Kinja reply list

Read More
PE_FeedsJ.K. Trotter
9/23/13 6:06pm
Two quick points on this article:

1. Let's try a back of the envelope calculation here. Assume $10/hour, 8 hour shift, 5 days per week, for 3 months during each summer from age 14 to age 18. That comes out to $24,000 ($10 * 8 * 5 * 4 * 3 * 5). Even if she spent part of that money, it's still a significant amount of money that's been saved for the down payment.

2. One of my best friends from college went a similar route: she worked at a few stores in the local mall, got into a great college with a serious amount of financial aid, and worked her butt off during school to put money into her savings account. She put a down payment on an apartment in the Hoboken area that's also around the same price as Polly's. Because she got some help from her parents (disclaimer: they put less than half the down payment), does that make her and her family rich?

What is so painful about this whole mess is that everybody screwed up. The word "normal" is now a hot button word because we actually really don't know WHAT it means anymore. The scariest thing about these comment forums and pieces by Hamilton and J.K. (and in other published areas like Jezebel) is that they assume they know exactly how Polly paid for it and what she's like as a person.

This isn't even a problem within this firestorm; it's happened to so many other people. And by seeing this reaction, I'm pretty scared for what's to come.
Reply
- Read More
  J.K. TrotterPE_Feeds
  9/23/13 6:36pm
  To address your first point: you’re forgetting taxes.
  Reply
- Read More
  PE_FeedsJ.K. Trotter
  9/24/13 10:17am
  To those who wrote back on this post, thank you. All very valid and good points. Just a side note, I marked $10/hour as I used my friend's wage who I mentioned in the second point.
  
  What I guess just scares me the most about everything that's happened throughout this firestorm is that people are so quick to make assumptions or nasty remarks about people. It's not just about Polly and her piece, too. I know Polly personally and she hasn't taken ANY of this backlash well (because her original article was extremely detailed about the apartment buying process and that was what she wanted to focus on in the piece). Does she agree that some of the language should have been changed? Of course. But the original message (the toils of buying an apartment in NYC) has been lost.
  
  (Shrugs)
  Reply
Read More
cinesimonJ.K. Trotter
9/23/13 7:01pm
It's amazing to me how people simply don't seem capable - or willing? - to get the point of this article. The fact is, most 'normal 20-somethings' don't have the benefit of wealthy parents who can chip in $50k for their first home, nor a co-signer with good credit. Without those two things, she would not have been able to buy her home. It's the same old glibertarian story: the only reason you can't get ahead in life is because you don't want to, and/or are too lazy. It has nothing to do with your family situation.

Yet in every example they use, they're proven to be dishonest.

Upward mobility has been dead for a long time. Unless you're a right winger, of course - in which case reality has become a communist plot to destroy freedom.

Poor people who work 16 hour days deserve to not be able to afford to feed their kids and own a home. The fact that they were not born into a family of means, is their own lazy-ass fault. Apparently.

These people really do seem to want to turn America into a version of current day Russia - or China, for that matter. America became a great country due to building a strong middle class. That happened because of the progressive tax system, and real laws holding powerful people accountable for their actions if they affected the lives of thousands. But now, apparently, to want to go back to anywhere near that, I'm told I'm a communist who hates freedom.

Because apparently, freedom equals oligarchy and a majority dirt poor populace.
Reply
- Read More
  J.K. Trottercinesimon
  9/23/13 7:07pm
  Whenever I read comments like yours, I always wonder: so you’re saying we should figure out a way of ordering society that isn’t completely centered on families-as-an-economic-unit?
  
  I think we should! But I’m never certain whether this wish to address reality—that families exist to consolidate capital, that they deliberately unbalance the playing field—is also a wish to move beyond the family itself.
  Reply
- Read More
  cinesimonJ.K. Trotter
  9/23/13 7:22pm
  Eh? Are you saying that government policy post WW2 was anti-family?
  Reply
Read More
nuclear boreJ.K. Trotter
9/23/13 4:09pm
350k is "just over" 250k in the same world where parents handing over $50k in free cash is "normal"
Reply
- Read More
  phunkshunnuclear bore
  9/23/13 4:13pm
  Yeah, sadly this concept is completely alien to me because I had the (mis)fortune of being born to a civil servant and a school teacher.
  Reply
- Read More
  foolyoophunkshun
  9/23/13 4:23pm
  Being that all my parents went bankrupt during this recession I can only imagine how nice a cosigner with good credit would be. Let alone a family loan or gift of $50,000+ for a down payment.
  
  My credit is OK for getting a car loan and more credit cards, not buying housing.
  Reply
Read More
jikerJ.K. Trotter
9/23/13 7:04pm
You know, all things considered, these seem like some pretty measured, reasonable responses from the editor.
Reply
- Read More
  J.K. Trotterjiker
  9/23/13 7:08pm
  Yes, he was very nice, and quite reasonable.
  Reply
- Read More
  A Media Dudejiker
  9/24/13 3:48am
  Agree. He might be wrong—though it sounds like he didn't know it was cosigned when he published the piece—but I give him credit for answering the questions and trying to be transparent.
  
