Salary

> @NYC ... Going home with 55% doesn't help

i don't see participation of the 2nd earner going higher w/ higher marginal rates either and interestingly, ever increasing health care costs when the 2nd earner many times receives very little for that one (covered often by the benefits of the 1st earner). the recent increase in marginal rates is not nearly enough to pay for boomers' retirement.

in a way, i'm kind of amused by the old calling their homes "my retirement" during the bubble, cause in a way it's accurate as they are tightly linked through the credit cycle. once the boomers retire in mass, the deleveraging process is going to be strong enough to hit real estate (imho strong enough for Ben not to be able to counteract it). then you have all those who will have to sell homes to pay for nursing homes (sometimes for years and years).

Good point notadmin

>> Of course, there's been enormous price inflation, especially in Manhattan.

I don't think the "especially in Manhattan" part is really accurate. If you look at the SE index when it starts (1995) through now, home price inflation has averaged 5.8% a year. The Case-Shiller index for the NY metro market averaged 4.2% (the story is the same below, between, and above the 33rd/66th percentile breakpoints of $269K and $443K, lest there be any questions of middle-classed-ness). Had Manhattan merely tracked the NY metro, a $3.6M place would have been $3.0M. Consider the fact that filtering out significant improvements to the Manhattan housing stock works less well for these indices (renovating apts vs. tearing down homes), it's even less. Sure a differential, but worthy of such protest from the upper crust?

We've had a housing bubble and the effects are going to linger through long-term flatness in prices, so what? As a wealthy person, you have choice. You can get yourself all worked up about having to bear the indignity of a proletariat $3M classic 7, ever grasping for the valhalla of a $6M version of the same overlooking the park, fighting imaginary demons about being forced to move every 2 year if you rent (the last people in my current apt lived here for 7 years, I'll be here for at least 3). Or you can just go rent the the $6M apt for $15K, about the same cost as the $3M apt, and carry on with life.

Every era presents the wealthy with some set of crap choices. Those who made their money half a generation ago and were staring at a bubbled-up stock market in the late 90's had their crap choices. You can choose to focus on your crap choices, or you can direct your attention to the good choices.

> Every era presents the wealthy with some set of crap choices. Those who made their money half a generation ago and were staring at a bubbled-up stock market in the late 90's had their crap choices. You can choose to focus on your crap choices, or you can direct your attention to the good choices.

not only the wealthy make financial decisions. given that both savings rates are pathetically low and the uncertain picture of entitlements for young households, it'd be great public policy to offer them protection from high home prices in order to facilitate them to save more for their OWN retirements.

extending the rent stab system to the REO in hands of the GSEs would be a good step forward. it used to be that renting long term wasn't an option, we have it thanks to rent stab and it works. it's been helping us have a choice between either waste $ on inflated housing or rent cheaply and save the rest for our own retirement.

>> I read Edith Wharton, and it's astonishing the kind of lifestyle that was possible 100 years ago on what seems to be very little money, even inflation-adjusted (with regular inflation calculators).

If your measure of lifestyle is based on how much better you have it than the others, and how many poor people you can have at beck and call, sure. If you're into that kind of thing, try Dubai. The reason it cost so much less, even inflation-adjusted, is because the quality was so much less.

Do you think the turn-of-the-century household cooks were turning out dishes at the quality of our current fancy restaurants? Having an automobile while the merely affluent were being pulled around by horses might seem really awesome, but wouldn't you rather just have a Maserati and actual roads to drive them on even though everyone else (like those household cooks whose job functions have morphed into professional chefs) are driving around in Hondas, getting a very-similar experience. Health care -- i.e., not dying or being crippled by what now appear to us as simple ailments? Flying across the Atlantic on a moment's notice, all with a high degree of safety? The information revolution?

If you view wealth through the lens of "what experiences can I have that others cannot", modern times are not for you. The economic growth we have experienced is predicated to a huge degree on being able to slice up these things to the point that they are affordable to everyone. Think about how much more productivity there is in a chef working in a restaurant serving hundreds vs. a personal cook. As a result, most Americans can experience any of these luxuries, usually at levels that far exceed standards from a hundred years ago. Even with things like homes. The difference with the wealthy is that unlike others, they can experience all the luxuries: they don't have to pick-and-choose. You can relish in the fact that you have all these superior luxuries at your fingertips simultaneously, or you can wallow in the fact that they are available to everyone.

