U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-07-2020, 12:36 PM
 
Location: Montreal
849 posts, read 318,982 times
Reputation: 826

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pierrepont7731 View Post
You could certainly do it with two kids. It becomes a bit more difficult with three though, even further out. I grew up with a kid that had a brother. He lived in a two bedroom apartment. Father was the super or something like that. Brothers shared one bedroom.

Fast forward to today... I knew a family on the Upper West Side. Husband and wife and two kids. Household income was maybe $250,000, which sounds like enough, but really isn't. Mother made $120,000 a year at a non-profit, and the father made a bit more, but the rent was north of $5,000 a month, so even with their salary, they sometimes didn't have the fridge stocked when you consider that they had to have money set aside to put two kids through college and their savings as well for retirement, healthcare costs, etc. I don't envy anyone with kids today. The cost of living has increased so much especially here in NYC that you'd need some sort of sweet deal on housing to make it work.

I'm pretty happy living in Canada. It makes all this talk of healthcare and education expenses kind of surreal.
Our taxes are pretty high, but all in all, the cost and quality of life in Quebec in particular is so much better.
Rate this post positively

 
Old 01-07-2020, 01:06 PM
 
4,229 posts, read 1,544,311 times
Reputation: 5342
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOORGONG View Post
You dispelled the possibility of dropping your phone and overreaching and falling on the tracks. You could easily have said that you never take the subway. The argument, invalid to you, is that one doesn't choose his /her savior, at a given moment.

As far as Bill Gates is concerned, you should develop a bit more, it is not clear what you are getting at. You suggest that a mother on welfare should not neave more than 20 million dollars to her offspring upon death?

See my previous post (I greatly expanded it while you were writing a new one :-). While it is true that you rarely get to choose your savior, welfare people are almost never saviors - nowadays you need to train a little more for that function. Typical saviors include rescue pilots and trauma surgeons, not welfare people.


With Bill Gates, I am getting at the fact that survival is competitive, much more so for the millenials than for the 3 generations before them (because there are way too many people on the planet), it is getting more expensive every day to secure a good life for self & family, and one needs to decide what kind of life one wants to give to their kids - you can just pop them out and throw them in the street if you think that is a good parenting, or you might think that your kids require a bit more for decent survival. Bill Gates obviously thinks that his kids will have to work in order to continue having a luxury lifestyle if he leaves them only $20M apiece (and I think he is right). From what I have seen when I was a small landlord in the Bronx, many very poor people think that they can have (and should have) a luxury housing for $900 a month (and I think that is unrealistic).


I think that the resources needed for a certain standard of living tend to be much higher than many lower-income people estimate. I do not think that $75k per 5-member family per year is anywhere near enough to live in NYC without pain (or without automatic expectation that the taxpayers will cover them, which expectation is disgusting to start with). Is that clear enough?

Last edited by elnrgby; 01-07-2020 at 01:41 PM..
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-07-2020, 01:24 PM
 
24,779 posts, read 17,322,826 times
Reputation: 18007
Quote:
Originally Posted by pierrepont7731 View Post
You could certainly do it with two kids. It becomes a bit more difficult with three though, even further out. I grew up with a kid that had a brother. He lived in a two bedroom apartment. Father was the super or something like that. Brothers shared one bedroom.

Fast forward to today... I knew a family on the Upper West Side. Husband and wife and two kids. Household income was maybe $250,000, which sounds like enough, but really isn't. Mother made $120,000 a year at a non-profit, and the father made a bit more, but the rent was north of $5,000 a month, so even with their salary, they sometimes didn't have the fridge stocked when you consider that they had to have money set aside to put two kids through college and their savings as well for retirement, healthcare costs, etc. I don't envy anyone with kids today. The cost of living has increased so much especially here in NYC that you'd need some sort of sweet deal on housing to make it work.
City needs to start focusing on the "90%" in terms of housing instead of constant worry over the broke and busted. Middle to low high income households are being raped by NYC and NYS in taxes to pay for "the poor", but they qualify for little to no "affordable" housing. Hence many are packing up and leaving for suburbs.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-07-2020, 01:39 PM
 
4,229 posts, read 1,544,311 times
Reputation: 5342
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOORGONG View Post
I'm pretty happy living in Canada. It makes all this talk of healthcare and education expenses kind of surreal.
Our taxes are pretty high, but all in all, the cost and quality of life in Quebec in particular is so much better.

