Broyard writes that she hates her parents "for raising me to want a lifestyle that they can't pay for." She continues (all in present tense, despite the fact that her narrative spans twenty years):

Growing up, I take for granted that I will one day be wealthy, too. To make or marry money was the natural trajectory for young women like me — women who attend prep school and a "public Ivy," who know how to tack into the wind and volley a tennis ball and keep their skis clamped tightly against each other. No matter how mortgaged my parents' lifestyle has been, I have apprenticed as a rich person for all my young life and am prepared to move into the position. But that's not what happens.

Instead, she becomes a writer. "As long as I can earn enough to cover the basic necessities — rent, food, and health insurance," she says, "I prefer to avoid long hours in a job I don't like or a marriage in which my responsibilities and power will be predicated to some degree on my earnings." First of all, a writer who can comfortably cover rent, food, and health insurance is rich to me. Second, although she later swears she has friends with fun, high-paying jobs or fun, rich spouses, it's clear she actually looks down on her rich friends.

When getting free clothes from her rich friend Olivia, she notices that it's hard for Olivia to be giving handouts all the time — "everyone grows increasingly pleasant and solicitous around Christmas [...] and then the feigned surprise and exaggerated gratitude when the cash or check appears." Broyard, though, is different:

I give my wealthy girlfriends something, too. As a reminder of how the other half lives, I help keep them grounded amid charity auctions, private jet rides, and vacation plans that cost more than their kids' tuition. [...] Having me in their lives is proof that their kind of people aren't only rich people. And I allow them one of the great pleasures of having money — spontaneous generosity without guilt or expectation.

See, Broyard is totally different from those freeloaders, because she makes her friends feel good about themselves. Because otherwise they'd feel awful, with all that money. And maybe (although she doesn't explicitly say this in the article) something about her difference has to do with her faux-wealthy upbringing — she's just like a rich person, except she's poor! Her recipe for hanging out with rich people seems to be: wish you were rich (like you were supposed to be)... then feel superior when you're not!

Trebay asked himself: "Was that Santa ornament really wearing camouflage, with a shotgun held to his torso and a dead mallard slung from his belt?" Of course he was! The ornaments may bring joy and color to the lives of shoppers, but the folks at Bronner's know that the tacky holiday crap they shill is, in fact, totally useless. "There is not a thing out there that anybody needs," Wayne Bronner, the president of Bronner’s, tells Trebay. But:

Not much on the sales floor at Bronner’s costs more than $10, [Bronner] said. "Even in times of economic turmoil, there comes a moment every fall when people look at the calendar and see that Christmas is still coming and it’s still on Dec. 25," added the company president, who that day had chosen from among his collection of novelty neckties one patterned with Christmas bulbs. "The $10 ornament that’s the perfect gift for Grandpa or Uncle Rob is not going to make or break anybody’s budget," he said.

And yet. The cold, hard truth is: You don't need this stuff. Trebay writes about the "150 different styles of nutcrackers; ornaments that said 'Merry Christmas' in 70 languages; display cases filled with ranks of sinister Hummel kiddies; 1,700 Precious Moments cherubs with woeful teardrop eyes; 500 Nativity sets from 70 nations; and Christmas balls in 6,000 styles" and it seems unjustifiably lavish. Christ himself didn't have a Christmas tree, and didn't he live in poverty? At a time of lay-offs, a weak U.S. dollar and general malaise, does spending hard-earned cash on sparkly do-dads make sense? Can a person — on a budget or with cash to burn — justify a glittery Elvis or Bigfoot ornament when the country is in financial crisis?

Excuse Me, Where’s Thanksgiving? [NY Times]

Earlier: 9 Really Weird Christmas Ornaments From Bronner's
9 More Weird Christmas Ornaments From Bronner's

The Times tells the sad tale of two other immaculately groomed women from the Tokyo suburbs who waited dispiritedly at Heartland's bar for some still-employed Goldman Sachs flunky to whisk them away. Much to their horror, the only men who hit on them were wearing polyester suits and were possibly IT consultants. But even a nice suit might not have sealed the deal: "They don't trust us any more," Noel, an American fund manager tells the Times. "We've still got the nice suits and the job in finance - just about - but these chicks are smart. They know we don't carry the financial guarantees we used to.”

According to an article in the Mainichi Daily News, the result of this economic crash and burn is that the so-called "Roppongi Hills Tribe" may have to seek gainful employment. "In an age when it is no longer possible to associate sweet dreams with marriage, what will be necessary is the resolve to be self-reliant and to not have to depend on others," says the News.

And that's what these former banker-baggers are doing, the Times of London concurs. “Maybe Lehman was the final victim,” says one of the women unsuccessfully trolling the Heartland for a wealthy mate. “I'll just go out in Kawasaki from now on. No rich princes to buy me champagne, but at least I can afford the first drink there on my own.”

Japanese Say Goodbye To Western Playboys [Times of London]
Women And Men Now Looking For Mates With Qualities To Sustain 'Survival Marriages' [Mainichi Daily News]

First, here's where Suze is spot on: she says that credit card debt is the worst kind of debt, because it will destroy your credit rating. If you have savings, use them to pay off credit card debt, but you should never, ever raid your 401K. Even if you have to declare bankruptcy, do not take the money out of your 401K, since that money is protected. "That money is going to be there no matter what happens to you in life," Suze says. Also intriguing, Suze advises, "This is a great time to buy a home if, and only if, you get a deal of a lifetime — meaning someone is selling a home for $200,000 and you offer $140,000 and they say yes." Of course, you should only buy a house, even if it is a fantastic deal, if you can put down 20% or more and if you can get a fixed-rate mortgage.

But here's where I think Suze is giving bum advice, or at least advice I believe doesn't work in every circumstance. She doesn't really believe that couples should put all their money in joint checking accounts. Of herself and her partner, Suze says, "K.T. and I have been together for quite a while now, we don't have one joint account. Does it keep us from loving each other totally? No. Would it keep us from stepping in and helping each other? No." I don't think it keeps you from loving each other totally, but I do think not having a shared pot of money can cause a lot of unnecessary strife and haggling over expenses. According to Ms., "Splitting bills down the middle is unfair to the lower earner, says Orman, so she advocates that each person in the relationship pay the same percentage of their individual incomes — say, 25 percent — toward the common bills." I understand the reasoning behind this: half of marriages end in divorce, so even if you think you're going to last forever, there's a good chance you won't. But I picture scenarios like vacations in Cabo where you're wondering who paid for the proper percentage of margaritas, and that's certainly not any way to live.

Fall 2008 [Ms.]

