The Conical Glass: The New York Times' obsession with the super-rich

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

The New York Times' obsession with the super-rich

Before I became the independent small businesswoman I am today, I frequently committed acts of journalism. I was a freelancer, but most of my friends were on staff at a large newspaper. This much I can tell you about journalists: they don't make a huge amount of money. If you hear about a rich print journalist -- someone like Mitch Albom, Dave Barry or Carl Hiaasen -- you can bet they're making the vast majority of their money by writing books or doing speaking engagements.

According to New York Magazine, Sam Tanenhaus, the editor of the New York Times Book Review, makes $180,000 a year. I'm guessing he's one of the higher paid employees at the Times. Crossword editor Will Shortz earns a relatively paltry $90,000. (If those salaries seem really high to you, you obviously don't know much about the cost of living in New York.)

I think the New York Times has its problems, but it is a really well-written, interesting newspaper. I don't have time to read it on a regular basis, but I do subscribe to an online feature which provides me with a daily list of the 10 most popular stories on the paper's web site. Hardly representative of the Times as a whole, but it provides a glimpse of what the paper is publishing, and the stories that resonate with its readership.

What are Times readers -- and, presumably, its writers and editors -- interested in? Rich people. And not your garden-variety rich people, like, say, Times executive editor Bill Keller, who pulls in $650,000 a year. I'm talking about really, really rich people. In the recent article "Lure of Great Wealth Affects Career Choices," yesterday's most popular story on the paper's web site, we meet Robert H. Glassman, who hoped "to achieve breakthroughs in curing cancer, his specialty... until Wall Street reordered his life." As "a managing director of health care investment banking" for Merrill Lynch, Dr. Glassman is now a multi-millionaire.

Another recent Times piece ("In Web world, rich now envy the superrich"), which also enjoyed great popularity online, profiled Silicon Valley millionaires who were envious of billionaires. The creator of one successful web site, James Hong, happened to be best friends with the guy who started Paypal.com, and found himself jealous when he couldn't measure up to his friend's rich lifestyle. In an attempt to put a lid on his envy, Hong sold his $55,000 Porsche Boxster and bought a Prius. "'I don't want to live the life of a Boxster, because when you get a Boxster you wish you had a 911,' he said, referring to a much more expensive Porsche. 'And you know what people who have 911s wish they had? They wish they had a Ferrari.'"

Joe theorized that the Times coverage of extremely wealthy individuals was due to its readers' affluence. It's true that Times readers are better off than most Americans, but you might be surprised to learn that they're not as rich as you might think. According to a 2002 reader study, the average income of a Times reader is $162,600. That's a lot, but considering that a lot of them probably live in Manhattan, it's not outrageously wealthy.

In the "Lure of Great Wealth" piece I referenced above, the mega-wealthy are lauded for their charity. "It is astonishing how many gifts of $100 million have been made in the last year," a Yale vice president for development said. The wealthy doctor hopes to follow in the footsteps of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett: "They are going to make much greater contributions by having made money and then giving it away than most, almost all, scientists," said Dr. Glassman.

What goes through the mind of the average Times reader, and indeed the average Times reporter, when they read a story like this one? I'll tell you what went through my mind: I felt depressed. My idea of "charitable giving" is writing a check for a couple hundred bucks to the humane society or a local food bank. What if I had gone into a more lucrative field? Not only would I have benefited (Dr. Glassman and his family are currently house-hunting, looking for a place "large enough to accommodate a wood-paneled study where [he] could put all his books and his diplomas and 'feel that it is his own'" -- hey, I'd like a wood-paneled study too!) but so would my favorite charities. Not being insanely wealthy is, well, selfish!

Curious about the writer of the piece -- another underpaid Times lackey? -- I searched on his name, and found that he is the author of a book called The Disposable American: Layoffs and Their Consequences, a book about how corporate America's policies have hurt the middle class. "As [a laid-off airline mechanic] tells Mr. Uchitelle... 'It is hard to look in your son's eyes and explain to him that you are making $12 an hour and know his high school friends are making that much on the side.'"

OK, I'm not making a ton of money ("One in every 825 households earned at least $2 million last year," according to Mr. Uchitelle's article about Dr. Glassman), but I'm doing a lot better than most people, and certainly a lot better than the seniors and critically ill people served by Project Open Hand. "Any amount is appreciated," says the organization's web site, informing visitors that $35 provides a week's worth of meals for its clients. "You can be assured that your contribution will make a real difference in someone's life." Even if it's not $10 million. Thanks for the reality check, Project Open Hand; my donation will be on its way soon.

posted by 125records @ 3:49 PM

4 Comments:

At 6:09 PM, 125records said…

Blogger seems a little wonky tonight. My cousin Carrie tried to leave a comment on this post and it didn't go through, so she e-mailed it to me:
"You'd be surprised at the number of wealthy people who give away very little of their wealth to those in need. When I lived in Dallas and was working in public accounting I did tax returns for people who made hundreds of thousands of dollars and some of them didn't have one single charitable contribution deduction! I was appalled. BTW, hope you had a great birthday!!!"
At 7:42 PM, yellojkt said…

It's moneyporn. People like reading about conspicuous consumption.
At 9:13 PM, 2fs said…

Relating to the first comment: how much is $10 million relative to, say, the overall wealth of a Warren Buffett? While calculating that amount, remember that your cost of living and Buffett's are approximately the same: essential costs don't rise with income (no matter how much the superrich might wish to claim as necessities things the rest of us could never afford). I often wonder about that sort of thing: I mean, some of these folks make in a day every dollar I've earned and spent in my entire life. You will notice I did not use the verb "earned" in the previous sentence - that's because I believe it simply isn't possible for any human to earn several million times what another one earns.

Another fun tax fact (I too have worked in a tax accounting office, clerically): a lot of these folks suddenly become poor! Yes, it's true: Junior needs to go to college, which costs a bundle...and somehow, the year before, these folks' income is dramatically low - low enough to qualify Junior for financial aid. Intriguing...

*Okay, the verification thingy is needlessly baroque tonight: heavy, sans-serif characters all run together. I doubt I'll get it right the first time...gyldrdit?
At 9:25 PM, americans slave said…

I ve worked 25 years for the same company In 1983 I made $19.00 hr my wife didnt work my kids went to any school they wanted.Today I am resposible for the maintenance on 548 airliners I might gross $65000.00 .... just considering inflation it should be around 85K I have lost my vacation,most of my insurance and half my holidays I dont even get memorial day off.And I only get 5 sick days a year.They tell me I ought to be happy. I should be glad I have a job.Misguided mensa member.