Why do people favor NYC firms? Forum

[Aston2412]

Based on market salary and average loans (say, 100k), what would you estimate is the appropriate amount to spend on rent in NYC (maybe a range, based on how luxurious you want to go)? I understand this will vary, but what would be a reasonable number?

Your monthly rent should be no more than 1/40th of your annual salary.

Before or after taxes?

Before. And if you are going to have a co-signer, he or she needs to make 80 times the rent.

By that logic you can find a place at 4k a month in NYC if you're making market.

Even if you're only at 130k you're still good up to 3.25k...

[FantasticMrFox]

Your monthly rent should be no more than 1/40th of your annual salary.

Before or after taxes?

Before. And if you are going to have a co-signer, he or she needs to make 80 times the rent.

I think they suggest spending no more than 25% of your take-home pay on housing.

[alumniguy]

By that logic you can find a place at 4k a month in NYC if you're making market.

Even if you're only at 130k you're still good up to 3.25k...

It isn't before. Spending $4k/month on rent when you have $100k in debt and only bring home ~$95k after taxes is a bit excessive in my opinion.

Edit: LLs and management companies usually require that in order not to have a guarantor, the monthly rent should be equal to or less than 1/40th of your before tax salary. So, a person making $160k can probably rent an apartment at $4k without a guarantor.

[paratactical]

For example, transportation costs in other cities are significantly more expensive than in NYC and you can justify spending more on housing because you'll spend less on transportation.

Um... no. Transportation costs, especially public transit, is cheaper in many cities.

[FantasticMrFox]

By that logic you can find a place at 4k a month in NYC if you're making market.

Even if you're only at 130k you're still good up to 3.25k...

It isn't before. Spending $4k/month on rent when you have $100k in debt and only bring home ~$95k after taxes is a bit excessive in my opinion.

I think he was criticizing someone else's response (saying "before")

[seriouslyinformative]

I worked with an experience broker and any landlord renting out a unit is going to check to see whether you making 40-45 times the rent, BEFORE taxes.

And no, that doesn't mean you can just go ahead and rent an apartment with $4,000 rent (which, by the way, would get you amazing apartments in NYC). You also have to factor in, on your own, the loan payments. Ideally, you should be looking to spend around $2000-$2500. Higher is pushing it, but can be done if you don't really have a models & bottles lifestyle in NYC.

[seriouslyinformative]

Guys, it's BEFORE. Now I'm not saying that paying 1/40th of your pre-tax salary is WISE. I'm just saying that that's what most landlords will check when you apply.

[Vronsky]

just jumping in on Page 16, but wanted to say this:

Look, i get it about Chicago. It's a great city, and rent is hella cheaper, while there are just as many cool things to do as in NYC. But it's hard as shit to get a job there, especially without connections. ITE, it seems like NYC is by FAR the safest option. Same goes for Boston.

What's one supposed to do? Aim for NY where QOL is debatable but COL is uniformly high, or shoot for markets like Chicago and Boston where QOL is maybe better and COL is certainly lower?

BTW, all the Dallas/Milwaukee/East Bumblefuck talk should be left out ITT. Yeah, your salary might go farther, but you live in a car-based city full of fatties and uglies, with a reputation for either strip clubs of jeffrey dahmer. furthermore, what's the point of extolling the virtues of living in Bumblefuck on $145k if I have no connections there and there aren't many firms hiring there?

tl;dr - yes new york has it's problems, but what's the alternative w/o ties?

[seriouslyinformative]

So, a person making $160k can probably rent an apartment at $4k without a guarantor.

No, fulfilling the income requirement is usually not sufficient. If you don't have an employment history of making that kind of money, and the tax filings and bank statements to show for it, they'll either still want a guarantor, more months' rent up front, or extra security deposits.

[LLKOOLK1]

Guys, it's BEFORE. Now I'm not saying that paying 1/40th of your pre-tax salary is WISE. I'm just saying that that's what most landlords will check when you apply.

Right, but I think we are discussing what is a reasonable amount to spend, not what you would need for approval from a landlord.

[alumniguy]

For example, transportation costs in other cities are significantly more expensive than in NYC and you can justify spending more on housing because you'll spend less on transportation.

Um... no. Transportation costs, especially public transit, is cheaper in many cities.

Umm, no they aren't. I never said that public transportation costs were more/less in NYC than any other city. The point I was making that if you are only spending $100 on public transportation each month, that is far less than owning a car, which you'll likely need to do in a city that one can't rely on for public transportation.

Most "budgets" include three major expenses - housing, transportation and food. If your transportation costs are significantly reduced, then you can afford to bump up what you budget for other major expenses.

[seriouslyinformative]

Owning a car in NYC is purely a game for the rich. Car alone is expensive. Gas in Manhattan is atrociously priced. And the cost of parking makes it out of the question.

[Aston2412]

I was indeed noting the logical fallacy in getting a 4k apartment on 160 a year right out of school. Now obviously if you're debt free it might be possible. But that's not the vast majority of us.

