Category: Economics

“Civilized” Overpopulation and Epidural


Bleubird-familySome time ago, I posted here a video quote of the Gates Foundations' family-planning message.  I mean, you say "family planning" and I will acknowledge your efforts, no matter how feeble, superficial, and confusedly motivated.  Yet, it's important for me to clarify that my own position on family planning is a bit stronger and much wider than those of the philanthropists behind the cute video.  Essentially, the title I chose for the animated citation intended to hint on my personal focus - after all, I did use words like "Key to Economic and Social Survival."

You see, the majority of charitable efforts and government aids are focused on the prevention of unwanted births and directed at either the "third-world" countries or our own domestic lower-income classes.  This is because the predominant idea behind these undertakings, granted too radical for Catholics and the conservative right, is still incredibly human-centric and terribly inadequate with respect to the ecological and other planetary concerns. 

It is basically limited to one straightforward notion that those who cannot afford to provide multiple children with sufficient sustenance, housing, clothing, education, and information technology shouldn't have them (the children).  So, disadvantaged people in poor countries and counties should stop reproducing (and they should, no question about it!), so that the emissaries of the bleeding rich hearts would stop sending to their bosses the unpleasant images of starving, sick, infested, and dying children.  Meanwhile, nobody is paying attention to the violent overpopulation crimes committed against our precious Earth not in some far away land but in so-called centers of "civilization."  

12 years ago my place of residence, a Manhattan high-rise, was famous for having more pets than children.  Today, the building is flooded with infants, toddlers, preschoolers, preteens, and teenagers.  Only after midnight you can pass through the lobby without stumbling into well-off pro-choice parents with the broods of two, three, even four children.   

Practically every single business owner I ever worked with has three children (I swear!).  How about the democratic billionaire couple that cares so much about the family planning in underdeveloped countries, i.e. Bill and Melinda Gates?  How many children do they have?  You guessed it - three! And their philanthropic cohort Warren Buffett?  Also three!  It's some sort of a magic fucking number!  And the funny thing is, they probably think that they are doing right by the Planet – they can afford a whole school of children, but they limited themselves to "just three!"  

So, now let me tell you what I think.  It is my firm believe that in the current state of ecological deterioration, unstoppable depletion of natural and fiscal resources, exponential mental and emotional degeneration of an average human, complete disappearance of merit principles, and overwhelming crumbling of social liberties - it is nothing short of a crime for anybody (and I mean, ANYBODY) to have more than one child!   

This is simple arithmetic, folks:  Why the hell my one child must share air with these endless triple offsprings?  Use your imagination for a second and replace those triples and duos with ones – how much air, food, resources, personal attention, and devotion would we have per each individual child then?  I don't know about you, but this mental picture seems like a much healthier and somewhat less doomed present and future to me. 

I cannot even begin to describe how angry these fucking people with multiple children make me, regardless of who they are – those with sufficient household wealth and those who keep popping them out because our federal and state governments throw our taxes at them (the more dependents, the higher the welfare payments); those who claim that they do it for God and those who "cement their marriages" using babies as cinder blocks. 

And, of course, I always fumed at fertility doctors endlessly pollinating multiple eggs with abundant sperm to ensure successful fertilization, thus exponentially increasing the probability of twin, triple, and even quadruple births.  But, as it turns out, the doctors, who take upon themselves the appalling task of correcting Nature and giving children to people who were meant to have none, are not the worst of medical offenders against our Planet. 

The whims of my life spared me from being exposed to child-bearing and births for the past 20 years.  As a result, I was sheltered from the macabre reality of what I can only call a large-scale bolstering of "civilized" overpopulation.  Until the last year that is, when one of my subordinates got pregnant for the first time.

We are fairly close and she frequently asks for my advice on matters outside of our professional relationship.  So, in the last trimester she approached me with the following: "My doctor asked me if I wanted Epidural." "Why?" I asked innocently, "You are not having a C-section."  She shrugged her shoulders, "Well, they give it to everyone who doesn't want the pain now.  And they've been doing it for years.  But I've read it's not good for the baby."

What???!!!  They give it to everyone?  Even to healthy young women who are built to go through natural labor without any complications?  No wonder these people think nothing of having one child after another.  Why not? But do they ever dwell on a pretty obvious concept that there might be a reason why Mother Nature intended for the birth of a child to be a labor of pain and love?  And don't even get me started on what all these drug-induced and anesthetic-aided infant extractions (you cannot seriously call them labors at this point) do to these newborn humans. 

Obviously, these parents don't care much about the future of their children.  And it's not shocking to me that the drug-pushing doctors and their sponsors, i.e. big pharma, don't care about the survival of their own descendants either.  It should be, but it's not.  The opportunism has become the blinding principle of everyone's existence and it always prevails – all they care about is their bank accounts' balances today!  As they say in French, Apres Moi, le deluge (After me comes the flood)!

And here is another angle.  The conveyor birthing and ballooning families are among the main causes for the perpetually increasing health insurance rates.  Do you realize that in addition to the terrible effect they have on the global environment and economics, these multi-child families are basic larcenists?  Daily they steal hard-earned money from single individuals and one-child parents who are forced to pay exorbitant premiums inflated by these thieves.

I thought that I would never align my interests with those of any big public organization, but in the fight for our Planet's survival any allies count, even those who take the right actions for the wrong reasons.  In their unyielding pursuit of stock "value" inflation, health insurers do whatever they can to assist those who want to stay childless or keep their families small: a vasectomy is covered 100%, so is a once a year abortion performed by a network provider.  Obviously, in the long run these procedures are far more economical than prenatal care, birth, child healthcare, etc., etc. 

Thus, inadvertently, the insurance companies actually contribute to the fight against overpopulation.  But they can do more!  How about they stop covering the goddamn epidural administered to absolutely healthy women?  The last I've heard, each shot costs about $2,000.  So, c'mon HMO, let them feel it, both in their pockets and, as Nature intended, in their birth canals.  Maybe this will make at least some of them to stop at #1.              

The Wealth of the Nation: Observation #2 – Apple Watch


People ask me, “How the fuck does Apple dare to price this watch at $18,000?!”  Granted, most of these people are representatives of the American “contemporary middle class.” 

This basically means that economic and social changes of the past few decades completely cut them out of the luxury goods market, its prices and its intricate marketing strategies.  While their well-employed fathers could still afford to splurge a portion of year-end bonuses on nice presents for their mothers at Saks or Tiffany, these people have no need to be bothered with prices of products that carry such labels as Hermes, Chanel, Bottega Veneta, or Rolex.  It’s far beyond their purchasing powers and (altogether now!) it’s only gonna get worse. 

Even if they get bonuses, they need to spend them right away on far more immediate needs – like replacement of a broken kitchen appliance, a leaky roof, or urgent car repairs.  They already borrowed against their 401k to cover the ever-escalating costs of their children’s after-school activities; and the astronomic college tuition… hmmm, they will deal with that when the time comes.    

The only reason they even know about the Apple Edition Watches ($10,000-$18,000) is because they are featured next to Apple Watch ($550-$1,000) and Apple Watch Sport ($350-$600) on Apple.com and are on display in the brick-and-mortar stores.  The pictured watch was showing itself off right on the front page of Apple’s site until literally a few days ago.  So, even if you needed some $19.99 cable, you would’ve seen it.

In an unprecedented move, Apple decided to capture both mass and luxury markets – at the same time and through the same outlets.  And guess what?  All watches, regardless of their prices, were snatched away within the first three minutes of the original release,  thus proving the marketing strategy a total success (well, at least its initial stage).

The supply and demand stimuli worked precisely as if it were a case in an Economics textbook: the cheaper pieces attracted many buyers with their relative value, while the alluring high prices of the gold Apple watches made them even more desirable to those who can afford to shell out this kind of money for a miniaturized iPad.

So, why shouldn’t then a brand charge such prices for its high-end products if the market is willing to bear them?   This constantly happens in the third-world countries, which consist of a vast majority of desperately poor people and a roomful of incredibly wealthy ones, with no middle class in-between.  Already expensive as is, luxury items are priced two, sometimes three times higher in those countries than in Western Europe or the US.  A pair of Prada shoes that can be bought on 5th Avenue in NYC for $750 will carry a $2,200 price tag in Moscow.  And again, why not?  The general population wouldn’t be able to afford them at any price, while the rich and powerful feel no difference between $750 and $2,200.

