An article in the international section of today's New York Times, about Posh Spice, reports, "As for Posh, she is skeletal thin with breasts that have recently become larger and better shaped enough to prompt press inquiries. She said it was the uplift bras." If readers want this sort of information -- with a photo to match -- they can go read Maxim magazine or the New York Post or even the New York Times Sunday magazine or Sunday Styles section. But in the A-section of the New York Times? While there's a war on and a recession? Carr Van Anda would be rolling in his grave. Beyond that, there's a question of opinion entering into the news columns. Does the Times foreign desk now have an opinion on what shape of breast is "better" than another?
Housing Prices: A front-page article in today's New York Times runs under the headline, "New Wave of Homeless Floods Cities' Shelters."
The Times article reports that "Housing prices, which soared in the expansion of the 1990's, have not gone down." That's not exactly accurate. The New York Times itself reported on Sunday that "the median price of previously owned homes fell to $145,000 in October from $152,000 in June." And the decline in interest rates means that mortgage payments on a home purchased today are less than they would have been when interest rates were higher, during "the expansion of the 1990's." The Department of Housing and Urban Development maintains a "Housing Affordability Index" that takes into account home prices, mortgage rates and median family income. The composite affordability index is the ratio of median family income to qualifying income. Values over 100 indicate that the typical (median) family has more than sufficient income to purchase the median-priced home. The composite index for September 2001, the most recent available on the HUD Web site, was 142.4. That shows that buying a house was more affordable in September 2001 than it was at any time since 1973, with the exception of January and February of 2001. The index is available at http://www.huduser.org/periodicals/ushmc/fall2001/histdat11.htm
The Times article cites two relatively recent factors as among those "responsible for the surge" in homelessness. One is that "Benefits for welfare recipients are expiring under government-imposed deadlines." And the other is that "charitable donations to programs that help the disadvantaged are down considerably," in part because of the effect of "the outpouring of donations for people affected by Sept. 11." So Sept. 11 is one relevant date. The welfare reform that imposed the 5-year limit only passed in 1996, and in New York State, the first group of welfare recipients reached the federal benefit limit only this month.
Then the Times article tells us that "More than half the cities surveyed by the mayors' group reported that in the last year people had remained homeless longer, an average of six months." Well, if the benefits cutoff was only scheduled for December, and September 11 happened in September, and if they are contributing factors in the "new wave" of homelessness, how come these homeless people have been homeless for six months -- since before either the benefits cutoff or effects of Sept. 11 on charitable contributions took effect?