It's not out of envy either; I just don't like the hypocrisy, and really question their ethics, and morality. I often picture Chea Guevara riding that motorcyle, looking at the disparity of wealth; and feel his rage. My rage has been brewing for years. I don't have a point, other than the wealthy, at least my neighbors, don't possess viable skills. 99% would be living pay check to pay check, or homeless, if not for that understanding wealthy father, who usually really helped out that aimless kid who just returned from Europe and still couldn't figure out what they wanted to do. And all the second chances that most of us only get one--if we are lucky. Ask yourself this; how many bad ideas from the wealthy are we forced to listen to? They have the platform, but their ideas always leave out a few pertinent variables; like it will take a lot of seed capital to do, along with a free house, a free workspace, free legal advice, and Insurance. Their ideas always seem lofty. An idea only a wealthy dreamer could begin to pontificate about?
- sedachv 10y ago
  > people whose skills go out-of-date, and can't afford a retraining program United States job training programs do not work - they are a 1980s Reagan-era privatization scam to funnel tax dollars to private scam "training" and "job" centers that do not provide effective training or result in any meaningful employment outcomes: http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100040300 http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=8014010004030... Job training needs to be stopped being mentioned as a realistic or viable option - it is a Republican distraction to free public universal vocational and university schooling in certified and accountable programs with qualified instructors: "why do we need free trade schools, we already have job training!"
  - apsec112 10y ago
    Sorry, I think there's a semantic confusion here. By "retraining", I was also referring to vocational education and trade schools in general, not just a specific US government program. It sounds like you're not anti-retraining (as I was using the word), you just want it to be reformed and brought more under federal control.
tomjakubowski 10y ago
It's worth noting that the writer of this piece isn't a New York Times employee; she's an author doing a guest spot. It seems unlikely that the typical NYT journalist lives a similar life.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  It seems that at least a few journalists at the top end of their profession do make "rich" level money, based on an article I seem to remember reading about one such journalist making over $200k and realizing he was out of touch with most people. But certainly it doesn't seem common.
- agentgt 10y ago
  Yes it is very similar to another guest spot writer who wrote about retiring in Manhattan: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/opinion/sunday/for-a-long-life-retire-to-manhattan.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/opinion/sunday/for-a-long-... HN Comments here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12429693 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12429693 Specifically my comment on the guest writer being fairly privileged: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12433360 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12433360 ...You know cause everyone can easily retire to Manhattan...
praxulus 10y ago
Who do you think reads the New York Times? Writing for your audience isn't the same as being out of touch with everyone else (though they may well be).
rconti 10y ago
Wow, no kidding. I have ZERO kids, and am well aware of the couple hours of free time I have in the evenings before bed. I make sure I get enough sleep most of the time. That said, free days on the beach? Midday naps or sleeping all morning on a hotel room while traveling? I sleep less on business trips, and can't fathom just sitting around the beach all day. I'm not saying my life is harder than hers, it's almost certainly not -- I'm just saying if I had 1 kid, let alone 4, it would put that to shame.
- quicklime 10y ago