> Or I read Mavis Gallant about surviving on years in Europe on the pay from 1 New Yorker article. But that lifestyle was predicated on what seems to be an enormous pyramid of labor, with the servants and working class being paid even less.

sometimes it does seem to me that nowadays many households are having to supply way much more labor hours than many used to back then just to cover the very basics (rent, food, health care, education). take housing, way above the norm of 2.5x incomes, when you consider that that income back then tended to be 1 income and now it's closer to 2, you even double the amount of work it takes to pay for shelter.

how many do you know able to take sabbaticals like that w/out being tenured? aren't workers punished for not having a continued participation in the labor force? maybe i'm thinking about jobs that reward seniority instead of merit. those jobs rewarding merit would be more flexible.

>> I think there's been a massive price inflation in the accoutrements of an upper class lifestyle, particularly in metro NYC, maybe West Coast as well.

FYI. NYC metro averaged 4.2% home price inflation 1995-present according to Case-Shiller. Their nationwide index averaged 4.1%.

> FYI. NYC metro averaged 4.2% home price inflation 1995-present according to Case-Shiller. Their nationwide index averaged 4.1%.

and what about carrying costs? like property taxes? did they increase 4% annually only?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-12-28/news/sns-rt-usa-newyorkrockland-bondsl1e8ns5c3-20121228_1_muni-bonds-property-taxes-general-obligation-bonds

Instead, the county will trim spending in fiscal 2013, which
begins Jan. 1, and will hike property taxes by 18.4 percent.

The county ranks sixth in the United States for high
property taxes, which consume nearly 7.9 percent of household
income in Rockland, according to a report by the New York state
comptroller. The national average is just under 2.9 percent.

The county's bonds were offered in serial maturities from
2014 through 2022 with a top yield of 3.33 percent with a 5
percent coupon for bonds due in 2022, according to a draft of
the final official statement.

===================

so the county raised debt to increase prop taxes "only" 18.4% instead of the 30% that was announced initially. this with Cuomo's after-pension 2.5% prop tax increase cap because the main driver is higher pension costs which are exempt from the cap. seems that getting in debt is pushing tax increases a few years down the road. a kick-the-can strategy that doesn't give much breathing room.

i see this going on not only on the coasts but also in the midwest, the day of reckoning when it comes to real pension burdens finally arrived.

Got to luv unions and public pensions ... Big government is great!

but of course when you add it all up, virtually everyone is paying less in taxes than 30 yrs ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us/most-americans-face-lower-tax-burden-than-in-the-80s.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

>> and what about carrying costs? like property taxes? did they increase 4% annually only?

According to Figure 1.3 on page 1-5, city property taxes have increased at the pace of real growth over the last 30+ years (inflation + 1.7%):

http://pjsc.magikcms.com/tax%20guides/CityGuideWeb.pdf

Since 1995, it was a bit slower (making up for the faster pace pre-1995) -- about 2% a year and slightly under-tracking inflation.

> Got to luv unions and public pensions ... Big government is great!

imho only a decade from now, thanks to boomer's retirements, "owning" will not be used when it comes to housing. it'll be "renting from the county & state retirees" instead :-)

>> When you are being PHUKED over by the govt without them using protection and going home with only 55% of your salary ....

All this whining over a tax bill of just $100K? Heaven forbid you ever get to an income level where you're going to have to put on big-boy pants, step up for your country, and pony up some real cash.

Mibnyc has some reality check coming with his talk of range rovers and jags. I am sure he will feel very poor rather than solid middle/upper middle class (assuming he is single making 250k).

