Small Talk: Elevator Chat

[Abra]

5 hours ago, peeayebee said:

I guess because this is a mystery show, the Spoilers and Speculations threads are pinned as a reminder to not spoil or speculate in ep threads. 

Unfortunately it doesn't work, I think mostly because people become so used to scrolling passed all the pinned posts that they don't stop to register what they are. I would love to be able to read an episode thread without people going off on speculation tangents; I just want to read/talk about the episodes there.

[Yeah No]

On 9/9/2024 at 3:21 PM, Abra said:

Unfortunately it doesn't work, I think mostly because people become so used to scrolling passed all the pinned posts that they don't stop to register what they are. I would love to be able to read an episode thread without people going off on speculation tangents; I just want to read/talk about the episodes there.

And I would love to be able to read a thread with only posts that agree with me but I guess that's life. This whole show is practically nothing but clues and red herrings. Having to restrict what we say about those things on the regular episode thread is for me unsatisfying and too difficult. What are we going to talk about in the episode thread, incidental things like the color of their clothes? Mention the possible clues but then have to say, "What could that possibly mean? Oh darn, that's right, I can't talk about it here." Ugh. It just begs for discussion as an outgrowth of general show discussion, and I think that's why people are doing it in the regular episode threat. I think it belongs there and if some don't like it they don't have to read those posts. I know I'm not alone in these opinions but my opinion is rarely the one to prevail.

[tessaray]

I agree that speculation seems like a natural part of these episode discussion. Where I think it's more important to separate them are the shows where there is source material (like DC universe, GoT, etc) and speculation can inadvertently reveal spoilers. 

[peeayebee]

It's tricky. You can't eliminate all speculation in an ep thread. I'm not sure where the line is drawn.

I've cited this example before (maybe in this forum, maybe in another): In the Breaking Bad forum, people posted about the potted plant seen in Walt's backyard. In the ep where the speculation was shown to be accurate, I was angry, as were others. The surprise reveal had been spoiled by the speculation. 

On the other hand, on a forum for Carnivale, people were speculating about the identity of a man seen in a sex scene. You couldn't really make him out, but people did screenshots and so forth, and it was pretty clear who it was. I remember in an interview with the show's creator he said he never anticipated that people would be able to figure it out by pausing the VCR -- not sure if DVR's were that common at the time -- and studying the image. Anyway, this speculation didn't bother me.

Maybe the difference is that the second example was done by watching the show carefully, whereas the first example was done thru outside knowledge and/or research.

Edited September 11 by peeayebee

[Yeah No]

I'm taking this hear from the "Gates of Heaven" episode thread.

When I was young there were so many older boomers that had flooded the job market that with inflation and many other factors, companies were able to pay less and be more picky about hiring. A college degree wasn't enough anymore, they wanted you to have experience too. The expression, "Want a job, get experience - want experience, get a job" was big back then. It wasn't until the '90s that things loosened up a bit for me and others I know that way. The '80s wasn't all easy like the movies and popular media make it out to be. Nobody back then talked about how we were going to address the financial problems we young people had. Nobody cared. Today it's all about how do they cater to the young people, make it easier for them. I couldn't even qualify for a credit card until I was 30! And many of our Depression-kid parents didn't have much sympathy either because they had it tough when they were young too, even tougher. So it was sink or swim. Walk a mile in our shoes.

Also it was never realistic for the cast of Seinfeld to be able to afford their own apartments in the '80s and '90s in Manhattan and I always knew that. TV and movies made it look easier than it was. What would Jerry Seinfeld know about how affordable it was when he had money and most of us starting out did not?

My husband and I started out sharing an apartment with friends with melon crates for a coffee table and an easy chair dragged in off the street. What Millennial would even THINK about doing that today? Their expectations are much higher at a younger age. They have to realize it took years for us to even afford a real coffee table let alone a condo. or (gasp) a HOUSE. The older Boomers born in the late '40s and early '50s had it easier but we later Boomers were in a completely different situation. Houses were still affordable when they came into the market and you could still get a really good job with any old liberal arts degree. Not so when I came on the scene.

People always focus on those upper middle class kids that got hand outs from their parents and started out with money but most of us were not in that category and had to share apartments and scrape to get by. Millennials unfortunately were raised with higher expectations because their parents promised better for them, but that wasn't the reality. At least Depression-era parents prepared us for the worst. Boomers did not prepare their kids for the reality as well as they could have (in general of course, not everyone, especially immigrants). Their kids grew up in a time of plenty and expected life to be that way but it is not always that way and their parents didn't prepare them for that. Then they think we always had it easy and money and jobs grew on trees when it did not. They weren't aware of how much we had to struggle to get where we are now. And where we are now is not even as great as they think it is!

[Yeah No]

1 hour ago, Aryanna said:

You do realize that 1980 inflation compared to 2023-24 inflation is not an apples to apples comparison, right? The methodology has changed considerably since 1980. I've seen some reports that say if the inflation of the last few years were calculated on the same methodology as in 1980, current inflation would be worse.

And finding a job is super difficult too. Most times a real human never sees your resume. And a lot of companies post jobs that don't really exist. This skews the stats. And if you do make it to the interview process, it's not uncommon to go through 7 to 10 rounds of interviews.

Then on the housing side...I don't know if you've looked lately (I have) but a sub 1000sf home in a low cost of living flyover state costs around $200K.

Couple that with less homes for sale and home ownership goes from delayed gratification to nearly impossible for many. The banks that got burned in 2008 have vowed to not make thst mistake again. So they buy up the homes but they don't sell them. They rent them. Then you also have property owners whose business is short term rentals like vrbo and Air BnB. This decreases the homes for sale and drives up housing prices. 

I don't wanna start a boomer vs millennial argument but I think we should at least be honest about what is being compared. 

By the way my husband and I couldn't afford a condo. until we were in our mid 30s and that's only because of the crash of the real estate market which lowered prices somewhat. And even so the cheapest, smallest 2 bedroom condo. we could find was $178,000 in 1991 all the way in CT which in todays' money would be over $410,000! Never mind what condos. cost closer to NYC. And our salaries still sucked. That condo. before the S&L crisis was $230,000, which would be worth $531,000 today. And we STILL had to pay 10% in interest! So I don't know how anyone could say we didn't have it worse. Our salaries by comparison were also comparatively much lower. 

This is why we live 100 miles from NYC for the past 20+ years. We kept having to move to where real estate was cheaper to afford anything. And where the cost of living was lower. Our house RIGHT NOW is probably not worth anywhere near $500K. But we made the sacrifices we had to make to live within our means. I think younger people find that concept offensive. It's the reason we older people refer to a certain attitude as "entitlement". We were never raised to feel entitled to anything.

Edited September 11 by Yeah No

[Notabug]

Every generation has their own struggles financially.  I'm also a boomer who went to grad school and lived in a 1 bedroom rundown apartment in a crummy neighborhood back in '81-'82 that was overrun with mice and other varmints.  I paid $140 a month and barely scraped by.  My boxspring was broken during one of my moves and I slept on a bed that was uneven and unstable for years because I didn't have money to replace it.  No TV because I couldn't afford one.  I lived in Columbus OH which had one of the first cable TV systems in the country which cost between $20-30 a month and I could never have afforded that, even once I got my first job.

One thing that I notice today is that younger folks expect/require a higher standard of living/more gadgets.  Part of that is because life has changed and internet access is almost mandatory.  But when you look at what it costs for a cell phone, for a phone plan with data, for Wi-fi, for multiple TV streaming services, for a laptop and all the rest of it; young people have a baseline cash requirement that I didn't have at their age.  We can argue whether anyone needs a top of the line cell phone, a generous data plan, good home wi-fi and the rest of it; but kids today expect to have those things and do not consider them optional or a luxury.  They're used to their parents providing them with high quality phones and laptops and services from the time they were preteens and they don't want to take a step down even of they cannot afford top of the line gizmos.  My parents didn't have a rodent problem in their home, nor did they go without TV or a decent mattress on their bed but it never occurred to me that I had to have them even if I couldn't pay.

Watch an episode of House Hunters.  In addition to the prices, there are a lot of young buyers who are unwilling to settle for anything less than premium finishes.  The kitchen had better have marble countertops and stainless steel appliances.  The hardwood floors had better be in tip-top shape.  It has to be in the most desirable part of town. They expect to live in homes like their parent own/owned not taking into account that their parents probably settled for much, much less in their first home.

[Night Cheese]

1 hour ago, Notabug said:

Watch an episode of House Hunters.  In addition to the prices, there are a lot of young buyers who are unwilling to settle for anything less than premium finishes.  The kitchen had better have marble countertops and stainless steel appliances.  The hardwood floors had better be in tip-top shape.  It has to be in the most desirable part of town. They expect to live in homes like their parent own/owned not taking into account that their parents probably settled for much, much less in their first home.

House Hunters, and most of HGTV, is scripted, embellished, or outright fake. If that's where you're going to get the pulse of young peoples' buying habits, you should look elsewhere.

[cardigirl]

Agreed, House Hunters is very scripted. I know someone who was on the show and people who are featured have already purchased a house, the other two houses shown are to keep the audience guessing as to which one they will buy, plus allow the audience to view other homes.

Edited September 11 by cardigirl

[Ohiopirate02]

1 hour ago, Yeah No said:

So I don't know how anyone could say we didn't have it worse. Our salaries by comparison were also comparatively much lower. 

And how much did an undergraduate degree cost back then? I was fortunate enough to have graduated from a state school in 2002 where the total cost of my degree, living on campus, and books was the same as one year at the same institution in 2024. 

Edited September 11 by Ohiopirate02

[Night Cheese]

I have a friend who was on House Hunters International. Her partner was a professor teaching at his university's satellite campus in Europe. They were living in an university-owned apartment. HHI just wanted young people/young ex-pats on the show, so my friend booked them even though they weren't actively looking for an apartment. They just had to pretent that the apartment they were currently living in was their dream apartment. When they listed their wants as a balcony, two bedrooms, private courtyard, etc., it was because their apartment already had all of that.