Of course, you need an extra-special kind of gall to sell exactly the same electronic gadget at a 3000% price differential just because you placed it in a bit of 18K gold (and it’s absolutely irrelevant how fancy the process of creating that 75% gold alloy is – it’s still the same metal).  I mean, a gold Rolex costs only 3-4 times more than the same model in stainless steel; not 30 times more!  Moreover, Apple as a brand has no track records in metallurgy, watch-making, or jewelry designing to support the exorbitant prices! 

A big portion of the premium prices charged for the established luxury goods have nothing to do with the label frenzy – it is supported by decades, sometimes centuries, of extraordinary workmanship, continuous ingenuity of designs, and the unreachable standards of quality.  I mean, Abraham-Louis Breguet started making watches in 1775; Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were his clients!  Every Hermes bag is still made by hand in France according to the quality requirements established in 1837.  The ownership of these items lasts for a very long time – they are passed from one generation to the next.  What will the owner of an Edition Watch pass onto his children?  A bit of scrap gold that surrounds a piece of an outdated electronic junk?

Nevertheless, I applaud Apple for being absolutely honest about it and not hiding the reality behind some bullshit political-correctness curtain.  It is what it is: We live in a society marred by a chasm of monetary division that constantly expands at a speed of light, with a handful of those who can afford whatever without even checking the price, including the damn Apple Edition Watch, and everybody else. 

And it doesn’t matter that the overpopulated side can be further divided into those who will go for a $1000 watch vs. the ones who will settle for the $300 one vs. those who cannot afford anything at the Apple store at all.  Even though our wages vary and, more importantly, we make different choices (a professional woman who decides not to have a suburban house and multiple kids still can afford a luxury bag or a watch once in awhile), our means are quite comparable.  If we are in our right minds, we will not throw away $18K for an Apple watch.  The other side, however, can go crazy to their heart’s content.

But the situation does beg the question: Are these the signs that we are fast becoming a third-world country?

Are CBS’s Holmes & Watson Too “Elementary”?


ElementaryDo you know that there are people who devote their spare and even professional time to collecting mistakes and goofs made in movies, TV shows, etc.?  There is a successful British website Moviemistakes.com (since 1996) whose creator has built himself an entertainment career and a money-making vehicle doing just that.  

Specialists officially distinguish eight classes of mistakes, including ridiculous audio problems and crew visibility.  However, themost frequent ones are continuity errors (the yellow Porsche's side was smashed in the previous scene and then in the next one it's absolutely fine) and "revealing" mistakes that remind you it's not for real (Edward is seating under the bright sun during his honeymoon but his skin doesn't sparkle like "the skin of a killer" should).    

I have to say, this type of bullshit is completely lost on me.  I mean, how many times (and how intently) do you need to watch Commando to notice that thing about the car?  And realism of Twilight?  Pahlease!  Unless I am watching Bergman, Fellini, Kubrick, Tarkovsky, Lee, or Noe, whose every shot is the result of conscious artistic effort,  I swear, it's unlikely I will notice visual errors even if I absolutely love (or hate) the movie. 

Plus, these mistakes are the consequences of poor production quality and low work standards, and my readers know very well that I expect that and discuss it all the time.  Who the hell thinks that this prevailing trend of our lives doesn't apply to the entertainment industry?  People are people everywhere.  I don't even get surprised by plot holes anymore, even though it's impossible to ignore those.  I'm like, "Oh, it doesn't tie well?  Surprise, surprise!"  You know how it is: the screenplays get nipped and tucked by everyone to such an extent that the story originators cannot even recognize their own creations anymore.          

