3.19.2007

ONE-SHIRT TAX.

One of my favorite things about living in New York, nay in the world, is having someone else do my laundry. For over two years now, since I first discovered the service, I've been dropping my clothes off at the laundry mat and picking them up the next day; clean and crisply folded.

At first I thought this was a bit extravagant. Then I did the math: For one large bag of laundry (about two weeks) it costs around $15. Considering it would probably cost around $6 in quarters, not counting detergent and fabric softener, I'm only paying $9 extra. I figure that it'd take me around 2 hours to wash and fold my clothes. So basically, I pay $9 to avoid spending two hours of my life doing something I really don't enjoy? Sign me up. That's a deal I'll take every single time. And I suck at folding clothes.

But recently I've been reconsidering using this drop-off service. The problem is a new "one-shirt tax" that seems to have been implemented. Now, almost every time I drop my laundry off there's a shirt missing when I get it back. And not crappy old shirts. We're talking rotation shirts; shirts that I wear at least once a week. There were only about nine shirts that I considered rotation-worthy and TWO of those have disappeared. They're not even fancy shirts. Just shirts I like.

It's very sad, to think that I may have to give up this magnificent convenience in order to save my shirts. I really like going to the laundry mat where the woman recognizes me and thinks my name is Tim and I think hers is Jean. Or Joan. I already know the first time I'm folding a rotation shirt, I'll think of Jeannie’s smiling face and say out loud to the shirt, "I hope you appreciate this." I also hope that one day I see a little Korean man wearing my Roots t-shirt over an old long-sleeve UofM t-shirt, carrying my favorite black half-zip sweater.

What will win out: my laziness and distaste for laundering or my love for some shirts?

Eh, I can always buy more shirts.

Also, further proof that Google is awesome:



Aaaaargh! is right.

No comments: