Lion of the Blogosphere

Social class of the guy riding the bicycle in the previous post

Some commenters suggested that he might be prole, but that’s highly unlikely because proles don’t ride bicycles, and the only proles living on the Upper West Side work there as supers (not counting the underclass who live in housing projects as proles).

However, it’s possible that he’s a middle-class guy like a schoolteacher. Back in the 1970s, coops on the Upper West Side were completely affordable for schoolteachers and other civil servants. It wasn’t the super-expensive place that it is today. This is one of the points of Charles Murray’s book, Coming Apart. The cost of living in a good neighborhood used to be affordable to people with regular middle class jobs.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

April 30, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Posted in Bobos, Proles

59 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Our house is worth about a dozen times my annual earnings so we could never afford it today. When we sell it’ll go either to someone who earns much more than I do, or to someone who’s inherited lots of money.

    dearieme

    April 30, 2013 at 12:11 PM

    • Holy cow, how do you afford the property taxes?

      Fiddlesticks

      April 30, 2013 at 12:30 PM

      • If it’s california, the law prevents the taxes from rising too fast.

        Half Canadian

        May 1, 2013 at 12:05 PM

  2. Proles do ride bicycles… after they’ve been convicted of DUI and had their license suspended. I can’t tell from the photo if that mountain bike is an elite Bobo mountain bike or if it’s the kind they sell at WalMart.

    Aleph One

    April 30, 2013 at 12:31 PM

    • Only middle-class types stop driving if their licenses are suspended for DUI. Proles keep driving under suspension.

      Peter

      April 30, 2013 at 4:16 PM

    • Or if they’re illegal aliens living in a state with REAL IDs.

      Dave Pinsen

      April 30, 2013 at 7:05 PM

  3. “The cost of living in a good neighborhood used to be affordable to people with regular middle class jobs.”

    You can say that again.

    As someone who wants to move back to NYC some day but has come to the realization that it will probably never happen, NYC’s leap from affordable to ridiculous has been depressing indeed. Even around the turn of the millennium, you could get a 2BR in the UWS near that photo for under half a million dollars. That figure looked pretty daunting for a fresh-out-of-school employee making $30k, but with hard work and frugal living it would eventually be reachable… or so we thought; in fact, prices have soared so far ahead of incomes that an entire generation has been priced out of whole neighborhoods.

    Now I’m looking at places like Morningside Heights and Washington Heights to come back to — but I’d really like to avoid being so far uptown, because (SWPL/bobo that I am) I want to ride that bike path down the river to work. Every block we non-elites get shoved northward is another 20 seconds of commuting!

    Kyo

    April 30, 2013 at 12:42 PM

    • Morningside Heights – SWPL neighborhood and is ridiculously expensive and unaffordable – It’s Columbia University territory.

      Washington Heights – Non-Asian minority ghetto with a long debilitating commute – Poor air quality with a lot of noise and rowdy Blacks and Hispanics to cheer you up.

      Take your poison. One’s better than the other, but they will both kill you at the end for an non-elitist making less than 100K. One sucks your wallet and the other takes your life.

      Just Speculating

      April 30, 2013 at 2:56 PM

      • Morningside Heights is not that desirable or expensive (relative to more southern neighborhoods) despite the proximity to Columbia.

        Washington Heights, the area called “Hudson Heights” is nice and in fact is the most affordable nice neighborhood in Manhattan, but that comes at the price of being geographically distant from the real Manhattan. The rest of Washington Heights is heavily Hispanic, with higher crime and a lot of cars with huge speakers blasting loud Latino music.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        April 30, 2013 at 3:05 PM

      • Solo 1BR in Morningside Heights runs you about $3K and up. Or you can go the roomie mate route sharing multiple BR apts for a lower price and sacrifice your quality of life further down.

        Washington Heights is not worth the price tag in any measure. Long commute and for the most part, Latinos and even Blacks who will give you a bad day. I would rather live in a prole neighborhood in Queens or Brooklyn instead.

        Just Speculating

        April 30, 2013 at 3:15 PM

      • @Just Speculating, you can buy a 1BR in Morningside Heights in the $200-300k range and can get up to about 800 square feet in that range in Washington/Hudson Heights.

        I found western WH to be very different from the eastern half; go out to Cabrini Boulevard and enjoy the quiet. Was very surprised at how pleasant it seemed and how affordable it was.