  Why does a busy life put a less busy life "to shame"? I'm not sure if you meant it literally, but I do know a lot of people who do. They literally get offended and defensive if I suggest they have some free time to do something. But there really isn't anything shameful about successfully budgeting time, just as there isn't anything shameful about having spare money left over from your paycheck. Quite the opposite, actually.
  - zipppy 10y ago
    I think it was quite obviously meant to be figurative.
jobu 10y ago
As a parent of four kids myself, this seems ridiculously low: "I spent a mere 9.09 hours weekly on housework and errands" How is that possible? Housecleaner? Personal shopper? Nanny? We spend 6-8 hours each week shopping around trying to save money on just groceries, and that's not including clothes or haircuts etc.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  Nanny and husband, per the article. She said she travels a lot for work, so travel weeks will also bring down the average significantly.
- ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
  We spend about an hour per day each on household chores not counting grocery shopping and non-everyday things like cleaning gutters or putting furniture together which I have some unopened Ikea boxes from 2 years back lol. Oh yea, no kids :)
- tra3 10y ago
  I wonder if your hours may be a bit off -- are you logging them like the article author? 6-8 hours a week on just groceries is an hour a day, that seems quite high. Personally we just spend an hour at the grocery store to purchase everything for a week in advance, and maybe anotehr hour to pick up things we forgot later in the week.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    Averaged to an hour a day sounds about right actually. If you go to a couple of stores and don't just buy everything at one place it adds up. Every time I go shopping with my Dad or brother its a 5 hour jaunt with various excursions during the week.
- s_kilk 10y ago
  > We spend 6-8 hours each week shopping around trying to save money on just groceries Curious, How much money are you saving in exchange for that effort?
somestag 10y ago
The author makes it abundantly clear the article is for working professionals, particularly women. I don't see any suggestion in the article that a single mother with three jobs has time for swing dancing lessons and hiking trips. And that's kind of the whole point of the article, isn't it?. The poor and working class people in my life don't complain about how "busy" they are nearly as much as the more well-to-do, despite being so much busier than the middle-class-and-up. They don't talk about it like that, because they're much more grounded in reality. Meanwhile, many college students, lawyers, doctors, engineers, programmers, etc. are acting like they can barely spare a minute because of how busy they are. Maybe these people are busy, in a sense, but the whole point of the article is that they're not nearly as busy as they believe they are. I think there's a deeper issue at play that the article doesn't touch on: that acknowledging you're not busy is perceived as laziness. There's a certain culture of shared misery, where we all agree to tell each other that we're all so busy, and then we can all feel good both about what we do and about what we don't do. Here's an anecdote (that's meant to illustrate a situation, not talk myself up): when I was in school, on more than one occasion I had someone tell me that I must be "so busy" because of my major and programs I was enrolled in (and the fact that I was pulling off good grades). When I told them that no, I really wasn't that busy, they were incredulous. There always had to be some explanation for why I wasn't busy, like that I was cheating or taking easy classes or something. The problem was that they thought they were busy, and they figured I must be doing at least as much work as they were, so by deduction I must be busy too. Well it turned out I was doing just as much work as they were; I just didn't think that qualified me as "busy." One person, after drilling me on how much time I spent on school work, scoffed: "Oh, so you are busy then," and thought I was just trying to act cool or something. I don't believe that you're not allowed to write about a social phenomenon just because there are people in world to whom it doesn't apply. It's very clear the types of people the author is talking about.
