U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-21-2011, 06:44 AM
 
Location: Manhattan
20,233 posts, read 26,581,816 times
Reputation: 9063

Advertisements

Quote:
Rents are dirt cheap in Detroit. What's your point?

My point is that the original poster is absolutely correct...and Detroit proves his point. A job engine drives rents, especially in a country when so many areas are without prosperous job engines.

Corollary point is those those who take that logical fact and start yammering off topic about entitlements don't know how to generate a logical thread. I guess a rotten educational system is to blame for that.

Whether or not Wall Streeters are NICE, HONEST, UPSTANDING or CRIMINAL does not mitigate the fact that the high salaries, bonuses, and fraud on Wall Street are the prime generator of HIGH RENTS in Manhattan, and by extention to the rest of the Metropolitan area.

Exactly what the O/P said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-21-2011, 09:58 AM
 
3,333 posts, read 3,301,391 times
Reputation: 2834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kefir King View Post
My point is that the original poster is absolutely correct...and Detroit proves his point. A job engine drives rents, especially in a country when so many areas are without prosperous job engines.

Corollary point is those those who take that logical fact and start yammering off topic about entitlements don't know how to generate a logical thread. I guess a rotten educational system is to blame for that.

Whether or not Wall Streeters are NICE, HONEST, UPSTANDING or CRIMINAL does not mitigate the fact that the high salaries, bonuses, and fraud on Wall Street are the prime generator of HIGH RENTS in Manhattan, and by extention to the rest of the Metropolitan area.

Exactly what the O/P said.
There's no question that the finance industry is the main source of high rents in most of Manhattan. However, in the rest of NYC? hardly. The rest of NYC has very high rents and most of this is due to the welfare state which keeps the population up while supply is at a premium.

Are you going to argue that without he extensive welfare state, there would be a substantial amount of people who simply would be forced out of NYC and into cheaper COL areas?

There is a substantial enough part of this city who do nothing, literally, but suck off of the public teat.

I'm not anti- social programs but to deny that they contribute to the high COL in this city is disingenuous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2011, 06:55 AM
 
Location: Manhattan
20,233 posts, read 26,581,816 times
Reputation: 9063
Quote:
Originally Posted by wawaweewa View Post
There's no question that the finance industry is the main source of high rents in most of Manhattan. However, in the rest of NYC? hardly. The rest of NYC has very high rents and most of this is due to the welfare state which keeps the population up while supply is at a premium.

Are you going to argue that without he extensive welfare state, there would be a substantial amount of people who simply would be forced out of NYC and into cheaper COL areas?

There is a substantial enough part of this city who do nothing, literally, but suck off of the public teat.

I'm not anti- social programs but to deny that they contribute to the high COL in this city is disingenuous.
Wall Street's effect on Rent and Housing Prices extends FAR beyond Manhattan and into Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, SI, Connecticut, New Jersey, Westchester County and Long Island. I know because I lived in New Jersey and most of my neighbors worked in the Financial District. There is more to Wall Street than those getting million dollar bonuses. Wall Street even has back room operations FAR from the Madding Crowd.

As far as Welfare driving up the cost of living, positing that the POOR make a cosmopolitan City expensive seems quite bizarrre. Ask yourself what the scenario is for most cities attempting to get rid of their "welfave housing." You've seen it a million times...it's done with DYNAMITE and the backhanded nonsense about saving the poor from being "warehoused."
Can you possibly describe some mechanism by which dynamiting the poor out of town by blowing up all the NYCHA towers will raise the cost of living? I cannot. Do you think that blowing up all the Welfare Towers on First Avenueon the UES and tossing the residents into Rhode Island will cause RELATED COMPANIES to lower the rentals on their luxury towers on Third Avenue by a single dime? I don't.

It is not the poor who sustain an inflationary environment but rather those who are handed immense amounts of paper money to play with.


Do you think Flint Michigan with no jobs since the auto industry fled and an immense population exodus and all those remaining being put on the dole, has seen a big housing cost price spike?

Taking a huge step back. Do you think that giving lots of people free rice will raise or lower the market price of rice? The answer to that question will show you that the same pertains to housing.

