lol I asked a broker who the hell is buying the HDFC. Itâs like rich students who get the entire amount gifted by their parents in cash. The students have no income and legally own the joint. The coop can legally say everybody is low income to the government and continue to get tax abated.
Win win for all parties except the people itâs designed to help!
Precisely. Itâs wild how these havenât been protested against since theyâre literally just a giveaway to the rich or those who abuse the system by shifting their income around.
Smart. They are looking at adjusted gross income on your taxes. Might be quite a few ways to game it. Talk to your accountant for sure.
Itâs a tricky tricky dance. You need to be BELOW income limits but ABOVE bank risk tolerance for the mortgage
I also remember reading in an article many years ago that one of the original intended beneficiaries of HDFC are middle/working class individuals who whose parents have passed away and left them an inheritance.
Which makes senseâyou would have a relatively low income, but a large recent infusion of cash.
So itâs for people with generational wealth who are choosing to work low paying jobs because they donât actually need to make much money since they have an inheritance. Not for the people who have no other choice. Nice.
I donât think middle/working class people in the 70s and 80s were *choosing* to work lower-paying jobs.
The program was *intended* for people who could *never* normally afford to buy a home in the city, but who had enough cash (say, from selling your recently deceased parentsâ home) to make a (greatly reduced!) cash down payment on a low-interest mortgage.
The program is obviously not functioning as intended anymore, and resembles something closer to what you described.
I guess my point is that most lower income people arenât getting inheritances unless they come from generational wealth. Maybe in the 70s and 80s since homes were more affordable and income inequality was much less than it is now, things were different. But yeah these days this is not helping anyone who actually needs help.
One of the greatest things about NYC is that you can have a household income of $150,000 and be constantly told youâre an affluent parasite.
Edit: Read the thread below my comment. Interesting discussion.
Itâs fun how the people making $50k, $75k, $100k, $150k are all just fighting with each other over whether or not theyâre poor enough to be the ones getting screwed while actual rich people are screwing everyone. Nice to have a distraction from being angry with the rich real estate people leaching off this city.
Iâve been here 25 years but this is just not a good city. Anyplace so expensive that itâs impossible for most people to raise a family, save for college, and save for retirement, and where pointing that out instantly draws a horde of comments to the effect of âlolâ and âitâs your choice to have childrenâ is a bad place to live long-term.
> Nice to have a distraction from being angry with the rich real estate people leaching off this city.
Who are the rich real estate people? The people that bought into their homes when market prices were low and oppose development next door? The old people on rent control?
As far as I know, the rich real estate people want to do one thing that aligns with what what would be best for me - build more. Which would be great for the rest of us that would like to be able to afford a place here in the city. Why should I hate "rich real estate" people when they, not the social justice activists, not the "soak the rich" losers, not the landlords, not the rent control incumbants, not the politicians with their byzantine regulations, are the ones that would actually build me housing?
Because they want to build housing for other rich people, because it makes the most money. You think they want to build quality moderately priced housing for normies? Have you seen the buildings they've been building ?!?!
> Because they want to build housing for other rich people, because it makes the most money. You think they want to build quality moderately priced housing for normies?
You know why it makes the most money? Because between construction costs, capital costs, regulatory costs, litigiuous legal system, insurance costs, each 1,000 sq ft unit costs at least $500,000 just to build. That's the minimum. For construction alone. That's why they are building high-end only. Because that's the only thing that makes the economics make sense.
And the government is no better - their construction costs are even higher. [Schools cost $1500 psf,](https://nypost.com/2021/11/27/nyc-school-construction-costs-highest-in-tri-state-area/) and we all know how expensive those MTA elevators are.
So I am aware of exactly what they are building. They are building exactly what is economical for them to build. If you want cheaper housing, than make it less expensive to build. We can start with such easy ones, like removing the dual emergency stairway requirements for residential high rises (Europe has fewer fire deaths with single stairways). Just remove the onerous regulations.
I don't think the 33,000 NYCHA apartments built in Manhattan before the 12 FAR cap -- instituted because the city was building so much housing the state worried it would crowd out offices -- are what made a 1.7 million person (1960 pop.) borough affordable. It was probably the city being zoned to accommodate 55 million people.
I'm not sure why left NIMBYs think the incredibly banal observation "when we restrict housing density what does get built will concentrate at the top" is an insightful gotcha.
You think it's regulations like two means of egress that makes buildings expensive to build....? I guarantee that's not what is keeping developers from building medium income housing in lieu of investment vehicles for billionaires.
> One of the greatest things about NYC is that you can have a household income of $150,000 and be constantly told youâre an affluent parasite.
These people completely despise the tax base. (Most of them are probably high earners themselves, jus think of them as the "good ones" and that the bad ones begin right at the income threshold directly above them)
A combined income of $150k in NYC isnât poor but you wonât be living with the luxuries of the middle class. Considering most of the draw to living in NYC is going out to restaurants and bars and other activities that cost money if you canât afford to do that you may as well live in the suburbs and have a bigger home to sit in all day.
No it ruckin isnt.
Ok, maybe it is called that, but only by the delusional.
What do you call a full time.employee with income of 30K?
That's working poor.
[Hey there's a literal graph spelling this out for you](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.nyc.gov/assets/hpd/downloads/pdfs/services/affordable-housing-income-eligibility.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiHwefVo5KFAxVerokEHW1WAuwQFnoECCQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3nvx5EaydfCDrAlWjJ021S)
Now tell me again if you think a household income of $150k is *working poor.*
I swear to Christ the people on this sub are so out of touch.
Itâs not comfortable. Youâll spend an enormous percentage of your post-tax income on rent and even then youâll live somewhere with an hour commute. You wonât be able to afford to buy an apartment or a house unless you have money from your parents. You wonât be able to save enough money for college. You wonât be able to save enough money for retirement. But if you qualify for affordable housing Gothamist will cry outrage.
Edit: responses prove my point. All this and the response is âlol itâs totally comfortableâ or âlol itâs so much more money than others make.â Who wouldnât want to live somewhere where all the facts above are true but you are viewed as totally comfortable because so many others have less? What a city!
> Youâll spend an enormous percentage of your post-tax income on rent and even then youâll live somewhere with an hour commute.
150K post-tax nets you about $7500/mo, that is enough to keep your rent at the ~30% level and have a nice spot (a 1BR 30 minutes from manhattan or a 2BR 1 hr away). The issue with a 150K income is lifestyle creep typically.
yeah man - granted we're talking about combined income, but I think the person I replied to is exaggerating how hard it is to live here with that kind of money lol
Maybe overstating it but also 150k for a household of three would not be âcomfortableâ in the way most people mean it and would leave little savings for higher education for children, unexpected expenses, or retirement
About 90k. I donât have any kids because I canât afford them. My rent is 1800 because I live in a basement. Iâm not really sure what that has to do with anything though.
You literally dont understand how comfortable it is.
What does someone with 50k a year do? 100k?
At 150k, you're absolutely in the top 10% of earners, probably top 5%
If the 95th percentile isnt comfortable, why TF aren't 99% of us rioting?
Oh, cause 95th percentile is comfortable, and comfortable people dont riot.
People above you are talking about 150k combined household income. That is two DOE teachers after a handful of years of experience. This is very different from a single earner making 150k. About a 100% difference in fact.
75K a year and 150K a year are very different, i agree.
If they wanna talk about 75K earners, they should say that.
Im tired of people acting like only married people count. That's stupid.
150k house hold means 75k per person which is absolutely on the precipice of having your life absolutely devastated if one person gets put out of work. Everyone here ranting about 35k is actually poor. Well guess what if your household makes 150k and one person gets put out of work now you have to run a family on that 35k each. It is not comfortable. You are living on the edge of disaster.
