Why Manhattan? Not NJ?

[jcoltrane]

Originally Posted by gradstudent77

jcoltrane, you work in the legal field, right? Surely, you understand that you are throwing those "most's" around loosely. The per capita income of residents of manhattan was $42,900, according to the 2000 US Census. This is certainly high for an urban and is astonishing considering the fact that twenty percent of the population lives below the poverty line. There are a lot of people in NYCHA, in rent-stabilized housing throughout the borough, living in shelters, and living four to a bedroom in some small, scummy apartment. Sometimes it feels like manhattan north of 125th, or whereever one wants to draw the line, is more forgotten than even NJ.

As for the folks of lesser income, I'd just like to make the point that I've met plenty of young women (I was a single guy in his early 20's when I still lived up there) who are living tourists in manhattan. They don't really aspire to be much more than "hot" the next time they are going out. It's sort of a silly point, given how many early-twenties' somethings are killing themselves in the firms all over the island (or, better yet, starting their own firms!), but something about it struck me as too ideal for what I've seen out there.

Yes. I am throwing "most" around loosely, but relatively accurately. I'm generally trying to make a point, by over emphasizing, as many of the notions of non-NYers are so under-emphasized.

Your figure regarding the per capita income may technically be correct; though in it you make my point. NY is NOT a city of people earning less than $50K. I think anyone just somewhat knowing would agree. The reality of the per capita income is quite different than the statistic suggests.

It's more a matter of which Manhattan are you considering? The people coming to this forum are, incredibly, seeking the Manhattan they see on TV. They also seek the life they see on TV, said life is not that of the per capita income of $42,900, as you state it. Certainly, you must agree.

So, just from that point, there's little purpose in discussing Manhattan/NYC from that point of view. The TV Manhattan, and more adroitly, the Manhattan that matters begins below 96th Street (and not to long ago it began at 86th Street). Everything that drives this city is below 96th.

How many of those per capita income people do you think you find living BELOW 96th Street? Outside of the Housing Projects or subsidized housing, virtually zero (not including those in ridiculous roommates situations). This is reality. The people you mention simply don't matter. Harsh, maybe unfeeling----its the truth.

Sometimes it feels like manhattan north of 125th, or whereever one wants to draw the line, is more forgotten than even NJ.

...and that's the way it is....

Why whine about it? More to the point, nobody comes to NY to live in those places, nor to live the life of those places----it isn't the stuff dreams are made of!

Now, I don't have the stat, but just think what the per capita income is of those living below 96th Street and not including

in NYCHA, in rent-stabilized housing throughout the borough, living in shelters, and living four to a bedroom in some small, scummy apartment.

In Manhattan the above folk are not even in the majority. This fact makes the boldest statement regarding Manhattan of all. This is a place where the non-rich people are in the minority! No place like it in the world.

One may not welcome such a reality, but it is this enormous core of the rich, which defines and drives this city. Anyone moving here really needs to comprehend this reality.

They don't really aspire to be much more than "hot" the next time they are going out.

You haven't really gotten it.

If they're not some artsy/actress type seeking fame and fortune, then they're the other type, if not fame, then fortune----the kind you marry. You'd be astonished, the number who come here looking to find and marry, their "MR. BIG". Besides, reading a woman's mind is an art, most men never master.

The TV show, "Sex N the City", derived from the life of true NYer, espounds my point precisely. Virtually every women appearing on that show was looking for their version of prince charming to marry. The lone exception was the horny blond (name escapes me). Of course, that just a TV show, but it does mirror NY life quite effectively. Moreover, the TV show is one of the main impetus driving a whole generation to "move to NY"; or, at least desire to.

Another show, Entourage, does the same thing for LA, the life portrayed is just a small segment of LA life, but is that lifestyle which drives and defines LA of today. People moving there are going, in hopes, of achieving that life. Nobody is going to LA in order to live in The Valley, or Compton, or (sorry to be frank) among the Mexicans. Nope, they're seeking fame and fortune, to live in 'the hills', or at the beach; and the folks already living 'the life' like those portrayed in 'Housewives of OC', have a per capita far exceeding what the regional stat may happen to be. Should the income of every illegal, also be counted? It's just reality. Nobody cares about the rest---they don't matter.