Earlier: The Recession Is Bad For Almost Every Woman But Suze Orman

A blog post by Suzanne Muusers, a business coach, is quoted as saying Orman "personally benefits from fear mongering, and that is not what we need right now," and that Orman and others "live off selling magazines and television shows that spew irresponsible viewpoints." Orman's brand manager/ partner, Kathy Travis, says to the Journal that they turn down many of the endorsement deals that Orman is offered, particularly with banks because it could be a conflict of interest. "We have been approached by everyone — ING, Wells Fargo and HSBC. They are great companies, but in the best interest of Suze, we have a blanket rule: no banking endorsements."

For her part, Suze says fuck the haters. "There are always these people who want to attack me no matter what I do," the jacket-loving Orman tells the Journal. And speaking of Suze and her bedazzled outerwear, here's a clip from SNL of Kristen Wiig impersonating Suze and her money-saving tips for women (and if the promos are any indication, Wiig will be reprising the role this Saturday). If maxi pads are getting too expensive, fake-Orman says, you should make your own. "Buy a 24-pack of baby socks and some double sided tape," she advises, and remember, in life,"It's people, then money, then things, then homemade maxi pads."

Crisis Makes Suze Orman a Star [WSJ — sub. req.]

Earlier: The American Economic Downturn Is Tough On Jane Winebox

The toll of these responsibilities is echoed by a report released last week by The Center for American Progress about women in poverty. You can read the entire report here, but blogger Feminist Finance pulled out most of the pertinent details: women are still paid less than men, even when they have the same qualifications and hours; occupations dominated by women are low paid; women spend more time providing unpaid caregiving than men; and women are more likely to bear the cost of raising children.

John McCain spent a lot of time discussing the plight of small business owner Joe Wurzelbacher, so let's talk about Joe. It does not surprise me that the new poster child for the McCain campaign is white, male, middle American, and middle class. So maybe Senator McCain cares deeply about Joe the Plumber owning his own business, but he doesn't seem to care particularly for women getting equal pay. Barack Obama brought up Lilly Ledbetter, the Goodyear Tire employee who was systematically getting paid far less than her coworkers because of her gender. Senator Obama voted in favor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act when it came through the Senate. Mr. McCain didn't even show up to vote. In all of McCain's rhetoric last night, there was barely a mention of the American woman — unless he was talking about his deep pro-life convictions or mothering children with autism.

The Worry Factor [Newsweek]
Women In Poverty [Feminist Finance]
The Straight Facts on Women in Poverty [American Progress]

Earlier: Meet Lilly Ledbetter. She's A Good Reason To Vote Against John McCain

SPENCER: So I come home from one of the most economically deprived areas on the planet, one that's already experiencing a high tide of war-derived violence, where official corruption makes everything worse, only to discover that the financial sector has issued a suicide note and submitted itself to the unaccountable will the most corrupt and incompetent government in recent memory. Why didn't you just tell me I should have stayed in Afghanistan? I had to pay bribes upon bribes to dudes in Kabul and I didn't get bailed out from that, either.

MEGAN: What? The de facto nationalization of our financial services sector wasn't a good homecoming? How about the fact that the Bush Administration has snuck in this little clause about how Paulson's actions in terms of ever bailing anything out or, say, nationalizing anything else that may or may not need it are completely not subject to judicial review? As though we haven't had enough of what the Bush Administration thinks shouldn't be subject to judicial review... But, it'll be okay because Nancy swears they won't roll over this time, the way the Dems did on offshore drilling while you were gone and on FISA before you left.

SPENCER: Also I understand the Afghanistan war sooooo much better than I do the financial crisis, and when you & Moe tried to explain the meltdown to me at her birthday party I ended up even more confused, so HELP. Is all my money gone?

MEGAN: Possibly. I checked my stock portfolio last night for the first time since August and then broke into the tequila. The problem isn't whether your money is gone, it's that if you have in in a 401k or an IRA, you can't get it out without losing 30% more of what's left.

SPENCER: Yeah, I saw that my old halfway-home the Center for American Progress is against the Paulson plan, as liberals appear to have emerged from the weekend shellshock with skepticism that may or may not prove impotent

MEGAN: I'm going with... it'll prove impotent, like all their other so-called outrage. Congress kvetching about abuse of executive authority is like poor people kvetching about taxing the rich: they don't like it when it applied to them, but they all secretly think they'll be in the catbird seat one day.

SPENCER: And you know what, fuck it — I hate retreating to meta-points and cliches to mask the fact that I don't know what I'm talking about, so let me say that I don't know what the fuck is going on and math is hard and please explain this to me. I miss Afghanistan

MEGAN: Except for the Howitzers, I assume.

SPENCER: Are you kidding me? The choice is between the Howitzers firing or the base where you're trying to enjoy some Chicken a la KBR getting rocketed from a nearby mountain ridge. Howitzers produce the most comforting sound since whale songs.

MEGAN: The best thing to know about finance is to read the fine print. Your checking account is fine. If you have a savings account, that's fine too. The government has decided to pull a fast one and insure your money market, if you have one — or if any of your 401K or IRA money is invested in one. Whatever has been invested in the stock market, in your case, probably via mutual funds in your 401K is volatile. But it's ok, because you can't withdraw it for another 35 years anyway. So, the best you can do is either suck up your losses and keep your money there, or decide that you can't suck up any more and transfer it into money markets temporarily under the auspices of your 401K.

SPENCER: I have a money market account — is that fucked? Also, and I know how stupid this makes me sound, but is my, uh, PayPal account OK? MEN SHOULD NOT MONKEY AROUND WITH FINANCE. Like Raekwon said, I should've stayed in JobCorps.

MEGAN: Well, it's not fucked because the government decided to insure it last week. So, it's fucked a little because everything is fucked but it's not gone. And your PayPal has nothing to do with nothing, so that's fine.

SPENCER: So if I have, say, my savings in a money market account, that is — really, really really dumb it down for me, Megan — good or bad? Like should I stop IMing and go to the bank right now?

MEGAN: The government decided last week that they will insure your deposits in it the same way your savings account is insured, more or less. But, partly, it depends on what financial institution you have it invested in and how much money you might or might not have lost. So, if you've lost a bunch, I might leave it in and see if you can recoup. If you haven't, I would take it out and stick it in an ING savings account. If you don't need access to it, put it in a CD with a bank. (CD= Certificate of Deposit, it's a long-term savings account with higher interest rates depending on how long you agree not to ask for it back)

-14 minutes-

SPENCER: AND NOW THE FUCKING INTERNET IS BALKING ON ME! After all I've done for it.