You forgot the most important item: the total population of Canada (37.5 million) is nearly TEN TIMES smaller than the population of the US (about 330 million). The entire population of Canada is only four New York Cities.



The US is dragging a welfare population larger than the size of the entire population of Canada,. What do you imagine the quality of life in Canada would be if Canada had an equal absolute number of welfare recipients as the US (note: that would require pretty much every Canadian to be unemployed)?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-07-2020, 01:44 PM
 
Location: Montreal
849 posts, read 318,982 times
Reputation: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnrgby View Post
See my previous post (I greatly expanded it while you were writing a new one :-). While it is true that you rarely get to choose your savior, welfare people are almost never saviors - nowadays you need to train a little more for that function. Typical saviors include rescue pilots and trauma surgeons, not welfare people.


With Bill Gates, I am getting at the fact that survival is competitive, much more so for the millenials than for the 3 generations before them (because there are way too many people on the planet), it is getting more expensive every day to secure a good life for self & family, and one needs to decide what kind of life one wants to give to their kids - you can just pop them out and throw them in the street if you think that is a good parenting, or you might think that your kids require a bit more for decent survival. Bill Gates obviously thinks that his kids will have to work in order to continue having a luxury lifestyle if he leaves them only $20M apiece (and I think he is right). From what I have seen when I was a small landlord in the Bronx, many very poor people think that they can have (and should have) a luxury housing for $900 a month (and I think that is unrealistic).


I think that the resources needed for a certain standard of living tend to be much higher than many lower-income people estimate. I do not think that $75k per 5-member family per year is anywhere near enough to live in NYC without pain. Is that clear enough?


To your last paragraph, yes. Your answer satisfies me.



I do think that people like Gates, Buffett et al, have a better opportunity at steering us into a more sustainable future. On an individual basis, the millenials need to choose better solutions to survive and or thrive into that future also. The difference is in the kind of decisions powerful business people make versus the more anodine day-to-day drudge of your lower classes.

Business people who have had it very easy for the past 40 or so years through tax abatement, or deregulations of all kinds, of course do not feel the pain of competition. They are wallowing in wealth and any attempt to tell them how to think otherwise is met with lavish spending on superlative lobbying efforts to their political ends. I don't feel bad for their outcome.

What we need, collectively speaking is a conscience, a cooperative mentality that eschews this quasi-homogenous competitive spirit that signals only winner versus loser as a system of virtue.

The more we persist in this kind of thinking in social terms, the more destructive and violent our environment becomes. For the less fortunate, this relentless malaise promotes severe dysfunction, and leads to more waste of resources, and people. The future is not bright if this is allowed to continue.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-07-2020, 02:19 PM
 
4,229 posts, read 1,544,311 times
Reputation: 5342
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOORGONG View Post
To your last paragraph, yes. Your answer satisfies me.



I do think that people like Gates, Buffett et al, have a better opportunity at steering us into a more sustainable future. On an individual basis, the millenials need to choose better solutions to survive and or thrive into that future also. The difference is in the kind of decisions powerful business people make versus the more anodine day-to-day drudge of your lower classes.

Business people who have had it very easy for the past 40 or so years through tax abatement, or deregulations of all kinds, of course do not feel the pain of competition. They are wallowing in wealth and any attempt to tell them how to think otherwise is met with lavish spending on superlative lobbying efforts to their political ends. I don't feel bad for their outcome.

What we need, collectively speaking is a conscience, a cooperative mentality that eschews this quasi-homogenous competitive spirit that signals only winner versus loser as a system of virtue.

The more we persist in this kind of thinking in social terms, the more destructive and violent our environment becomes. For the less fortunate, this relentless malaise promotes severe dysfunction, and leads to more waste of resources, and people. The future is not bright if this is allowed to continue.

Our posts seem to be crossing in mail, so you never take into account my last post (that can be dangerous - have you read "Romeo and Juliet"?)...


Please refer to my last post, pointing out to you that the key to good life in Canada is a small population, most of which pays taxes. Unlike the massive population of the US, more than half of which doesn't pay taxes, and almost 20% of which lives on welfare.


The US population on welfare is 52.2 million. The entire population of Canada (most of which pays taxes) is 37.5 million.