  Many editors would have just refused to answer.
  Reply
Read More
DolemiteJ.K. Trotter
9/23/13 4:12pm
It must be nice to have so much money (and wealthy relatives) that you simply don't care about the specifics when dealing with quarter of a million dollar transactions. "I do not know the amount. I believe it was in the 5 figures, but I am not sure. I THINK the way it works (I am not an expert on this)" Yeah, the author is totally normal, just like the 50 million Americans on food stamps.
Reply
- Read More
  JoshDigiDolemite
  9/23/13 4:19pm
  Her not even being sure if the amount was in the 5 figures is incredible. If she isn't an expert and doesn't even know the details then maybe she shouldn't be writing an article about it. She is the farthest thing from the independent, responsible person she claims to be.
  Reply
- Read More
  EyeHeartPieDolemite
  9/23/13 4:25pm
  Clarification: the author of the original article on the Observer was a female. KK is the editor of the Observer, and he was the one answering these questions. Your comment might make sense if the author of the article (who was the one who bought the home) had been answering these questions from Gawker, but she wasn't. The editor was.
  Reply
Read More
negitoroJ.K. Trotter
9/24/13 5:28am
Why exactly does this matter?

Overall, if you thought the original article was ridiculous (that a typical person can save up for an apartment at an early age with proper fiscal responsibility) then the additional amount doesn't matter. If you believed that it was actually possible, the additional amount is significant but surely it's not out of the realm of possibility to afford $345k either (regardless whether she paid for it on her own).

It just seems quibbling over the actual amount here takes away from the original intention of the original article.
Reply
- Read More
  J.K. Trotternegitoro
  9/24/13 10:26am
  It matters because the original article was, on top of being absurd, deliberately deceptive. “Quibbling” implies she mortgaged her apartment for, say, $255,000. But no: $345,000.
  Reply
- Read More
  negitoroJ.K. Trotter
  9/25/13 4:08am
  My point is that if you were in the camp that thought the original article was absurd (and it seems that you are) then the amount is somewhat inconsequential - the concept of a normal girl in her 20s affording an apartment is simply more absurd with the extra $95k.
  
  However, if you believed that the original message of the article was plausible (and I'm in this camp) then the extra $95k, despite making it harder, hardly stretches it beyond the point of plausibility. It's not like it's $500,000 or a million. The extra $95k might simply increase her mortgage by a moderate amount each month going forward.
  
  Basically, the amount, accurate or not is unlikely to change anyone's mind.
  Reply
Read More
LemaltreJ.K. Trotter
9/23/13 4:05pm
Congrats Gawker! Really digging deep into the stories that matter.
Reply
- Read More
  aismoLemaltre
  9/23/13 4:12pm
  Like the ones where me make people answer for the horse shit they put in the media?
  Reply
- Read More
  Lemaltreaismo
  9/23/13 4:14pm
  Like the one where they use their time and effort to pursue a story with literally zero public interest. Oh no! Some random lady paid more for her apartment! This changes everything.
  Reply
Read More
PetehammerJ.K. Trotter
9/23/13 4:24pm
Why is everyone acting like it is normal to say someone "owns" an apartment? What am I missing? Is this an NYC thing?

Own=house, condo

Rent=apartment
Reply
- Read More
  ARP2Petehammer
  9/23/13 5:10pm
  Yes, it's primarily a NYC (some other parts of east coast) thing. It's slightly different in that you own shares in the building and then get a special lease for your building.
  Reply
- Read More
  cinesimonPetehammer
  9/23/13 7:03pm
  Eh? I take it you've not lived in a city.
  Reply
Read More
Sparkle_MotionJ.K. Trotter
9/23/13 4:10pm
Today’s lesson: You are never going to own in Manhattan. (Or Brooklyn.)

Speak for yourself!

I just got myself adopted by Ludmila Lapchyk!!!
Reply
- Read More
  JbarJSparkle_Motion
  9/23/13 4:13pm
  Not for nothing, Ludmilla is a kick ass name...
  Reply
- Read More
  Sparkle_MotionJbarJ
  9/23/13 4:15pm
  Her middle name is even cooler, if you can believe it.
  
  But I can't tell you what it is. If I did, I'd get cut out of her will.
  Reply
Read More
MorticaiJ.K. Trotter
9/23/13 4:12pm
Listen, she was born with a silver spoon, whatever. I do not begrudge her the lottery she won by being born to rich parents. Some people are born with more resources, others less. It sucks, but that is just the way it is. However, the assertion that she is somehow the norm, that she can't understand why the majority of students don't have a $50k nest egg and no debt after college really gets under my skin (But she worked really hard to save that money on her part time summer job to save that! And also her parents contributed...). "You can do it too! Just like I did!" The ignorance, it is overwhelming. A certain person once had the same "Let them eat cake!" attitude, and it did not work out so well for her.
Reply
- Read More
  cassienycMorticai
  9/23/13 4:49pm
  The problem is not really her. I mean, you're right: she's totally and completely clueless. But ultimately the fault lies with the crappy sorry excuse for a newspaper that allows a clueless 22-year-old to write a dumb "column," and doesn't even bother to check the most basic of facts.
  
  It took Gawker readers all of five minutes to check public records (in NYC, they are available on this thing called "the Internet") and find the discrepancy in the price. Which is more work than anybody at the Observer seems to have done on this piece.
  Reply