I went to my first ever baseball game on Friday night. I didn’t think I’d enjoy it. It seems too similar to cricket, a game so long and boring that it feels like training for life in a nursing home.
But I was pleasantly surprised. Baseball’s a fast moving battle of nerves. When it comes down to three “balls” and two “strikes,” the guy at the bat has the world on his shoulders. If he takes another strike, his head hangs low. If he knocks it out of the park, he stands among the gods. The rules are simple and any confusion is cleared up by more beer. After two hours, I graduated from total novice to seasoned pro – shouting, “You could see the ball better if you got a haircut, hippie!” and “Hit it, don’t swat it, Zimmerman!” [That Zimmerman really bugged me. His whole technique seemed to rely on the pitcher not being able to throw. Is the man allergic to running?]
...Another, more stark, reminder of that truth is the role that military pageantry plays at a baseball game. At the start of the contest, the CIA honour guard trooped the colours and we were all invited to stand and applaud the folks serving in the US military. But nothing prepared me for the moving rendition of The Star-Spangled Banner, as sung by a female soldier in combat fatigues. The stadium stood proudly – hats clasped to chests – as she powerfully, beautifully sang the national anthem. “Does that Star-Spangled Banner yet wave/ O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?” It sure does.
In contrast, American patriotism is sharper and more certain – and more fixedly about ideas. Its promise is individual freedom. But that freedom is guaranteed – just like victory in a baseball game – by thinking and acting as a team or a nation. One of the reasons why civil society works in the US slightly better than it does in Britain is that they understand the balance of rights and responsibilities between the individual and the group. Without the security of a welfare state, Americans are acculturated to risk and sacrifice, and so (ironically) they can be a little more charitable than us. They are certainly more free.
After the game we moved to a bar and got chatting with some young marines, who were talking excitedly about the fact that they are going to present the flag at one of the ballgames next week. After that, they will fly off to war. We are lucky to share the world with a nation that produces men like these.
Repoz
Posted: April 18, 2012 at 02:23 PM |
773 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
history
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Abré los ojos.
Man, I could probably be a libertarian too if I had an awesome job and believed against all available evidence that everybody else who was willing to work hard did, too.
Nah. I'm straight angry liberal, proudly so. I guess I don't find that sentiment you quoted to be particularly Libertarian, but if it is, it is. I don't mind being pluralist. However, I'm sure this one veers: While I don't expect employers to be sympathetic to people they don't employ, I certainly expect them to be so to those they do employ. Therefore, I find that their utilization of power over them and then their immediate turning around and whining upon being abandoned to be worthy of mockery. Oh noes, you get less profit by treating your employees well? You bought into this crap, so now you can live with it, as far as I'm concnered. Your vaunted free market can have a chainsaw kickback. Don't expect me to give you a hug when you lose an arm.
(Note: all "you"'s are plural, and not towards you, bunyon. You and Dan are the Libertarian elite - the ones who are sane.)
This thread has become lame. Work? Vacation time? Sick Days?
Agree.
When you enjoy what you do, and you're self motivated its not that big a deal. Heck, I'd do what I do for less if that is what the market was paying.
To me, business travel is torture. I basically consider a 3 day business trip the equivalent of working 72 straight hours, sleeping in a couch in the office. Additionally, I don't like being apart from my wife; in ~7 years of marriage, you can count the nights we've been apart on one hand.
Also, a 75 hour week is far more than I can sustain and be happy. 60 is probably my long term limit if it's predictable, and flexible.
I read an article about this phenomenon a year or two ago: companies are getting frustrated with my generation because it costs money to train us and then once we're competent we up and skedaddle.
That's a horrible, horrible way to manage your career. It means you're always looking for a new job from a position of weakness (unemployed) so are much less likely to make upward, rather than lateral moves.
It also hinders your ability to build relationships, and human capital, since you are never doing one thing long enough to build deep knowledge and personal connections.
Yeah, I was going to say: Scandinavia, the very image of what Tea Partiers shudder at when they think "European socialism," has not been much affected in the current Eurocrisis. Finland, Sweden, and Denmark are three of the least-indebted governments in the EU. The welfare state does not equal bankruptcy.
Scandinavia has very high taxes on the middle class. The middle class pays for its own welfare benefits (which people are OK with b/c they are highly homogeneous populations). Taxes on capital are lower than in the US.
I don't think any country in Europe allows its people to receive a state pension at 55
Gov't workers? Gov't workers in the US can get pensions at 55 (or earlier through easily abused disability rules).
