Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have not amassed wealth, but okay, I started with nothing, and have been able to support myself. But this is FAR easier to attain for any American citizen than for an immigrant. Don't think that immigration was so easy - the only relatively easy part was to get a spot in a graduate school program (which is equally easy or easier for an American than for a foreigner), the immigration part took 29 years to fully complete (ie, that was the time that passed from my arrival to the US to study, til the day I obtained my US citizenship. During those 29 years, I had not been eligible for any government assistance, and for the first 20 years, ie, from entering the US til being able to obtain a Green Card, I was paying all federal and state taxes without having right to any US governmental benefits, including not being eligible to claim a Social Security retirement benefit or Medicare later in life).
How do you not consider owning 3 apartments all in different cites not amassing wealth? Ok, so you're poor? Smh. Granted immigration may not have been easy for you per se, but I'm willing to bet money that the process was far easier than in other countries and this greatly weighed in your decision to emigrate here. There's nothing wrong with that. The truth is the truth and there's no reason to be in denial about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnrgby
When I arrived to the US, I had nothing except a $560 per month research stipend, for spending about 60 hours per week in the lab in addition to my graduate coursework. That would be about $1,500 in today's money, or about $18,000 a year. Any NYCHA resident is free to start from that (and most NYCHA residents get more than that in welfare assistance - just the housing that they get is generally worth more than that. I paid the rent for a $150 attic storage shed with cold water shower, in Upstate NY, from my $560 research stipend). Everybody is free to start from where I started and become "wealthy"... except that NYCHA residents could typically start from a higher financial point than the one where I started.
Please refrain from commenting on what any NYCHA resident receives. You have absolutely no proof or anything of what those residents "receive." I will kindly ask you to not comment on things you have no knowledge of. You will not look credible doing so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnrgby
I referenced Bob Marley precisely because he is known to everybody (so nobody can complain that I invented the example) and because his lead the lifestyle that included many baby mommas - BUT, he was financially responsible about his offspring. He was financially responsible about his offspring long before he was any kind of global icon, while he had only one wife and two kids, and worked hard on a menial job in Delaware. With this menial job he was fully supporting himself (as well as his wife, one small step-daughter and one small daughter back in Jamaica). All of those are the right reasons for mentioning Bob Marley as an example, and the example does not say anything about my "homogenity" (although it does say a lot about Bob Marley WHEN HE WAS VERY POOR). Btw, the word is spelled "homogeneity", and it means something different from what you think it means (a person cannot be homogeneous unless he/she is made of marble or marshmallow or some other homogeneous material. A society can be homogeneous if it is made of very similar people, but a single person cannot be homogeneous).
Why not a more recent example like the Duggars then?
And clearly the context of how I used it was sufficient enough for you to get my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnrgby
NYCHA exists because of individuals who forced its existence. People who are poor AND STILL have multiple kids are pushing themselves deeper into poverty, and expanding poverty in the next generation of their family. Your "arguments" are fragments of political sloganeering that have nothing to do with my specific statements. You are mixing up my finances WHEN I WAS POOR (which lasted for 17 years following my arrival to the US) with my finances after I finally got above the poverty line at the age of 40, and spent the next 10 years in among the 20% top earners in the country (never anywhere near the top 1%). You are conveniently disregarding the fact that my annual income was below the poverty line for the first 17 years that I was in the US. I did earn more later, but how much did I train for that, and what kind of poverty (which did not permit me to raise a child) did I accept for 17 years prior to that?
Listen, at this point it's an insult to my intelligence to continue this. Either read up on the history of NYCHA, or continue to talk your diarrhea. You clearly lack knowledge of NYCHA's history, and if you want to remain ignorant on NYCHA's history, it's pointless to continue the conversation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnrgby
On the other hand, what has an average NYCHA resident (to whom the US offered much more starting support than it could offer me, an immigrant) done to take care of herself for these 17 years, and why does she and her 5 kids, and her 25 grandkids, and her 125 great-grandkids, still live in NYCHA?
The USA acted as your NYCHA, when your country could not support you. Now that you've carved out a nice life for yourself thanks to the USA, you should help your home country out. On that note, I'm finished.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
1. I suggested selling NYCHA building especially ones in prime location to private investors for development. The city will earn money threefold. First on the sale. Second on the development. Third on the subsequent sale and continued collection of taxes from the end buyer who will no doubt live there, work and pay more taxes.