[Notabug]

18 minutes ago, Night Cheese said:

House Hunters, and most of HGTV, is scripted, embellished, or outright fake. If that's where you're going to get the pulse of young peoples' buying habits, you should look elsewhere.

Well, of course it is.  I used it as an example, but it is something I have seen out in the real world, too; it seems like younger people want it all now, they don't want to wait to get the bigger house, the fancier car, take the extended vacation.  It seems to me that the desire for instant gratification is higher in that particular group. And, of course, none of this is 'one size fits all'; there are always exceptions and not everyone of that generation feels that way, it just seems to be more pervasive amongst them than it was in older generations.

[Aryanna]

1 hour ago, Notabug said:

Well, of course it is.  I used it as an example, but it is something I have seen out in the real world, too; it seems like younger people want it all now, they don't want to wait to get the bigger house, the fancier car, take the extended vacation.  It seems to me that the desire for instant gratification is higher in that particular group. And, of course, none of this is 'one size fits all'; there are always exceptions and not everyone of that generation feels that way, it just seems to be more pervasive amongst them than it was in older generations.

If HH is fake then it can't be used as an example. If we're going that route then let's use Friends as an example of how a high school grad can go from being too inept to be a waitress at a coffee shop to an executive at Ralph Lauren. 

And if you see it IRL, don't you think it's probably bc younger people have been force fed that lie by media such as HH.

[Ohiopirate02]

4 minutes ago, Aryanna said:

And if you see it IRL, don't you think it's probably bc younger people have been force fed that lie by media such as HH.

Or their Boomer parents raised them to be entitled.

[Aryanna]

1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Or their Boomer parents raised them to be entitled.

That could be true too.

[Notabug]

2 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Or their Boomer parents raised them to be entitled.

Everything comes from somewhere originally.  I think it is more likely that the current generation's parents raised them with a sense of entitlement as well as making instant gratification the norm rather than working to earn a goal.

Househunters audience is way too small to think it is influencing anyone.

[Yeah No]

6 hours ago, Notabug said:

Every generation has their own struggles financially.  I'm also a boomer who went to grad school and lived in a 1 bedroom rundown apartment in a crummy neighborhood back in '81-'82 that was overrun with mice and other varmints.  I paid $140 a month and barely scraped by.  My boxspring was broken during one of my moves and I slept on a bed that was uneven and unstable for years because I didn't have money to replace it.  No TV because I couldn't afford one.  I lived in Columbus OH which had one of the first cable TV systems in the country which cost between $20-30 a month and I could never have afforded that, even once I got my first job.

One thing that I notice today is that younger folks expect/require a higher standard of living/more gadgets.  Part of that is because life has changed and internet access is almost mandatory.  But when you look at what it costs for a cell phone, for a phone plan with data, for Wi-fi, for multiple TV streaming services, for a laptop and all the rest of it; young people have a baseline cash requirement that I didn't have at their age.  We can argue whether anyone needs a top of the line cell phone, a generous data plan, good home wi-fi and the rest of it; but kids today expect to have those things and do not consider them optional or a luxury.  They're used to their parents providing them with high quality phones and laptops and services from the time they were preteens and they don't want to take a step down even of they cannot afford top of the line gizmos.  My parents didn't have a rodent problem in their home, nor did they go without TV or a decent mattress on their bed but it never occurred to me that I had to have them even if I couldn't pay.

My husband and I were paying $350 ($1,336 today) a month in 1980 to live in a crappy roach infested apartment in a dicey neighborhood in the Bronx in 1980 and we were afraid to walk outside at night and were routinely woken up by people making a ruckus and playing music in the street at 3:00 a.m. Our furniture consisted of stuff we dragged in off the street and a second hand mattress. And at age 21 and 23 we could barely afford that. We were forced to move into my parents' building and share an apartment that went for $550 a month with my BFF and her boyfriend. What is not obvious is that most Millennials were living at home in their early 20s and didn't have to support themselves so these rents were incredibly high compared with our salaries at the time. Our combined income in 1980 was about $15,000 ($57,000 today). And keep in mind that this was in NYC so the cost of living is much higher than average. $57,000 for two people doesn't go very far in NYC today nor did we get very far back then with the lower equivalent. And we didn't get any kind of outside support, either. We were living quite poor and we didn't even pay for cell phones and computers. Forget making a long distance call on a land line, it would cost you a fortune. So we didn't and we lost touch with everyone.

I agree with you 100% about how my parents didn't have to live without the way I did and I never begrudged them what they had. They worked hard and earned what they had, which wasn't much more but still better. I never felt entitled to more. We were brought up to believe that it was our responsibility to do better so we could afford more, not the world's or our parents' responsibility to give it to us.

[Yeah No]

6 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

And how much did an undergraduate degree cost back then? I was fortunate enough to have graduated from a state school in 2002 where the total cost of my degree, living on campus, and books was the same as one year at the same institution in 2024. 

My parents couldn't afford to pay for a private school so I ended up with today's equivalent of $40,000 in student loan debt which it took me over a decade to pay off with two hardship deferrals. I could have gone to a state or city school and paid less but I had many reasons not to want to go that route. Looking back on it I think I made the right choice. Too bad it was so much more expensive.

[shapeshifter]

I find it helps to consider the continuum of generational comforts. 
Like, pre-indoor toilets. 

[Yeah No]

5 hours ago, Aryanna said:

If we're going that route then let's use Friends as an example of how a high school grad can go from being too inept to be a waitress at a coffee shop to an executive at Ralph Lauren. 

And if you see it IRL, don't you think it's probably bc younger people have been force fed that lie by media such as HH.

Boomers were fed that kind of stuff too. I used Seinfeld as an example. No way could any of those characters except for maybe Jerry could afford to have their own apartments in those neighborhoods. Also Sex and the City, which although I was pushing 40 when it first aired still made me feel like crap because I couldn't afford to live in Manhattan in my own apartment then or when I was younger. Especially Carrie Bradshaw. They made her apartment look modest but no way could she afford that and all those designer clothes and Manolos even in those days.

[secnarf]

11 hours ago, Yeah No said:

By the way my husband and I couldn't afford a condo. until we were in our mid 30s and that's only because of the crash of the real estate market which lowered prices somewhat. And even so the cheapest, smallest 2 bedroom condo. we could find was $178,000 in 1991 all the way in CT which in todays' money would be over $410,000! Never mind what condos. cost closer to NYC. And our salaries still sucked. That condo. before the S&L crisis was $230,000, which would be worth $531,000 today. And we STILL had to pay 10% in interest! So I don't know how anyone could say we didn't have it worse. Our salaries by comparison were also comparatively much lower.

I would kill to have a small 2 bedroom condo for $410,000 today. In my city, they are double that. A larger 2 bed 2 bath in a nicer area of the city is over $900.

My parents - born in 1955 and 1959 - cannot believe the state of housing and how much worse it is today. When they were my age, they often tell me, as long as you had a full time job you could get a house. Maybe not a very big one, or fancy or anything like that, but you could get one on a minimum wage job. Now, you can't get one on four times minimum wage. My dad was the kid picking up pop can tabs to exchange for money to buy food, he was by no means rich, and my mom was an immigrant whose family lost nearly everything in the war. They didn't come from money. When they bought their house, it was certainly difficult for them with the 18% interest rate. They didn't have an easy time, but it was at least a possibility for them, unlike today. 

I talk to many of my older coworkers, those nearing retirement - universally, they say they would not be able to afford their current houses (at current market value) with their current salaries. Many of them have children around my age or a bit younger, who are facing the same struggles, so they get it. Maybe it's different in the US than here - Facebook sometimes shows me houses for sale in the US and the prices are astonishingly cheap, but I don't know how real those are.

Any objective measure states that it is worse today. That doesn't mean that, if you compare an individual person 40 years ago compared to an individual person today, that the person today will always be worse off. The statistics aren't meant to invalidate someone's experiences. However, OVERALL it is harder now for 20-30 somethings to buy a house than it was 40-60 years ago. My personal experience aligns with the statistics. I have a coworker around my age who came into a large inheritance from the loss of her parents very young, who obviously had a different experience and owns a house that I will probably never in my lifetime afford. Her experience also doesn't negate the statistics, but that doesn't mean her experience isn't valid or real.

[Yeah No]

1 hour ago, secnarf said:

I would kill to have a small 2 bedroom condo for $410,000 today. In my city, they are double that. A larger 2 bed 2 bath in a nicer area of the city is over $900.

My parents - born in 1955 and 1959 - cannot believe the state of housing and how much worse it is today. When they were my age, they often tell me, as long as you had a full time job you could get a house. Maybe not a very big one, or fancy or anything like that, but you could get one on a minimum wage job. Now, you can't get one on four times minimum wage. My dad was the kid picking up pop can tabs to exchange for money to buy food, he was by no means rich, and my mom was an immigrant whose family lost nearly everything in the war. They didn't come from money. When they bought their house, it was certainly difficult for them with the 18% interest rate. They didn't have an easy time, but it was at least a possibility for them, unlike today. 

I talk to many of my older coworkers, those nearing retirement - universally, they say they would not be able to afford their current houses (at current market value) with their current salaries. Many of them have children around my age or a bit younger, who are facing the same struggles, so they get it. Maybe it's different in the US than here - Facebook sometimes shows me houses for sale in the US and the prices are astonishingly cheap, but I don't know how real those are.

Any objective measure states that it is worse today. That doesn't mean that, if you compare an individual person 40 years ago compared to an individual person today, that the person today will always be worse off. The statistics aren't meant to invalidate someone's experiences. However, OVERALL it is harder now for 20-30 somethings to buy a house than it was 40-60 years ago. My personal experience aligns with the statistics. I have a coworker around my age who came into a large inheritance from the loss of her parents very young, who obviously had a different experience and owns a house that I will probably never in my lifetime afford. Her experience also doesn't negate the statistics, but that doesn't mean her experience isn't valid or real.