> but of course when you add it all up, virtually everyone is paying less in taxes than 30 yrs ago.

it'd be great if it was based on a solid research paper, but the NYT tends to be a very crappy source of info when it comes to semi-complex stuff like comparing tax burdens across generations. think about FICA increases alone, many of those who were paying in the 80s got an amazing return of that "tax". are you sure that those who are contributing now will get the same return?

what about high health care costs? a big portion of it comes from cost-shifting from medicare, a tax too. what about education costs? those who went to college in the 80s to a state run university barely paid any tuition compared to now. so the NYTs is right, maybe the older taxpayers are getting away with receiving great services and return for their taxes and now they pay less.

younger households on the other hand, get a tripple short-stick in USA unless they are super savvy: FICA is kind of a scam for the youngest, less taxpayers $ for tuition so more of it is on their own shoulders and higher property taxes ahead to pay for pensions to the old they themselves are not likely to receive.

so imho it's the payment vs benefit what needs to be calculated for each age cohort. it's a great topic for a nice paper. what that article is not: a reason to ask the young to pay more taxes without helping out with those short-sticks.

@ Anaconda ... step up for this country to support you MUDAPHUKAS ??? hahaha. Yeah right

If you hate America so much, MIBNYC, why don't you just move to Liberia?

> @ Anaconda ... step up for this country to support you MUDAPHUKAS ??? hahaha. Yeah right

indeed, the discussion is about broad public policy, not about nickels and dimes. paying $100k more per year will do NOTHING to the annual $1T deficits nor the $64T in entitlement debt, no idea how much is the public pension liability (but it doesn't really matter, what's not sustainable will not be sustained). to me, it doesn't matter whether this can be kept as it is for an extra year or two.

what i do care about is how to make sure that what matters long term is not sacrificed (investments in education, technology, and the like). doing that will be the ultimate short-stick to the young. boomers saved under 5% at their peak earning years and wasted too much in real estate, it's their fault. if there's lack of sources for their aging costs, they should look at each other: rich boomer feeding poor boomer.

@ Alanhart.. yo PHUKNUTS .. who told yo punk azz I hate america ??

or renting from the Government.... after hearing that speech a few moments ago.. sounds like that is where we are headed... awsome

"Middle class can include the top 1%. It's just math."

That is the most absurd thing I've ever seen on this board.

Being ahead of 99% of everyone else isn't "MIDDLE" anything, by anyone's stretch of math.

> or renting from the Government.... after hearing that speech a few moments ago.. sounds like that is where we are headed... awsome

well, or the end of accounting gimmicks that postpone the day to reckoning. take illinois which borrowed for 2 years to fund its pension burden. this year that gimmick ended and hence prop taxes face the real cost plus the financing cost of having postponed it during the previous 2 years.

similar to rockland county, which is borrowing to postpone that extra 12% prop tax increase (needed to pass a 30% increase, passed a 18% + borrowing instead). what they don't realize is that it's a recurrent expense increase not a temporary one so borrowing doesn't help. it just increases the burden almost right away. what i'm interested in is how does it affect the deleveraging process, both for individuals that expected to receive pensions (each year on shakier ground) but also homeowner's behavior. once they get that the increases in pension burdens are structural, not temporary, they will have to adjust consumption of other items downwards in a permanent way.

would public pension retirees but discretionary items like a boat, RV or vacation home or will they realize they need to save more for their own retirement instead? same thing with taxpayers when it comes to budgeting for ever increasing pension burdens.

Didn't you hear Obama today? He wants "collectevtive action"..

You know what that means. And where it leads

>> paying $100k more per year will do NOTHING to the annual $1T deficits

A $1T deficit is $3K per head. Not insurmountable if we collectively set to solve it. The problem is that until the problem becomes painful, the American people do not pressure for it to get solved. Low interest rates keep it from becoming painful.

the other problem that is so clearly evidenced here by many posters is the certainty that the problem is everyone else's.

>> @ Anaconda ... step up for this country to support you MUDAPHUKAS ??? hahaha. Yeah right

I see, so your plan is to avoid making more money to avoid paying more taxes. Good plan.

The problem is-- everyone is used to getting handouts .. And does not want to give them up.

They want more handouts

>> the other problem that is so clearly evidenced here by many posters is the certainty that the problem is everyone else's.