If there weren't for the big business in the US that you are tearing down, the US would have the standard of living of Zimbabwe. SOMEBODY has to support 52+ million people who can't support themselves (but of course are vigorously pursuing their right to have 5 kids). That somebody in the US right now is big business (which does not like the situation, evidenced as the fact that most of the Gates Foundation massive money goes into promotion of contraception among the poor) and the middle class (which cannot afford the situation, has not been able to afford it for a long time).


The only solution is LESS WELFARE handouts to the massive welfare class in the US. That is the only measure that will lead to your lofty goals of social responsibility and cooperativenes. A welfare queen has 5 kids in order to maximize her welfare income, while taxpayers support that - and you call the "rich" taxpayers the cause of her poverty, due to their ("rich" folks') irresponsibility and uncooperativeness!!!!!!


Btw, rich people do not "wallow", they work. Otherwise they would not be rich very long. Business people do not feel the pain of competition? No, not at all, if they commit suicide when they can no longer stand the magnitude of that pain (which is not very rare). I have friends ("rich people") whose only child killed self after not being able to get into Harvard. "Rich people" do not manifest competition by going on welfare, but believe me that they feel it, they are the ones who bear the ultimate brunt of it (and of everything else).

Last edited by elnrgby; 01-07-2020 at 02:31 PM..
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-07-2020, 03:19 PM
 
Location: Montreal
849 posts, read 318,982 times
Reputation: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnrgby View Post
Our posts seem to be crossing in mail, so you never take into account my last post (that can be dangerous - have you read "Romeo and Juliet"?)...


Please refer to my last post, pointing out to you that the key to good life in Canada is a small population, most of which pays taxes. Unlike the massive population of the US, more than half of which doesn't pay taxes, and almost 20% of which lives on welfare.


The US population on welfare is 52.2 million. The entire population of Canada (most of which pays taxes) is 37.5 million.


If there weren't for the big business in the US that you are tearing down, the US would have the standard of living of Zimbabwe. SOMEBODY has to support 52+ million people who can't support themselves (but of course are vigorously pursuing their right to have 5 kids). That somebody in the US right now is big business (which does not like the situation, evidenced as the fact that most of the Gates Foundation massive money goes into promotion of contraception among the poor) and the middle class (which cannot afford the situation, has not been able to afford it for a long time).


The only solution is LESS WELFARE handouts to the massive welfare class in the US. That is the only measure that will lead to your lofty goals of social responsibility and cooperativenes. A welfare queen has 5 kids in order to maximize her welfare income, while taxpayers support that - and you call the "rich" taxpayers the cause of her poverty, due to their ("rich" folks') irresponsibility and uncooperativeness!!!!!!


Btw, rich people do not "wallow", they work. Otherwise they would not be rich very long. Business people do not feel the pain of competition? No, not at all, if they commit suicide when they can no longer stand the magnitude of that pain (which is not very rare). I have friends ("rich people") whose only child killed self after not being able to get into Harvard. "Rich people" do not manifest competition by going on welfare, but believe me that they feel it, they are the ones who bear the ultimate brunt of it (and of everything else).


You have a very caricatural interpretation of social classes. I don't get this "bot" reflex of bunching all of lower class individuals into "welfare queens with 5 worthless offspring". I don't expect you to come around to my point of view on that. I also don't think of Gates and Buffett as evil, but I am not insensitive to the fact that they also are coming to the conclusion taxes for the very wealthy are too low.

If welfare numbers are so high in the US, you can infer that a big part of the economy is based on these disparities, that they are part and parcel of the system mechanics, so to speak. No wonder Americans are appalled at the thought of more socialized medicine and educational attainment; they are averse to the redundancy they revile. They are driven further apart as classes, as time goes, and the by-product of that state of affairs is incredibly high disparities reflected in the rate of incarceration, violent crime, etc...

Your sad description of what happened to your friends' child is another illustration of what I meant when I wrote about the competitive-at-all-costs spirit that damages even well-meaning people.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-07-2020, 03:57 PM
 
Location: New York
3,570 posts, read 3,234,941 times
Reputation: 1319
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnrgby View Post
Sorry, I had a turbo-bad start in life, so that particular excuse does not work with me. And I know what a war is, so I don't mind that plane considering the position of the US in the global scheme of things. A $4-billion plane that keeps bombs from falling on the heads of 330,000,000 people is worth the cost of $12 per person. I'll contribute my $12 for that plane, no problem.
War is good for Lockhead Martin, Halliburton, Boeing, Raytheon. Support our Brave CEO! Rah.