For someone with 20 years at the company, the typical US large company severance would be similar.
The one time I was part of a RIF, severance was 2 weeks per year of service, minimum 6 months, maximum 12 months.
At my current company, the rule is 2 weeks per year of service or 2 weeks per $10K salary, whichever is highest. Max 1 year.
I do enjoy the work a lot, and my wife likes having some time to work on her projects.
An uncle of mine was a cop and he retired at 55. He was never injured on the job, although I have no idea if he claimed a phony disability when he retired. The Long Island Railroad disability scandal is probably the biggest and best known, but that sort of thing goes on all over the country albeit not usually so egregiously. The scam usually works by getting the ordinary effects of aging classified as "disabilities".
Being Governor of Texas, even: they need pensions, too :)
Certainly not here in the UK, unless they are offered the option of early retirement due to redundancy. Plus the pension payouts are nowhere near the redonkulous ones you hear cops and firefighters taking all the time in the US.
They are indeed high taxes, but the populations are no longer homogeneous. 15% of Swedes were born outside Sweden. Likewise Holland (which also has a pretty generous benefits system and high taxes, and often gets lumped in with the Nordic countries) and Denmark are similarly heterogeneous, though the Danes have recently tightened their immigration laws dramatically.
Swedes deal with the high taxes because public services are very good, the system is low on corruption and responsive, and public services are comprehensive. Free, high-quality university, low-cost healthcare, excellent public transportation, etc. They pay a lot, but they get a lot too.
Taxes on capital are lower, but hey, the Swedes are good capitalists at heart. The Dutch invented capitalism, for God's sake. Like the Danish labour laws, if you provide a system that supports the people, they are less loath to complain about capital taxes or corporate taxes.
That used to be true, but in the last two decades, public sector pay has soared.
In the coastal, and other high income states, cops, firemen, teachers, etc., routinely make $100K after 5-10 years on the job. Plus tippy-top shelf health insurance (continuing after retirement), and very generous pensions with minimum contributions.
Cops and firemen in particular can earn lots of overtime, and pad their final year's pay with overtime, so that their pension = ~100% of their base pay. They also can go out on disability pensions which pay more than regular pensions and are laughably easy to get. Something like 97% of LIRR retirees are on disability. NYC Firefighters on disability include a guy working as a cop in NC, and a guy who runs triathlons.
As a gulf-coastal-state public-university full professor, I will probably never earn $100K, even if I stay on the job for 40 years. I don't earn 3/4 of that after 24 years. Though come to think of it, I can't afford to retire early either. Why the #&%* am I doing this? :-D
That's a very recent phenomena. When the system were established, the countries were nearly 100% homogeneous.
You couldn't gain agreement on a similar system where there would be massive redistribution across racial, and ethnic groups, or region.
My wife has a PhD in Chemistry from Yale, and would earn about 40% more as a chemistry teacher in our local HS than she does as a college professor. I feel your pain.
Our local public school superintendent earns over $300K, has a five year guaranteed contract that gets renewed with 2-3 years remaining, and gets the same kind of pension/health care benes as teachers.
Besides, public support in the Nordic countries for the welfare state has not dropped substantially since immigrants came into the picture. The far-right anti-immigrant parties are often the staunchest supporters of public benefits - it's what led to the Dutch government falling yesterday (well, that and Geert Wilders's need for attention).
Yep. My uncle's yearly pension is *significantly* more than the median household income in America, and he didn't work near a big coastal city. Being a cop is barely in the top 10 of dangerous jobs in America, less dangerous than being a truck driver or sanitation worker. Not as safe as sitting around in an office all day, but not exactly a gauntlet of death and dismemberment either. Pretty sure firefighters don't even make the top 15 most dangerous jobs. The whole low pay/high danger narrative really doesn't hold up with those jobs anymore.
Lower nominal capital taxes, but I believe actual capital taxes paid are higher than in the U.S., due to loopholes and exemptions (and noncompliance) in the latter
Nothing I wrote was "cooked". Snapper, I believe, stated that 90% of people got paid vacations and it was of the 2-4 week variety. Well, 91% of full time private industry employees got paid time off with the average worker getting 2.5 weeks off a year. I then went and gave further details of their benefits package which is that they also got 8 more days of paid holidays and 8 paid sick days.
I think I'd like to see some citation on this...
I suppose I don't live in a coastal area, but Chicago is hardly the backwoods. I suppose I don't know any cops that well, but I do know a firefighter and a handful of CPS teachers - all of whom are approaching or have passed the 10 year range, and all of whom make less than I do (which is also less than $100k a year).
