2021年7月7日 星期三

There’s No Right Way to Dress Your Baby

Eventually my son will develop his own style, but what should he wear until then?

There's No Right Way to Dress Your Baby

By Matthew Schnipper

Matthew Schnipper's son, Renzo, has been on a style journey.courtesy of Matthew Schnipper

Before my son, Renzo, was born in early 2020, my then-co-worker Emily came to my office with a gift bag. At that point I'd received many generous gifts for the baby, but none of them moved me like this one. I opened the bag and pulled out a onesie featuring the cover art for the Japanese noise musician Merzbow's classic 1996 album, "Pulse Demon." I nearly cried. As a music obsessive, I felt understood.

It soon occurred to me, though, that I might have been shoving some of my own desire to be perceived as cool via my obscure taste onto my child. Some years ago, The Onion published an article with the headline "Cool Dad Raising Daughter On Media That Will Put Her Entirely Out Of Touch With Her Generation." In the accompanying photo, he's smiling as she reluctantly holds a Talking Heads LP. Rereading the satirical piece with the "Pulse Demon" onesie in mind struck a little too close to home.

As a short, bald man relatively uncomfortable in my body until recent years, I have leaned into the adage that clothes make the man. That also means its inverse, that if your clothes aren't too distinct, they won't speak for you. For the past decade or so it's meant wearing plain stuff, loose fits and washed-out colors — a blank canvas that my personality can fill in (minus my slight obsession with sludge metal-band tees).

Ideally, I'll allow my son to have the same freedom to decide who he is and how he would like to present himself to the world. But as a baby, he has both no agency to do that, and just the most nascent of personalities for me to go off. So while it seems like a fun idea to have him show off a future love for avant-garde bands, maybe that isn't the most practical style dictum. But what is?

ADVERTISEMENT

As a rule, kids' clothing is ephemeral. It gets spilled on, puked on, pooped on, and only fits for a few months. Needing to change our son so frequently in the beginning of his life, my wife and I were fairly indiscriminate with his clothing choices, grabbing whatever we'd bought, gotten as a hand-me-down or been gifted. That included everything from footie pajamas with alligators, sailor striped pants and various items hand tie-dyed in Vermont by my sister.

Like any first-time parent with a smartphone and social media, we took a lot of photos. He looked like an angel in all of them, of course, but the photos we returned to most were the ones where he was the focus, not his outfit. He was dashing in a mustard-colored pointelle one-piece, or in cornflower-blue pants and a white T-shirt. Over time, though, we began to gravitate toward only buying him clothes with minimal embellishment, then eventually none at all. Now, the biggest pizazz in his wardrobe is stripes.

I know that's kind of boring. I admire (and follow on Instagram) parents who have fully embraced the slapdash way kids live and synthesize that into their wardrobe with bright colors and a Jackson Pollock-esque approach to pattern. Take for instance Leo, son of Sunny Shokrae, a photographer and the author of a recent children's book on Farsi. Leo always looks fantastic, wearing black and yellow pants that are checked on one leg and striped on the other, full-on leopard print or a denim jacket with a big '70s collar.

Leo is not blending in. And he pulls that off because Sunny does, too. She loves color, patterns and stripes; think M.C. Escher gone Day-Glo. "I buy clothes for Leo the way I would buy clothes for myself, and that's the only way I think I can," she said. "If I were to buy clothes any other way he'd look like a clown, because I wouldn't know what I'm doing."

ADVERTISEMENT

Perhaps I don't have enough confidence in my own taste for Renzo to splash out the way Leo and Sunny do, but I'm scared of setting him up for something he doesn't want to be. Still, looking at their photos, you don't get the feeling that Leo is upset at his mom's sense of adventure.

In a way, by eschewing that whimsy in dressing Renzo, what we've done is inadvertently baby-ized the uniform approach to dressing that lots of busy, famous and important people like Steve Jobs and Barack Obama have popularized. Mr. Obama typically wore only blue or gray suits during his presidency. "I don't want to make decisions about what I'm eating or wearing. Because I have too many other decisions to make," he told Vanity Fair in 2012. That tracks to parenthood, where time is deeply precious and a minute feeling self-conscious about the Merzbow onesie is wasted.

But despite all the consistency in Mr. Obama's suit colors, the one he's most remembered for was tan — the single day he decided to step out of his routine. Translated into babydom, does that mean we're setting Renzo up for wallflower life, destined to be gawked at the moment he tries out some flair? It turns out my wife is already planning for this.

"He can dress a little bit ridiculous," she said to me. "Ten percent ridiculous is fine." And so in addition to the muted tones that populate his wardrobe, she's begun to introduce more clothes with animals on them, more bright colors. He's pretty quickly taken to a neon-green sun hat. And he loves his Nikes with a red swoosh, asking me to put them on his feet most mornings as soon as he wakes up. If, in the next year or so, when he can more ably dress himself, he chooses to wear only fluorescents, more power to him.

ADVERTISEMENT

All of this seems nuts to worry about. He's a baby. He could wear a toga cut out of a paper bag and our main concerns as parents should still be: Is he happy, healthy and safe? We're lucky enough that the answer to all of those seems to be a consistent yes. So why not think about his appearance? I want to set him up to feel confident when he's standing in front of the mirror. Anything else is a bad look.

Matthew Schnipper is the director of entertainment at Vice.

Want More on Kids and Clothing?

  • Jessica Grose, our parenting columnist, explained last year why kids fight getting dressed. The answer has something to do with toddlers "exploring the limits of their personal control" and driving their parents bonkers.
  • Sara Clemence wondered why boys' clothes are largely designed to be practical, while girls' are designed to be pretty.
  • In the before times, Marcy Swingle photographed 48 of the coolest kids in New York City, and asked about their style inspirations.
  • In January, Reyhan Harmanci looked at our weird pandemic clothing choices. Finally, if after more than a year indoors you don't know how to dress yourself, much less your child, Jessica Testa encourages you to schedule an appointment with those clothes you haven't worn in a year.

Subscribe Today

We hope you've enjoyed this newsletter, which is made possible through subscriber support. Subscribe to The New York Times with this special offer.

Tiny Victories

Parenting can be a grind. Let's celebrate the tiny victories.

I bought window stickers from the Target dollar section before a flight with my toddler. He spent the entire three hours peeling them off and sticking them on the window and pull-out table. My other two kiddos were plugged into their devices, and it was probably the most relaxing flight I ever had as a mom. — Yousfa Janjua, Irvine, Calif.

If you want a chance to get your Tiny Victory published, find us on Instagram @NYTparenting and use the hashtag #tinyvictories; email us; or enter your Tiny Victory at the bottom of this page. Include your full name and location. Tiny Victories may be edited for clarity and style. Your name, location and comments may be published, but your contact information will not. By submitting to us, you agree that you have read, understand and accept the Reader Submission Terms in relation to all of the content and other information you send to us.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for Parenting from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

2021年7月6日 星期二

Eternal voodoo: They just can’t quit tax cuts

Zombie economics in a time of insurrection.
Author Headshot

By Paul Krugman

Opinion Columnist

Don't make a big deal out of one month's employment numbers! That's been a cardinal rule of short-term economic analysis and good economic journalism as long as I've been in the business. Month-to-month numbers are noisy in the best of times. They're especially noisy now, as documented in a recent blog post from Joe Biden's Council of Economic Advisers: The pandemic and its aftermath have thrown things like normal seasonal patterns out of whack, so what looks like a big number, good or bad, may well just be random measurement error.

The council has been urging us to focus on three-month averages, which is a reasonable if imperfect fix. As of a month ago the three-month average showed employment growing at an annual rate of 4.54 percent; the latest report raised that to 4.7 percent. Both are very good numbers; leaving aside the wild pandemic-related swings of 2020, we haven't seen this kind of growth since 1984. But your assessment of how we're doing shouldn't have changed much.

What actually happened, of course, was a huge change in the tone of media economic coverage — and an even huger change in the tone from Republicans. Before Friday's report, they were all denouncing Biden for presiding over a weak economy. As soon as the new number came out, they swung 180 degrees and began touting the economy's extraordinary success, which they said was a dramatic vindication of … Donald Trump's 2017 tax cut.

ADVERTISEMENT

This wasn't the first time we've seen this story — or the second, or the third, or …. In fact, it's behavior that goes back to the Clinton years. When Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993, Republicans en masse declared that a depression was imminent. When the economy boomed instead, they insisted that credit for the good economy of the late 1990s be given to Ronald Reagan's 1981 tax cut. Applying the same time lag to Reagan-era developments would imply giving credit for the 1983-84 boom to Lyndon Johnson, but somehow that wasn't part of the argument.