        For example, priced at $269k and in a nice-ish area:

        http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/663396-coop-120-bennett-avenue-hudson-heights-new-york

        And that one’s been on the market for over a year and will probably drop by a lot more before being sold. The average household income in WH/HH, incidentally, is around $60k, which is solidly middle-class for NYC.

        Go all the way to Inwood — an amazingly quiet neighborhood — and you’ll get even more space. All of these things are reachable for the typical middle-class office worker making $50-60k. The train southward to work will be longer than you’d like, but it’s still closer than New Jersey or Long Island. If I were moving back to NYC, looking to buy an apartment for myself and my wife to live in, and making ~60k, that’s the kind of neighborhood I’d be aiming for. Any closer and you bust your budget; any further out and the commute becomes miserable.

        Kyo

        May 1, 2013 at 4:01 AM

      • The price for that $269K co-op is so low because it’s on the first floor. Nevertheless, yes, Hudson Heights is a good value, and your next to a nice park, but it’s a long train ride to midtown.

      • Hudson Heights is indeed the nicest area of WH, but the commute is awfully long to Manhattan proper, not to mention seeing a lot of undesirables from the southern area of WH, as you ride the subway downtown or going home.

        I don’t follow real estate values that much, but to say Morningside Heights is reasonably cheap and the apartments start at $200K is unbelievable, that is for a White neighborhood in close proximity to Columbia University. With those prices, supply would not be able to keep up with demand, as all SWPL infected neighborhoods are at their all time high.

        Just Speculating

        May 1, 2013 at 11:25 AM

      • Morningside Heights is more expensive than Hudson Heights because of the proximity to midtown. However, Morningside Heights is near Harlem and has housing projects and low-income types living there. It’s in the process of gentrification. But it’s less expensive than any areas further south.

      • Remind me why people without jobs need to live in Manhattan.

        not too late

        May 1, 2013 at 1:15 PM

    • It’s possible that NYC could become affordable again in the future. It’s at some risk of a “Minsky Moment” now. Crime has been so low for so long now, that that there are lefty New Yorkers who have no memory of the bad old days. These same lefties are agitating to get the NYPD to scrap stop & frisk. Bloomberg has resisted, because, although he’s a lefty, he’s an authoritarian, and he remembers the bad old days.

      But that’s the risk now: lefties, lulled into a sense of security by the city’s current low crime, but ignorant of what has kept crime low, bring back a new era of high crime. New York goes back to being dirty and dangerous like it was in the 1970s, and property values drop again.

      Dave Pinsen

      April 30, 2013 at 10:24 PM

      • Bloomberg will be gone in a few months. My prediction is that the next mayor will not be effective. Any lefty mayor will come into the office and run the city to its knees with more welfare policies. A republican mayor will fragment the city further to class and racial strife, as the rich will continue to displace the middle class, this time with the outer boroughs, and cut welfare services to annoy Blacks and Hispanics. It’s not looking good with the next lineup of circus clowns!

        Just Speculating

        May 1, 2013 at 11:38 AM

    • The only thing stopping you from living where you wish is the idea that you must own the property. This is a compulsion in Americans that is presently making an untold number miserable. The compulsion is easy to witness everywhere in the USA, but also in third world shit-holes that many Americans apparently can’t enjoy without owning a piece of at outrageous non-local pricing.

      Absent wild real estate bubbles, that math on owning property tends to only work out after 30 years and a myriad of ownership burdens and sacrifices that include not being able to move at will. Even then, the profit is marginal considering the time and sacrifice it took to accomplish. Do the math and only increase the property value by the rate of inflation. The only reason to own property is as a financial investment, and it’s a poor one at that for all except professionals.

      It’s rare today that a middle class person or family is well served career-wise by anchoring themselves to a specific neighborhood, let alone city. I don’t know who you are or what you do, but from the sound of it you’re somewhere in the middle class. I know that NYC apartment living is a unique beast, but I wouldn’t bet money on the spreadsheet working out overwhelmingly in favor of ownership over rental especially if you were to put the mortgage-rent difference in a stock index each month.

      I would disabuse yourself of the romanticism and easily replaceable satisfaction that is derived from apartment ownership, in favor of lower monthly housing costs, almost instant relocation flexibility, the ability to live in a nicer place for your money (the UWS), and less overall stress. Save your nest egg for a nice retirement village for when you’re about 75 years old and enjoy life until then. You aren’t taking the apartment with you, in any case, and most people just use their property sale proceeds (for a home that took them 30 years to own) to pay for old age retirement housing anyway.