You want to contribute that $12 to a plane that never will fly in the sky? Do you know how much money we spend on those? A lot.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-07-2020, 03:58 PM
 
4,229 posts, read 1,544,311 times
Reputation: 5342
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOORGONG View Post
You have a very caricatural interpretation of social classes. I don't get this "bot" reflex of bunching all of lower class individuals into "welfare queens with 5 worthless offspring". I don't expect you to come around to my point of view on that. I also don't think of Gates and Buffett as evil, but I am not insensitive to the fact that they also are coming to the conclusion taxes for the very wealthy are too low.

If welfare numbers are so high in the US, you can infer that a big part of the economy is based on these disparities, that they are part and parcel of the system mechanics, so to speak. No wonder Americans are appalled at the thought of more socialized medicine and educational attainment; they are averse to the redundancy they revile. They are driven further apart as classes, as time goes, and the by-product of that state of affairs is incredibly high disparities reflected in the rate of incarceration, violent crime, etc...

Your sad description of what happened to your friends' child is another illustration of what I meant when I wrote about the competitive-at-all-costs spirit that damages even well-meaning people.

B, my friend, I am somewhat educated with a couple of doctoral degrees, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what you are trying to say.



"If welfare numbers are so high in the US, you can infer that a big part of the economy is based on these disparities" --- how exactly do you infer that, what is the logic of the inference, and what do you mean by economy being based on welfare?



If you indeed mean to say that US economy created welfare class for its own purposes, I must point out that the US economy does not need welfare recipients, the US economy does not encourage anyone to have 5 kids if they are not able to provide for the kids. The US economy needs investors, workers, and buyers of products - and welfare recipients are none of these three, typically. Welfare recipients in the US are not created by economy. Professor Karl Marx, I have some news for you: not everything is created by economy, and for example, human beings (including those on welfare) are created by their parents.


If you mean to say that the US welfare class created the US economy, that is also not true, again because the welfare class has no means of interacting with the US economy by investing, working, or spending their earnings.


The US welfare class is outside the US economy. Its only interaction with US economy is extraction of tax money from the US economy, something that the US economy definitely does not like, want or encourage.


"Americans are averse to redundancy they revile"... B, are you okay? Seriously, WHAT in the world does that mean??? Incarceration is the result of reviling a redundancy to which Americans have an aversion? Do you mean to say that Americans revile redundant people in order to put redundant people in jails, because Americans have an aversion to redundancy? No, people in the US are not in jails because they were reviled, but because of a legal proof that they committed a crime (justice system in the US is not based on reviling anybody, not to my knowledge since the 1690s Salem witch trials).



It would be easier to debate with you if you could try to make sense...

Last edited by elnrgby; 01-07-2020 at 04:43 PM..
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-07-2020, 04:37 PM
 
4,229 posts, read 1,544,311 times
Reputation: 5342
Quote:
Originally Posted by roseba View Post
War is good for Lockhead Martin, Halliburton, Boeing, Raytheon. Support our Brave CEO! Rah.

You want to contribute that $12 to a plane that never will fly in the sky? Do you know how much money we spend on those? A lot.

War is not good for anybody. The current stockpile of weapons is created by the need to AVOID war. The US has to balance the enemy weapon arsenal, or it will be annihilated, and you along with it. Weapon industry is certainly profiting from that need (as any industry profits from some kind of need - people won't fund something that they don't need), but weapon industry has not created that need - it is the opposite, the need for strong defense has created the weapon industry. That need was created by modern geopolitical situation, and the modern geopolitical situation was created by tribal nature of primates, including humans.



The result of primate (including human) tribal behavior plus modern technology is that the US has to remain unassailable if it wants to remain alive at all. And that needs to be funded. And Lockhead Martin earns a lot of money for producing something that is indispensable to the taxpayers, which I consider to be more ethical than welfare queens extorting taxes from the taxpayers by producing nothing that is of use to taxpayers.
Rate this post positively
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.


Closed Thread



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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top