sometimes it cracks me up that my friends are approaching 30 and still live at home.

my parents are fine with us living at home as long as we're in school. once we're done school we pay rent if we're staying here, just on principle.
 
Doomcifer said:
In Boston, a one-bedroom apartment is around 1200/month.

Where? I lived in Back Bay for a year and paid $1750 per month. That was in '99 too so I'm sure it's gone up a bit.

It was a brown stone, two bedroom, with tandem parking right outside the back. And it was in a cul de sac so no traffic.

I bet today, that place would be $2500/month at least.
 
Demilich said:
my parents are fine with us living at home as long as we're in school. once we're done school we pay rent if we're staying here, just on principle.

FWIW, I paid rent ($300/month) to my parents, and also helped out immensely around the house, often with financial things, like replacing all of their worn-out major appliances.
 
Also, it's far more expensive in NYC than it is in Boston. Back Bay is quite possibly the MOST expensive neighborhood to live in, in Boston. Whereas EVERY neighborhood in NYC (Manhattan) is friggin' expensive. You can live for considerably cheaper in Queens, Brooklyn, etc. Unfortunately, northern NJ doesn't seem to want to become any less expensive.
 
MadeInNewJersey said:
As far as trying to crack down on crime...he DID crack down on crime. NYC is one of the safest major cities in the world thanks to his work.
i just read "freakonomics" recently, and levitt goes into quite a bit of detail explaining why he believes this isn't true--not the crime rates falling (and they were falling all over the country around the time giuliani was elected); that's fact, but the idea that it was due to specific efforts by mayors, police chiefs, etc.

his explanation? roe v. wade :eek:
 
I don't even know what that means.

NYC pre-Giuliani (i.e. David Dinkins *shudder*) = crime-ridden
NYC post-Giuliani = no crime (relatively speaking, for a city of its size & population)

Coincidence? I suppose it's possible, but I doubt it.
 
i think its enough ... you know ... for example if I go out at any time ... I always see cops ... somewhere ...

in most European cities ... I rarely used ot bump into any ... walking, driving ... anywhere.
 
MadeInNewJersey said:
I don't even know what that means.

NYC pre-Giuliani (i.e. David Dinkins *shudder*) = crime-ridden
NYC post-Giuliani = no crime (relatively speaking, for a city of its size & population)

Coincidence? I suppose it's possible, but I doubt it.
i really regret that i can't reference any specific arguments, but you oughtta check it out, maybe it'll blow your mind :loco:

basically levitt claims that after roe v. wade, many pregnant women in situations not conducive to raising a healthy child (poverty, drug/alcohol dependency, etc.)--who would otherwise have had kids that would have a high potential to grow up to commit crimes--instead got abortions. keep in mind the ruling in roe v wade was passed down in 1973; the crime rate incidentally dropped a significant amount all over the country right around the time those would-be criminals would have been at their peak of criminal activity. BUT they weren't there.

makes as much sense as any other explanation to me, and levitt offers a couple reasons why the active efforts to lower crime rates were in fact not the cause.
 
lurch70 said:
i think its enough ... you know ... for example if I go out at any time ... I always see cops ... somewhere ...

in most European cities ... I rarely used ot bump into any ... walking, driving ... anywhere.
'cause we don't need them... 'cause not any retard can get a gun and go around killing in the name of god here