Again harsh and seemingly unfeeling, but let's be real.

I stand by my assertion.

Besides, hyperbole is a ready tool of the legal profession!


------


THANK YOU trustfundhipster!!! I was too lazy to check his stat. Though, I wouldn't be surprised that his stat considered the entirety of New York City including the Boroughs.

@gradstudent77

taking your stat to include the entirety of NYC, trustfundhipster's stat considers ONLY Manhattan, note how significant the jump, when not including the Boroughs. Makes my point, if my view of your stat is so.

If there's a stat junkie in the forum, it'd be great to know the per capita of Manhattan, not including those living in housing projects or subsidized housing; and/or those living below 96th Street.

In any case, trustfund's stat would jump by a multiple of 3 or 4, maybe 5. Lop off Harlem (quite of number of rich blacks I'm giving up), and everything above; and, put the Projects to the side.

Lastly, regarding my profession, how many of those per capita people you think make it past the receptionist---only the pro bono. Crap, I think even the cleaning people make more!!! Which brings me to an additional point. Manhattan, for some, is fast becoming like other U.S. cities/metro areas, a place where one can work and live without encountering poor people. Which IMVUHO, is our dear Mayor's specific aim.

[jcoltrane]

Originally Posted by SilkCity0416

^^^ Not all of NJ, is just a suburb of these two cities.

The way I see it: living in NJ is an acutal plus, than living in Manhattan at times.

Think about it: You live in a nice, quiet town, hardly any crime at all, good schools, you have almost instant access to the Shore, the Mountains, historic sights, etc, and you're just a stone throw away from New York City - one of the most exciting place on Earth. Sounds like a steal.

Your looking at things in a basic, perhaps pedestrian manner, as if those things aren't available.

Most Manhattanites would consider "the shore" slumming! It's the Hamptons or virtually NOTHING! Going to the Mountains would mean the Adirondacks, Vermont, New Hampshire, in winter Stowe or Aspen.

There's a quality level and downright pretense to Manhattan life. Going to the places you suggest makes one statement, going to the places I listed makes another.

"...nice quite town....etc" Those things are only a factor if your stuck in middle class world. Manhattanites, for the most part are not.

The people who "flock" to NJ aren't Manhattanites. Have you seen Housewives of NJ? Shore people! Theres a difference---a BIG difference.

Much of the shore, certainly that closest to NY, is rundown. Cape May is about as far as you can get. Manhattanites don't go to Cape May.

The people who "flock" do.

[tommyc_37]

Originally Posted by jcoltrane

Your looking at things in a basic, perhaps pedestrian manner, as if those things aren't available.

Most Manhattanites would consider "the shore" slumming! It's the Hamptons or virtually NOTHING! Going to the Mountains would mean the Adirondacks, Vermont, New Hampshire, in winter Stowe or Aspen.

There's a quality level and downright pretense to Manhattan life. Going to the places you suggest makes one statement, going to the places I listed makes another.

"...nice quite town....etc" Those things are only a factor if your stuck in middle class world. Manhattanites, for the most part are not.

The people who "flock" to NJ aren't Manhattanites. Have you seen Housewives of NJ? Shore people! Theres a difference---a BIG difference.

Much of the shore, certainly that closest to NY, is rundown. Cape May is about as far as you can get. Manhattanites don't go to Cape May.

The people who "flock" do.

Mod cut: not necessary, thanks.
Many are actually quite open to the idea of exploring NJ, and they admit it if/when they don't know much about NJ.

By the way, if you've been to some of the upper echelon NJ Shore towns ... you (or any Manhattanite) wouldn't be calling it "slumming it" ... yes, even when compared to the Hamptons.

[Viralmd]

Now that this thread has hit a new low, it's time to lock it.