That everyone is a grubby little bastard? That's the American way, jack. It's just a question of when the collective grubbiness causes enough collective pain. Refer to the collective grubby little hands leading to the housing bubble, lying on docs & putting nothing down with govt's implicit support. What caused that to change, some reasoned policy action? No, pain did it Washington is a reflection of the demands of the voters. If they wanted regulation of the mortgage market 2000-2007 to temper the housing bubble, they could have gotten it. But the grubbly little hands were too busy cheerleading the bubble.

Ino,

I am thankful of what I can afford - but if we had a discussion about how thankful I am, it would not be very interesting, right? :-) At the same time, as NYC pointed out, I am in shock of what I cannot afford, things that I should have been able to! This fact does not make me sad and I do not think too much about it - but it does make a nice subject to discuss with educated individuals and I enjoyed reading your comments.
By the way, I may work long hours but I never said it is a bad thing as you make it sound. On the contrary, I love my job - It's what I've always wanted to do and I cannot imagine doing anything else.

>
columbiacounty
about 1 hour ago
Posts: 11251
Member since: Jan 2009
ignore this person
report abuse
the other problem that is so clearly evidenced here by many posters is the certainty that the problem is everyone else's.

Here we go again

oh yes indeed.

you were a little slow today.

what is your solution?

I was a little slow at what?

J75: I looked at your mortgage expenses and mtce/taxes (condo/coop?) Assuming that you have a 30yr fixed, you're paying a lot for a 2br on the UWS, which makes me assume that you own in a really nice building, prime location, views. If you are less particular about location or niceness of building, you can keep the same total expenditure of mtge mtce and have a 3br apt.

@ Anaconda ... my plan is to make more money and AVOID paying to taxes to support ya'll MUDAPHUKAS !!!!

avoid paying taxes to support ya'll MUDAPHUKAS !!!

@jOHN ... Enjoy your life and you work hard to provide for your family. God bless you man

You are correct NYC - it's just that I am looking for a 3b apartment...More like a 5 bed because we have the grandparents visiting very often and like to stay...our housekeeper will need a room too... so I should probably be looking for a TH...

Thanks MIB.

Correction: it's just that technically, I am not looking for a 3b apartment...More like a 5 bed because we have the grandparents visiting very often and they like to stay...our housekeeper will need a room too... so I should probably be looking for a TH...

> Didn't you hear Obama today? He wants "collectevtive action"..

LOL i missed it, watching comedies on Netflix instead, "everything must go" right now. it's pretty good!

> >> paying $100k more per year will do NOTHING to the annual $1T deficits
> A $1T deficit is $3K per head. Not insurmountable if we collectively set to solve it. The problem is that until the problem becomes painful, the American people do not pressure for it to get solved. Low interest rates keep it from becoming painful.

Brilliant! it means $13k per household of 4, meanwhile median wage in USA is $26k. do you get that this is not $13k taxes per household per year, but an ADDITIONAL $13k annually to perpetuity.

at some point, the old will have to come to terms with how much the young worker can afford to transfer to them. the rest, will have to be make up with transfers between themselves. guess that is what "collective" really means.

I should've been watching something else too

Typo collective btw

> I see, so your plan is to avoid making more money to avoid paying more taxes. Good plan.

i think that is a really good idea if the time saved can be allocated to a higher purpose, say volunteering

Inonada: I'm going to use actual sales data in J75's neighborhood from 1991. I looked for residential resales in NYT for a CPW C6, prime but not Dakota prime apartment.

I look at 262CPW. Non-park-view apt, don't know if it's D-line (but we know it's not park view) - C6 sells for 530k in 1991 (from NYT residential resales column) market value probably around high 2s. That's a price appreciation of 8% annually over 22 years. Let's adjust for 2012 dollars, 530k in 1991 works out to 893k in 2012. $1m salary using inflationdata.com's calculator is 593k in 1991. It's not illusory that a 1m equivalent salary (okay, I left out Bush era tax rates) buys less apartment in 2012 than it did in 1991 (even with 9ish% interest rates).

1991 data still doesn't take us back to J75's parent's generation. Co-ops were not as common, even the Dorado converted post-mid-70s. The only free online source I can find for apartment sales in the 70s is the NYMag archive on Google. Haldenstein advertises 8 rooms on park W60s for 65k mid-1975. 65k in today's dollars = 277kish 2012. 1m salary today = 230ish 1975.