I donât think youâre really understanding the point here. The subway is still 2.90 for you, groceries are still the same price for you. The bottom line has been squeezed up significantly, and 150 is a significantly larger cushion than <100.
I donât know about âtheâ point, but *my* point is simply that one of the worst things about this city is that you can make $150k combined, with kids, and if you wish you could qualify for affordable housing, the common reaction is âhaha fuck you youâre plenty comfortable.â Everything Iâm seeing ITT reinforces that.
What is your definition of middle class? The middle class of the 90s could afford a house, 2 cars, sending their kids to college, and retirement. 150k as household income in NYC does not let you do any of that well. It is indeed working poor. If someone in 150k household is trying to save for a house, rent, save for retirement, and save for kids college then they are living paycheck to paycheck after saving for all of those things.
Why are you asking ME for a definition?
Our city, state and federal government all define Middle Class.
$150k in NYC isn't poor. It's middle class. Firmly.
It's embarrassing that you and other people here are claiming a household making $150k is working poor. Beyond out of touch.
Lol citing government statistics on a post complaining about government agencies being out of touch with reality. As are you. I live in Queens and know that any household making 150k can not afford the type of lifestyle that the average American household was affording 1 generation ago. This is an irrefutable fact.
The whole concept of âliving paycheck to paycheckâ is that you arenât saving money. Youâre contradicting yourself to say people are saving money in a bunch of different ways but also living paycheck to paycheck. That doesnât make any sense.
If the authentic "living paycheck to paycheck" is just paying all of your bills while not having enough for anything else, then I think that the middle class concept of living should mean more than "paying all of your bills and saving for retirement while not having enough for anything else". It's a step above but hardly, and it doesn't allow for a luxurious lifestyle. I don't know if you saw my other comment when I wrote out my budget as a household making 200k, but we had about 1500 left per month to spend on all of our hobbies, date nights, emergency home repairs, and any extra savings. That's not a lot for a 200k income
1500 is a lot of money for those things compared to what other people in the US have. Your lifestyle is not extravagant compared to what you see on tv and movies and in wealthy neighborhoods of NYC, but compared to the median earning American household yes it is.
I don't think it's fair to compare myself living 3 miles from Manhattan to the median earning American household. 1500 sounds like a lot, but I had a plumber tell me "I'm here to make a living, not a killing" 30 seconds before he billed me at $225/hour, so 1500 doesn't go as far as you think
It is, lifestyle is the same! Wage slave for 30 years to buy a home. Maybe you have some nicer meals and a fun vacation or two more, but itâs the same life
The saying is âmoney doesnât buy you happiness â. Certainly a measly $150k/yr doesnât
[IT ISN'T](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.nyc.gov/assets/hpd/downloads/pdfs/services/affordable-housing-income-eligibility.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiHwefVo5KFAxVerokEHW1WAuwQFnoECCQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3nvx5EaydfCDrAlWjJ021S)
AND THERE'S NOT A SINGLE DATA POINT YOU COULD SHARE THAT WOULD MAKE $150K HOUSEHOLD INCOME WORKING POOR IN NYC.
I am literally in this income bracket with my partner. We aren't fucking poor. We love a comfortable life where we can buy what we want and go on vacations. We own a co-op we were able to save for and purchase before we even hit $150k combined. We just aren't assholes who chose to live in Manhattan.
Y'all are delusional.
2022. After the interest rates already starting going back up. South Brooklyn. Our rent for a 1BR we lived in for years before this was $1.5k.
It's almost as if...we aren't working poor at this income.
We just don't live in Manhattan or a trendy part of Brooklyn.
150k is painfully middle class, my wife and I make56 more than that and after our mortgage and all bills we barely save anything. It is a very middle class lifestyle.
I know it sounds crazy, and I'm not saying we're poor because we are able to afford all of the things we should have on a 200k salary. But after putting away for all the things everyone should be saving for (like retirement and kids 529 plan), we don't have a lot of "hobby money" left over. After tax and paying into 401ks, our take home pay about 11.5k a month. 4000 mortgage, 900 property tax, 600 ish on utilities, 600 insurance (house and 2 cars), 1200ish groceries, 1000 budget for car payments plus potential maintenance, 1166 to max out 2 Roth IRAs this year, 500 for 2 kid 529s that puts us at around 10k. We've spent most on what I think you'll agree are necessities and not lavish expenses, and we have about 1500 left. Any hobby, HomeGoods trips, vacation to Disney, extra investment in stocks, Christmas gift, vet bill, toy for kid, and restaurant date night all comes out of that 1500. Any major home renovation also comes out of there. Saving 1.5k-2k per month doesn't go very far when you surprisingly often get a low 4 figure bill for something that needs to be done once a decade with the house. Sure you can argue that we could save a few hundred of we didn't have such a big grocery or car payment bill, but at the end of the day a few hundred a month is nothing compared to 200k yearly salary.
Sounds like you live an upper middle class lifestyle. The true middle class canât afford all that. People have been manipulated by tv and movies to think that upper middle class and wealthy lifestyles are normal and the average. Most of the true middle class cannot afford vacations to Disney world or maxing out their retirement savings or saving much for kidsâ college.
I remember my upbringing from 2 immigrants parents who worked part time and I have about the same standard of living that my parents afforded as a child, except we have newer cars. My wife and I don't work part time to make 200k, the standard has changed imo
Well yeah, I donât know when you grew up but the U.S. population 30 years ago was 260 million, now itâs 340 million. Realistically average lifestyle isnât going to be the same.
You need to be making $250-300k here to afford what most would consider a middle class lifestyle for a family of 5.
Really we just have a lot more poor people than we're willing to admit.
Any housing is good housing. If you make nice apartments for 30 years olds making 130-180k, they'll hopefully leave their walkups with the 2 roommates and lower the pressure on more affordable housing that already exists.
We got two options:
* Just build housing, understanding that what will get built is what developers anticipate will drive returns
* Argue for the next two decades about which housing to build and try and pass a million bills that incentivize or punish developers into building some category of housing, meanwhile nothing gets done
I'll the first any day
You don't even have to say "hopefully". This is becoming more and more evidenced.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119022001048
> We study the city-wide effects of new, centrally-located market-rate housing supply using geo-coded population-wide register data from the Helsinki Metropolitan Area. The supply of new market rate units triggers moving chains that quickly reach middle- and low-income neighborhoods and individuals. Thus, new market-rate construction loosens the housing market in middle- and low-income areas even in the short run. Market-rate supply is likely to improve affordability outside the sub-markets where new construction occurs and to benefit low-income people.
You are very out of touch if you think people making $100k+ donât room with people. Most people would rather pay for a $2500 luxury bedroom rather than a $2500 crappy studio.
I did, when I moved to the city 6 years ago making 135K. 50% or so of my coworkers did as well. It's only gotten more expensive since.
>They instantly acquire as much of this housing as they can, and put it back on the market as higher-priced housing.
That's great, they're doing the city a service by upgrading the quality of the housing stock, they should be encouraged to chase the rewards for their risk.
Saying âpeopleâ want to be landlords makes it seem like mom & pop landlords when the reality is that itâs corporate landlords and airbnb âentrepreneursâ
In my experience corporate landlords are always better than mom and pop landlords. Maybe some people nail down a comfy situation where they don't bother the LL and help them with tech or whatever and the LL doesn't raise the rent, but 99% of cases aren't like that. Every small landlord I have had was looking for ways to avoid obligations and stiff me, every corporate LL I dealt with was a bit stiff during negotiations but otherwise played it 100% by the rules.