Quote:
There is a substantial enough part of this city who do nothing, literally, but suck off of the public teat.
Do you think if all of them were giving good paying jobs, rents would go up or down? And that is the answer in a nutshell...it is ONLY a good strong job engine that drives rents.

Last edited by Kefir King; 10-22-2011 at 07:07 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2011, 07:45 AM
 
3,333 posts, read 3,301,391 times
Reputation: 2834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kefir King View Post
Wall Street's effect on Rent and Housing Prices extends FAR beyond Manhattan and into Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, SI, Connecticut, New Jersey, Westchester County and Long Island. I know because I lived in New Jersey and most of my neighbors worked in the Financial District. There is more to Wall Street than those getting million dollar bonuses. Wall Street even has back room operations FAR from the Madding Crowd.

As far as Welfare driving up the cost of living, positing that the POOR make a cosmopolitan City expensive seems quite bizarrre. Ask yourself what the scenario is for most cities attempting to get rid of their "welfave housing." You've seen it a million times...it's done with DYNAMITE and the backhanded nonsense about saving the poor from being "warehoused."
Can you possibly describe some mechanism by which dynamiting the poor out of town by blowing up all the NYCHA towers will raise the cost of living? I cannot. Do you think that blowing up all the Welfare Towers on First Avenueon the UES and tossing the residents into Rhode Island will cause RELATED COMPANIES to lower the rentals on their luxury towers on Third Avenue by a single dime? I don't.

It is not the poor who sustain an inflationary environment but rather those who are handed immense amounts of paper money to play with.


Do you think Flint Michigan with no jobs since the auto industry fled and an immense population exodus and all those remaining being put on the dole, has seen a big housing cost price spike?

Taking a huge step back. Do you think that giving lots of people free rice will raise or lower the market price of rice? The answer to that question will show you that the same pertains to housing.


Do you think if all of them were giving good paying jobs, rents would go up or down? And that is the answer in a nutshell...it is ONLY a good strong job engine that drives rents.
Your argument doesn't make much sense and you contradict yourself a few times in the above post.

You're correct in that many in the finance industry work in the mid or back office and do not make high six or seven figure salaries. Do you believe that many in finance who make below a quarter million (in many instances way below) drive rents/property prices across the NYC metro area?

There are close to 19 million in the NYC metro area. How many on Wall Street make high 6 or 7 figures? In fact how many in any profession make high 6 or7 figures across the metro area?

Juxtapose that with the amount of welfare/rent subsidized/ medicaid/section 8 recipients. I do not know the exact numbers but I assure you that they outnumber high earners across the NYC metro area.

Why do you think taxes are high across the NY metro area and specifically in NYC? If anything, because the metro area has a disproportionate amount of high earners per capita, taxes should be down as they contribute more than enough.

The disproportionate amount of high earners in the NYC metro area do drive up rents in certain locales but the welfare state which keeps the population (demand) up plays just as much of a role in other locales. Immigration also plays a part in keeping rents up due to demand.

Foisting this all on Wall St is asinine.

Quote:
Do you think if all of them were giving good paying jobs, rents would go up or down? And that is the answer in a nutshell...it is ONLY a good strong job engine that drives rents.
This is a straw man. If everyone had good paying jobs then "good" would become the median. You have to ask in the vent that the welfare state is whittled down, would there be more or less demand for the existing housing stock in NYC? The clear answer is less. A lot less. In turn, rents would either have to be priced lower or the excess supply be destroyed.

Last edited by wawaweewa; 10-22-2011 at 09:13 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2011, 09:25 AM
 
3,333 posts, read 3,301,391 times
Reputation: 2834
Quote:
Originally Posted by wawaweewa View Post
Your argument doesn't make much sense and you contradict yourself a few times in the above post.

You're correct in that many in the finance industry work in the mid or back office and do not make high six or seven figure salaries. Do you believe that many in finance who make below a quarter million (in many instances way below) drive rents/property prices across the NYC metro area?

There are close to 19 million in the NYC metro area. How many on Wall Street make high 6 or 7 figures? In fact how many in any profession make high 6 or7 figures across the metro area?