Are you suggesting that the far right groups support public benefits for immigrants?
According to the BLS the average government worker costs about $41 an hour while the average private industry worker costs about $28 an hour.
Of course not, but they don't have the Tea Party "Hands off my Medicare" nominally libertarian disconnect either. They are perfectly happy to support extensive public benefits for white, native-born Dutch/British/Swedish/Danish, etc.
There are some high earning districts -- but they're pretty nice districts (and interestingly - no union contracts).
One key graf:
According to this, the MAXIMUM salary for a CPS teacher:
I think I'd like to see some citation on this...
I suppose I don't live in a coastal area, but Chicago is hardly the backwoods. I suppose I don't know any cops that well, but I do know a firefighter and a handful of CPS teachers - all of whom are approaching or have passed the 10 year range, and all of whom make less than I do (which is also less than $100k a year).
http://www.nypdrecruit.com/benefits-salary/overview
Here's one cite. After 5.5 years, an NYPD officer earns total pay of $91K. That's assuming no promotion (e.g. to Sgt. or Detective, etc.)
http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/community/ff_salary_benefits_080106.shtml
After 5 years, a firefighter earns $99K.
And NYC pays less than the suburbs.
OK, but the cities pay less than the burbs, typically.
And that $94K would be at ~age 45 for your typical teacher, and the school pays for your doctorate. That's not underpaid.
Can you provide the link? The BLS numbers I see say that $28 is the overall average -- the only thing google shows me that matches these numbers are a 1)a Heritage foundation "analysis", and 2)Another analysis from a conservative think thank that USAToday reported on.
It is, however, significantly below your original claim.... i.e., when you said "5 years/$100k". That's a ways off from "20 years/$95k".
Base salary of an officer W/O overtime:
1. Miami-Dade Co: $69,151
2. West Palm Beach: $67,085
3. Fort Lauderdale: $65,405
4. Coral Springs: $64,715
5. PBC Sherriff: $63,514
West Palm Beach average base salaries:
Officer: $67,085
Sergeant: $90,129
Lieutenant: $106,044
In 2009 nearly 30% of of the West Palm Beach police department earned more than 100k. With overime the average officer made $82,000.
But that's Chicago; significantly cheaper cost of living than the coastal metropolises. In the NYC suburbs, it's ~$100K after 5 years. I know people who make it.
Did you look at the NYPD and NYFD salaries I posted?
Unless that's some kind of on-line degree in Educational Leadership, earning a doctorate while teaching high school full-time by age 45 is a beast of an accomplishment, no matter who's paying for it. I have taught several aspiring doctoral students who are full-time teachers, and it can take a decade of nights and summers to complete such a degree, for the few who manage to do so – as you certainly know, snapper; I'm not taking you to task. In any case, it's not like the route to that $94K is a slacker's garden path :)
Go to this site and you can find very detailed pay information for public school teachers in Westchester and neighboring counties. For example:
At the high school I attended (also in Westchester), the average teacher makes about $87k, the principal makes over $100k and the superintendant makes over $200k.
The national average is a lot lower. According to pages 76-78 of this study the average public school "instructional staff" member in the U.S. made $57,464 and the average classroom teacher made $55,350 in 2009-2010. This number has basically kept pace with inflation for the last 20 years. It varies across states, with South Dakota paying its teachers the least at $35,136 and New York paying them the most at $71,470.
Keep in mind that a large portion of U.S. "part time" workers work 35ish hours a week, because the last five would make their employers give them benefits. These people work full-time.
Right, but that's actually consistent with Snapper's earlier point. Public benefits are much more popular when people believe they're overwhelmingly distributed among their own national/ethnic/religious group. The more homogenous a society, the easier it is to maintain a high level of support for welfare state benefits. When homogeneity declines, you see a rise of opposition, not necessarily to the benefits themselves, but to people outside their tribe getting those benefits.
BLS PDF
For all of 2011 it was $40.40 to $40.90 by quarter for government employees and $28.10 to 28.57 for private industry employees.
OK - you're including benefits in your earnings....
The base after 5 years for a FF is $74k -- benefits bring it to $99k. Some of that is overtime, yes, but "other differentials" includes things like pension contributions (I get a 401k profit sharing contribution as a part of package... but I don't include it as a part of my 'salary' when applying for a loan or whatnot), health insurance contributions (ditto - my company is paying some percentage of my plan, I certainly don't calculate the differential and add it to my compensation package).
