Did Women Cause Edmund Andrews' Mortgage Mess?

New York Times reporter Edmund Andrews wrote a doozy of a story in a recent issue of the paper’s magazine, about how he went from a beaming homeowner and newlywed to an anxious debtor who owed hundreds of thousands of dollars on his mortgage. He described the trials and headaches of borrowing and, throughout the story, a basic disbelief that he, a reporter who covers economics, could have been caught up in the same overzealous swindling and poor decision-making that he wrote about for the Times.

His story may have been cause for a lot of rubbernecking and tsk-ing among readers, but Dana Goldstein and Megan McArdle have perhaps hit on the real reason why Andrews had such a hard time: chicks.

Over at TAPPED, Goldstein writes:

The precipitating cause of Andrews' financial problems were a divorce and a rather hasty second marriage, to a woman named Patty. Andrews and Patty dated bi-coastally for one year before Patty and her 10-year old daughter moved from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C. The couple merged their households and bought a half-million-dollar suburban home immediately, despite the fact that Andrews was paying his first wife $4,000 each month in alimony and child support. That left him with just $2,777 in take-home pay—and with a new wife who hadn't held a full-time job since the early 1980s.

Unsurprisingly, at first, Patty was unable to secure a middle-income job. When she finally did, she was fired less than a year later. Patty's ex, meanwhile, was in arrears on his $700/month in child support. That meant Andrews was attempting to support two women and four children, essentially maintaining two totally separate households.

Megan's interpretation is that Andrews "couldn't afford to get married. At all." In fact, what Andrews couldn't afford was to marry women unprepared to participate in the work force.

Goldstein and McArdle make fabulous, if slightly divergent points. And this is as good a cautionary tale as any—but is it for men or for women? Goldsten calls this “A Good Argument Against Opting Out”—meaning women opting out of the workplace—but I tend to think the real “told you so” goes for the brothers.

Sure, I believe women should seek meaningful breadwinning opportunities, even if they don’t necessarily have to work. But shouldn’t men like Andrews steer clear of the trophy wives? I recall an article from the Wall Street Journal just after the fall 2008 collapse of the housing market about men who were having to give up their mistresses. (And who could forget the DABA women?) I don’t mean to call Andrews’ former and current wives gold-diggers, but maybe recession stories like his will cause an unintended and welcome consequence—the demise of arm candy.

Andrews' story also seems to have a second dose of spinach for its readers, male or female. Recall that even on his own, Andrews made a comfortable $120,000 annual salary, more money than the majority of American families could dream of, which placed him squarely in the upper middle class. So shouldn't his true-life fable teach us to live within our means?

Comments

i hate this for anybody. The

By: jimb12345 | Wed, 08/05/2009 - 18:45

i hate this for anybody. The mortgage crisis is killing everybody. i hope it gets better. The recession needs to end.
boulder mortgage brokerage
colorado springs mortgage brokerage
denver mortgage brokerage

تحميل برامج برامج

By: emad964 | Sat, 06/27/2009 - 15:03

تحميل برامج
برامج جوالات
العاب
بنات
تكنولوجيا
كتب تعليم
UltraSurf
العاب
برامج نت
Internet Download Manager
ProgDVB
برامج مجانية
أفضل المواقع العربية
مشاهدة محطات مشفرة Online TV Player 3.0.0.940
Internet Download Manager 5.17 Build 4
رقص شرقي anyTV Pro 4.32
OnLineLive 7.1.1
هزي يانواعم ProgDVB 6.06.2
SopCast 3.0.3
Falco Image Studio 3.6
لعبة تزلج على الجليد
UltraSurf 9.4
كاثرين هيغل Katherine Heigl
محطة غنوة FreeZ Online TV 1.0
Free Video to Mp3 Converter 3.1.3.51
Advanced MP3 Converter 2.10
Xilisoft Video to Audio Converter 5.1.23.0515
Blaze Media Pro 8.02
AKRAM Media Creator 1.11
DVD Audio Extractor 4.5.4
Free WMA to MP3 Converter 1.16
لعبة نينجا المتقدم
لعبة قذف كرة
لعبة دراجات البهلوانية
لعبة اعداء الغابة
تحميل برامج
Download DivX Subtitles 2.0
BullGuard 8.5
Google Chrome 2.0.181.1 Dev
Dell Studio XPS Desktop 435T Intel Matrix Storage Manager A00
Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3P Bios F9
Ambush
HDConvertToX 1.1.229.1764
MSI Wind Nettop CS 120 Realtek Audio Driver 5.10.0.5618
Biostar T41-A7 6.x Realtek On-Board Audio Driver 5.10.0.5735 for 2000/2003/XP
TweakNow RegCleaner 4.1.1
SpeedItup Free 4.97
برامج العاب -
Internet Download Manager -
برامج جوالات -
العاب -
محطة غنوة -
قنوات فضائية -
بنات -
تكنولوجيا -
كتب تعليم -
UltraSurf -
ق ذ -0

