Because divorce (in general) is not sensational news.

Agreed, this isn't the recession in any way. The article directly admits she was living a lifestyle requiring two incomes: with all her expenses, $150K plus bonus ain't gonna cut it, so financing the house, salon trips, etc., depended far more on what her husband brought home. Lucky guy, I have to say in all seriousness. It wouldn't surprise me that he initiated the divorce because he refused the lifestyle she demanded. Now he's shelling out $75K a year to support his children and probably considers himself lucky.

So she already couldn't do it on her own, her annual pay will be 10% less, and when she ought to be cutting back on the salon, gardeners and pool boy. Spend $500 on a self-propelled lawnmower and have her oldest son cut the grass. (I can personally testify that he's old enough, and it'll do him some good.) But no, she can't bear to admit she needs to cut back. She's just going to drain her investments! These aren't $50K in dividends we're talking about. This is $50K a year she's planning to liquidate from the portfolio.

Now isn't that smart of her?

"The nanny and property taxes take $75,000 right off the top, but Steins considers both non-negotiable facts of her life and not discretionary. When she bought out her husband's share of the house after their 2006 divorce, she assumed the costs of keeping it afloat -- $8,000 to $10,000 a month. There's a pool man, a gardener and someone to plow the snow from the quarter-mile-long driveway."

She's blowing half of her pre-tax, pre-bonus salary on things that are not necessities. The heart, it bleeds.

One of my friends grew up in an affluent family, until, as he told me, his father lost his VP job. Rather than try to stretch out the unsustainable, they sold their house and moved into a tiny apartment. They did the smart thing. This woman's children, by contrast, will grow up thinking just like their mother.

This reminds me of an article in early 2008 about "Americans having a tough time making ends meet." This woman was in such dire straits that she sold her mother's tea kettle...for $6. Apparently it wasn't that important, since she could have flipped burgers for a weekend and not have to part with an "heirloom."

I'm tired of these kinds of articles as well. The line about the nanny and the $40,000 gardening bill is designed to get normal folks clucking over their Rice Crispies. "Why, I could live like a king on half what she makes."

She might be stuck in that house. If that's the case, the gardener probably is a necessity, since there's no way someone with a full-time job is going to be able to take care of three acres by herself. Ditto for the snow plowing.

One of my friends grew up in an affluent family, until, as he told me, his father lost his VP job. Rather than try to stretch out the unsustainable, they sold their house and moved into a tiny apartment. They did the smart thing. This woman's children, by contrast, will grow up thinking just like their mother.

I wonder about that. The generation that's watching its parents get wiped out or at least suffering as a result of overextension might end up a lot more careful. The people who grew up during the Great Depression never lost their aversion to debt.

That unfortunate example doesn't negate the fact that recession affects everybody, rich and poor. Just not equally.
Take this woman, f.i.: losing another $40K a year would not make her destitute, and her children - beggars in a subway car.
It might, however, be just the case for her nanny.

We are being a little harsh here. I haven't read the piece, but perhaps she cannot afford to sell the house.
A nanny may be extravagent, but if she workds full time, she needs day care and some help around the house.
Her reasoning for not selling the house now or in 2007, when the market started to collapse is correct
"A), I couldn't sell the house right now," she says, citing the slow real estate market. "B), this is where my kids go to school. And C), it's where my job is."
Assuming that the house is worth 4 million (1000/sq ft) on 3 acres, and that to sell she would have to ask 25% under old value, then it is a loss of 1 million. Cashing out 50K a year makes sense if you think that housing prices will go up.
None the less, she should look for ways to save money. Driving to a Costco for shopping and such would be a start.

As to the larger point, this is simply a case of divorce affecting the rich. C'est la vie.

If that's the case, the gardener probably is a necessity, since there's no way someone with a full-time job is going to be able to take care of three acres by herself. Ditto for the snow plowing.Eric, that's what male children are for. At least, that's what I was for, as was my father when he was little. As soon as he was big enough, in the days before vacuum cleaners, he would take rugs outside to hang up and beat.

Even before the Great Depression hit, he and his friends knew the value of finding work: they'd go around after snowstorms, offering to shovel for 25 cents. I didn't grow up with the same entrepreneurial spirit, but we were expected to help around the house, instead of expecting to receive "stuff" from the parents.

Ron, the article says the house is worth two-point-five. But even if she sells the house for a loss, she can use the proceeds to buy a cheaper place she can afford. Look at her now, draining her savings so she doesn't have to cut back. I did that myself, though in my early 20s when I was young and stupid with the luxury of affording the irresponsibility: I lived at home and had no family to support. What is this woman's excuse?

Perhaps the mortgage is upside-down, in which case it would be prudent to liquidate some of this account that she's already eager to tap. She can then sell the house, replenish the account with the proceeds, and use the rest to buy a place she can afford. She should put several years of property taxes aside, though, until she can find a sucker^H^H^H^H^H^Hnew husband.

"this is where my kids go to school."

She's acting as if Rye is the only place in Westchester with good schools, which it isn't. And were that true, the question is still "At what price?" And what will happen when the children turn 18 and find out she saved none of the child support for their college expenses?

"This is where my job is."

Again, at what price? Think about it. Maybe that's worth it for some people, but this woman is counting on tapping $50K a year out of a retirement account so she can live near a job that pays $150K plus bonus.

There are plenty of other places in the county where she can live in a very nice neighborhood with a good-sized house she can afford, and still commute to Purchase. But hey, I only live in Westchester and went to school in Purchase, so what do I know.

This isn't about "she has to ____." It's "she refuses to give up ____." She's a selfish woman who, apparently like others in her church, wants to keep up her appearances by having manicured lawns. She's afraid of the stigma of losing her social status, nothing else, and is willing to destroy her savings to keep up an illusion that all is well.

"Oh you poor dear, you had to sell your house?" must be the stuff of her nightmares.

I'm always a little surprised by these articles of people who do not earn that much money live as if they were Bill Gates. That lady needs to get real, earning +/- 200,000 dollars a year doesn't make you rich!