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.
absolutely.
Learn from mistakes of the past for history tends to repeat.
Deal with the present by working, to provide food ,shelter and clothing.
If plans fail leave and start else where.
Who, the people priced out of NYC, there are a lot of places. The entire midwest, the south. even upstate.
Actually NYC would be much better off if the city government took the attitude that it was not going to attempt facilitate having people living in NYC who could not afford to do so on their own without implicit or explicit subsidies. Get rid of rent regulation, sell off the projects, and let the chips fall where they may. The poor would be forced out, and would be replaced by more middle class, starting at the upper middle class and working down.
Detroit is a huge city with now a vast amount of fallow land. If it ever got desirable again, there's a lot of land for developers to work with to meet supply. The same cannot be said for NYC.
Working class people just move further out to the outer boroughs or certain suburbs.
Much of the city is NOT that expensive unless you're literally making the minimum wage or close to it, but you're not going to do well on the minimum wage anywhere in the country. Many of the people who do those jobs in much of the nation are entry level workers who ideally work their way up to something better. Like a lot of people as college students have worked in food service or bars. Of course young people are often staying at home with parents, have financial support with parents, or staying with roommates.
The other thing is much of the metro area is not that expensive. People on this forum think it's their god given right to live in the "cool" areas and weep and wail that they can't live in Williamsburg or Soho and hang out at the coolest lounges.
If you can't even get ordinary people to stop banking at Chase and Citibank, to instead switch to a credit union; if you can't get ordinary people to spend less time on online games and cat videos, to instead read serious newspapers; if you can't get ordinary people to stop buying coffee at Starbucks, to instead support local indie coffee shops; if you can't get a higher degree of voting - then how do you imagine you could trigger a massive popular upheaval?
make voting an event. Everyone likes to be part of an event. If social media hypes voting people will do it.They will tweet when they are voting, they will take a selfie as they vote and upload it for everyone to see.
make voting an event. Everyone likes to be part of an event. If social media hypes voting people will do it.They will tweet when they are voting, they will take a selfie as they vote and upload it for everyone to see.
Well that's what the Rock the Vote movement taps into and has been highly successful at. Not sure how active they are in the midterms but I know they'll be out in force for 2020.
Who, the people priced out of NYC, there are a lot of places. The entire midwest, the south. even upstate.
Actually NYC would be much better off if the city government took the attitude that it was not going to attempt facilitate having people living in NYC who could not afford to do so on their own without implicit or explicit subsidies. Get rid of rent regulation, sell off the projects, and let the chips fall where they may. The poor would be forced out, and would be replaced by more middle class, starting at the upper middle class and working down.
Detroit is a huge city with now a vast amount of fallow land. If it ever got desirable again, there's a lot of land for developers to work with to meet supply. The same cannot be said for NYC.
New York City is not going to get rid of it's projects. There's a lot of money in that type of housing arrangement. New York City can afford to maintain that arrangement where other cities cannot. If the money was right New York would have torn does those projects 20 years ago when everyone else did.
I can understand where people want New York to be a middle class to upper class city but it is never going to happen. There will always be poor people in the city. Why would New York be different than any other city in that respect. Poor people will just move further out.
People are willing to go without stoves, washing machines, dryers, and closets to live in New York. They're willing to endure poor living conditions and take on several roommates and sleep on the floor and their bathtub to live there. People have lived out of hostels and who knows what; I don't even like to think about it. Nothing is going to change.
New York City is not going to get rid of it's projects. There's a lot of money in that type of housing arrangement. New York City can afford to maintain that arrangement where other cities cannot. If the money was right New York would have torn does those projects 20 years ago when everyone else did.
I can understand where people want New York to be a middle class to upper class city but it is never going to happen. There will always be poor people in the city. Why would New York be different than any other city in that respect. Poor people will just move further out.
People are willing to go without stoves, washing machines, dryers, and closets to live in New York. They're willing to endure poor living conditions and take on several roommates and sleep on the floor and their bathtub to live there. People have lived out of hostels and who knows what; I don't even like to think about it. Nothing is going to change.
Poor immigrants have long lived 17 people to a two bedroom apartment or 50 people to a house. Recent transplants and working class poor have always done the roommate thing. Or people leave with members of the extended family. Lots of ways to do this.
I feel bad the OP gets a ton of pushback on this one.
He isn't asking for a crime ridden city or the slums of Detroit- simply one in which a standard salary has some level of affordability.
NYC/NYS would have to establish these factors-
1. End Rent Control & Public Housing
2. Demand Average Hourly Wages be Tied to 30% of Market Rent on a 1BR apartment.
-That means 48 Hours of Work a Month should cover your rent (anything over 30% of income is rent burdened)
Example avg. 1BR citywide is $1900 which translates to $39.58 hourly.
This is regulated by a tax pot similar to Section 8 which subsidizes those making under $39.58 hourly.
(All users of the system must work to be eligible.)
Each employer who pays less than this hourly rate is taxed at $1 per labor hour.
Each Landlord who sets rent above the avg. price is ineligible to receive a tenant who is receiving the tax subsidy.
Encouragement is set to build and price apartments at either luxury rate or target the market average.
From just typing this situation it's a grim reminder of how out of touch the concept of 'rent burdened' really is and how harshly that strikes major cities. The salary required seems someone unattainable. I begin to believe a better solution would be more housing constructed by government or non-profit organizations, with politicians being held to zero private for-profit development until a target is met.
These are all good ideas, but isn't some of the problem related to the finacialization of the economy itself where rentiers are allowed to flourish on the backs of productivity? See article for context. The Real
What if people with ordinary income could take back New York City?
It is tough to envision a massive socioeconomic upheaval but how could it be done?
Ordinary families can take NYC back by pooling their money and buying. Families should pool their money and buy a nice property. Solo individuals have a tougher time unless they make a very high salary. Although, they are some nice coop/condos in the Bronx that are as low as 40K to 120K.
I will end my renting days in 2020 and buy a nice condo in NJ. Sorry NYC you are too expensive.
What if people with ordinary income could take back New York City?
It is tough to envision a massive socioeconomic upheaval but how could it be done?
Wouldn't be a city anymore, it'll become like the suburbs. Why would ordinary income NYers want to live in a crampy expensive town. The price of living space here is due to supply and demand. If ordinary income people would be given affordable homes in place of rich people the city would lose it's status and rich people would be gone.
This city exist because there are enough wealth to keep the lights running including providing social services to the poor. What's a democratic city without homeless and dependents of social services.
In the history of man, fiefdoms always existed where the middle class are doing all the work and the rich collected money from them and fed the poor whatever scraps they have in order to keep the people under control.
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.
