May 26, 2008
Young, Broke New Yorkers Get the NY Times Treatment
The NY Times treats us to a trend piece, sounding off the alarms of a newsflash: ambitious young people subsist on low incomes in NYC! Some choice quotes are sprinkled throughout:
- “For a little while I only ate grapefruits for my lunch because they have a lot of nutrients and they got me through the day.”
- “If I shop, I can’t have a social life and I can’t eat.”
- Before moving from San Francisco last fall, Ms. Werkheiser realized that paying salon prices for platinum tresses in New York would require cutting back on needs like food and shelter. “So I went natural,” said Ms. Werkheiser. “I dyed it dark, a New York brunette.”
- “I find in other cities guys are more apt to buy you drinks and expect nothing from it. Here, if they do buy you a drink, which is rare, you have to suffer through flirtations. It’s true,” she said, adding, “It’s really cheesy.”
| 
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
Advertisement: Gothamist Continues Below!
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
I'm still waiting (just turned 45) to be rich and famous. To be quite honest, I'd be happy just making as much money as my father did and be able to call myself Middle Class.
>>>ambitious young people subsist on low incomes in NYC!
"Adam Leibsohn, a 27-year-old communications strategist who makes roughly $60,000 a year"
That's a king's ransom for me. And I work three jobs. To Times readers, $60,000 is chump-change.
www.forgotten-ny.com
worst article ever.
“I find in other cities guys are more apt to buy you drinks and expect nothing from it. Here, if they do buy you a drink, which is rare, you have to suffer through flirtations. It’s true,” she said, adding, “It’s really cheesy.”
No, dingbat, most of the men who buy you (overpriced) drinks are hoping that you might, you know, put out.
I have done all of the above:
I still cut my own hair, and I did once sublet a walk in closet in DUMBO before anyone ever heard of it and everyone would say, "where?"
It certainly was expensive going out with men, I noticed, till I found a steady one. They don't pay for anything here unless they really think they're going to get lucky. After spending so much money on looking good, the investment didn't seem to pay off when you had to go out on dates with guys trying to impress you with "nice" places where I could barely afford a drink!
It wasn't worth going on dates with guys -- I ruled dating out right away. I stopped dressing up, demanded only to be taken on cheap dates, took the "what you see is what you get" attitude and did much better.
I find this article very irritating and I can't really put my finger on why. Maybe its because I myself am a struggling ambitious youth and the real issues of being a struggling artist aren't addressed here; health, dental, mental costs and finding inexpensive resources for dealing with that. There seems to be a tone of amusement too; look at those crazy kids! What is the purpose of the article? Is there anything new here?
you want to see young broke NY'ers?
Plenty of them, they're called mostly minorities who would Kill for a good job with benefits and expense accounts and after work parties paid by the company.
there's even some white people in this mix but the majority are people of color. except for the few Chinese republicans who infest the internet and hate the poor. and some ethnic whites in ethnic white areas. you know, the ones who like to let the market run it's course and pull oneself up from bootstraps.
molon labe. vote quimby. the american dream is still a dream.
I could not believe the gall of the Times' to write this article, and pretend that people of color just don't exist. It's like "The Paper of Record" doesn't realize there's a whole fucking world outside their privileged white people club.
At least they keep this crap in the Style section, away from the "real news."
Bunch of idiot people who want to be become famous or trying to "show off" or thinking they are part of the upper class because of the Manhattan address.
I still don't see the attraction of living in Manhattan, when it means shedding twice as much as I'm paying to live in an apartment perhaps a quarter the size of my apartment. Wanna live up, you can't save up...
Just curious, but have any of you young broke NYers considered food stamps or any other govt sponsored subsidies?
I'm guessing that this is yet another one of those pieces that they will open up to comments so that people can bash the article/email it to others/post it to Facebook in order for the NYT to show their advertisers more evidence of reader engagement on their online property. Taken together with the other late-to-the-market pieces (e.g., the story about Firefox, the op-ed on Obama's use of the Internet), and I'm beginning to think that I will only need to read magazine articles (The Atlantic, The Economist, Harper's, etc.) and online tech news sources to stay current on anything other than breaking news.
I mean, really...some of the examples and quotes are simply atrocious. Combine this with the article on the "poor little investment bankers" and you get a great picture of the "new" New York. While it's not all bad, you get lifestyle pieces like these and get the sense that NY might just be Sex and the City - but it's far from it.
#8: They only tinkle the ivory keys in their Renzo Piano.
It was like this article was hand-tailored for Jen Carlson to re-post.
The only thing I am shoked about is her staying away from the Emily Gould article in the Times.
I don't know. It's like I can pick out what this girl is going to repost - and it's always the worst things in the NYT.
To be fair Matty, Jen Carlson is an Arts and Events (and presumably "lifestyle") writer (editor?) for Gothamist, so she sort of has to post some of this tripe. My beef, minor as it is, is the lack of perspective associated with this post. It seems that a good contributor/writer/blogger doesn't just repost stuff from other sources, but actually takes multiple viewpoints or stories/articles and brings them together into a coherent, complete story while adding one's own experiences or referencing the experiences of friends. So, it might have been useful to reference earlier posts on living hard, or contrast this story with the one about the investment bankers - or even tie it into one about "real" poor people in the city and then add commentary from her own experiences, perhaps even referencing a post from her (now defunct) blog. Then again, it *is* a holiday so she might have been rushing around to get some to some social activities so she'll have something substantive to post when the majority of readers return tomorrow. Just a thought.
