Lifestyles of the not-so-rich anymore but still famous

Author and social justice critic Barbara Ehrenreich points out that, as usual, the media are still playing the celebrity card, even when it comes to poverty.

The media have been pelting us with heart-wrenching stories about the neo-suffering of the Nouveau Poor, or at least the Formerly Super-rich among them: Foreclosures in Greenwich CT! A collapsing market for cosmetic surgery! Sales of Gulfstream jets declining! Niemen Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue on the ropes! We read of desperate measures, like having to cut back the personal trainer to two hours a week. Parties have been canceled; dinner guests have been offered, gasp, baked potatoes and chili. The New York Times relates the story of a New Jersey teenager whose parents were forced to cut her $100 a week allowance and private Pilates classes. In one of the most pathetic tales of all, New Yorker Alexandra Penney relates how she lost her life savings to Bernie Madoff and is now faced with having to lay off her three-day- a-week maid, Yolanda. “I wear a classic clean white shirt every day of the week. I have about 40 white shirts. They make me feel fresh and ready to face whatever battles I may be fighting …” she wrote, but without Yolanda, “How am I going to iron those shirts so I can still feel like a poor civilized person?”

Oh gee, honey, how will Yolanda still feel like a civilized poor person?

Listen, I think it's terrible that people -- as well as charities, including those which support women's reproductive freedoms -- lost millions to Madoff. But let's not kid ourselves. They still have roofs over their heads, and other sources of income. None of them are out on the street.

Which reminds me of another reason I loved Slumdog Millionaire. It portrayed the unimaginable -- to us anyway -- poverty in old Mumbai. While I can't say our inner cities or even poor places like some parts of Appalachia are close to that, they ain't pretty. But we rarely ever see the face of poverty in our midst.

That's because it doesn't sell soap, beer and trucks.

Comments

[Keith]

It is ironic that you bring this up Antonia. For decades, your fellow feminists have advocated that women were entitled to maintaining thier lifestyle post divorce despite the fact that the family finances must now support two separate households. Via feminist math, they claimed that women's life style fell by 20% after divorce while men's lifestyle inscreased despite the fact that in the vast majority of cases it was ONLY the man that was supporting two separate households. A few posts ago, you seemed to acknowledged that you did see that the child support guidelines that feminist advocated for did give men a greater burden of the child raising expenses however the feminist math block did not allow you to agree with the magnitude of the difference in burden. With the increasing number of out of wedlock births, this pre-divorce lifestyle that never existed is being granted to single mothers at the expense of the father of the children.

Feminism is about superiority not equality

[johnnykap]

"But we rarely ever see the face of poverty in our midst.

That's because it doesn't sell soap, beer and trucks."

No, we rarely see it anymore bc to a large degree, it doesn't exist. Anyone who is poor today chooses to be poor. You're in favor of choice, claiming to be pro-choice. Respect their choice and leave them alone.

[lagatta]

You don't have to go south of the border to see extreme poverty in North America. Some Aboriginal reserves have Third-World living conditions.

Funny how some people still don't realise that there are many people in poverty, even in advanced industrial societies, due to illness and accidents. Or funnier still, think people "choose to be poor". Horesfeathers.

[littlemisssunshine]

"No, we rarely see it anymore bc to a large degree, it doesn't exist. Anyone who is poor today chooses to be poor."

Are you for real? The irresponsibility of this statement simple shocks me. The majority of people living under whatever they've renamed the poverty line are children. Mostly single parent children. So tell me, how is it that children choose to be poor?

[johnnykap]

"Mostly single parent children."

You mean the same single parents that our own Antonia was glorifying in another thread? The ones she claimed Ann Coulter was attacking, when she (Ann) was merely attacking the ideology that glorifies single motherhood?

These kids get a free education, their parents pay zero taxes, they have access to food and clothing and tv's. Their parents have access to all kinds of programs to improve themselves to pull them out of poverty.

Poor people today are like the middle class when Antonia was growing up. Quit pretending everyone's a victim.

[MensRightsNow]

There are a very small percentage of people who are truly poor in North America. Somalia....now that is poor. The poverty industry cooks numbers and promotes delusional "poverty level LINES" in order to fund their lobby. A 300 lbs single mom with 3 kids from 3 different fathers still seems to have enough money for food, ipods, cell phones tv, cable, booze, weed, internet, expensive designer clothing for the kids...I know, I see them everyday in my line of work. Now the real destitute,real poor....we as a society have ALWAYS looked after them....nothing new.

[sooey]

Note the moralizing judgments of women by these New Conservative men's rights posters. They actually have representatives in Parliament, too.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

Sooey Sweetie,

The enablers of the situation described by the Esteemed and Beautiful Moderator in "Rape by Religion" also have some of theirs representatives in Parliament, and in the courts and academia as well.