Is NYC dead forever? - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Doug64
#15119012
And there’s this from London:

The commuters are revolting

    The cubicle drones are revolting. Having been encouraged to work from home during lockdown, the hordes who packed the pre-coronavirus commuter trains are dragging their heels about returning to work. And the official reaction to this phenomenon betrays how thin our Government’s commitment really is to the much-vaunted ‘levelling’ agenda.

    Working from home has not all been idyllic, of course. Not everyone has a spare room to use as office space, or a garden where the kids can let off steam. The burden of trying to homeschool fractious children while remote working has disproportionately fallen on mothers, with many risking their jobs by requesting furlough in order to cope. There’s been sketchy internet, a 40% spike in divorce enquiries and skyrocketing domestic violence.

    No doubt those for whom the workplace is sanctuary, social life and home from home have rushed to return to its embrace. But given that one early summer survey showed that 90% of workers would rather not rush back, and another July study revealed that only a third of British workers had returned to the office, clearly this isn’t everyone. It shouldn’t come as a surprise: for many — and especially for commuters — working lifestyles have become increasingly unbearable.

    Before we embarked upon our mass national experiment in remote working, the centrifugal power of our cities seemed a law of nature. Anyone with ambition had to be physically present where the jobs were — and that meant, chiefly, London. Caught up in that trend, for a while I took the train from Bedfordshire to London five days a week for work. It was horrible.

    When you commute, there’s a relentless, conveyor-belt feeling to every working day: out of the house shortly after 6am, the daily worry you’ll miss your train, fighting for the last station parking spot, fighting for the last train seat, fighting to get on your connecting train when you get to town. By the time you make it to work, you’ve been fighting for two hours, and you know you’ll have to do it all over again at the other end of the day.

    There’s no time to do anything at home except make a quick meal and collapse, exhausted, in front of the telly. If I tried to do anything else at all in the evenings, I was running a chronic sleep deficit. I was constantly ill. With socialising and exercising time consumed by travel, I piled on weight and lost touch with friends. In the winter, when the barest hint of normal seasonal phenomena such as ice or wet leaves makes the trains curl up and die, I’d often enjoy an unscheduled hour or so added to my journey time, usually whenever it was least convenient. For all these privileges, I was charged close to £10,000 a year by train companies whose services were overcrowded and unreliable.

    I was one of around a million commuters paying a version of these personal costs, for a middling seat at London’s economic banquet. This banquet, while plentiful for many, has had large-scale political costs too. Back in 2016, the Brexit vote revealed a country bitterly split between the urban, liberal and cosmopolitan winners of globalisation, and (as repeatedly implied by that august demographic) globalisation’s reactionary, provincial thicko losers.

    Our political class has been murmuring for a while now about how terribly sad it is that cultures and demographics are polarising between urban centre and provincial periphery. They mostly looked carefully past the bottom line, which is that London has enjoyed its pre-eminent position by concentrating the lion’s share of Britain’s ambition and intelligence in its penumbra.

    The advantages of this to the winners in the arrangement have been obvious: a bottomless supply of talent, a global reputation for cultural dynamism and apparently copper-bottomed property prices. The costs, in political polarisation and the ever more extreme nature of commuter lifestyles, were either ignored or treated as unfortunate but inevitable side-effects of the otherwise positive “London effect”.

    Borne aloft by his landslide victory last December, Boris promised to heal the nation’s economic and geographic divides by “levelling up” the rest of the country — a phrasing that assumes the way forward is to encourage everywhere else to ascend to London’s giddy heights.

    Only now, the boom in remote working means talent and disposable income no longer needs to be physically present in London five days a week. There’s been a stampede to get out of the metropolis, with a surge in enquiries for more spacious rural properties — especially those with space to work from home. That could be great for the provinces; but it also means that the “levelling” Boris promised may turn out to mean less building on London’s success than ending its stranglehold on the nation’s workforce.

    I don’t pretend to have been an irreplaceable loss to the capital, but for me, back in 2016, it was having a baby that tipped the balance. I couldn’t think of a London job I wanted to do badly enough, or that seemed likely to pay me enough, to warrant leaving my infant with someone else 12 hours a day while I returned to the treadmill. Once I calculated that the London salary premium is consumed by the cost of commuting for all but the highest earners, the whole arrangement just seemed mad.

