New York Times

New York Times Editors Defend Nail-Salon Narrative of Wholesale Injustice, Admit Mistakes In Clinton Story

"Here's ad: $10/day 4 apprentice," Deputy Metro Editor Michael Luo tweeted

|

@MichaelLuo/Twitter

Yesterday I blogged about Richard Bernstein's New York Review of Books rebuttal of a two-part series on New York nail salons, published in May by The New York Times. The author of the series, Sarah Maslin Nir, and its editor, Michael Luo, have been responding on Twitter to Bernstein's criticisms. Luo, deputy metro editor with the Times, collected his tweeted responses on Storify here

"Here's ad: $10/day 4 apprentice," Luo tweeted, with the image on the right here. Though some dispute he and Nir's translation of the ad, Nir says she didn't simply have it translated but confirmed the rate with workers. In any event, here's what they claim the ad "roughly" says: 

Part-time, full-time. For people with licenses, waxing, small job $75. Can start after 3 p.m. Apprentices/trainees $10.

The Times and Nir's supporters seem satisfied that this is an adequate rebuttal to Bernstein's criticism, which was that he and and his wife (who both speak Chinese) had combed months' worth of ads and not found what Nir described. In her piece, Nir mentioned one ad specifically, but implied that this is the norm in the nail industry:

Asian-language newspapers are rife with classified ads listing manicurist jobs paying so little the daily wage can at first glance appear to be a typo. Ads in Chinese in both Sing Tao Daily and World Journal for NYC Nail Spa, a second-story salon on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, advertised a starting wage of $10 a day. The rate was confirmed by several workers. 

Nir also failed to specify that the $10-per-day rate is for "trainees," while manicurists and waxers with licenses get a base rate of $75 per day.  

"Reporting confirmed that these apprentices/trainees were basically just beginners, doing the same types of jobs as others in the salon," Luo noted on Twitter.

Of course, that is often how apprenticeships/internships work. You can make a case that this is not how internships should work, at nail salons or The New York Times. But what Nir did is akin to taking the experiences of Times interns as representative of the pay and conditions for all New York state newspaper reporters.

Yellow Sky Photography/Flickr

As Bernstein noted, the narrative of wholesale injustice "is one of the most powerful and tempting in journalism." But real world narratives are rarely so neat, or quite as attention-grabbing.

It's a shame, because the experience of unlicensed Asian-salon apprentices is not itself insignificant. There is a story here—one that indicts both unscrupulous salon owners (of which, in an industry as big as New York's nail business, there are inevitably some) and the government licensing requirement that helps create this tiered work system. But there's pretty strong evidence that it is not the story of most manicurists in the state of New York. And for those that it is, ramping up government regulation and inspection will do more harm (in the form of direct interference from immigration officials or fewer legit salons willing to employ unlicensed workers) than it will good. 

This has always been my main critique of Nir's first piece, that it failed to address how things like immigration policies and vocational licensing play a role in these workers' plight. There's too much detailing of things like the small, shared apartment in which salon-worker Jing Ren lives (a small, shared apartment is not exactly unheard of for many, many people new to New York City, including journalists) and not enough emphasis on the systemic. It just never scratchs beyond a surface-level narrative of evil-salon-bosses-exploit-powerless-workers. 

When asked the story's biggest takeaway, Nir said: "There is no such thing as a cheap luxury. … The only way that you can have something decadent for a cheap price is by someone being exploited." 

New York Times Metro Editor Wendell Jamieson said "we stand 100% behind our reporter," and he and Executive Editor Dean Baquet are working on a response. 

The nail salon series isn't the only problematic piece Times editors had to address over the weekend. This morning, editor Margaret Sullivan issued an explanation about a story published late last week, "Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton's Use of Email."

"It wasn't really Mrs. Clinton directly who was the focus of the request for an investigation," wrote Sullivan. "It was more general: whether government information was handled improperly in connection with her use of a personal email account. Much later, The Times backed off the startling characterization of a 'criminal inquiry,' instead calling it something far tamer sounding: it was a 'security' referral." 

"Competitive pressure and the desire for a scoop, led to too much speed and not enough caution," concluded Sullivan. "Reporting a less sensational version of the story… would have been a wise play." 

Advertisement

NEXT: What Ever Happened to Mike Huckabee?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This article is like non-manicured nails on a chalkboard*.