      If you were to believe that the dollar was going to massively inflate, a fully mortgaged piece of property could be a good investment regardless of the cost. However, that would be a high risk speculation. Most professionals don’t know the future of the dollar at this point in history, and the currency can be made to do whatever the central planners wish it to do in the long run. Such absolute control makes speculative investment in the direction of the dollar (ie: property investment) inherently bad because it is completely unpredictable.

      Tom

      May 3, 2013 at 1:47 PM

  4. He looks like a leathery ex-hippie intent on keeping up his wiry sinews.

    islandmommy

    April 30, 2013 at 12:43 PM

  5. Yes, he could be a middle class guy living in one of those rent stabilized coops on the Upper West Side. Basically a holdover resident from the good old days who will die off without leaving it to his heirs, if he has any. The coops are likely to charge market rates to incoming tenants when he’s gone, as many of them are in the process of privitization or market rate conversion.

    In regards to his class-status, he’s a high prole at best. The reason is that anyone who doesn’t work in Finance, BIGLAW, high end consulting, or any of the self actualization or trustafarian/bobo roles you mentioned, is pretty much in prole territory. He’s also a prole because of the possibility of his White ethnic label as I mentioned in your other post. SWPLs are very much in identifying themselves as generic Whites with money, and anyone else who isn’t like them would be a prole in your book. Many children of White ethnic families who’ve become SWPLs, downplay their backgrounds as much as possible for a generic label.

    Just Speculating

    April 30, 2013 at 1:46 PM

    • > The reason is that anyone who doesn’t work in Finance, BIGLAW, high end consulting, or any of the self actualization or trustafarian/bobo roles you mentioned, is pretty much in prole territory.

      Those people are upper middle class. There’s also middle class – people like accountants and engineers. They are not prole in habits, occupation or education.

      This is all extremely basic stuff. You gotta walk before you can run…

      shiva1008

      April 30, 2013 at 9:50 PM

      • To clarify, bobos are a subset of upper middle class, but engineers, product managers, executives etc. can also be UMC even if they are not bobos.

        shiva1008

        April 30, 2013 at 10:00 PM

      • Accounting and Engineering aren’t career choices of SWPLs. So what does that tell you? It must be in prole territory.

        NYC is a different place from the rest of America. With our bobo Mayor Bloomberg, Manhattan is basically a town mostly of SWPLs who work on Wall St, BIGLAW, consultant and self actualization roles (where daddy and mommy pay the bills).

        Just Speculating

        April 30, 2013 at 11:18 PM

  6. Uhhh…. when NYC was affordable, it wasn’t safe.

    There was an article on WSJ.com regarding a penthouse in a building in downtown Brooklyn. The guy took two apartments and combined them. The first apartment was stupid cheap, maybe $300k, in the late ’90’s. The second apartment was over a mil in the early ’00s. And now it is a multi-million penthouse, all in a neighborhood that you couldn’t go to 25 years ago.

    The views were spectacular, by the way, far superior to most in Manhattan, because there aren’t a lot of tall buildings in downtown Brooklyn (yet).

    Buzzcut

    April 30, 2013 at 2:44 PM

  7. “not counting the underclass who live in housing projects as proles”

    The underclass and proles are very different assuming prole means working class. Working class people typically hold jobs while underclass people typically do not. And their value sets do not match.

    Dan Morgan

    April 30, 2013 at 2:47 PM

    • Don’t underestimate the housing project proles. Some of them live pretty well, if not better than most entry level bobos. 2 bedroom apts starting at $500/month in Manhattan. You can’t beat that anywhere!

      I suggest everyone to check this site out:

      http://www.nyc.gov/html/housinginfo/html/home/home.shtml

      There seems to be a stigma when it comes to affordable housing, but in Manhattan, I’ll take it if given the opportunity.

      Just Speculating

      April 30, 2013 at 8:21 PM

      • You probably won’t be given the opportunity. My sister once applied to buy a condo in a new, “affordable” development in Harlem. Didn’t get it, and she was an NYC public school teacher with excellent credit, and the ability to make a significant down payment.

        Dave Pinsen

        May 1, 2013 at 12:42 AM

      • I agree, as a young White person applying for affordable housing in NYC and getting it, is next to impossible. There is a preference for “disadvantaged” minorities.

        Just Speculating

        May 1, 2013 at 3:21 PM

    • There are way too many Black pedestrians in downtown Brooklyn, which makes it undesirable for what it is and way overpriced.