I think you're being fundamentally dishonest here -- pay hasn't soared... Benefits have risen (or technically, I think it would be more accurate to say that private sector benefits have atrophied while public sector benefits have continued to increase, perhaps at an accelerated pace). It's obvious why many public (state and local) governments have done this -- deferred compensation and other funds serve as both piggy banks and "bills that don't count... except for someone who will take office long after me."
It's the countries like Greece and Italy that has full pensions at 53. Scandinavia is very work-ethic centered and few healthy people retire before 60, and those are mostly those who just can't get a new job. The welfare compensation is mostly indexed after your salary, after all. Be a drunken bum and you will get a meager handout. Lose a job and you will get looked after. There are of course some people that never has been in the workforce that will get hurt by that through no fault of their own, like recent immigrants and teens. Nevertheless, it's a popular policy.
Now, the compensation has been eroded over the years in Sweden as the maximum levels haven't been raised in ages, a handy way to make cuts without making waves. I wouldn't get over 40% of what I earn if I lost my job with my middling salary, even though the unemployment benefit is nominally 75%.
I can see people kvetching about overpaid pencil-pushers, but let them swap places with a fireman or a cop for a few weeks and see how they'd like it.
When people complain about 7 or 8 (or even sometimes 9) figure executive salaries or about the ability of millionaires to avoid taxes, that's labeled "class warfare". But when they whine about policemen's or firemen's salaries, that's just being budget conscious. It's a remarkable transformation.
That's true, but some people don't care about this. You're the guy on this thread that has been really declarative about valuing time at home far more than you do earnings (at least after a certain point, and which I think is great btw). Some people can't stand the idea of working for a decade and only getting 2-4 weeks off every year - so the damage that they do to their careers by taking sabbaticals is worth it. It's the same type of calculation that you make.
Ah, I see, a quibbler. The claim you are trying to dispute had nothing to do with with the rest of the world. Snapper, if one doesn't choose to be a quibbler, was right in his assessment. But you wish to quibble because you want to read his statement to include part time employees as if anyone here was actually arguing about part-timers.
If you want to argue that vacation days in the US are fine, fine. But don't try and act like the vacations American workers get aren't infrequent and pathetic compared to the rest of the first world.
You expect part-time workers to get paid vacation? I mean, some do (salaried workers on 3-day a week schedules usually get proportional vacation days), but hourly part-time workers get paid hourly.
Well, again, your stance has nothing to do with what was stated. Snapper made a simple statement devoid of any opinions about ####### this group or that group.
I think you're being fundamentally dishonest here -- pay hasn't soared... Benefits have risen (or technically, I think it would be more accurate to say that private sector benefits have atrophied while public sector benefits have continued to increase, perhaps at an accelerated pace). It's obvious why many public (state and local) governments have done this -- deferred compensation and other funds serve as both piggy banks and "bills that don't count... except for someone who will take office long after me."
They're also not taxed.
One interesting note from snapper's NYPD link is that newly hired NYPD officers can expect to retire at 48 and receive a pension totaling ~$68,750 a year in payments and health benefits.
Ahhh -- this isn't salary/pay -- it's "total employment costs"... I think it's a red herring because it's including tons of deferred compensation - and as many public sector retirees can tell you, those aren't necessarily guaranteed. Illinois, for example, is talking about cutting pensions for teaching retirees... Unless/until those deferred compensation schemas come with ironclad guarantees, I think it's better compare the salary and benefits individually.
Salaries are real earnings -- benefits are subject to all sorts of chicanery, both for the advantage of the employer and the employee. As I said last page, my company offers a very generous paid time off policy -- 6 weeks a year. I would MUCH prefer a smaller PTO bank, but a higher salary. In fact -- I'd gladly trade half my PTO bank for even a 7% raise (that's slightly less than what my math calculates out when trading "time paid for not working" for an actual compensation raise spread out over the year). My company, of course, would never do this.... There's a reason for that.
The base after 5 years for a FF is $74k -- benefits bring it to $99k. Some of that is overtime, yes, but "other differentials" includes things like pension contributions (I get a 401k profit sharing contribution as a part of package... but I don't include it as a part of my 'salary' when applying for a loan or whatnot), health insurance contributions (ditto - my company is paying some percentage of my plan, I certainly don't calculate the differential and add it to my compensation package).