MEGAN: The Internet is a cruel mistress.

SPENCER: I've supported the internet for its entire career. Sorry, what were you saying?

MEGAN: I was telling you, basically, that without knowing your exact financial situation I can't tell you exactly what to do but that you're not nearly as fucked as I am.

SPENCER: oh JESUS really? Am I picking up your tab at the meetup tomorrow?

MEGAN: No, it's fine, I wasn't using the stock market as a checking account or anything, so my short- and medium-term investments are all in protected places. But my long-term stuff is all in high-risk as my financial adviser recommended, so my 401K is looking pretty ragged and my stock is down 10 points which really hurt seeing that last night but I'll be fine. Oh, and I can pretty much never sell my condo, but other than that I'm fine. Excuse me, though, if I cry a little in my tequila shots tomorrow. .

SPENCER: Tears in tequila act like salt on the rim of the glass. See, the bright side! I have a friend who just bought a condo in this market, and I have no idea what he was thinking.

MEGAN: Probably that interest rates are crazy low and stuff is being sold off at fire-sale rates.

SPENCER: I don't know what it says about me that I am somehow more nervous about this than I was accompanying a midnight dismounted patrol on a dirt field that the metal detectors told us was full of IEDs. And speaking of things to worry about, the AP is saying racism is costing Obama 6 points in the polls" but Nate Silver, the breakthrough blogger of the 2008 elections says it's bullshit and Rikyrah from J&JP says the AP's motivations are suspect anyway, so what do you think?

MEGAN: Well, from a statistical analysis perspective, I think that it's really hard to tell the impact of race like that without relying on crazy hypotheticals that aren't particularly predictive.

SPENCER: This part of Nate's analysis wasn't particularly comforting:

even if it is true that Barack Obama's race puts him at something like a 6-point disadvantage with the population as a whole, the margin is probably more like 4-5 points among likely voters.

Oh, well then!

MEGAN: Well, I mean, that could be true or not. In any given election 40-60% of voters don't turn out at all, and voter turnout is correlated to education and economic levels. But, also, statistics are not a predictor of future behavior.

SPENCER: Here's an explanation of the AP's methodology that I still am not equipped to evaluate. Jesus, I'm batting .1000 today, aren't I? Too dumb to discuss the topics we ourselves chose to discuss. I should have stayed in Afghanistan.

MEGAN: Nah, isn't this why you have me around? And I'm not in Afghanistan. I mean, one thing that really stuck out in that methodological analysis is that the people polled had to have landlines even though the surveys were internet-based.

SPENCER: True on both counts. I wouldn't be able to participate even. Who has a landline? I think even my mom is getting rid of hers, and she screens her calls like a champion. So the AP racepoll is a tangle of faulty math and sophistry, then?

MEGAN: I think it is. The problem with statistics is the one cited in one of my favorite college courses, Microsociology. Statistically speaking, 1 in 5 African-American men will be imprisoned. What does that say about any given black man? Absolutely nothing. It's not a predictor of behavior. It's a statistic, and that itself is a snapshot in time of a status, not a behavior.

SPENCER: You need to team up with Mark Penn to write Microsociology: The Book. What does this poll say about snipers and the race vote, I wonder. methodologies inspire as little confidence as McCain has in Palin's debating skills:

At the insistence of the McCain campaign, the Oct. 2 debate between the Republican nominee for vice president, Gov. Sarah Palin, and her Democratic rival, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., will have shorter question-and-answer segments than those for the presidential nominees, the advisers said. There will also be much less opportunity for free-wheeling, direct exchanges between the running mates.
McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive.

NONE DARE CALL IT SEXISM.

MEGAN: Well, see, she just needs more "education and training" and then she can close the debate gap just like McCain proposes closing the wage gap. It's just too bad she can't get that in time to make a difference, sort of like American women as a whole can't. But they're still not going to support the Ledbetter Act, that is too much of a burden for businesses to swallow, paying women equally for the work that they do.

SPENCER: Speaking of Lilly Ledbetter, Christy notes that Obama is FINALLY using her in an ad. Also about the debates: Don't you think it's odd that the press believes the debates to be important, even though there's basically no evidence since at least Carter-Reagan 1980 that they've ever played a leading role in deciding an election?

MEGAN: I think it's one last opportunity for a spectacular fuck-up is why.

SPENCER: You can't win an election based on the debates — Kerry kicked Bush's ass in all three, remember, in 2004 — and I wonder if you can even lose an election through debate-ineptitude, which is clearly the McCain camp's worry. Yeah, I'm not convinced that's even true. Remember "you forgot Poland" and "wanna buy some wood"? I didn't think so. The only thing I remember from the VP debate last year is that Cheney lied about never meeting Edwards in the Senate and — oh yeah and that Cheney's daughter is what you people call a Lezebel.

MEGAN: I guess you're right, but I still think the interest lies in hoping that one of them flames out spectacularly. Plus, I'll repeat something smart I said this weekend: Biden, in particular, needs to go back and watch old tapes, and I'm not talking of VP debates. He needs to go check out Clinton-Lazio from 2000 and the Democratic Massachusetts gubernatorial debates featuring Shannon O'Brian to see what not to do when debating a woman.

SPENCER: Yes, right you are. You found the evidence refuting my point: Lazio lost his Senate race in 2000 by appearing to physically threaten HRC. If Crappy Hour were a debate, it's clear you won all three rounds this morning I could be an asshole and contend that Senate races are different than presidential races, but I'd like to set an example for John McCain and graciously concede when I've been beaten. I really miss Afghanistan.

MEGAN: Well, but I listened to whale songs instead of Howitzers for 2 weeks. And you risked life and limb to report important stuff from Afghanistan. So, I think we're at least even.

SPENCER: Okay, I'm going to the bank now to see that I still have money. I may IM you in a panic after lunch.

