<p>^^^And there’s always the threads where people brag that they would never waste money on buying curtains when they could sew dish towels together and create something equally as lovely as Indian silk drapes, or how they prefer to weave their dog’s hair together for a rug rather than being ostentatious enough to spend lots of money on an expensive oriental,or my goodness, why would you spend 2K on a sofa when you can pick up a perfectly good one if you just spend an afternoon driving up and down streets in a given neighborhood looking for perfectly fine curbside offerings, etc.</p>
<p>Those are the “I’m more frugal than thou” threads.</p>
<p>There is also a show on HGTV called Selling LA which showcases people buying and selling homes in the multi millions. I love seeing inside those homes as well!</p>
<p>The only tragedy I see happening is those kids snapping the island overhang and tumbling off in a jumble of jagged rock, metal bar stools and limbs.</p>
<p>".When most people make less 100K a year, we don’t tslk about how a million can’t buy much in front of them however true it may be. We may talk about it in a cocktail party with other millionaires. That’s the issue I have. I fault NYT."</p>
<p>Do you feel the same way about discussions on College Confidential, where some parents who have sent their kids to expensive private high schools and / or expensive colleges talk about it “in front of” other parents who don’t have those means? I mean, I for one couldn’t afford the private high schools some of the posters on here have sent their kids to.</p>
<p>I don’t see any harm from reading an account of someone in a different category (re finances, location, whateverr) than I am in.
IMO it is akin to studying other cultures in anthropology. It might broaden my world.</p>
<p>New York is expensive to live in. (Because) It has a lot of people who are highly compensated. If you could commute there quickly from far away, then real estate wouldn’t be so expensive. You can’t, and it is. It’s really as simple as that. </p>
<p>What’s the level of discussion of “luxury” purchases that is appropriate for a general interest newspaper?<br>
Keep in mind that, for example, if the general interest newspaper is covering how the pro baseball or football franchises are doing this year, there are a heck of a lot of average Joes who can’t even afford tickets to the ballgame. Or if they discuss a famous musician coming to town for a concert, a heck of a lot of average Joes can’t afford three-figure tickets to concerts either. </p>
<p>I might argue the NYTimes isn’t really a general interest newspaper - it has an upscale skew, as does the WSJ. And both of them have extensive coverage of luxury items, situations, etc. Personally I enjoy their sections, even if the majority of it is way above my income and lifestyle. </p>
<p>As I read the article, the house burned down before they moved in, but after all their stuff had been moved in–the lamp ignited clothing, so their stuff was there. I feel sorry for anybody whose house burns down with all their stuff in it, even if they are rich.</p>
<p>The LA Times’ real estate stories are much dumber than the NY Times’. They are mostly news items about what celebrity is selling or buying what property. Then they have a “property of the week” feature in which they highlight a current real estate listing. This week’s property of the week: a $17.8 million house in Bel Air. So, yeah, the LA Times talks about expensive real estate, too.</p>
<p>They bought the new townhouse for 1.7 mill, I am sure they took the equity from their Battery Park apartment to put down on their new townhouse.</p>
<p>Remember that although NYT is considered by some to be a national or international newspaper, in the end, it is a local NY paper. And it does lean towards an NYC upper-class audience with an elitist bend. I’m sure this article wouldn’t run in the Daily News or the Post with its more middle class target. One only has to see the NYT’s retail ads and it’s focus on auctions, society events, investing, etc. to understand that this article is not really out of place in the context of the rest of the newspaper. Based on that, I don’t understand the shock value over the article. Anyone familiar with NYC’s housing stock knows that there are tons of neighborhoods that are bringing in these kinds of numbers for luxury housing. Should a newspaper only report about middle class housing because it is more politically correct to discuss real estate that is more accessible to the average American? Remember, you are not who they are writing for. I really don’t understand the animosity towards someone who is successful and is living the “dream” (even if it may not be YOUR dream.) And I do feel bad for them having that house and all their belongings destroyed by fire. Should we show delight in all tragedies that befall the wealthy?</p>