I think you're being fundamentally dishonest here -- pay hasn't soared... Benefits have risen (or technically, I think it would be more accurate to say that private sector benefits have atrophied while public sector benefits have continued to increase, perhaps at an accelerated pace). It's obvious why many public (state and local) governments have done this -- deferred compensation and other funds serve as both piggy banks and "bills that don't count... except for someone who will take office long after me."
Wrong. Read the citation.
For the NYPD, the $91K total compensation "includes top base pay, longevity pay, holiday pay, uniform allowance, and average night shift differential. It does not include overtime." (emphasis in original). That $91K is strictly cash the police officer receives. With OT, they will be well over $100K.
For the NYFD "Fringe benefits reflect overtime, holiday pay and other differentials", so the $99K includes OT.
Neither of these amount includes anything on the value of the top-shelf benes, medical, pension, or other.
I think we are arguing over whether something that cannot really be changed through any conscious effort by any person is acceptable or not.
Not taxed entirely? That's certainly not true... I'm not sure the specific exemptions (FICA? Federal/state/local? Medicare?) - but I'm awfully suspicious anytime someone brings up this "not taxed" thing...
It's like the old zombie nonsense about "47% of Americans don't pay taxes!!!!!" -- sure -- they earn such that they may indeed come out with a zero balance for federal income taxes, but they're still paying payroll taxes, they may still be paying state and local taxes, and they're also paying sales taxes and other "fees".
When you calculate the total tax burden as a percent of income, I doubt those 47% are coming out "ahead".
In politics, I'm a pragmatist. I'd rather have people get to the right answer for the wrong reasons than the wrong answer for the right reasons. "Clannishness" is just a part of human nature; it produces ugly side effect (racism) but also very beneficial ones (altruism and accountability within the group). As a conservative, I think government should act to constrain the bad effects of human nature, but never seek to impose a different vision of what it should be.
To pose a similar question (assuming you're a liberal) does it bother you that some people support gov't welfare programs b/c they are lazy, or cheating the system (work off the books and collect welfare) or just want something for nothing?
Not that long ago NYC policemen and firemen could afford to live in Manhattan. Can they still do so today?
Like most things, I'm sure it depends on the particular circumstances. I suspect that many of them can and do, but that most choose not to for the same reasons that most people who work in Manhattan choose to live in the suburbs or outer boroughs.
Not taxed entirely? That's certainly not true... I'm not sure the specific exemptions (FICA? Federal/state/local? Medicare?) - but I'm awfully suspicious anytime someone brings up this "not taxed" thing...
Health benefits are not taxed. I thought that's what you were referring to.
I think we are arguing over whether something that cannot really be changed through any conscious effort by any person is acceptable or not.
And I agree that employers artificially holding workers at 30 hours/week to avoid giving benes is wrong. In a dynamic labor market, these employers will eventually be punished by the market through higher turnover and training costs.
But lots of part-time workers do it intentionally, and are supplemental income for their households. They'd rather have all their comp in cash.
What does that have to do with anything? I can't afford to live in Manhattan either.
Likewise, disability pensions are not taxed, and a shocking percentage of public retirees are on disability pensions.
What does that have to do with anything? I can't afford to live in Manhattan either.
You can't, eh? What do you make in an average year?
I love the BLS.
Employee Cost Index (2005=100)
Private Industry:
2001: 86.5
2010: 114.5
State and Local Government:
2001: 85
2010: 117.2
GDP (2005=100)
2001: 80
2010: 117
You know I care a lot about rising inequality, and think corporate America is remarkably corrupt at the top.
But, it's silly to say we can't worry about the fiscal stability of gov't (NYC now pays more in police pension costs than it does salaries) until we address corporate governance.
You'll never build a coalition around addressing inequality at all, if your default stance is "all gov't spending is good". That alienates 50% of the population before you start.
It is exactly what I said it was. Costs employers pay per hour for each employee.
I'm not discussing that on a public site, but for what I'd paid for my house, I'd have gotten a crappy 2 BDR appt. in an OK neighborhood. The police and firefighters can literally afford to live in Manhattan too (lots of people live in Manhataan who make <$50K), they just can live better in nicer areas elsewhere.
Hell, most of them don't even work in Manhattan, so why live there?
I couldn't live in Manhattan myself, but for a while I did commute (to Texas!) from a nice 2-bedroom family apartment in Nassau County, in a building with many firefighters. The same apartment in Manhattan would have been 4x or 5x as expensive. It's not just firefighters who can't afford them; it's anybody with a moderate income, anymore.
