NYC's future = disneyland for yuppies ?? (New York, York: income, live in, price)

[Materialism]

Originally Posted by bmwguydc

The upper middle class are merely affluent, not rich, and there is a huge difference between the two descriptors. And, I dismissed the average statistic as skewed data, not the median which is correct in the $60k region; and while many people hover around the median on the lower side of it, that's not akin to a living wage at all in Manhattan, hence that's why moderate income housing exists.

And, I've got some news for you, $150k does not go very far in Manhattan at all, that's middle class territory, not upper middle class/ average rich. Higher wage earners do not necessarily equal higher amounts of wealth and buying power, precisely because of the increased costs to maintain a standard of living in expensive areas, such as Manhattan. Furthermore, I don't think you understand the concept of the median income and its buying power, especially in light of the way you dismissed the Washington, DC region, that has the top three counties in terms of median income, and you did say that New York County had the highest, which is not correct. Many people in DC earn way over the upper middle class/ average rich threashold that you have described for Manhattan, but that money goes much further in that region, so locically they are an average rich population, but since they don't conspicuously consume and overextend, they are to be dismissed? New York has more luxury shops as it holds a unique position as a world leader for such goods, that's why more botiques are located in the city as a presence must be maintained, not exclusively for Manhattanites.

I don't know why you need to insult people, either, with the comment about an entry level three series, but since you have such a skewed view of public housing and public assistance, I guess it is a way to elevate oneself. My first BMW was a three series, an M3, but I was sixteen and that's the vehicle with which I had to live at the time, but it's just a car, not a measure of the worth of a person. I seriously could care less about what someone drives, wears, or where they shop, since I tend to have more of an egalitarian view on life, and know people of many incomes. But, my view arises when one has had to face critical, life-altering issues, that nothing so trivial as mere money could ever begin to change. There are people who have far less than I do, materially, for whom life is a joyous celebration; people who are happy to be alive ech day to celebrate milestones, large and small, with their friends and families, who are genuine, decent, hard working individuals who have incalculable reserves that do not begin to compare to money. If someone like that lives in public housing or moderate income housing and mixes with me in Manhattan, I am happy to have had the mere experience of being in their presence, to glimpse the absolute joy in their eyes, than to surround myself with the latest brigade of semi-affluent label chasers of whom I have grown tired. I agree that public housing is flawed, but demolishing it merely because one does not like the income level of those who live there, and who have lived and worked there long before such newcomeres have dropped themselves into Manhattan, is the height of arrogance.

I refuse to chip away at my Mac Book Air to type up a novel so I'm going to keep this short.

Highest-income counties in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice that New York County is the only city/urban county on that list of highest per capita income and it still manages to come in at second place behind the Bay Area's exclusive and suburban Marin County. Counties like Marin County and and Fairfax don't have public large groups of housing babies dragging the average down, thus keeping it exclusive and wealthy as Manhattan should be.

New York huge and has A LOT of poor people and A LOT of rich people. It's not as uniform and small as Washington DC.

Most millionaire households
1. New York City - 700,195
2. Los Angeles - 250,081
5.Washington DC - 71,744
- Kiplinger

City Number of Families earning $200,000 + Annually (Excluding suburbs)
1. New York City - 156,621
2. Los Angeles - 60,811
9. Washington, DC 20,518

City Number of Families earning $200,000 + Annually (Suburbs included)
1. New York + Suburb - 473,318
2. Los Angeles +Suburbs - 239,970
3. Washington DC + Suburbs - 202,546
-Census

Rank Metro Area GMP (Billions):
1) New York = $901.3
2) London = $723.4
3) Paris = $616.1
4) Los Angeles = $581.3
5) Chicago = $392.6
6) Washington DC - $276.2
The United States Conference of Mayors and The National Association of Counties, 2007; Standard & Poor's DRI

Washington wealthier than New York? Please.

[cjma79]

yes we are....hpd has lotteries for middle class.
Well that makes me happy... but still is a lottery..


others like who? rangel? lol.
Let say,, your mother have one,, then she leaves it for you... I think this should ilegal, but is my opinion... I think is good for the elderly especially since they(or at least most) have a fix income...
But for others like another poster that wants to take her mother apartment.


no buddy....if you're rich you're rich, and if you're poor you're poor.
So middle income is what???

all goes by income.
I make over 150K, with my wife we make over 200K,, I dont think we are rich... especially in NYC

why do think there's tax brackets?
I know why we have them...

the govt's not gonna say, "oh well this guy lives on the upper east side, but he only makes $100,000, so he's middle class there, so we'll tax him less...."
Nope.. but the government does say, oh he is poor let get him an apartment in one of the most expensive area in the USA.

where did u get that notion from?
????


yes you can....maybe not in certain areas....but on the island of manhattan its possible to find a 2 bedroom for 2000 if you look hard enough.
Well yes, in Harlem or others up north...


i already covered this above. goes strictly by income.
I know you did...



my original point was thats prime property in staten island. its close to the ferry with views of manhattan, so u think its fair that public housing's there?
No, I dont,, especially if the rent in the area is expensive... But there are other places(in SI) where rent are low...

especially since the area was a slum to begin with? its not anybody's fault that people never saw the value in NYC waterfront property until now. too bad for the developers.
That is right to bad for the developers.. but like you said time changes things



obviously it must be a big secret, but its actually pretty easy. on Tenant Net - Tenants and Renters Rights - New York City, you can print out a list of every rent stabilized building for whatever zipcode you put in.
Thanks,,, I really mean it, thanks...

next, you go to the building, ask the super if there are any apartments available. if there is, fill out the app. the LL can only raise the apartment rent 15%. you can go to the DHCR office and request the rent roll that tells you how much the person before you was paying. if the rent is too high, you say ok, sign the lease, take the LL to court, and get a rent abatement.
Great,,, thanks for the info...


look up


why cant we all just get along

[Materialism]

Originally Posted by Rudbeckia

I agree too, good post. I hope people with views like Materialism are few in numbers.

Probably the only reason I even post here is to balance out all the "anti-yuppie" anti-"rich" sentiment on this (and all New York forums)

Why is it OK to proclaim that the "RICH" have sterilized and ruined New York when in fact the explosion of yuppies is the reason why New York is extremely desirable again but it's such a crime talk down on the gutter-trash welfare set?

Manhattan's extremely high $1,700,000 average apartment selling price - Thank the yuppies

Brooklyn's $750,000+ average apartment selling price - Thank the yuppies

Gentrification/Cleaner streets/More beautiful landscaping- Thank the yuppies

More amenities - Thank the yuppies

Less crime- Thank the yuppies.

Yuppies increased the value of New York real-estate.

If you all desire downtrodden living conditions, move to Detroit. Don't blame yuppies for anything.

Originally Posted by bmwguydc

I don't know why you need to insult people, either, with the comment about an entry level three series, but since you have such a skewed view of public housing and public assistance, I guess it is a way to elevate oneself. My first BMW was a three series, an M3, but I was sixteen and that's the vehicle with which I had to live at the time, but it's just a car, not a measure of the worth of a person. I seriously could care less about what someone drives, wears, or where they shop, since I tend to have more of an egalitarian view on life, and know people of many incomes.

[bmwguydc]

Originally Posted by Materialism

I refuse to chip away at my Mac Book Air to type up a novel so I'm going to keep this short.

Highest-income counties in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice that New York County is the only city/urban county on that list of highest per capita income and it still manages to come in at second place behind the Bay Area's exclusive and suburban Marin County. Counties like Marin County and and Fairfax don't have public large groups of housing babies dragging the average down, thus keeping it exclusive and wealthy as Manhattan should be.

City Number of Families earning $200,000 + Annually (Excluding suburbs)
1. New York City - 156,621
2. Los Angeles - 60,811
9. Washington, DC 20,518

City Number of Families earning $200,000 + Annually (Suburbs included)
1. New York + Suburbs- 473,318
2. Los Angeles +Suburbs - 239,970
3. Washington DC + Suburbs 202,546
-Census

Most millionaire households
1. New York - 700,195
2. Los Angeles - 250,081
5.Washington DC - 71,744
- Kiplinger

Rank Metro Area GMP (Billions):
1) New York = $901.3
2) London = $723.4
3) Paris = $616.1
4) Los Angeles = $581.3
5) Chicago = $392.6
6) Washington DC - $276.2
The United States Conference of Mayors and The National Association of Counties, 2007; Standard & Poor's DRI

Washington wealthier than New York? Please.