    *Millenials – in the olden days, these were boards made to be written on with “chalk”. They were use almost universally in US schools “back in the day”. Ask your dopey parents about “cleaning the erasers” for a boring drone you’ll want to forget.

    1. Ha, nice addition to the handle.

    2. I heard about a school in a town the name of which you wouldn’t know so there’s no point mentioning it.

      They had chaulk.

  2. The only legitimate process for acquiring marketable skills is to drop $40k+ on a university diploma. Anything else is exploitation.

    1. Easy fella! Lest you remind anyone of the progressive idea of paying people to go to college, a la Denmark.

  3. “Asian-language newspapers are rife with classified ads listing manicurist jobs paying so little”

    Rife. As in two.

    I do not think that word means what you think it means.

    1. So “plethora” would have been a better word?

      1. I would have gone with “peppered.”

        1. It is LITERALLY rife with these ads. LITERALLY.

            1. Oh no – Ima be the PRESIDENT in 2016

              Almanian for President – 2016
              Probably Won’t Make It Any Worse

              And I definitely won’t underpay any nail-care workers.

                1. Needs moar labels.

                  Specifically: “Insert feet-first.”

                  1. Hey, hey, hey! I’m running the woodchipper in this ship!

                    /mixed meta..what?

              1. Well, even if you win, you won’t be president until January 20, 2017.

        2. Peppered ? Isn’t that what Dick Cheney did to Harry Whittington ?

      2. “Jeffe, what is a plethora?”

        1. El Guapo!!!

    2. Also, LACIST!

  4. Asian-language newspapers are rife with classified ads listing manicurist jobs paying so little the daily wage can at first glance appear to be a typo.

    The copy claimed not only multiple ads, but that newspapers were “rife” with these ads, paying manicurists, not apprentices, $10 a day. A single ad which sort of indicates apprentices get $10 does not support the original assertion. The fact that the NYT is trying to rationalize and deny rather than owning up and correcting is pretty bad.

    1. I believe the popular term with the kids these days is “doubling down”.

    2. Sometimes I get the impression that the respectable journalism shtick is entirely pro forma. NYT doesn’t believe their reporters, they don’t expect you will believe them either, but their readership expects the paper to defend itself and won’t look too closely at the substance of it. They’re just keeping up appearances.

      1. They’re the NY Times! They don’t have to be accurate! They are the NEW YORK TIMES!

  5. My response has not changed. Shame on the editors and fact-checkers. Luo’s Storify is not persuasive. If editors want to defend themselves, they need to do it based on the facts of the story as reported, not its broader narrative.

    1. Well, it’s kind of truthy. Ish.

      And really, the broader narrative is what’s important, not your cis-hetero-patriarchal racist “facts”. You really ARE the worst!

      1. And really, the broader narrative is what’s important, not your cis-hetero-patriarchal racist “facts”.

        This.

        They learned nothing from Rolling Stone’s mishandling of the UVA rape story.

        1. In their defense, I suspect Rolling Stone didn’t either.

        2. Incorrect, Tonio. They learned that you just need to make sure you have at least one ad that says–mostly, sort of–what you said it did. Then you’re at least not completely making shit up.

          Believe me, things were learned from that story, just unfortunately nothing that a moral person would find appropriate or fitting.

      2. And sexist. I mean, who takes these jobs? Certainly not men. And who patronizes these places? Well, women, but only to please men, because they internalize the pervasive misogyny. So Nikki is literally advocating to pay women only $10 a day.

        1. There are definitely a solid number of male manicurists out there.

          1. I wouldn’t know. I grab the belt sander and the hedge clippers when my digits need attention.

            1. I use a wood file for my nails. Fer reelz…bought one special at Lowes. My wife just looks at me and shakes her head…

              So am I technically a “male manicurist” since I do my own nail filing? With a wood file?

                1. Uhhh….s…sure. Licensed. Yeah.

                  *runs away*

      3. In all fairness, it probably “felt” like there were a lot of these ads.

    2. If editors want to defend themselves, they need to do it based on the facts of the story as reported, not its broader narrative.

      Defending on the broader narrative is status quo with modern newspapers. Sure, we got all the facts wrong, but the point still stands.

      It’s the journalistic equivalent of a tween going “yeah, but still…” in an argument.

      1. “Fake, but accurate” Gotcha.

  6. “Competitive pressure and the desire for a scoop, led to too much speed and not enough caution,” concluded Sullivan. “Reporting a less sensational version of the story… would have been a wise play.”

    Why, yes, that’s a situation that often arises in the news reporting industry. And to act like this was, somehow, a new, unexpected type of thing only enhances the perception that they are shitweasels.

  7. You know who else defended a Salon narrative?

    1. Salon?

    2. No, I don’t.

    3. Voltaire?

    4. Vidal Sasoon?

    5. Jose Eber?

    6. Gertrude Stein?

    7. The State Board of Cosmetology?

    8. Ice Cube?

    9. Gilgamesh?

  8. Hey, just because they can’t prove it doesn’t mean it’s NOT true!

  9. Why let facts obscure the Truth?

  10. whether government information was handled improperly in connection with her use of a personal email account.

    A lotta guys would translate that as: whether she improperly handled government information in her personal email.

    The Times backed off the startling characterization of a ‘criminal inquiry,’ instead calling it something far tamer sounding: it was a ‘security’ referral.”

    “The Times backed off the startling characterization of a ‘security referral,’ instead calling it something far tamer sounding: it was ‘Just Lunch’.”

    1. I heard the most outlandish and/or scary defense of changing it to “connection with” instead of “Clinton” herself. They actually said that, “Well, we don’t know who was using the Secretary’s Blackberry when the classified emails where sent”. I know, I know, it’s a common defense in a criminal cases. And, one that does raise a reasonable doubt. But, I’ve got to think that the Secretary of State giving her staff or anyone else access to send email on her behalf is a far greater security breach than just having classified info on your home grown server.

      1. Yep. That’s as good as guilt in the INFOSEC world.

        You will at a minimum lose your job in that case.

  11. I continue to doubt the $10/day claim, pertaining either to regular employees or apprentices, on the simple grounds that it is impossible to live on such a wage, especially in New York City, and because most rational humans don’t agree to work for a wage they cannot survive on.

    Seriously, who would take this job? You’d make more money begging on a street corner. The Times story would be more plausible if they claimed that nail salon workers are actually slave laborers being kept on the job at gunpoint.

    1. Seriously, who would take this job?

      Those who have cruelly become addicted to the fumes and dust.

    2. Even if these ads were rife and not one item plucked from dozens out of a single paper, the fact that there are better options at all should give one pause when alleging that would-be manicurists are just too stupid to find anything better. Because that’s the takeaway from the Times piece: these women are simply too dumb to be trusted with making their own decisions.

    3. I would have to assume that any interns or trainees, as is often the case, are going to be teenagers or someone else living with someone who pays the lion’s share of the rent and expenses, since yes, $10/day is not feasible wage for living in the city. Or really most places in the US; that would be approximately $300/month, which is less than most rents in even the cheapest places to live.

      I’m unsure as to why you would think that would invalidate the story to either its writers or the people who lap it up, though. That’s specifically the point. “How can they live on $10/day?!?” is the story.

    4. To an illegal immigrant working under the table and sharing a room with 4 other people, 10 dollars a day might do just fine. Not saying that is the case here, just that (a) not every job provides a “living wage”, nor should they and (b) there are plenty of folks who will work for such a wage (assuming it’s some sort of “training” wage).

      1. Exactly. The $10 a day is not for ‘a job’.

        Its an offer for people to train to learn the job. If they develop their skills fast enough, they go somewhere else for $75 a day, having learned their chops already.

        Why should no-nothing fumbling mooks off the street get the same wage as skilled workers?

        as noted by the salon owner who defended that offer – other shops often *charge* trainees for the privilege of riding shotgun with a skilled worker and being instructed on the proper M.O.

        Hell even the State charges these workers $1000 for permission to even offer their services

        As someone who had their hair cut by ‘trainees’ on a few occasions, i assure you the fee charged, whatever it was, was still vastly in excess of the value provided

        1. I wonder if the worker were paying 10$ an hour to learn manicures rather than being paid 10$ an hour then NIr would be okay with it. Since it’d be a “student-teacher” rather than a “worker employee” relationship.

          1. They seemed to try and pre-empt this obvious retort by claiming they ‘observed’ these trainees in action, and they were “doing substantially the same job” as the full-salary employees.

            because I really trust the eyeballs of these observers and their ability to discern reality, untainted by their desperate need to impose a narrative.

            1. Well, that’s how a lot of training goes — the trainee works and the supervisor checks the trainee’s work.

      2. Fair points. But would $10/day even cover the cost of transportation for whoever is taking this gig? Presumably these women are living in some much cheaper, far-flung corner of New York. Wouldn’t even a subway round trip eat up half the $10?

