|
Droo posted:It's definitely harder financially to be a young person now than it was 30 years ago, but on the other hand it seems kind of reasonable to me that some places (e.g. Manhattan) will be unaffordable for a person making minimum wage. Does Manhattan also not need check out operators, retail assistants and street cleaning etc? If people on minimum wage aren't living nearby, chances are they can't afford the commute from a more affordable area.
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Forgot that I'm a baby boomer, not a millennial with a liberal arts degree committing an hour to the burbs with my 250k of student loan debt. *cost of college increases 15 fold or more since 1960, demand for graduate degrees and other paper resume qualifications increases relentlessly* *paternal lecture from baby boomer* "you should have thought about paying back all that debt before you borrowed so much to go to college"
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
Tamarillo posted:Does Manhattan also not need check out operators, retail assistants and street cleaning etc? If people on minimum wage aren't living nearby, chances are they can't afford the commute from a more affordable area. Of course they can't. The solution to this problem in Manhattan is a heavily tax subsidized transit authority that runs deep in the red combined with tons of tax subsidized public housing in the far flung metro in order to keep the minimum wage for necessary service jobs comfortably low for business owners in Manhattan. E:VVV the cost of operating the NYC MTA is about twice the cost of the ticket price BEHOLD: MY CAPE fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Feb 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
Tamarillo posted:Does Manhattan also not need check out operators, retail assistants and street cleaning etc? If people on minimum wage aren't living nearby, chances are they can't afford the commute from a more affordable area. Train fare is $2.75 and there's three perfectly good outer boroughs to live in. BACK IN MY DAY IT WAS A BUCK FIFTY
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Not that it's much cheaper to live in the outer boroughs either, and out here in the burbs it's almost as bad. You'd need roommates but it's definitely possible. I'm not saying that's the way it should be, but it's possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
It'd be really nice if every major city had NYC levels of public transit. I'd be happy to pay lots more in taxes for it. I hate driving. Please turn that statement into a "he's a baby boomer" sentence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:It'd be really nice if every major city had NYC levels of public transit. I'd be happy to pay lots more in taxes for it. I hate driving. Yeah I bet back in your day they still used tokens, baby boomer I don't travel all that much, but when I do, one of the things I enjoy doing is imagining NYC's ridership in other city's public transportation systems and how it would be absolutely crushed. And on the corporate BWM front, there was a pretty good article that touched on some horrible wasteful spending on the MTA's behalf from, what seems to me, abysmal project management. It's also super long so don't bother reading it unless you like trains or wonder why we don't have systems that other cities take for granted. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/why-dont-we-know-where-all-the-trains-are/415152/ e: The short of it is that there's a system that could save money and improve efficiency by automating trains but it requires an ungodly amount of work to be done. Then every time they try to deploy something, it goes horribly over budget and past schedule because the contractor who got hired to do it has no loving clue what they're doing. And since they're the lowest bidder, the MTA keeps going back to them. And they keep loving things up and going over budget. The MTA also has some questionable requirements out of the project that's making it needlessly complicated and expensive. Renegret fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Feb 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
Droo posted:It's definitely harder financially to be a young person now than it was 30 years ago, but on the other hand it seems kind of reasonable to me that some places (e.g. Manhattan) will be unaffordable for a person making minimum wage. Manhattan is home to hundreds of thousands of people who live in poverty. NY Times posted:The top 5 percent of households earned $864,394, or 88 times as much as the poorest 20 percent, according to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, which is being released Thursday and covers the final year of the Bloomberg administration. If you do the math there, hoseholds in that bottom quintile are earning $9,800 a year or less. Going beyond the demography: why is it reasonable that there should be places in America that require service workers to commute an hour plus? How did that become a foregone conclusion?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:why is it reasonable that there should be places in America that require service workers to commute an hour plus? How did that become a foregone conclusion? c...capitalism is bad?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:Going beyond the demography: why is it reasonable that there should be places in America that require service workers to commute an hour plus? How did that become a foregone conclusion?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
