Hacker News Reader

Comment by popobobo | Hacker News Reader

This is a capitalism country. We reward individuals who are rich. What is wrong with rich kids getting into college? This is the bonus they got from creating more economy growth for the society. And to be honest, the 1% income limit is misleading. The real rich people will laugh at the 1% income threshold. With 1% income in nyc, you can't even raise a family in decent life style.

View on HN

> This is the bonus they got from creating more economy growth for the society.

One quibble: it's not them, it's their parents.

There are 18 year old entrepreneurs who've created lots of economic growth, of course, but they're very much not the crowd we're talking about here.

I am talking on a GDP basis.

On a GDP basis, it's still their parents.

Being richer doesn't correspond to having more potential. For every rich person in college (top 1% of pop), there's a cohort of roughly 30x that would do as well or better.

> "let them eat cake"

History will not be kind to this point of view.

Poverty is poor people's own problem to fix. I am not against better social benefits. But I don't live in dreams either.

Its your job to shovel yourself out of the shit that we keep shitting on you. Don't stop or you will drown! If you work real hard you might even get yourself uncovered to your waist, that's social mobility!

One of the caveats of capitalism is that capital creates capital, wealth accumulates naturally at the top. This is why it has to be balanced with strong social welfare systems to avoid reverting to feudalism.

Or something...I'm not sure social welfare has done anything except create an ever-growing dependent class that must be paid to do nothing.

Maybe so, but I don't think we want the sword to be the solution.

>With 1% income in nyc, you can't even raise a family in decent life style.

I don't know much of NYC but isn't it... huge? I'm sure that there are parts of it far away from Manhattan that aren't shitholes and where you can live with a "normal" wage.

I've known some 1% commuting 3hrs round way. Just because the "aren't shitholes" area could be really far away. Plus after tax 600k will turn into 350k.

So you literally have to be a millionaire to live in Manhattan?

The 1% cutoff is about $400k/year. If you want to live in lower Manhattan that sounds about right. Upper Manhattan has a bit more opportunity, but even then you're looking at old and tiny apartments for your family.

If you want to own your property, yes definitely.

If you want to own property in Manhattan probably, or at least close to it.

If you want to own property elsewhere (Brooklyn, Queens, SI, Bronx), you need to be upper middle class and have some savings—no millions needed though unless it's some super prime location.

The 1% that commute long hours to Manhattan do it because they want to live in their large Long Island or upstate estates/houses, not because they can't afford Manhattan. If they wanted to be close to work, they'd just have to live in a smaller house/condo without a large front lawn or private pool.

Millions of families live "decent" lifestyles in NYC all the time without being millionaires.

I think that's pushing it a little. With a $1,000,000 mortgage 30 year @ 4.0% APR, that payment would be $57,288/year + $5,000 property tax/year. So someone with mid 200,000/year salary could afford it.

That's fair, haven't really delved into NYC real state. That said, I've never seen or heard of a property (condo, house, apartment, etc) for a million in a desirable Manhattan location. Even in Park Slope or Sunset Park in Brooklyn you go over the million mark quick.

Friend just bought an apartment in the East 40s for less than $300,000. That's a $60,000 down payment he saved from his ~$100,000 salary over six years. With taxes, HOA, PMI, et cetera he is paying $2,500 (20 year) to $2,800 (30 year) a month, or about 30% of his pretax salary. It's a stretch, but it's totally doable.

Yeah, now he just needs to squeeze his future wife and possible children into a 500 sqft studio. I am glad he sorted out everything.

I'm afraid that you are greatly overestimating the size of a Tudor City studio. The reality is less than 300 square feet for just over $300K.

Probably important to note that for $300,000 in the East 40s of Manhattan, you're almost undoubtedly getting a co-op and not a condo... meaning you aren't getting "ownership" in the traditional American sense of "owning one's own home".

See here: http://streeteasy.com/condos/midtown-east?sort_by=price_asc

Cheapest studio condos go for upwards of $500k.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com