heartbreak 10y ago
Her husband, Michael Conway, is the managing partner at McKinsey's Philadelphia office.
mapgrep 10y ago
Have you ever shopped for child care as one of two working parents? Have you priced day care centers vs nanny shares? You do realize that most people using a nanny would trade that arrangement for quality government child care in a heartbeat? It is not uncommon for several dual-income working families to be sharing the services of a nanny making $20/hour, very often under the table, meaning there are all kinds of potential liabilities and risks for both the parents and the nanny. Imagine a working middle class family just trying to be modestly successful. They go to college, they move to where they can make the most money. There is no extended family nearby. They end up shelling out a huge portion of their income for child care. You're right, the poor have it worse. And you're probably right that the writer is on some level "out of touch." But god, it has nothing to do with the fact that she is "talking about nannies." Nannies are not some luxury thing in this country; due to the near total lack of government support, there is huge demand for them, which is often met by vulnerable workers (immigrants) connecting with other vulnerable workers (parents essentially forced to turn to unvetted nannies if they want to both work an keep their head above water).
robotresearcher 10y ago
FWIW, she's an independent contributor, not an NYT journalist. Other NYT contributors (e.g. Paul Krugman) are not regular folks either. http://lauravanderkam.com/ http://lauravanderkam.com/
sheepmullet 10y ago
> Poor and working class people have truly busy lives compared to professionals. We should all remember that. Except it's not true. The poor and working class have a lot more financial stress and less power to change. That doesn't make them busier or mean they work harder.
cmurf 10y ago
Yeah but the difference between working class $50K per year, and professional $500K per year, is tiny in comparison to the difference between millionaire and billionaire. A billionaire can buy a new Mercedes Benz every day, and burn it to the ground in a pile of $100 bills at the end of that day, and not run out of money their entire life. So...
- Roritharr 10y ago
  One just adds one zero, the other adds three. The proportion is correct.
- imh 10y ago
  Is it really? At $50k/year, planning to save for things most people have to deal with is hard. You have to actively plan for it, and still might not be able to. At $500k/year, it's easy. At a million or a billion, it's still easy. Yeah there are large differences, but not in terms of day to day life relative to a normal person.
  - xorxornop 10y ago
    Yes, exactly. If we're going to talk proportions, then both "sides" need surfacing. If you're on lower income, otherwise "minor" fines, fees, surcharges etc can become life threatening or at least highly disruptive. The cost of failure is so high that it becomes very difficult to take the sort of risks that are sometimes needed to get ahead.
- nikatwork 10y ago
  > Yeah but Most professionals have a financial safety net the working class do not. That is a huge psychological difference.
Kluny 10y ago
People who can make a living as writers generally have a spouse who makes much more money, more regularly. It shows.
plg 10y ago
Laura Vanderkam : Princeton her husband: high up in McKinsey & Co 1%ers or 0.1%ers? maybe even 0.01%ers?
edpichler 10y ago
I agree with you, but the author is trying to pass a message, that we are not so busy as we think we are. People from all social classes could potentially measure their days to realize that.
FLUX-YOU 10y ago
>Wow, how out of touch is the typical New York Times writer these days. I'd venture they are approximately as out-of-touch as the people who give the poor and working class those extremely busy schedules in the first place.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by JPKab 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