• In the wake of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy filing and the Merrill Lynch buyout, the Dow dropped 504 points, or 4.4%. By the way, unless you've got more than $100,000 in one of them or money in the market you're going to need soon (or are reliant on Merrill, Lehman or AIG for your employment), you're probably going to be fine. [Washington Post]
• Which John McCain knows is because the fundamentals of the market are strong. Unless you're talking about its regulatory oversight or structure, in which case he and Palin will totes fix that right away but that's not a market fundamental. [Washington Post]
• By "fundamentals," by the way, he meant your ability to work long hours without overtime or extra pay. [Huffington Post]
• If you buy McCain's rhetoric, by the way, Obama's got a bridge in Alaska he wants to sell you. [Daily Kos]

• Now that everyone has stopped paying attention, John McCain admits that he trumped up the whole "Obama called Palin a pig" bullshit. That's some sneaky maverick shit there, telling the truth after everyone stops caring. [Huffington Post]
• Carly Fiorina didn't like Tina Fey's impression of Sarah Palin, but she did wear a freaking leather blazer for her appearance. Do you trust a woman who wears a leather suit coat in 2008? [Huffington Post]
• Nader predicted it! He predicted it all! Damn you, America for not believing him! There are no differences between Democrats and Republicans! The last 8 years have proved it except for, like, everything! Nader '08! [Politico]
• Sarah Palin had, supposedly at her own expense, a tanning bed installed in the Alaskan governor's mansion. Anyone want to guess what she pays to get her hair done? [Usmagazine.com]

While Stein uses webcam performers and porn actresses at his studios in New York and L.A., he had this to say about his studios in the Dominican Republic:

"We also have one down in the Dominican Republic, where they have lots of problems with sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS. We think it's a good idea to go to these countries where we can pull the girls off the street, give them a safe place to come work, where they don't have to interact with people on a one-on-one basis, but can do it virtually."

It's one thing to watch porn knowing that the women and men involved have made their choice to be in it. It's another thing to watch porn starring female sex workers (or women avoiding prostitution) from a developing nation with few economic opportunities for women that might or might not be avoiding prostitution for fear of contracting HIV or because they already have. It seems 10 times more exploitative, and then given the probability that Stein isn't paying them as much as his U.S.-based performers (despite charging the same to his customers) ratchets that exploitative feeling up another few notches.

Anyway, in the end, I'm not sure that Stein's business model is that much different than the average webcam business model, except that the consumer need not type coherently one-handed under Stein's plan. As far as Stein's concerned, that makes him an "orgasm broker." Luckily for me, my orgasms aren't a commodity and they and the ones I happily to give to other people of my choosing aren't monetized — and, even better, I don't need a matchmaker for my G-spot.

Interview With an Orgasm Broker [Village Voice]

But in this unfortunate economic climate, that 15% is still hurting, as Forbes points out that many top women in business, like beleaguered former Morgan Stanley exec Zoe Cruz, have lost their jobs this year. There are, of course, still many impressive business bitches holding it down, including #8 Ho Ching, the head of Singaporean sovereign wealth fund Temasek, #18 Mary Sammons, the CEO of Rite Aid, #19 Andrea Jung, the CEO of Avon, and #60 Judy McGrath, the CEO of MTV.

Angela Merkel is also in good company, with stateswomen like Argentinean President #13 Cristina Fernandez and deposed Myanmar Prime Minister/ Nobel peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, not to mention our girl Hillary Clinton at #28.

The list isn't all politicians and businesswomen: Meredith Vieira (#61) edges out Katie Couric (62), Barbara Walters (63), Diane Sawyer (65), and Christine Amanpour (#91) to be the most powerful woman in news, and architect Zaha Hadid comes in at #69. Whatever their professions, however, these women are much more impressive feminist icons than Candace Bushnell or Jenna Jameson.

100 Most Powerful Women [Forbes]

Earlier: German Titocracy
the Why Do We Know Lauren Conrad & Not Indra Nooyi?
Zoe Cruz Told Mortgage Traders To "Cut Losses," But They Thought She Was Just High On Crack

They also said things like, "The fact that you make a good salary but whine that a certain job didn't take proper account of your ( questionable ) intellect and talent only speaks to your solipsistic (sic) ennui, brought-on no doubt by your liberal sense of entitlement." This one really upset me because of what it says about art and artists in this country, and how little they're valued.

Why is it wrong that this woman wanted to be a writer? That she trained to be a writer and had to make a compromise and is frustrated by her compromise? Why do people have so little sympathy for that? Should only the wealthy and their offspring be allowed to make art because they can afford to? I think we'll be missing out on a lot of exceptional writing if that's the case.

Finally, the anger towards this woman says a lot more about the commenters than it says about Ryan's particular plight. The "sense of entitlement" is that asshole troll's not Heather's — the entitlement that makes them think they're better than Ryan. That entitlement might be why the wage gap is so vast now, because people don't even try to identify with someone else's problems. I will quote another commenter from Salon named Marianna Trench, who had the right idea: "Hey, self-righteous moron commenters who think you're so much smarter and have such better judgment than Heather Ryan, I'm just waiting for the day when your comfortable, safe job vanishes, your spouse comes down with a debilitating illness, and your parents suddenly need round-the-clock care…It can happen to anyone, even the people who pride themselves on how much more sensible their choices are than the rest of ours. I'm guessing you think you can stave off the badness by picking on others who chose differently. You'd be wrong about that."

Our Cupboard Was Bare [Salon]

I never took Home Ec. I think I had to sew in gradeschool, and my mom taught me some stuff. I opted for shop in high school. But I'll never forget the day my sister called from college, curious about how to clean her hardwood floors. My mom's method involved hiring someone. I asked the other editors if they took Home Ec. Anna says: "I did and I don’t remember anything." Jessica claims, "We learned how to bake French bread pizza and use a sewing machine. I had the boxers I made (they were a frog print fabric!) for years afterwards." Intern Margaret explains, "The idea was that we would learn to use a sewing machine, but all the machines were broken and they couldn't afford to fix them, so I hand sewed a stuffed bunny and learned the invaluable skill of pulling stuffed animal fur out of a seam. Shop class was way more awesome. I learned to use a jigsaw." Megan says: "I sewed an ugly sweatshirt that I wore to gym class for years. but I also learned how to sew buttons and stuff like that."

I've written about living alone, about being the CEO, CFO and janitor of your life; of learning to enjoy and thrive on autonomy. And shouldn't that be what Home Ec is all about? Budgeting, balancing a checkbook, making the best of leftovers, getting red wine out of the rug, realizing that you don't need as many lattes and heels as you think you do? "Thrift is a dying art," the Women's Institute believes. But would you be open to learning such a skill? In the past, Home Ec came with the stigma that a woman was expected to learn to be a housewife. But what if there were a revamped course in which women learned to run their lives in a financially responsible way?

Old-Fashioned Home Economics [Times of London]

I always do my own brows, though I only got one bikini wax this summer and getting another seems like a waste of cash, especially in New York when bikini season is fleeting. I do, however, get an overpriced haircut once every 2 months, so I spend about $45 a month on grooming. Anna spends about $20 a month on various beauty regimens, while Megan got her last brow wax/pedicure in May. Maria usually gets a pedicure and bang trim once a month, though after the summer is over, pedicures will be out.

