We all have our extravagances: Starbuck's lattes, gym memberships, plastic surgery, $900 shoes

I read Friday a story about a Blackhawk woman with a penchant for plastic surgery, luxury cars and luxury department stores. Hmm, is there any other kind of Blackhawk woman? Me-ow.

I pondered this woman's spending habits after my blog post from Thursday, in which I raised the question of whether rich people who buy $200,000 cars and $900 shoes in this difficult economy are tacky, selfish jerks.

Let's just say if I were rich, I would still think it silly to spend so much money on a car or shoes. To me, a car is simply a vessel to get me from Point A to Point B. I don't want it to smell or break down, and I want the heat, air-conditioning and radio to work decently. If you saw my scratched and dented 15-year-old Corolla you would know I am so not a car person.

As for the shoes? I concede that those Christian Louboutin dress shoes I picked out to illustrate my post are very pretty. But seriously, none of us could find shoes that are just as pretty and well-made for hundreds less? After all, how many times would any of us wear shoes like that? How much would a rich woman wear them? Us: a few times. Her: probably just once. Are they really worth about $60 less than a minimum wage worker in California would earn for three weeks' work?

I'm envious and bitter, I confess.

I also admit I have my own extravagances. I indulge in lattes and I have kept my gym membership, even those are two things that people typically cut out when they want to live more frugally. Well, the latte is a way I sometimes treat myself even though I know I could use what I spend on lattes in a year to buy those Louboutin shoes.

Oh shit, that really puts my coffee habit into perspective, doesn't it?

OK, the gym membership. I really do use my gym. It's not a luxury. I regard it as a health care expense, even though the IRS wouldn't allow me to deduct it as such.

My point is that we all have our extravagances. It's funny how we come to see them as necessities. Society tells us they are necessities, or we tell ourselves they are. We believe we need them to provide us with a sense of security, well-being, identity.

During the boom-boom years before the crash, people came to believe they couldn't live without a home remodel, home ownership. They got themselves into crushing debt buying their pieces of the American dream in East Contra Costa, or in Walnut Creek or in Blackhawk.

Speaking of Blackhawk, the woman I mentioned above, Kathleen Dake, apparently came to believe that plastic surgery, shopping at Bloomingdales and owning and maintaining a Porsche were necessities. Dake so much needed them in her life that she broke the law and pretty much risked everything to pay for them: her integrity, her job, her reputation, her freedom.

Dake was arrested in May on charges of embezzling more than $400,000 from St. Isidore's Catholic Church in Danville, according to the Contra Costa Times. She was the church's bookkeeper. OK, given that she stole from the Church, does that put her immortal soul at risk, too?

Dake has been in custody since May. Wow, what a reversal of fortune: from Blackhawk to County Jail in Martinez; from a Bloomingdale's wardrobe to an orange jail jumpsuit.

Then again, the strangely gated community of Blackhawk is in its way as stifling and soulless as a cell in county jail. That's right, if I were rich, I wouldn't choose to live in Blackhawk.

Me-0w again.

Dake's got another 200 days to go in County Jail. On Thursday, she pleaded no contest to five counts of embezzlement and was sentenced to 300 days.

I wonder if Dake sees her extravagances as worth it.

More "communist" views on the debt debate

I guess I must be a communist for quoting an ancient Greek author as a way of raising concerns about growing income disparity in the United States.

OK, I confess. I am concerned with how President Obama and Democrats caved to Republican rejection of tax increases, particularly for the nation's wealthiest citizens. Yes, I do wonder if Plutarch had a point that an "imbalance" between poor and rich could be dangerous to our republic, especially when our very rich citizens are doing so very well right now.

Well, here's another commie--and probably unpatriotic and un-American--view of this issue. It's from Robert Reich, former U.S. labor secretary, the chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at UC-Berkeley, and the author of Aftershock. He published this blog, "Ransom Paid" on, ugh, the Huffington Post.

Anyone who characterizes the deal between the president, Democratic, and Republican leaders as a victory for the American people over partisanship understands neither economics nor politics.