      Just Speculating

      April 30, 2013 at 8:50 PM

  8. The underclass is the lumpenproletariat. It stands in no relation to capital, not even managing to be exploited by it, and is often at odds with the proletariat politically.

    Anthony

    April 30, 2013 at 3:22 PM

  9. “…The reason is that anyone who doesn’t work in Finance, BIGLAW, high end consulting, or any of the self actualization or trustafarian/bobo roles you mentioned…”

    So 99% of the population is prole. Wow. Amazing. You’ve settled everything.

    Chris P.

    April 30, 2013 at 6:41 PM

    • Call it the NYC state of mind!

      Lion started it.

      Just Speculating

      April 30, 2013 at 11:06 PM

  10. A family friend bought a 2 bedroom apartment on West End Avenue in the 80s for $11k in the mid 1970s, when New York was a shit hole.

    Dave Pinsen

    April 30, 2013 at 7:08 PM

  11. That guy is my uncle!

    de Broglie

    April 30, 2013 at 8:14 PM

  12. As a bicycle commuter, I would say that there are four types of SWPL cyclists and one kind of prole cyclist.

    The SWPL class of bicyclists, which I belong to, includes people that ride their bikes on the road and generally in the same direction of traffic. This includes the hipsters, who ride single-speed/fixed-gear trackbikes, with rims and handlebar tape/grips selected to match the frame of the bike. For them, the bicycle is a fashion accessory. While they generally ride the direction of traffic, they interpret most traffic laws as mere suggestions, and routinely run stop signs/lights, eschew the helmet, and sometimes fail to mount lights on their bike. Then you have the commuters, which includes me. The faster ones ride newer road bikes or cyclocross bikes, while the slower ones ride vintage road bikes and Dutch or Danish style utility bikes. Commuters generally follow the majority of traffic laws, wear helmets, use lights, etc. Whether fast or slow, they are generally pretty predictable in their riding style and are courteous to motorists and pedestrians. Next, you have the roadies, who spend $5,000+ on a the bicycle and an equal amount on gear. Many of these riders are not actually capable of riding as fast as their gear might suggest, and are often in my way. The faster ones tend to be type A personalities, and are a bit dickish. Many think it’s acceptable to draft off of your rear wheel without asking — a move that is fine in an organized race, but completely jerkish and unsafe to do to a random commuter on the road. This crosses over with a forth category, who are middle class people who haven’t ridden a bike in years, but are inspired to give it a try in order to get more exercise, to save money on gas, etc. Hybrid bikes and mountain bikes are common choices for them. They generally haven’t the slightest clue what they are doing, and often ride on the sidewalk for fear of car traffic. They don’t seem to realize that riding on the sidewalk is more dangerous, because it requires riding across numerous driveways that people pull into and turn out of without expecting fast moving objects coming down the sidewalk, especially not counter traffic. Although they have a drivers license and understand the rules of the road, they seem to forget them entirely as soon as they get on a bike.

    Prole bicyclists ride mountain bikes or BMXs on the sidewalk. They ride extremely unpredictable and erratic manner, and often randomly cut diagonally across streets between intersections without looking.

    Most cyclists don’t like cyclists that happen to not be THEIR type of cyclists, and often aren’t even fond of their own type of cyclist. Perhaps I’m projecting a bit. I don’t like having to deal with other cyclists very much, regarding them as either obstacles, hazards or competitors. Roadies, hipsters and prole cyclists in particular annoy me on a daily basis, possibly more than motorists. I enjoy riding at night when the streets are relatively empty.

    The cyclist in the photo doesn’t look like a prole to me. Although he has a mountain bike and no helmet, he is wearing bicycle-specific gear, including compression clothing, fingerless gloves and what look like bicycle shoes with clips. That indicates a level of expenditure toward cycling that the average prole is not willing to make.

    anon666

    April 30, 2013 at 8:15 PM

    • You all have death wishes, as far as I’m concerned. Riding a bike is fun, and a lot of the places I usually drive to are within bike range, but people drive like assholes where I live, and I’d be taking my life in my hands on a bike. It’s not worth it.

      Dave Pinsen

      May 1, 2013 at 12:45 AM

      • I live in a SWPL city and the drivers aren’t very aggressive here. They’re actually pretty hesitant and distracted, which is an annoyance in its own right, but they aren’t likely to run you off the road for its own sake. There are a ton of cyclists here, and although people complain about it, they’re used to their presence on the road.

        anon666

        May 1, 2013 at 11:51 AM

      • No kidding. Even when I was cute and young (aged 17-20) cars were dangerously discourteous to me when I was on my bike. I had an Italian racing bike which was SWPL I guess back in the ’80s.

        not too late

        May 1, 2013 at 1:24 PM

      • Death wishes? For some of us cycling isn’t a choice — in many places there are no trains or buses, so if you don’t have a car, you either cycle or walk, and lots of places are too far away to walk to.

