This is the country we live in...and I am ashamed of a story like this.

[Alma]

Sheesh, from reading the thread title I thought this would be about the homeless or something.

Looks like the free market at work to me.

Agreed. I'm ashamed of it. When a "free market" can make people on both sides of the financial transaction act like complete boobs, I am ashamed of the market.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

increaslingly, the new york times is comforting the comfortable on its real estate pages.

The paper's done some good reporting on the plight of people in flophouses. But there is a difference between being a watchdog for the disadvantaged and trying to gear your product around them. My impression is that when the NYT reports on the poor, it is not to build circulation in that demographic, it is done because that's what a good newspaper does. It is a story about the poor, and it is meant to hopefully bring attention to a condition so those in power might do something about it, but it is not written for the poor. It is written for the paper's readers, who tend to be educated and affluent. Most of the paper is geared to their interests, yes. But it's not as if the NYT has abandoned its role of comforting the afflicted.

 

[PeteyPirate]

I can visit NYC if I want to do "****." But on the few times I've been there, I've found there is little I can do there that I can't in any other city, other than pay 15 times as much for it.

C'mon Junkie, that's plain silly.

Other cities don't have MOMO, the Guggenheim, the best restaurants in North America, the Met, Broadway, off-Broadway, just to start. Besides other cities are not New York.

It's like Canadians who say "Why go to Toronto?I can do everything here in Podunk, Saskatchewan."

I have no desire to see MOMO or the Guggenheim. That's cultural snobbery. And like I said, if I want to do that stuff, I can visit. It's cheaper than living there either way.

And the best restaurants? Who declared that? Because it's $119 for a 4-oz filet it's better? It's still just meat.

I'll stay here, where I can breathe, drive 10 miles in 10 minutes and have an off-road bike trail system that I can ride 50 miles on without crossing a street, thanks.

Who declared that it has the best restaurants? Certainly not the same person who declared that people who appreciate the MoMA and the Guggenheim are "cultural snobs."

They're just museums. Because they're in New York doesn't make them better. Much like a bottle of wine that's $200 isn't better than a $20 bottle. It just makes people feel more important for drinking it. In the end, it all comes out as ****.

Nobody suggested that they were better because they were in New York. I would suggest that New York is better for it because those museums are in it.

 

[PeteyPirate]

Right, because there are no museums in other cities. My bad.

Another gold-plated argument, implying I said something I didn't actually say. Of course, there are museums in other cities. I've been to some, in Paris, London, Madrid, Washington, Chicago, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh. I would rank New York's museums second only to Paris's. As a cultural snob, however, I do not consider museums to be interchangeable commodities.

 

[funky_mountain]

increasingly, the new york times is comforting the comfortable on its real estate pages.

The paper's done some good reporting on the plight of people in flophouses. But there is a difference between being a watchdog for the disadvantaged and trying to gear your product around them. My impression is that when the NYT reports on the poor, it is not to build circulation in that demographic, it is done because that's what a good newspaper does. It is a story about the poor, and it is meant to hopefully bring attention to a condition so those in power might do something about it, but it is not written for the poor. It is written for the paper's readers, who tend to be educated and affluent. Most of the paper is geared to their interests, yes. But it's not as if the NYT has abandoned its role of comforting the afflicted.

frank, i certainly see your point. and i stand by mine that, more and more, i am reading about topics in the ny times that carry a hefty pricetag, a pricetag that seems unreasonable even for educated and affluent new yorkers. those stories are nice every now and then. i'm just not thrilled with the frequency lately.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

That's fine, Funky. When I read the NYT, I have to accept that some of the sections are not written for me. For instance, I like food, I like to cook it, shop for it, read about it. But I think the intended audience of the NYT's food section is a bit more upscale and cosmopolitan about food than I am. And that's OK, I don't need to read the whole section, just what I find interesting and/or useful. I'm pretty sure the intention of the parking-spaces story was to provoke a "things are getting ridiculous" response rather than provide "news you can use" for the wealthy.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Sheesh, from reading the thread title I thought this would be about the homeless or something.

Looks like the free market at work to me.

Agreed. I'm ashamed of it. When a "free market" can make people on both sides of the financial transaction act like complete boobs, I am ashamed of the market.