    Now, having demonstrated that remote working is fine at least some of the time, much of commuter-belt Britain seems to be making similar calculations. If your commute is 90 minutes either way, working from home two or three days a week amounts to half a day of family or leisure time clawed back every single week. That’s a whole extra weekend’s worth of free time, every month. Who in their right mind would relinquish that save under duress?

    Duress is coming, though. Early in August, US bank Morgan Stanley published research that stopped barely short of calling British workers lazy. When I read the headline British workers more reluctant to return to work than Europeans, my first thought was “wait, who said it was a competition?” But from the bankers’ point of view, when cubicle drones boycott their cubicle, home-working means a deserted City of London. And that, in turn, means a struggling commercial property market, as businesses scale down their office sizes or scramble for premises without germ-laden shared lifts.

    A source tells me workers in financial services have been saying privately for some time that they could do their jobs from home with no loss of productivity. Now that the virus has proven them right, the firms they work for are panicking about their exposure to an urban commercial property market that’s looking shaky to say the least. No wonder Morgan Stanley (whose 2019 advice on the London commercial property market was bullish) is now looking for ways to guilt the plebs out of their home offices and back into London, by talking up some imaginary competition over which nation can resume the rat race with more Stakhanovite fervour.

    It’s not just banks: the Government’s return-to-work mood music has now shifted from friendly encouragement, to a more threatening tone. When we hear unnamed official sources whipping up fear of job losses among the stubbornly home-working commuter class, we should remember that London’s skyscraper boom is itself a legacy of Boris Johnson’s years as mayor, with a glut of such applications waved through toward the end of his mayoral term. Perhaps we should not be surprised if Johnson now shows a reluctance to embrace a variant of the “levelling” agenda that would leave all those shiny skyscrapers standing empty.

    Nor is it just commercial property. The cubicle-drone rebellion echoes all the way down the metropolitan economy. Last week, Pret A Manger announced it was cutting 2,800 jobs, as commuters and office workers stay home instead. Pizza Express, Byron Burger and Frankie & Benny’s have also announced job losses.

    Beyond the “lunchtime economy”, countless small-business owners depend on the daily influx of commuters, from masseurs and City gyms to dry cleaners and in-office yoga instructors. Such businesses often have little working capital. One City-based physiotherapist reports turnover currently at 20% of the usual figure. If London ceases to demand workers’ physical presence every day, the consequence will be a tsunami of pain through all levels of the capital’s economy, from property giants down to sole traders and baristas. And it’s one thing telling Morgan Stanley to “take the hit”; if we’re facing a major economic rebalancing away from London, we’ll also have to face the human cost of that rebalancing on countless small businesses.

    And yet, this human cost was “market forces” when it was the provinces declining toward despair while the cities flourished. Globalisation has winners and losers, we were told; to make an omelette you have to break eggs. So you’d think there might be the odd voice arguing that shifting some of London’s talent and spending power out to live in the provinces is at least a plausible tradeoff.

    Before coronavirus, London was home to around a third of all the coffee shops in Britain. No one is advancing the possibility that losing some of these might not represent an absolute loss to the national coffee-shop total, so much as a shift in daytime disposable income to suburban or small-town locations. It might even mean the opening of new coffee shops in locations where they previously weren’t viable.

    But it seems as though, should we wish to make omelettes, it’s only okay to break provincial eggs. The golden egg that is London’s economy is not available for culinary purposes. Early signs from our political leaders indicate that “levelling” is only a political option if it’s ‘up’, toward a London whose apex position stays unassailable. But if that “levelling” turns out to be a tradeoff, at London’s expense, we can expect the revolt of the cubicle drones to face brisk Government counter-measures.
#15119024
We all know the really insane people are the ones who fuck and have fun. Not the ones who look forward to an angry deity destroying the world to spite everyone they don't like. This is just common sense.
#15120256
It really did take less than ten years to go from "love is love" to "legalize all drugs, kill police, decriminalize pedophilia." California is leading the way on that last one with a new law about legalizing anal sex with a "willing" child within 10 years of age, so now a 19 year-old can legally sodomize a 9 year-old boy in that state.
#15120492
Oh cool, Wulfschilde is repeating dumbass Qanon level bullshit now. What a surprise from the well adjusted man who dreams of setting all urban centers ablaze and murdering their inhabitants in a rural uprising.