apsec112 10y ago

I think it depends a lot on the specifics. Of course, there are certainly lots of Americans who are both poorer than the author and work harder. But in the US, the very poorest people tend to be those who don't work at all, or only work part-time. People who live their whole life in a small town with one or two big employers, which move away when the economy crashes; people whose skills go out-of-date, and can't afford a retraining program; people who may be hard workers, but just really suck at interviewing, and always get rejected; people who want to work more, but their employer only gives them a few odd hours a day, and no one else wants to hire them when their schedule is unreliable; people who get job offers in other cities, but can't afford to move. This underclass doesn't work that many hours, and some would call them "lazy", but I think it's usually more like despair. It's terribly depressing to be broke, to not know if you can do anything other people see as valuable, and to have nothing better to do than watch TV or play video games.

cmdrfred 10y ago
I come from poverty. There is a big difference between poor and working poor. The poor get handouts, the working poor get fines because they can't afford Obamacare. Then people wonder why the poor don't struggle their way to working poor.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  Whoever downvoted this comment doesn't understand it at all. The working poor are a revenue source. By keeping people indebted, they remain predictable consumers and fixed-income assets, like a human bond. The impoverished are effectively trapped by the welfare system itself, because it reduces benefits as incomes rise at a faster rate than can be made up by the equivalent amount of work. If the minimum wage was a living wage, like in Australia, then this wouldn't be a problem. But instead American welfare/min-wage clearly incentivizes staying just poor enough to keep getting benefits, or else you are actively making yourself poorer by working more. This is why so many Walmart employees are on food stamps.
  - jacalata 10y ago
    > the poor get handouts, the working poor get fines > many Walmart employees are on food stamps. Are you implying that Walmart employees are not 'working poor', or is the first sentence a dramatic over-generalization that doesn't contribute to the conversation?
    - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
      Minimum wage Walmart employees are often working poor. Poverty depends on perspective. Most Revolution-Era Americans were living in what we today would call extreme poverty. But you can have a tv and a smartphone today and still be quite poor, because of the difference in consumer cost between things we need and things we don't need. www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/17/the-stuff-we-really-need-is-getting-more-expensive-other-stuff-is-getting-cheaper
      - jacalata 10y ago
        Yes, I agree that Walmart employees are the working poor. I don't understand how you can recognise that and also argue for the validity of this statement >There is a big difference between poor and working poor. The poor get handouts, the working poor get fines because they can't afford Obamacare. Then people wonder why the poor don't struggle their way to working poor.
- brazzledazzle 10y ago
  I also come from poverty and in my experience there can be a dangerous area making just enough money to be disqualified from receiving assistance where you're just a few mistakes or irresponsible decisions away from having serious money issues. But there are also a whole lot of people that qualify for all kinds of assistance and don't ever even bother to check because they are hard working people and take pride in that. I think the solution is pretty simple: raise that income maximum well past where you would normally put it and make it trivial (like sign up on the internet trivial) for anyone who qualifies to receive assistance and make it just as simple to stop receiving it. Someone should be able to sign up and receive assistance on the next distribution cycle. This makes it easy for people in that dangerous spot to get assistance because you remove it and those with pride can get it quickly, easily and as temporarily as they want with no humiliation. Here's why: Today you must commit a lot of time and effort as well suffer humiliation to get assistance. You have to stand in line, wait in a waiting area, fill out forms and finally talk to a worker about what a fuck up you are. If you have kids and can't get/afford a babysitter your kids are right there with you losing their minds. If you can't take time off work you don't get assistance because this government office is closed in the evening and on weekends. It may be hard to imagine something worse than the DMV but that's exactly what this is. And then you have to deal with doing it all over again because they are looking for the tiniest possible reason to turn off your assistance and force you to appeal. Why is it so painful? Because welfare queens, drug dealers, drug users, lifers and frauds can't be allowed to get assistance even if the cost in terms of dollars and opportunity are much greater to prevent them from doing so. We've let it become about who we deem "deserves" it rather than a simple monetary calculation.
bodyfour 10y ago
The historical trends of leisure-time vs income are very interesting. Lots of different economic forces at work there -- http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21600989-why-rich-now-have-less-leisure-poor-nice-work-if-you-can-get-out http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21600989...
faceyspacey 10y ago
