Have you priced ivory backstratchers lately?

I’ve often remarked that the New York Times non-news sections too often present the implication that their audience is made up primarily of multimillionaires. One of the worst examples I can recall was an article about how annoying it is to run into those people you were trying to get away from when vacationing in the Hamptons. I think we’ve got a new winner:

Five hundred thousand dollars — the amount President Obama wants to set as the top pay for banking executives whose firms accept government bailout money — seems like a lot, and it is a lot. To many people in many places, it is a princely sum to live on. But in the neighborhoods of New York City and its suburban enclaves where successful bankers live, half a million a year can go very fast.

And it goes on and on like this. That people adjust their lifestyles to match their salaries will come as a revelation to absolutely no one. The news that New York is an expensive place to live is equally unsuprising. Beyond that, on it’s face, the article offers nothing by way of perspective or insight to the reader. If the point of this article isn’t a ham-fisted attempt to create sympathy for wealthy bankers who’ve been making millions for years and hasn’t bothered to save enough to withstand an income reduction, I’m not sure what the point of it could be. Fortunately, it’s so ludicrously tone-deaf that (outside of the Villagers who no doubt share these urgent conerns) it seems more likely to have the opposite effect.