Juxtapose that with the amount of welfare/rent subsidized/ medicaid/section 8 recipients. I do not know the exact numbers but I assure you that they outnumber high earners across the NYC metro area.

Why do you think taxes are high across the NY metro area and specifically in NYC? If anything, because the metro area has a disproportionate amount of high earners per capita, taxes should be down as they contribute more than enough.

The disproportionate amount of high earners in the NYC metro area do drive up rents in certain locales but the welfare state which keeps the population (demand) up plays just as much of a role in other locales. Immigration also plays a part in keeping rents up due to demand.

Foisting this all on Wall St is asinine.



This is a straw man. If everyone had good paying jobs then "good" would become the median. You have to ask in the vent that the welfare state is whittled down, would there be more or less demand for the existing housing stock in NYC? The clear answer is less. A lot less. In turn, rents would either have to be priced lower or the excess supply be destroyed.


Quote:
Of the 2,144,452 occupied and vacant
rental units reported in the most recent HVS, more than a third (36.0%) were
unregulated, or “free market.” The majority were either pre-war (pre-47) rent
stabilized (33.5%) or post-war (post-46) rent stabilized (14.3%), and the rest
were rent controlled (1.9%) or part of various other
3
types of regulated
apartment programs (14.4%). (See pie chart on following page
http://www.housingnyc.com/downloads/...orts/10HSR.pdf (broken link)
The free market units compensate for the majority of non free market units.

Convert 85% of the housing stock into free market units and rents would fall.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2011, 09:30 AM
 
Location: Manhattan
20,233 posts, read 26,581,816 times
Reputation: 9063
But the SUBJECT is whether Wall Street drives rents and you are talking PAST the subject, avoiding the subject and distorting the subject.

The SUBJECT is not free market rent vs. controlled rent.

The SUBJECT is not how many wall streeters make a million plus but whether WALL STREET, taken as a whole, is the major cause of current high rents in New York City.

And of course the only sensible answer is a loud YES. Do a mind-experiment and move the entire financial industry from New York to Peoria and watch NYC rents collapse overnight...it does not take much imagination. And no, don't confuse the simple issue with detritus about rent-control, people making SMALL salaries on Wall Street, or the cost of tea in China.

Anyone who does not believe that the job engine in any town drives rents really has no business talking about economics.

(I am fond of taking a subject and sticking to it...somtimes it's hard on a forum where everyone wants to go off on tangeants. Like how every evil in the City is caused by controlled rents. )
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2011, 07:30 PM
 
Location: NY,NY
2,899 posts, read 8,335,216 times
Reputation: 2021
Quote:
Originally Posted by wawaweewa View Post
You're line of reasoning is correct but we're approaching it from different ends.

How I see it is that without government programs or with smaller ($ wise) government programs, the city's population would fall. Also, as you've pointed out, the welfare state is a big reason for the high cost of living as well as the high cost of doing business in this city. High rents ( and all prices in general) account for that high cost of business.

These housing programs keep the population at an artificially high number. Along with the intensive capital costs of constructing apartment buildings, we always have far more demand than supply.
By "programs", what do you mean?

Interesting perspective. So, w/o Section 8 and other rental assistance 'programs', you assert that these residents would likely leave the city. Thereby creating excess rental inventory, and consequently falling rates.

Hmmmm....

I imagine that it would indeed effect rents in the poor and marginally middle income areas where most such subsidized residents live.

Yet, for excess inventory at this market level to have effect upon the higher market levels, middle income residents would have to then find housing in these formerly subsidized areas attractive enough to move into that housing.

Is this likely?

Am I going to move from my middle income housing in Astoria, Forest Hills, Park Slope to move say to Jamaica, East New York or the South Bronx?

Lets take a look at history, NYC experienced 'de-population' beginning in the 50s and extending thru the 60s, 70s, 80s and into the 90s.

We all know how that worked out. East NY and the South Bronx devolved into a wastelands, as did other neighborhoods. Despite falling rents middle income residents did not move into these areas, but continued to abandon the city.

