<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/magazine/17foreclosure-t.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/magazine/17foreclosure-t.html</a></p>
<p>Edmund L. Andrews is an economics reporter for The Times.
He’s not on linkedin, so I don’t know which school graduated this idiot.</p>
<p>His wife is such a character. She was
</p>
<p>Apparently brainy, regal, sexy, eclectic means wearing size 12 JCrew. I can’t believe a reputable news source employed this person.</p>
<p>I thought it was bizarre that the times would employ such a person as an econimics reporter, but are you agianst size 12 people?</p>
<p>I don’t know why the ad hominem attack of the author’s wife was necessary, but the article itself…</p>
<p>That’s horrifying. It looks like a classic example of what went wrong and caused the brunt of the economic turndown: Americans turning a blind eye to good centse (sense about cents = money sense) in favor of their “dreams.”</p>
<p>Hearing a breakdown of some of the things he’d charged that caused him to spiral into such serious credit card debt really bothered me. That neither of them was willing to compromise on their spending habits didn’t endear me any further. </p>
<p>That he’s publishing a book about this… ugh.</p>
<p>I agree that it’s bizarre for the Times to employ such a writer, but the attack on his wife was absolutely unnecessary.</p>
<p>Nothing against size 12 people. A lot of things against size 12 JCrew wearing, oblivious to anything sensible, stay at home mother who also had a knack for high-end clothing in Saks Fifth Avenue </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then when she was able to get a job, his salary goes toward the mortgage. The extra 2400 wasn’t enough for this family? Seriously? Perhaps all 2400 went back to Saks.
This neo-hippie health nut harp refused to scrimp on top-quality produce. Oh no, must be organic milk or it’s not good enough for Patty.</p>
<p>And we’re bailing out this family whose salary is presumably higher than 120k/year? It’s appalling. And guess what, this guy is rewarded by having a book deal on his tribulation.</p>
<p>They were both irresponsible. And dont deserve any taxpayer bailout. But I don’t care what size she is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Economics reporter, budget thyself.</p>
<p>He was an economic reporter for the NY Times, possibly an excellent economics reporter. His current problems say nothing about his knowledge of economics and writing and reporting ability, and does not lessen the credibility of the NY Times (actually, for me there has been no credibility for a long time) </p>
<p>I feel sorry for the guy. From all the comments above I really expected something much different in the article.</p>
<p>size 12- poor woman, if I was a still a size 12, I sure wouldn’t let my husband mention it in public- he would be sleeping in the guest room!
</p>
<p>We were spending way more than we were earning.
Economics reporter, budget thyself.</p>
<p>Sounds typical- ya know how many M.D.drink and smoke too much and how many carpenters have their books stacked on the floor? ( no bookshelves)</p>
<p>I don’ t feel sorry for him He made his own problems.</p>
<p>I feel sorry for any one who messed up so badly. However, what i don’t get is how people could let this happen. I read the article, and it was well written, but, for example, how can they have paid the overdraft so foolishly so often? I am in the same age bracket, and when I was younger, and I got even one late payment that encouraged me to cut up the cards until I could afford the bills. No vacation, no extras etc that were not able to be paid for. Do alot of people really do as this writer did? I know the financial crisis if fueled by this type of thing, but how many really did it?</p>
<p>Yes - I don’t understand it either! Why rent a beach house and go on vacation if you know you are already spending too much???</p>
<p>The Times pays it reporters 120K/year? I see some possible fat to cut.</p>
<p>my sympathy for this guy is ZERO. He knew going in he couldn’t afford this house and YET he bought it anyway. Time to declare bankruptcy and move on. The wife seems like a loser too. </p>
<p>4K a month in child support/alimony on a 120K income seems like ALOT of money to me! Heck that is 50% more than my take home pay on a salary over 70K</p>
<p>The smugness is so thick I can smell it. I was lucky enough to be in the market for a house in 1992 when prices were low. I was also lucky enough to upgrade in the same neighborhood in 1994. If I was in the market for a house in 2004 I might have fallen victim to the notion that home prices would never go down and I might have over-reached and bought at the highs. Instead, I got lucky again and sold my much appreciated home in 2008 and just barely got out. A lot of this is luck, and if everyone posting on this thread think they are too smart and wise to fall into some of the traps that ensnared this NYT economics reporter, all I can do is wish you continued good luck. I am not saying he is without fault. I am saying that a few flips of the coin here and there could land any of us in a tough financial situation.</p>