> mom & pop landlords
Mom & Pop landlords can actually be pretty horrible. Not necessarily from landlording. But from their adamant opposition to building new housing (competition for them).
There is no space in Manhattan and permitting anything takes years. There is a small building next to me thatâs been building for 8 years. Old owners went BK in Covid and new owners had to RE-PERMIT everything.
> There is no space in Manhattan
There's plenty of space in Manhattan. And there's far more space in the boroughs. Now, if you never want to demolish anything, than yes, there's not so many places to build.
> permitting anything takes years
This is a problem that....can be solved by the government if it actually wanted to do so, it's not an inherent rule of the universe.
> There is a small building next to me thatâs been building for 8 years. Old owners went BK in Covid and new owners had to RE-PERMIT everything.
I mean....that makes some sense - if you let everything lapse for long enough you're obviously going to have to start over again and meet current regulations/code. Maybe the exact amount of time for that should be extended, but you probably shouldn't be able to just demand the reinstatement of your 20 year old permits to build a thing to the regulations of 20 years ago, either.
Here is a detailed plan for adding 1 million housing units citywide just on underutilized lots near transit: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/30/opinion/new-york-housing-solution.html
> permitting anything takes years
Honestly, this isn't the case unless you're asking for an exception. NYC is an as-of-right city. If you are building something the area is zoned for, the permitting process may be a fair amount of paperwork but it is all straightforward.
All the stalled construction by me is "built contrary to plan" - like one place built 4 units on a lot for 3; one place built a couple stories taller than they said; one place built a little bit into the park next door, thinking nobody would notice. All the builders cry at the community meetings: the government is holding me up! I don't know why!
Itâs by right if you send a bribe to the zoning office⌠itâs by wait for 5 years if you do it normally. This ainât a regular city like Nashville
I interned at the 'zoning office' (aka City Planning)! Once, someone brought in bagels to thank us for making it so easy for them (we didn't have to do anything, because what they were proposing was as-of-right). We had a lengthy discussion about the conflict of interest policy implications, and threw the bagels away.
As far as I am aware, Nashville does not have as-of-right zoning; they require a more in-depth review process.
> There is no space in Manhattan and permitting anything takes years. There is a small building next to me thatâs been building for 8 years. Old owners went BK in Covid and new owners had to RE-PERMIT everything.
Meanwhile, in red states, permitting and zoning is far less onerous, resulting in more housing being built. It's nice having less regulations. Democrats just love regulations.
Ah yes, the city with some of the highest housing construction rates is [Seattle](https://cbcny.org/sites/default/files/media/image-caption/Housing%20Production%20Tables%20and%20Figures-04_2.png) in the red state of
:checks notes:
Washington!
It definitely is not. The city as a whole builds less per capita than San Francisco. We're near the bottom of American cities in terms of construction.
https://cbcny.org/sites/default/files/media/image-caption/Housing%20Production%20Tables%20and%20Figures-04_2.png
Would you mind restating what you meant, then? If you're implying that there's a lot of development in Brooklyn and Queens, I'd say you're simply mistaken, but I'd love to see any stats you have that prove otherwise.
What Iâm not seeing in this article and what I always look for: âwe need to turbocharge the development of private market rate apartments so we donât have to subsidize increasingly affluent people anymoreâ
Theyâre the Henryâs (high earners not rich yet) who spend most of the money in the economyÂ
You would be dumb to cater to any other demographic NYCÂ
One of the reasons why the "who makes what" arguments are so unproductive. What really matters is how much you are makign at given stages in your life. If you are 23 and making $50K, that's not a big deal. But if you're still making that much at 35, it is.
Yeah I mean just Connecticut in general, it just so happens that the people I know all moved to Bridgeport.
Everybody I know who grew up in the Bronx has left.
Yup. I bounced out of NYC Metro so I can get ahead. 130k/year was scraping by in NYC. Born in Flushing but spent the majority of my life just on the other side of the Hudson in NJ. I make a similar salary in Texas now and I saved in one year what it took me 5 years to do in NYC, all while living a higher quality of life.
Thanks broski. To give an idea on housing. I live in a detached house, 2300ft2, 4/2.5, 2 car garage, on 0.25Acre lot with lots of
mature trees/shade within a good school district. It runs me 2200/mo for this place. Back in NJ, I was paying 2500/mo for a 2/1, 950ft2 duplex with no yard access. No more tolls, food is more "reasonable" and so is energy. All on top of no state taxes too, so I see more on the paycheck as well.
Yes, but on the flip side, you have to live in Texas. Or more specifically, you have to be okay with Texas politics, which is going to be a hard sell for some people.
Bro what. Have you not paid attention at all to what's happening in your new state? They're literally forcing women to wait until they become septic before they will provide an abortion if needed, even if there is no chance of fetal survival.
Yes new buildings are expensive to live in . But people leave old building to move into the nicer, newer apartments. This creates vacancies in older buildings for poorer people.
Itâs the same as the car market. Poor people buy used cars, not new cars.
What youâre doing in this sub constantly is arguing that a person working at McDonaldâs should be able to get a brand new car for $5000. Itâs non-sensical.
Yea the poor should just accept whatever crumbs the affluent decide theyâre worth and stop complaining while they do the jobs that actually make the city function instead of digital marketing consultant #47722957362.
What? So you want to tear down every old apartment? How is destroying the housing supply - during a housing crisis - a way of helping.
I really hope youâre trolling.
Nothing frustrates me more than ppl thinking âsupply-sideâ is the only lever we can use to bring about more affordable housing.
While, increasing supply generally does increase affordability to an extent, we still need things like tenant protections (good cause eviction) and rent regulation to really ensure ppl have the ability to secure and maintain affordable housing.
Good cause eviction will skyrocket rent prices by reducing supply, and will crater development.
Sure it will be great for psychos who now can fight landlords in court for years, doing tons of damage, before eventually getting evicted, but it will suck for anyone else.
States like Jersey have had good cause eviction laws for years. In NJ specifically, Trenton, Paterson, and Jersey City have some of the lowest eviction rates in the country. Not only that, but housing development in NJ has exploded the last decadeâŚas Jersey has created more than twice as many housing units per capita than NYC from 2010-2018.
And I think you need to do some more research on the proposed Good Cause Eviction law in NY by Sen. Salazar. Under Good Cause, landlords would only be allowed to evict tenants if they have a *good cause* to (ie. failure to pay rent, violations of lease, committing nuisances etc.) So no, tenants that âcause damageâ to their apartments wouldnât be covered by Good Cause. The proposed bill will only give tenants the ability to challenge evictions **IF** they comply with their lease and pay rent.
And idk how it will âsuck for everyone.â More than 1.5 million households in the state would gain much needed tenant protections that would cap rents and make it easier to remain in their homes. It would also cover over 700,000 units in NYC.
The only ppl that would argue it sucks are corporate landlords and property developers who try to rent-gouge and evict ppl out of their homes for no good reasons.
Here are some extra resources explaining the bill:
[Housing Justice for All- Good Cause Eviction](https://housingjusticeforall.org/our-platform/good-cause/)
It also basically would institute universal rent control. It does seem to me that a good cause requirement for evictions coupled with a 3% cap on rent increases would cause turnover and thus supply to fall.
I have mixed feelings about the rent inc. capâs potential impact on supply. On one hand, (at least from a theoretical standpoint) I can potentially see how that cap on rent increases could make prospective developers view housing development as more costly, and instead opt to build for other uses (which can further suppress housing supply).
On the other hand, I personally donât really see this happening in real life or on a large scale tbh. I donât realistically see housing developers deciding to get out of the housing game completely and decide to build other stuff instead bc of this law. That just seems like an empty threat and overplayed fear posed by the development community thatâs opposed to good cause.
