“You hate when you come home from a trip with a lot of luggage and have to drag it up the stairs, or you’re in a huge hurry to leave and you have to run back up to the third or fourth floor dressed up in high-heeled shoes because you’ve forgotten something,” said Barbara Fox, president of Fox Residential Group, who lived for two decades with her husband, James Freund, in a 7,000-square-foot town house on West 73rd Street near Central Park. “And you hate when you have to have repairs because there’s always got to be somebody there to answer the door.”
This is from, you guessed it, the NYTimes, in an article about townhouse-owners in the city, and the drawbacks of owning a home that lacks “a doorman, concierge, superintendent or managing agent.” Part of me wants to make a snide remark about having a 7,000-square-foot house that you find too big to manage. But another part of me is simply intrigued that you could begin thinking of doormen as necessities for your living space. The more I’ve lived on the east coast, the more I’ve gotten interested in what people do with their money when they have it to burn. I don’t want to make unhelpful generalizations, but one thing that I’ve noticed is that the dominant view at home is that money is for stuff: houses, cars, and insurance policies on them. But here, money is for services or for experiences; as the lady in the article sums up, “I just got tired of not having the services that made life simpler for me.” Where I’m from, turning sixteen meant a car, preferably one with gadgets, if you had money to spend on it. But for much of the NYTimes readership, turning sixteen means a trip to Europe.
So, of course, with thoughts like these, I’ve been wondering about the pros and cons of each situation; more than that, however, I wonder at the way in which each camp seems to be quite sure that its way of doing things is much, much better than the way the other camp spends its money. And hey, I’m not immune. From all my National Geographic reading as a kid, the one piece that really struck me was an article about Hollywood. A hairdresser there remembers moving to California and, with no money for a shop or anything else, buying a pink Cadillac. I remember reeling from that, even when I read that the hairdresser said it was the best investment he could have made: with such a flashy car other people bought into the idea of him as successful, and actually made it happen. I’m glad he didn’t starve to death, but what a way to go about it!
I see this kind of split, too, with my college students and their choices about careers. Most of them are in engineering, animal science, or other fairly steady-employment-geared occupations. My dad would be proud of them. Sharing an office with several creative writing staff, I hear them encourage their students to continue writing, and the students replying (with greater and lesser degrees of sheepishness), “Well, I would go into creative writing, but I want to get a job that makes money.” Things you can only say when you’re 18 without some embarrassment. When I was in college many of my pre-med friends hated their schoolwork, and some even hated the idea of practicing medicine, but they were quite confident that what they were doing was superior to the work I was doing. Anybody, it seems, can read a book, but not everyone can a) make money b) suffer through things they hate to do the job that makes money. I’ve never been particularly tolerant of faux-martyrs, so I often let them have it, I’ll admit. But what surprises me is that, given their view of my work, they didn’t express more astonishment at the fact that I could really struggle with my work and make it take up so time. If it’s just reading books, why was I always working? I’m hoping they didn’t just think I was really slow! To be fair, these people may have had some run-ins with the artistic-martyr types who languish over each word and expect the public (the cool public, not the real public) to thank them for it. An amazingly slippery situation all around.
Not to digress, this need to defend one’s choice about the dream job/money job problem made for some real tensions among many people I observed, particularly when it came time to graduate and some had to fess up to “selling out” to business while others took great pleasure in announcing they were doing public service work. And I worry for both sides, because it’s clear that what you were “proud” to do was whatever had currency in the public mind, whether it was money or public service or the medical or law professions (which some might see as having the assets of both the money job and the dream job). Is it not possible to enjoy what you do, feel comfortable in it, without having to denigrate the choices of others who chose differently?
Erin