4 ms·

Its gets worse than that; if you read further the reasoning is that "Its hard to buy apartment for less than $800,000 in Brooklyn". Great excuse next time they

Its gets worse than that; if you read further the reasoning is that "Its hard to buy apartment for less than $800,000 in Brooklyn". Great excuse next time they interview you for the job; check how much is average housing, divide roughly by three, and here is how you have reasonably arrived at your salary. If they look at you odd, just refer to NYT article.

matt4077 9y ago
Your wording is slightly ambiguous, but just to be clear: The NYT isn't making this argument, they're quoting someone. (and the quote is $700,000, by the way)
IkmoIkmo 9y ago
It's absolutely ridiculous. I mean, median household income in Brooklyn is $45k.[0] That's household. The average household size in Brooklyn is 2.75. There'll be some kids in there, but likely the average adults per household is 1.5. So here you have a guy earning close to $300k, likely has a partner with supplemental income too, which is easily 6-8x the median household income...jeez. I mean hell, country wide there's a common 30% income spent on rent rule. Median rent in Brooklyn is about $36k a year, for a 120k salary. These guys are way beyond that. It's obviously not a matter of 'do I earn enough for a decent life?'. They could earn half, say 140k, and still earn a decent life in NY. So it becomes a question of, is there anyone willing to do these jobs for say 180k, instead of 280k, and if so, the unions are no longer working in the best interests of ordinary folks. When there's a small number of rich disproportionately salaried guys making public goods and services hugely expensive for ordinary folks, I think the Union's raison d'etre has died. (or changed into something awful). 0 https://www.census.gov/censusexplorer/censusexplorer.html https://www.census.gov/censusexplorer/censusexplorer.html
- pavel_lishin 9y ago
  > the unions are no longer working in the best interests of ordinary folks Haven't the unions always worked in the best interest of the union members?

matt4077 9y ago

Your wording is slightly ambiguous, but just to be clear: The NYT isn't making this argument, they're quoting someone. (and the quote is $700,000, by the way)

IkmoIkmo 9y ago

It's absolutely ridiculous. I mean, median household income in Brooklyn is $45k.[0] That's household. The average household size in Brooklyn is 2.75. There'll be some kids in there, but likely the average adults per household is 1.5. So here you have a guy earning close to $300k, likely has a partner with supplemental income too, which is easily 6-8x the median household income...jeez. I mean hell, country wide there's a common 30% income spent on rent rule. Median rent in Brooklyn is about $36k a year, for a 120k salary. These guys are way beyond that. It's obviously not a matter of 'do I earn enough for a decent life?'. They could earn half, say 140k, and still earn a decent life in NY. So it becomes a question of, is there anyone willing to do these jobs for say 180k, instead of 280k, and if so, the unions are no longer working in the best interests of ordinary folks. When there's a small number of rich disproportionately salaried guys making public goods and services hugely expensive for ordinary folks, I think the Union's raison d'etre has died. (or changed into something awful). 0 https://www.census.gov/censusexplorer/censusexplorer.html https://www.census.gov/censusexplorer/censusexplorer.html

pavel_lishin 9y ago
> the unions are no longer working in the best interests of ordinary folks Haven't the unions always worked in the best interest of the union members?