4 ms·

In New York City you should be making at least $150k to $200k for a decent life IMO. If that’s not you there’s no point living there, but you can certainly comm

by xwdv 4y ago

In New York City you should be making at least $150k to $200k for a decent life IMO. If that’s not you there’s no point living there, but you can certainly commute there to work the menial jobs if you’d like. Inevitably someone has to do them and it won’t be the $200k+ residents, so job opportunities should be fairly plentiful.

javanissen 4y ago
I live in Midtown, make $130k and there’s tons of money left over. I have friends from childhood who live in Brooklyn, make <$40k and do fine by just having some roommates. The paradox is that NYC, despite having a bunch of expensive stuff, is also very easy to enjoy for cheap due to the public amenities.
- drewbeck 4y ago
  And $4 egg n cheeses!
  - javanissen 4y ago
    Yep. Deli sandwiches and halal cart are surprisingly cheap
- zug_zug 4y ago
  I know people who "do fine" in NYC making ~40k by which they mean they "pay all their bills." Unfortunately they are NOT on track to have >1.5million saved up by retirement (as is projected to be necessary).
  - javanissen 4y ago
    There’s a decent point here, but it’s not insurmountable. If these people lived on $32k net (in today’s dollars) their entire lives, they definitely won’t need $1.5m (in today’s dollars) for retirement. That would generate about $60k (gross) in retirement income. Social security, assuming no future raises (and therefore higher benefits) and a 25% haircut to payout, would cover about $15k. So they’d need $17k in portfolio income, which is a $425k nest egg. Or they could work part time, or get a raise at some point, or delay claiming social security and work longer for a larger benefit. This plan could go wrong. But it also makes a serious of fairly pessimistic assumptions about the person’s entire working career. And it doesn’t require extreme frugality either - the friends I have making <$40k still eat out and go to concerts. There’s this pervasive myth (exemplified by the top-level comment) that moving to a big city is an unmitigated financial disaster that requires an upper-middle class income to defray, and I just don’t think it’s true.
    - zug_zug 4y ago
      yeah I guess that checks out assuming you're committed to never having a family and I guess you won't have much of a safety net. Still to get to a 425 nest-egg starting with nothing in the bank at age 30 requires putting $10k away a year, which is out-of-the-question on $40k in NYC.
      - javanissen 4y ago
        To be fair, committing to never having children is not uncommon among people in my age group (mid-twenties). And I agree - it's a shit plan, but there are a set of relatively pessimistic assumptions embedded in the shit plan as well: - No raises throughout the entire career lifetime - No economy of scale through marriage - Significant SS benefits cut - Never earning another cent in earned income after retiring at the full retirement age of 67 - Living for thirty years after retirement (which is the baseline for the 4% rule; average life expectancy at birth in America in 2021 is an atrocious 76.1 years) - No "extreme" frugality measures - relatively frequent eating out and going to concerts/basketball games - Low real returns on any accrued savings Note that none of this - absolutely none of it - is an argument that America should not expand the safety net, or that we shouldn't fix the housing market. I'm just saying that people with average incomes still have options, even in New York City
  - vanilla_nut 4y ago
