Neotraditional Kinship Structure: Making NYC Affordable

I was washing myself in the shower this morning when I finally discovered a way to reconcile my immense love for NYC and my belief in frugality and living within one's means. Living with other people!!

It's quite obvious, isn't it? If the average cost of a studio apartment is $2500 per month, then you can just split it among four or five people to be able to afford it. Of course, then no one has much space, and you'll always be up in everyone else's grill. And this has always been a major turn off to me, especially since I've been with my boyfriend, because who wants to share such a small space with others? It's annoying and uncomfortable.

I do appreciate the values of the Bohemian lifestyle, of living simply and small, but in New York, unless you make more than 100k per year, you really are POOR. But the great thing about living with other people in a small space is that it replaces, in some small way, the vast kinship structures that humans have been accustomed to living in for thousands of years. This is what dawned on me this morning in my rushed shower.

Granted, you must become close to your roommates. They can not be anonymous people who simply come and go from a common dwelling. They have to be or become people you care about, and who take care of each other. Sort of like Friends, but less romantic and more poverty stricken. That way, if you lose your job at the local coffee shop, they can pay for rent themselves until you are able to repay them, with the understanding that you would do the same for them. Not only would this neotraditional kinship structure provide you with a financial safety net in these hard economic times, but it would also provide you with a handful of close fulfilling relationships that could be had in no other circumstances.

It is with this justification that I plan to move to New York, especially if I get into NYU or Columbia. I may look back ten years from now, and realize how wrong I was to be so naive and believe that big city anonymity and hardship could be overcome in such a simple way. But at least I will have tried... and it's much easier when you give yourself an ideological foundation on which to move.

Or if your rich, you can just buy this $50 million loft with a breathtaking view of Central Park... bastards!

Detroit v. New York

Like everyone else, I was royally pissed to hear about the Big Three Execs flying to DC on private jets to beg for money for their failing companies. I am personally vested in GM because my mother, Mama T, works for the company as a laborer. Seeing these rich ass holes flaunting their wealth just proved to me the disgusting degree of the disconnect between the welfare of a company and that of the capitalists who own and run it. It almost seems as though they don't give a shit if their companies fail, because they will still be walking away with hundreds of millions in severance pay.

My mom has seen drastic cuts in insurance coverage, and her pension is now largely her own responsibility (without contribution from the company.) For instance, as a family (of two kids under 6, herself, and me) we are allowed three doctor appointments per year. I went to the doctor recently, thinking that it would be covered by insurance, and later received a bill for $150. The prescription I had was not covered either, and I had to pay $40 per refill.

Thus it feels criminal that GM CEO is enjoying unprecedented (in GM's history) compensation. Shouldn't he be taking cuts like our family has? No one would question his or his family's right to unlimited access to medical care. Hell, no one would question his right to at least five luxury homes, located across the globe in the most beautiful locales. I guess it's too much to ask for him to cut back, sell a couple of those mansions, for the sake of the whole. Instead, the poor folk that break their backs day after day will have to internalize the costs.

That being said, I was listening to NPR today when a story compared this scenario to that of the financial institutions. The reporter pointed out that the latter, New York companies, didn't have to do much work to receive bailout packages. Indeed, they were throwing lavish parties the day after with government monies. The Detroit companies are asking for fractions of the amount received by the New York companies, but the government has been reluctant to grant these funds. While it was outrageous that the CEOs flew in on private jets, and that they were unprepared for the meeting in Congress, why isn't the government rushing to their aid, as it did for the New York financial companies?

It should be said that the financial companies play a perhaps more important role in the functioning of the economy, by providing credit for other sectors. But can we really afford to let the Big Three go broke, especially when we consider the extent to which the Midwest relies on them for employment directly and via complimentary companies? I don't know what the solution is, but I am telling Mama T to start looking for some other employment options, because I definitely don't have room for everyone here in my little Columbus apartment :)