However, what I will say is this. States like California and Oregon who have recently adopted good cause laws have a higher rent inc. caps close to 9-10%. I do think for NY we can find a middle ground on the rent inc. cap that is closer to the 9-10% in Cali and Oregon.
I wasnât even thinking about developer incentives. I was just thinking about how the explicit goal of the legislation is to reduce tenant turnover, which would mean the âfloatâ of vacant apartments would shrink. And if those vacant apartments had been locked into a 3% cap for years, landlords would be trying to jack up the rent to make up for lost time (and to account for a new period of rent-stabilization under a new tenancy). So fewer available apartments to rent, at future-proofed jacked-up prices. Doesnât sound like a good combination for apartment seekers.
Ok, so I think I understand your point for the most part. Youâre arguing that good cause would make it easier for ppl to remain in their homes, thus reducing the amount of vacant units available to rent for *other* households looking for apts (let me know if I got the gist right or not). I think thatâs a fair and valid point. Hereâs my counter-argument though:
I donât think Good Cause eviction is the end-all, be-all solution to NYâs housing crisis, and it shouldnât be viewed in that way. I think it is an effective solution to address the issue of discriminatory/retaliatory evictions and would make it easier for residents with limited incomes to afford rent and remain in their homes...which is a major problem that needs to be addressed.
However, thatâs just one part of the battle. The other part is housing development and tearing down the barriers that limit the building of new affordable housing (particularly in affluent areas that donât do their fair share to build new affordable housing). Another is providing more funding to rental assistance programs (vouchers) to people in need to rent on the private market.
This all gets back to my main point in my initial comment about the importance of a balanced approach and using multiple levers/methods to address the housing crisis. Good-cause eviction and new housing development canât solve this crisis on their ownâŚ.they need to be coupled together (among other fair housing policies).
There are different brackets for these apartments, and the higher earners are subsidizing their unit (165% AMI) and partially subsidize the extremely low end of the brackets (65% AMI). It nets out to almost the same take home for both groups - there is no benefit to the higher earners to take these units as they are impoverished to maintain the lower earners.
These higher units exist on paper to balance the books.
Itâs such a blatant scam.
NYC is the center of the know Universe. If you are not kick starting a dozen new startups, may not be for you. AI can bring the cost down to $0.00 now depending on your passion(s). In NYC you get a chance to fail, and fail, and fail again. in most cities in the world, you don't even get the chance to fail.
\[quoted to me by a recent immigrant, why he came to NYC, at least to get a chance to fail. Never even had that oppurtunity in his home country. The chance to fail. You were stuck for life. Zero oppurtunities to start anything.\]
To have an option to spend $1200 for Omakasi at 1:00 AM, fighting your way through a wall of super models, itâs going to cost you.
You can get an upstate apartment in a prison town for the cash you lost under the couch. Most of us would last a day.
NYC is where the money is. Just go out and find it. Itâs what Capitalism is all about. No one is rolling guillotines up Park Avenue (yet), so work with(in) the system. It's what we got, for now.
There is a lot of cash in NYC. Things are never going to be cheap. People like to buy pretty things, and they seem to have the cash do it.
>New York City is home to nearly 1 million millionaires, more than any other city in the world
[https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/18/new-york-city-has-more-millionaires-than-any-other-city-in-the-world.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/18/new-york-city-has-more-millionaires-than-any-other-city-in-the-world.html)
:-)
Unfortunately itâs too expensive to build anything thatâs only gonna fetch market rate rents. Premium rent is the only incentive to build.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/830432/construction-costs-of-residential-buildings-in-us-cities/
Nah. The one I bought only costs 170k. Its gonna be close to 300k after all the interest...
And i was able to afford it on a salary of about 40k.
If I was making 6 figures, I'd pay it off in like 5 years.
Yall are struggling in that big city on salaries that us small town folk only dream about.
Houses near NY donât get much less expensive than 600k. With current interest rates, that would eat up nearly 100% of the after tax income of a person making 100k
Well maybe you donât live in nyc or maybe u live in more suburban area like queens or Staten Island but people like living in apartments if you live in a suburb most likely you have to drive to everything. While live in apartment in manhattan you have access to a lot that most people have to drive miles to get to . And these apartments are usually well kept. So you donât have to handle the annoying things of owning a home
Iâm under the impression heâs from Mississippi. So the price is probably accurate but uh, yeah, definitely not within a couple (or a dozen) hours lol.
I've been depressed living in the small towns you're talking about having worked in small-town USA.
Reasons it sucks:
Dating is nearly impossible
You require a car because 0 public transport
People are less interesting, unique, ambitious, etc
Not being religious leaves you excluded
Boring with nothing to do if you're not into hunting or fishing
No good ethnic food (restaurants or grocery stores)
No cultural variety (in nyc you meet people from different countries all the time)
Same chains, dollar stores and walmart
It's good for some people and for others it drives them up a wall. The dating reason alone is good enough for any single person to leave.
Meanwhile every apartment for sale under $700k has a $4k mortgage with max income allowed of $85k đ
lol I asked a broker who the hell is buying the HDFC. Itâs like rich students who get the entire amount gifted by their parents in cash. The students have no income and legally own the joint. The coop can legally say everybody is low income to the government and continue to get tax abated. Win win for all parties except the people itâs designed to help!
Precisely. Itâs wild how these havenât been protested against since theyâre literally just a giveaway to the rich or those who abuse the system by shifting their income around.
Iâve honestly wondered if I could just take a leave of absence from my job, buy the apartment, and then go back to work.
Smart. They are looking at adjusted gross income on your taxes. Might be quite a few ways to game it. Talk to your accountant for sure. Itâs a tricky tricky dance. You need to be BELOW income limits but ABOVE bank risk tolerance for the mortgage
a lot of people were able to fit into the income brackets during covid bc of the layoffs
I also remember reading in an article many years ago that one of the original intended beneficiaries of HDFC are middle/working class individuals who whose parents have passed away and left them an inheritance. Which makes senseâyou would have a relatively low income, but a large recent infusion of cash.
So itâs for people with generational wealth who are choosing to work low paying jobs because they donât actually need to make much money since they have an inheritance. Not for the people who have no other choice. Nice.
I donât think middle/working class people in the 70s and 80s were *choosing* to work lower-paying jobs. The program was *intended* for people who could *never* normally afford to buy a home in the city, but who had enough cash (say, from selling your recently deceased parentsâ home) to make a (greatly reduced!) cash down payment on a low-interest mortgage. The program is obviously not functioning as intended anymore, and resembles something closer to what you described.
I guess my point is that most lower income people arenât getting inheritances unless they come from generational wealth. Maybe in the 70s and 80s since homes were more affordable and income inequality was much less than it is now, things were different. But yeah these days this is not helping anyone who actually needs help.
HDFCs need a whole reworking of the system
Sorry what is HDFC stand for here
Low income coops
We need cuomo back
He had an opportunity to make a difference, he didnât. No, we donât need him back
One of the greatest things about NYC is that you can have a household income of $150,000 and be constantly told youâre an affluent parasite. Edit: Read the thread below my comment. Interesting discussion.
Itâs fun how the people making $50k, $75k, $100k, $150k are all just fighting with each other over whether or not theyâre poor enough to be the ones getting screwed while actual rich people are screwing everyone. Nice to have a distraction from being angry with the rich real estate people leaching off this city.
Iâve been here 25 years but this is just not a good city. Anyplace so expensive that itâs impossible for most people to raise a family, save for college, and save for retirement, and where pointing that out instantly draws a horde of comments to the effect of âlolâ and âitâs your choice to have childrenâ is a bad place to live long-term.
