2 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Ok, then make it 8 years. I said 4 years because if he's as disastrous as many think he will be, he may not get 8. But sure make it 8. Still no comparison to the situation Detroit was in. Detroit quickly ascended due to 1 industry and then quickly descended when that industry was no longer the same dominant force and when manufacturing started moving out to other areas instead of being focused in just Detroit. Again, 25% of the working population of the city was in the auto industry. And that's not counting all of the people indirectly employed by the auto industry. Again, no comparison to NYC. If Philly can survive Kenney and Krasner, I think NYC can survive Mamdani.

I mean, I guess we’re speaking past each other here, but my point is that you are assuming that bad policy leading to bad outcomes necessarily leads to a policy reversal rather than doubling down on the policy.

I think history shows that this is much less likely at the mayoral level than simply doubling down. And if you look at the demographics of NYC and what these people want, the idea of a policy reversal by the NYC electorate is much less likely than them saying, "real socialism hasn’t been tried yet.”

To get a policy reversal you need to have a relatively balanced number of voters on ideology, with swing voters essentially deciding the election. That doesn’t exist in NYC, and moreover the number of voters identifying with socialism is INCREASING each year, not decreasing.

NYC needs to nip this in the bud quickly, or it will spiral out of control. We’ll see how smart and powerful their bureaucracy and political class is, and how opposed to this ideology they are, but I’m not hopeful.

Despite how much I loathe NYC personally and think it is a disgusting rat hole, it is THE great American city and the unofficial capital of United States — and by extension western — power.

It should be the playground of a certain type of people… attractive yuppies on the ascent, captains of industry and finance, avant-garde artists, etc. It should be incubating industry, finance, technology, research, culture and power brokers to expand the American empire. I actually don’t want to see it destroyed by some retarded foreigner, but here we are, and I think that’s what will end up happening. Maybe not over night, but over the long term.

22 minutes ago, TEW said:

I mean, I guess we’re speaking past each other here, but my point is that you are assuming that bad policy leading to bad outcomes necessarily leads to a policy reversal rather than doubling down on the policy.

I think history shows that this is much less likely at the mayoral level than simply doubling down. And if you look at the demographics of NYC and what these people want, the idea of a policy reversal by the NYC electorate is much less likely than them saying, "real socialism hasn’t been tried yet.”

To get a policy reversal you need to have a relatively balanced number of voters on ideology, with swing voters essentially deciding the election. That doesn’t exist in NYC, and moreover the number of voters identifying with socialism is INCREASING each year, not decreasing.

NYC needs to nip this in the bud quickly, or it will spiral out of control. We’ll see how smart and powerful their bureaucracy and political class is, and how opposed to this ideology they are, but I’m not hopeful.

Despite how much I loathe NYC personally and think it is a disgusting rat hole, it is THE great American city and the unofficial capital of United States — and by extension western — power.

It should be the playground of a certain type of people… attractive yuppies on the ascent, captains of industry and finance, avant-garde artists, etc. It should be incubating industry, finance, technology, research, culture and power brokers to expand the American empire. I actually don’t want to see it destroyed by some retarded foreigner, but here we are, and I think that’s what will end up happening. Maybe not over night, but over the long term.

Oh I don’t disagree that bad policy can lead to doubling down on the bad policy. I just think New York is so big and so entrenched, a bad mayor isn’t going to be able to destroy it.

5 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Considering that when looking at fertility rates by income levels, the lowest income level has the HIGHEST fertility rate, and fertility rate decreases with income, it does not appear that the cost of childcare is a factor for low birth rates.

3 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Of course there will be a financial strain. You're paying someone to watch your kid for 8+ hours a day. Why wouldn't there be a financial strain to pay for such a service? While I complain about the cost of daycare, it's also slightly tongue in cheek. In reality it's a bargain. My daughter is daycare 4 days a week, 9-10 hours a day. We pay about $1,400 a month, and she's in there on average 165 hours a month. So that comes out to about $8.50 an hour, to pay for someone to watch my kid all day. Now, why would I want it to be "free" to me, where I'd have less control over where she goes, and there would be less incentive for the daycare she attends to make improvements, and on top of that, then have to be stuck with an additional ever increasing tax bill that I'll be paying for the rest of my life. I'll be done paying daycare in 3 years. God willing I'll live another 50 years. 3 years of financial strain vs 50 years of an ever increasing tax burden. Give me the former please.

When I was a kid, most every parent used grandma and grandpa as daycare. Now boomers aren’t returning the favor.

34 minutes ago, Bill said:

When I was a kid, most every parent used grandma and grandpa as daycare. Now boomers aren’t returning the favor.

More accurately, people no longer live near their parents. Or at least, not nearly as often.