I would like to point out that it takes an hour to get across San Francisco itself on public transit in traffic, and San Francisco is seven miles wide. Richmond is an affordable city on the local subway line that is 18 miles away from SF. El Cerrito, West and East Oakland, Hayward and Fremont also all have more affordable housing options. All of them are blindingly expensive compared to the Midwest, but as a single person she could get by. Bayview-Hunter's Point is a neighborhood inside of San Francisco that has rooms currently for rent for $900 a month. (Not that I'd choose to live there) The minimum wage should be higher. The rent is still out of control. I'm making a good wage and can only afford two bedrooms through rent control, and can't afford to move. All the new construction is luxury housing with near zero family units. gently caress people underpaying the service industry, gently caress importing service workers, gently caress pushing people to the edge. But this particular woman COULD NOT HAVE MADE DUMBER CHOICES about living on a low wage in the Bay Area. Rage against the machine without taking a service job to springboard your media career and then complain about needing credit cash advances. Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:Manhattan is home to hundreds of thousands of people who live in poverty. There's other things that can be done on the supply-side to relieve the housing shortage somewhat but like, it's an island with only so much space on it, at some point you still have to address the "more people want to live here than could possibly fit" issue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:Manhattan is home to hundreds of thousands of people who live in poverty. No greater example of the trickle up effect. If trickle down worked with the amount of money in Manhattan every homeless person would have a heaped plate of pure cocaine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Everyone who wants to live in manhattan has to fill out an application with essays about how their unique charm will improve the city's character? Well, that would give a leg up to the recent-grad English majors. Devian666 posted:If trickle down worked with the amount of money in Manhattan every homeless person would have a heaped plate of pure cocaine. What about the straw men? Do they get cocaine too? Craptacular fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Feb 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:There's other things that can be done on the supply-side to relieve the housing shortage somewhat but like, it's an island with only so much space on it, at some point you still have to address the "more people want to live here than could possibly fit" issue. One problem with fitting in more people is that the NYC subway is strained to its limits, but from what I've read that seems to be more of an issue of ancient tech limiting how closely they can run trains together rather than just not having enough lines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:What about the straw men? Do they get cocaine too? Straw men are the Dr Rockso of plates of cocaine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Eh, you could fit way, way more people on Manhattan if you wanted to. Just take a look at the 3D view on google maps sometime, only a relatively small portion of the island actually has really tall buildings, most of it looks low/mid-rise. And of course that's even more true of Brooklyn, Queens, and whatever you call the part of NJ adjacent to Manhattan. There's tons of scaling problems besides the subways, the infrastructure required for things like trash collection, water, electricity, etc is pretty nuts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:There's other things that can be done on the supply-side to relieve the housing shortage somewhat but like, it's an island with only so much space on it, at some point you still have to address the "more people want to live here than could possibly fit" issue. Not everyone who owns there has any interest in living there. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/realestate/pieds-terre-owners-dominate-some-new-york-buildings.html quote:In a three-block stretch of Midtown, from East 56th Street to East 59th Street, between Fifth Avenue and Park Avenue, 57 percent, or 285 of 496 apartments, including co-ops and condos, are vacant at least 10 months a year. From East 59th Street to East 63rd Street, 628 of 1,261 homes, or almost 50 percent, are vacant the majority of the time, according to data from the Census Bureau’s 2012 American Community Survey. I've seen estimates as high as 1/3rd of Manhattan below 59th street being vacant. But the rental vacancy rate is under 1%. Does anything seem wrong with this picture to you? There's a lot more going on in labor economics and housing policy than just "gee city centers are expensive." Trivializing people's lovely commutes and accusing low-wage workers of being idiots doesn't get us anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I'm not claiming it's at truly at capacity - I certainly don't know enough to claim that. More tall buildings with affordable housing are certainly in order. Maybe there's even enough space to house everyone who wants to move there for fifty years, but then the problem is back after that because you still haven't truly figured out how to decide who gets housing and who doesn't. It's pretty hard to come up with anything that isn't "who has money" or some proxy for that.  quote:There's tons of scaling problems besides the subways, the infrastructure required for things like trash collection, water, electricity, etc is pretty nuts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Paris totally smells like piss tho
