NYC Big Law- where to live Forum

[wons]

.

[Danger Zone]

Don't forget dat Second Ave subway

[Biglaw Investor]

Bump.

Is paying about $3K in rent for a studio completely unrealistic? Figure paying about another $1K or so in loans per month too.

Sure, you can find a studio for $3K. I strongly recommend that you reconsider starting off your life with a $3K rent payment though. I even wrote a whole article about it: mod edit: don't spam your blog.

[dixiecupdrinking]

Yes, but you can live in the 60's or 70's on 3rd or 2nd, be 2 blocks from the IRT and walking distance to most of the Midtown East firms. With the benefit of tons of supermarkets, schools, laundries, daycares, etc etc . . . all the stuff that Queens lacks. Brooklyn's primary advantages are (1) being able to say you live in Brooklyn (a not insignificant point, but not worth what it costs IMO) and (2) nightlife / dining, which is vastly more important to someone who is single, in their 20s, and/or not working 250 hours a month.

When you move to NYC for biglaw, by far the most important thing to focus on is livability. You won't have the time or the mindset to deal with bullshit, including rodents, bugs, piles of trash in the summer, long commutes, and no goddamn dry cleaner worth a damn within 3 blocks of your house. The fact that the latest and sweetest bar or restaurant is an Uber ride away wont even move the freakin' needle if you are married.

You're being dramatic. No one who lives in Brooklyn Heights suffers from a lack of dry cleaners, I can assure you. There aren't anymore rats, bugs, or trash in Brooklyn than the UES. Nor has anyone thought Brooklyn Heights or, really, Boerum/Cobble Hill are that hip, at least not for about a decade or so. They're all full of people in their 30s pushing strollers. I wonder whether you've actually spent any time in these Brooklyn neighborhoods or if you just have a chip on your shoulder.

A lot of people who say they don't like NYC just don't like living in Manhattan and for those people, I'd just say, don't rule out Brooklyn. It's a little greener, a little lower lying, and a little calmer.

[1styearlateral]

Bump.

Is paying about $3K in rent for a studio completely unrealistic? Figure paying about another $1K or so in loans per month too.

Sure, you can find a studio for $3K. I strongly recommend that you reconsider starting off your life with a $3K rent payment though. I even wrote a whole article about it: Your Rent Has a Big Impact On Building Wealth.

Good read and food for thought. Paying rent blows.

[Rahviveh]

Bump.

Is paying about $3K in rent for a studio completely unrealistic? Figure paying about another $1K or so in loans per month too.

Sure, you can find a studio for $3K. I strongly recommend that you reconsider starting off your life with a $3K rent payment though. I even wrote a whole article about it: Your Rent Has a Big Impact On Building Wealth.

Isn't there a rule against promoting your shitty website here?

Live with roommates! Oh what great investing advice!

[wons]

.

[jbagelboy]

Bump.

Is paying about $3K in rent for a studio completely unrealistic? Figure paying about another $1K or so in loans per month too.

I'm paying $2k in rent per month and $3.5k per month in loans, so $3k in rent plus $1k in loans is totally realistic

[GreenEggs]

Bump.

Is paying about $3K in rent for a studio completely unrealistic? Figure paying about another $1K or so in loans per month too.

Sure, you can find a studio for $3K. I strongly recommend that you reconsider starting off your life with a $3K rent payment though. I even wrote a whole article about it: Your Rent Has a Big Impact On Building Wealth.

Isn't there a rule against promoting your shitty website here?

Live with roommates! Oh what great investing advice!

Not in the alternate reality where 200k a year is the middle class

Yet in 1969, nearly fifty years ago, $200,000 was worth $1,297,722 in today’s dollars. And unfortunately the original AMT had a huge flaw: the exemption amount was not indexed to inflation. So while the original AMT aimed to tax the rich, today’s reality is that thousands of middle-class taxpayers are subject to AMT.

[L_William_W]

If you're willing to commute, then Astoria is a decent option. It's a fairly safe area. Forest Hills and Kew Gardens are also nice areas. Bed-Stuy and Crown Heights have gentrified (though there are still a few seedy sections in those neighborhoods- steer clear of the NYCHA projects). And like another person said, you can live in Jersey and take PATH or NJ Transit to the city.

[Anonymous User]

What about FiDi for working in midtown east? A friend of mine has a room opening up with reasonable rent. I'm single, mid 20s, so would be interested in a more lovely area

[stoopkid13]

What about FiDi for working in midtown east? A friend of mine has a room opening up with reasonable rent. I'm single, mid 20s, so would be interested in a more lovely area

I don't think I've ever met anyone who enjoys living in FiDi. One of my college friends used to live there and he said the only saving grace was the 5 walk to work, which you won't even have.

[Anonymous User]

what about JC/hoboken? What's so bad about living there and working in midtown east? it's only a 35 min commute

[Hikikomorist]

Bump.

Is paying about $3K in rent for a studio completely unrealistic? Figure paying about another $1K or so in loans per month too.

Sure, you can find a studio for $3K. I strongly recommend that you reconsider starting off your life with a $3K rent payment though. I even wrote a whole article about it: Your Rent Has a Big Impact On Building Wealth.