Have you cut salon visits out of your schedule since the economy's been in the crapper, or do you continue to wax with reckless financial abandon? Women and finance expert Suze Orman probably thinks even our modest beautification efforts are completely frivolous and would recommend making bikini wax out of old peanut butter and fishing tackle or some shit.

California Beautiful [NPR]

Another reason Gulf women are raking in the cash is because of Muslim inheritance laws. Time notes, " Shari'a dictates that a married woman's wealth is her own; spending on her household is her husband's responsibility." However, Graham Bell, a Dubai-based wealth manager tells Time, "This is not about women's liberation. It's about money."

Everything, of course, is not all coming up roses, as Arab women are often denied capital from banks and must get investment cash from family or relatives. But, as feminist theorists like Linda Hirshman love to point out, wealth and power go hand in hand. Monetary gain is the "the marker of success in a market economy," Hirshman has said, and as Arab women become financially solvent on their own, they will likely increase their political power.

Middle East: Women's Money Talks [Time]

The poll also shows that 75 percent of women support increased government spending on child care and early childhood education compared to 59 percent of men — and fully 77 percent of women identified pay equity as a must-do issue after the Inauguration in January. These results could help explain the 49-39 percent lead Barack Obama has over John McCain at the moment (since only one of them supports increasing spending on child care and education or a pay equity bill), but it doesn't explain why that gap isn't larger.

In the meantime, some women are finding alternate ways of making ends meet — through egg donation. Of course, the article is filled with the appropriate amount of "concern" and approbation that women are (gasp) selling their eggs as opposed to subjecting themselves to weeks of difficult and painful procedures simply out of the kindness of their baby-loving hearts. I don't recall there being this kind of paternalism present when it was more common for men to jerk off in cups for money to "help" women get pregnant, but it wasn't that much money, either. Sperm are a dime a dozen, but eggs are are just half a cell away from being citizens if some people have their way.

Poll: Economic Anxiety Among Women [Politico]
Pay Gap Persists: Women Still Make Less, Study Says [USA Today]
Poll: Trouble Signs in Obama's Lead [Time]
Dim Economy Drives Women To Donate Eggs For Profit [CNN]

"You just keep having children. This is how you keep a man," Sylvia, mother of twelve, told Maternowska. "If you don't give [children] to him, he doesn't give [money] to you.... And sometimes even if you do give, you lose anyhow. Life is hard." Women would do anything to keep a man. There was a brisk trade in sexy outfits and wild rumors circulated about love potions, some from voodoo healers, some home-made, including rice and beans cooked in water in which a woman had washed her underwear.

That's a passage about Haiti. Haiti, poorest country in the Western hemisphere…is there enough rice in Haiti to waste on a man who might leave? Or can a woman cook dirt cookies in her underwear water, too? Not uplifting questions, sure, but what exactly did the World Bank so fear from these people that they were willing to endorse the literal dragging of Indian women to sterilization clinics and worse, the measures that in China all too often resulted in forced third-trimester abortions?

Well, eugenicists feared the introduction of the Pill into the First World would cause "the swamping of the Nordic and Anglo-Saxon races by imbeciles, blacks, Asians, and eastern and southern Europeans," and technically, that happened. By the late sixties, books like the Population Bomb had softened that message, focusing on India where the (not improbable) prophesy was that "squalid, teeming slums and mass starvation" would beget "imminent political collapse." Ahhh, political collapse, our generation knows it well! But then what?

Particularly after the Communist takeover of China in 1949, Washington policymakers began to fear the rise of an increasingly resentful—and rapidly proliferating—global population of poor people who were easily susceptible to radical ideas and militaristic leaders. But in the end such people, if they threatened anyone, were mainly a danger to themselves.

As we know from the poor countries in which we've brought about political collapse lately!

Helen Epstein's whole review is worth reading — and the NYRB is worth subscribing to and makes a great gift for dads! — but here's a critical line. As anyone who has ever been in love knows, treating others humanely might come more naturally when you suspect they might have the capacity to hurt you.

The greatest threats to the global climate come from China and the West, where birthrates are extremely low. The future of the planet depends less on the number of babies born in Uganda than on the choices we in the West make, which, at the moment, are not good ones. As recently as 2004, a Japanese study found that when shopping for cars, Americans cared more about the size of the cup holder than fuel efficiency.[10] Our habits may be shifting, but ever so slowly.

The Strange History Of Birth Control? [New York Review Of Books]
Earlier: Is It About Time We Made A "Pregnancy Pact" Of Our Own? [Jezebel]

Related: New Limits To Growth Revive Malthusian Fears [WSJ]
RU-486: Brought To You By John D. Rockefeller [Some weird website I don't think is related to antiabortion zealots]

Okay, seriously, I have no idea whether commodity prices have anything to do with crayon prices. Binney & Smith, which is now called Crayola LLC, makes crayons mostly from wax, which I guess is made from oil, but really, the point is, most people are probably not mature enough to spend money wisely (ahem, Dick Cheney) and the Obamas know this, and kids probably don't even need allowances now that Babysitters Club books are no longer being released. And from the looks of Malia and Sasha's outfits, they are probably best letting their mom make their purchasing decisions for the next few years. So suck it, Cato Institution.

Obama Daughters Keep Hectic Schedules Of Their Own [AP]

Related: Inflation Calculator [Bureau of Labor Statistics]

So women, for the first time in the past seven economic contractions, are exiting the workforce. Will they do anything? Will someone need them? What about their needs? Because, as I told a guy on Sunday, in a town where everyone you know is an "independent contractor" and "codependence" is a slur and "energy independence" is a goal is, like, a society totally in denial about this basic fact of human nature which is that we need to be needed.

I had, that same day, already cried upon seeing The Wackness, a movie about the codependent relationship of a psychiatrist and his pot dealer, two highly indispensable men, men whose remuneration is commensurate with the urgency of the need for the the things they provide and are, for that very reason, sad. Because those things, duh, are drugs. And dependence on drugs — or alcohol or money or the simulacrum of buddyship — is not enough. "It's not enough, not nearly enough," Luke's dad says, matter-of-factly, when he returns home to find his family in the process of being evicted and tries frantically to offer up the $26,000 he's earned hustling all summer to save the cause. And you're like, huh? But it's nineteen ninety four!

But see, that's the point; Luke's dad's face is resigned, relieved even. People get evicted. All the time, especially now, and especially then, in New York in the nineties, when all the talk was growth and prosperity and liquidity. That's the thing about "progress", it doesn't have to be a zero-sum game if there's some thought given to the interdependence of things, like eking out a sixteen cent a share earnings increase from a lucky harvest or training the staff on a more efficient piece of software or switching accounting standards or closing a factory, and when it's that latter one some folks get evicted.

