dagblog - Comments for "The Conspiracy Against The Middle Class"

Here is a great article on

Elusive Trope — Tue, 29 Apr 2014 03:08:15 +0000

In reply to The Conspiracy Against The Middle Class

Here is a great article on San Francisco's housing problem: How Burrowing Owls Lead to Vomiting Anarchists (or SF's Housing Crisis Explained)

It's long but worth the read. Here is one part that seems to be along the lines of this blog:

You’ll see in the table above that the market is mostly producing housing for ‘above moderate’ incomes, then some ‘low income’ housing units, but hardly anything for ‘moderate incomes.’ The lack of options for middle-class San Franciscans in turn feeds the two-tier systems that we’re seeing in transportation with MUNI-versus-Uber and in education, where 30 percent of the city’s students go to private schools at $30,000 per year while the public school system will see almost all of its enrollment growth coming from public housing over the next three decades.

around apartment

Peter Schwartz — Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:08:45 +0000

In reply to That last part is the big

around apartment ownership

Don't know how old you are or how long you've lived in NYC, but buying an apartment in NYC, in Manhattan, has been "impossible" since forever, AFAIK.

Long before Koch.

Almost everyone "normal" has always rented there. But if you were renting there since forever, you could get some astoundingly cheap rents.

I say we should all have as

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:44:29 +0000

In reply to That last part is the big

I say we should all have as much freedom of choice as possible, but there are always limits. Jobs and real estate are finite. Only so many people can become successful actors or writers or teachers or cops or whatever they want to be. Only so many people can fit in Manhattan. Heck, even if you ejected the top 5 percent of New Yorkers, rent would still be sky-high. Too many people like you and me want to live here.

So I would put it differently. We should strive to minimize the disparities whereby some people own mansions and luxury condos all over the world while others are lucky to rent a tiny slum apartment.

That last part is the big

Michael Maiello — Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:56:12 +0000

In reply to I really enjoyed this piece,

That last part is the big part of it. The inflation within New York and San Francisco, particularly around apartment ownership, has been rampant. Both places are becoming Beverly Hills or Malibu. New York's previous mayor encouraged it.

Now, the truth is, one can move. The NYC suburbs are also expensive but the more you're willing to commute, the more you save. Some people come into NY from Philadelphia. People go from Oakland to San Francisco. Some of it is what you'll tolerate, what's important, etc.

It isn't necessarily the case, in most professions, that you could just up from one of those places and move to a cheaper city, though, because the salaries are not always portable. I don't know that my job would pay the same if I were to get a similar position in, say, Austin.

But, people don't get to do the jobs they want, necessarily, either.

This all kind of brings us back, though, to that growing gap between the ultra rich and the middle class, though. They do get to live where they want. They do get to choose when and how they work. Should it be the goal, whether or not it seems practical, to provide every American with that sort of freedom? Or is that a bad goal?

I really enjoyed this piece,

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:44:00 +0000

In reply to The Conspiracy Against The Middle Class

I really enjoyed this piece, but I think you're glossing over your choice (and mine) to live in New York. You could move to the suburbs or another city where the prices are not so astronomical, but we'd rather give up large shares of our income to live here.

Suppose you didn't want to live in Manhattan but some tony neighborhood like Beverly Hills? It wouldn't invite much sympathy. It might even invite comedy. People don't get to live wherever they want. I think the issue here is not the plight of the middle class but rather the plight of NYC. Beverly Hills has nothing to lose by your absence. It's a place for rich people, and everyone accepts that. But NYC and SF are supposed to be different. They have storied histories and have always hosted rich and poor alike (albeit in different neighborhoods). We don't want to see them become Beverly Hills.

Of course, someone could say

Peter Schwartz — Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:54:53 +0000

In reply to There are at least two ways

Of course, someone could say that the great cities became great at times of even greater inequality and less mobility.

But maybe inequality isn't what it used to be. Meaning, at one time, perhaps, when folks down the chain had no expectations of moving up, the physical hardships were great, but the psychological, demoralizing pain was less.

I dunno. Just noodling.

Not sure how fruitful comparisons between different eras really are. Humans may not have evolved much physically, but their consciousness--the seat of pain and pleasure -- has evolved tremendously.

There are at least two ways

Peter Schwartz — Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:48:12 +0000

In reply to The Conspiracy Against The Middle Class

There are at least two ways to look at this: fairness and health (for lack of a better word). Not sure how to put this, exactly.

Though I agree that there's much unfairness in gross inequality, I'm not sure it's the best way to move the discussion forward.

Inevitably, it seems, things devolve into charges and counter charges of "class warfare" and "transfer payments" being akin to stealing from the rich and debates over whether the rich "really earned" what they have and so on.

But another way to look at it is to take a step back and try to become an objective, disinterested observer. Then I might say that a city in which only rich people live well and have an "ownership stake" is an impoverished city.