Paid leave cost $1.97 per hour, 80 cents an hour in supplemental pay (OT, shift differentials and sch) and other non-legally required benefits cost $2.31 per hour for private industry workers.
For government workers it was $3.03 per hour for paid leave, 33 cents for supplemental pay, and $4.87 in non-legally required benefits.
What I did not include was SS and other legally required benefits plus retirement and savings. So what I listed above is is for purely what they get while they work.
Total:
Private Industry workers get $25.22 in pay and benefits per hour
Government workers get $34.98 in pay and benefits per hour
That is about a 20,000 dollar a year difference between the two with $13,500 of it being in cash.
Quite frankly, it was a unique confluence of a number of weird factors. Post-war prosperity and low crime, plus the Depression and WW2 basically stopped immigration cold for 25 years, allowing all the previous immigrant waves to assimilate, and slums to become middle class neighborhood.
When my Granddad lived in the West Village in 1920, no one would have considered living "in Manhattan" in those cold water tenement flats something to be desired.
Those immigrants were all thrilled to move to a two-family house in the Bronx or Queens as soon as they could.
Of course little did they know that rent control would come along, and if they stayed, we could have a $2M appt. for $250/month.
This completely ignores a significant factor: Governments have a much higher percentage of employees with college degrees than the private industry does.
Of course they do. Those people are smart, so they go where the higher pay is.
Rather than get bogged down in arguments as to whether a sub-$50,000 income can let you live in Manhattan, or whether snapper's presumably six figure salary means that he "can't afford" to live there, I'd rather focus on the question of whether or not we should be paying vital public servants (policemen, firemen, and teachers in particular) salaries that enable them to live within a reasonable commuting distance of where they work. And if the answer to that is only "too bad if they can't, but they should have gone to law school or business school if they don't like it", then I think we've got a pretty good summary of our rather skewered sense of what we value in work.
Exactly. The one time I went to the Orchard Street Tenement Museum, I heard more than one visitor remarking at all the great things you could do with that space – as people were doing throughout the Lower East Side in the 2000s. I read references to the "hip dynamism of Rivington Street" or something, and it's just weird to contemplate the changes that have been made.
In a sense, firefighters can't afford to live in buildings that were slums, considerably less than a lifetime ago (unless they want to live in tiny hipster dens). And even if living there were a value, a 21st-century firefighter might still want a backyard, and that hasn't been a possibility in the city since pigs ran free north of 14th Street :)
Though I'd still resist your tendency to see things in terms of heterogeneity vs. assimilation. Manhattan today is an extremely heterogeneous place, with lots of recent, and continuous, immigration: I swear you hear more English spoken on the streets of Berlin or Copenhagen than New York. And yet crime is very low, and city residence extremely desirable, and a sense of community runs high in NYC compared to, let's say, Arlington Texas.
Almost everyone who works in Manhattan commutes 30-60+ minutes to work. Private sector, public sector, rich, poor, everyone. The majority of people making >$1M probably commute from the burbs.
Manhattan is an extreme land constrained real estate market. To afford the kind of 3-4 BDR appt. most people would require to raise a family, you probably need an income of >$500K a year.
Yes, but it's New York: commuting is the life for millions. Again, I knew quite a few FDNY firefighters living out near LIRR lines. 45 minutes from Broadway, as George M Cohan used to say :)
Along those lines, one concept that I always found intriguing about the UK was the notion of a "London Allowance," which was meant to provide just the opportunity you advocate. Though I knew cops there who still lived out in Kent and commuted into Central London: again, the back gardens were a big draw.
Edit: Celery soda to snapper
You also have to take into account that firefighters tend to work 3-days straight (on call 24/7 at firehouse) and then get 5 days off. Commuting for them is a non-issue, removing most of Manhattan's appeal.
Police officers and teachers mostly work in precincts and schools in the outer boroughs, which are generally not convenient to mass transit (all NYC mass transit focuses on getting you in to midtown/downtown - not taking you from the Lower East side to Maspeth). They also typically get free parking at work, so Manhattan is not appealing vs. the burbs or outer boroughs, where they can get more space, cheaper, and park their car.
Those immigrants were all thrilled to move to a two-family house in the Bronx or Queens as soon as they could.
Of course little did they know that rent control would come along, and if they stayed, we could have a $2M appt. for $250/month.