2. The city would drastically reduce their welfare/social services responsibility.
3. Offer incentive to companies amazons/factories etc type companies to operate from extremely low cost areas.
4. Request developers invest in a pool to develop or develop already existing houses. Houses in Detroit and baltimore are now less than $10k some $5k. Like the same houses in NYC.
5. Provide skills training and certification and first dibs for jobs and these newly built /renovated houses to people who were previously public housing dwellers.
6. Companies get affirdable labor. And people in generational poverty are able to get a leg up so to speak.
Now they own a house and have a job.
7. Those who chose not to relocate would be given the equivalent of the costs of these houses ($10k to $20k) with the understanding they would never qualify for public housing again.
I am sure the govt spend more than $20k per household in welfare/social services yearly. And there are still families as poor now as when their previous family members moved in to NYCHA 20 to 60 years ago
Okay, I do see your points a bit more clearly. I agree with #1, 2, 5, and 6. Regarding #3, these incentives are already in place, on federal level.
But I have a problem with #4 and 7. Re #4, I have a problem with "requesting" developers to do develop existing houses. There is already a tax incentive for investing in depressed areas, and it should not be dictated to developers how exactly to develop those areas (unless you want to clone NYCHA into a bunch of privately owned nightmares equal to current NYCHA). If there were enough people who could spend only $300 per month on housing, rest assured that there would also be developers who would develop and market $300 properties. These developers would prosper, just as Walmart is prospering far more than "upscale" retailers, by offering a large volume of ultra-cheap stuff to the right consumer population. Needless to say, though, such properties would have to be located somewhere outside NYC where the land is not the most expensive on the planet. Not a tragedy to have to live somewhere that is not NYC, I have done it myself all my life.
Re #7, the value of NYCHA housing is not anywhere near $10k or $5k like in Detroit. Even the smallest and most damaged NYCHA units are worth more than $50k. I am also sure that the government spends more than $20k per household per year - well, it should just stop spending that. That is why I actually favor Universal Basic Income, where every citizen of the US older than 18 would get $1,000 per month, and THAT IS IT. Nothing more, no other welfare spending. The poor would have to think how to spend this $1,000 - considering that they get the same $1,000 whether they have zero kids, one kid, or five kids. It would just require the poor to grow up and manage their own life.
There are indeed people who absolutely cannot take care of themselves because they are ill, physically or mentally. These people should be institutionalized, and the $1,000 applied to the cost of their institutionalization. They should be advised not to have kids unless they have a healthy spouse or partner who can take care of the kids.
How do you not consider owning 3 apartments all in different cites not amassing wealth? Ok, so you're poor? Smh. Granted immigration may not have been easy for you per se, but I'm willing to bet money that the process was far easier than in other countries and this greatly weighed in your decision to emigrate here. There's nothing wrong with that. The truth is the truth and there's no reason to be in denial about it.
Please refrain from commenting on what any NYCHA resident receives. You have absolutely no proof or anything of what those residents "receive." I will kindly ask you to not comment on things you have no knowledge of. You will not look credible doing so.
Why not a more recent example like the Duggars then?
And clearly the context of how I used it was sufficient enough for you to get my point.
Listen, at this point it's an insult to my intelligence to continue this. Either read up on the history of NYCHA, or continue to talk your diarrhea. You clearly lack knowledge of NYCHA's history, and if you want to remain ignorant on NYCHA's history, it's pointless to continue the conversation.
The USA acted as your NYCHA, when your country could not support you. Now that you've carved out a nice life for yourself thanks to the USA, you should help your home country out. On that note, I'm finished.
No, I am not poor, but I also do not have a mass of wealth :-). Obtaining education, and a student visa, is far easier in the US than in the other countries, which is why I had to go to the US (I did not choose it; my choice really would have been Britain, and if I had spoken an adequate German, my choice would have been the German-speaking European country into which my parents emigrated after "my country of origin" crashed into 7 pieces. The emigration process through pathways other than education is not necessarily easier in the US than in Europe, but I did not have a basis for these other pathways).