That view that it it's "terribly depressing to be broke" and all the despair the poor in America feel because they can create no value could only be thought up by us smug hacker news software creators. I know first hand that much of the poor are content to live off the government, never had any aspirations and ultimately don't need much to survive and be content enough. They don't know what they don't know and therefore they don't suffer from the despair of not being the next Steve jobs. That was never on their list. They are truly ignorant enough to be content with video games. I'm not talking everyone but this probably is the majority. Things work and all you need is to be able to hold a minimum wage job for a few years at a time and when you get fired you can take a few years off while another friend or family member is on deck, meanwhile you're contributing food stamps the whole time, 6 months of an unemployment check, money from a few scams here and there, electricity bill deductions and many other such benefits you can get if you are below the poverty line. These are all meaningful contributions you can contribute well past the 6 months of paid unemployment. You have to understand you also have old people in the household collecting social security at $1k per month. There are not only other people not working, but other non-workers coming up with money and resources. It becomes just as normal for a working-age male to not be working as grandma. After all we aren't talking 1 person or couple cramped into an over priced San Francisco apartment. In short, the family doesn't need as much money and everyone bands together, and can go for a very long time bringing in very little money. And though totally in the hands of the "public" health care system whose bills they will never pay if they get into an accident, they are more than content with tv and stolen movies/shows via apps like "ShowBox" until that happens, and even after. They have near zero ounce of fight in them for anything more, certainly not to be the prolific CEO or CTO of a tech company. That's far out of their field of vision. I am one that believes to not aspire to something is not healthy. So for now ignoring the other psychological issues surrounding the more privileged all feeling disproportionate pressure to be somebody, I'll just say the opposite extreme we are discussing now is worse and it's out of ignorance. An ignorance most here can't understand or have forgotten. A true "ignorance is bliss" syndrome. To us it may look like that as a result they are content to live in squalor. The truth is the squalor of those living standards have risen. It all just feels normal to them. What I call "poverty trap sweet spots" certainly do exist in America.
- 10y ago
icantdrive55 10y ago
"to not know if you can do anything other people see as valuable" 1. I have never met a rich person that could offer me anything other than a loan. Someting they don't like to do. (I live in Marin County. The place your founder will end up if successful. These people can't change a tire. They are as useful as the proverbial wart on a toad. They have one ability most poor don't have; they are masters at taking money from the poor/middle class and getting in their bank account. They are also masters at hiding their lack ethics/morality--for the most part. Some are born rich. Some have high barriers to entry--like a medical degree, in a dubious speciality. The drug dealing Psychiatrist come to mind? My neighbors would be the first to perish in a catastrophe. I honestly wonder what skills they offer society. They always fall back on we provide the jobs. Jobs that usually don't have a future, and turn the poor into working poor. Many work for for profit housing, for profit education, and for profit medical system.(All services that I feel shouldn't have a profit motive.) They are Titans in the financial world. So few provide livable jobs. Many destroy jobs, for their own enrichment, But the majority? I can't figure out what in the hell they do. I know their wives, and kids are misserable. 2. I have never met a poor person who couldn't fix my car, repair my house, repair my website, etc. I don't think I have ever met a poor person that didn't have more skills than my neighbors. They just don't know how to capitalize on them. Or, will never be given the opportunity to capitalize on any of their skills, or good ideas. They will always be at the mercy of the people with money. Usually a a seed fund consisting of a few thousand dollars on a credit card at 29%. Some days, it enrages me. I do know this, I haven't found one who I could stomach being friends with. It's not out of envy either; I just don't like the hypocrisy, and really question their ethics, and morality. I often picture Chea Guevara riding that motorcyle, looking at the disparity of wealth; and feel his rage. My rage has been brewing for years. I don't have a point, other than the wealthy, at least my neighbors, don't possess viable skills. 99% would be living pay check to pay check, or homeless, if not for that understanding wealthy father, who usually really helped out that aimless kid who just returned from Europe and still couldn't figure out what they wanted to do. And all the second chances that most of us only get one--if we are lucky. Ask yourself this; how many bad ideas from the wealthy are we forced to listen to? They have the platform, but their ideas always leave out a few pertinent variables; like it will take a lot of seed capital to do, along with a free house, a free workspace, free legal advice, and Insurance. Their ideas always seem lofty. An idea only a wealthy dreamer could begin to pontificate about?
sedachv 10y ago
> people whose skills go out-of-date, and can't afford a retraining program United States job training programs do not work - they are a 1980s Reagan-era privatization scam to funnel tax dollars to private scam "training" and "job" centers that do not provide effective training or result in any meaningful employment outcomes: http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100040300 http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=8014010004030... Job training needs to be stopped being mentioned as a realistic or viable option - it is a Republican distraction to free public universal vocational and university schooling in certified and accountable programs with qualified instructors: "why do we need free trade schools, we already have job training!"
- apsec112 10y ago
  Sorry, I think there's a semantic confusion here. By "retraining", I was also referring to vocational education and trade schools in general, not just a specific US government program. It sounds like you're not anti-retraining (as I was using the word), you just want it to be reformed and brought more under federal control.