So, if subsidized residents were to leave as a result of the elimination of 'subsidies', a siimilarity might result. Rather than becoming attractive to middle incomers, these formerly subsidized neighborhoods may simple 'de-volve' as they have in the past, becoming wastelands.

Additionally, non-subsidized residents in these area who did not leave the city w/b compelled to seek housing elsewhere in the city, thereby increases demand for decent middle income housing, causing rising rents.

Excess inventory is the only real economic way to causing falling rents.

The true fear is that NYC continues to increase in population, as the Transplant mecca. Can sufficient increases in housing be built to meet increasing demand, as the transplants continue to come and come?

Oh, and there is the real probability, that with the elimination of subsidies, that the subsidized population does not leave. What then?

Again, history is the lesson. Multiple families sharing a single apartment. Families living in a single room. The city has seen this before.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2011, 07:45 PM
 
Location: NY,NY
2,899 posts, read 8,335,216 times
Reputation: 2021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kefir King View Post
Nevertheless,

NOBODY has shown a single reason why the original poster is not completely correct:
"Rent is too damn high because of Wall Street."
This is an absolute truism.

If Wall Street moved to Atlanta tomorrow rents in NYC would fall faster than a ball bearing tossed off the Empire State building.
I believe I have, but you appear to have a problem grasping the Economic concepts.

It is important to think with intelligenace and rationality and to forego the irrational and emotional.

If you would care to exponge upon us your great knowledge and intellligence by outlining your economic theory of how and why 'Wall Street's' absence would cause rents to fall, I for one w/b appreciative.

The OP is not correct and neither are you. Your thinking is absolutely indicative of government meddling in markets, populists pandering by politicians, AND a WHOLE naivete in regard to the laws of Unintended Consequences.

If 'Wall Street' were to leave NYC, the economic ramifications w/b horrific!

Regarding rents, as I have already stated, there w/b an excess in high end inventory, the high end market would suffer falling demand and falling prices, new building and renovation would cease.

Without the economic engine which Wall Street provides, many NYers and those in the tri-state will lose their employment. Specifically those in the middle and lower incomes.

Yes, rents would fall, but the overall effect w/b a similar de-vovlement as experienced in the 70s; or, for a more recent version look to Detroit!l that is what occurs when *industry* leaves.

This is what occurs when the STUPID are in charge, and when Politicians pander to the populism of idiots camped out in parks!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2011, 07:51 PM
 
Location: NY,NY
2,899 posts, read 8,335,216 times
Reputation: 2021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kefir King View Post
But the SUBJECT is whether Wall Street drives rents and you are talking PAST the subject, avoiding the subject and distorting the subject.

The SUBJECT is not free market rent vs. controlled rent.

The SUBJECT is not how many wall streeters make a million plus but whether WALL STREET, taken as a whole, is the major cause of current high rents in New York City.

And of course the only sensible answer is a loud YES. Do a mind-experiment and move the entire financial industry from New York to Peoria and watch NYC rents collapse overnight...it does not take much imagination. And no, don't confuse the simple issue with detritus about rent-control, people making SMALL salaries on Wall Street, or the cost of tea in China.

Anyone who does not believe that the job engine in any town drives rents really has no business talking about economics.

(I am fond of taking a subject and sticking to it...somtimes it's hard on a forum where everyone wants to go off on tangeants. Like how every evil in the City is caused by controlled rents. )
You really need to take an Economic course or something!

No one is denying the effect of a regions economic engine.

THE REASON rents are high is that the CREATION of Housing does not meet DEMAND.

Why is it so difficult for you to grasp that concept?

Virtually everywhere else in the country CREATION either meets or exceeds DEMAND!

Again, why is it so difficult for you to grasp this concept?

Why is it that in NYC and virtually nowhere else in this nation, DEMAND does not cause CREATION sufficient to meet or exceed Demand?

You've got the answers, WHY is that?

Or, are you still unable to grasp the concept?

Please prove to me that you are an intelligent being. Thank You.

If you ae going to discuss complex subjects, you are going to have to expand your mind to handle multiplicity.