I happen to know what a NYCHA resident receives. I had a tenant in Parkchester, the Bronx, who was paying me $900 until she suddenly (illegally) abandoned the lease on my apartment when she received a voucher from NYCHA - the voucher was for about $1,500, and enabled her to move to a more expensive apartment than mine :-). So yes, I do have a knowledge of what a NYCHA resident receives.
I didn't know about these Duggar Family (I don't watch Jerry Springer-type shows) so couldn't use their example for anything, but they sure are disgusting! I can't open your link (I had to google them), so I don't know what they would be an example of (I don't think Bob Marley is disgusting, I have a couple of his CDs, a concert tape, a documentary tape, and another documentary DVD! Bob Marley was my POSITIVE example - a guy who took care of his family when he was poor, when he was rich, and after he was dead). Do these Duggars live in NYCHA, or do they support themselves? If they support themselves by appearances on idiot-tv and endorsements of junk food, I still think they're disgusting, but they are none of my business (just as Bob Marley isn't) because they are not supporting themselves with taxpayers dollars. So, what do they exemplify? Why was I supposed to use them as an example instead of Bob Marley?? They do not seem to be an example of what I was trying to argue with the example of Bob Marley.
The USA did NOT act as my NYCHA. The USA gave me a right to train and work - it never gave me a free housing, or free anything else. The USA gives the right to train and work to ALL its citizens (including those living in NYCHA), and to SOME foreign citizens (who have to prove a million things in order to get the right to train and work in the US - the right that every US citizen acquires with just being born in the US). I should help my "home country" out?? Which "home country"??? My "home country" no longer exists, buddy, and the replacement country (from which my entire family was thrown out) would deny me a citizenship if I ever wanted to apply for it. I am very grateful to the US for making me its citizen, though, since that is the only citizenship for which I have been legally eligible since around 1990.
NYCHA should exist for the elderly, veterans and disabled.
Okay, I could accept some of that, ie, the elderly and disabled - provided that the "disabled" are indeed disabled, and that the subsidy applies only to the elderly and disabled without family. Otherwise the working spouse should support them (unless both spouses are elderly or disabled). This equals my idea of institutionalizing people who truly cannot care for themselves.
Veterans? Don't they already receive a veterans' pension? How come they can't support themselves with it? Does it need to be raised to meet the basic needs of a retiree?
Listen, at this point it's an insult to my intelligence to continue this. Either read up on the history of NYCHA, or continue to talk your diarrhea. You clearly lack knowledge of NYCHA's history, and if you want to remain ignorant on NYCHA's history, it's pointless to continue the conversation.
The USA acted as your NYCHA, when your country could not support you. Now that you've carved out a nice life for yourself thanks to the USA, you should help your home country out. On that note, I'm finished.
Incidentally, using expressions like "insult to intelligence" or "talking a diarrhea", however much they appeal to people of limited intelligence, does not constitute any kind of logical argument. Okay, I briefly checked on the history of NYCHA, which confirmed what I vaguely thought I knew: it was created in the 1930s in response to the Great Depression, ie, destruction of the stock market which caused mass unemployment. So, I am now not ignorant of NYCHA's history, but this grand piece of knowledge has exactly nothing to do with NYCHA of today,
First, there is no comparison between the US economy of the 1920s, 1930s, and today. There had been a huge expansion of manufacturing jobs in the 1920s, and then a sudden loss of most of the manufacturing industry in the 1930s. The US economy nowadays consists mostly of IT and service sectors like healthcare. These areas are fairly resistant to loss of jobs, which is why the last recession did not result in mass unemployment, and mass unemployment of the 1930s will probably not repeat itself despite increasing automation, because robots cannot program or troubleshoot themselves, and cannot perform many service-sector jobs (eg, robotic surgery is not performed by a robot. It is totally performed by a surgeon - it pretty much means only that the surgeon does not need to have his/her hands inside the patient, but can perform surgery remotely, and the instruments for robotic surgery allow for very small incisions and much less tissue trauma. But you actually need a larger surgical team for a "robotic" surgery, not a smaller one). The workforce needed today is not a smaller one than during the manufacturing time, but does require generally higher skills, the reason why people need more training today for almost anything. Yes, people who do not want to pursue any training will likely be unemployable in today's economy - but is the tax-supported NYCHA for people who do not want to train for jobs (and are therefore unemployable in today's economy) justifiable? Is it justifiable to hand out housing for free, or nearly free, in the most expensive city in the nation, to some people just because they do not want to train for any occupation (I am not talking about college)?