And without rent control, the working and middle classes in Manhattan would have been completely squeezed out long before the 21st century. Rent control has its corruption in the form of people with six and seven figure incomes being allowed to keep paying virtually the same rent that they were shelling out when they first moved in, but over the years it also allowed many thousands of people to remain in the city who otherwise would have been bumped around like so many croquet balls from one apartment to the next, each one worse than the one before. That doesn't matter to most of you here, since you're obviously in thrall to the Market God and the auction model for everything, but it matters to enough New Yorkers to keep rent control around.
If you let the "Market Gods" do their thing there would be more apartments in Manhattan. Rent control prevents development.
If an NYPD officer makes $90k before OT after 5.5 years, then yes they can afford to live in Manhattan, especially if their spouse works too. You'd want to have roommates for the first few years, and you're talking about Upper Manhattan rather than Soho or the West Village. But you have no yard, you're probably living in a two bedroom, 1 bathroom apt, you're sending your kids to NYC public schools (which in some cases are fine), and if you want to own a car that presents additional costs and hassles.
In the suburbs, you can have a house with more space, a yard and a garage, you generally get higher quality public schools, and the commute time isn't bad. Once you have kids, you have less use for the amenities that Manhattan offers anyway. There is something to be said for having civil servants living in the communities they service, but in some places it's just not that practical or necessary.
Where? I'm toe-dipping into the marketplace.
On the broader topic, Manhattan has become yet another cutesy, niche product for the "1%." It also doesn't help that apartment rents and prices are bid up by Russian oligarchs and other foreign thieves and quasi-thieves looking for a pied-a-terre or laundering vehicle.
You mean the working middle classes (and upper classes) who happened to be in place in 1970. Newcomers have no access to these goodies.
Rent control is actually terribly discriminatory against immigrants, minorities (who didn't live in the good areas to begin with) and newcomers to the city.
Nowhere in the world do the middle and working classes live in the center city. It's not efficient. What the hell is so bad about Brooklyn or Queens or the burbs?
Of course it matters to the NYers who have rent control. They're getting a gift from the gov't worth tens of thousands of dollars a year.
They are not overpaid in cash, their benefits are way too high. No system can have someone work for 20 years, and then collect benefits at a similar rate for 40.
I'd be happy to pay them more if we moved to a system where you had to be 65 y.o. or legitimately disabled (unable to do any work, including clerical) to collect on your pension.
If you want to quit after 20 years, fine. The pension will be waiting when you turn 65. Until then, get another job.
Development for whom? What type of development? Who gets displaced and who replaces them? How far down the road to a de facto Disneyland theme park do you want to push the boundaries? I realize that this sort of question is irrelevant to people like you, but it doesn't go away.
Andy, it's hard to take you seriously on issues of rising inequality (where we have much common ground) when you focus on silliness like this.
Who cares if Manhattan is solely populated by people making >$100K (it's not even close, nor will it be), as long as there is affordable housing in Brooklyn, Queens, Yonkers, etc. within easy commuting distance?
I think my peers who cram into a 2 BDR Manhattan appt. for the same price as my 3000 sq. ft. house, to shave at best 30 min off their commutes, are the ones losing, not those of us forced to the burbs.
I much rather spend 40 min. on Metro North than 20 min. on the Subway.
I think that's probably true -- the sense of community aspect, I mean -- of most neighborhood-based cities... I can't speak to Arlington - but any 'older city' feels this way. I've been in Chicago for about 15 years now - living in both Rogers Park and Lakeview, and it very much does have a bit of a small-town feel, as much my rural relatives always scoff at the notion. The guy at the local mini-mart knows me by name and we shoot the #### on the Cubs whenever I'm in... The baristas at the Starbucks pour my coffee when they see me walk in... the dry cleaner doesn't ask for a ticket... Winter shoveling generally extends several houses down on a "who got home first" basis... the tavern around the corner is filled with both staff and patrons I know.
You mean the working middle classes (and upper classes) who happened to be in place in 1970. Newcomers have no access to these goodies.
This is a good point. My building has rent-controlled units that are almost exclusively occupied by retired senior citizens who are probably paying 20-25% of market rent. Meanwhile, my good friend whose wife teaches at the public school down the block could never afford more than a studio apartment in our neighborhood. They live in Jersey and commute to work.
Of course it matters to the NYers who have rent control. They're getting a gift from the gov't worth tens of thousands of dollars a year.
The actual number of rental units that fall under that category amounts to less than 2% of the apartments in New York. I doubt the tenants in those buildings would have that much voting power. Apartments subject to rent stabilization have many conditions that limit its application. I can see why you'd want to conflate the two types, since by doing so you can keep pumping out variants of the old welfare Cadillac riff.