Now, it's not news that there is, in fact, not a shred of evidence in favor of claims that tax cuts have magical effects. Here, for example, is a picture of taxes and job growth over the decade before Covid-19 hit:

The actual tax changes were bigger than the picture shows: Barack Obama also introduced new taxes to pay for the Affordable Care Act, and Trump's tax cut was largely focused on corporate profits. But you see that there were two big changes in tax policy. Do you also see the big economic downshift after Obama raised taxes and the big upshift after Trump cut them? Neither do I.

ADVERTISEMENT

Nor is it news that tax-cut fanatics will always find a way to excuse the failure of their predictions: Anything good that happens to the economy is a delayed payoff to past tax cuts.

What is news, and something I find somewhat surprising, is that the G.O.P. is still doing this stuff with everything else going on. It's not that the party is coming to its senses — quite the opposite. We're talking about a party with some members who believe that Jewish space lasers have been setting forest fires and Italian satellites were used to switch vote counts. More important, we're talking about a party that has basically decided that its opponents can never legitimately win elections and that violent attempts to overthrow election results are no big deal, or maybe even justified.

And in the middle of all this they still have time for voodoo economics?

OK, a couple of explanations for what's going on.

One is the Upton Sinclair principle: It's difficult to get people to understand something when their salaries depend on their not understanding it. The G.O.P. was once a party run to serve the interests of plutocrats who fanned white rage to win elections; now the white rage has taken over. But it still depends on plutocrats' money, so despite all the talk of "populism" it remains committed to an ideology that justifies redistributing income upward.

ADVERTISEMENT

Another is the intellectual insularity of right-wing politicians. I'd be curious to know how many Republicans in Congress have ever seen a chart like the one above, showing no break in economic performance after Trump took office, or know that America gained more jobs under Clinton than it did under Reagan. My guess is very few: They aren't numbers guys, they don't know much about economic history, and the people they talk to always claim that the Reagan expansion was unmatched until the Trump boom.

Furthermore, they probably imagine that what they hear from right-wing think tanks represents mainstream economic opinion and are almost surely unaware that a great majority of professional economists rejects the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves and believes that tax rates have little impact on economic growth.

Anyway, it's almost reassuring to see that in the midst of the greatest challenge to democracy since the Civil War, right-wing zombie economics is still shambling along, eating brains.

Quick Hits

The White House analysis of last Friday's report.

Lumber prices were one of the things feeding inflation fears. But they're plunging.

Have we hit the speed limit on job growth?

What did the 2017 tax cut accomplish, anyway?

Feedback
If you're enjoying what you're reading, please consider recommending it to friends. They can sign up here. If you want to share your thoughts on an item in this week's newsletter or on the newsletter in general, please email me at krugman-newsletter@nytimes.com.

Facing the Music

These days the taxman doesn't have the resources to audit superstars.

IN THE TIMES

Far-Right Extremist Finds an Ally in an Arizona Congressman

Representative Paul Gosar's association with the white nationalist Nick Fuentes is the most vivid example of the Republican Party's growing acceptance of extremism.

By Catie Edmondson

Article Image

big ticket

One Buyer Takes Two Full-Floor Apartments at 220 Central Park South

The units, on the 60th and 61st floors, sold for a combined $157.5 million, the biggest residential transaction so far in 2021.

By Vivian Marino

Article Image

Climate Change Is Making It Harder for Campers to Beat the Heat

Burn bans, flashlight campfires, extreme heat and stronger rainstorms: Today's campers are experiencing their summer fun against the backdrop of climate change.

By John Schwartz

Article Image

How Weird Is the Heat in Portland, Seattle and Vancouver? Off the Charts.

The heat smothering the Pacific Northwest has little precedent in four decades of record-keeping.

By Aatish Bhatia, Henry Fountain and Kevin Quealy

Article Image

Subscribe Today

New York Times Opinion curates a wide range of views, inviting rich discussion and debate that helps readers analyze the world. This work is made possible with the support of subscribers. Please consider subscribing to The Times with this special offer.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for Paul Krugman from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018