Before you tie your destiny and your credit rating to the person you love, there are some decidedly un-romantic conversations that you need to have in order to prevent discord and catastrophe later in life.
Cintra Wilson set out to write a lighthearted, snarky article about the arrival of J.C. Penney in Manhattan for her “Critical Shopper” series, and somehow ended up insulting nearly everyone who read the article. Those who took offense included, but were not limited to: overweight people, tourists, plastic mannequins, people who are attuned to rampant classism, residents of “middle America,” diabetics, and anyone who has ever found an attractive article of clothing at a J.C. Penney.
It’s the end of an era. The parentally-subsidized idle urbanites of New York aren’t getting the fundage they used to, and they have to get paying jobs now. Or move in with their parents. (Here I thought living with my parents after college was too much parental subsidy.) While Gawker’s coverage of this story is not to be missed, let’s look at it through a Consumerist lens, shall we?
ConEd has just what you need in the middle of recession: a rate hike! Monthly bills are set to rise between $6-$8 as the energy monster tries to recoup a half a billion dollars to cover the cost of higher property taxes and the usual infrastructure maintenance that utilities never budget for in advance. The perennial optimists at the New York Post still somehow think you’ll still end up with a lower bill…
Last month, several consumer groups sent President-elect Obama a letter detailing a pro-consumer agenda for the new administration and Congress. One of those suggestions, supported by an editorial in today’s New York Times, is reinstating the position of special assistant to the President on consumer affairs, also known as the consumer czar.
Academic and New York Times blogger Stanley Fish kicks off nominations for Worst Company in America 2009 with his account of frustrations—both consumer and grammatical—with AT&T.
Reader Annie spotted this early Christmas ad while browsing through the New York Times Machine. It’s from November 11, 1908.
Have you seen them? The Europeans? They’re everywhere! In our fancy bistros, on line at the Apple store, spending their fancy-pantzy valuable Euros while we suffer through this intolerable non-recession. The patriots at the New York Times finally sounded the warning call over this European “invasion” that’s transforming New York into the “Walmart of hip.”
The New York Times made a pretty cool graph out of the Consumer Price Index, which tracks changes in prices for many consumer goods over the past year. Turns out, gas prices went up.
The New York Times has an interesting series of tests and explanations that show why and how the human brain makes errors in estimating probability—and consequently, why we get suckered even if we think we’re overall pretty smart.
There was a NYT op-ed last week, “Go On A Savings Spree,” suggesting that, as opposed to the tax-rebate stimulus, the best way to heal the economy is for the government to create universal mutual funds for every tax-payer. At one point, author Dalton Conley writes, “Some research suggests that asset-holders behave more responsibly and are more civic-minded than those without wealth. After all, they have a stake in the future of the economy and their community…Investing motivates people of all income levels to defer gratification and become knowledgeable about the economy and society.”
Economists and politicians rant about China in terms of jobs lost, currency valuation, and trade gaps. But the New York Times reports that a new metric has been discovered: every year, Chinese workers manufacturing our toys, garments and electronic junk in the Peal River Delta collectively break 40,000 fingers.
The New York Times recently tested some “Vitasea” seaweed clothing from athletic clothing store Lululemon Athletica and could not find any evidence that there was any actual seaweed in the fabric. Lululemon disagrees.
Remember when we said exports from countries not named China were also tainted and filthy? It turns out the exports aren’t as tainted and filthy as the New York Times originally reported. The Times explains that a “methodology problem was discovered” after the Danish Embassy complained that their candy was refused by FDA inspectors only 82 times, not 520, as the Times claimed. From the Gray Lady:
When the data was re-analyzed, it showed that the number of candy shipments rejected from Denmark had not been higher than the number of seafood shipments rejected from China, as the article stated. The number of shipments rejected from China was also misstated; it was 331, not 391.
If you have access to your college email address, you can get access to the New York Times “Select” articles from their archive without those pesky five-dolla charges.