[alumniguy]

So, a person making $160k can probably rent an apartment at $4k without a guarantor.

No, fulfilling the income requirement is usually not sufficient. If you don't have an employment history of making that kind of money, and the tax filings and bank statements to show for it, they'll either still want a guarantor, more months' rent up front, or extra security deposits.

This is on a case-by-case basis though. I was turned down for an apartment that was $2500 (on my $160k salary) because I had no employment history. They wanted a guarantor making 80 times the rent. I didn't know anyone making that kind of money so I couldn't get that apartment. I ended up with an apartment that cost $2100, also without employment history and did not need to have a guarantor.

[paratactical]

For example, transportation costs in other cities are significantly more expensive than in NYC and you can justify spending more on housing because you'll spend less on transportation.

Um... no. Transportation costs, especially public transit, is cheaper in many cities.

Umm, no they aren't. I never said that public transportation costs were more/less in NYC than any other city. The point I was making that if you are only spending $100 on public transportation each month, that is far less than owning a car, which you'll likely need to do in a city that one can't rely on for public transportation.

Most "budgets" include three major expenses - housing, transportation and food. If your transportation costs are significantly reduced, then you can afford to bump up what you budget for other major expenses.

You said: "transportation costs in other cities are significanly more expensive than in NYC"
I said: "No, especially not other cities with public transit"

There are lots of other US cities where you don't need a car that charge about half what NYC does for a monthly pass. While $100/mo might be less than owning a car, NYC transportation costs are not "significantly" less expensive than all other cities.

[seriouslyinformative]

Guys, it's BEFORE. Now I'm not saying that paying 1/40th of your pre-tax salary is WISE. I'm just saying that that's what most landlords will check when you apply.

Right, but I think we are discussing what is a reasonable amount to spend, not what you would need for approval from a landlord.

Ideally, assuming a full loan debt and market salary, rent should really be no more than $2,000-$2,500 (excluding utilities). Plenty of places in Brooklyn that satisfy that. Friend just signed for a new-dev condo-like building in FiDi that cost him... $2,600. It's 700 square feet and has all the amenities and fixtures rayiner above is pining for. You can find plenty of places in the Upper West Side, Upper East Side, and East Village that will cut it. Things just really get pricey when you're looking at Chelsea, West Village, SoHo, Tribeca, etc. Those are the celebrity areas.

[LLKOOLK1]

Guys, it's BEFORE. Now I'm not saying that paying 1/40th of your pre-tax salary is WISE. I'm just saying that that's what most landlords will check when you apply.

Right, but I think we are discussing what is a reasonable amount to spend, not what you would need for approval from a landlord.

Ideally, assuming a full loan debt and market salary, rent should really be no more than $2,000-$2,500 (excluding utilities). Plenty of places in Brooklyn that satisfy that. Friend just signed for a new-dev condo-like building in FiDi that cost him... $2,600. It's 700 square feet and has all the amenities and fixtures rayiner above is pining for. You can find plenty of places in the Upper West Side, Upper East Side, and East Village that will cut it. Things just really get pricey when you're looking at Chelsea, West Village, SoHo, Tribeca, etc. Those are the celebrity areas.

Thanks, this is helpful.

[seriouslyinformative]

Guys, it's BEFORE. Now I'm not saying that paying 1/40th of your pre-tax salary is WISE. I'm just saying that that's what most landlords will check when you apply.

Right, but I think we are discussing what is a reasonable amount to spend, not what you would need for approval from a landlord.

Ideally, assuming a full loan debt and market salary, rent should really be no more than $2,000-$2,500 (excluding utilities). Plenty of places in Brooklyn that satisfy that. Friend just signed for a new-dev condo-like building in FiDi that cost him... $2,600. It's 700 square feet and has all the amenities and fixtures rayiner above is pining for. You can find plenty of places in the Upper West Side, Upper East Side, and East Village that will cut it. Things just really get pricey when you're looking at Chelsea, West Village, SoHo, Tribeca, etc. Those are the celebrity areas.

Thanks, this is helpful.

No problem. And those celebrity-areas are the areas where you are taking the "QoL hit" rayiner is referring to above. Genuinely terrible apartments in the $2,000-$2,500 range in SoHo.

Even Hell's Kitchen is fine. Plenty of new devs if that's your thing. And I mean plenty.

[alumniguy]

For example, transportation costs in other cities are significantly more expensive than in NYC and you can justify spending more on housing because you'll spend less on transportation.

Um... no. Transportation costs, especially public transit, is cheaper in many cities.

Umm, no they aren't. I never said that public transportation costs were more/less in NYC than any other city. The point I was making that if you are only spending $100 on public transportation each month, that is far less than owning a car, which you'll likely need to do in a city that one can't rely on for public transportation.

Most "budgets" include three major expenses - housing, transportation and food. If your transportation costs are significantly reduced, then you can afford to bump up what you budget for other major expenses.