Maybe in your area things are very expensive like they are in the NYC metro. area but I had to move away from the NYC area to a more affordable one to be able to find something at that "low" price you wish you could find. It was a sacrifice to have to do that and one I didn't love making but that's life. Also it was right after the housing market took a significant dip due to the S&L crisis, which it normally never did. If that didn't happen we would never have afforded to buy a nice new condo. anywhere within an hour of NYC. Finally we got a break. Usually we have to scrape and fight our way to any big improvement to our living situation.  

This discussion started when Mabel made a comment on the show about how an apartment "cost a bag of beans" in NYC when Boomers were young and I did not agree with that. Maybe a rich person might think that but my point was that for the middle class apartments in the city were just as out of reach then as now in a relatively safe area. Maybe they cost more now and more people can't afford them, but for middle class people it doesn't matter how much more they cost now, they were still out of reach for us in the '80s. I had to leave my hometown and move a distance away to be able to afford somewhere to live. It was not my first choice to do that but it was necessary or have to end up in a not so nice apartment in a neighborhood I didn't love.

Actually I am reading now that suddenly the area I live in now (which is even further away from NYC than the first area I moved to in CT) has become a poplar place to move for people from the NYC area because the housing prices are even higher in NYC than they were a few years ago and now even out of reach for upper middle class people. So they are moving here for the lower cost of living and better quality of life. Ironically it has pushed up home prices due to increased demand so now my house is suddenly worth more than a couple of years ago. To put that in context, our house didn't appreciate much in the almost 20 years we owned it. This area was largely forgotten and seen as a place young people left for bigger cities, not a place they moved into. And truthfully that sucked because I kept hearing about how prices were rising everywhere else so it seemed while here they were flat since they took a dip in the recession of 2008 - we were actually under water with this place for almost a DECADE because we unfortunately bought right before the housing bubble burst in 2008. So this recent appreciation in our home's value is not as great as it might sound out of context.

Edited September 12 by Yeah No

[Yeah No]

1 hour ago, secnarf said:

IMy parents - born in 1955 and 1959 - cannot believe the state of housing and how much worse it is today. When they were my age, they often tell me, as long as you had a full time job you could get a house. Maybe not a very big one, or fancy or anything like that, but you could get one on a minimum wage job. Now, you can't get one on four times minimum wage. My dad was the kid picking up pop can tabs to exchange for money to buy food, he was by no means rich, and my mom was an immigrant whose family lost nearly everything in the war. They didn't come from money. When they bought their house, it was certainly difficult for them with the 18% interest rate. They didn't have an easy time, but it was at least a possibility for them, unlike today. 

I talk to many of my older coworkers, those nearing retirement - universally, they say they would not be able to afford their current houses (at current market value) with their current salaries. Many of them have children around my age or a bit younger, who are facing the same struggles, so they get it. Maybe it's different in the US than here - Facebook sometimes shows me houses for sale in the US and the prices are astonishingly cheap, but I don't know how real those are.

Any objective measure states that it is worse today. That doesn't mean that, if you compare an individual person 40 years ago compared to an individual person today, that the person today will always be worse off. The statistics aren't meant to invalidate someone's experiences. However, OVERALL it is harder now for 20-30 somethings to buy a house than it was 40-60 years ago. My personal experience aligns with the statistics. I have a coworker around my age who came into a large inheritance from the loss of her parents very young, who obviously had a different experience and owns a house that I will probably never in my lifetime afford. Her experience also doesn't negate the statistics, but that doesn't mean her experience isn't valid or real.

You can't even compare two separate couples from 40 years ago to each other especially if they lived in different areas. No disrespect, but your parents had to be in a much higher income bracket than my husband and I were starting out and/or live in an area where the cost of living was lower than the NYC metro area. The NY metro. area has one of the highest costs of living anywhere in the country. That means salaries aren't that great compared to what people have to spend. And the irony is that you can be considered middle class in places like that but forget about being able to afford what a middle class person can afford in a more reasonable area.

I just read that real estate prices in the NYC area average more than in the LA metro. area. And everything else is hideously expensive too, from food to power bills, to everything else. Even where in live in CT our power bills are the highest in the nation next to Hawaii. We spend over $320 a MONTH on electricity for a small ranch on average. Don't get me started on THAT. And forget Con Ed. back in NYC. That's always been very high. 

There is no way that anyone could buy a house in the NYC area 40 years ago as long as they had a job or many of my friends would have been able to buy them and that didn't happen at all or if it did it happened like me because they moved to a cheaper area, or it happened much later when their incomes went up or with financial help from family. I am talking about my own experience and that of many people living in areas with a high cost of living. Our experiences are real and valid and not to be compared with areas where the cost of living has always been significantly lower.

I'll give you some examples - A friend from college is a high school teacher and his wife is an admin., although she went back to work only about 12 years ago after raising 3 kids. They don't make a ton of money. The only way they can afford to live in a private house in Queens is because his parents both died on the younger side and left their house to him. He is my age now (66). 

I have another friend that worked in some kind of design field whose wife was also an admin. assistant. They never had kids and came from a modest financial background. They had to move to Yonkers to afford an apartment and the only way they afforded it is because they were renters and the building went co-op when they were living there so they got it at the dirt cheap "insider's price".

My parents were also fortunate enough to be in that same situation. My father was an Army Reserve Captain and teacher in the USAR school and my mother was an admin. assistant. They lived hand to mouth for much of my childhood although my mother was a wizard with money and could squeeze a penny until it bled. They were renting in the Bronx when their building went co-op in the '80s and were able to buy it at a dirt cheap price. Even so they had to finance it.

Unfortunately I was not so lucky. I was living in a crappy neighborhood in the Bronx because we couldn't afford to live in my parents' building and our building never went co-op. We couldn't catch a freaking break. Everyone else got lucky with something. We didn't get lucky until the S&L crisis brought down condo. prices in CT enough for us to barely afford to buy one.

Edited September 12 by Yeah No

[Irlandesa]

Every generation has its issues to fight, but anecdotes are one data point in the sea of millions of other data points. 

That's why social scientists do the work they do. They bring the data points together so we deal with a broader perspective over an individualized perspective. 

Adjusting for inflation from about 30 years ago until today:

The average home price (so including expensive cities like NYC and cheapo places like Rural, AL) has increased 75%.

The average first time home buyer's age increased from 31 to 35.

The average cost of education has increased 181%.

The number of people living in shared housing has increased from approximately 25% to 35-40%.

And the average salary has only increased about 40%.

14 hours ago, Notabug said:

But when you look at what it costs for a cell phone, for a phone plan with data, for Wi-fi, for multiple TV streaming services, for a laptop and all the rest of it; young people have a baseline cash requirement that I didn't have at their age. 

Personal stat, my up-to-date Android cell phone with a data plan per month is actually cheaper than my landline was about 20 years ago in raw numbers.  So not even adjusting for inflation. People forget how expensive those suckers were.

Multiple streaming services?  If they're doing streaming services, they're often sharing.  And they aren't doing cable.  But a lot of people will do maybe one or two services and they just stream for free on YouTube or TikTok.

Laptop? People had computers back then and they were more expensive.  They cost the same as they do today in raw numbers.  (So again, not adjusted for inflation.)

So people are still living with other people/roommates in shitholes (I hear about them from the people I work with.) Degree inflation for entry-level jobs is still a thing.

Are there young people out there with a high standard of living?  Of course but if they don't have parents funding their expectations, they eventually take what they can afford.  They have to, right?  But I suspect images of those privileged few are being extrapolated to paint a whole generation with a broad brush.

Most don't have that luxury.  They gotta work.  They gotta live.  And they gotta eat.

But there's one thing I can guarantee won't change, the time-old tune of "the generations that bitched about my generation were 100%wrong but my generation is 110% right when we do it about 'kids these days'."

 

Edited September 12 by Irlandesa

[JenE4]

Back to the conversation on non-spoiled speculation within the episode thread vs the speculation without spoilers thread… I think we’ve been using them appropriately. It’s natural that if a clue comes up within an episode to speculate on what that clue means and call on prior knowledge from earlier episodes. However, if you want to lay out all of the clues we’ve gleaned across the episodes and speculate on where the mystery/story is going, you take that to the main speculation thread. For example, toward the end of last season I recall people using the Speculation without Spoilers thread to make their overall predictions on who they thought the killer was, bringing together all of the clues from the season. 

[EtheltoTillie]

As usual with this show I’m not speculating about any clues. It’s all McGuffin to me .  I’m just along for the ride. The interactions between the main characters and their famous doppelgängers are hysterical.  

[Yeah No]

7 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

Every generation has its issues to fight, but anecdotes are one data point in the sea of millions of other data points. 

That's why social scientists do the work they do. They bring the data points together so we deal with a broader perspective over an individualized perspective. 

Adjusting for inflation from about 30 years ago until today:

The average home price (so including expensive cities like NYC and cheapo places like Rural, AL) has increased 75%.

The average first time home buyer's age increased from 31 to 35.

The average cost of education has increased 181%.

The number of people living in shared housing has increased from approximately 25% to 35-40%.

And the average salary has only increased about 40%.

Personal stat, my up-to-date Android cell phone with a data plan per month is actually cheaper than my landline was about 20 years ago in raw numbers.  So not even adjusting for inflation. People forget how expensive those suckers were.

Multiple streaming services?  If they're doing streaming services, they're often sharing.  And they aren't doing cable.  But a lot of people will do maybe one or two services and they just stream for free on YouTube or TikTok.

Laptop? People had computers back then and they were more expensive.  They cost the same as they do today in raw numbers.  (So again, not adjusted for inflation.)

So people are still living with other people/roommates in shitholes (I hear about them from the people I work with.) Degree inflation for entry-level jobs is still a thing.

Are there young people out there with a high standard of living?  Of course but if they don't have parents funding their expectations, they eventually take what they can afford.  They have to, right?  But I suspect images of those privileged few are being extrapolated to paint a whole generation with a broad brush.

Most don't have that luxury.  They gotta work.  They gotta live.  And they gotta eat.

But there's one thing I can guarantee won't change, the time-old tune of "the generations that bitched about my generation were 100%wrong but my generation is 110% right when we do it about 'kids these days'."

 

That's interesting because the salary for my very same job when I worked in NYC has increased at the same rate as inflation according to online inflation calculators. I worked at a university so all jobs are leveled and the responsibilities and titles remain the same. And if I were to find an executive admin. job in NYC on the same level as I had here in the Hartford area of CT a few years ago I'd probably make almost twice as much given what I'm seeing online. So where you live makes a difference.

Real estate where my father lived in the Bronx has not gone up astronomically either compared to other costs. The problem with NYC is that certain trendy areas have become even more out of reach to the average person than they ever were, but they have always been out of reach. They're just more so now. But they also skew the statistics to make it look like it's so much worse everywhere. It's not. It depends on where you live. I never could have afforded Manhattan so I don't even factor it in to the equation. Statistics can be misleading.

Also, regarding how much more expensive certain things are now, it also works in the reverse. My parents' first VCR cost them what would be a few thousand dollars in today's money. Same with their first color TV and various stereos back in the '60s and '70s. Not to mention SLR cameras, which are now virtually unnecessary for most people because of smart phones. Many large electronic items have not increased to match inflation, in fact some have gone in the opposite direction.

Also clothing has gone way down. I thought $15 for a top on Fordham Road in the Bronx was cheap 40 years ago. I'm still paying those prices on sale. I'm a clothes horse from way back and I remember. That's one reason people in general have more clothing than ever. It's cheap.

The list goes on.

Also, I agree that eventually people have to get realistic and live within their means, but the fact that younger generations are bitching about it and blaming the older generations for the fact that they can't afford to live the way they want is what I've been addressing. I'm trying to show that even us older people who didn't make tons of money had it rough, couldn't afford Manhattan, had to live with roommates and otherwise compromise on our living situations. It's not just them by a long shot.

[shapeshifter]

39 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

Also, I agree that eventually people have to get realistic and live within their means, but the fact that younger generations are bitching about it and blaming the older generations for the fact that they can't afford to live the way they want is what I've been addressing. I'm trying to show that even us older people who didn't make tons of money had it rough, couldn't afford Manhattan, had to live with roommates and otherwise compromise on our living situations. It's not just them by a long shot.

The only time this blaming the older generation (me, "Boomer") really bothered me was when one of my daughters blamed the Vietnam War on Boomers.

But I'm one of those mothers who always feels guilty for anything my adult kids do "wrong."
Don't try to talk me out of feeling that way; I'll just tell you to get off of my lawn, no matter how well-meaning you may be.

[Yeah No]

8 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

Every generation has its issues to fight, but anecdotes are one data point in the sea of millions of other data points. 

The anecdotes I mentioned are all people my age in the middle class. I doubt that the story would be much different for anyone in our general income bracket. Manhattan, unless you are lucky enough to find something in Washington Hts. or Inwood, has been out of reach of the middle class at least since the 1970s unless you qualify for some kind of rent assistance. Today even doctors and lawyers can't afford it!

I once knew a woman that lived in what was called a "Mitchell lama" affordable housing in Manhattan. There are also what used to be called "projects". It was always very difficult to get into them and the waiting lists were long. This woman told me she got in because she "knew someone". A sea of data points but they all point to the same thing.

Here's another anecdote - my BFF worked for most of her career as an admin. at NYU. Higher ed. pays crap so for most of her adulthood she shared an apartment with either one or more roommates in Washington Heights or the Bronx. Then her parents died in the late '90s and to her great surprise left her a rather large bank account in the mid 6 figure range. It just happened to coincide with her having a roommate that was quickly becoming a hoarder. She was finally able to afford her own apartment. Now that she is retired she doesn't know what she would have done or would do in the future if she didn't have that cushion. She doesn't drive so moving away from the city is not an easy option for her. She still lives in the Bronx in a not-so-great neighborhood but at least she can afford to live.

[buttersister]

On 8/29/2024 at 10:12 AM, EtheltoTillie said:

Duck Duck Go on the Ipad

Works great. Thankfully. I was ready to bag it, too annoying.

[secnarf]

22 hours ago, Yeah No said:

Maybe in your area things are very expensive like they are in the NYC metro. area but I had to move away from the NYC area to a more affordable one to be able to find something at that "low" price you wish you could find. It was a sacrifice to have to do that and one I didn't love making but that's life.

My area is nothing like NYC. There are some family and work factors that have prevented me from moving provinces, which I have considered and actively looked into, in order to find an affordable place to live. Not everybody can pick up and move wherever they want. I have aging parents and a sister with medical needs, and there are the complexities and expense of re-licensing. In my province, I have four city options for work, and then I am actually required to live within 1 hour from work. I could not afford to have a small townhouse in any of those four cities. I did move to one of the less expensive cities, when I was able to find work there.

21 hours ago, Yeah No said:

You can't even compare two separate couples from 40 years ago to each other especially if they lived in different areas. No disrespect, but your parents had to be in a much higher income bracket than my husband and I were starting out and/or live in an area where the cost of living was lower than the NYC metro area.

I don't know what your income bracket is, but when they were buying a house, they were lower middle class. They are now upper middle class. I'm not trying to compare, simply giving other examples. I think it's more relevant to compare my parents to me, than my parents to you. I would also appreciate if you stopped making assumptions about my situation.

11 hours ago, Yeah No said:

Also, I agree that eventually people have to get realistic and live within their means, but the fact that younger generations are bitching about it and blaming the older generations for the fact that they can't afford to live the way they want is what I've been addressing. I'm trying to show that even us older people who didn't make tons of money had it rough, couldn't afford Manhattan, had to live with roommates and otherwise compromise on our living situations. It's not just them by a long shot.

Again, nobody (including Mabel) was blaming the older generation. The problem is people saying to "get realistic with your expectations" when the only thing realistic is a 1 bedroom condo that is constantly in a state of disrepair. How am I supposed to have children? I don't have decades to make that happen. If I don't have sufficient housing, it's irresponsible to choose to have kids that I cannot house. Or is it an unrealistic expectation to want children? And if it is, what does that say about our society?

I might feel differently if I were working a minimum wage job. The reality is that my single income is more than the median family income in my city. It has reached a point where the vast majority of people would not be able to afford their own houses if they had to buy it at market value today. Mostly I'm just sad I wasn't about three years younger - it could have made a world of difference for me in terms of what I could afford.

[Night Cheese]

For what it's worth, I was rewatching season 1 while home sick, and in the first episode, Oliver asks Mabel what her deal is and says, "we got our places years ago when the Arconia was affordable...". So if we're shitting on Mabel (and for some reason, by extension, all millennials) for sarcastically saying an apartment used to cost a "bag of beans", then let's acknowledge that the show has always recognized the unliklihood that a young person could realistically afford to live in such a nice apartment building.

[Yeah No]

On 9/12/2024 at 10:05 PM, secnarf said:

My area is nothing like NYC. There are some family and work factors that have prevented me from moving provinces, which I have considered and actively looked into, in order to find an affordable place to live. Not everybody can pick up and move wherever they want. I have aging parents and a sister with medical needs, and there are the complexities and expense of re-licensing. In my province, I have four city options for work, and then I am actually required to live within 1 hour from work. I could not afford to have a small townhouse in any of those four cities. I did move to one of the less expensive cities, when I was able to find work there.

I had issues with where I could move too. I had aging parents and no other family but them and I had to face that if I were going to have any quality of life I'd have to move an uncomfortable distance away. My mother was in the hospital and died only months after I moved to an area 100 miles away from NYC and my father had medical issues starting in 2010 and then died in 2020 of Covid, and it was a hardship and not my first choice to "up and move", but it was the furthest away I could realistically move and still be close enough to drive to see them in one day.

On 9/12/2024 at 10:05 PM, secnarf said:

I don't know what your income bracket is, but when they were buying a house, they were lower middle class. They are now upper middle class. I'm not trying to compare, simply giving other examples. I think it's more relevant to compare my parents to me, than my parents to you. I would also appreciate if you stopped making assumptions about my situation.

I felt that mentioning how easy it was for them to buy a house was implying a comparison to my situation (and yes an assumption about it) since you were replying to my post about this, which is the only reason I responded with how different it is in the NYC area than other places. And the fact that you're talking about another country (I presume because you mentioned provinces) makes their situation even less comparable to what I was discussing. If you didn't mean to make such a comparison to what I was talking about that didn't come across to me so I felt justified in making that assumption. 

I never meant to discuss anywhere but the NYC area. This discussion started when Mabel made a snarky comment on how cheap it was to buy an apartment in NYC when Charles and Oliver were young. Maybe when THEY were young but they're older Boomers. Steve M. is almost 80 and Martin S. is 74. Maybe when they were staring out things were that cheap, but not when I came of age. I wasn't talking about any other time and place but my own. So hearing about how easy it was for someone's so-and-so to buy a house 40 years ago in another country isn't really relevant to what I was talking about. Not that it had to be but it sure seemed to me like you were responding to what I was saying as if to show it could be that easy for people in my age bracket. Yeah, perhaps for them, but not where I lived and that's the point I think I was making.

And no, it was not possible for anyone in the lower middle class to buy a house (or even a condo.) in the NY Metro. area past the late '70s at the latest. I knew older Boomers that did so but that was when I was still a child and teenager, not when I came of age and graduated college. Suddenly that door slammed shut on young people due to inflation, rising housing prices and double digit interest rates. This is something that a lot of younger people today might not realize. I would have given my eye teeth to live in Westchester County but by the time I got there it was "no soup for you".

On 9/12/2024 at 10:05 PM, secnarf said:

Again, nobody (including Mabel) was blaming the older generation. The problem is people saying to "get realistic with your expectations" when the only thing realistic is a 1 bedroom condo that is constantly in a state of disrepair. How am I supposed to have children? I don't have decades to make that happen. If I don't have sufficient housing, it's irresponsible to choose to have kids that I cannot house. Or is it an unrealistic expectation to want children? And if it is, what does that say about our society?

Did I say Mabel was blaming the older generation? I thought I said she was acting like they had it better than she did, not blaming them. 

The thing is that what you're complaining about above is exactly like what I faced and that's the entire point I have been trying to make - that younger generations today have similar issues now to what I faced when I was starting out. I'm not talking about anyone else's situation but my own. Perhaps it was easier to start out in a different area of the U.S. or another country altogether, but that is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the NYC metro. area. I faced the same problem of not having any choice but an older one bedroom. apartment in disrepair in a not so great area being all I could hope to afford and even that was a stretch.

On 9/12/2024 at 10:05 PM, secnarf said:

I might feel differently if I were working a minimum wage job. The reality is that my single income is more than the median family income in my city. It has reached a point where the vast majority of people would not be able to afford their own houses if they had to buy it at market value today. Mostly I'm just sad I wasn't about three years younger - it could have made a world of difference for me in terms of what I could afford.

I couldn't afford my own house today either but that's hopefully how it should work because real estate appreciates and eventually people (like me) retire and their incomes don't go up but usually go down or stay flat. But if we sold our houses we would get to reap the benefits of that appreciation. And that's as it should be.

When I was young I wished I could have been born in 1948 instead of 1958. If so my husband and I could have afforded a nice new house in Yorktown Heights in Westchester County with no problem. I had friends older than me that lucked out on that because of their age at the time. If they had served in Vietnam they had even more advantages buying a home that we didn't because we were too young to have served in that. And it was not cool to be involved in the armed forces by the time I came of age culturally speaking in general.

Because I was a younger Boomer I couldn't ever afford to live in Westchester and it was the place I always wanted to live when I was a kid growing up lower middle class in the Bronx. Even later when my husband and I became regular middle class we couldn't afford it because the prices were going up out of proportion to income all through the '80s and '90s and we were stuck having to consider move further and further away to afford anything. I'm just trying to show that the issues young people are facing today are similar to mine when I was young and it's not like all Boomers had it so easy. I was not trying to claim I had it worse than young people today, but similar. I think a lot of younger people think we all had it so easy, but at least the younger Boomers in a certain income bracket did not.

Also I couldn't afford to buy anything until my mid 30s which in my time was considered "older" to enter the housing market but that was true for a lot of young people my age because of the real estate situation we faced in our 20s. And we didn't have the advantage to be living at home and supported through much or all of our 20s like a lot of young people are today so it was even harder for us to save enough to get our foot in the door with real estate. My husband and I both had multiple jobs in addition to full time jobs in our 20s. My husband had 3 jobs at one point. That's the only way we were able to save for a down payment on something nicer than a crappy one bedroom apartment in Yonkers. Again, I'm just trying to show that it wasn't that easy for a lot of us older people too.

Edited September 14 by Yeah No

[Yeah No]

The way the inflation rate in the U.S. has been calculated was brought up in the episode thread. I took a look into the assertion that if calculated via older methodologies which included home prices, the number would be higher today than it was in 1980. Some alternate charts place the difference in the inflation rate at about 3 points higher at its recent peak around 2022 than in 1980 (18% as opposed to 15%). First of all, not every expert agrees with that spread. 

This is from an article in the NYT (click here for link) from 2022 addressing this issue when inflation was at its recent peak:

Quote

It is true that inflation isn’t perfectly comparable over time because of the change in how housing was measured, said Omair Sharif, founder of the research firm Inflation Insights. But the change would not be enough to make today’s inflation higher than the nearly 15 percent it hit 40 years ago.

“Yes, inflation today would be higher, but by roughly 1.25 percentage points, not the 4 to 5 percentage points people say,” said Mr. Sharif, who last year pulled home price, mortgage costs and home repair data from the 1970s, applied the relevant weights, and did the math on the old numbers to see how much the change in methodology changed inflation.

Also, if you look at inflation charts you will see that starting in the late '70s inflation went up suddenly by a LOT and was continually going up until 1983 when it took a nosedive (and that's true even on charts using the 1980 methodology). Note that the sharp fall didn't mean prices went down, just the rate at which prices rose. And salaries weren't keeping up with that sudden sharp increase in prices then either, which is yet another reason why when I came of age salaries (especially starting salaries) did not keep up with the cost of living including the sharp rise in home prices, and my generation didn't have it as easy as people in the earlier part of the Baby Boom.

Also, starting around 1993 or so, the discrepancy between methodologies only goes to support that inflation was higher for me when I was young than the later methodology said it was so I don't see any great point to be made in citing that discrepancy that younger people today have it so much worse than I did at their age. It actually goes to make my case that I had it just as bad (if not worse) more than it argues against it.

Additionally, although the rate of inflation was lower after 1983, it pretty much rose steadily from then until about 2008 when the market crashed and started that recession, according to the 1980 methodology. It peaked in 2008 then fell then bottomed out around 2009, then came up a bit but stayed pretty much flat all the way up to 2021. That means that Millennials came onto the scene at a time of relatively flat prices, something I never had the benefit of when I was young. Inflation spiked in 2022 but that was after a long period of not really rising. There were ups and downs but it remained pretty flat and not high. If you drew a straight line from 2008 to 2022 it would have been increasing at the same rate it did for me from 1993 to 2008.

So I would ask which is worse, an inflation rate that spikes suddenly to meet former rates of increase, or one that rises slowly over time? I'd say one way spiking is worse is because salaries don't have a chance to rise to meet the new normal the way they do over time. But as we know, salaries have not kept up with the pace of inflation for a very long time. The middle class has been steadily losing ground on that front for decades in spite of periods of so called lower inflation. That lower inflation was often a result of recession, which didn't exactly put us on easy street in any way. So there's that to consider as well. Note that as of 2023 it is reported that salaries are now keeping up with inflation - the new lower inflation that is. But what about the time when they weren't? Is that recent rise going to make up for that? Probably not.

Having lived through the recession of 2008 and being at the receiving end of all its financial disadvantages including both my husband and I being laid off and almost losing our home, I would say that was another blow that in spite of the drop in inflation hurt us irreparably financially. My house was suddenly not worth the price we paid for it in 2006 and didn't even rise to meet that price until maybe a few years ago. (And the fact that it has suddenly risen due to the pandemic and inflation is only a well-needed adjustment to offset that drop and long period of no appreciation in value). All the supposed advantages we had in the "good times" were canceled out and erased by the recession, and it has been a long road to recover from that. We never got jobs that paid even as well as the ones we had before that recession! And so what if prices went down during that recession if we couldn't afford them anyway after all that? Young people as adults are only NOW having to face realities like this. I've faced several setbacks in my life. So I get it that it's a shock to them because it's new but it's been my reality all my adult life! Inflation rates are only part of the story and one that is even argued by experts.

Edited September 14 by Yeah No

[tessaray]

Thanks to HGTV, I can sympathize with our northern neighbors. Canadian cities are shockingly expensive. 

I have millennial kids (well, the older 2 are  kinda gen-x), so I only relate to Mabel in that way. As brutal as the economy was in the mid to late 70s, I couldn't complain or I'd have to listen to how hard my parents and grandparents had it in the Depression. 🙂 So I tend to just let my kids vent and spare them my commentary.

But it was tough and my husband and I never did as well as those who were a few years older or a few years younger. It's a pattern I've seen reoccur. In the 80s after the savings and loan debacle, again after 9/11 and then the great recession after the housing market tanked. And now the post-pandemic. If you graduate or become independent during an economic crisis, often you never completely regain that ground financially. It affects job opportunities, salaries, housing, pretty much everything. (There are articles about it  out there if you search. I felt seen.)

Edited September 14 by tessaray

[Yeah No]

4 hours ago, tessaray said:

Thanks to HGTV, I can sympathize with our northern neighbors. Canadian cities are shockingly expensive. 

I have millennial kids (well, the older 2 are  kinda gen-x), so I only relate to Mabel in that way. As brutal as the economy was in the mid to late 70s, I couldn't complain or I'd have to listen to how hard my parents and grandparents had it in the Depression. 🙂 So I tend to just let my kids vent and spare them my commentary.

But it was tough and my husband and I never did as well as those who were a few years older or a few years younger. It's a pattern I've seen reoccur. In the 80s after the savings and loan debacle, again after 9/11 and then the great recession after the housing market tanked. And now the post-pandemic. If you graduate or become independent during an economic crisis, often you never completely regain that ground financially. It affects job opportunities, salaries, housing, pretty much everything. (There are articles about it  out there if you search. I felt seen.)

Thank you for that, I'll have to look for more of those articles. I have found some written by people in my age bracket that made me feel seen so I know what you mean. I know we've discussed this either here or on other threads that we are considered by some to be a different generation in between the Baby Boomers and Gen X called "Generation Jones" and we faced unique challenges that set us apart from either generation.

Speaking of recessions, I consulted Wikipedia (click here to read) on that and found that there were a few mini-recessions in the early to mid '70s (which I remember vividly as stores closed and gasoline got expensive and was rationed) and then again from 1980 to the end of 1982 for various reasons. People today only seem to remember the "boom" times of the mid to late '80s but I came of age and became independent before that. We didn't see another recession until the S&L crisis in 1990. Then it was boom times all the way to 2001, when there was a brief recession for 8 months. It wasn't until the end of 2007 that we had another big one thanks to that sub-prime mortgage thing. I would say that it didn't really end in 2009. We felt the effects of that recession for a year or more afterward. I would say until about 2011 or so. It was still very hard to find a job (I was looking) and people were still talking about how hard they had it. But from the end of that one we didn't see another one until 2020 with Covid. 

I hear you about not complaining or else having to listen to my Depression-kid parents tell me how much harder THEY had it. My mother would start her litany about how she grew up in Harlem with the rats and the roaches and had to share a bathroom with a tubercular man....(tenement apartments often did not have their own bathrooms). So actually I grew up not realizing how relatively poor I was.

Edited September 14 by Yeah No

[tessaray]

On 9/13/2024 at 1:25 PM, Night Cheese said:

For what it's worth, I was rewatching season 1 while home sick, and in the first episode, Oliver asks Mabel what her deal is and says, "we got our places years ago when the Arconia was affordable...". So if we're shitting on Mabel (and for some reason, by extension, all millennials) for sarcastically saying an apartment used to cost a "bag of beans", then let's acknowledge that the show has always recognized the unliklihood that a young person could realistically afford to live in such a nice apartment building.

Television is famous for giving us homes that the characters could never realistically afford. So that makes these writers a little better than most. 

I love the character of Mabel - she reminds me of one of my daughters, but with a much better wardrobe. But the intergenerational snark can sting a little sometimes. 🙂

[Yeah No]

On 9/13/2024 at 2:25 PM, Night Cheese said:

For what it's worth, I was rewatching season 1 while home sick, and in the first episode, Oliver asks Mabel what her deal is and says, "we got our places years ago when the Arconia was affordable...". So if we're shitting on Mabel (and for some reason, by extension, all millennials) for sarcastically saying an apartment used to cost a "bag of beans", then let's acknowledge that the show has always recognized the unliklihood that a young person could realistically afford to live in such a nice apartment building.

Just catching up with this - If Charles and Oliver bought their apartments when the building was supposedly "more affordable" when was that and more affordable for who? I took a look into the history of the Belnord, which is the building the Arconia is based on and found out from Wikipedia that it was a rental all the way up until 2010, when it converted to a condominium (as opposed to a co-op like we might have presumed given how common those are in NYC). Most buildings converted from rentals to co-ops or condos. in the 1980s in NYC so that was very late by comparison.

So if they bought their apartments in 2010 were they given an "insider's price" because they were already living there and renting? When buildings converted into co-ops, renters were customarily given a big discount to buy their apartments. I'm not sure if it works that way with condos. though. I forget how long either of them is supposed to have lived in the building but I'm presuming that at least one of them has been there longer than 2010. So that may change things and make their situation different than buying as an outsider. Could that be the reason why Mabel said they were "a bag of beans"? Because they bought them at a discount? So she's envious of that? We don't know. Look, I'm envious of it too because I was never renting in a building that converted from a rental so I never got that advantage either.

But no matter, anyone paying the outsider's market price for those apartments in 2010 would not have paid a very affordable price. In fact there's no way it would have been affordable for Mabel as a rental either. Those were always considered luxury apartments in a desirable area of Manhattan and were never affordable for anyone but upper middle class people at the lowest end, and rich people at the upper end. Maybe Mabel could have lived there years ago at 32 if she roomed with friends, but as far as buying something or renting there alone at her supposed financial level it would never have been possible at any time. And I know because my parents were always looking into either moving to Manhattan or Westchester when I was young and then I did the same when I was a young married adult, and we were never successful. 86th St. and the UWS was always on my radar all my life and I have always been very familiar with it. So I was there and can attest to the fact that living there has never cost "a bag of beans" from anyone's perspective unless they're rich.

Edited September 15 by Yeah No

[Yeah No]

I found this quote on Quora in answer to the question of how expensive it was to live in NYC in the '70s and '80s. I find it pretty accurate and confirms what I've been saying about how much homes/co-ops/condos./rentals suddenly jumped when I came on the scene in 1980. And salaries did not jump up to meet those prices. I remember around 1976 my HS boyfriend told me his mother's private house in the Riverdale section of the Bronx in desirable Fieldston had jumped up in value in only a few years from $50,000 to over $150,000. I was in shock as I found it unimaginable that his mother's house could have appreciated that much so fast. It wasn't even in such great condition and was an old house. The amount of $150,000 back then was considered a FORTUNE (like practically a million dollars today).

And again, while prices now are astronomical it doesn't matter how astronomical they are now, they were still out of reach for most people in the '80s too.

Quote

In the 1970s and 1980s, New York City was generally considered an expensive place to live, especially when compared to other major U.S. cities at the time. However, the specific costs of housing varied considerably depending on location, size, and amenities.

In the 1970s, the median home price in New York City was around 35,000−35,000−50,000. Apartments in desirable areas like Manhattan could range from 500−500−1,000 per month for a modest one-bedroom. However, prices were much lower in outer boroughs like Brooklyn or Queens, where apartments could be found for 300−300−600 per month.

By the 1980s, housing costs had risen significantly. The median home price in New York City climbed to around 100,000−100,000−150,000. Rents also increased, with a one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan averaging 800−800−1,500 per month. Neighborhoods like the Upper West Side and Greenwich Village became known for their high-priced real estate.

The rise in New York City housing costs began accelerating in the 1990s and 2000s, as the city experienced a prolonged period of economic growth, population influx, and limited new housing construction. Today, the median home price in New York City is over $700,000, and rents for a one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan can easily exceed $3,000 per month. The city is now consistently ranked as one of the most expensive places to live in the United States.

Also, I just remembered this. As I was getting engaged my mother was still trying to find a way to move to Manhattan. She was enamored of the Hotel Paris on 96th St. and West End Avenue, which was converting into apartments. She loved that neighborhood because she lived there in the late '40s and early '50s right before she met my Dad (when it truly was affordable). I remember the rents were starting around $900 a month in 1979 when it was first being rented. She came home with a brochure with plans and prices that I still have. When I plug that amount into an inflation calculator it translates into about $4,000 a month today which is just under what online sources quote as a starting rent there today (a one bedroom supposedly starts at $4,500). It's still being called a rental although it looks like some apartments are owned by people who rent them. Anyway of course she and my Dad couldn't afford to move there, just like every other place. That was the last time she ever looked to move into Manhattan or anywhere else. A few years later she and my Dad got the insider's price when their apartment in the Bronx went co-op. And then she retired and my Dad followed suit in the early '90s (she was 4 years older than him).

Edited September 15 by Yeah No

[secnarf]

On 9/14/2024 at 3:59 AM, Yeah No said:

I felt that mentioning how easy it was for them to buy a house was implying a comparison to my situation (and yes an assumption about it) since you were replying to my post about this, which is the only reason I responded with how different it is in the NYC area than other places. And the fact that you're talking about another country (I presume because you mentioned provinces) makes their situation even less comparable to what I was discussing. If you didn't mean to make such a comparison to what I was talking about that didn't come across to me so I felt justified in making that assumption. 

I never meant to discuss anywhere but the NYC area.

I never said I lived in NYC or the US - you actually started by generalizing to all millenials.

On 9/14/2024 at 3:59 AM, Yeah No said:

Did I say Mabel was blaming the older generation? I thought I said she was acting like they had it better than she did, not blaming them.

You said you were tired of millenials blaming the older generation, which is what I was responding to.

On 9/14/2024 at 3:59 AM, Yeah No said:

I couldn't afford my own house today either but that's hopefully how it should work because real estate appreciates and eventually people (like me) retire and their incomes don't go up but usually go down or stay flat. But if we sold our houses we would get to reap the benefits of that appreciation. And that's as it should be.

I was specifically referring to people still working full time jobs. After you retire, it does get a bit harder to gauge things like that as your income typically will decrease.

Whether or not something like housing should also be treated as an investment is a whole other debate. My personal opinion is that treating housing as an investment to secure one's financial future is a large part of why housing is so unaffordable now - because yes, it then needs to appreciate in value more than salaries but this has the effect of eventually pushing everybody out of the housing market. This is fine for things that are "optional" but housing isn't - and even if you argue you can rent instead of own, this also has the side effect of increasing rents quite a bit too.

This is also why there is little appetite by those in government to do more than pay lip service towards fixing the housing crisis - because a good chunk of the population, those who already own homes and have seen them appreciate in value, does not actually want housing to be more affordable.

On 9/14/2024 at 3:59 AM, Yeah No said:

Also I couldn't afford to buy anything until my mid 30s which in my time was considered "older" to enter the housing market but that was true for a lot of young people my age because of the real estate situation we faced in our 20s. And we didn't have the advantage to be living at home and supported through much or all of our 20s like a lot of young people are today so it was even harder for us to save enough to get our foot in the door with real estate. My husband and I both had multiple jobs in addition to full time jobs in our 20s. My husband had 3 jobs at one point. That's the only way we were able to save for a down payment on something nicer than a crappy one bedroom apartment in Yonkers. Again, I'm just trying to show that it wasn't that easy for a lot of us older people too.

I think the big difference here - as someone also in mid-30s - is that you were eventually able to achieve more. You had hardships initially but were able to overcome them and as you have mentioned children, I will go ahead and make an assumption that you were eventually able to afford a place that would house said children. Many people this age nowadays have no prospects of ever being able to achieve more, no matter how much hard work they put in. This isn't short term pain for long term gain - it's the endgame.

[Yeah No]

19 hours ago, secnarf said:

I never said I lived in NYC or the US - you actually started by generalizing to all millenials.

No you didn't mention where you were from but the fact that you were replying to my post was enough to make me think you were making a comparison to my situation whether or not you lived in NYC. That is often done on chat boards and when I post I try to avoid making the person think I was making such a comparison by including a comment to state that I'm not comparing myself to the person's situation, just adding a comment in general about my situation. Or I leave the person's quote out altogether so they don't take it that way.

And I disagree with you that I've been generalizing about all Millennials. I've been talking about tendencies among them and things they tend to believe or say, but not generalizing to all of them and I've been pretty careful about specifying that in my posts. If I forgot to specify it somewhere OK but in general I have not.

19 hours ago, secnarf said:

You said you were tired of millenials blaming the older generation, which is what I was responding to.

 Yes, I am tired of it when I see it, especially when it has no basis. But I still did not say that Mabel blamed the older generation.

19 hours ago, secnarf said:

I was specifically referring to people still working full time jobs. After you retire, it does get a bit harder to gauge things like that as your income typically will decrease.