However, I feel differently about factual errors (an official class as well).  I notice them all the time.  You see, those don't come from producers, editors, the crew,  and it's unlikely that actors ad lib them.  No, they are products of sloppy writing.  I guess I have different standards for writers than I do for everyone else: I get upset with idiotic mistakes made by screenwriters, journalists, novelists, as well as their research helpers and fact checkers.  A writer's job is very hard – to construct a flawless plot is incredibly difficult.  But to verify the correctness of some piece of information?  That's a matter of care and respect for your audience.  I take my time to watch or read your thing and you disrespect me?  Fuck you!

Of course, different blunders create different levels of annoyance.  I don't  curse out loud (or at least, not anymore) about the eternal confusion of Chapter 11 and Chapter 7 bankruptcies.  I got used to it.  Someone always says how "the company has filed Chapter 11 and will be gone, like, tomorrow."  Well, no: Chapter 11 means that the company plans to stay in business, already found funding, and is reorganizing itself.  This is what Bloomingdale's (or rather the company that owns them – ah, never mind… ) successfully did back in 1991 and it is still operating, thank you very much.  But if it were a Chapter 7 filing, then the company would probably be gone already.  Of course, no David E. Kelley's show would allow an error like that, since he holds a J.D. degree from BU, but it is very prominent in many a police procedural.    

Also pretty low on my scale of discontent are silly foreign-culture mistakes: Like giving a last name Petrovna, which is actually a patronymic and cannot possibly be a family name, to a Russian cyber-genius girl; or attributing a French chanson to the wrong chanteur who never sang it; or redrawing world borders by claiming a German town for Austria.  Okay, I am an irritable person, so these things get me annoyed, especially because there are way too many of them.  On the other hand, what else can I possibly expect from people who listen to Taylor Swift and Lorde?  So, I grumble under my breath, as if I can telepathically correct these factual glitches, but that's about it.  I wouldn't turn such bullshit into a blog post.  

However, some facts are such a commonplace, they are so prominently a part of the collective consciousness that it is hard to imagine anybody having informational lapses about them. 

Case in point:  The episode 3.13 of CBS's contemporized take on the adventures of Sherlock Holmes, Elementary, revolves around a murder of a "debt collector."  I probably can spend at least 10,000 words listing all factual errors that assaulted me during 40+ minutes of the episode, but this post is already running too long, so I will restrain myself and point out just a couple of things.

You know, how Conan Doyle famously attributed Holmes's success as a detective to his perfecting of the deductive reasoning (aka logical deduction)?  Simply speaking, Sherlock starts with a broad premise and elaborately eliminates all possibilities until only one right conclusion remains. 

The writers of the series tried to employ pretty much the same method:  As soon as it is established that the victim was an attorney who lost his job at a big law firm and turned to debt collections as a source of his daily bread, the plot's deductive challenge is revealed: there are millions of suspects.  According to the writers, every debtor in the victim's collection portfolio is a potential murderer and it's up to Holmes to find the proverbial needle.  

You may think that this is a farce (hey, our life nowadays is a farce!), but no, this is a "serious" show!  Then what about the materiality threshold?  I mean, I know there are people who kill for less, but, seriously, what is the likelihood of someone in Nebraska coming to NYC to kill a collector for $10K?  The size of the debts alone should've narrowed down the pool of suspects to a size of a soup bowl in a shorter time than it took Holmes to pin up all those endless lists of names on the wall.  

Further on materiality: It is implicit that the debtor must've been severely threatened to go for a kill, right? But what's the big scare here?  While larger debt recovery organizations employ or contract multiple lawyers pretty much in every state and therefore can litigate even small balances, it is impossible to imagine that one attorney can stretch himself over more than 20-30 cases at the same time.          

All that is just common sense.  Unfortunately, it is an unattainable commodity now.  So, how about the technical side of the business that could've been easily researched?  The reality is that no one can survive in the highly regulated asset-recovery industry without a decent collection software, expensive access to personal records database (such as Lexis Nexis), and on-demand automated call distribution solution (like LiveVox).  You see, violations of collection rules and standards, including the timing and the language of calls, can be sufficient grounds for law suits.  In fact, there are lawyers who specialize in suing collection agencies on behalf of debtors.  Therefore, there is a necessity to digitally record all collection efforts for evidential reasons.  Checking those records would've instantly limited the list of suspects even further - to only those potential murderers who's been actually contacted by the victim's firm.  