>> my plan is to make more money and AVOID paying to taxes to support ya'll MUDAPHUKAS

How are you planning on doing that? Let us know, it might solve John's problems. He's not looking for jail time though, and I don't think he's all that into a Nigerian residency/citizenship.

BTW, are you sure we are all MUDAPHUKAS? Even the ones that make more money than you, are not these people more supporting you than the other way around? Does that not make you the MUDAPHUKA?

John, you're a good sport for letting us pick on you.

@ino

u make some good points. btw i would add, this type of discussion is ok since we r on an nyc real estate board, one that posts rentals for over $50k per month and $20m sales. it also is important to see what life is like at all levels; if anything, i think it shows everyone that money is not the ultimate cure.

i know i have been really lucky in life and i do feel & understand how tight it is at lower incomes. 6 yrs ago, i was making less than $50k in the city but knew things would change. if i didn't, my stress would have been through the roof. at the same time, it's amazing (in both bad and good ways) how much has changed in nyc so rapidly. never would have thought that i would move from brooklyn to west village for essentially cheaper rents (when factoring commute). never thought i'd live on a rental floor with 5 other apts and be the only person actually living there (other 4 were abroad and barely ever came to use their apts)

man i should read what i type. i mean "i think this type of discussion is ok" basically point being that it's not the case that john is saying screw the 99% at all, just describing life from his vantage point

doctor's handwriting

How are you planning on doing that? Let us know, it might solve John's problems. He's not looking for jail time though, and I don't think he's all that into a Nigerian residency/citizenship.

@ Anaconda ... Maybe you can show John how to sell fake Guchi's and LV'S on the side of Blommies to make that mortgage payment on the slide TAX FREE !!

> @ Anaconda ... Maybe you can show John how to sell fake Guchi's and LV'S on the side of Blommies to make that mortgage payment on the slide TAX FREE !!

tax shelters overseas just like Romney?

@ John - y not just buy a mansion in long island and commute an extra 30 minutes? Your kids would have the best schools without paying for private schooling. If you are so worried about space and finances...moving out of the city would solve your space and finance problems. I really enjoy my brand new 2 story colonial in Nassau county with the best schools, full time nanny, 5 beds, 30 thousand dollar home theater all on just a 280k salary. I also have an hour commute. It's a trade off but if you ask me nothing would change my mind...an hour wont kill you. I hate the fact ppl say they have to live in the city... Been there done that! If you're trying to raise a family- manhattan is not the place. If you're investing in manhattan like I am for ppl to pay me high rent- that's also a different story.

@John75 - You were a good sport. If you feel that you have to work harder to achieve lifestyle enjoyed by your parents, you must realize that this trend has a significant chance of continuing for your children. I don't have children, but if I did, I would subordinate all expenses to their education.

@MIBNYC - FYI, although he would not come out and say it outright, many on this board are well aware that Anaconda is not exactly selling fake Gucci's and LV's on the side of the Bloomies and is firmly ensconced in the top 1%. Accordingly, many are likely cringing reading your replies to his thoughtful comments.

@Anaconda (I kind of like the new name) - Whenever looking at a new property, I focus on projected taxes long term because that is ultimately the expense I need to make sure I can bear indefinitely. Trends are a bit daunting, but on a positive note, I am encouraged by what Jerry Brown has recently achieved in California.

@ Novice ... Then why is Anaconda ripping John for being honest about his life expenses meanwhile his PUNKAZZ wants to hide his crap under a rock ? The example of selling GUCHI'S on the side is all about making tax free mula and not give it all to uncle SAMMY.

nyc10023, the increase on the C6 does not line up with the general data. You are saying over a 5x increase 1991-2013. The SE index, which follows the best methodology, shows a 2.7x increase 1995-present. And Miller Samuel shows a 5-10% drop 1991-1995. Stitching those together, something like a 2.5x increase overall.

I know several women that Bartend on the side and make enough money to pay their maintenence and tuitions by just working weekends. Thats some nice tax free MULA !

>> Brilliant! it means $13k per household of 4, meanwhile median wage in USA is $26k. do you get that this is not $13k taxes per household per year, but an ADDITIONAL $13k annually to perpetuity.