People in a lot of NYC suburbs make more per capita than those living in Manhattan. It's as much about what trade-offs you're willing to make as it is about how much you make. I like the convenience of a short commute, having things open 24 hours a day, tons of great restaurants within walking distance, being able to go to easily go to a concert or a sporting event after work, etc.
EDIT: For example, a family friend of mine in the suburbs was recently raving about a restaurant that her family took her to in Manhattan for her birthday. It turned out the restaurant was on the ground floor of my apartment building. I can certainly understand the reasons why people move out of Manhattan, and I will probably make that move myself at some point. But it has its benefits.
How far down the road to a de facto Disneyland theme park do you want to push the boundaries?
Andy, when was the last time you were in Manhattan? Do you think Washington Heights or East Harlem are just playgrounds for the rich these days?
I think that's probably true -- the sense of community aspect, I mean -- of most neighborhood-based cities... I can't speak to Arlington - but any 'older city' feels this way. I've been in Chicago for about 15 years now - living in both Rogers Park and Lakeview, and it very much does have a bit of a small-town feel, as much my rural relatives always scoff at the notion. The guy at the local mini-mart knows me by name and we shoot the #### on the Cubs whenever I'm in... The baristas at the Starbucks pour my coffee when they see me walk in... the dry cleaner doesn't ask for a ticket... Winter shoveling generally extends several houses down on a "who got home first" basis... the tavern around the corner is filled with both staff and patrons I know.
And shocking as it may seem, that sense of community actually existed in New York City before the gentrifiers put a Starbucks on every block.
I much rather spend 40 min. on Metro North than 20 min. on the Subway.
What's wrong with the subway?
And how much time do you spend driving to and from the train station?
And it still does exist in NYC. Starbucks didn't replace human beings with robots.
Andy, when was the last time you were in Manhattan? Do you think Washington Heights or East Harlem are just playgrounds for the rich these days?
Of course not, but look at a map, see how far north the boundaries are shifting, and draw your own conclusions about the trend.
-----------------------------------------------------
To ponder how many firemen and policemen could afford to live in Manhattan is to ignore the fact that these people wanted to get out of the city in the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's. What would rent be like in the 70's if people didn't flee to the suburbs over the last 3 decades?
And what would cities be like if people back then hadn't tucked tail and ran for shelter every time a black family moved into the neighborhood? That flight to the suburbs wasn't all just a matter of loving flower gardens. There was a racial undertone to that flight to the burbs that was fueled by a combination of government policy and real estate profiteering, and that's not rhetoric, that's just plain unadulterated history. You might want to read up on that history sometime.
So what is your point then? What was the point of your BITD question?
But where did I say that the only reason people left the city was because they loved flower gardens?
The reasons you bring up reinforce my view that you are simply goalpost shifting. Manhattan is desirable to live in now for a certain segment of the population that doesn't mean it was desirable to live in BITD thus your question is moot.
EDIT: Coke to McCoy.
And how much time do you spend driving to and from the train station?
More crowded, unlikely to get a seat, no cell-phone service, more often delayed. On Metro North, I get a seat every time, can enjoy my coffee and newspaper, and I can do emails, and the trains are 98% on-time.
<5 minutes. It's 1.5 miles and my wife drops me off.
Where? I'm toe-dipping into the marketplace.
SBB. Harrison, NY. The $600K houses tend to be in the older, denser part of town, but as a plus, many are <10 minute walk from the train. At $700K, you've got some at 2500-3000 sq ft and 0.5 acres or more.
Check out http://www.houlihanlawrence.com/ They have the best MLS search site for Westchester.
Gentrification in Manhattan precedes Starbucks.
I assume you're lucky enough that your office is right outside Grand Central. People who commute to my office have another 15-20 minutes once they get to Grand Central or Penn Station, which is about how long it takes me to get door-to-door total.
But to each his own. My dad took the train from Westchester for 30 years and never complained.
Check out http://www.houlihanlawrence.com/ They have the best MLS search site for Westchester.
Thanks for the tips. Rents are skyrocketing again in Manhattan so, much as I detest turning chapters, Westchester could be the next chapter.
The racial undertone was largely because of high crime and decaying public services, especially schools. The people didn't flee blacks per se, they looked at black neighborhoods and saw high crime and bad schools, and felt that was coming along with them; which it did in many cases.
The same people didn't flee in the burbs when black professionals began moving in b/c they didn't fear the other impacts.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main