        Kyo

        May 1, 2013 at 1:45 PM

    • SWPL Cyclists are hardly courteous.

      S_McCoy The Winged Lion of Proles

      May 1, 2013 at 7:10 AM

    • Cyclo-commuting is considered cool and sexy in the town I live in. SWPLs, young aspiring SWPLS, and hipsters make up the majority of bike-firsters.

      I wouldn’t go as far as saying it’s high status just because SWPLs have declared it so. That’s what they do, so who cares. I have seen and heard certifiable elites ride off of bike-firster signaling; even though they don’t ride their bikes much. That must mean something. Though, those are academic elites, not the portfolio-first elites. However, outside of my town cyclo-commuting is deemed as nothing more than a recreational activity or crazy.

      Proles don’t ride bikes, they drive cars. They think riding bicycles in roadways is against the rules. They also think it’s crazy. They vehemently defend the idea that cars should be the only thing on the road. I’ve never seen or heard different. I’ve noticed that SWPLs have this in common with proles. They are always quick to promote rules and laws of the road rather than skills-first bicycle culture. Personally I’m a practitioner of skills first cyclo-commuting. SWPL rules and laws won’t save you when a prole who doesn’t think you belong on the road decides to side swipe you. The SWPL response to this is repetitive, “They broke the law!” … Face palm.

      I'm posting on the internet

      May 1, 2013 at 4:03 PM

      • We might even live in the same city.

        I personally don’t ride as a political statement, nor do I have anti-car attitudes. (I might argue, however, that they do cause externalities in cities that exceed a certain density if they’re the only form of transport available, and that I’m not opposed to city governments taking measures to reign in such externalities.) I ride because it’s faster than public transport, allows more independence of movement than public transport, and is cheaper than both public transport and driving. Also, I’m not the type of person who who designates a specific time each day to go to the gym, and figured I’d be more likely to get exercise regularly if getting from point A to point B required it. I also find the activity fun under certain conditions. I do have a drivers license and sometimes either rent a car or use one of the car-sharing services for certain purposes that a bike wouldn’t easily fulfill. I have somewhat of a minimalist and spartan lifestyle, however, and am too cheap to own one.

        Some socio-economic elites cycle to commute, but usually not for errands. Many also cycle to compete, but not for transport purposes. They’ll train for a triathlon or other types of competitions that provide them with new opportunities to establish dominance over others, but they won’t cycle for utilitarian purposes.

        Agreed regarding prole hostility toward cyclists. Every time I’ve ever had somebody purposefully try to kill me with their vehicle or shout anything from a window, or whenever I read about any road rage incidents between a bicyclist and motorist in the news, the motorist is always a prole (sometimes of the “diverse” type and sometimes not). However, these incidents don’t happen frequently where I live because I generally stick to my turf, which has about a six mile diameter in each direction. This is the SWPL zone, where bicycles are a common sight and where most drivers are used to dealing with them. Even those who commute in from the suburbs seem to get used to it quickly (which isn’t to say that they like it). There are other parts of the metro area outside the center that I would never wish to ride on a regular basis, in part because of the nature of the roads (often lacking bicycle lanes or shoulders and always supporting extremely high speed limits) and partly because of the hostility of the drivers. I’ve gone on some weekend suburban rides with friends, and they were fun as a one time adventure but would be hell to do on a regular basis during commuting hours. In the center city, drivers are almost a bit too hesitant, in part because they’re worried about hitting pedestrians (who often pay no attention at all to fast moving objects that might hit them as they cross the street) and cyclists, but possibly also in part because a decent chunk of this city is constantly stoned. If people choose to smoke weed, I think they should be forced to stay in the house.

        anon666

        May 1, 2013 at 8:26 PM

    • I agree that the few proles who do ride bikes will more than likely be seen riding cheap 90s style mountain bikes (with knobby tires on pavement!) while hipsters and SWPLs will more than likely be seen riding a bike with nitto parts and/or a cyclocross frame. I’m guilty!

      I'm posting on the internet

      May 1, 2013 at 4:21 PM

  13. Question

    If NYC is that extremely unaffordable, where the heck do janitors and plumbers live in NYC?