The money is not paid by 4-person households with $26K wages, that simple.

A bunch of the $1T hole goes away by itself: reduction of post-2008 emergency measures, increased tax revenue due to economic growth, etc. The target is also moving because of GDP growth.

For example, I remember a CBO chart showing that if we had simply let all the Bush era tax cuts expire (something that could have been easily accomplished by either party without the cooperation of the other), debt as a fraction of GDP would drop dramatically by 2020. Something like half of where it is today.

There is no political will because the masses would not have it. I get the whole "hard times for the middle class" angle, but when we cannot even talk about increasing taxes on the top 10%??? Seems like a country intent on passing the buck to someone else and kicking the can down the road.

Guess when debt as a fraction of GDP was at its lowest post WWII? A time of economic strength? Hell no, during the recession years of 1980-1982. Nothing like paying 15% interest (interest payments over a trillion were they here today) to capture the imagination of the public.

>Nothing like paying 15% interest (interest payments over a trillion were they here today) to capture the imagination of the public.

What was the makeup of the owners of debt in that period, and how does that compare to today?

Inonada: I believe less in following indices (I know Miller Samuel has a UWS-specific one), than going to specific buildings and tracking sales over time. I'll dig up more from residential resales when I have time.

What is sad is that previous generations had 1 bread winner for a household. I know this doctor that purchased his 4 bed n 3 bed with 3 kids on W 86st in the early 80's on his salary alone. Try doing that now !

MIBNYC ... YES!!!!

Since 1975, the national median household income -- adjusted for REAL inflation (allowing for housing, food, fuel, education, and all those other big-ticket expenses that the CPI ignores) -- has actually decreased by 12% ... while the income of the top 5% has increased by over 800%!!!

But the real shame here is that not only has median HHI declined by 12% since 1975, there are now TWO people instead of ONE earning it per household! Per household, once you factor in the lost cost of 40 hours a week (or more) of the other person's labor, that's more like a 75% drop.

Whenever anyone talks about how great previous generations had it, I assume the speaker is a white male. In previous generations, many of us did not have the opportunities we now have for a host of reasons.

Well good luck if you think OSAMA gonna be of any help.

not sure NYC (esp manhattan) is the right fit for u MIBNYC, maybe jersey or staten island might make more sense.

For anyone with an hour to spare, this most excellent lecture from the great Senator Warren says it all:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A&feature=relmfu

That's the confounded mobile format ... I hope YouTube serves up the right format for other platforms.

That's a great lecture!

@ NYC .. born in LES lives in Midtown. Loves Manhattan but hates the cost of Living.

Now some here have a problem with NJ and Staten Island?

Mibnyc any explanation of your Osama comment?

Mibnyc any explanation of your Osama comment?

Instead of Obama i used Osama

Spelling mistake or political commentary?

Cmon ... i call inonada ANACONDA : )

oK Greenday ?

Alright pretty clever all around.
Any thoughts on an alternative name for the poster named "caonima"?

I'll work on that one

@greensdale - MIBNYC's comment made no sense. What Mibnyc is missing is that some posters in this conversation are in the highest tax bracket and voted for Obama. Such posters are not looking to Obama for any help; these posters are competing in the open market place and doing just fine/winning. I don't know one working woman or person of color who talks about how great the previous generations had it. Yes, it is terrible for the white male that he now has to compete with women and minorities in the workplace and that his wage has suffered as a result. From where I sit, MIBNYC comes off sounding very entitled and has not a clue as to how much money he needs to make to afford the things to which he aspires. My question is where did these aspirations come from? From the media? his parents? Who did not teach this young man basic financial management? He should be grateful that the banks are not willing to lend to him at the level he desires because they are saving him from himself.

@greensdale - MIBNYC's comment made no sense. What Mibnyc is missing is that some posters in this conversation are in the highest tax bracket and voted for Obama.>>> Who else was there to REALLY VOTE FOR ? NIXON ?