"except for the few Chinese republicans who infest the internet and hate the poor"
I hate those hard working fuckers too!
They will starve, beg and mooch of others as long as I get to live and socialize in Manhattan. Expect the next flux of 20 something naive non-minority idiots from the Nebraska after the Sex and the City movie.
Firstly, this is nothing new. This topic was covered by Tama Janowitz in her book Slaves of New York.
Secondly, back then, the 20 somethings made sacrifices for their music or art (nd they were doing these to make a non-traditional life of their own), not to conform, be trendy, have a social life or whatnot.
Thirdly, I went back to grad school so that I can increase my income potential. Yet upon graduating, I found myself competing with these 20 somethings for an entry level job. And someone's making $60,000/yr to be a communication strategist? (whatever that means).
An entry level accountant and the staring salary for a teacher is about 40K/yr, yet you don't hear teachers whining about dyeing their hair brunette, or skipping dinner and eating peanuts so that the effect alcohol can have more punch, to scale back on spending. If anything teachers have to sacrifice parts of their salary to buy supplies to their classrooms.
Lastly, these kids nowadays can always go back to mom and dad, should things don't work out for them in NY. Ahh, times have changed alright, welcome to the revolution.
"if they do buy you a drink, which is rare, you have to suffer through flirtations. It’s true, It’s really cheesy.”
this girl not only doesn't understand the concept of "buying someone a drink" she also thinks she's entitled to free drinks. brilliant.
"I stopped dressing up, demanded only to be taken on cheap dates, took the "what you see is what you get" attitude and did much better."
so once guys realized you weren't trying to get free things out of them & you were being yourself, you did better? what a shock!
wait wait wait, so if they let me buy them a drink I'm gonna get some... I used to be one of those expect nothing guys, but that's all changed. woo hoo!
Wouldn't it be great if the Times only reported hard news and nothing else? Ditch the Styles section, Arts and Leisure, etc. and just stick to what they do somewhat well?
Must be rough, trying to get by on a meager $60K/year and having to choose between manicures and new dresses. I can't hardly imagine their suffering.
Trying to get by, childless, on just 150% of the median income? I like Anna Merkin's theory: the Times is just trolling for a flame war.
Re: #7 & 8
Amen brethren.
They look like the "Friends" ensemble. Which one's Chandler? Which one's Rachel?
Not a single grim face among the lot; they're all smiling knowing that they can go "back home" if times get tough.
I work in the city, live in Brooklyn, and survive on 35,000 a year. In addition to that, I pay my own colege tuition and rent, and somehow manage to go out every once in a while. I found this whole article really offensive. Poor thing couldn't afford to get her hair colored?
I don't do things as I would if I had more money, but I have a pretty damn good life in spite of it.
this is just shameful. these people should be trying to find wives and husbands. goddamnit. the whole world has its head up its ass.
To be fair, not all of the kids in the article were offensive; they were simply normal and were honestly trying to live a simple life. I feel nearly every blurb about earnest young people gets shit from commenters on Gothamist. They live their lives and don't bother anybody. I have much more contempt for calloused i-bankers who plow over neighborhoods to remake them into bourgeois adult playgrounds. Those people cause real destruction.
Still, the manicure-and-hair girl seemed to have stood out for having tastes well beyond her means. The impending financial collapse of the nation will force people like her to truly evaluate what's important in life. And that's a good thing.
If anyone from the Times is reading this, and I am sure you are, this is what the general population of NY thinks of your discredited rag.
@ dooWOP: I tried to apply when I was temping and couldn't make my rent. They said I had to go to their "work center" and get a job to receive any assistance, and because I don't have children I wouldn't receive any assistance until at least 6 weeks. Couldn't make the work center appointment because I had to work, they didn't care. That's not to mention the humiliating procedure and 6 hour wait. So yeah, don't bother trying to get social services if you're single, childless, and able bodied.
The spoiled kids featured in the NYT article should take a look around themselves and give thanks for what they have.
That Times piece is like those cryptic videos from Osama Bin Laden. I think what's encoded there is some sort of acknowlegement of the little unpaid or underpaid interns that mill around their skyscraper pretending to be the next Maureen Dowd and getting the usual highhanded ivory tower treatment. Once a year, the Times will notice they exist and then quickly return to their hard hitting stories about Prada in Prague and Tiffany in Thailand.
Couldn't afford "platinum tresses" and gave up food? How 'bout boxed dye - the kind poor people use ( or celebrities like SJP, Heather Locklear, and Beyonce if you believe their endorsement commercials). It's like $10. If you get it on sale it would only set you back by like $7.99 + tax.
The Times wasting print space on some of these kids is a slap in the face to hard working families getting by on less $40k per year.
bring crime back.