My spirits were lifted a bit when Holmes correctly re-labeled the victim as a debt merchant, i.e. someone who buys, at a 95% discount, portfolios of consumer debts written off by financial institutions and makes money successfully collecting a small portion of them.  My elation lasted exactly 2 seconds.  You see, respectful writers who gave their viewing audience a modicum of intellectual credit would've left it at that: one has to be from Mars to be completely unaware of the concept.  

But noooo!  These hoodlums sent Holmes on a ranting explanation of the debt-trading plague's basics to… Watson.  Most ridiculously, her scripted response to Holmes's briefing is that of bewilderment: "Really?" 

Wait a minute! Wait a minute!  Are you kidding me?  Are you telling me that a sophisticated New Yorker, a former successful surgeon, and, at this point, a full-scope PI who lives and breathes research has never heard of sub-prime mortgages, multibillion-dollar bank write-offs, and consumer-debt securitization that led to 2009 global financial crisis and bailouts?  Was she actually on an interstellar journey?  Or were you, the writers, out to lunch?

Now, to connect the victim to the final suspect the writers had to create an unfathomable possibility of somebody  being able to pluck out a specific bad debt portfolio containing a specific stale mortgage. Well, that would be like looking for a needle in a haystack for real!  The delinquent debt industry is vast and sophisticated, with leaders such as SquareTwo Financial (owned by Collect America Holding) buying billion-dollar packages of charged-off receivables directly from financial institutions and distributing them for collections through their national franchises.  After a time, uncollected accounts are further repackaged and resold with deeper discounts.  To trace a single debt in this dark labyrinth would be absolutely impossible for the perp in question.

The part of this ignorant bullshit that turned out to be far more disturbing than the factual errors was the resolution of the case.  At the end, Holmes deduces that the debt collector/debt merchant was killed because he realized what a "disgusting business" the collection of financial delinquencies was and tried to erase debtors' liabilities. 

Note what the liberally confused writers found appalling: not the packaging of unrecoverable receivables as marketable instruments by opportunistic financial brokers; not the investment of people's savings and pensions into this imaginary "securities" by brainless money managers, but the straightforward effort of making consumers pay for goods, services, homes, etc. they bought and used.  Hmm… Taking something out of a store and not paying for it – isn't it, like, shoplifting?  Ordering something online and not paying for it – isn't it, like, mail fraud?  Residing somewhere without paying for the space – isn't it, like, squatting?     

I don't expect laymen to be fluent in the mayhem of American economics as it has been for the last 20 years.  All I'm asking is a little awareness.  Are all these people really this ignorant and stupid?  It's too bad they don't read my blog.  Four years ago (oh, my God!) in my post The Infinite Wisdom of Trey Parker and Matt Stone I was already referring the confused masses to South Park's episode Margaritaville (2009!!!) -  the most genius breakdown of the financial crisis in popular culture. They are your colleagues, people! And they made it ELEMENTARY for you!

I'm just grateful that my knowledge of cryogenics, genetic re-breeding of extinct animals, cloning of rare plants, drone operations, and some other topics that feed (or are fed to) entertainment writers are only rudimentary.  I am suspicious, but at least I can pretend that they may be represented correctly.  But financial stuff?  Culture stuff?  I can't help myself there.  I hear that doctors usually have conniptions when they are exposed to shows like ER, House M.D., etc.  I totally understand: the idiotic errors – they are unbearable. 

The Wealth of the Nation: Observation #1


Bitter ColdIt got warmer now, but for a few weeks leading up to this one it was bitterly cold in NYC, with temperatures falling into single digits and wind pushing the chill effect below zero.  And I don't really know if my fellow bundled-up New Yorkers noticed them, but I saw them all the time – the girls wearing flats on their bare feet.

Let's say you are walking to your office in Financial District.  The iPhone displays 13 degrees air temperature and the ground, covered in snow, would likely register 5.  More snow is falling from the sky.  You keep your head down watching out for slippery spots and inadvertently see people's footwear.  