tomjakubowski 10y ago

It's worth noting that the writer of this piece isn't a New York Times employee; she's an author doing a guest spot. It seems unlikely that the typical NYT journalist lives a similar life.

nitrogen 10y ago
It seems that at least a few journalists at the top end of their profession do make "rich" level money, based on an article I seem to remember reading about one such journalist making over $200k and realizing he was out of touch with most people. But certainly it doesn't seem common.
agentgt 10y ago
Yes it is very similar to another guest spot writer who wrote about retiring in Manhattan: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/opinion/sunday/for-a-long-life-retire-to-manhattan.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/opinion/sunday/for-a-long-... HN Comments here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12429693 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12429693 Specifically my comment on the guest writer being fairly privileged: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12433360 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12433360 ...You know cause everyone can easily retire to Manhattan...

praxulus 10y ago

Who do you think reads the New York Times? Writing for your audience isn't the same as being out of touch with everyone else (though they may well be).

rconti 10y ago

Wow, no kidding. I have ZERO kids, and am well aware of the couple hours of free time I have in the evenings before bed. I make sure I get enough sleep most of the time. That said, free days on the beach? Midday naps or sleeping all morning on a hotel room while traveling? I sleep less on business trips, and can't fathom just sitting around the beach all day. I'm not saying my life is harder than hers, it's almost certainly not -- I'm just saying if I had 1 kid, let alone 4, it would put that to shame.

quicklime 10y ago
Why does a busy life put a less busy life "to shame"? I'm not sure if you meant it literally, but I do know a lot of people who do. They literally get offended and defensive if I suggest they have some free time to do something. But there really isn't anything shameful about successfully budgeting time, just as there isn't anything shameful about having spare money left over from your paycheck. Quite the opposite, actually.
- zipppy 10y ago
  I think it was quite obviously meant to be figurative.

jobu 10y ago

As a parent of four kids myself, this seems ridiculously low: "I spent a mere 9.09 hours weekly on housework and errands" How is that possible? Housecleaner? Personal shopper? Nanny? We spend 6-8 hours each week shopping around trying to save money on just groceries, and that's not including clothes or haircuts etc.

Jtsummers 10y ago
Nanny and husband, per the article. She said she travels a lot for work, so travel weeks will also bring down the average significantly.
ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
We spend about an hour per day each on household chores not counting grocery shopping and non-everyday things like cleaning gutters or putting furniture together which I have some unopened Ikea boxes from 2 years back lol. Oh yea, no kids :)
tra3 10y ago
I wonder if your hours may be a bit off -- are you logging them like the article author? 6-8 hours a week on just groceries is an hour a day, that seems quite high. Personally we just spend an hour at the grocery store to purchase everything for a week in advance, and maybe anotehr hour to pick up things we forgot later in the week.
- protomyth 10y ago
  Averaged to an hour a day sounds about right actually. If you go to a couple of stores and don't just buy everything at one place it adds up. Every time I go shopping with my Dad or brother its a 5 hour jaunt with various excursions during the week.
s_kilk 10y ago
> We spend 6-8 hours each week shopping around trying to save money on just groceries Curious, How much money are you saving in exchange for that effort?

somestag 10y ago

The author makes it abundantly clear the article is for working professionals, particularly women. I don't see any suggestion in the article that a single mother with three jobs has time for swing dancing lessons and hiking trips. And that's kind of the whole point of the article, isn't it?. The poor and working class people in my life don't complain about how "busy" they are nearly as much as the more well-to-do, despite being so much busier than the middle-class-and-up. They don't talk about it like that, because they're much more grounded in reality. Meanwhile, many college students, lawyers, doctors, engineers, programmers, etc. are acting like they can barely spare a minute because of how busy they are. Maybe these people are busy, in a sense, but the whole point of the article is that they're not nearly as busy as they believe they are. I think there's a deeper issue at play that the article doesn't touch on: that acknowledging you're not busy is perceived as laziness. There's a certain culture of shared misery, where we all agree to tell each other that we're all so busy, and then we can all feel good both about what we do and about what we don't do. Here's an anecdote (that's meant to illustrate a situation, not talk myself up): when I was in school, on more than one occasion I had someone tell me that I must be "so busy" because of my major and programs I was enrolled in (and the fact that I was pulling off good grades). When I told them that no, I really wasn't that busy, they were incredulous. There always had to be some explanation for why I wasn't busy, like that I was cheating or taking easy classes or something. The problem was that they thought they were busy, and they figured I must be doing at least as much work as they were, so by deduction I must be busy too. Well it turned out I was doing just as much work as they were; I just didn't think that qualified me as "busy." One person, after drilling me on how much time I spent on school work, scoffed: "Oh, so you are busy then," and thought I was just trying to act cool or something. I don't believe that you're not allowed to write about a social phenomenon just because there are people in world to whom it doesn't apply. It's very clear the types of people the author is talking about.