So anyway, Luke's family sleeps in motel, Luke in a cot beside his parents' bed, where he lies awake at night and watches, in a grossly manipulative gratuitous tearjerkoff of a scene that is like almost too corny to tell you about but:

His dad puts an arm around his mom in his sleep. They "spoon" or whatever.

**

I was one of two people in the theater, so I really don't know if anyone else completely lost it in this scene. I am thinking no, because I have issues with crying, in that I can't generally do it unless I am watching a movie in which case Jersey Girl has been known to do the job. The last time I cried not in a movie context I was coming down (up? away?) from Vicodin. It was that night I was at that wedding, the night of the great Tampon miscalculation, at 30th Street Station, and when I say "night" I mean around 5:30 a.m., when I gave up trying to sleep because it was just too damn cold, which was my fault for pairing a strapless bridesmaid's gown with nothing a cardigan I'd burned a dinner plate-sized hole while dulling my senses on the Vicodin. Anyhow, so I got a hot water at McDonald's and sat in a booth and let the tears start in confidence the usual 5:30 a.m. crew would be too preoccupied brokering peace accords between their various personalities to notice.

"Hey, you were in here earlier!" It was not to be.

"I asked if you'd been drinking, and you said, it's 2:30 a.m. and I'm wearing a bridesmaid gown, what do you think?"
I didn't remember this, but it seems like the sort of excuse an alcohol dependent person would make up, which is to say, I had used a version of it with a cop once after a bachelorette party. God I fucking hate weddings.

So when he asked what I was crying about and I thought, it is just weddings, and the fact that I had nowhere to go at the end of the night, because this dude I'd been making out with had a girlfriend who needed to stay at his place because she lived with her fiance and couldn't very well go back there right now; yeah, it's muddled but pretty symbolic, right, though fearing he would not respect the symbolism I just said:

"I guess I'm worried I'll never have kids."

"I have six daughters. You want one of them?"

"I live in a fifth-floor walkup," I said. (No.)

"I live in a halfway house!" Laugh. "Do you know what a halfway house is?"

Uh, yeah. Ten years before, in fact, I'd known half the halfway houses in Philadelphia, not because I'd been addicted to anything but because I was an anxious young reporter assigned to a sort of nebulous urban blight beat and desperately sure I might as well be. I wanted the police commissioner, an old Giuliani pal named John Timoney hellbent on clearing the streets of junkies and crackwhores and syringes and the singularly uncivilized stench of shits shat by people unhealthy enough to excrete in places other than toilets, to fund drug treatment programs too. I wanted him to invest in recovery and rehabilitation and detox beds — with all due respect commissioner, that is actually cheaper than sending them to jail, just let me show you this RAND study! — but anyway, John Timoney had a daughter who was a junkie and a son who would five years later get busted with half a million dollars worth of weed and he was not up for this line of reasoning. "Treatment, young lady, doesn't work," John Timoney had told me in so many words.

But see, he was wrong, not because I'm pretty sure his daughter is finally clean now, because you never know when that might end. But because Jimmy, a mere eighteen months off cocaine — cocaine, which is such a seriously obnoxious drug to get into abusing — had noticed a girl crying on his way to catch the bus home from his graveyard shift and stopped to ask her why. She asked him why. "I'm a Christian man," was his meek response, and she did not think an American man had ever spoken those words so truly.

Tempered by the hangover's throbbing realism and the imperative to conclude this thing with some grand proclamation on — Jesus Christ, what was this post about? oh wait, the wage gap, seriously? — I should first state that, of course, there are a lot of truly "Christian" men and women out there, I met a lot of them visiting halfway houses and rehab centers and also, working phone sex, and while I don't really personally care to speculate as to whether the source of their kindness and compassion and humility was the same Higher Power that left the track marks or a few rogue but well-meaning neurotransmitters, I could maybe use that giant endless tangent to venture that people like to be interdependent with other people, in fact they need it, and they need to be needed, and when people suddenly cannot figure out how they are needed or who they can trust long enough to learn to need or what about their lives even really seems necessary, they sometimes do fucked-up shit like go on benders or quit their jobs and leave the workforce altogether. And when whole big swaths of the population are suddenly awarded the privilege to want things as well, as has been the general trend over the last century or so, there are going to be hiccups as everyone shuffles around and figures out for themselves that they have needs.

***
And yeah, that is obvious, but in the moment it can feel totally, like, wack, but then you step away for awhile and maybe have a beer and read what you've written and think "No my friend, your brain is what is wack, maybe look into Wellbutrin next time you contemplate leaving the workforce."

Women Are Now Equal As Victims Of Poor Economy [NY Times]

The Adult Internet Market Research Company reports that, in their survey, most sites have seen a 20-30 percent membership growth since the checks began to hit mailboxes in May. What, like Fleshbot isn't good enough for you pervs once you guys have money?

But it's not just American pervs using economic boons to relieve some stress. Brazil has seen a huge spike in sex toy sales in recent years as the economy has taken off and some modest wealth has been redistributed to the lower-middle class, which they've apparently used to buy lingerie, porn and imported sex toys. But it's not just men — women account for 70-80 percent of adult sales according to Evaldo Shiroma, president of the sex goods indsutry trade association.

I have to say, when I finally (supposedly) get my long-awaited stimulus check, I'm not spending it on porn sites, though I'll admit that if my vibrator finally bites it I will be buying a new one regardless (that's an emergency purchase on a par with needing coffee or alcohol, though). But it's cool to know that once women have just enough money stop worrying about how to feed, clothe and house themselves and their families, they get on with their naughty selves and start getting it on — even if that's just in Brazil. Maybe if we could get that started in Ohio or Kansas, we would talk less about the red state-blue state divide and more about the plug-in vs. battery-powered schism. One could hope, anyway.

Job Cuts May Help Curb Inflation [Chicago Sun-Times]
Rebates Stimulate Porn Industry [NY Post]
An Economic Stimulus — To Brazil's Sex Life [Time]

MOE: Okay, first of all, re the companies chosen for those coveted Iraq oil contracts of course they did, some people are complete idiots, Paul Krugman thinks Obama needs to be more like Reagan than Clinton…so what's Obama doing here??



MEGAN: On the first story, gotta love this quote:

The advisers — who, along with the diplomatic official, spoke on condition of anonymity — say that their involvement was only to help an understaffed Iraqi ministry with technical and legal details of the contracts and that they in no way helped choose which companies got the deals.

I mean, does anyone actually believe that?