If you read my posts you would have seen the part where I mentioned how my husband and I never found jobs making as much as we did before the recession of '08 when we both lost our jobs. Being older out in the job market is a disadvantage and age discrimination is a very real thing. There is no guarantee that one's salary will continue to go up as they get older. In fact many companies make sure that doesn't happen by getting rid of their older employees. My last company was terminating people over the age of 55 at an alarming rate. I was one of them. I brought a wrongful termination lawsuit against them and actually won, but it was still not enough to make up for the money and retirement income I would have gotten if that didn't happen. And I was never able to find another full time job after that either. By that time I was over 60. So I was royally screwed. The only reason I gave up is because I won that lawsuit and my husband finally got a job. But it's tight and will continue to be tight even after I start collecting Social Security, which is not a whole lot.

So the assumption that all Boomers and Gen X for that matter all came through all the financial obstacles and recessions of the previous decades unscathed and sitting pretty is not true across the board and I've seen enough of that assumption passed around among younger generations. It may be true of people who are wealthy enough to be immune to those things, or people with unusual job security, but not the average middle class person. Many of us lost everything we had gained in the good times and then some. Our savings went "poof". Our home value "poof".

So I would like to know just how we are doing so much better than Millennials when we were put back at square one or worse in 2008 after all we had worked for and achieved? So what if we were able to buy something, it was almost taken away from us and we lost all our savings and equity at that time. It's only because of my husband's and my refusal to buckle under that we are where we are today. It's no thanks to having it easy because the world made it easy for us. We struggled and are only still in our home because we rented it out and went to live in a small and crappy apartment in a less than nice neighborhood for a few years. We did whatever we could not to lose our home, including having to let the mortgage company charge us stiff penalties which we had added to our mortgage and mean we still owe 2/3 of what we paid for it 18 years ago. And the mortgage company was putting pressure on us to foreclose. I don't know if we could have ever afforded another home if not for us not taking no for an answer and enduring hardship in order to prevent losing this one. We likely wouldn't have been able to afford another one given how much more difficult it became to get a mortgage after 2008, our lower salaries, no savings and both being over 50. And we were far from alone. A lot of people lost their homes in that recession, lost everything and never got it back. But the general assumption that we all had (and still have) it so easy still seems to endure.

19 hours ago, secnarf said:

Whether or not something like housing should also be treated as an investment is a whole other debate. My personal opinion is that treating housing as an investment to secure one's financial future is a large part of why housing is so unaffordable now - because yes, it then needs to appreciate in value more than salaries but this has the effect of eventually pushing everybody out of the housing market. This is fine for things that are "optional" but housing isn't - and even if you argue you can rent instead of own, this also has the side effect of increasing rents quite a bit too.

Real estate prices for the most part go up, but they do go down or flatten out based on market conditions. At some point this is going to be another bubble that will burst because not enough people will be able to afford to buy a home. So things will get easier eventually. So this idea that Millennials or Gen Z will never be able to afford a home is in my opinion not based on history. I was finally able to buy something because of a dip in real estate prices and a very small lowering of interest rates to equal 9.5%. If not for that I probably would never have been able to afford even a condo. apartment until maybe many years later if that.  We were already in our mid 30s when that happened. I have made that point before and would like to know how different that is from what you're saying about young people today. It sounds like you don't think things will get better for you. But history has shown that it eventually gets better. Interest rates will fall. Housing prices will flatten out or go down. Salaries will continue to rise - in fact this year the stats are showing that they are rising to meet or exceed inflation. So things WILL improve, and improve enough to give you your chance. It's almost predictable. I've lived through several of these cycles. Also, in my area Millennials and Gen Z are buying houses left and right and having families. They are coming here from even higher priced areas. So SOMEONE in that age bracket is affording them!

Also to your point about treating real estate as an investment - what about retirement savings being tied to the stock market? I'd like to know how great an idea that is now that the market is so volatile that since 2021 my accounts went down and did not come back to 2021 levels until this year. When you're my age you don't want to have to trust the stock market with your life savings, even part of it as in my case (I don't have everything in stocks). But unfortunately that's the way it works. 

Oh and P.S. - my husband is 68 and still works because we don't think we have enough money saved to retire just yet. We are far from alone in that in our age bracket. And we keep hearing that Social Security is going to go bust. So the idea that only young people have to worry about their retirement is not true. Note that I'm not saying you said this, but I've heard young people who have this opinion that older people are all sitting on a million dollars and we are not BY FAR.

19 hours ago, secnarf said:

This is also why there is little appetite by those in government to do more than pay lip service towards fixing the housing crisis - because a good chunk of the population, those who already own homes and have seen them appreciate in value, does not actually want housing to be more affordable.

This is true but it's always been that way. We didn't want to lose all the equity in our home either during the recession of '08 but someone's always on the losing end, and in our case although we applied for government aid we didn't get any! I still don't know why that is because they kept telling us we qualified. But that's another issue.

I'm trying to give you some hope based on history. Next time the pendulum swings things will likely be easier for you. Market "corrections" do happen and that's how these cycles go. So once the merry go round comes around in your favor again you will be able to grab on at a good moment. Interest rates will fall, housing prices will flatten out, salaries will rise. There is no guarantee but it's that way for everyone, not just younger people.

And even if it doesn't get that much better there are always ways to make it happen if you search for them. I wouldn't wait for government to make it any better, it never does in my experience. If I didn't continue to search for a way out I'd have never found a condo. in a nice area of CT that I could afford and I would have lost my house in 2009. It doesn't just come to you, you have to search for it and never give up, and you may have to compromise on things like location. But seek and ye shall find, that's what I say! I am the living example that it's possible even when everything is stacked against you. You may have to take 2 jobs or even more like my husband did, but it can happen if you really want it. Just wait, interest rates will fall, salaries will go up, opportunities will materialize and housing prices will even out. There will be a moment at some point that the forces will align to make it possible for you. It's the way of life and I don't think it's suddenly become any different. There are always doomsday predictions but so far none of them have come true. And I think I might be able to see doomsday on the horizon before it comes, but that's just my own opinion of myself based on my particular ability with long range vision. The point is, I don't think doomsday is happening now and if you look at reliable sources, not fear mongerers, you might agree.

19 hours ago, secnarf said:

I think the big difference here - as someone also in mid-30s - is that you were eventually able to achieve more. You had hardships initially but were able to overcome them and as you have mentioned children, I will go ahead and make an assumption that you were eventually able to afford a place that would house said children. Many people this age nowadays have no prospects of ever being able to achieve more, no matter how much hard work they put in. This isn't short term pain for long term gain - it's the endgame.

No, I never had children or mentioned any of my own, but here's a little secret - It never happened for me, but in the end I know that it would have likely made even more challenges for my husband and I and in retrospect I would not have felt good putting my child through what we went through. And we did not always live where we would have felt good bringing up children. All of this didn't add up to feeling good about being able to provide a good life for a child so that too may have been a factor in us not having kids. By the time our situation was right for it, it was either not happening or I became too old to have kids....

I didn't leave the Bronx until my mid 30s during the crack epidemic. Homeless people were freebasing cocaine in my building's alleyway. The only reason my husband's sister was able to flee the Bronx at that bad time was that her husband got a job with IBM and made good money. She was able to stay home and raise kids, but only because they moved all the way to Middletown, NY to find a house they could afford and it was older and very small, and the area was for them far away from family and friends but they made do with it. And at least at that time she felt it was a good area to raise kids. It didn't feel like one soon after, but she and her husband toughed it out. I don't think I would have wanted to live there given how I feel her kids didn't get the best education and other influences, but that's me.

I personally do NOT buy this collective pessimism about how young people will never be able to achieve more. I feel that the internet and social media have created this confirmation bias where young people get together and confirm each other's pessimism. But it's really not based on history and fact. And I don't believe the media either. They engage in fear mongering and click bait to make you afraid that you're SOL when you're not. It's all for their profit but it's not real. They know that if they make you afraid you'll read their alarmist stuff that's not based in reality but whatever statistics they can twist to feed into your deepest fears.

The U.S. was settled by people that didn't listen to doomsday predictions. They went ahead and achieved great things in spite of their often risky circumstances and the perils and disadvantages they faced, which by our standards would seem impossible to overcome. My own parents are people that fit that category. How they came from the minus column to actually achieve what they achieved no thanks to having financial and other advantages is truly amazing. But my point is it's possible, and it's still possible and it will get better. If we listen to the doomsday stuff we will create a self fulfilling prophecy. My point is that stuff is illusion. If you let it get in your head, though, it will come true.

So I say, seek and you shall find, but expect to put in a lot of hard work and suffer some hardship along the way. But even if you do have to wait and work hard for it, you WILL eventually find a way to make it happen if you look and wait for one and don't give up hope. Your moment, if you prepare for it will eventually come. If you don't prepare for it, it may never come. You have to work to make it happen. And you have to recognize it too. If you're too negative you won't even see it. And it won't just be dropped in your lap with no effort like a handout. It also may not come when you want it. In my case it came in my mid 30s but if we had given up hope and hadn't already been working hard to be ready for that moment we wouldn't have been able to take advantage of it when it came. We worked hard with multiple jobs living in a crappy neighborhood in the Bronx but we were ready when our moment came. By today's standards we might as well have been in our mid 40s in our minds. We had already been independent for a long time by that point. We did not feel as young as 30 somethings feel today.

Edited September 16 by Yeah No

[EtheltoTillie]

@Yeah No as luck would have it, the view out my living room window is the Paris Hotel (97th St. not 96th).   I'd like to end your suffering.  I'm sorry your mother (and you by extension) regretted not living at the Paris.  It just isn't worth the regret.   It's not really a nice building.

  When the Paris reopened as you described, I toured it with a friend, as at the time I was living in a crappy tenement apartment a few blocks north.  I longed to move, but we ended up staying put until 1985, given our cheap stabilized rent.  We would never have moved to the Paris.

