36 ms·

I think most people would have very short retirement in Manhattan. They would run out of savings.

by jkot 10y ago

pavlov 10y ago
Also, fitting most people on a small island is difficult.
yodsanklai 10y ago
Actually, I've always wondered how they manage to pay their bills. Of course, there are tons of super wealthy people in Manhattan, but there are also many elderlies that don't look particularly well-off. I suspect they've owned their apartment for a long time, or that they pay little rent. Maybe they receive social benefits from the city...
- imgabe 10y ago
  Rent control is probably a big part of it.
- sotojuan 10y ago
  As imgabe said, a lot of older families (both in age and amount of time living in Manhattan), at least in the Upper West Side, have rent control, are in low income housing, or something similar. If you ever walk around the Upper West Side, farther away from the park, you'll see a ton big, tall apartment complexes. Huge ones with hundreds of families, if not more. I doubt everyone there makes the mid or high $100ks it takes to rent an apartment there now as a new resident.
  - yodsanklai 10y ago
    Actually, a friend of mine lives in such a building. His building is in very poor condition (various problems such as bed bugs infestation, defective heater...). Most tenants there prefer to keep a low profile and don't complain to the landlord. The rent is not controlled, but pretty low ($600 for a small crappy room with shared bathroom). It seems most tenants are middle-aged hispanics. No retired people there.
    - sotojuan 10y ago
      Ah interesting. Yeah, they never looked like nice buildings to me. I always wondered who lived there.
  - awareBrah 10y ago
    Can someone explain to me, why this exists. How come, as a new resident I need to pay 3x the amount of rent compared to someone who has been there for a while. As a landlord wouldn't I be mad that the going rate is much higher? Can someone explain to me as I've never understood how come this happens or why it is the default. Why not just have free market? Forgive if it's obvious, I would love a lay-mans explanation
    - tacostakohashi 10y ago
      Because politics. Yes, the landlord will be mad, but for every one of them there are dozens of happy tenants. The tenants getting a preferential rate will live there and vote/lobby to protect the system for generations. The new guy paying 3x probably came from elsewhere, and will return there shortly.
    - rincebrain 10y ago
      Rent control, as it exists in NYC, is a damper on how fast rent can rise (both when you're in a lease, and during vacancies of a property between tenants), for people and properties whose income/rent are below certain thresholds where the government considers them to be either paying for or capable of paying for luxury apartments. Rent control lets you have some reasonable expectation that you can plan expenses for more than a single lease term, as well as attempting to limit how much damage to the economics of the surrounding area real estate prices are going to do (it's a commodity that is hard to increase the supply of in any great quantity, and demand far outstrips supply...this probably would eventually stabilize, but it'd be quite messy in between, and probably not in a net positive way for the city). Absent rent control, the lower bound of prices would go up, the ceiling would not go down.
      - hueving 10y ago
        >Absent rent control, the lower bound of prices would go up, the ceiling would not go down. Pretty vapid statement. The ceiling is whatever the arbitrary asking price is for something overlooking central park on the 100th floor of some high rise. Nobody cares about the ceiling. The question is what does it do to the market price in general for a specific size apartment. It will cause a price decline because so many more apartments will actually be on the market. The current price is where supply is meeting demand so if you increase the supply the price will decline. Of course it will screw up the people on rent control since they likely won't be able to afford it.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  Rent control. My great aunt paid something like $180/month for her apartment when she died in 2003. She had lived there since circa 1940 and raised 6 kids in it! The key is to have a support network so that you can remain in your home. Nursing homes and homecare in NYC are a horror show for a variety of reasons.
sndean 10y ago
Or, I wonder, could their running out of money keep them working (in some small capacity, part-time, etc.)? And if they keep working in some small way, does that allow them to avoid the rapid decline in life expectancy that normally follows retirement? http://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/news/20051020/early-retirement-early-death http://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/news/20051020/early-retir...
smacktoward 10y ago
You're looking down this telescope from the wrong end. It's not that living in Manhattan itself somehow extends your life, it's that only very wealthy people can afford to live in Manhattan -- especially in retirement, when most people are living on a fixed income. And in American society, having great wealth means you also have access to things like high-quality food, great medical care, assistive technologies, all of which are things that really can extend your life. So if Manhattan suddenly became affordable and hordes of ordinary retirees moved in there, you wouldn't see all those ordinary retirees suddenly start living longer, you'd see the average life expectancy for retired Manhattanites drop as the crappy food and medical care the proles get drag the numbers down.
- msandford 10y ago
  Article might as well be titled "to live long, be rich" How they managed to completely overlook the "hidden" confounding of being very wealthy and retiring in Manhattan is rather impressive.
  - Chinjut 10y ago
    The article isn't making any claims about retiring to Manhattan causing increased lifespan. It isn't even intended as a scientific article at all. I suspect many here only read the headline? It's one man's personal essay on their decision to retire to Manhattan and their enjoyment of it. [Tl;dr: The use of "long life" in the title (probably not even chosen by the author) is figurative, not literal.]
  - dwaltrip 10y ago
    It's a lifestyle piece, not a societal analysis.
- donretag 10y ago
  You are forgetting the hundreds of thousands that have a rent controlled/stabilized apartment.
  - otoburb 10y ago