completely illogical

By: christinem | Wed, 05/20/2009 - 12:58

I fail to see why Andrews' mortgage mess, while regrettable, is the solely the fault of his wife and her choices.

Clearly, they bought a house they couldn't afford. Both Andrews and his wife presumably knew how much they earned when they signed on the dotted line, and should have chosen a less expensive house, or to rent, or some other choice that they could afford.

My objection to this article is that rather than condemning the choice of both parties to spend more, it condemns Patty's choice to earn less, or to marry someone who makes more than she did, or to stay home with her children.

This article implies that every woman who marries a man who earns more than she does is a "trophy wife" and every woman who opts out to raise her children a gold-digger who is "unprepared to participate in the workforce". That's completely ridiculous. Every family has to make choices, and yes, if the wife is going to stay home, then the family may need to buy a less expensive house. But Andrews' failure to realize that "expenses shouldn't exceed income" is hardly a reason to condemn every woman who opts out of the workforce to raise a family.

You really do lose the thread here

By: Tricia | Wed, 05/20/2009 - 10:24

I agree with you that the financial well-being of a family is the responsibility of both partners. Both men and women need to make clear-headed decisions about the short- and long-term implications of having one partner out of the workforce, especially in these turbulent financial times.

Or, at least I hope that's what you mean. Because, instead, what you have written does indeed read more like, "Non-working women=trophy wives and mistresses. Men supporting families=dupes."

Feminist?

By: Magawisca | Wed, 05/20/2009 - 09:35

It must feel amazing to be superior to so many women. You can barely contain your contempt for women who have chosen a different path.

SAHM's

By: lisast | Wed, 05/20/2009 - 09:55

I don't have contempt for women who chose to stay at home as long as they are contributing in other ways and can be financially responsible - but any woman who marries today should possess the basic financial maturity to be able to fend for herself if need be. You never know what's going to happen. I have a friend whose husband just dropped dead while out running, at age 40. I don't want my two children to have the financial burden I had when I went to college. I have a job I truly love, which is a lot more than many men and women can say today. And in that way I am fortunate. And, I have a neighbor who is a stay-at-home father. But they can afford that arrangement and it's the choice they've made. I'm fine with it.

Getting into a marriage today without being financially mature is only going to create problems - We're seeing it all over the country, and it's not going to be over for a long time.

Did Women Cause Edmund Andrews Mortgage Mess?

By: lisast | Wed, 05/20/2009 - 09:32

They both caused the mess. I didn't marry without a two year "trial period" where we lived together. We both worked and I still work 30 hours/week even with two children. We had a prenup and neither one of us brought debt or other kids into the marriage. Andrews was terribly naive and reckless. Patty may also have been naive thinking he was really able to afford to support her previous lifestyle. The divorce could be quite messy and undoubtedly very expensive - How are either one of them going to pay their attorneys when they do split up, and I personally think the split is inevitable.

Aren't there other options?

By: Katie | Wed, 05/20/2009 - 09:28

If the new wife wanted to stay home with her child, which is fine, couldn't they have purchased a less expensive home or rented? In an NPR interview I heard, Andrews repeatedly said that he had to buy the house because he fell in love. But why? Why does that automatically follow?

I agree. This article is

By: joluf | Wed, 05/20/2009 - 09:18

I agree. This article is ridiculous. Stay at home moms are basically gold diggers? First there was an article about how Michelle Obama doesn't wear panty hose. Now this? I think I won't be reading Double X anymore.

What?

By: laura | Wed, 05/20/2009 - 08:06

Did I read this correctly? Did you really compare SAHMs to mistresses? Did you really say that SAHMs are "arm candy" and "trophy wives?" What is going on at Double X? Isn't this supposed to be a feminist magazine? What kind of feminist magazine heaps this kind of hate on other women? This is outrageous.