Such posters are not looking to Obama for any help; these posters are competing in the open market place and doing just fine/winning. >>> Go ask the HOMEBOYS here if they love giving 45% of their income to uncle sammy

Inonada- The Bush tax cuts were across the board. In fact the lower brackets got bigger decreases in rates than the higher brackets did (this is alwasy what happens in order to sell these things as benefits to the middles class. But they expired in 2010. They have since been extended by a Democratic congress and signed by President Obama, so is it really proper to still call them "Bush tax cuts"?

And they have just been made permanent by both parties and the President witht he exception that those over $400,000 went back up to prior rates. So I don't see how we can continue to blame Bush for that one. We own it now.

Mibnyc who are the homeboys you refer to and what is the relevance?

Nycnovice why do you discount someone's opinion just because he may be a white male? If a man of any race or even a woman in the workforce of any race looks at their situation in light of their father's earlier situation (assuming likely that the father was the bread winner) and sees that they are less well off in some aspect or another, why would you suggest that their most natural frame of reference is not an appropriate frame of reference?

@ Greenday ... the HOMEBOYS here posting

@greensdale - I am neither discounting the opinion, nor am I saying it is not an appropriate frame of reference; my brother, sister and I all have to work harder than our father did to enjoy the things as an adult that we did as children. Part of this is that we were born on third base. This thread makes me really appreciate my parents, who stressed education and told us that each of us was going to face challenges in the workforce that my father did not face. However, none of us complains, but rather each of us is thankful that our parents gave us the tools to compete in the incredibly competitive world in which we live. My point is simply that I do not know any women or minorities who are complaining about having to work harder than their fathers did. I may have to work harder than my father did, but at least I have a full range of professional opportunities that were simply not available to women of my father's generation. I don't care if I have to work harder for less money than my father earned; at least I get to work. There may well be woman and minorities who are complaining about having to work harder than their fathers did; I simply don't know any.

Your father did not work hard?

I'd argue, the Greatest Generation worked harder.

I think it is unfortunate that you have turned this into a discussion surrounding race. That seems to be irrelevant.
Also, reading your statement, you say you and your siblings aren't complaining, but I read it that you are both complaining and at the same time bragging about your difficulties as if it makes you better people.

I don't know one working woman or person of color who talks about how great the previous generations had it.

Here in Harlem you had soooo many mofos complaining on why whites are taking over the neighborhood and rents are crazy ? Im like why didn't you buy the shit when it was peanuts yourself ??

Brook2 - I believe my father worked hard for his generation. He was no. 2 in his business school class and is a McKinsey alum. He was never home for dinner before 8 pm, and he traveled quite a bit for work. However, he has commented that our generation appears to work harder. I don't know if that is the case. Pretty much everyone I know works very hard; I have no idea whether we work harder than my father's generation. My parents gave me a great education with no expectation of any additional assistance from them. All I know is that I have no complaints.

greensdale - Apologies for steering the conversation in the direction of race. Withdrawn.

P.S. to Greensdale - are you by any chance related to HB? Something about you reminds me of him, but I can't put my finger on it.

But as a final point, I will add that anyone who talks with fondness about yesteryear should be prepared for raised eyebrows from certain segments of society.

What were you hoping for, a formal announcement party hosted by those flailing arm tube men?

I don't know what that means.

Sorry for the delayed response everyone. It was a long & busy workday trying to meet quota down by Bloomies selling the GUCHIS. Apparently, not too many people interested when it's 17 degrees. Except the tourists, they're not going to let a little thing like the cold get in the way. Best thing is that you not only avoid income tax, but you also charge them a sales tax because they don't know any better. And when they finally figure it out, you've really done them a favor because what tourist doesn't like a real "I got scammed in the Big Apple" story?

AvUWS, I was not meaning to use Bush as a 4-letter word. I was simply referring to Bush era tax cuts as a reference to when they began. But you are correct, we all own it now (as we did back then) because that is what we collectively voted for. Except MIBNYC, that is, he's gonna sit this one out. Don't worry though, he'll reconcile with us when it's time to collect that Social Security.

huh?

eh?

alan, which is your favorite nut? I'm torn between the cashew and the pecan.

Interesting: http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/32538-no-income-verification-loan

@ Anaconda ... u gonna report your earnings of GUCHI selling, squeege car washing to uncle sammy ? Cmon dude ... i won't tell : )