I think most people would have very short retirement in Manhattan. They would run out of savings.

by jkot 10y ago

I think most people would have very short retirement in Manhattan. They would run out of savings.

pavlov 10y ago

Also, fitting most people on a small island is difficult.

yodsanklai 10y ago

Actually, I've always wondered how they manage to pay their bills. Of course, there are tons of super wealthy people in Manhattan, but there are also many elderlies that don't look particularly well-off. I suspect they've owned their apartment for a long time, or that they pay little rent. Maybe they receive social benefits from the city...

imgabe 10y ago
Rent control is probably a big part of it.
sotojuan 10y ago
As imgabe said, a lot of older families (both in age and amount of time living in Manhattan), at least in the Upper West Side, have rent control, are in low income housing, or something similar. If you ever walk around the Upper West Side, farther away from the park, you'll see a ton big, tall apartment complexes. Huge ones with hundreds of families, if not more. I doubt everyone there makes the mid or high $100ks it takes to rent an apartment there now as a new resident.
- yodsanklai 10y ago
  Actually, a friend of mine lives in such a building. His building is in very poor condition (various problems such as bed bugs infestation, defective heater...). Most tenants there prefer to keep a low profile and don't complain to the landlord. The rent is not controlled, but pretty low ($600 for a small crappy room with shared bathroom). It seems most tenants are middle-aged hispanics. No retired people there.
  - sotojuan 10y ago
    Ah interesting. Yeah, they never looked like nice buildings to me. I always wondered who lived there.
- awareBrah 10y ago
  Can someone explain to me, why this exists. How come, as a new resident I need to pay 3x the amount of rent compared to someone who has been there for a while. As a landlord wouldn't I be mad that the going rate is much higher? Can someone explain to me as I've never understood how come this happens or why it is the default. Why not just have free market? Forgive if it's obvious, I would love a lay-mans explanation
  - tacostakohashi 10y ago
    Because politics. Yes, the landlord will be mad, but for every one of them there are dozens of happy tenants. The tenants getting a preferential rate will live there and vote/lobby to protect the system for generations. The new guy paying 3x probably came from elsewhere, and will return there shortly.
  - rincebrain 10y ago
    Rent control, as it exists in NYC, is a damper on how fast rent can rise (both when you're in a lease, and during vacancies of a property between tenants), for people and properties whose income/rent are below certain thresholds where the government considers them to be either paying for or capable of paying for luxury apartments. Rent control lets you have some reasonable expectation that you can plan expenses for more than a single lease term, as well as attempting to limit how much damage to the economics of the surrounding area real estate prices are going to do (it's a commodity that is hard to increase the supply of in any great quantity, and demand far outstrips supply...this probably would eventually stabilize, but it'd be quite messy in between, and probably not in a net positive way for the city). Absent rent control, the lower bound of prices would go up, the ceiling would not go down.
    - hueving 10y ago
      >Absent rent control, the lower bound of prices would go up, the ceiling would not go down. Pretty vapid statement. The ceiling is whatever the arbitrary asking price is for something overlooking central park on the 100th floor of some high rise. Nobody cares about the ceiling. The question is what does it do to the market price in general for a specific size apartment. It will cause a price decline because so many more apartments will actually be on the market. The current price is where supply is meeting demand so if you increase the supply the price will decline. Of course it will screw up the people on rent control since they likely won't be able to afford it.
Spooky23 10y ago
Rent control. My great aunt paid something like $180/month for her apartment when she died in 2003. She had lived there since circa 1940 and raised 6 kids in it! The key is to have a support network so that you can remain in your home. Nursing homes and homecare in NYC are a horror show for a variety of reasons.

sndean 10y ago

Or, I wonder, could their running out of money keep them working (in some small capacity, part-time, etc.)? And if they keep working in some small way, does that allow them to avoid the rapid decline in life expectancy that normally follows retirement? http://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/news/20051020/early-retirement-early-death http://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/news/20051020/early-retir...

smacktoward 10y ago

You're looking down this telescope from the wrong end. It's not that living in Manhattan itself somehow extends your life, it's that only very wealthy people can afford to live in Manhattan -- especially in retirement, when most people are living on a fixed income. And in American society, having great wealth means you also have access to things like high-quality food, great medical care, assistive technologies, all of which are things that really can extend your life. So if Manhattan suddenly became affordable and hordes of ordinary retirees moved in there, you wouldn't see all those ordinary retirees suddenly start living longer, you'd see the average life expectancy for retired Manhattanites drop as the crappy food and medical care the proles get drag the numbers down.

msandford 10y ago
Article might as well be titled "to live long, be rich" How they managed to completely overlook the "hidden" confounding of being very wealthy and retiring in Manhattan is rather impressive.
- Chinjut 10y ago
  The article isn't making any claims about retiring to Manhattan causing increased lifespan. It isn't even intended as a scientific article at all. I suspect many here only read the headline? It's one man's personal essay on their decision to retire to Manhattan and their enjoyment of it. [Tl;dr: The use of "long life" in the title (probably not even chosen by the author) is figurative, not literal.]
- dwaltrip 10y ago
  It's a lifestyle piece, not a societal analysis.
donretag 10y ago
You are forgetting the hundreds of thousands that have a rent controlled/stabilized apartment.
- otoburb 10y ago