"Boobs" is your value judgment. They're not acting like boobs. They are acting like consumers. I have no desire to own diamond earings. If I see someone who does spend a lot of money on a pair, I don't think they are boobs. I just see someone who values them differently than I do.

Space is limited in Manhattan and parking is incredibly tight. There are few private parking spots and a lot more demand than there is supply. The "market" you are bemoaning is just being rational. Limited supply and higher demand means a high price--it's like that with ANY commodity. If it bothers you and you live here, don't buy a parking spot. But I don't understand why you'd feel the emotion of being ashamed.

 

[BTExpress]

I'll play along. Let's say the one in NY is the best in the country. That's subjective, but we'll say it anyway. Is it so much better that it justifies the $3,000 a month more that you have to pay there for a house half the size of mine? For that $3000, I can visit New York every weekend. Living there? Plain stupid.

A Rolls-Royce is not "so much better" than a Camry that it deserves to cost $350,000 vs. the $25,000 you would pay for the latter.

And Jack Nicholson's Lakers seat is not "so much better" than John Q. Public's that it deserves to cost $1,500 vs. the $30 the latter pays.

To those who can pay for things like that, the concept of the value of a dollar vanished many years ago. It's simply "give me the best you have, and here's a blank check because it really doesn't matter what you fill in."

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

For that $3000, I can visit New York every weekend. Living there? Plain stupid.

It's not stupid, it's a life experience that you can't possibly understand until you've done it. I've lived in other large cities, but my three years in Manhattan were radically different. I remember just before I moved there, I told someone that I thought I could do it for two years and then it would be either the burbs or some other part of the country for me. I wish neither to repeat the experience nor erase it from my memory.

There are things I learned from living there -- about the world, about me -- that I don't think I'd have learned any other way. A native New Yorker, trying to prepare me, said life is just harder there. I would say that my first six months or so, I felt like a ball inside a pinball machine, driven not by my own power but by external forces while a sensory overload of dings, clangs, buzzes and flashes overwhelmed me. You can't quite get that from visiting, and at some point you must make your peace with the insanity around you or go insane yourself.

I've likened those years, too, to having a Hoover nozzle sucking bills out of my wallet continuously. The notion of spending $100 per week on cabs is probably preposterous to most people who haven't lived there.

Living there is plain stupid? No, it's not. Absurd maybe, but not stupid. Your logic is like saying why should I pay $50,000 per year to go to Harvard when I can pay $10,000 to go to small-town state college? Well, because not all of the experiences you pay for are contained in the textbooks, that's why. Along with that $3,000 monthly rent, you become a certified member of the world's largest asylum, and it is entirely up to you whether you want to become McMurphy, Billy or Chief Broom. It is a challenge, and the game is only as real as you let it be.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

For that $3000, I can visit New York every weekend. Living there? Plain stupid.

It's not stupid, it's a life experience that you can't possibly understand until you've done it. I've lived in other large cities, but my three years in Manhattan were radically different. I remember just before I moved there, I told someone that I thought I could do it for two years and then it would be either the burbs or some other part of the country for me. I wish neither to repeat the experience nor erase it from my memory.

There are things I learned from living there -- about the world, about me -- that I don't think I'd have learned any other way. A native New Yorker, trying to prepare me, said life is just harder there. I would say that my first six months or so, I felt like a ball inside a pinball machine, driven not by my own power but by external forces while a sensory overload of dings, clangs, buzzes and flashes overwhelmed me. You can't quite get that from visiting, and at some point you must make your peace with the insanity around you or go insane yourself.

I've likened those years, too, to having a Hoover nozzle sucking bills out of my wallet continuously. The notion of spending $100 per week on cabs is probably preposterous to most people who haven't lived there.

Living there is plain stupid? No, it's not. Absurd maybe, but not stupid. Your logic is like saying why should I pay $50,000 per year to go to Harvard when I can pay $10,000 to go to small-town state college? Well, because not all of the experiences you pay for are contained in the textbooks, that's why. Along with that $3,000 monthly rent, you become a certified member of the world's largest asylum, and it is entirely up to you whether you want to become McMurphy, Billy or Chief Broom. It is a challenge, and the game is only as real as you let it be.

I've never lived there, Frank, but I get the idea behind what you wrote.