If you are going to discuss 'rent' in NYC then you must be prepared to discuss regulation and its effect. You MUST be prepared to consider ALL market factors.

Though, I think you just want to whine irrationally....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2011, 08:10 PM
 
3,333 posts, read 3,301,391 times
Reputation: 2834
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcoltrane View Post
I believe I have, but you appear to have a problem grasping the Economic concepts.

It is important to think with intelligenace and rationality and to forego the irrational and emotional.

If you would care to exponge upon us your great knowledge and intellligence by outlining your economic theory of how and why 'Wall Street's' absence would cause rents to fall, I for one w/b appreciative.

The OP is not correct and neither are you. Your thinking is absolutely indicative of government meddling in markets, populists pandering by politicians, AND a WHOLE naivete in regard to the laws of Unintended Consequences.

If 'Wall Street' were to leave NYC, the economic ramifications w/b horrific!

Regarding rents, as I have already stated, there w/b an excess in high end inventory, the high end market would suffer falling demand and falling prices, new building and renovation would cease.

Without the economic engine which Wall Street provides, many NYers and those in the tri-state will lose their employment. Specifically those in the middle and lower incomes.

Yes, rents would fall, but the overall effect w/b a similar de-vovlement as experienced in the 70s; or, for a more recent version look to Detroit!l that is what occurs when *industry* leaves.

This is what occurs when the STUPID are in charge, and when Politicians pander to the populism of idiots camped out in parks!!!
Not exactly and I'll explain why.

While you are correct in your assessment of NY in the 50's or 80's, that paradigm cannot be used today. Pre 1990's, the NY metro region was not as dominant an economic force as it is today because America's GDP was still mostly manufacturing based. Thus, the rust belt and the sun belt were competitors to NY for residents of the middle class.

However, with the US economy being heavily consumption and services based today,the NY metro region is the dominant economic force from about the 95th parallel eastward. The NY metro region, in theory, should have very little competition for middle class residents. Yet it does because the cost of living is astronomical (particularly for the middle class). A substantial enough reason for the high cost of living in NYC are the various taxes and fees which are necessary in order to support the substantial welfare state.

For example. If the breadwinner of a 3/4 person family is offered a 50k job in Ohio or NYC, which would they choose? The answer is easy. It would be financially idiotic to choose the latter. This example manifests itself more frequently than people realize.

As a result, what we have now are either no wages, low wages, or upper middle class (or higher) wages. Middle class wages cannot compete in NYC. High wages are competitive for obvious reasons.No wages or Low wages (low wage employers) are competitive because the city subsidizes them. How? The various social welfare programs for the working poor and below.

If the welfare state was cut substantially along with taxes and fees, the large group of poor who would be forced out would be replaced by middle class earners taking (once again competitive) middle class jobs. NYC would actually benefit from it's dominant position as an economic powerhouse in the Eastern region of the US with few competitors. There would simply be too few places outside of NYC worthwhile for middle class earners to work in. Espacially with the growth of the NY metro mega region.

The voids left by the poor would quickly be filled by the middle class as the cost of living would substantially fall in NYC. This would not be a repeat of the 60's or 80's where the NYC market was not a jobs behemoth and had to compete with other regions of the US for middle class residents.

The welfare state not only benefits the poor but also the elite and the reasoning is very simple. The poor send all of their money to the wealthy. The welfare state extracts wealth from the middle and the wealthy and hands it to the poor. Soon after, the poor give it right back to the wealthy.
The poor and wealthy come away as net winners. The middle loses out. There's your reason for the elite being reluctant to tear down the welfare state in NYC. Even though, it would be a huge net boost to the NYC economy. It just wouldn't be a huge net boost for the wealthy.

The cost of living and the welfare state is a self feeding loop. Welfare state --> higher taxes ---> artificial demand --> cost of living increase --> expanding the welfare state to compensate for higher cost of living --> raise taxes/fees to fund the welfare state ---> more people are attracted to the free lunch/ cannot survive w/o it --> higher artificial demand ---> supply/demand imbalance becomes larger --> cost of living increases to compensate --> rinse and repeat.

Last edited by wawaweewa; 11-02-2011 at 08:27 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top