Italian_in_NYC

14 minutes ago, Umka36 said:

It's supposed to be about a pay per mile system, and the thought that it could be used for other purpose is quite scary especially when it can be used to penalize you. Could you imagine getting a speeding ticket for loaning a family member/friend your car? I rather have the cops pull someone over, and issuing them the speeding ticket.

What's the big deal?

You pay the ticket (hopefully the driver will reimburse you) but no point on anyone's license.

There are already speed camera traps in many US cities.

2 minutes ago, Jacque67 said:

Most certainly. Lots of artisanal shops, yada yada. All I know is  nobody in Manhattan wants to venture there unless for an exotic adventure. I went there once to see the Harmonica Lewinskies perform live. That was enough.  Looks cool, though.

You know very wrong.

18 minutes ago, Jacque67 said:

Yeah, I was heading to a party in Brooklyn on some numbered train. We quit after 2 stops as it wasn't worth the effort. For sure, Brooklyn has some expensive properties, but unless you're a hipster, it isn't worth the effort traveling there imo. I'm a West Village and UES person, myself.

Bk changed A LOT in the last 10 years

1 minute ago, bcking said:

Oh cool. That sounds great IMO

I hate it.

But I guess it does its job.

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

What is that system?

 

The UK has points where they look at your speed across a specific area. I know my wife has said that those can be abused especially if you know where they are ahead of time.

They have cameras every x kilometers and calculate your average speed, so way worse than speed traps.

http://www.autostradetech.it/en/solutions/security-access-control/tutor-system.html

Such a waste of money. I thought Hillary did a pretty good job herself with the discredit. Everytime she opened her mouth.

This would sound unconstitutional even to a second grader.

1 minute ago, bcking said:

To each their own, clearly.

 

I think we would have been fine in San Antonio or Austin...not sure my wife would have been happy anywhere else in the State. When we go through the country it is entertaining, but no where we would actually want to live.

 

She already feels uncomfortable and unsafe enough knowing how many cars in Houston are armed etc... We have no interest in living in "the countryside" in Texas. Not because we aren't country people, her father is a farmer and she grew up in a small village. Just because of the types of people here.

I'm pretty sure that it's safer knowing that everyone is armed.

Just now, Jacque67 said:

Oh, if you want a hearty peasant lunch, it's great, I hear. Never that hungry to be honest. I once tried to cross Brooklyn bridge. Only made it half way. As for getting the 8 train(?) to Brooklyn, fuggataboutit.

There is no 8 train.

And several parts of Brooklyn are more desirable than most parts of Manhattan (try $1,500/sf, at least).

In Italy there is "Safety Tutor" system on most highways.

Efficient AF.

I hate it.

1 minute ago, bcking said:

So far I've hesitated when asked where "I'm from" or where "I live". I don't think I've gotten around to calling myself a Texan yet. Not sure if I ever will. My wife will continue to refer to herself as English for the foreseeable future I assume. We both find there is more often than not a negative connotation with Texan so we leave it out unless people ask specifically where we live.

 

That being said, we love Houston.

Texas by far the best State in the country, by far.

Don't love Houston though.

1 hour ago, Jacque67 said:

I'd avoid Paddington Station like the plague, just as I would Brighton Beach, Brooklyn.

Brighton Beach isn't bad. Excellent Russian food.

And I met my wife in a club there.

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

What areas of London made you feel unsafe? 

 

I mostly hung out in central/west/north london which obviously are nicer areas. I recall seeing plenty of police officers. Are they armed with guns? No, but neither are criminals for the most part. I also think the idea of feeling safe because you see armed police officers depends on where you come from. My wife always feels uncomfortable around cops with guns. It doesn't make it her feel safe, it makes her feel uneasy. When I took her to the hospital where I work one day she felt really uncomfortable that the two police officers that act as "crossing guards" outside the hospital to direct traffic also carry pistols. 

 

I hear now East London is becoming quite gentrified/hip. I'd cross the Thames pretty much just to go to Borough Market, or Waterloo Station.

I always stay by the Paddington Station area (easy when you come from LHR). It's ok, don't get me wrong. I just feel safer in NYC, especially when walking alone at night.

Just now, bcking said:

 

 

I lived in NYC for 3 years and traveled to London about that many times a year to visit my wife (Technically Reading/Wokingham, but we would go into London a lot).

 

I always felt safer (and cleaner) in London. This was 2013-2016 so maybe it's very different now. Though honestly for the most part I felt safe in both places. I lived in the UES though so that probably helped.

Cleaner no doubt (but NYC is way too small for 8.5 million people), but in NYC we have cops (with guns!) everywhere and I feel in peace of mind. And yes, I live in Williamsburg (a posh Brooklyn neighborhood) and I avoid doing drug deals in the projects, so that helps as well. 

I live in NYC and go to London for work 4/5 times a year at least.

I feel safer in NYC.

43 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   The median income in NYC is $50000. If a couple making $500000 ends up broke, that's from making poor choices, regardless of whether the budget looks accurate or not. People making $10000000 end up broke too. If you can only save $7500 a year and you spend $18000 on vacations and $12000 on vehicles, that's poor budgeting.

 

   Going from a google search, they really should be able to hire a nanny for less than $42K a year. 

 

A nanny for $42k (with two kids) in NYC is pure utopia. And you want your kids to socialize with other kids, not spend the whole time at home.

$18,000 on vacations is not much at all with two kids. Four tickets to Europe cost $4/5k in the summertime. $12k for cars is reasonable. $1.5m in NYC gets you a mediocre 2BR/2BA.

Trust me, the budget is accurate.

38 minutes ago, charmander said:

I took that image from this site https://www.financialsamurai.com/scraping-by-on-500000-a-year-high-income-earners-struggling/

It is for NYC. I don't think the situation in San Francisco/Bay Area is much different. Pays well, then sucks back well too. Boston cheaper than these two but not far back on the list.

 

This budget is EXTREMELY accurate and credible.

Except for the $21k daycare. That's too cheap. I want to know where they send their kids.

Just now, Steeleballz said:

 

    Putin is very popular. The initial preliminary counts in the last election had him winning with 118% of the popular vote.

I don't understand the sarcasm. Putin is extremely popular in Russia, and even among Russian abroad.

Let's not be delusional. His people like him.

45 minutes ago, bcking said:

Very average. My sister in Oregon was looking at daycare options in October. 1500 a month was typical (18,000). I'm sure places like Boston are worse.

 

Or, alternative, figure it's for private school which wasn't included in the list.

In my  neighborhood in Brooklyn (Williamsburg) you can't find anything for less than $2,200. And that's till 3pm.

2 hours ago, charmander said:

Not really. The percentiles would surprise you. https://dqydj.com/2017-family-household-income-percentile-calculator-united-states/

 

Household income of $200K puts you in top 10%, $480K puts you to top 1%. You don't even have to make half a million to be in the top 1%. $10M annual income would probably put you close to the top 0.01%.

 

 

 

Exactly. A couple with kids in NYC making $480k is barely upper-middle class. And they have to work A LOT.

5 minutes ago, Sonea said:

They do it to keep teams competitive. Its a salary cap basically.

More competitive league = more money

1 minute ago, Sonea said:

MLB taxes the employer for going over the luxury tax.

The League does it only to maximize the TV rights income, not for philanthropic purposes.

2 minutes ago, Sonea said:

But without market controls they could be making alot more. Are you arguing we should run the US economy like MLB then? With luxury taxes and all?

There are plenty of regulations and a highly progressive tax system enacted already.

1 minute ago, Sonea said:

Actually most sports have unions and there are still issues. Look at Major League Baseball this offseason. The free agent market imploded and you could argue a degree of it was collusion by owners. Owners see more value picking up a prospect at the league minimum of 500,000 a year versus paying out 10 million a year for a free agent in their prime.

Unions or not, they make millions and do not work more than 20/25 hours a week.

Is it right that soccer (or basketball, football, name the pro sport of your liking) players make millions just by playing sports (although at extremely high levels)?

It's market driven. No one would pay to come see me play basketball or buy my jersey. They instead opt to go see Lebron James. It's not fair.