Isn't there a rule against promoting your shitty website here?

Live with roommates! Oh what great investing advice!

Not in the alternate reality where 200k a year is the middle class

Yet in 1969, nearly fifty years ago, $200,000 was worth $1,297,722 in today’s dollars. And unfortunately the original AMT had a huge flaw: the exemption amount was not indexed to inflation. So while the original AMT aimed to tax the rich, today’s reality is that thousands of middle-class taxpayers are subject to AMT.

Upper-middle class is still middle class. And I'm not sure $200k is even UMC in NYC.

[Danger Zone]

what about JC/hoboken? What's so bad about living there and working in midtown east? it's only a 35 min commute

In theory, but the PATH is fucking awful during peak commuting times.

[Anonymous User]

what about JC/hoboken? What's so bad about living there and working in midtown east? it's only a 35 min commute

In theory, but the PATH is fucking awful during peak commuting times.

even worse than the 4/5?

[Nebby]

what about JC/hoboken? What's so bad about living there and working in midtown east? it's only a 35 min commute

In theory, but the PATH is fucking awful during peak commuting times.

even worse than the 4/5?

Yes. Your commute would look more like 45 to an hour

[MCFC]

Bump.

Is paying about $3K in rent for a studio completely unrealistic? Figure paying about another $1K or so in loans per month too.

Sure, you can find a studio for $3K. I strongly recommend that you reconsider starting off your life with a $3K rent payment though. I even wrote a whole article about it: Your Rent Has a Big Impact On Building Wealth.

Isn't there a rule against promoting your shitty website here?

Live with roommates! Oh what great investing advice!

Not in the alternate reality where 200k a year is the middle class

Yet in 1969, nearly fifty years ago, $200,000 was worth $1,297,722 in today’s dollars. And unfortunately the original AMT had a huge flaw: the exemption amount was not indexed to inflation. So while the original AMT aimed to tax the rich, today’s reality is that thousands of middle-class taxpayers are subject to AMT.

Upper-middle class is still middle class. And I'm not sure $200k is even UMC in NYC.

If you make $200,000 in NYC you are in the top 7% of earners. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... _rich.html

[GreenEggs]

Not in the alternate reality where 200k a year is the middle class

Yet in 1969, nearly fifty years ago, $200,000 was worth $1,297,722 in today’s dollars. And unfortunately the original AMT had a huge flaw: the exemption amount was not indexed to inflation. So while the original AMT aimed to tax the rich, today’s reality is that thousands of middle-class taxpayers are subject to AMT.

Upper-middle class is still middle class. And I'm not sure $200k is even UMC in NYC.

If you make $200,000 in NYC you are in the top 7% of earners. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... _rich.html

Hikko,
The only people who think 200k is the middle class or "upper" middle class are those who make 200k

[Hikikomorist]

Not in the alternate reality where 200k a year is the middle class

Yet in 1969, nearly fifty years ago, $200,000 was worth $1,297,722 in today’s dollars. And unfortunately the original AMT had a huge flaw: the exemption amount was not indexed to inflation. So while the original AMT aimed to tax the rich, today’s reality is that thousands of middle-class taxpayers are subject to AMT.

Upper-middle class is still middle class. And I'm not sure $200k is even UMC in NYC.

If you make $200,000 in NYC you are in the top 7% of earners. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... _rich.html

Hikko,
The only people who think 200k is the middle class or "upper" middle class are those who make 200k

In that case, I wonder what's been happening to my checks.

[jbagelboy]

Bump.

Is paying about $3K in rent for a studio completely unrealistic? Figure paying about another $1K or so in loans per month too.

Sure, you can find a studio for $3K. I strongly recommend that you reconsider starting off your life with a $3K rent payment though. I even wrote a whole article about it: Your Rent Has a Big Impact On Building Wealth.

Isn't there a rule against promoting your shitty website here?

Live with roommates! Oh what great investing advice!

Not in the alternate reality where 200k a year is the middle class

Yet in 1969, nearly fifty years ago, $200,000 was worth $1,297,722 in today’s dollars. And unfortunately the original AMT had a huge flaw: the exemption amount was not indexed to inflation. So while the original AMT aimed to tax the rich, today’s reality is that thousands of middle-class taxpayers are subject to AMT.

Upper-middle class is still middle class. And I'm not sure $200k is even UMC in NYC.

If you make $200,000 in NYC you are in the top 7% of earners. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... _rich.html

Yea but if you're putting $3-4k monthly after-tax income to loans, structurally speaking that doesn't count as disposable income for comparative purposes, so you're really making more like $130k (with $3-4k as $5-6k pretax, or $60-70k annual deduction).

so according to that chart it's more like top 22%*

[GreenEggs]

top 11% still pretty pretty far from "upper" middle class

[jbagelboy]

top 11% still pretty pretty far from "upper" middle class

I misread the chart, its more like top 22%. You add the rows.

[jbagelboy]

To be UMC you have to be solidly top 10% in your region. Top 22% is flat middle class.

[jbagelboy]

lol, in SF a first year associate isn't even top third income