Filthy Commerce

Guess where I'll be five days a week?

Remember how a few months ago, I was all, "I'm going to be blogging less and beating the bushes for more freelance writing work" and blah blah blah recession blah blah blah?

I'm pleased to be able to announce that I have managed to fall into a gig that combines blogging AND freelance work! I am now writing the Dollars and Sense blog over at the San Francisco Chronicle's SFGate.com. Look for new posts over there from me Mondays through Fridays.

Since that blog's focused on the more practical aspects of how to spend your money in ways that meet your needs and wants, I will still be posting over here with the kind of big-picture posts and once-quarterly "What the HELL, Gap?" posts you all have come to expect. And I will definitely be hitting you all up for your ideas; my readers have shown time and again they're all smarter than I, anyway.

It's the last vaguely-thematic bridal post, because it's the last day of June!

I saw this press release and had to share:

Alert Emily Litella: homogamous marriage is taking over America

One of my favorite conceits in Bill Willingham's Fables is that Cinderella's marriage ends badly and because she has neither family money nor a title to fall back on, she ends up a shoe shop owner/secret agent. Willingham's a noted conservative, but since he obviously has a great deal of affection for "Cindy," I suspect he's somewhat antipathic to the obstacles of social mobility in this day and age.

I am referring, of course, to the fact that it's a lot harder to "marry up" than it used to be. In February, Dalton Conley wrote in the WaPo:

The old story of the boss marrying the secretary (and her quitting her job) might have been fairly common back in the days of Ward and June Cleaver; today the manager is more likely to marry the manager. (In fact, doctors have the highest rate of occupational intermarriage of any profession, and they are all likely to keep working -- at least part time.)

"Women Have Come a Long Way. The Future Is Less Bright," Feb 13, 09

(Speaking as one media hack married to another, I can understand the allure of occupational intermarriage. In our house, love means never having to say, "Leave me alone, damn it! I'm on deadline!")

And then the NYT reported yesterday:

Some of the same social changes that have unsettled traditional 1950s-era marriages have seemingly deepened them in the 1990s and 2000s. Today women are contributing more financially to relationships than earlier generations, and men are contributing more to the domestic duties. Compared with earlier generations, men and women today are more likely to marry someone like themselves, with a similar educational background, experts say. The relationship is less about dividing economic and domestic duties and more about shared interests and mutual happiness.

-- "Marriage Stands Up for Itself"

I will happily fly into a frothing rage the moment any fictional narrative suggests that the best way for a heroine to make money is to marry it. However, the trend toward marital homogamy in the U.S.-- i.e. marrying someone of similar cultural, educational and income background -- has me thinking it's a good news/bad news scenario.

The good news: social scientists tend to believe that homogamous marriages tend to be longer-lasting, happier and less stressed than marriages where partners' backgrounds differ wildly. The bad news: these marriages make terrible sitcoms -- not that Dharma & Greg stands astride a mountain of martial sitcoms -- and they are contributing, however indirectly, to the widening income gaps between America's assorted socioeconomic classes. Some folks may not see this as a problem. I am of the opinion that a socioeconomically fluid society is about as close as you're going to get to a meritocracy under capitalism; it's also one in which all classes value the idea of social safety nets for the most vulnerable members of society.

I doubt the solution is to force marriages between the Joads and the Buchanans. But it is worth noting that a social institution ostensibly meant to stabilize a larger society might actually fracture it instead.

Tell us that it's human nature

Thriller was the first album I can remember coveting. In fifth grade, it was the shibboleth; the cool kids had a copy, while children like me did not. It was my introduction to the hard lessons of consumerism most middle-schoolers learn: insecure people will judge you as a person based on your consumer choices, and it's hard to stand against consumerism when going along promises to make your life easier.

In more recent years, Thriller presented a different consumer dilemma, an ethical one. Would I buy a copy and thereby give money to someone who may have wrecked the lives of who-knows-how-many children? Does consumption equal consent of someone's private actions?

And then the question I ended up asking myself: Why was it so easy for me to go finger-waggling at Wal-Mart -- a company that, arguably, does improve some people's lives and is actually in a position to be an environmental game-changer -- and so difficult for me to dismiss the King of Pop out of hand? I split the proverbial baby in my answer, reasoning that there was a clear case against Wal-Mart. The Jackson thing is less clear. The trial was a farce, and it said more about the icky nature of celebrity "reporting" in this country than it did about whether or not American justice applies equally to all. (Read Stephen King's excellent coverage here and here.)

I did end up buying a copy of Thriller from the iTunes Music Store last year. I still feel a little guilty at how how quickly my toes tap the minute "Wanna Be Startin' Something" comes up on iTunes shuffle, as if I'm enjoying it at someone else's expense. I sometimes rationalize by thinking, Well, he made this album well before the problems started.

I am no closer to figuring out where to draw the line between my disapproval of someone's private life and whether that should rightly or wrongly affect their career in the public marketplace of consumption. But I am more sympathetic to people who don't even want to think about the question at all.

Alice, wondering

Our local "music for square white people who secretly hope they're not square" station is called  Alice. The name Alice has enjoyed a slight upswing in popularity in the past few years. And there is a new online household-goods site called Alice.com.

My test drive with the site went thusly: