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.
The american conservative is neocon, invade the world invite the world trash heap. Milton Friedman would gladly ship 10k more jobs overseas if it meant the dow jones went up another 10 points. Excuse me if I dont give their opinion pieces much weight.
That's fine, but that doesn't make it wrong either, especially given the information in the first article I posted. I'm strictly thinking in terms of the information, not the people that give it.
To the other post, perhaps it could be a matter of housing being affordable during those times and if I'm not mistaken, there may have been military benefits that helped to play a part in that, given what you have mentioned in the past. So, that initial article may apply. Again, affordable still could mean working people that need housing at a different price point around/just below the median home price.
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 01-13-2023 at 12:25 PM..
My ancestors go back 3-4 generations in the United States, and not one of them, to the best of my knowledge, needed "affordable housing", in order to survive. They worked, and worked hard, to sustain themselves, on their own.
Do such apartments exist in abundance today (or at all)? If the answer is no, and the answer is no, it makes no sense to appeal to your ancestors' hard work. People who emigrate here today could work just as hard as your ancestors did, but there are no ~$1,000 a month apartments in the city for them to rent.
Do such apartments exist in abundance today (or at all)? If the answer is no, and the answer is no, it makes no sense to appeal to your ancestors' hard work. People who emigrate here today could work just as hard as your ancestors did, but there are no ~$1,000 a month apartments in the city for them to rent.
You don't have a clue do you? Not a single one.
Cannot believe you're making comparison between rents and household income > 50 years ago to today.
Median household income in 1940 was about $1,368 which breaks down to $26.36 *per week*. Household would be paying about two weeks wages directly towards rent each month at $50.
For your information decent housing was neither plentiful nor affordable in much of USA prior to WWII and decade or so after. That was one of the reasons federal and some state governments enacted rent control laws in wake of WWII.
Post WWII there still was a huge shortage of housing because of situation before war compounded by fact construction of homes or multi-family all but ceased during wartime.
Cannot believe you're making comparison between rents and household income > 50 years ago to today.
I take it you don't understand what an inflation adjustment is and why instead of saying there are no ~$50 a month apartments in the city today, I said there are no ~$1,000 a month apartments in the city today. Plus, as ~$1,000 was the inflation adjusted average, that meant there were also a decent number of apartments that rented for less than (the equivalent of) ~$1,000 a month (and of course a decent number that rented for more).
Also, your median household income figure is across the entire nation, whereas the ~$50 a month figure was just for NYC. But yes, please keep pretending that you have a clue. Even a single one.
I take it you don't understand what an inflation adjustment is and why instead of saying there are no ~$50 a month apartments in the city today, I said there are no ~$1,000 a month apartments in the city today. Plus, as ~$1,000 was the inflation adjusted average, that meant there were also a decent number of apartments that rented for less than (the equivalent of) ~$1,000 a month (and of course a decent number that rented for more).
Also, your median household income figure is across the entire nation, whereas the ~$50 a month figure was just for NYC. But yes, please keep pretending that you have a clue. Even a single one.
There are quite a few apartments in city that rent for $1k or less; you or I cannot get at them, neither can most of general public either. They range from rent stabilized or controlled units (often with tenants who have been there since God made dirt and spit), to pubic housing to various subsidized.
Even when or if such units hit market they wouldn't be first choice for many for various reasons.
There are quite a few apartments in city that rent for $1k or less; you or I cannot get at them, neither can most of general public either. They range from rent stabilized or controlled units (often with tenants who have been there since God made dirt and spit), to pubic housing to various subsidized.
Ok? Then my original point stands. The other person was arguing against scare quote "affordable housing" because Back In The Day, his hard-working ancestors didn't need it, therefore...people just need to work hard today and they can make it without "affordable housing" too
Except that argument is obviously flawed because Back In The Day, his ancestors could "get at" apartments in the city with an average monthly rent that is equivalent to ~$1,000 in today's inflation-adjusted dollars. And today, most of the generic public cannot "get at" such apartments. They could work just as hard as the other person's ancestors did, but there are effectively no ~$1,000 a month apartments in the city for them to "get at."
Taken by the government?? The proposal says nothing of the kind. It is expanding what is allowed within 1/2 mile of train stations, not taking people's homes away from them.
First the State eliminates local zoning. With that eliminated, what's not to say that private homes within the 1/2 mile radius of an MTA station won't be taken by way of eminent domain?
What is to stop Eminent Domain? Look at what NYS/SUNY did to Gyrodyne/Flowerfield.
If they take malls by ED, they lose the tax revenue so it will never be a win-win unless the mall is losing most of the tenants and therefore the tax benefits.
What makes United States great is people are free to live where they feel safe and people think like themselves. This goes for Asians, Jews, and other groups.
......Except that argument is obviously flawed because Back In The Day, his ancestors could "get at" apartments in the city with an average monthly rent that is equivalent to ~$1,000 in today's inflation-adjusted dollars. And today, most of the generic public cannot "get at" such apartments. They could work just as hard as the other person's ancestors did, but there are effectively no ~$1,000 a month apartments in the city for them to "get at."
I'll admit that while I live within NY, it's not the city, so I'm not 100% familiar with renting a house/apartment there. Consequently, I'll ask if, by law, there's a requirement that some percentage of landlords supply apartments that fall within some rental rate? Don't the theories of "free enterprise", as well as "supply and demand" come into play?
Furthermore, if potential employees can't find suitable housing within a reasonable distance of work, how will businesses operate, and NYC survive? Better yet, why has the problem become such an issue, at this point in time?
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.
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.