Second, NYCHA was created about 30 years before the first strongly reliable (ie, hormonal) contraception was invented, about 50 years before the straight-forward surgical techniques for tubal ligation and vasectomy were perfected, and about 80 years before the latest-generation IUDs were developed. Poor people could not decide to limit their family size by any method other than total abstinence from sex (which is quite miserable for most people younger than 50). That is very different now. Is it justifiable to give a free housing to some people just because they do not want to bother with contraception?
History of NYCHA is relevant to understanding the role of NYCHA today about as much as a bicycle is relevant to operating a space shuttle.
Again, the US never acted as "my NYCHA when my country could not support me". "My country" was an artificial political construct engineered by three world superpowers after the first world war, and this artificial construct vanished in a very bloody ethnic conflict... but that has absolutely nothing to do with NYCHA, and you have no capacity to understand it (and you don't need to, for the purpose of discussion about NYCHA). Like most people who support themselves with their work, I was never "supported" by any country. People who know no way to live other than being supported by someone else cannot relate to self-support, but just for your info, a citizenship (by birth or by naturalization) isn't a "support" - it is a social contract.
Incidentally, using expressions like "insult to intelligence" or "talking a diarrhea", however much they appeal to people of limited intelligence, does not constitute any kind of logical argument. Okay, I briefly checked on the history of NYCHA, which confirmed what I vaguely thought I knew: it was created in the 1930s in response to the Great Depression, ie, destruction of the stock market which caused mass unemployment. So, I am now not ignorant of NYCHA's history, but this grand piece of knowledge has exactly nothing to do with NYCHA of today,
First, there is no comparison between the US economy of the 1920s, 1930s, and today. There had been a huge expansion of manufacturing jobs in the 1920s, and then a sudden loss of most of the manufacturing industry in the 1930s. The US economy nowadays consists mostly of IT and service sectors like healthcare. These areas are fairly resistant to loss of jobs, which is why the last recession did not result in mass unemployment, and mass unemployment of the 1930s will probably not repeat itself despite increasing automation, because robots cannot program or troubleshoot themselves, and cannot perform many service-sector jobs (eg, robotic surgery is not performed by a robot. It is totally performed by a surgeon - it pretty much means only that the surgeon does not need to have his/her hands inside the patient, but can perform surgery remotely, and the instruments for robotic surgery allow for very small incisions and much less tissue trauma. But you actually need a larger surgical team for a "robotic" surgery, not a smaller one). The workforce needed today is not a smaller one than during the manufacturing time, but does require generally higher skills, the reason why people need more training today for almost anything. Yes, people who do not want to pursue any training will likely be unemployable in today's economy - but is the tax-supported NYCHA for people who do not want to train for jobs (and are therefore unemployable in today's economy) justifiable? Is it justifiable to hand out housing for free, or nearly free, in the most expensive city in the nation, to some people just because they do not want to train for any occupation (I am not talking about college)?
Second, NYCHA was created about 30 years before the first strongly reliable (ie, hormonal) contraception was invented, about 50 years before the straight-forward surgical techniques for tubal ligation and vasectomy were perfected, and about 80 years before the latest-generation IUDs were developed. Poor people could not decide to limit their family size by any method other than total abstinence from sex (which is quite miserable for most people younger than 50). That is very different now. Is it justifiable to give a free housing to some people just because they do not want to bother with contraception?
History of NYCHA is relevant to understanding the role of NYCHA today about as much as a bicycle is relevant to operating a space shuttle.
Again, the US never acted as "my NYCHA when my country could not support me". "My country" was an artificial political construct engineered by three world superpowers after the first world war, and this artificial construct vanished in a very bloody ethnic conflict... but that has absolutely nothing to do with NYCHA, and you have no capacity to understand it (and you don't need to, for the purpose of discussion about NYCHA). Like most people who support themselves with their work, I was never "supported" by any country. People who know no way to live other than being supported by someone else cannot relate to self-support, but just for your info, a citizenship (by birth or by naturalization) isn't a "support" - it is a social contract.
