The NYT Style Section, Voice for the Uncommon People

The New York Times' Style Section is always a reliable source for modern-day Marie Antoinettes — case in point is today's article about the Berrys, a family in Darien, CT making significant, and apparently difficult adjustments after Scott, a tech analyst for a boutique Manhattan investment firm, lost his job a year ago.  

I sympathize with any family that goes through a layoff — it is a psychological blow at any pay grade — but I'm not sure I'm feeling the Berrys' material pain as they've had to downgrade from a full-time nanny to a more 'cost-effective' au-pair, and from weekend getaways to week-long family vacations, all while keeping their country-club membership. Here's the most fun quote (among many):

How to spend is a continuing negotiation — one that sometimes devolves into heated discussions, outright arguments and bouts of sulking. Tracey is trying, often unsuccessfully, to spend less on clothing for herself and the children. “Don’t make me look like a jerk,” she told a reporter, “but I cannot bring myself to buy my children’s clothes at Wal-Mart.”

“But do you have to buy them at Ralph Lauren?” Scott shot back.

The Berrys have been at this long enough to make light of the well-worn nature of their disagreement. “It goes like this,” Scott said. “ ‘How can you complain about me not earning an adequate income, when you can’t control your spending?’ ”

On cue, Tracey chimed in. “And I say, ‘How can you complain about my spending when you don’t have an adequate income?’ ”

What, I wonder, is Tracey Berry's definition of "adequate"?  According to this article it obviously must include, at the very least: au pair, country club membership, gym, Block Island condo vacations, multiple extracurricular lessons for the kids, BMW, Darien home, Ralph Lauren clothing and tuitions for two Harvard educations (never mind that tiny hurdle of the kids' getting in ten years from now - that's assumed, too).

While the Berrys (and the reporter) seem to have a bit of a sense of humor about themselves, the logic (or lack thereof) of their circular argument above points to how much this couple takes for granted all the extras they still enjoy in their 'stripped-down' state, luxuries which many in the world couldn't enjoy even when times were flush.

And, so, what, I wonder furthermore, is the larger point of highlighting their example (and many like them) of 'great' shift? I realize The New York Times has to play to its readership, and the 'Style' section is designed to do just that — but couldn't we lift, or even peek behind, the veil of materialism surrounding these stories just a little more?