The bill basically mirrors an existing law that gives judges discretion over whether or not to place someone on the sex-offender registry if they have sex with a minor 14 years or older and are within 10 years of age. It currently only applied to penile-vaginal sex, and did not offer the same discretion to other sex acts such as oral or anal. It is still illegal to have sex with minors, the hair splitting comes on whether or not the offender is placed on the registry.

From a Guardian article on the subject:

Wiener’s proposed law dealt with people who are convicted of having non-forcible sex with minors above the age of 14 and who are themselves no more than 10 years older than the minor. Judges in such cases were able to exercise discretion when deciding whether or not to place a convicted offender on the registry if the sex act was penile-vaginal sex but not if it was anal or oral sex or non-penile sexual penetration. The bizarre status quo stemmed from a 2015 California supreme court ruling which reasoned that if the victim in such a case became pregnant, placing the offender on the registry would make it harder for them to provide for the child.

To Wiener, this inequity was part of the legacy of the criminalization of LGBTQ+ people. “It used to be much more explicit and obvious in terms of anti-sodomy laws,” he said. “This is one example where the judge can keep straight kids off the registry, but the gay kids have to go on the registry. It’s mortifying that in 2020, in California, this discrimination continues to exist in our penal code.”

SB145 was, essentially, a clean-up bill that would allow judges to exercise discretion in all such cases, regardless of the sex act involved. It did not change the criminality of sex with a minor (which remains illegal) nor did it change the criminal penalties for breaking the law. The bill was introduced in January 2019 and had the official support of LGBTQ+ groups, prosecutors, police chiefs, public defenders, civil liberties groups and advocates for survivors of sexual assault.


Basically, in the case of a heterosexual 17 and 20 year old couple who attended high school at the same time the judge could choose not to place the 20 year old on the sex offender registry. This is not the case with homosexual couples, where the older one would automatically be placed on the registry. In both cases, the older partner would still be criminally charged.

Just a reminder: Wulfschilde had to figure out backward that cities are centers for trade, which is why they buy agricultural and resource extraction products from rural areas. He fantasizes about a rural uprising where all the ranchers, farmers, miners, etc. rise up and kill their customer base by starving them to death because I guess they hate money? As you can tell, it's not a very well thought out fantasy.

Btw Wulfschilde this would have taken you all of two minutes of Googling to figure out. So maybe think about not getting your information from Kek Patriot Pizza Gator or whatever next time.
#15120531
Edit: On second thought, I don't need to respond to your fantasies about what I supposedly want to do.

As for the pedophilia law. I did get the ages wrong, still, a 24 year-old having homosexual anal sex with a 14 year-old sounds like pedophilia to me. Seriously, consider what you are trying to split hairs about here. "Cis 24 year olds weren't going on the sex offender registry for having sex with a 14 year old so now the gay ones won't either." This is in the context where they also decriminalized child prostitution, reduced knowingly giving HIV to someone down to a misdemeanor, etc.

So, a gay HIV-positive 24 year-old man could literally pay a 14 year-old boy for butt sex, deliberately infecting him with HIV and it would be a misdemeanor. But this doesn't matter because you've convinced yourself that the guys you argue with on the internet want to kill everyone :excited:

I mean really, I did Google this just to confirm the ages and there was some media SOB story where the author of the bill got death threats just because he made it legal to butt-fuck 14 year-old boys. Gee, wow, I have so much sympathy for him now because death threats are not appropriate in this case.
#15120576
It's up to the judge's discretion about whether or not they're put on the sex offender registry. They are still being found guilty of statutory rape in this case, and in California the prosecutor can charge it as a felony or a misdemeanor depending on a combination of circumstances (being within 3 years of age of each other being one factor) or their own discretion.

I'm glad you Googled it to look up the ages, and the did the barest effort, but you got everything else wrong and added some homophobia on top. Good job, brain genius. And again, since you are a massively gullible fuckup who apparently gets their news from randos on Facebook with Pepe avs, here is the childhood prostitution law you are referring to. From NBC News:

SB 1322, he added, "bars law enforcement from arresting sex workers who are under the age of 18 for soliciting or engaging in prostitution, or loitering with the intent to do so."