There are plenty of toe-warming UGGs (actually a California brand, early on manufactured in Australia, now almost entirely in China), a variety of snow and rain boots (not as warm, but at least waterproof), leather boots, frozen high-tops.  And once in a while you spot them - they are running to work too (no, they didn't just popped out for a second!) and all they have on their feet are tiny flats (it could be just my shocked perception, but it seems that it is always a pair of silver Tory Burches).  They usually wear black leggings thus exposing their ankles and essentially most of their feet to the bitter, Siberian cold.  Three times in the last 4 weeks I rode in the elevator with one of those girls.

I cannot say that I fervently keep up with the latest fashion trends, but I can guarantee that these girls are not making fashion statements – nobody is that painfully style-forward.  The likely scenario is that protecting their feet from possible frostbites simply doesn't fit into their budgets.  When they came from their hometowns to New York City (annual average temperature 55 degrees), they didn't expect (most people didn't) that it could be so cold here for 3-4 weeks in a row.  And there is no way they can splurge on items that will be used for such a short time.

How could they?  After their $1,300 portion of rent and utilities for the two-bedroom shared with another two roommates, cell phone bill, barely any food at all (even the cheapest of foodstuffs are expensive here), Metrocard, some H&M clothes to appear decent in the office, household supplies, and the minimum payment due on the Visa card used to buy the cheapest puffer coat on sale, their $3,250 a month after payroll deductions (from $60K annual salary) are gone pretty much as soon as they hit the bank account.

Meanwhile, the shortest and simplest pair of UGGs costs $155 and if you spent some time searching (or get lucky) you can find a pair of snow boots for $90.  Well, if you buy something classic that never goes out of style this is a pretty good investment, since they may be useful next year and the year after.  However, if you simply don't have that extra $100 or even $12 to cover the increase of the minimum payment on the credit card, you forgo the warmth and comfort.  After all, it's only a few weeks a year. 

I am looking at the almost naked feet and think that those flats are probably the only shoes she's got that are suitable for the fancy office (business attired only!) of a big company that hired her because of her hard-earned degree in marketing with 4.0 GPA.  And so, she will run in them in severely cold conditions from her home to the subway and then to the office building…  What for?  I have no fucking clue.                

MTA by the Numbers (Or At Least Those Few Available to Us)


MtaWhen NYC's cabs caught up with the 21st century and started accepting plastic for fare payments…

[Side Note: I always found it fascinating that the habitual check-out question, "Paper or plastic?" is technically applicable not only to the packaging choices but also to the forms of payment – cash (paper) or credit (plastic).] 

Anyway, when it happened I was ecstactic: one less reason to touch dirty bills, no more listening to a driver's bullshit how he just started his shift and doesn't have any small bills for change, etc. – many reasons, really.  Unfortunately,  there was a downside: all Credit Card Systems came with PIM's (Passenger Information Monitors). 

It could be just my personal experience, but I have not been bombarded by images and sounds in any other plastic-accepting cabs: not in London, or Tokyo, or Amsterdam…  But NYC's TLC (no, not "tender loving care" or T-Boz+Left Eye+Chilli, but the formidable Taxi and Limousine Commission) has swallowed Mad Men's lure long time ago - Inspiria Media has been brokering taxi-top ads' revenues into the agency's pockets for years.  They couldn't possibly pass on this incredible opportunity to make money by letting ABC, NBC, and random ass commercial advertisement to jump at you  as soon as the meter is on.

And I fucking hate it!  I really don't want all that noise and bullshit to exacerbate any further my already unpleasant experience of  an overpriced ride in a shitty car with a bad driver.  Yes, you can turn it off (assuming the touch screen still retains some capacity for response), but not right away.  Thus, if you are like me, you spend the first few moments of the trip tensely waiting for this thing to come alive, so that you can shut it up as soon as possible.

Sometimes you get distracted, though: the driver doesn't understand your instructions or he/she doesn't know how to get there - whatever the reason, but you don't get into the combat with the blaring device right away and you catch things, for better or worse. 