People who work in public policy do indeed know and study history.
There are proposals to nationalize private housing in Berlin (apartments) as a way of dealing with constantly increasing prices.
That could happen in the US, especially in NYC. NYC has a big history of using eminent domain to seize private property for a variety of projects. It’s part of how we have public housing to begin it. Imagine the city taking over luxury housing
There are proposals to nationalize private housing in Berlin (apartments) as a way of dealing with constantly increasing prices.
That could happen in the US, especially in NYC. NYC has a big history of using eminent domain to seize private property for a variety of projects. It’s part of how we have public housing to begin it. Imagine the city taking over luxury housing
NYCHA and all other public services in the city are funded by tax money. If the city expropriates property of the only real taxpayers (aka luxury housing) to turn it over to NYCHA, who will pay taxes that are funding NYCHA?
The USA acted as your NYCHA, when your country could not support you. Now that you've carved out a nice life for yourself thanks to the USA, you should help your home country out. On that note, I'm finished.
And while I do not want to turn this topic into a discussion about immigration, you can tell that I am really irked by your idiotic statement that "the USA acted as my NYCHA, when my country could not support me" - when NO COUNTRY EVER SUPPORTED ME (and certainly never paid for my housing!!!). Much of the lengthy and complicated procedure of legal immigration into the US is related to ascertaining that the immigrant will never become a public charge in the US, ie, never need to be supported by taxpayers' funds. If you are immigrating legally, you have to answer very specific questions about any disability or dependence on any kind of funds that are not your own, and you have to submit very specific evidence of how you will support yourself in the US. The US does not need or want any international deadbeats - it has more than enough of the homegrown ones (eg, NYCHA residents).
Your false and offensive statement in my direction is like saying that the US supported Mick Jagger after he relocated to New York City (he relocated out of NYC later, but NYC was his primary home for a long time). He relocated to NYC because the city was still the coolest on the planet when he he was based there, because his wife was an American, and probably also because property taxes for a person in his income bracket were much lower in NYC than in the UK. But it would be thoroughly imbecile to say that the US was Jagger's NYCHA, or that it supported him. Mick Jagger could support himself during his entire adult life, and so could I.
"you can tell that I am really irked by your idiotic statement that "the USA acted as my NYCHA, when my country could not support me" - when NO COUNTRY EVER SUPPORTED ME"
In many ways I am similar to Eleanor Rigby: female, similar age, legal immigrant, came with nothing... My country was also in great turmoil, guerrilla warfare going on. I came by applying to a PhD program and getting a teaching assistantship to earn my keep. Some differences are that I am a brown Latin American and that my career is in Tech.
I started out living in NJ in a house share with roommates which numbered between 5 and 12, one bathroom. My stipend was a few hundred dollars and in exchange I had to teach two computer science courses a semester, including summers. I taught at a Master's level and they kept changing these courses on me so I had to spend numerous hours preparing new course material, holding office hours, grading papers and other assignments, actually teaching... And watching my students get entry level jobs where they made, oh, about 8 - 10 times as much as I lived on. Until I too was able to graduate, join the workforce, get a green card. Yay!
NEVER was I a burden to anyone, not even slightly, and it *does* feel insulting, or at least misplaced to hear that the US was my NYCHA. (or elnrgby's)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can't open your link (I had to google them), so I don't know what they would be an example of (I don't think Bob Marley is disgusting, I have a couple of his CDs, a concert tape, a documentary tape, and another documentary DVD! Bob Marley was my POSITIVE example - a guy who took care of his family when he was poor, when he was rich, and after he was dead). Do these Duggars live in NYCHA, or do they support themselves? If they support themselves by appearances on idiot-tv and endorsements of junk food, I still think they're disgusting, but they are none of my business (just as Bob Marley isn't) because they are not supporting themselves with taxpayers dollars. So, what do they exemplify? Why was I supposed to use them as an example instead of Bob Marley?? They do not seem to be an example of what I was trying to argue with the example of Bob Marley.
Identify with elnrgby