heartbreak 10y ago

Her husband, Michael Conway, is the managing partner at McKinsey's Philadelphia office.

mapgrep 10y ago

Have you ever shopped for child care as one of two working parents? Have you priced day care centers vs nanny shares? You do realize that most people using a nanny would trade that arrangement for quality government child care in a heartbeat? It is not uncommon for several dual-income working families to be sharing the services of a nanny making $20/hour, very often under the table, meaning there are all kinds of potential liabilities and risks for both the parents and the nanny. Imagine a working middle class family just trying to be modestly successful. They go to college, they move to where they can make the most money. There is no extended family nearby. They end up shelling out a huge portion of their income for child care. You're right, the poor have it worse. And you're probably right that the writer is on some level "out of touch." But god, it has nothing to do with the fact that she is "talking about nannies." Nannies are not some luxury thing in this country; due to the near total lack of government support, there is huge demand for them, which is often met by vulnerable workers (immigrants) connecting with other vulnerable workers (parents essentially forced to turn to unvetted nannies if they want to both work an keep their head above water).

robotresearcher 10y ago

FWIW, she's an independent contributor, not an NYT journalist. Other NYT contributors (e.g. Paul Krugman) are not regular folks either. http://lauravanderkam.com/ http://lauravanderkam.com/

sheepmullet 10y ago

> Poor and working class people have truly busy lives compared to professionals. We should all remember that. Except it's not true. The poor and working class have a lot more financial stress and less power to change. That doesn't make them busier or mean they work harder.

cmurf 10y ago

Yeah but the difference between working class $50K per year, and professional $500K per year, is tiny in comparison to the difference between millionaire and billionaire. A billionaire can buy a new Mercedes Benz every day, and burn it to the ground in a pile of $100 bills at the end of that day, and not run out of money their entire life. So...

Roritharr 10y ago
One just adds one zero, the other adds three. The proportion is correct.
imh 10y ago
Is it really? At $50k/year, planning to save for things most people have to deal with is hard. You have to actively plan for it, and still might not be able to. At $500k/year, it's easy. At a million or a billion, it's still easy. Yeah there are large differences, but not in terms of day to day life relative to a normal person.
- xorxornop 10y ago
  Yes, exactly. If we're going to talk proportions, then both "sides" need surfacing. If you're on lower income, otherwise "minor" fines, fees, surcharges etc can become life threatening or at least highly disruptive. The cost of failure is so high that it becomes very difficult to take the sort of risks that are sometimes needed to get ahead.
nikatwork 10y ago
> Yeah but Most professionals have a financial safety net the working class do not. That is a huge psychological difference.

Kluny 10y ago

People who can make a living as writers generally have a spouse who makes much more money, more regularly. It shows.

plg 10y ago

Laura Vanderkam : Princeton her husband: high up in McKinsey & Co 1%ers or 0.1%ers? maybe even 0.01%ers?

edpichler 10y ago

I agree with you, but the author is trying to pass a message, that we are not so busy as we think we are. People from all social classes could potentially measure their days to realize that.

FLUX-YOU 10y ago

>Wow, how out of touch is the typical New York Times writer these days. I'd venture they are approximately as out-of-touch as the people who give the poor and working class those extremely busy schedules in the first place.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]