It happened to me several weeks ago and what my eyes didn't want to see my brain registered anyway.  The screen flashed at me the familiar MTA logo, the words "Budget Proposal," and then three bits of information in large and bold letters:

$14.2 billion annual budget

4% fare and tolls hike

$20 million service enhancements

I turned it off and tried to read my magazine, but the incongruity of these numbers kept eating at me.  I couldn't stopped myself from doing a bit of analysis.

$14.2 billion seems like a humongous number to a layman, but considering the scope of operations (Subway, LIRR, Metro-North, 341 bus routes, 7 bridges, 2 tunnels), it's not really such a big deal.  I mean, the stupid facebook spends $5.1 billion to keep their operations going and it doesn't own and maintain 15 thousand vehicles, nor it employs 70,000 people.  In fact, the entire staff of facebook is exactly 10 times less – 7,000.  So, no, the total number doesn't sound too overwhelming to me.

However, there are a couple of aspects that make this number into a bothersome issue:

First of all, where the fuck they are planning on getting this kind of money?  What appears to the general public as mountains of cash being shoveled by MTA out of ever increasing fares and tolls is not really all that bountiful.  The agency claims around 8.5 million riders per day.  Let's be generous and assume that it's like that 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year.  At the current fare rate this yields $7.735 billion a year.  The Bridges and Tunnels arm collects measly $600 million.  That brings us to $8.335 billion.  Well, okay, they will hike it up by 4%, squeezing another  $333.4 million out of the Metropolitan area residents.  Still that's less than $8.7 billion altogether.

Before we go any further let me explain something, in case you don't know:  As an entity, MTA is that weird creature called Public Benefit Corporation. Without going into too many obscure details let me just point out that this beast is essentially a Chimera – a combination of a private entity with rights to contract debt independently of the State (the Lion), a municipal agency (the Snake), and a non-profit organization (the Goat).  One must keep these bizarre characteristics in mind when faced with the wild and weird facts swirling around this organization. 

For example, as a public benefit corporation and a non-profit, MTA should not be making any profits or have excess cash.  How could they anyway, if they constantly claim that they don't have enough money to cover their budget?  Yet, during the audit of 2013 fiscal year ordered by the City Comptroller state auditors found an absolutely unanticipated $1.9 billion (!) surplus.  Nobody is explaining to us how it could possibly happen: nearly $2 billion of unused cash have been discovered within the fiscal system of this "always-struggling" agency and let's leave it at that. 

Well, say they put this extra money back into operations (as they must) – that still brings them to only $10.6 billion against the $14 billion needed.  So, where the $3.4 billion will come from?  We know: from the loans MTA is authorized to take independently! Wow, $3.4 billion of debt!  Can you imagine the financial cost on that?  Even in the most preferable situation, i.e. institutional (big banks) secured (all those fixed assets to pledge) loans at 2.5% – that's $85 million in an annual interest expense! And if they cannot obtain a sensible deal like that because their creditability has gone down the shitter, we are talking 5%, 7.5%, 10% or more – you do the multiplying. 

However, that's actually mere peanuts.  If you are wondering where the majority of MTA's current budget actually goes, I can tell you - to keep those 70,000 employees well compensated.  Around 60% of the authority's current budget ($7 billion) is used to pay labor costs including payroll, pensions, and overtime.  And the Chairman's salary of $350K a year plus his $3,500 per month housing allowance are not an issue here.  I mean, it's really not a big deal for a head of such a huge organization.  However, they have some bus drivers and train operators making over $100K, with averages around $56K.  And guess what? MTA estimates that the increase in labor costs will amount to $260 million during this current fiscal year.  

This makes that third number, the $20 million in service enhancements, sound like a bad fucking joke.  That's all that will be spent on improving our public transportation experience, 0.14% of the budget?  Common people, it's 13 times less than you plan to spend on raises! 

You know how small this number is for the system that transports 8.5 million people a day?  Let me give you a reference point.  You can buy precisely ONE used private jet with the same sum of money.  CEOs of Coca Cola, Goldman Sachs and GE each made that much in 2013 annual compensation.  Moreover, they were nearly at the bottom of the top 100 highest-paid CEOs list.  And Robert Downey Jr. made 4 times more the same year.  This means that, if he felt generous, he could've made our commute at least two times (after taxes, of course) better, than MTA will.