The Paris apartments were low-end renovations with weird layouts because it was converted from a hotel.  They used horrible finishes and appliances and cheap fake parquet flooring and hollow core doors.  This was not the upper west side pre-war paradise your mother imagined.  In recent years the building was sold and they began renovating some of the apartments and raising rents.  They still suffer from those weird layouts and poor finishes.  Consider yourself lucky you ended up with your parents' Bronx co-op to sell. 

Edited September 18 by EtheltoTillie

[EtheltoTillie]

Adding to my Paris Hotel story, they used to have a gym open to outside membership, and I belonged.  It was so convenient.  But they closed it after one of the various sales* that have taken place since 2016 or so.  Grr.  The building was renowned for having a swimming pool in the basement that dated back to the original hotel days, and the gym members could use it.  A few years ago it was converted to a swimming school for kids only.  The gym sat empty for the last six years or so and just recently it opened as a gym for kids only!  Ugh. 

*there are people who made a mint just trading the ownership of this building every couple of years.  NY real estate.  Gotta love it. 

Edited September 18 by EtheltoTillie

[Yeah No]

10 hours ago, EtheltoTillie said:

@Yeah No as luck would have it, the view out my living room window is the Paris Hotel (97th St. not 96th).   I'd like to end your suffering.  I'm sorry your mother (and you by extension) regretted not living at the Paris.  It just isn't worth the regret.   It's not really a nice building.

  When the Paris reopened as you described, I toured it with a friend, as at the time I was living in a crappy tenement apartment a few blocks north.  I longed to move, but we ended up staying put until 1985, given our cheap stabilized rent.  We would never have moved to the Paris.

The Paris apartments were low-end renovations with weird layouts because it was converted from a hotel.  They used horrible finishes and appliances and cheap fake parquet flooring and hollow core doors.  This was not the upper west side pre-war paradise your mother imagined.  In recent years the building was sold and they began renovating some of the apartments and raising rents.  They still suffer from those weird layouts and poor finishes.  Consider yourself lucky you ended up with your parents' Bronx co-op to sell. 

Thank you for that! I seem to remember my mother later consoling herself over not being able to live there because she realized this at the time. So it wouldn't have been the best choice anyway. I can understand why she was interested in it, though. It was her old neighborhood - she lived on Riverside Drive in that area for a few years before she got married.

Yeah, I was fortunate with that apartment - too bad it wasn't in Manhattan or even Riverdale proper or it would have been worth a lot more I am sure. BTW, that apartment suffered from cheap finishes too but at least they were fixable and the layouts were very nice. I remember that in the '70s builders and renovators started using really cheap materials in flooring, kitchens and baths and that was not uncommon unfortunately. That building was built in 1974. At least the parquet floor tiles they used lasted, though. But the walls were thin! I remember we could hear the neighbor next door sneeze!

If you can believe this, for some reason my parents didn't want to buy the apartment when the building went co-op in 1986. I told them they were crazy and they eventually saw the light. They were also resistant to switching to cable TV because they thought that TV should be free (well who doesn't, LOL?). My father eventually had to around 2010 or so because they were finally getting rid of the roof antenna. I remember I bought him a flat screen TV for his birthday that year.

Edited September 19 by Yeah No

[Yeah No]

I know I'm like a dog with a bone about this, but one factor that wasn't discussed about real estate is the effect mortgage interest rates have on one's monthly payment. Back when I bought a condo. in 1991 interest rates were close to 10% and that was lower than they had been for a while. I knew people with 12 and 13% interest rates. So even if the real estate prices were lower comparatively to today, higher interest rates could make one's monthly payments higher.

To give an example, when I was a first time buyer and bought my condo. in 1991 for $178,000 (which is about $411,000 in today's money). A 10% mortgage rate on that amount plugged into a mortgage interest rate calculator would equal $1,562 a month in 1991 (which is about $3,610 in today's money). If we had had lower interest rates like today's our monthly payment would have been a lot lower. At 6.8%, we would have been paying only $1,160 a month, which would equal about $2,681 in today's money. That's a thousand dollars less per month in today's money!

I'm seeing my exact unit going for about $525,000 in today's money right now. OK, it's comparatively more than I paid adjusted for inflation (which would have been $411,000 in today's money) BUT with interest rates at around 10% in 1991 my monthly payment would have been a little higher anyway because of today's lower interest rates. A condo. at $525,000 at 6.8% interest comes out to about $3,423 per month while a condo. at $411,000 at 10% interest comes out to $3,607 per month. So that proves how much the higher interest rates when I bought in 1991 impacted one's monthly payment! And 10% was lower than they had been for a while, too!

[shapeshifter]

2 hours ago, Yeah No said:

They were also resistant to switching to cable TV because they thought that TV should be free (well who doesn't, LOL?). My father eventually had to around 2010 or so because they were finally getting rid of the roof antenna.

2010 was about a year after I switched from cable to antenna.

2 hours ago, Yeah No said:

for some reason my parents didn't want to buy the apartment when the building went co-op in 1986.

My grandfather, born in 1898 and living in Newark, NJ his entire life, "didn't believe in owning a home" — according to my mother. 

[Yeah No]

6 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

2010 was about a year after I switched from cable to antenna.

My grandfather, born in 1898 and living in Newark, NJ his entire life, "didn't believe in owning a home" — according to my mother. 

When I moved to CT in late 1991 I had to get cable because the condo. didn't allow antennas. I didn't have cable in the Bronx.

At least your grandfather was consistent! My parents would have bought a home in a hot minute if they thought they could have afforded one. I think they were just afraid at first because they didn't understand how co-ops worked (most people didn't back then) but when it was explained to them they realized it was actually a great offer. But my mom was already 62 by the time they bought it so I can see how they might not have appreciated the advantages at that age to buying. As it turned out they got it so cheap that they paid it off in only a few years so they had no mortgage payment after that (although they did have maintenance which was not insignificant). And then I also was able to benefit from it after they died. Actually my father signed it over to me in 2005 so I was technically the owner after that, and he continued to pay the maintenance and utilities. So I was kind of like his Dudenoff without the huge discount, LOL, although it was completely legal because the board knew me and approved me because I was his daughter. He had previously been the board president for decades.

Edited September 19 by Yeah No

[shapeshifter]

On 9/19/2024 at 3:02 AM, shapeshifter said:

2010 was about a year after I switched from cable to antenna.

My grandfather, born in 1898 and living in Newark, NJ his entire life, "didn't believe in owning a home" — according to my mother. 

On 9/19/2024 at 9:05 AM, Yeah No said:

When I moved to CT in late 1991 I had to get cable because the condo. didn't allow antennas.

I was a renter until I moved into this condo. I meant a leaf antenna that hangs on the wall. I had a feeling I should have specified that, but I was in a hurry.
Here in the condo I have 2 leafs (leaves?) on different walls, which usually makes up for the sometimes crappy signal strength and/or interference.

My parents bought their last home when they were in their 60s. It had a 30 year mortgage. 

My grandfather didn't want to worry about home maintenance, and had no knowledge or experience. At least that's the story. I think he may have spent money at the race track or sports betting.

 

 

[Yeah No]

15 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

I was a renter until I moved into this condo. I meant a leaf antenna that hangs on the wall. I had a feeling I should have specified that, but I was in a hurry.
Here in the condo I have 2 leafs (leaves?) on different walls, which usually makes up for the sometimes crappy signal strength and/or interference.

I remember back in 1991 when I moved into the condo. my father went out and bought me what was supposedly the best indoor TV antenna of the time and we put it up in the attic. It didn't work too well unfortunately, so we got cable. It was a whole new world for me even though we got a pretty basic package. I finally got to see MTV and Food Network. So I was happy.

As you might know, in NYC back in the day outdoor antennas were once allowed by buildings and many tenants had them because in those days the indoor antennas weren't so good (remember the "rabbit ears", LOL?). These were still the days when access to the rooftop was open to anyone unsupervised. We called it "tar beach" because back in the day people would go up there with folding chairs to sunbathe, LOL. Then I think in the '70s or so buildings started to transition to one whole house antenna that served the entire building. That is what my father had up until 2010 when the building announced that it was removing the antenna. It seems that hardly anyone was using it anymore because most people had switched to cable. My father was already 83 in 2010 so he was not up on indoor antennas anymore like he once was. Or it could have been that even back then the indoor antennas weren't as good as they are today. So that's why he reluctantly went over to cable.

I remember after September 11th in 2001 my father didn't get most channels for a while because a lot of the transmitters were on the WTC back then. I don't remember the details now but I do recall him complaining for a while about not having much in the way of TV.

[Yeah No]

@shapeshifter and @EtheltoTillie, with all the talk about real estate in NYC curiosity lead me to look up the apartment I grew up in in NYC from the time I was about 6 until I was 15. You'll remember it's the one that could be seen from the 215th St. smokestacks we discussed a couple of weeks back. I periodically look it up but never found anything on that specific apartment until today. It seems that it was very recently sold for $219,000 and is now listed as "under contract". The building went co-op in the '80s I believe, like so many other buildings in NYC at the time. I thought I'd share the listing with you as it has many photos of the interior. Note that the photos have been virtually staged but you can still see the very real floors, walls and windows, which used to be drafty metal sliding windows that were awful.

It has undergone renovation over the years. The tiny kitchen is not at all like it was when I lived there - Even though it looks like it needs an update it's still more up to date than it was in the 1960s. The only things still the same are those beautiful hardwood floors and believe it or not, the tub, which is the exact same one! That bathroom used to be all-pink, LOL, even the sink (which didn't have any cabinet) and the toilet. One of those 1960s things.

So here it is. It looks so much more "luxurious" than it did when I lived there! 😉

https://www.compass.com/listing/2545-sedgwick-avenue-unit-3b-bronx-ny-10468/1534900922563295721/?origin=listing_page&origin_type=copy_url

Also, those photos make it look bigger than it was. It was only 800 square feet. My bedroom was 10x10 feet.