    Why would you need $1.5M saved up to retire? Even if you live to 100, that still gives you $42,000 a year assuming no interest at all. Most people are lucky to pass 80, which means an expected $100,000 per year during retirement. I know medical bills can be expensive, and of course you need to pay utilities, likely vehicle upkeep, food, etc. but 42 grand minimum per year seems pretty good to me?
    - xwdv 4y ago
      In the year 2063 42k is probably more like $20k today. Just straight poverty.
      - vanilla_nut 4y ago
        If you assume housing is taken care of, $20k today isn't bad at all. That's probably about what I spend before housing, and I'm no hermit. Housing blows that up, though.
    - theandrewbailey 4y ago
      > Most people are lucky to pass 80, which means an expected $100,000 per year during retirement. Everyone wants to beat death. Why would anyone plan to burn all retirement savings out by a set date that one could reasonably live past?
halfmatthalfcat 4y ago
Even at that salary, you aren't buying in the city. At least, you aren't buying close to the city. Jersey City, Upstate, East Queens/BK (Flushing/Bushwick). And even THEN, you're buying shoeboxes/places that haven't been updated since the 70s/80s.
logicalmonster 4y ago
> In New York City you should be making at least $150k to $200k for a decent life IMO. If that’s not you there’s no point living there, People can have a pleasant life in an expensive city making far, far less than that IMO. Just to be contrarian, there's more than 1 valid life path, but I'll make the totally opposite argument than yours. People who can't make a lot of money should consider living in a big city, and people who can make a reasonable amount of money should try and live outside of it. Here's the argument. People who can't make a lot of money anywhere won't likely ever be buying a house anyway regardless of where they live, so they'll fit into the rental culture in the city very well. If you're not making a lot of money, you won't be able to frequently travel regardless of where you live, so living in a big city is an advantage as it at least gives you an opportunity to experience a bit of global culture, have friends from around the country/world sometimes pass through and visit you, and gives you an option for an occasional fancy dinner out or tickets to some event when you can save up enough without thinking about a long trip that you don't have time for and can't afford. Ok, maybe you won't be going out for a fancy dinner, Beyonce concert, or Knicks game every single week, but you can save and plan for that once in a while and it's a realistic subway ride across town if you want it. A poor person living in a big city can have experiences that they wouldn't be able to logistically arrange otherwise. But if you are capable of making a reasonably solid living, it makes more sense to stay out of the city. First, you'll likely be able to afford your own home comfortably. Even very high-earners can't afford to ever buy much more than a nice and clean and relatively roach/mice-free shoe-box in NYC, but you can live like a near-king in a smaller city making anywhere in 6 figures and can buy a massive home with all of the space needed for just about any hobby. A million dollars can get you a near palace outside of a major city, whereas a million dollar home in NYC is still depressingly small. And if you're making money and have your own home, you have the ability to travel anywhere you want when you're jonesing for some nightlife, beaches, gambling, entertainment, etc. The uber-rich can afford to have homes in multiple towns and cities and can afford lots of space and an uber-comfortable life in any expensive city, so this analysis doesn't matter for them.

by xwdv 4y ago

javanissen 4y ago

I live in Midtown, make $130k and there’s tons of money left over. I have friends from childhood who live in Brooklyn, make <$40k and do fine by just having some roommates. The paradox is that NYC, despite having a bunch of expensive stuff, is also very easy to enjoy for cheap due to the public amenities.

drewbeck 4y ago
And $4 egg n cheeses!
- javanissen 4y ago
  Yep. Deli sandwiches and halal cart are surprisingly cheap
zug_zug 4y ago
I know people who "do fine" in NYC making ~40k by which they mean they "pay all their bills." Unfortunately they are NOT on track to have >1.5million saved up by retirement (as is projected to be necessary).
- javanissen 4y ago
  There’s a decent point here, but it’s not insurmountable. If these people lived on $32k net (in today’s dollars) their entire lives, they definitely won’t need $1.5m (in today’s dollars) for retirement. That would generate about $60k (gross) in retirement income. Social security, assuming no future raises (and therefore higher benefits) and a 25% haircut to payout, would cover about $15k. So they’d need $17k in portfolio income, which is a $425k nest egg. Or they could work part time, or get a raise at some point, or delay claiming social security and work longer for a larger benefit. This plan could go wrong. But it also makes a serious of fairly pessimistic assumptions about the person’s entire working career. And it doesn’t require extreme frugality either - the friends I have making <$40k still eat out and go to concerts. There’s this pervasive myth (exemplified by the top-level comment) that moving to a big city is an unmitigated financial disaster that requires an upper-middle class income to defray, and I just don’t think it’s true.
  - zug_zug 4y ago
    yeah I guess that checks out assuming you're committed to never having a family and I guess you won't have much of a safety net. Still to get to a 425 nest-egg starting with nothing in the bank at age 30 requires putting $10k away a year, which is out-of-the-question on $40k in NYC.
    - javanissen 4y ago
      To be fair, committing to never having children is not uncommon among people in my age group (mid-twenties). And I agree - it's a shit plan, but there are a set of relatively pessimistic assumptions embedded in the shit plan as well: - No raises throughout the entire career lifetime - No economy of scale through marriage - Significant SS benefits cut - Never earning another cent in earned income after retiring at the full retirement age of 67 - Living for thirty years after retirement (which is the baseline for the 4% rule; average life expectancy at birth in America in 2021 is an atrocious 76.1 years) - No "extreme" frugality measures - relatively frequent eating out and going to concerts/basketball games - Low real returns on any accrued savings Note that none of this - absolutely none of it - is an argument that America should not expand the safety net, or that we shouldn't fix the housing market. I'm just saying that people with average incomes still have options, even in New York City
- vanilla_nut 4y ago
  Why would you need $1.5M saved up to retire? Even if you live to 100, that still gives you $42,000 a year assuming no interest at all. Most people are lucky to pass 80, which means an expected $100,000 per year during retirement. I know medical bills can be expensive, and of course you need to pay utilities, likely vehicle upkeep, food, etc. but 42 grand minimum per year seems pretty good to me?
  - xwdv 4y ago
    In the year 2063 42k is probably more like $20k today. Just straight poverty.
    - vanilla_nut 4y ago
      If you assume housing is taken care of, $20k today isn't bad at all. That's probably about what I spend before housing, and I'm no hermit. Housing blows that up, though.
  - theandrewbailey 4y ago
    > Most people are lucky to pass 80, which means an expected $100,000 per year during retirement. Everyone wants to beat death. Why would anyone plan to burn all retirement savings out by a set date that one could reasonably live past?

halfmatthalfcat 4y ago

Even at that salary, you aren't buying in the city. At least, you aren't buying close to the city. Jersey City, Upstate, East Queens/BK (Flushing/Bushwick). And even THEN, you're buying shoeboxes/places that haven't been updated since the 70s/80s.

logicalmonster 4y ago

> In New York City you should be making at least $150k to $200k for a decent life IMO. If that’s not you there’s no point living there, People can have a pleasant life in an expensive city making far, far less than that IMO. Just to be contrarian, there's more than 1 valid life path, but I'll make the totally opposite argument than yours. People who can't make a lot of money should consider living in a big city, and people who can make a reasonable amount of money should try and live outside of it. Here's the argument. People who can't make a lot of money anywhere won't likely ever be buying a house anyway regardless of where they live, so they'll fit into the rental culture in the city very well. If you're not making a lot of money, you won't be able to frequently travel regardless of where you live, so living in a big city is an advantage as it at least gives you an opportunity to experience a bit of global culture, have friends from around the country/world sometimes pass through and visit you, and gives you an option for an occasional fancy dinner out or tickets to some event when you can save up enough without thinking about a long trip that you don't have time for and can't afford. Ok, maybe you won't be going out for a fancy dinner, Beyonce concert, or Knicks game every single week, but you can save and plan for that once in a while and it's a realistic subway ride across town if you want it. A poor person living in a big city can have experiences that they wouldn't be able to logistically arrange otherwise. But if you are capable of making a reasonably solid living, it makes more sense to stay out of the city. First, you'll likely be able to afford your own home comfortably. Even very high-earners can't afford to ever buy much more than a nice and clean and relatively roach/mice-free shoe-box in NYC, but you can live like a near-king in a smaller city making anywhere in 6 figures and can buy a massive home with all of the space needed for just about any hobby. A million dollars can get you a near palace outside of a major city, whereas a million dollar home in NYC is still depressingly small. And if you're making money and have your own home, you have the ability to travel anywhere you want when you're jonesing for some nightlife, beaches, gambling, entertainment, etc. The uber-rich can afford to have homes in multiple towns and cities and can afford lots of space and an uber-comfortable life in any expensive city, so this analysis doesn't matter for them.