As far as I understand, there is an inverse correlation with population density and fertility rates, and fertility rates get much higher in the upper and upper middle class, along with the lower class, while the middle class is frozen out of being subsidized by the government like the lower class but lacks the financial resources of the upper class.

6 minutes ago, TEW said:

while the middle class is frozen out of being subsidized by the government like the lower class but lacks the financial resources of the upper class.

That's what I been sayin!

1 hour ago, TEW said:

It should be the playground of a certain type of people… attractive yuppies on the ascent, captains of industry and finance, avant-garde artists, etc. It should be incubating industry, finance, technology, research, culture and power brokers to expand the American empire. I actually don’t want to see it destroyed by some retarded foreigner, but here we are, and I think that’s what will end up happening. Maybe not over night, but over the long term.

On 11/5/2025 at 5:22 PM, TEW said:

All data points to the opposite. Younger people are MORE extreme and lean MORE to the left economically. So do women. So do minorities. NYC is a city of women and minorities and young people. No country for old white men who are basically the only demographic in the entire country who enthusiastically support capitalism.

On 11/5/2025 at 4:16 PM, TEW said:

Agreed. Women and minorities are the overwhelming majority of the electorate. This is what they want and always have wanted. It shouldn’t be surprising.

NYC is a Democrat stronghold, full of the most hard line leftists, largely women and minorities, with a massive immigrant population, so this is what you get and will continue to get.

Dude, we get it, you're very scared of brown people and you've never satisfied a woman. You don't need to keep reminding us with every post.

55 minutes ago, TEW said:

More accurately, people no longer live near their parents. Or at least, not nearly as often.

As far as I understand, there is an inverse correlation with population density and fertility rates, and fertility rates get much higher in the upper and upper middle class, along with the lower class, while the middle class is frozen out of being subsidized by the government like the lower class but lacks the financial resources of the upper class.

Well according to the data I posted from statista, there’s a pretty steady decline in birth rates all the way up to $200,000 in household income. $200k is the 84th percentile in household income. That’s upper middle class. And according to the census data, the majority of the working poor (household income under $50k) are not using daycare. They are either relying on a relative or not just not sending their kid at all.

1 hour ago, Phillyterp85 said:

And according to the census data, the majority of the working poor (household income under $50k) are not using daycare. They are either relying on a relative or not just not sending their kid at all.

Childcare isn't the only thing subsidized. Healthcare, housing and food are as well (other things those in the Middle Class are 100% on the hook for)

12 hours ago, Bill said:

When I was a kid, most every parent used grandma and grandpa as daycare. Now boomers aren’t returning the favor.

My wifes parents helped a lot when ours were real little, and we put each of our two in daycare at about age 3 more for the socialization and educational benefits than out of need. Its crazy how expensive it is.

15 hours ago, TEW said:

More accurately, people no longer live near their parents. Or at least, not nearly as often.

As far as I understand, there is an inverse correlation with population density and fertility rates, and fertility rates get much higher in the upper and upper middle class, along with the lower class, while the middle class is frozen out of being subsidized by the government like the lower class but lacks the financial resources of the upper class.

75% of people live w/i 30 miles of a parent.

That movie was awesome

5 hours ago, Bill said:

75% of people live w/i 30 miles of a parent.

That can be quite a hike if you’re talking about every day baby sitting. I’m 20 miles from my in-laws. It’s a 40 min to an hour drive depending on traffic. They watch our daughter once a week. If we lived in their town (as they did with their parents) then they’d probably watch her 2-3 times a week.

And anyone I do know who’s parents watch their kids 3-5 days week, all live close to the parents where it’s a short drive.

I haven’t looked up the data but just based on personal experience, I think today’s generation of adults live further away from their parents than the previous generation.

2 hours ago, lynched1 said:

I blame Trump and Giuliani for 9/11

1 minute ago, Dave Moss said:

I blame Trump and Giuliani for 9/11

We know

2 hours ago, Bill said:

75% of people live w/i 30 miles of a parent.

30 miles can be a pretty long drive these days.

4 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

That can be quite a hike if you’re talking about every day baby sitting. I’m 20 miles from my in-laws. It’s a 40 min to an hour drive depending on traffic. They watch our daughter once a week. If we lived in their town (as they did with their parents) then they’d probably watch her 2-3 times a week.

And anyone I do know who’s parents watch their kids 3-5 days week, all live close to the parents where it’s a short drive.

I haven’t looked up the data but just based on personal experience, I think today’s generation of adults live further away from their parents than the previous generation.

Exactly. In major metro areas 10 miles can take you 30 minutes. It’s not like most people live in rural Kansas where they have clear roads and no cops to enforce speed limits. And not only is there the time issue, but it’s usually a pretty stressful drive with a ton of traffic.

5 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

I haven’t looked up the data but just based on personal experience, I think today’s generation of adults live further away from their parents than the previous generation.

If housing prices get any worse that distance is gonna come crashing down quick.