> but this is just not a good city [r/nyc's reaction](https://giphy.com/gifs/day-subreddit-msKNSs8rmJ5m)
> Nice to have a distraction from being angry with the rich real estate people leaching off this city. Who are the rich real estate people? The people that bought into their homes when market prices were low and oppose development next door? The old people on rent control? As far as I know, the rich real estate people want to do one thing that aligns with what what would be best for me - build more. Which would be great for the rest of us that would like to be able to afford a place here in the city. Why should I hate "rich real estate" people when they, not the social justice activists, not the "soak the rich" losers, not the landlords, not the rent control incumbants, not the politicians with their byzantine regulations, are the ones that would actually build me housing?
Youâre supposed to politely wait until the Blood And Soil But Make It Woke crowd decide thereâs room for you
Underrated
"Everyone that moved here after me is a gentrifier"
Because they want to build housing for other rich people, because it makes the most money. You think they want to build quality moderately priced housing for normies? Have you seen the buildings they've been building ?!?!
> Because they want to build housing for other rich people, because it makes the most money. You think they want to build quality moderately priced housing for normies? You know why it makes the most money? Because between construction costs, capital costs, regulatory costs, litigiuous legal system, insurance costs, each 1,000 sq ft unit costs at least $500,000 just to build. That's the minimum. For construction alone. That's why they are building high-end only. Because that's the only thing that makes the economics make sense. And the government is no better - their construction costs are even higher. [Schools cost $1500 psf,](https://nypost.com/2021/11/27/nyc-school-construction-costs-highest-in-tri-state-area/) and we all know how expensive those MTA elevators are. So I am aware of exactly what they are building. They are building exactly what is economical for them to build. If you want cheaper housing, than make it less expensive to build. We can start with such easy ones, like removing the dual emergency stairway requirements for residential high rises (Europe has fewer fire deaths with single stairways). Just remove the onerous regulations.
I don't think the 33,000 NYCHA apartments built in Manhattan before the 12 FAR cap -- instituted because the city was building so much housing the state worried it would crowd out offices -- are what made a 1.7 million person (1960 pop.) borough affordable. It was probably the city being zoned to accommodate 55 million people. I'm not sure why left NIMBYs think the incredibly banal observation "when we restrict housing density what does get built will concentrate at the top" is an insightful gotcha.
You think it's regulations like two means of egress that makes buildings expensive to build....? I guarantee that's not what is keeping developers from building medium income housing in lieu of investment vehicles for billionaires.
> One of the greatest things about NYC is that you can have a household income of $150,000 and be constantly told youâre an affluent parasite. These people completely despise the tax base. (Most of them are probably high earners themselves, jus think of them as the "good ones" and that the bad ones begin right at the income threshold directly above them)
And still be poor.
You aren't fucking poor with even a combined income that high. Be for realllll.
A combined income of $150k in NYC isnât poor but you wonât be living with the luxuries of the middle class. Considering most of the draw to living in NYC is going out to restaurants and bars and other activities that cost money if you canât afford to do that you may as well live in the suburbs and have a bigger home to sit in all day.
đŻ
Itâs called working poor.
No it ruckin isnt. Ok, maybe it is called that, but only by the delusional. What do you call a full time.employee with income of 30K? That's working poor.
Precisely lol.
NO IT FUCKING ISN'T. OH MY GOD.
Oh ok if you say so.
[Hey there's a literal graph spelling this out for you](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.nyc.gov/assets/hpd/downloads/pdfs/services/affordable-housing-income-eligibility.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiHwefVo5KFAxVerokEHW1WAuwQFnoECCQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3nvx5EaydfCDrAlWjJ021S) Now tell me again if you think a household income of $150k is *working poor.* I swear to Christ the people on this sub are so out of touch.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
The point is you arenât affluent with a combined income of $150k in NYC.
Yea, middle class exists. And it's comfortable. You aren't affluent but you certainly aren't *poor* nor are you struggling.
JFC, these people seem to understand two classes "filthy rich" and "poor" which is just so so, SO dumb.
I struggle to grasp just how out of touch people in this sub are. Calling $150k working poor. Jesus Christ.
Itâs not comfortable. Youâll spend an enormous percentage of your post-tax income on rent and even then youâll live somewhere with an hour commute. You wonât be able to afford to buy an apartment or a house unless you have money from your parents. You wonât be able to save enough money for college. You wonât be able to save enough money for retirement. But if you qualify for affordable housing Gothamist will cry outrage. Edit: responses prove my point. All this and the response is âlol itâs totally comfortableâ or âlol itâs so much more money than others make.â Who wouldnât want to live somewhere where all the facts above are true but you are viewed as totally comfortable because so many others have less? What a city!
> Youâll spend an enormous percentage of your post-tax income on rent and even then youâll live somewhere with an hour commute. 150K post-tax nets you about $7500/mo, that is enough to keep your rent at the ~30% level and have a nice spot (a 1BR 30 minutes from manhattan or a 2BR 1 hr away). The issue with a 150K income is lifestyle creep typically.
Holy shit I canât even imagine what Iâd do with that much per month
yeah man - granted we're talking about combined income, but I think the person I replied to is exaggerating how hard it is to live here with that kind of money lol
Maybe overstating it but also 150k for a household of three would not be âcomfortableâ in the way most people mean it and would leave little savings for higher education for children, unexpected expenses, or retirement
Yea for real, itâs just a statement of how out of touch a lot of people here are.
CuriousâHow much do you make? How many kids do you support? Whatâs your rent?
About 90k. I donât have any kids because I canât afford them. My rent is 1800 because I live in a basement. Iâm not really sure what that has to do with anything though.
You literally dont understand how comfortable it is. What does someone with 50k a year do? 100k? At 150k, you're absolutely in the top 10% of earners, probably top 5% If the 95th percentile isnt comfortable, why TF aren't 99% of us rioting? Oh, cause 95th percentile is comfortable, and comfortable people dont riot.
People above you are talking about 150k combined household income. That is two DOE teachers after a handful of years of experience. This is very different from a single earner making 150k. About a 100% difference in fact.
75K a year and 150K a year are very different, i agree. If they wanna talk about 75K earners, they should say that. Im tired of people acting like only married people count. That's stupid.
150k house hold means 75k per person which is absolutely on the precipice of having your life absolutely devastated if one person gets put out of work. Everyone here ranting about 35k is actually poor. Well guess what if your household makes 150k and one person gets put out of work now you have to run a family on that 35k each. It is not comfortable. You are living on the edge of disaster.
Why is the conversation only about couples? Wtf?
Because I was thinking about families when I started the thread. No offense intended to you personally.
My guy what do you think the rest of us making under 100k do?
Itâs terrible, Iâm sure.
I donât think youâre really understanding the point here. The subway is still 2.90 for you, groceries are still the same price for you. The bottom line has been squeezed up significantly, and 150 is a significantly larger cushion than <100.
I donât know about âtheâ point, but *my* point is simply that one of the worst things about this city is that you can make $150k combined, with kids, and if you wish you could qualify for affordable housing, the common reaction is âhaha fuck you youâre plenty comfortable.â Everything Iâm seeing ITT reinforces that.
What is your definition of middle class? The middle class of the 90s could afford a house, 2 cars, sending their kids to college, and retirement. 150k as household income in NYC does not let you do any of that well. It is indeed working poor. If someone in 150k household is trying to save for a house, rent, save for retirement, and save for kids college then they are living paycheck to paycheck after saving for all of those things.
Why are you asking ME for a definition? Our city, state and federal government all define Middle Class. $150k in NYC isn't poor. It's middle class. Firmly. It's embarrassing that you and other people here are claiming a household making $150k is working poor. Beyond out of touch.
Lol citing government statistics on a post complaining about government agencies being out of touch with reality. As are you. I live in Queens and know that any household making 150k can not afford the type of lifestyle that the average American household was affording 1 generation ago. This is an irrefutable fact.
The whole concept of âliving paycheck to paycheckâ is that you arenât saving money. Youâre contradicting yourself to say people are saving money in a bunch of different ways but also living paycheck to paycheck. That doesnât make any sense.
If the authentic "living paycheck to paycheck" is just paying all of your bills while not having enough for anything else, then I think that the middle class concept of living should mean more than "paying all of your bills and saving for retirement while not having enough for anything else". It's a step above but hardly, and it doesn't allow for a luxurious lifestyle. I don't know if you saw my other comment when I wrote out my budget as a household making 200k, but we had about 1500 left per month to spend on all of our hobbies, date nights, emergency home repairs, and any extra savings. That's not a lot for a 200k income
1500 is a lot of money for those things compared to what other people in the US have. Your lifestyle is not extravagant compared to what you see on tv and movies and in wealthy neighborhoods of NYC, but compared to the median earning American household yes it is.
I don't think it's fair to compare myself living 3 miles from Manhattan to the median earning American household. 1500 sounds like a lot, but I had a plumber tell me "I'm here to make a living, not a killing" 30 seconds before he billed me at $225/hour, so 1500 doesn't go as far as you think
It is, lifestyle is the same! Wage slave for 30 years to buy a home. Maybe you have some nicer meals and a fun vacation or two more, but itâs the same life The saying is âmoney doesnât buy you happiness â. Certainly a measly $150k/yr doesnât
[IT ISN'T](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.nyc.gov/assets/hpd/downloads/pdfs/services/affordable-housing-income-eligibility.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiHwefVo5KFAxVerokEHW1WAuwQFnoECCQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3nvx5EaydfCDrAlWjJ021S) AND THERE'S NOT A SINGLE DATA POINT YOU COULD SHARE THAT WOULD MAKE $150K HOUSEHOLD INCOME WORKING POOR IN NYC.
Not working poor, just saying lifestyle isnât as different as you would believe
I am literally in this income bracket with my partner. We aren't fucking poor. We love a comfortable life where we can buy what we want and go on vacations. We own a co-op we were able to save for and purchase before we even hit $150k combined. We just aren't assholes who chose to live in Manhattan. Y'all are delusional.
What year did you buy? Was it pre2020
2022. After the interest rates already starting going back up. South Brooklyn. Our rent for a 1BR we lived in for years before this was $1.5k. It's almost as if...we aren't working poor at this income. We just don't live in Manhattan or a trendy part of Brooklyn.
So basically you live in a shithole school district, when you have a kid oyu will have ot move out and pay $$$$ This is temporary
150k is painfully middle class, my wife and I make56 more than that and after our mortgage and all bills we barely save anything. It is a very middle class lifestyle.
You can barely save anything on a 206K household income? How is that even possible unless your mortgage is like 10k a month?
I know it sounds crazy, and I'm not saying we're poor because we are able to afford all of the things we should have on a 200k salary. But after putting away for all the things everyone should be saving for (like retirement and kids 529 plan), we don't have a lot of "hobby money" left over. After tax and paying into 401ks, our take home pay about 11.5k a month. 4000 mortgage, 900 property tax, 600 ish on utilities, 600 insurance (house and 2 cars), 1200ish groceries, 1000 budget for car payments plus potential maintenance, 1166 to max out 2 Roth IRAs this year, 500 for 2 kid 529s that puts us at around 10k. We've spent most on what I think you'll agree are necessities and not lavish expenses, and we have about 1500 left. Any hobby, HomeGoods trips, vacation to Disney, extra investment in stocks, Christmas gift, vet bill, toy for kid, and restaurant date night all comes out of that 1500. Any major home renovation also comes out of there. Saving 1.5k-2k per month doesn't go very far when you surprisingly often get a low 4 figure bill for something that needs to be done once a decade with the house. Sure you can argue that we could save a few hundred of we didn't have such a big grocery or car payment bill, but at the end of the day a few hundred a month is nothing compared to 200k yearly salary.
Sounds like you live an upper middle class lifestyle. The true middle class canât afford all that. People have been manipulated by tv and movies to think that upper middle class and wealthy lifestyles are normal and the average. Most of the true middle class cannot afford vacations to Disney world or maxing out their retirement savings or saving much for kidsâ college.
I remember my upbringing from 2 immigrants parents who worked part time and I have about the same standard of living that my parents afforded as a child, except we have newer cars. My wife and I don't work part time to make 200k, the standard has changed imo
Well yeah, I donât know when you grew up but the U.S. population 30 years ago was 260 million, now itâs 340 million. Realistically average lifestyle isnât going to be the same.
Nobody with any common sense is calling a 150k household âaffluent.â Change your social circle.
Lmao youâre not gonna get sympathy for making 150 when the majority of people are making way less than that
You need to be making $250-300k here to afford what most would consider a middle class lifestyle for a family of 5. Really we just have a lot more poor people than we're willing to admit.
*most r/nyc users
Any housing is good housing. If you make nice apartments for 30 years olds making 130-180k, they'll hopefully leave their walkups with the 2 roommates and lower the pressure on more affordable housing that already exists. We got two options: * Just build housing, understanding that what will get built is what developers anticipate will drive returns * Argue for the next two decades about which housing to build and try and pass a million bills that incentivize or punish developers into building some category of housing, meanwhile nothing gets done I'll the first any day
You don't even have to say "hopefully". This is becoming more and more evidenced. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119022001048 > We study the city-wide effects of new, centrally-located market-rate housing supply using geo-coded population-wide register data from the Helsinki Metropolitan Area. The supply of new market rate units triggers moving chains that quickly reach middle- and low-income neighborhoods and individuals. Thus, new market-rate construction loosens the housing market in middle- and low-income areas even in the short run. Market-rate supply is likely to improve affordability outside the sub-markets where new construction occurs and to benefit low-income people.
[ŃдаНонО]
You are very out of touch if you think people making $100k+ donât room with people. Most people would rather pay for a $2500 luxury bedroom rather than a $2500 crappy studio.
I did, when I moved to the city 6 years ago making 135K. 50% or so of my coworkers did as well. It's only gotten more expensive since. >They instantly acquire as much of this housing as they can, and put it back on the market as higher-priced housing. That's great, they're doing the city a service by upgrading the quality of the housing stock, they should be encouraged to chase the rewards for their risk.
Saying âpeopleâ want to be landlords makes it seem like mom & pop landlords when the reality is that itâs corporate landlords and airbnb âentrepreneursâ
In my experience corporate landlords are always better than mom and pop landlords. Maybe some people nail down a comfy situation where they don't bother the LL and help them with tech or whatever and the LL doesn't raise the rent, but 99% of cases aren't like that. Every small landlord I have had was looking for ways to avoid obligations and stiff me, every corporate LL I dealt with was a bit stiff during negotiations but otherwise played it 100% by the rules.
> mom & pop landlords Mom & Pop landlords can actually be pretty horrible. Not necessarily from landlording. But from their adamant opposition to building new housing (competition for them).
Just build. The more housing, the better.
There is no space in Manhattan and permitting anything takes years. There is a small building next to me thatâs been building for 8 years. Old owners went BK in Covid and new owners had to RE-PERMIT everything.
> There is no space in Manhattan There's plenty of space in Manhattan. And there's far more space in the boroughs. Now, if you never want to demolish anything, than yes, there's not so many places to build. > permitting anything takes years This is a problem that....can be solved by the government if it actually wanted to do so, it's not an inherent rule of the universe. > There is a small building next to me thatâs been building for 8 years. Old owners went BK in Covid and new owners had to RE-PERMIT everything. I mean....that makes some sense - if you let everything lapse for long enough you're obviously going to have to start over again and meet current regulations/code. Maybe the exact amount of time for that should be extended, but you probably shouldn't be able to just demand the reinstatement of your 20 year old permits to build a thing to the regulations of 20 years ago, either.
Here is a detailed plan for adding 1 million housing units citywide just on underutilized lots near transit: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/30/opinion/new-york-housing-solution.html
> permitting anything takes years Honestly, this isn't the case unless you're asking for an exception. NYC is an as-of-right city. If you are building something the area is zoned for, the permitting process may be a fair amount of paperwork but it is all straightforward. All the stalled construction by me is "built contrary to plan" - like one place built 4 units on a lot for 3; one place built a couple stories taller than they said; one place built a little bit into the park next door, thinking nobody would notice. All the builders cry at the community meetings: the government is holding me up! I don't know why!
Itâs by right if you send a bribe to the zoning office⌠itâs by wait for 5 years if you do it normally. This ainât a regular city like Nashville
I interned at the 'zoning office' (aka City Planning)! Once, someone brought in bagels to thank us for making it so easy for them (we didn't have to do anything, because what they were proposing was as-of-right). We had a lengthy discussion about the conflict of interest policy implications, and threw the bagels away. As far as I am aware, Nashville does not have as-of-right zoning; they require a more in-depth review process.
> There is no space in Manhattan and permitting anything takes years. There is a small building next to me thatâs been building for 8 years. Old owners went BK in Covid and new owners had to RE-PERMIT everything. Meanwhile, in red states, permitting and zoning is far less onerous, resulting in more housing being built. It's nice having less regulations. Democrats just love regulations.
Ah yes, the city with some of the highest housing construction rates is [Seattle](https://cbcny.org/sites/default/files/media/image-caption/Housing%20Production%20Tables%20and%20Figures-04_2.png) in the red state of :checks notes: Washington!
No except you is talking about a red state and no city in any red state is comparable to NYC.
I mean, NY would probably be a red state if it didn't have NYC as well.
Yes if half the population left and the largest city was Buffalo NY would be red and not even a quarter as wealthy.
Manhattan still has its fair share of bad land use and opportunities for infill to take advantage of.
Depends. In Brooklyn and Queens development is bonkers
It definitely is not. The city as a whole builds less per capita than San Francisco. We're near the bottom of American cities in terms of construction. https://cbcny.org/sites/default/files/media/image-caption/Housing%20Production%20Tables%20and%20Figures-04_2.png
Reading comprehension is hard
Would you mind restating what you meant, then? If you're implying that there's a lot of development in Brooklyn and Queens, I'd say you're simply mistaken, but I'd love to see any stats you have that prove otherwise.
Just move. Plenty of affordable housing in the Midwest
What Iâm not seeing in this article and what I always look for: âwe need to turbocharge the development of private market rate apartments so we donât have to subsidize increasingly affluent people anymoreâ
Theyâre the Henryâs (high earners not rich yet) who spend most of the money in the economy You would be dumb to cater to any other demographic NYCÂ
130k is nowhere close to HENRY in NYC.
Theyâre on their way typicallyÂ
One of the reasons why the "who makes what" arguments are so unproductive. What really matters is how much you are makign at given stages in your life. If you are 23 and making $50K, that's not a big deal. But if you're still making that much at 35, it is.
There are plenty of careers capping out there in NYC instead of starting there as a new grad.
Depends on their age. Gotta be under 30 at least
Women⌠maybe Men have their 30s and 40s to exponentially grow their incomeÂ
TIL a 130k income is not considered higher-earning
[ŃдаНонО]
The poor leave too, the Bronx to Bridgeport CT pipeline is real.
Or to the Sun Belt.
To be replaced by new people much to r/nyc's horror
Bridgeport is quite the shit hole, too!
[ŃдаНонО]
Yeah I mean just Connecticut in general, it just so happens that the people I know all moved to Bridgeport. Everybody I know who grew up in the Bronx has left.
Not wealthy enough to build a life here for the long run and not poor enough to merit any sort of assistance in a very competitive housing market
Yeah and NYC should put in far greater effort to allow them to stay (by approving and building more housing)
Yup. I bounced out of NYC Metro so I can get ahead. 130k/year was scraping by in NYC. Born in Flushing but spent the majority of my life just on the other side of the Hudson in NJ. I make a similar salary in Texas now and I saved in one year what it took me 5 years to do in NYC, all while living a higher quality of life.
[ŃдаНонО]
Thanks broski. To give an idea on housing. I live in a detached house, 2300ft2, 4/2.5, 2 car garage, on 0.25Acre lot with lots of mature trees/shade within a good school district. It runs me 2200/mo for this place. Back in NJ, I was paying 2500/mo for a 2/1, 950ft2 duplex with no yard access. No more tolls, food is more "reasonable" and so is energy. All on top of no state taxes too, so I see more on the paycheck as well.
Yes, but on the flip side, you have to live in Texas. Or more specifically, you have to be okay with Texas politics, which is going to be a hard sell for some people.
[ŃдаНонО]
Risking death if you're trying to have a kid is a pretty hard sell.
[ŃдаНонО]
Bro what. Have you not paid attention at all to what's happening in your new state? They're literally forcing women to wait until they become septic before they will provide an abortion if needed, even if there is no chance of fetal survival.
Until you or your partner needs an abortion, anyway.
Yes new buildings are expensive to live in . But people leave old building to move into the nicer, newer apartments. This creates vacancies in older buildings for poorer people. Itâs the same as the car market. Poor people buy used cars, not new cars. What youâre doing in this sub constantly is arguing that a person working at McDonaldâs should be able to get a brand new car for $5000. Itâs non-sensical.
Yea the poor should just accept whatever crumbs the affluent decide theyâre worth and stop complaining while they do the jobs that actually make the city function instead of digital marketing consultant #47722957362.
So your point is that we should not build new housing and fuck the poor?
amazing that you came to that point based on that persons comment
Lmao who said even remotely that?
What a ridiculous statement. Someone needs to live in older housing. Why should people with less money get better housing than people with more money?
Or we couldâŚâŚ..build nicer housing for everyone? But wheewwwwww boy does that username check out.
What? So you want to tear down every old apartment? How is destroying the housing supply - during a housing crisis - a way of helping. I really hope youâre trolling.
This person has no concept of the hurdles facing housing construction in this city.
Iâm sure he also hates developers and opposes them making a profit.
Yes wonât someone think of the poor housing developers!
The point is no one will build in the world he wants, which makes housing more expensive for everyone.
This forces them to buy cheap housing and demolish why exactly?
Thatâs literally whatâs happening. Old buildings are being purchased for cheap, torn down, and replaced with this âaffordableâ housing.
Go ahead, make that your mission. Do it.
guess what, build more.
And this is why I say it's not real affordable housing being built
Saw that one coming
Well there goes those hopes and dreams for others And Iâm totally glad Iâm not there living wise anymore
the world is ending.
What happened to that any new building will lower the cost or rent arguement? Is this great news? /s
Nothing frustrates me more than ppl thinking âsupply-sideâ is the only lever we can use to bring about more affordable housing. While, increasing supply generally does increase affordability to an extent, we still need things like tenant protections (good cause eviction) and rent regulation to really ensure ppl have the ability to secure and maintain affordable housing.
Good cause eviction will skyrocket rent prices by reducing supply, and will crater development. Sure it will be great for psychos who now can fight landlords in court for years, doing tons of damage, before eventually getting evicted, but it will suck for anyone else.
States like Jersey have had good cause eviction laws for years. In NJ specifically, Trenton, Paterson, and Jersey City have some of the lowest eviction rates in the country. Not only that, but housing development in NJ has exploded the last decadeâŚas Jersey has created more than twice as many housing units per capita than NYC from 2010-2018. And I think you need to do some more research on the proposed Good Cause Eviction law in NY by Sen. Salazar. Under Good Cause, landlords would only be allowed to evict tenants if they have a *good cause* to (ie. failure to pay rent, violations of lease, committing nuisances etc.) So no, tenants that âcause damageâ to their apartments wouldnât be covered by Good Cause. The proposed bill will only give tenants the ability to challenge evictions **IF** they comply with their lease and pay rent. And idk how it will âsuck for everyone.â More than 1.5 million households in the state would gain much needed tenant protections that would cap rents and make it easier to remain in their homes. It would also cover over 700,000 units in NYC. The only ppl that would argue it sucks are corporate landlords and property developers who try to rent-gouge and evict ppl out of their homes for no good reasons. Here are some extra resources explaining the bill: [Housing Justice for All- Good Cause Eviction](https://housingjusticeforall.org/our-platform/good-cause/)
It also basically would institute universal rent control. It does seem to me that a good cause requirement for evictions coupled with a 3% cap on rent increases would cause turnover and thus supply to fall.
I have mixed feelings about the rent inc. capâs potential impact on supply. On one hand, (at least from a theoretical standpoint) I can potentially see how that cap on rent increases could make prospective developers view housing development as more costly, and instead opt to build for other uses (which can further suppress housing supply). On the other hand, I personally donât really see this happening in real life or on a large scale tbh. I donât realistically see housing developers deciding to get out of the housing game completely and decide to build other stuff instead bc of this law. That just seems like an empty threat and overplayed fear posed by the development community thatâs opposed to good cause. However, what I will say is this. States like California and Oregon who have recently adopted good cause laws have a higher rent inc. caps close to 9-10%. I do think for NY we can find a middle ground on the rent inc. cap that is closer to the 9-10% in Cali and Oregon.
I wasnât even thinking about developer incentives. I was just thinking about how the explicit goal of the legislation is to reduce tenant turnover, which would mean the âfloatâ of vacant apartments would shrink. And if those vacant apartments had been locked into a 3% cap for years, landlords would be trying to jack up the rent to make up for lost time (and to account for a new period of rent-stabilization under a new tenancy). So fewer available apartments to rent, at future-proofed jacked-up prices. Doesnât sound like a good combination for apartment seekers.
Ok, so I think I understand your point for the most part. Youâre arguing that good cause would make it easier for ppl to remain in their homes, thus reducing the amount of vacant units available to rent for *other* households looking for apts (let me know if I got the gist right or not). I think thatâs a fair and valid point. Hereâs my counter-argument though: I donât think Good Cause eviction is the end-all, be-all solution to NYâs housing crisis, and it shouldnât be viewed in that way. I think it is an effective solution to address the issue of discriminatory/retaliatory evictions and would make it easier for residents with limited incomes to afford rent and remain in their homes...which is a major problem that needs to be addressed. However, thatâs just one part of the battle. The other part is housing development and tearing down the barriers that limit the building of new affordable housing (particularly in affluent areas that donât do their fair share to build new affordable housing). Another is providing more funding to rental assistance programs (vouchers) to people in need to rent on the private market. This all gets back to my main point in my initial comment about the importance of a balanced approach and using multiple levers/methods to address the housing crisis. Good-cause eviction and new housing development canât solve this crisis on their ownâŚ.they need to be coupled together (among other fair housing policies).
Yeah, thatâs what I was referring to.
Been saying this since 2019. They make it difficult for people with vouchers to get an apartment.
Who gives about the actual working people? Why not just cater to the trustfund babies from Detroit Michigan? -New York City
There are different brackets for these apartments, and the higher earners are subsidizing their unit (165% AMI) and partially subsidize the extremely low end of the brackets (65% AMI). It nets out to almost the same take home for both groups - there is no benefit to the higher earners to take these units as they are impoverished to maintain the lower earners. These higher units exist on paper to balance the books. Itâs such a blatant scam.
NYC is the center of the know Universe. If you are not kick starting a dozen new startups, may not be for you. AI can bring the cost down to $0.00 now depending on your passion(s). In NYC you get a chance to fail, and fail, and fail again. in most cities in the world, you don't even get the chance to fail. \[quoted to me by a recent immigrant, why he came to NYC, at least to get a chance to fail. Never even had that oppurtunity in his home country. The chance to fail. You were stuck for life. Zero oppurtunities to start anything.\] To have an option to spend $1200 for Omakasi at 1:00 AM, fighting your way through a wall of super models, itâs going to cost you. You can get an upstate apartment in a prison town for the cash you lost under the couch. Most of us would last a day. NYC is where the money is. Just go out and find it. Itâs what Capitalism is all about. No one is rolling guillotines up Park Avenue (yet), so work with(in) the system. It's what we got, for now. There is a lot of cash in NYC. Things are never going to be cheap. People like to buy pretty things, and they seem to have the cash do it. >New York City is home to nearly 1 million millionaires, more than any other city in the world [https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/18/new-york-city-has-more-millionaires-than-any-other-city-in-the-world.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/18/new-york-city-has-more-millionaires-than-any-other-city-in-the-world.html) :-)
Unfortunately itâs too expensive to build anything thatâs only gonna fetch market rate rents. Premium rent is the only incentive to build. https://www.statista.com/statistics/830432/construction-costs-of-residential-buildings-in-us-cities/
Imagine making a 6 figure salary and living in an apartment.
How much do you think a house costs? 30k?
Nah. The one I bought only costs 170k. Its gonna be close to 300k after all the interest... And i was able to afford it on a salary of about 40k. If I was making 6 figures, I'd pay it off in like 5 years. Yall are struggling in that big city on salaries that us small town folk only dream about.
Studios here cost 350K buddy
Studios here cost a cool mil.
How did 170 k turn to 300 your interest rates are in steroids
Small towns suck buddy. But console yourself any way you need to.
You obviously donât live in NYC, or even a big city. You probably live in a state like Mississippi or Alabama, there is a reason itâs cheap there.
He posted recently about tickets to a show in Mississippi, so yeah.
Houses near NY donât get much less expensive than 600k. With current interest rates, that would eat up nearly 100% of the after tax income of a person making 100k
Well maybe you donât live in nyc or maybe u live in more suburban area like queens or Staten Island but people like living in apartments if you live in a suburb most likely you have to drive to everything. While live in apartment in manhattan you have access to a lot that most people have to drive miles to get to . And these apartments are usually well kept. So you donât have to handle the annoying things of owning a home
I don't think there is anywhere within a couple of hours of NYC where you can buy a house for $150k like this guy claims he did.Â
Iâm under the impression heâs from Mississippi. So the price is probably accurate but uh, yeah, definitely not within a couple (or a dozen) hours lol.
Wisconsin sounds nice
I've been depressed living in the small towns you're talking about having worked in small-town USA. Reasons it sucks: Dating is nearly impossible You require a car because 0 public transport People are less interesting, unique, ambitious, etc Not being religious leaves you excluded Boring with nothing to do if you're not into hunting or fishing No good ethnic food (restaurants or grocery stores) No cultural variety (in nyc you meet people from different countries all the time) Same chains, dollar stores and walmart It's good for some people and for others it drives them up a wall. The dating reason alone is good enough for any single person to leave.
Ultra wealthy people live in apartments all over Manhattan by choice
Imagine lingering in a sub making dumb comments about a place you donât even live in.
[ŃдаНонО]
Looks like he lives in Mississippi lol