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I'm not claiming it's at truly at capacity - I certainly don't know enough to claim that. More tall buildings with affordable housing are certainly in order. Maybe there's even enough space to house everyone who wants to move there for fifty years, but then the problem is back after that because you still haven't truly figured out how to decide who gets housing and who doesn't. It's pretty hard to come up with anything that isn't "who has money" or some proxy for that. I don't think that everyone who wants to live in Manhattan should be entitled to do so, I just think the government shouldn't be in this weird multibillion dollar business of subsidizing Manhattan with taxpayer funded subways, endless tracts of public housing, and market distorting rent control.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:I don't think that everyone who wants to live in Manhattan should be entitled to do so, I just think the government shouldn't be in this weird multibillion dollar business of subsidizing Manhattan with taxpayer funded subways, endless tracts of public housing, and market distorting rent control. Cicero fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Feb 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
We could have cheap housing, then have people stand in line to see who gets that housing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:I don't think that everyone who wants to live in Manhattan should be entitled to do so, I just think the government shouldn't be in this weird multibillion dollar business of subsidizing Manhattan with taxpayer funded subways, endless tracts of public housing, and market distorting rent control. Oh no not the market distortions those are just terrible 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
Foma posted:We could have cheap housing, then have people stand in line to see who gets that housing. Xyven posted:Oh no not the market distortions those are just terrible
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Xyven posted:Oh no not the market distortions those are just terrible They actually are bad and make housing problems worse for the benefit of a relative few. In addition to rewarding seniority of tenure over actual need rather than, you know, the stated purpose of maintaining housing affordability, they push marginal housing units off the market because controlled rent or extremely slanted tenant rights makes banging the walls out and selling a luxury loft a much more attractive proposition, or because people don't want a permanent, virtually impossible to evict tenant living in their basement for a few hundred dollars a month. Then there is urban decay when building rents don't increase with the actual cost of goods and services required for upkeep. Then there are the perverse incentives to never move for any reason, even if you get a new job in a far away different part of town, your family situation changes, or even if you don't really live in your apartment most of the time, all of which create inefficiency and worsen housing shortages. BEHOLD: MY CAPE fucked around with this message at 06:50 on Feb 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:They actually are bad and make housing problems worse for the benefit of a relative few. In addition to rewarding seniority of tenure over actual need rather than, you know, the stated purpose of maintaining housing affordability, they push marginal housing units off the market because controlled rent or extremely slanted tenant rights makes banging the walls out and selling a luxury loft a much more attractive proposition, or because people don't want a permanent, virtually impossible to evict tenant living in their basement for a few hundred dollars a month. Then there is urban decay when building rents don't increase with the actual cost of goods and services required for upkeep. Then there are the perverse incentives to never move for any reason, even if you get a new job in a far away different part of town, your family situation changes, or even if you don't really live in your apartment most of the time, all of which create inefficiency and worsen housing shortages. The counter argument is probably London. No rent control, crazy prices to the point the govt has to pay part of peoples rent so people can actually live their. Basically you're just changing who gets the govt dollars.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
Cast_No_Shadow posted:The counter argument is probably London. No rent control, crazy prices to the point the govt has to pay part of peoples rent so people can actually live their. Basically you're just changing who gets the govt dollars. London isn't a counter argument though. Subsidizing rent has the same effect as rent control. Both policies raise demand while supply keeps constant. In the end the result is exactly the same which is exorbitant prices.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
lostleaf posted:London isn't a counter argument though. Subsidizing rent has the same effect as rent control. Both policies raise demand while supply keeps constant. In the end the result is exactly the same which is exorbitant prices. on the other hand rents are sticky so the moment those supports are gone you just screwed a ton of people in the name of market efficiency there's probably a good argument to be made that rent control favors people who are going to live there a while and contribute to the community, much like home ownership does
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 08:38
|
|
|
Of all the derails this is one of the better ones so I apologize for interjecting a little BWM into our D&D https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/46vhn9/married_to_disabled_wife_35_yrs_old_i_make_28k_a/ 35 years old and supporting a disabled wife on $28k/yr. Spends more than 15% of his take-home on cell phones, cable and internet. lovely situation but come on. He seems to be receptive to the advice of cutting those costs but I'm not sure how he couldn't come to that particularly conclusion himself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
Shipon posted:there's probably a good argument to be made that rent control favors people who are going to live there a while and contribute to the community, much like home ownership does What exactly does it mean to "contribute to the community", and how does rent control encourage that? Do places with higher rent control have a greater amount of civic engagement? Does rent control even increase average tenure? These and many other questions would need to be answered before a "good" argument could be made. Also, you'll most likely find that anybody who opposes rent control on economic grounds also opposes home ownership subsidies for the same reason. Economists of all stripes think the mortgage tax credit is kinda dumb and counterproductive. It costs the government a ton of money every year, with dubious benefits. Most subsidies are BWM for governments. I Like Jell-O fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Feb 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Barry posted:Of all the derails this is one of the better ones so I apologize for interjecting a little BWM into our D&D I'm a little surprised no one at least defended the internet and cable bills. His wife can't leave the house and throws up everywhere and now she has to lose her internet and cable? The phones can be ditched though. A housebound person doesn't need a smartphone and you can't really use them while teaching at school. For more lovely situations: https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/46zujs/parents_overusing_my_personal_finances/ Poor kid has been handing 100% of his paycheck to his parents for 2 years and they won't even let him buy new work pants and he sleeps on an air mattress. Now they want him to take out loans for them and charge $950 a month for his room/board. It's not even his parents, but his brother who became his legal guardian when he was five.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Manhattan is a weird place, with only the very rich and the very poor. The very rich can afford the rents/apartment prices. The very poor live in social housing, homeless shelters and the street. As well as poor elderly folk who got a rent controlled apartment in 1970 and never moved. You just don't find any schoolteachers, firefighters, police, receptionists, etc. It's a place without the middle. This creates some odd effects like a public school where almost everyone qualifies for free school meals on a street of millionaire's apartments (their kids go to private schools.) This is why it's important for the subway to have a flat rate. The poor and lower middle classes live a long way out of Manhattan, but often work there. If it was like London, you end up doubly punished for not being able to afford a home near your job by paying high prices just to get to work. Krispy Kareem posted:Poor kid has been handing 100% of his paycheck to his parents for 2 years and they won't even let him buy new work pants and he sleeps on an air mattress. Now they want him to take out loans for them and charge $950 a month for his room/board. It's not even his parents, but his brother who became his legal guardian when he was five. This is like a modern day Cinderella. BarbarianElephant fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Feb 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:I'm a little surprised no one at least defended the internet and cable bills. His wife can't leave the house and throws up everywhere and now she has to lose her internet and cable? The phones can be ditched though. A housebound person doesn't need a smartphone and you can't really use them while teaching at school. There's some discussion in the thread about that very thing. My opinion is whatever cheap internet they can get that allows for streaming of $8/month Netflix. Then get a library card to rent books and DVDs or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
The financially responsible thing there would be to watch the TV shows for free, using the internet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Barry posted:He seems to be receptive to the advice of cutting those costs but I'm not sure how he couldn't come to that particularly conclusion himself. It's pretty common for external advice to be more effective than internal. You see it in everything from diet advice from trainers to management consultants at companies. When I was consulting, much of my job was "say what everybody knows, just in a more compelling way". This is also why support groups are helpful; they help people cross from knowing what they should do to believing what they should do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
That kid's situation makes me sad  no one should keep kids around just because they get money from the state like his adoptive mother, and his adoptive father (in a separate household apparently) is just as bad for using him as indentured labor to live above their means.I need to update my thread, but I have a foster child the state is paying me to keep (but not for the first 45 days) and if anything I'm finding it motivating in helping me stay within budget. Every dollar less I spend going out to lunch is another dollar I can use to be more secure for her. I don't want her stipend to be a part of my budget because really anything could happen - she could run away, for an extreme example. And if the state went bankrupt tomorrow and I never received a check for her my first reaction would not be to make her get a job and sign over her checks jesus christ
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Mocking Bird posted:I have a foster child the state is paying me to keep You're a good person, and you should feel good about yourself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Mocking Bird posted:That kid's situation makes me sad I might end up hitting you up with some questions later on but just needed to say - you are a good person doing good work that many others wont.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:For more lovely situations: Ohh, this is upsetting me to a fairly intense degree. I really hope there's some legal recourse for that kid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 19:58
|
|