        If it’s a training wage that someone endures for a few days or weeks to get a crack at real pay, that would make sense. But that isn’t how the Times is portraying these jobs.

        1. The Times, like all lefty outfits, is staffed by stasis-fetishists: they’re people obsessed with maintaining things at one level, always and forever, and condemning any improvements or adjustments. If someone is fired or a company loses market share or an industry becomes eclipsed, it’s a tragic example of the exploitative nature of capitalism. If someone elects to take a risk on a job, sacrificing in the short term for potential long-term gain, it’s an example of the shaky foundation of our laissez-faire market. They cannot fathom, let alone appreciate, emergent processes.

        2. “But would $10/day even cover the cost of transportation for whoever is taking this gig?”

          That’s probably all it is supposed to cover.

          The entire point of busting the NYT over this story is that they are grossly misrepresenting reality in order to pump a narrative.

          When I waited tables, there were some shitty shifts that i got handed in the first months where I was making basically nothing – a few bucks an hour, and not enough tables to yield any substantial tips. 6 hours on your feet for peanuts.

          But the point was that if they’d thrown me into a busy Friday night, i’d have been a fucking disaster. I didn’t know the system well, I didn’t know how to juggle a table rotation, I mixed up orders and fucked over other waiters, i lost track of drinks and fucked the bartender’s cut, etc.

          The point of giving me the shit gig for a few months was to see if i’d learn and stick it out. I did. and after a couple months would make $300-500 on a good night, and got enough respect from my co-workers that we’d routinely trade shifts depending on who needed extra dough that week.

          This sort of thing isn’t an example of “rife exploitation” in the Foodservice Industry. Its the basic facts of how things work *everywhere*.

          Yet the Times is purposely trying to cast this kind of same behavior – just because it occurs in Chinese nail salons – in racist, sexist, underworld-sweatshop terms… because that’s a story their audience of middle-class white women will bite.

          1. Don’t young lawyer trainees in the summer work at unpaid internships?

        3. As mentioned in Bernstein’s article, a lot of these nail salons provide transportation.

  12. So wouldn’t the more accurate headline be that Asian Nail Salon workers are paid more than people working at Gawker?

    1. The New York Times is hard at work making Gawker look like a legitimate outfit.

  13. So what is “Reason” going to do about Matt Welch’s “Admit it, Democrats: Hillary Could Strangle a Puppy on Live TV, and You’d Still Back Her (UPDATED: It’s worse than you think)”?

    I suggest the annual “Matt Welch Just Ate A Live Puppy on TV” award for the news story that most gets it totally fucking wrong.

    1. You spelled your name wrong again. I bet you just want cake.

    2. Hey Alan, do us a favor and go review Bulworth for us. It’ll at least be more pertinent than the sniveling whining you otherwise do.

    3. Alan Vanneman, everyrone! Right here! Alan Vanneman! Here he is, everyone!

    4. “the news story that most gets it totally fucking wrong.”

      Amazing that you made this post without even bothering to mention what, if anything, Matt was supposed to have gotten ‘wrong’

      (unlike the nail salon muckracking – i don’t recall any wild claims using cherry-picked and misconstrued facts in matt’s piece, so much as just observation that Clinton has openly lied multiple times about email situation, been contradicted by facts, and given a pass by the media and most dems)

      1. Says Matt, “Now comes word that, unsurprisingly, two inspectors general are recommending that the Department of Justice open a criminal inquiry into the matter.”

        The only thing wrong with that statement is that it is totally fucking wrong, As it generally known, the NYT surreptitiously revised that story, several times, but Matt hasn’t revised his. His “UPDATE” should have read, “OK, it’s not as bad as I thought, but I still hate that bitch.”

        We get it, Matt. Just chill, and eat a live puppy. You’ll feel a whole lot better.

        1. Except, Anal, she actually did do the stuff she is accused of.

          She’s been pretty much caught redhanded having had classified information on that server. She did delete emails covered by the subpoena (we know this because the people she was communicating actually provided copies from their archive).

          So Anal, why don’t you tell us what would get you to stop supporting Hillary?

          Strangling a puppy?

          Murdering Donald Trump?

          Engaging in a influence peddling scheme that was global in scope?

          Perjury?

          Bribery?

          Spoliation of evidence?

          How many of these things would be deal breakers for you, Vanneman

          Why don’t you tell us which of these things would prompt you to vote against Hillary! Or are you so gutless you are afraid to broadcast a line beyond which you won’t support her?

        2. “The only thing wrong with that statement is that it is totally fucking wrong”

          Bullshit.

          The ‘retraction’ the NYT made was to change the *wording* of what the IGs were requesting from =

          – a ‘criminal investigation’ of ‘hillary clinton’s mishandling of confidential materials in her personal email account’

          to

          – an “inquiry” into whether “sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton”

          Basically the only difference is in whether Clinton is actually the intended target, or whether you believe in the passive-voice magic of saying, “something happened on the email account that just coincidentally belonged to her”… and that amounts to some actual substantial difference.

          Its a fucking semantic, legalistic twist that tries to downplay very serious allegations of criminal behavior, without any change in the actual underlying facts – which, as noted, have gotten worse for Hillary even since the first NYT headline ran – because the IG clarified, in contradiction to her rebuttal, that material was classified *before it was sent*, and not subsequently.

          Do you really have a point, or do you intend to keep posturing like you do? because there’s zero substance to your bitching.

          Besides – when matt’s piece ran, the “criminal” word was still in the NYT headline. He didn’t misrepresent what was true at the time, and he updated it when the NYT decided to change the wording.

          1. It will be interesting to see if Vanneman has the intestinal fortitude to declare which misdeeds would cause him to stop supporting Hillary Clinton.

            1. Its also interesting that no one seems to have noted that David Petraeus was actually tried, convicted and sentenced for “mishandling classified information on a private email account”

              the only distinction is that patraeus’ recipient was his DL girlfriend – but the basic ‘crime’ is the same. (*note – Broadwell actually also had appropriate security clearances for classified material – but had no official access to these materials – which ultimately made no difference from a criminal perspective)

              Which is the entire point of said, “Inquiry” into Clinton’s private email account. They already have evidence that she mishandled classified information – the point of a further inquiry is to discover what else went on with that account.

              People are pretending as though there’s “no evidence of anything inappropriate yet” just because the wording changed from “criminal investigation” to “inquiry”. A criminal investigation means you already know what the entire crime is. The inquiry is to discern the scope and detail of crimes you don’t know enough about yet to charge.

            2. It will be interesting to see if Vanneman has the intestinal fortitude to declare which misdeeds would cause him to stop supporting Hillary Clinton.

              As deep as he has Shriek’s lovehammer driven up his ass I seriously doubt there is any room in his colon for anything but a little more Astroglide.

  14. Did the deputy metro editor explain why anyone, looking at a sea of ads offering $70+/day would respond to the ONE ad offering $10/day?

  15. I’m still struggling to wrap my head around the notion that an entirely voluntary arrangement between consenting adults (I know, I know, how naive of me) could be characterized as exploitative. At what point in the process does it become coercive? I post a bill advertising a position in my yard mowing the grass. I offer $5. Nobody takes it seriously. The next week I bump it up to $10. The kid down the street offers to take care of it. He’s the only applicant. If I give him the job, has he been exploited? Should I feel morally compelled to bump the offer up to $15, to see who else might be interested? Should I shut out the teenager from marketing his labor to me because the arrangement might be construed as exploitative? Do these people spend even a few seconds considering the implications of their preferences?

    1. In answer to your last question, “no”.

    2. To answer your questions, based on what my bleeding heart liberal GF has ernestly told me:
      If I give him the job, has he been exploited?

      Yes, he deserves more money.

      Should I feel morally compelled to bump the offer up to $15, to see who else might be interested?

      No, you should be compelled to do so by government officials wielding guns, while sort of denying to yourself that such compulsion is in fact based on people being willing to kill you or throw you in a cage if you do not “voluntarily” comply with their “suggestions”, because confronting those thoughts would cause a lot of cognitive dissonance.

      Should I shut out the teenager from marketing his labor to me because the arrangement might be construed as exploitative?

      Again, someone else should force you to shut out the teenager, since you’re clearly not up to the job.

      Do these people spend even a few seconds considering the implications of their preferences?

      Yes, they do, but to them it is a moral issue and thus not really subject to utilitarian parsing of the likely outcomes, assuming they can even bear to examine those outcomes or accept that those are in fact what would happen.

      1. I wonder how she’d react if you told her that minimum wages were originally used to whiten up the work force…

  16. The next week I bump it up to $10. The kid down the street offers to take care of it. He’s the only applicant. If I give him the job, has he been exploited?
    .
    That little scab deserves a thumpin’ for undermining the living wages of true blue working men and women. He’s exploiting them.

    1. Competing strains of lefty ideology are like dueling banjos, except with hysterical fits of whining rather than banjos.

  17. “Nir also failed to specify that the $10-per-day rate is for “trainees,” while manicurists and waxers with licenses get a base rate of $75 per day.”

    So there’s a licensing body for manicurists!

    Don’t you have to put in so many hours under the supervision of someone licensed before you can get licensed yourself?

    “Trainees” are presumably people who are putting in those hours in order to get a license.

    How many hours do you have to put in to get a license?

    100 hours?

    If it’s a hundred hours, then the trainees get paid at the lower rate for an oppressive two and a half weeks! After that, they get $75 a day plus tips.

    You want to get rid of that oppressive low wage period?

    Get rid of the licensing requirement.

    1. Here’s the information I found from the application for a Nail Specialty License from the New York State Division of Licensing Services:

      “What qualifications and supporting documents do I need to apply for licensure?

      If you are at least 17 years old, you may apply for a Nail Specialty license based on

      “You must complete a 250 hour approved course of study and pass both the New York State written and practical examinations to get a license to operate in this state.”

      http://www.dos.ny.gov/forms/li…..22-f-a.pdf

      Let’s be perfectly clear about this!

      That “250 hour approved course of study” almost certainly consists mostly of practice in an actual nail salon under the supervision of an already licensed manicurist/pedicurist.

      In other words, in order to get that practice in, students have to PAY a school in order to get that 250 hours of additional training. That this nail salon is paying these students $10 a day is a show of good will!

      And 250 hours is 6.25 40 hour weeks. This is simply what they’re paying trainees–but these trainees are actually paying for the education becasue they want to!

      They actually pay a school to train them, and as part of that training, they get paid a $10 a day plus tips–in order to get the schooling and training needed to become licensed.

      It took me all of five minutes to research this.

      1. “In other words, in order to get that practice in, students have to PAY a school in order to get that 250 hours of additional training. That this nail salon is paying these students $10 a day is a show of good will!”

        If the Times should be going after anybody over this, it’s the fact that manicurists and pedicurists are made to pay to work–because of the stupid licensing requirement.

        That stupid licensing requirement makes poor nail specialists pay to work for more than six weeks in order to get a license!

        It isn’t about the Times racist characterization of Chinese salon owners and their criminal culture. It’s about the government being involved in something it has no business being involved in. The licensing requirement is so absurd, but it being New York, I’m surprised they haven’t outlawed cutting your own finger nails without a license.

      2. Isn’t the NYT on the pay-internees-a-minimum-wage bandwagon?

        1. Sure.

          But these are students.

          Not even the New York Times thinks that schools should pay students.

          You have to pay to go to school!

          That $10 a day they get paid (for six weeks) is pocket money while they’re learning.

          It’s a stipend.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipend

          It’s what you get paid while you’re learning.

    2. Or charge money… then it becomes a student-teacher relationship. 😀

      1. They schools do charge money.

        Those trainees are students that are paying to be educated.

        They’re giving them $10 a day for bus fare and lunch.

        1. The Bernstein article says that many of the nail salons offer transportation from a pick-up point to the salon.

          1. Yeah, it’s basically like a cosmetology school.

            You can go to cosmetology schools where they get you licensed to cut hair and get a haircut for like $5. And they don’t pay those students anything! Because they’re learning!

            That’s the way school works.

            In auto mechanic courses, you work on real cars without getting paid for that either.

            The New York Times if off their rocker–and racist against Chinese people.

  18. Goddamn it. I wish there was some way of resisting the siren song of classified ads for employment.

    Now that I’ve read the ad, I have no choice but to go and apply for that low paying job. Darn this bad luck!

  19. There is no such thing as a cheap luxury. It’s an oxymoron. The only way that you can have something decadent for a cheap price is by someone being exploited. Your discount manicure is on the back of the person giving it.

    Oh please. The implication that these customers are all a bunch of upper-crusters getting their luxury on at the expense of the downtrodden is totally disingenuous.

    These salons offer far-from-luxury services, and women who indulge in true budget-busting pampering don’t go to them.

  20. Misteaks(sic) in the NYT’s……

    SAY IT ISN’T SO!

  21. “we stand 100% behind our reporter,”

    It does make it easier to kick his ass ’til his nose bleeds.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.