MOE: Also I don't know if you've been reading about this book but it's been eliciting some really surprising rarely-articulated viewpoints from pundits such as:

The people who fund and run the GOP are simply too committed to the idea of cutting taxes for affluent people and reducing government spending… In fact, even saying the GOP estabilshment is "committed" to these things understates the grip of economic libertarianism over the party. It suggests a worldview that's the product of some reflection, when in fact the economic libertarianism of big GOP donors is mostly an expression of their self-interest

And in case you didn't catch what he was trying to say there:

—i.e., they want to keep their own taxes low.

MEGAN: As for McCain's record, not to bash on John Aravosis whose work I normally like, but Jeffrey Klein did that story way better, like two weeks ago without going into the gutter at all.



Well, the problem with Noam Scheiber's analysis in that review is that he repeats the claptrap that the GOP is ostensibly committed to reducing government spending, which is utter bullshit.

Let's bust that myth people. They are committed to saying they want to reduce government spending, and committed to spending more of it in ways that appeal to them ideologically (i.e., defense, abstinence education, marriage-promotion) or appeal to their constituents (i.e., earmarks)

MOE: Okay here's the thing:

The authors say they blew their chances to capitalize on their opening to these voters “by confusing being pro-market with being pro-business, by failing to distinguish between spending that fosters dependency and spending that fosters independence and upward mobility, and by shrinking from the admittedly difficult task of reforming the welfare state so that it serves the interests of the working class rather than the affluent.”

To "distinguish between spending that fosters dependency and spending that fosters independence and upward mobility" is, as near as I can figure, the opposite of "pro-market."

MEGAN: Yes, I would agree with that completely. Of course, apparently, "spending that fosters independence and upward mobility is — surprise! — serendipitously spending on things like marriage promotion and putting more black people in jail and abstinence education!

Douthat and Salam say to the contrary that the social issues are a major part of working-class insecurity. “Safe streets, successful marriages, cultural solidarity and vibrant religious and civic institutions make working-class Americans more likely to be wealthy, healthy and upwardly mobile. Public disorder, family disintegration, cultural fragmentation and civic and religious disaffection, on the other hand, breed downward mobility and financial strain — which in turn breeds further social dislocation, in a vicious cycle that threatens to transform a working class into an underclass."

Great, so, the government is now going to be able to solve the problems of family disintegration by.... making divorce harder? Making marriage necessary for all pregnant women? They're going to solve religious disaffection by... making religion mandatory? And, God knows the Democrats love them some public disorder. Yum, goes perfectly in my coffee.

MOE: The thing that is so dreamy about talking about this stuff as a failure to distinguish between the different kinds of "spending" is that it really cuts to the heart of the issue that, as some guy points out on today's WSJ edit page OF ALL PLACES…numbers lie!

MEGAN: Whoa, seriously, someone spiked the coffee with LSD at the WSJ this weekend:

there is no such thing as "the economy."

MOE: The first Harper's reading last month said this a lot better, but I'm not sure where it is online. Maybe I'll just screengrab it here.

Dammit, it doesn't want to let me, oh well.

MEGAN: Although, back to the intersection of economics and politics, I spent hours yesterday obsessed with the implications of this chart. Which goes with this article but the article's less interesting and not just because I like pretty pictures.

MOE: Oh here it is. Anyway we forgot to discuss < a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aftgJ3S0euEQ&refer=home">Steven Hatfill, whose name is not Mohammed and therefore actually got some money out of his whole post-9/11 harassment, or we never did, because that happened on Friday and I was too tired out from Dimitri the Lover to do a proper news roundup, but hahaha he did well for himself. And Mallaby who I generally love has something on oil and speculation and whatnot.

And now I have to try to get on the internet bus

BRB as they say.

9 minutes

MOE: And I'm back! On the bus. But I'm still using the free Dupont wifi signal so I'm not sure if that's sustainable.

MEGAN: I think it kicks in on the bus pretty soon, but we can totally hurry up.

Anyway, what's fascinating about the chart I sent is about the redistribution of wealth in this country, from the Midwest to the Coasts (by and large) and the weirdness that Alaska and Hawai'i were two of the richest 12 states in 1976.

And about how the richest states — and by and large, the richest people — are increasingly turning to the Democratic party. Fucking elitists.

—-—-—16 minutes—-—

MOE: Hey

Do you read me?

MEGAN: Yup

MOE: The wifi server is allegedly just getting reactivated

So I'm on bberry.

Anna is going to kill me but. If this works it isn't a bad thing. Free wifi in DuPont is good!

MEGAN: No problem! I got grabbed coffee and a yogurt and plugged my computer back in as I was previously sitting on the front porch watching my neighbor playing with his baby and the cats of the 'hood stare at me

Anyway, the wifi bus worked fine for me the one round trip I took it. I, um, spent most of the time IM'ing with people.

MOE: So Cass Sunstein co authors an oped in the Wash Post... Cass sunstein is the Obama policy adviser yes? It doesn't mention that. But anyway it is about the death penalty. I wanted to bring up Juan Williams admirably

MEGAN: Juan Williams?

Also, Cass Sunstein, I'm not sure if he's an adviser but he's definitely a fan

MOE: Frustrated performance on fox news Sunday re the supreme courts striking down the gun ban

MEGAN: Sadly, I have no cable but I will find a clip.

I mean, my parents have no cable because my mother doesn't believe in it.

MOE: Maybe I can find a clip. What he lacked in eloquence he made up for in abject what the fuckitide

My dad and I talked about whether murder is the worst crime. He believes in the death penalty for people who cut off peoples legs and gouge their eyes out and such.

MEGAN: On the other hand, I think blind people and amputees would probably disagree, right?

MOE: If I can't get wifi on this bus I'm going to make them drop me off on the side of the 295

MEGAN: As though there's wifi along 295?

MOE: Well if you had your arms and legs cut off and your eyes gouged out by some crazy child rapist you might feel like giving that guy the lethal injection, I dunno,

MEGAN: But is it worse than murder? Would I rather be dead than mutilated? I guess I already made the decision a long time ago that I'd rather be a living sexual assault victim than a dead one. So I guess that makes murder worse.

It's kind of a subjective question

MOE: Yeah anyway sunstein mostly discusses the evidence or lack thereof for and against the concept that the death penalty is a deterrent which is sort of the same question...

MEGAN: For the death penalty to be a deterrent, people would have to believe sincerely that the likelihood is that they will get caught.

MEGAN: Most people aren't weighing the consequences of their actions or thinking that far ahead, frankly.

MOE: I wonder what the penalty for advertising internet access on your bus service and failing to deliver is...