<p>And why on earth shouldn’t the Times pay its reporters $120,000 a year? This guy was a financial idiot, but journalists are professionals who serve a real need in society – and professionals who live in metro areas like New York or DC should earn a reasonable salary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I couldn’t have said it better. Agree totally.</p>
<p>yes, but he bought a house he couldn’t afford. With 2700 in take home pay, he should have been looking at housing in the $150K range. He was doomed from the get go and HE KNEW IT. Yes, I AM smarter than that. </p>
<p>This isn’t someone who lost his job and had huge medical bills. this is someone who BOUGHT a HOUSE he COULD NOT AFFORD from the MOMENT they handed him the key.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That struck me also. (Although he seems to have several children, and mandatory child support can add up to a lot when that’s the case.) Plus, he gave his wife his share of their old house – which presumably would have been quite a bit of money. </p>
<p>Don’t underestimate how burdensome it is to have to pay that much twice a month, every month, year after year. For a while after my divorce was final a number of years ago, I was paying more than a third of my take home pay in alimony and child support. (Even though my ex and I each had our son approximately half the time, I’m a lawyer and my ex is a pre-K teacher, so these things happen.) After paying rent on the one-bedroom apartment I live in, and car and other transportation expenses, and other necessary bills, there really wasn’t much money left every month. Especially since as a practical matter I ended up paying about 90% of child-related expenses anyway. The amount I pay has gone down a little and my salary has gone up a little in the intervening years (although the law firm where I work has had trouble in the economy and my salary was cut by $15,000 this year), but I still have a lot to pay, and although child support will end eventually, the alimony continues until I’m 65. (To make a long story short as to why I was willing to agree to all that, after a 4+ year divorce process, to avoid trial, even though in retrospect I know perfectly well I would have ended up a lot better off financially if I’d gone to trial: people in the position I was in at the time, who have any desire for privacy, are extremely susceptible to being blackmailed with threats of public disclosure. I was being vigorously blackmailed. I was afraid. Now, I know I shouldn’t have been. At the time, settlement seemed like a good idea, and I overrode my lawyer’s advice. Yes, I was stupid. But people sometimes make stupid decisions. We’re human. And besides, my son begged me to settle, even though he knew some of what was going on; he couldn’t bear the idea of his parents having a public divorce trial.)</p>
<p>And then there’s college tuition. And substantial unreimbursed medical expenses every year.</p>
<p>At least I went back on my original (and unenforceable) oral agreement to turn over my share of our house (more blackmail), once I was represented by counsel. So I do have that – far and away my largest asset, even though I couldn’t touch it all these years – and now that our son is in college we finally sold the house; the closing is next month so I’ll be getting my share then. Unfortunately, quite a bit less than it would have been a couple of years ago.</p>
<p>But it will still make things slightly easier for me, and I can use some of the proceeds to pay off the rather substantial credit card debt I’ve managed to accumulate myself over the years.</p>
<p>In other words, it happens. Yes, he and his wife made a series of bad decisions, but I do have sympathy. Although I admit that I’ve never even considered buying a house or apartment all this time, even when the economy was great. But if I’d been in a new relationship or marriage and wanted my new spouse to be happy, who knows what I would have done? There but for the grace of God, etc.</p>
<p>And now that I’ve read this article, I admit that I’ve been having second and third thoughts about using some of the proceeds from the house sale to buy an apartment in the City. Because even if I used a good part of the money as a down payment, I’d still have to take out a mortgage, and I’m sure the mortgage payments plus maintenance and/or my share of taxes (depending on whether it was a co-op or a condo) would be more than I pay now in rent, even though part would be tax-deductible. My job isn’t exactly secure in this economy, and I’m really concerned about taking on that kind of debt. So maybe I’ll rent an apartment in the City instead. There are still some neighborhoods even I can afford. The Upper East Side, however (where I grew up and lived until i was married) is out of the question!</p>
<p>Donna</p>
<p>What I don’t understand is why the author hasn’t seeked help from a free HUD certified housing counselor. The housing counselor would have provided credit and budget advice as well as negotiate on his behalf with the servicer. He should not have, and does not need to have, handled this without expert advice by highly trained individuals who would be intimate with specific programs.</p>