Where did I ever say Washington was wealthier than New York? I said that the median income is higher in suburban Washington than New York, which is a fact, using county level data. And, at the median in Washington, unlike New York, there is sufficient buying power, such that there is not the same level of need for affordable housing, though it does exist. When you compare median income to median house price, that indicates the level of sustainability of the area.

New York is different in that it is a world destination city, and attracts much foreign investment, and has always had a higher proportion of the truly wealthy. The crux of your argument was regarding the "upper middle class/average rich" at over $150k in income, but that's not even the beginning of defining wealth in Manhattan. That's really a middle class figure, when factoring taxes, mortgage/rent, travel expenses, and basic shopping, and is not indicative of a population that runs to designer boutiques every ten minutes. I know people who travel to New York, just for the shopping, from domestic and international destinations, and they are not alone, as that is a huge market for boutiques in Manhattan. Manhattanite yuppies do not single-handedly support the designer boutiques.

And, while the number of millionaire households is the highest in New York, something that I was never arguing about in the first place since I have known that since childhood, the concentration of such is not as high as Honolulu, HI, Washington, DC metro, Beaufort, SC, Naples, FL, or Los Alamos, NM, which boast higher concentrations of millionaires by population. That is precisely because of smaller populations, but when one factors certain neighborhoods in New York, the concentration is much higher in those areas, which supports my position that Manhattan is not, and never has been, uniformly wealthy, since if it were such, where would one get domestic day workers and middle income earners to support the rest of the economy, since they cannot afford to commute long distances. And, raising their salaries would be out of the question as well, since that would tend to set inflationary labor costs, which again is not sustainable.

And, Washington at #3 with incomes in excess of $200k with a much smaller population that the New York and Los Angeles metros proves my point, since higher income Washingtonians have more buying power at that level than either New York or Los Angeles. Your inclusion of DC proper at #9 would be interesting, save for the fact that formerly exclusively suburban locales in Northern Virginia (primarily Fairfax & Loudoun), employ more people than downtown DC, and have for a few years now. The over $200k level in the DC Metro area is more able to finance the "upper middle class/average rich" lifestyle that you have described as being the focus of life in Manhattan, where you would need significantly more income to do such. Also, wealth in Washington tends to be quiet, something that used to be the same as Manhattan, but that has changed as of late.

I don't appreciate the violent means in which you have stated that the projects should be destroyed and people forced out of the city, since that's a sensitive issue to anyone who has even had a remote connection with the city in say the last seven years. It is one thing to say demolish or rid, and quite another to use graphic representations of destruction of large-scale buildings. And, the projects have been there since before I was born, too, and while I do not particularly care for the brutalist style in which they were constructed, I do not think that the people who live there have any less right to do so, provided they are doing so within the law. Not everyone who lives in a project is a parasite, after all.

Manhattan should not be turned into another wealth belt suburb, i.e, the disneyland for yuppies comment, since that's what Westchester, parts oif Long Island, and parts of New Jersey are for; rather, it is the center of one of the best cities in the world and should be reflective of that, not merely a homogenized clone based upon market research and studies.

I do now see why others have questioned your connection to the city at all in previous posts, since there's a disconnect that even many of the self absorbed that I know don't even display. By the way, I don't know if people have indicated this, but in New York, most people do not go around calling themselves yuppies, as it's considered more of a term of derision; and, to fit the definition, one needs to be a professional, i.e, working, to fit the definition, not a student. I vociferously object if the term is applied to me or anyone whom I know not to fit the negative stereotype, even if they happen to drive a BMW and go shopping at boutiques. I don't know if I am supposed to be impressed or not regarding the brand of your computer, since label-dropping has never impressed me (quite the opposite), but I do hope that it suits your needs.

[bmwguydc]

Originally Posted by Materialism

Probably the only reason I even post here is to balance out all the "anti-yuppie" anti-"rich" sentiment on this (and all New York forums)

Why is it OK to proclaim that the "RICH" have sterilized and ruined New York when in fact the explosion of yuppies is the reason why New York is extremely desirable again but it's such a crime talk down on the gutter-trash welfare set?

Manhattan's extremely high $1,700,000 average apartment selling price - Thank the yuppies

Brooklyn's $750,000+ average apartment selling price - Thank the yuppies

Gentrification/Cleaner streets/More beautiful landscaping- Thank the yuppies

More amenities - Thank the yuppies

Less crime- Thank the yuppies.

Yuppies increased the value of New York real-estate.

If you all desire downtrodden living conditions, move to Detroit. Don't blame yuppies for anything.

There is no new explosion of yuppies in New York, far from it. What is different is that people are now not leaving for the suburbs in droves, something that was bound to happen as the suburban locales have been developed for generations in New York, and people readjusted priorities to save huge commutes. There is an outward limit as to what one can tolerate in commute distance, so the trade-off for a smaller million dollar apartment as opposed to a house is reflective of more of the trend.

And, many of the initiatives that are claimed to have been started by yuppies were started by previous mayors and governors, who did much to upgrade the plight of New York that had declined in previous decades. And, while this trend has been very good in many sectors of the city, it has not been without its costs, marginalizing large numbers of people, and such plights must be weighed in order to provide for a better New York for all concerned. These arguments are nothing new, at all, since there have been such discussions for many previous generations as neighborhoods changed, though in this case it's a reversal of what one used to mean by "changing neighborhood."

I have not seen a prevailing sentiment that is anti-wealth on this board at all, quite the contrary as most people seem to have civilized, reasonable discussions as to different points of view about issues that affect all who call any part of New York home.

[bmwguydc]

One thing that struck me as to why some who are new to New York may not understand why it is not acceptable to derisively run down those of lower socioeconomic levels is that New York has typically embodied the best elements of the concept of noblesse oblige, and the city as a whole has benefited.

[cjma79]

Originally Posted by bmwguydc

One thing that struck me as to why some who are new to New York may not understand why it is not acceptable to derisively run down those of lower socioeconomic levels is that New York has typically embodied the best elements of the concept of noblesse oblige, and the city as a whole has benefited.

Is that to me or to Materialism?

[bmwguydc]

Originally Posted by cjma79

Is that to me or to Materialism?

No, not to you. And, not exclusively to Materialism, but some who fall into the same category as newcomers to the city who do not understand the roots of the city, that go back more than a year or three, and who do not engage in civil discourse is part and parcel of understanding the true New York.

[UpstaterInBklyn]

Congrats BMWguy on your intelligent and insightful posts!

And congrats to Materialism too - at least you are engaging in a level of intelligent and informed debate, rather than yammering on about your "luxury lifestyle" and berating others. I mean that seriously.

... and I agree with some of your points.

[Rudbeckia]

Originally Posted by Materialism

Probably the only reason I even post here is to balance out all the "anti-yuppie" anti-"rich" sentiment on this (and all New York forums)

Why is it OK to proclaim that the "RICH" have sterilized and ruined New York when in fact the explosion of yuppies is the reason why New York is extremely desirable again but it's such a crime talk down on the gutter-trash welfare set?

Manhattan's extremely high $1,700,000 average apartment selling price - Thank the yuppies

Brooklyn's $750,000+ average apartment selling price - Thank the yuppies

Gentrification/Cleaner streets/More beautiful landscaping- Thank the yuppies

More amenities - Thank the yuppies

Less crime- Thank the yuppies.

Yuppies increased the value of New York real-estate.

If you all desire downtrodden living conditions, move to Detroit. Don't blame yuppies for anything.

I have never said anything about being against rich people. I have no problem with people that have money. How much money you have is all relative and what you do with that money and how you think about it, is what is important.


I do have a problem with people that consider all poor people "gutter trash welfare".

It is pointless to argue with you I have decided. You dont give a **** how the other half lives, you have been spoiled, and your view of the world is totally skewed. You have never had to work for a living, so there are things you just dont understand and chose not to try and understand.