MEGAN: Ok, that's totally a capital offense.



MOE: Lol I just passed the capitol.

"Our egghead actuaries crunched the numbers based on all the data we have about healthcare," explained Tom Epstein, a Blue Shield spokesman. "This is what they found."

But once you exempt pregnancy, what do men and women do significantly different? Men die young more often, and women seek preventative care (which is supposed to lower the cost of health insurance in the long term). Naturally, that's a problem.

See, the thing about insurance is it is technically supposed to be about risk pools, not usage statistics. So, if you're a young single woman on birth control who goes to the doctor when you have a mild case of bronchitis instead of going to the emergency room if it becomes pleurisy (a real disease! my friend had it last year) or pneumonia, then you're supposed to be in better shape price-wise because you're being cost-efficient. But if insurance companies are pricing insurance based on if you use it — as has happened in other insurance fields, such as homeowner's insurance — then any usage, even if it's efficient in the long-term, will ratchet up your costs over time and discourage you from utilizing the very insurance you're paying for. Gotta love a market failure!

But what does this mean? According to Elizabeth Edwards, it means that if John McCain has his way and eliminates the tax preference for employers to provide health insurance in favor of an individual tax preference, we ladies will all be paying more for our health insurance than the men. Matthew Yglesias thinks that more and more plans will be designed for and marketed to men, if for no other reason then than 29 percent of women are dependent on someone else's insurance and only 13 percent of men are, while men are twice as likely to buy their own insurance even today. In fact, fully half of men are primary insurance holders, while only slight more than a third of women are — meaning even if they're less than half the population, they're the population for whom insurance plans will most likely be design and to whom those plans will most likely be marketed. And then they'll just charge us extra for all that stuff that guys aren't using, and because they can.

So even if you're not technically using it, just having that uterus will cost you extra, and I'm not just talking about cramps, either. While John McCain's "reforms" aren't going to do much for us single types, though, my analysis says the other President candidate's plans might actually help. Plus, I think we all know which guy is more likely to push for legislation making health insurance coverage gender neutral, and it's probably not the guy who called his wife a cunt.

Gender Can Cost You In Individual Health Insurance [LA Times]
Elizabeth Edwards On The Inequitable Individual Market [ThinkProgress]
Gender and Insurance [Matthew Yglesias]
Women and Health Insurance Coverage [Kaiser Family Foundation]
Health Insurance And the Single Girl [Glamocracy]

…Called VACATION! Guardian staffers get seven weeks of it a year, plus some sort of month-long sabbatical every few years so they can write books without risking unemployment. That's like a George W. Bush vacation schedule! And they ALL FUCKING TAKE IT. What about you guys?

Front Lines: Could That Paycheck Be Bigger [WSJ]

Child care professionals are responsible for the health, well-being and development of the fruit of other women's loins (not mine!) But in exchange for that, the median average salary in 2006 was $17,160. The government survey shows that other comparatively poorly remunerated jobs include bellhops, ($16,120), gaming dealers ($13,179), bartenders ($13,104), dishwashers ($16,012), maids ($16,640) and cashiers ($17,992). Of course, none of those people are responsible for your children on a daily basis, and, though I do love my cadre of bartenders it does seem like, if I had kids, I'd want the women in charge of making sure my kids grow up relatively normal to get paid more than the guy who helps gets me wasted on a Friday night. But I guess that's what happens when women start demanding money for what many of us are socially expected to do for free. At least child care workers, unlike stay-at-home mothers, will earn credit toward their Social Security even if they get paid so little they would barely be able to afford the child care if they had any children to take care of them in their dotage.

Diaper Genie [Slate]
National Compensation Survey: Occupational Wages in the United States, June 2006 [Bureau of Labor Statistics]

1. Television News Anchor. Okay, so this is obvious, but topical, because surely you've found yourself in recent weeks thinking, "What would Tim Russert's female equivalent look like?" And is there a single woman of prominence who looks anything remotely like her? No.
2. Pharmaceutical sales representative. (Or really, most jobs ending in "representative" now that our call centers have all been relocated in India.) Commonly recruited from college cheerleading teams, the practice of hiring hot drug reps probably originated around the time Big Pharma realized it could sell a lot of mood-enhancing pills to people who didn't need them if they took doctors out to dinner here and there. There's been some cutbacks in this industry since the major pharmaceutical companies got so focused on building their sales forces they forgot to develop any new drugs, but I bet being a babe doesn't hurt.
3. Any kind of "Director" that is not "Managing" This is obviously a gross generalization but my sense is that, from publishing to fashion to design to advertising to basically any sector besides film or traffic, "directing" is one of those things that can be done by people with minimal actual skill and therefore they probably got hired because their boss liked looking at them. I'm pretty sure "director" was a popular title at American Apparel, though in that case I might amend that last sentence to just finish reading "naked."
4. Intern When did all female magazine interns start looking like they'd been cast for a reality show? Seriously, when?
5. Italian cabinet member. In a scene in the latest British Esquire, Silvio Berlusconi is giving a town hall meeting and a woman rises from the audience to ask a question about the economy and her career prospects. "Don't worry," he tells her. "I'm sure a woman as beautiful as you can easily find a rich man to settle down with." But wait, it's not so bleak as all that! If she's really so insistent on working, I'm sure there's a spot for her in his cabinet.

Money Honeys [W Magazine]

After a certain point, the marginal utility of extra money on a micro level is going to be almost nil because you'll just be keeping up with the Joneses and buying more crap and remaking yourself to try and externally approximate happiness or what you looked like when you were happy once without actually doing anything about being happy. It holds true on a macro-level, too. But, because this is marginally an article about economics, the economist in me would like to point out that there are government policies (other than increasing GDP) that can make a difference in a country's subjective happiness levels "such as maintaining stable families and friendly communities, reducing joblessness, providing adequate health care, and guaranteeing more personal freedom." But we don't like to do that because we're a nation of bootstrappers and DIYers and we're not a welfare state so, hooray for increasing GDP and getting ourselves happy on our own.

By the way, on a completely unrelated note, Americans spent more than the GDP of Bolivia on plastic surgery last year alone ($13.2 billion). In a more unrelated note, sales of antidepressents in 2006 in the U.S. were $20.6 billion. I'm not sure that our plans to find happiness in money or consumption are working, but whatever. I'm sure Priscilla can tell us. She looks happy enough.

Happiness Is ... [Portfolio]
Americans Putting Up The Dough For Plastic Surgery [Houston Chronicle]

Earlier: Are You Sick Of Ladies On TV Looking Jacked Up?