 

[Pastor]

On the topic, I'm with Ragu. It is simple supply and demand. If you live in the City, you don't always need a car. Get yourself a cart, take the subway down, fill it up and ride the subway home.

All this talk about money... well, by not owning a car, you aren't spending money on a depreciating asset or adding to that cost by insuring it, nevermind the gas prices. If a need for a car ever came up, you can always rent one. Zipcar is a fine service.

I'll play along. Let's say the one in NY is the best in the country. That's subjective, but we'll say it anyway. Is it so much better that it justifies the $3,000 a month more that you have to pay there for a house half the size of mine? For that $3000, I can visit New York every weekend. Living there? Plain stupid.

When I drive a BMW I recognize it to be a vastly superior experience to driving a Dodge. So, yes, some find that spending more will actually get you more.

Your theory that a $200 bottle tastes the same as a $20 bottle is absurd. While it may be true that there are $200 bottles that aren't very good, it isn't a default. Sometimes you spend more because you can taste a difference.

 

[JR]

I can visit NYC if I want to do "****." But on the few times I've been there, I've found there is little I can do there that I can't in any other city, other than pay 15 times as much for it.

C'mon Junkie, that's plain silly.

Other cities don't have MOMO, the Guggenheim, the best restaurants in North America, the Met, Broadway, off-Broadway, just to start. Besides other cities are not New York.

It's like Canadians who say "Why go to Toronto?I can do everything here in Podunk, Saskatchewan."

I have no desire to see MOMO or the Guggenheim. That's cultural snobbery. And like I said, if I want to do that stuff, I can visit. It's cheaper than living there either way.

Culture snobbery? Oh, please.

Let's not play the lumpenproletariat card. You make yourself look foolish.

 

[Pastor]

Junkie, if you don't understand that a Harvard degree is worth more than one from West Virginia, I would have to think that you are just being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

Sometimes "the rich" have things because they are better.

As to life being harder, well, some people thrive on a challenge. Some people welcome a challenge. Other people sit at home and claim victory for never trying.

 

[dooley_womack1]

So a filet mignon is the same as a gumball because they both come out as ****??

 

[JR]

"Expensive things are just more expensive" is a tautology.

And "expensive" is entirely a relative term. It doesn't have any meaning in and of itself.

Some things are "good value" --others, not so much.

I'd consider finding an Armani suit on sale for $700.00 to be a pretty good damn value.

You might not, but comparing it in quality to a $200.00 off the rack job from Ed's House of Fashion is plain silly.

 

[hockeybeat]

That's okay. You can live in your little utopia.

I'm content living in the cultural capital of the world.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

Frank, I get the idea too, but here's what stood out:

life is just harder there

Then what's the point, really?

Your Harvard analogy would hold up better if it didn't prove what I'm saying: Expensive things are just more expensive. They're for the rich. Just because some of us can't afford them, doesn't mean they're better. An education is what you make put into it and make out of it. So is a city.

It's harder because Manhattan doesn't offer one-stop shopping. There are no default settings. When convenience is removed as an option, you learn what's really important to you and what you'll sacrifice to get it.

And it's harder because unless you live alone in a penthouse, independently wealthy, with everything delivered to your door, you are forced to interact with the outside world in ways that often are not your choice, in situations you'd rather avoid, with the thought in the back of your mind that at any moment, something could get completely out of hand. It is stressful.

I didn't go to Harvard, but geez -- do you really think it's no different from a generic college except for the expense? My God. Don't you think that being in a hyper-competitive environment, you learn some survival skills you wouldn't learn in a less pressurized school?

 

[JR]

I last wore a suit in about 1995. I last wore a tie probably two years ago. Based on that, I think $200 off the rack is too much. It's all about what your priorities are. For me, a $25 pair of jeans at Old Navy will do just fine on 99 percent of the days.

Junkie on his way to work

 

[dooley_womack1]

So a filet mignon is the same as a gumball because they both come out as ****??

You swallow gumballs?

Fine, change "gumball" to "carrot stick." You damn well knew what I meant.

 

[dooley_womack1]

With your obvious dodging of the point, I'll assume victory in this matter. By your logic, Jeffrey Dahmer is as good as Martin Luther King because they both ended up maggot fodder.