The deal does not raise taxes on America's wealthy and most fortunate -- who are now taking home a larger share of total income and wealth, and whose tax rates are already lower than they have been in eighty years. Yet it puts the nation's most important safety nets and public investments on the chopping block.

It also hobbles the capacity of the government to respond to the jobs and growth crisis. Added to the cuts already underway by state and local governments, the deal's spending cuts increase the odds of a double-dip recession.

Recession Blues: More worrisome job loss news, and renowned East Bay children's hospice facility closes due to falling donations

Just the headline we all want to see, huh? But I knew that my husband was part of a disturbing trend in the East Bay, of companies shedding jobs. He was laid off this week; according to the state, another 4,500 people lost jobs in the East Bay in February.

"The job losses in the East Bay are pretty widespread," Jon Haveman, and aconomist and partner with Beacon economics told the Contra Costa Times. According to the Times, the thousands of positions lost marked the worst month for our region's job market since last September. 

In the Bay Area, a total of 6,700 jobs were cut. The next worst hit area in the Bay Area was San Francisco and the Peninsula. There were some bright spots. The South Bay gained about 100 jobs.

Most of the East Bay jobs lost were in government and construction.

Job woes and recession blues were a bit topic of discussion among parents at Walnut Creek Intermediate's sixth-grade skate night Thursday.  I ran into another parent, who had just been laid off this week as well. She works at George Mark Children's House in San Leandro, the Bay Area's only hospice for children.

The economic downturn and falling donations George Mark, a home-like setting in the San Leandro hills, to close and to lay off 52 of its some 60 staff. Managers say this isn't a permanent closure. They are just suspending  inpatient services for several months so they can look for new sources of funding and partnerships with other Bay Area hospices and health organizations.

(Photo here, from Robert Gauthier of the Los Angeles Times, shows certified nursing assistant, cradling a boy during a pool therapy session at George Mark.)

Joining the ranks of American families hit by a job reduction

Came across this story on SFGate that hit nerve: 

Headlined "More middle-class jobless need government aid," the story is about a Pacifica woman who was laid off last summer from her job as an attorney. In that job, she earned $100,000 a year. Now, she and her husband, 43, a stay-at-home dad to their two kids, are relying on $450-a-week in government assistance to stay in their apartment and pay for food and other basic necessities.

The article from the San Francisco Chronicle says that this family has joined "an uncounted number of Californians who find themselves in desperate circumstances caused by long bouts of joblessness."

It quotes Stephen Levy, with the Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy in Palo Alto, as saying "the duration of long-term unemployment, which is over six months, is unlike anything we've seen since the Depression, and even though we are extending the safety net, it is not enough for some folks."

"The situation is awful," Levy continues, "way beyond the 12.5 percent figure" of unemployment."

This story hit a nerve for me because on Monday we learned that my husband's contract for his job won't continue. He's in an industry that is finally feeling the affects of the Great Recession,; his company is cutting back. After next week, he won't have a job. Done. Over.

As a contract employee, he won't get any severance, and we won't be able to rely on government assistance--in the form of unemployment insurance--to soften the blow.

Fortunately, I'm still employed. We have a roof over our head, some money saved (that was to go for a home renovation project), and we have great family support. It sounds like we're in a more secure place than the protagonist of this San Francisco Chronicle story--and other people out there.

Still, it's been  a strange couple days. One reason is that--strange as this sounds--it feels like many of us are living in this new reality, where you find that certain ideas of about security have no meaning. You think you have the chance for obtaining long-term financial security, then--whoosh--that chance drops out from under you.

Sorry, don't want to sound maudlin or self-pitying, because in another strange way I don't feel that pessimistic. Sure, I have had moments of sadness, disappointment, and fear, and it hurts to see my husband feeling bad or worried. We're living with the great uncertainty about his employment. How long will this go on?

On the other hand, the job he lost was wearing very thin on him and involved tons more stress than it was worth.  So, it's good he's out of that situation.

Either I'm in shock or denial, but I'm mostly seeing the silver lining and the cup half full. I'm reminded of what the Mother Superior told Maria in The Sound of Music. To paraphrase: "When God shuts a door, he opens a window."

I think my husband might have a chance to find a way out through that window, and it might lead to a professional, personal, and familly situation that will suit him better.