And that's true — the law does state that minors won't be treated as criminals if they are caught under such circumstances. But state Democrats say that distinction was necessary so that the children aren't being blamed or punished for their situation.

They are instead to be treated as victims who can be placed into a safe environment by the Department of Social Services, keeping them out of the criminal justice system and potentially off the streets again forced into prostitution, said state Sen. Holly Mitchell, who introduced SB 1322.


Essentially, it prevents law enforcement from charging minors with solicitation and loitering, instead directing them to social services. Anyone soliciting a minor is still charged.

Unless you think sex-trafficked minors have better outcomes when treated as criminals? Is that what you want? You want to put children forced into sex work in jail? Thank God we have ill-informed moral panicking idiots around to ensure that child prostitutes are treated as criminals because they get all their news from people repeating Infowars talking points on Facebook.

Also here is you fantasizing about some weird situation where red states apparently decide to form agricultural fiefdoms to defend their corn and cattle as they watch the cities burn down:

The truth is that economics are not just your paper money. None of these large cities are self-sustaining, they are completely reliant on imports. If there was any sort of breakdown in economic exchange the producers would suddenly start price gouging on necessary goods like food, they also own all of the guns, what the fuck are blue states supposed to do? All of their upsides exist only on paper, you'd burn everything down and start eating each other in a month.


You might remember it from the previous page of this thread.
By Doug64
#15121422
While all the attention is on the fallout from RBG’s death, it’s not the only thing going on:

Big Apple downsized: New Yorkers ready to leave their city

    The Big Apple could soon get down-sized. Well-heeled New Yorkers continue to grapple with the challenges posed by life in New York City under Democratic leadership and trying circumstances. New research from the Manhattan Institute, a think tank espousing free market ideas, reveals a very glum situation in good old Gotham.

    The organization cites the grim reality among residents who earn $100,000 or more. They make up 80% of New York City’s income-tax revenue, placing the city government at risk to “tax-base erosion.” Personal income tax, in fact accounts for 22% of the city’s overall take in tax revenues. Many residents have had just about enough.

    “We found that 44% of high-income New Yorkers say that they have considered relocating outside the city in the past four months, with cost of living cited as the biggest reason. More than half of high-income New Yorkers are working entirely from home, and nearly two-thirds believe that this will be the new normal for the city. Of those considering leaving New York City, 30% say that the possibility of working remotely makes it more likely that they will move,” the analysis reports, citing the institute’s succinct new poll of high earners.

    “Nearly two in five New Yorkers making six-figure salaries or higher believe that the city is headed in the wrong direction. These high-earning residents report a steep drop in the quality of life since March, with satisfaction cut in half since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the research said.

    • 44% of New York City residents with incomes over $100,000 have considered leaving the city in the past four months.
    • 69% of this group cited the cost of living in the city, 47% cited crime.
    • 46% now want a “non-urban lifestyle”; 34% worry about coronavirus in the city.
    • 30% favor working from home from “some other location”; 15% cite difficulties with child care.
#15121429
Finally. The insane Moonie newspaper is confirming my confirmation bias. New York is dead. How can it possibly survive without its investment bankers?

And once they move to my rural shithole they will assimilate 100% and not change anything in any way, and their large pay checks will have no gentrifying effect upon real estate values or property taxes. The cities are dead, people, and we have won.
By Doug64
#15128122
Another look at the future of New York City that's a little too large to post here, but an interesting read: The Panic Attack of the Power Brokers
#15128750
My home state is still mostly locked down, almost a year after this virus presumably came into existence.

Even though the dialogue is "if it saves only one life", we still don't have lockdowns against fatty foods (heart disease kills 14x as many people), a war on driving under the influence (drunk driving kills 1 person every 50 minutes in the US) or swimming pools.

My question at this point is, if Trump wins, what if these places don't fully open up again for another four years :lol: At other levels of technology these cities would have been physically destroyed and burned to the ground a long time ago based upon who the inhabitants are.

József Szájer is one of Orban's closest ally and a[…]

Election 2020

Actually, I don't support Trump. Then you will b[…]

@ralfy Sivad is an anti-Vaxxer. :knife: H[…]

https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/C[…]