    As far as I can see, NYC prices look like they price out 95% of the population (except some high rollers). How do normal people still exist there?

    brazilian

    April 30, 2013 at 9:55 PM

    • Prole white areas of Staten Island and Brooklyn and Queens where the commute to Manhattan is an hour and a half or longer, they are affordable.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      April 30, 2013 at 10:57 PM

      • Much of the residents who speak with a heavy accent reside in the aforementioned areas. Therefore, to speak with a thick NY accent is indeed prolish.

        Just Speculating

        May 1, 2013 at 11:04 AM

      • It’s hard to find a really nice 3 BR under 500k on SI. You can get cheaper but it’s either rundown or a bad area. Janitors are probably renting small apartments in the outer boroughs like SI, or bought before prices went up. Or they are undocumented and live in a house with ten other people sharing the rent.

        islandmommy

        May 1, 2013 at 2:14 PM

      • You can definitely buy a semi-attached house on Staten Island for under 500K. “Nice” is in the eye of the beholder. Staten Island is an ugly prole place, and only Lighthouse Hill is nice, in my opinion. Todt Hill is too Mafia.

    • Working class blacks and hispanics can live in black and hispanic Harlem respectively which is cheap and doesn’t have a big commute. If you are white, and want to live in a safe neighborhood, it is a different matter.

      Dan

      May 1, 2013 at 2:30 AM

      • A safe area in Mahattan will definitely cost you at a premium. If you want to live in a safe neighborhood in NYC for a reasonable price. Try the outer boroughs, which is a longer commute. They are usually prole White neighborhoods, which of course is working class.

        There isn’t anything working class about Blacks and Hispanics in Manhattan, the majority whom are usually welfare recipients of some sort and/or working on the gov’t dole.

        Just Speculating

        May 1, 2013 at 10:56 AM

      • Indeed; even in ultra-high-density NYC, middle class white folks have few affordable places to go.

        This touches on one of my pet issues: the near complete disenfranchisement of the non-automobile-driving middle class white person since WWII. If you’re such a person, either you live in an urban area where there are very few people looking like you, or you live in the suburbs where everything is designed around cars and so you become a second-class citizen.

        Kyo

        May 1, 2013 at 11:43 AM

      • Perhaps telecommuting would change all that. No need to be in a major urban area such as NYC anymore.

        Just Speculating

        May 1, 2013 at 3:35 PM

      • @Just Speculating, it would, until your boss suddenly decided, Marissa-Mayer-at-Yahoo-style, that telecommuting was banned. And your “home” office is out on some highway accessible only by car, like the vast majority of employers in the US:

        http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2011/05/12-jobs-and-transit

        …then you’re probably going to have to quit, and disability-related legislation will not be there to help you.

        This is why I enthusiastically support all bicycling-related initiatives. Without bicycles, non-drivers are 100% dependent on transit, and telecommuting isn’t yet enshrined in the list of inviolable workers’ rights.

        Kyo

        May 2, 2013 at 5:21 AM

  14. I don’t know whether the guy is SWPL or not but there’s one thing I do know — no man over 40 should ever wear spandex shorts. I’m not too sure about guys under 40 wearing it, either.

    destructure

    May 1, 2013 at 1:41 AM

  15. There is a reason why it is generally spelled “co-op”.

    Mike Hunt Rice

    May 1, 2013 at 2:01 AM

  16. Also rent-control (and possible loopholes that allow the transference of really low rents from one tenant to another) allows long-term middle-class and below residents of Manhattan to afford to live there. These long-term holder-on tenants are essentially being subsidized by other residents who pay a lot more in rent. Rent control causes people to stick around a long time in order to keep their rents low, which keeps supply levels low. In order to make up for reduced income from holder-on renters, landlords jack up rents in order to make up for the current income loss and to minimize future income loss due to only being able to raise rents a certain amount a year.

    Bobo

    May 1, 2013 at 11:58 AM

    • Yes, but the real reason as to why rents in NYC are so expensive, especially in Manhattan, is because the island infested with housing projects. About ~ 40% of Manhattan land area consists of public housing complexes taken up by Blacks and Latinos. This takes away the opportunity for any competition in the housing market.

      Just Speculating

      May 1, 2013 at 3:17 PM

  17. An older schoolteacher can afford a $2500 apt. on the UWS. But, that guy could be a Goldman Sachs banker. Typical bald pudgy cubicle jockey.

    leftbelt

    May 5, 2013 at 1:22 AM


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: