4 ms·

> You can always choose to live in a cheaper home. So your 90 year old grandpa has been living in a two bedroom apartment on the lower east side for 65 years.

> You can always choose to live in a cheaper home. So your 90 year old grandpa has been living in a two bedroom apartment on the lower east side for 65 years. When he moved in at age 25, it was considered a crummy but affordable neighborhood, but now it's expensive and desirable. You want a 90 year old to have to move? I agree that maybe a 65 year old couple no longer needs to be in a 3,000 square foot home, but there are a lot of cases that make this complicated.

BlargMcLarg 4y ago
Grandfathering until the chickens come to roost hasn't helped the vulnerable either, yet that same party largely consists of individuals proposing that solution to the vulnerable. It's cruel, but that same cruelty is deemed acceptable towards 'have nots'.
yellowapple 4y ago
If Grandpa rents that apartment instead of owning it, he'd if anything stand to benefit (especially if we tax land value specifically and not the building).
- chadash 4y ago
  My point is that a lot of (and maybe most) 90 year olds are not really capable of moving. Moves are a pretty big pain in the ass in your 20s and 30s, but doing the process of finding a new apartment and physically moving are much harder at that age. And then you move to somewhere cheaper because the whole point is you can't afford the city anymore, but now you need to find all new doctors (many 90 year olds have multiple doctors they see regularly), figure out how to see family (perhaps you remained in your old place because your family lived nearby), get to the grocery store (you're 90... you likely can't drive). It's not practical.
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    > My point is that a lot of (and maybe most) 90 year olds are not really capable of moving. And mine is that a lot of (and maybe most) 90 year olds wouldn't need to move. The ones who would be motivated to move are also largely the ones who are wealthy enough to do so.
vanilla_nut 4y ago
Why does grandpa get to live in a two bedroom apartment in the LES during retirement when so many other people can't afford it despite working for a living? If he owns, you'd think that he could sell the two bedroom and downgrade to a one bedroom to keep the monthly cost down. Or even a studio. But at some point it's an incredibly desirable, expensive neighborhood and I'm not sure anyone deserves the privilege to live where they want as long as they want.
- chadash 4y ago
  Because 90 year old grandpa can't move as easily as us youngins and it's not his fault that the neighborhood gentrified around him. At this point he can't afford to the taxes on a studio either. But anyway, the process of moving is really pretty tough at that age, even the logistics of finding a new apartment and hiring movers. Now, you move out to the suburbs because you can't afford the city anymore, but you don't drive because you are 90, so it isn't so easy to buy groceries anymore. You gotta find a new ophthalmologist, cardiologist and primary care doctor instead of seeing the folks you've been going to for the last 10 years. Maybe 65 is too young for retirement age, but I certainly feel that there is an age at which old people should start getting special privileges, like the right to not have to move. And the rest of us can wait our turns and hope that we get to take advantage of those privileges some day.
  - medvezhenok 4y ago
    First, grandpa will have to move eventually. 90 year olds in Ukraine got caught up in a war they had nothing to do with and had to move. Second, if the neighborhood gentrified around grandpa, his house value has gone up - he can sell at a good profit and use the money for his retirement as he wishes. Third - consider the counterfactual renter who was living in the same place and working just like grandpa, but had to move at the age of 60 because he couldn't afford the rent anymore. Why does grandpa get to stay but the other person, who is a renter with the same life story get forced out of the neighborhood?
    - cableshaft 4y ago

BlargMcLarg 4y ago

Grandfathering until the chickens come to roost hasn't helped the vulnerable either, yet that same party largely consists of individuals proposing that solution to the vulnerable. It's cruel, but that same cruelty is deemed acceptable towards 'have nots'.

yellowapple 4y ago

If Grandpa rents that apartment instead of owning it, he'd if anything stand to benefit (especially if we tax land value specifically and not the building).

chadash 4y ago
My point is that a lot of (and maybe most) 90 year olds are not really capable of moving. Moves are a pretty big pain in the ass in your 20s and 30s, but doing the process of finding a new apartment and physically moving are much harder at that age. And then you move to somewhere cheaper because the whole point is you can't afford the city anymore, but now you need to find all new doctors (many 90 year olds have multiple doctors they see regularly), figure out how to see family (perhaps you remained in your old place because your family lived nearby), get to the grocery store (you're 90... you likely can't drive). It's not practical.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  > My point is that a lot of (and maybe most) 90 year olds are not really capable of moving. And mine is that a lot of (and maybe most) 90 year olds wouldn't need to move. The ones who would be motivated to move are also largely the ones who are wealthy enough to do so.

vanilla_nut 4y ago

Why does grandpa get to live in a two bedroom apartment in the LES during retirement when so many other people can't afford it despite working for a living? If he owns, you'd think that he could sell the two bedroom and downgrade to a one bedroom to keep the monthly cost down. Or even a studio. But at some point it's an incredibly desirable, expensive neighborhood and I'm not sure anyone deserves the privilege to live where they want as long as they want.

chadash 4y ago
Because 90 year old grandpa can't move as easily as us youngins and it's not his fault that the neighborhood gentrified around him. At this point he can't afford to the taxes on a studio either. But anyway, the process of moving is really pretty tough at that age, even the logistics of finding a new apartment and hiring movers. Now, you move out to the suburbs because you can't afford the city anymore, but you don't drive because you are 90, so it isn't so easy to buy groceries anymore. You gotta find a new ophthalmologist, cardiologist and primary care doctor instead of seeing the folks you've been going to for the last 10 years. Maybe 65 is too young for retirement age, but I certainly feel that there is an age at which old people should start getting special privileges, like the right to not have to move. And the rest of us can wait our turns and hope that we get to take advantage of those privileges some day.
- medvezhenok 4y ago
  First, grandpa will have to move eventually. 90 year olds in Ukraine got caught up in a war they had nothing to do with and had to move. Second, if the neighborhood gentrified around grandpa, his house value has gone up - he can sell at a good profit and use the money for his retirement as he wishes. Third - consider the counterfactual renter who was living in the same place and working just like grandpa, but had to move at the age of 60 because he couldn't afford the rent anymore. Why does grandpa get to stay but the other person, who is a renter with the same life story get forced out of the neighborhood?
  - cableshaft 4y ago