Reaction to the Reaction to the Story

Photo courtesy of Damon Winter and the New York Times

Last week I, and my family, were very briefly featured in The New York Times Opinion section in a story titled "What Middle Class Families Want Politicians to Know." The reaction to the story in the comments, on the Twitters, etc. has been interesting, if predictable. The general theme is: "How could the Times be so out of touch with reality that they consider these people middle class?" and also, "Are we suppose to feel sorry for these people?" and, to some extent, "f*ck these people..."

First, I chose to write in to the Times in response to a fairly innocuous question that they posed, "How does your family get through the day?" From the Times:

• Many families in America are struggling. They face high child care costs, high health care costs, caring for aging parents, long commutes, stagnant wages and job insecurity, often all at the same time. Yet somehow, they find a way to get through the day — school, work, commute, dinner, and then all over again, often with little outside support.
• Help us understand what contemporary life is like in America. How do you do it? What are the creative solutions or compromises that keep your family running? What are the trade-offs that you’re happy with? What are the sacrifices you wish you didn’t have to make? What would make it easier? What do you want politicians and policy makers to know about what really makes a difference?
• The Times would like to hear how you manage your daily challenges. Tell us how your family does it in a series of questions about your household routine. A Times editor may contact you with follow-up questions. No information you provide will be published without your permission.

And since we decided to leave our home in the Bay Area for Kansas City, MO, I responded. It boils down to the fact that, despite making pretty good money, we made the tough decision to leave our home so that we could afford to buy a house, save for retirement, college for the boys etc. Seemed like it was relevant to the question, and really I just wanted to add my perspective to the conversation.

As for the reaction, I can't speak for any of the other people in the story, but I basically agree with the general thrust. Just a couple of thoughts:

• We are incredibly fortunate. Our household income is, while now a bit lower than it was in The Bay, still high. In most parts of the world we would be considered incredibly wealthy, and here in the States, we still want for next-to-nothing of consequence. But while we were living in the Bay, we couldn't afford what I would consider the trappings of a middle class life. I certainly don't think my situation should elicit any sort of sympathy. I do think it's worth pointing out that many people tend to confuse earning the median household income with being middle-class. If you make the median, you are working poor in most places, especially urban areas. I also think that middle-class is a bit of a fuzzy descriptor. I tend to define middle-class as someone who is not food or shelter insecure, has employment that pays enough to provide the necessities, plus a little extra, can send their kids to some sort of higher education, and will be able to retire at some point with some clams in the bank.
• The New York Times, to which I subscribe, already struggles with a reputation for being an out-of-touch, liberal, elitist publication that has no idea what most Americans deal with from day-to-day. I don't necessarily agree with that, but this piece did not help dispel that notion. A couple of the families, ours included, that the Times chose for this story seem a little bizarre (the choice, not the people. I would classify myself as just mildly weird..). They had to have seen the reaction coming that, in a title that had "middle-class" in the headline, everyone featured was in the upper ranges of the income distribution. But maybe that's the point? If you define middle-class as I do above, then literally nobody who is at the median income line is middle class. That is the problem. I just think the Times was a little clunky with how they made that point. It's also interesting that, despite what was printed of my interview, nothing that I would like a politician to know was in there. Not because it was omitted, but because it wasn't really the point of the interview.

So if you're curious, here is what I actually would like politicians to know:

1. I'm not sure that you know this, but it actually isn't your job just to get reelected. If you could do your actual job, that would be super.
2. Climate change could literally kill everything. Do. Your. Job.
3. I don't make a ton of money, but I would pay more in taxes if it meant that people didn't have to worry about illness potentially wiping out their savings. This is your job, please do it.
4. I will probably inherit a decent amount of money. If I do, it will not be taxed at a high enough rate. This should be in the orientation on day one of your job.
5. The infrastructure in a country this wealthy is an embarrassment. Do your freakin' job.
6. Climate change might literally kill everything. Do your goddamn job.
7. Stop with the folksy anecdotes. *smarmy politician voice* "You know, the other day I was in (insert some town in the Midwest), and I was speaking with a single mother of nine...." Stop telling us that you "get it" and....just do your job. That's how we'll know that you get it.
8. Stop pandering to the extremities of your party. The left isn't a Twitter mob, and the right isn't all at a Trump rally. Look at the evidence, make a sensible plan, and execute. You know, your job.
9. Climate change is going to literally kill everything. Do your f*cking job.

I'm sure there's more, but I'll spare you. Anyway, it was fun being in the Times, even if I'm not quite sure why I was. Now I need to go do my actual job.

*Update - After seeing some of the reaction to my reaction to the reaction to the story, I will say that yes, I engaged in a bit of creative hyperbole above. But it's worth noting that, from my perspective, the evidence is stronger for a touch of fatalism than it is for much optimism. We are coming nowhere near reversing our trajectory on emissions despite a growing mountain of evidence that doing so is critical to keeping warming below 1.5 degrees. There is also a plethora of evidence that many of the consequences of said warming are not only accurate, but coming to pass much more quickly than originally predicted. If all of you climate optimists (to put it generously) can provide evidence that runs counter to what the IPCC, or Yale, or NASA, or Moody's  are all predicting using, you know, science, then please feel free to cite anything other than your feelings. Thanks!