You said: "transportation costs in other cities are significanly more expensive than in NYC"
I said: "No, especially not other cities with public transit"

There are lots of other US cities where you don't need a car that charge about half what NYC does for a monthly pass. While $100/mo might be less than owning a car, NYC transportation costs are not "significantly" less expensive than all other cities.

I didn't say "all other" cities. I said other cities generally. And yes, if you took a poll MOST other cities would require significantly more than $100 per month on transportation. Please don't forget insurance, car repairs, gas, etc. Are you really suggesting that isn't the case?

I think you're arguing simply to argue. This is a law school discussion board and most people here aspire to biglaw - which is found predominantly in major metropolitan areas. There are very few other cities in the U.S. where people can live without a car and there is legitimately no need for a car. Boston for example, is possible but after going to school there, almost everyone I knew had a car (not used on a daily basis, but still they owned a car). I would put Chicago/LA/San Fran in the same category as Boston. DC's public transportation is significantly more expensive than NYC. So while other cities may have less expensive monthly plans, most practicing attorneys in those cities probably still have cars.

[alumniguy]

Guys, it's BEFORE. Now I'm not saying that paying 1/40th of your pre-tax salary is WISE. I'm just saying that that's what most landlords will check when you apply.

Right, but I think we are discussing what is a reasonable amount to spend, not what you would need for approval from a landlord.

Ideally, assuming a full loan debt and market salary, rent should really be no more than $2,000-$2,500 (excluding utilities). Plenty of places in Brooklyn that satisfy that. Friend just signed for a new-dev condo-like building in FiDi that cost him... $2,600. It's 700 square feet and has all the amenities and fixtures rayiner above is pining for. You can find plenty of places in the Upper West Side, Upper East Side, and East Village that will cut it. Things just really get pricey when you're looking at Chelsea, West Village, SoHo, Tribeca, etc. Those are the celebrity areas.

Agreed that the "celebrity areas" are more expensive when comparing apples to apples; however, there are certainly decent apartments to be had for $2500 in those areas. They are going to be non-renovated, walk-ups without great views. But for many (including me), I'd rather be in a great neighborhood with just an average apartment.

[rayiner]

Pre-war buildings around here are almost uniformly shit, with a few exceptions. I don't expect sterile, but I was born in the third world and don't expect Bangkok-level sanitation for $2500/mo in the US.

Again, it's not about expectations, it's about fair comparisons. The "whining" in this thread is in response to people downplaying the serious QoL compromises you make in order to get the "vibrancy" and "diversity" of NYC. It's not just like we randomly decided to go to a Yankees game with Mets hats.

...again, this is just completely overstating it. My pre-war building I'm in is absolutely lovely, and there are plenty of pre-war buildings that have been well renovated in NYC. I find it hard to believe that the pre-war buildings are "uniformly shit."

And there's no "serious QoL" compromise. Again, I'm living in an affordable place that's considered a luxury unit. I have no rats. My building has had no bed bugs in the past 10 years (and even before that, probably, but the disclosure form that was given to me only went that far back). The floors have been completely redone. The lobby has a doorman and is adorned with lovely Italian marble. I'm happy to post pictures temporarily to give an idea here. Calling it "Bangkok level sanitation" just smacks of stupidity and an unwillingness to discuss this rationally.

I'm in a well maintained (for NY) prewar building on the UWS. It's got marble in the lobby. But that's about it. I pay $1695 to sublet a 12x12 room with a private bathroom. Except the bathroom is weird (two seperate closets, one with shower another with sink). And it's got all of the downsides of an old building: fussy plumbing, small windows, weird layouts, poor ventilation, dark common spaces, no amenities (gym, pool, etc). It doesn't have any rats, but it's not exactly clean, at least not in the way my Chicago apartment is clean (common areas professionally cleaned and polished every night). So yeah, I'm being somewhat facetious by referring to Bangkok. My point is that $160k anywhere else buys you a lot better digs (even in Bangkok people in that in that income demographic live in modern high-rises!).

NYC-ers think that caring about marble counter-tops, nice bathrooms, in-building gym/pool, etc makes one "materialistic." They don't understand that there are major QoL benefits to these things. I find cooking way more enjoyable than opera (I'd imagine more people enjoy cooking than enjoy opera). Cooking in a cramped NYC kitchen is like work --- cooking in a big well-equipped kitchen is a joy. My morning shower is some of the little "me" time I get all day, and in my pre-war building I spend it literally in a converted closet. Then I ride down the slow pre-war elevator and walk through the dark pre-war lobby, looking at the marble that needs a good power-washing, then step onto the UWS sidewalk to be greeted by a pile of trash. It's not exactly conducive to a positive morning.

[quakeroats]

Isn't it considered an operetta, in that it is all sung, not spoken, but "lighter" in subject matter and music?

I consider it crap, but similar works are usually called musicals. Wikipedia has a good piece on the difference:

The operetta is a precursor of the modern musical theatre or "musical".[9] In the early decades of the 20th century, the operetta continued to exist alongside the newer musical, with each influencing the other.

The main difference between the two genres is that most operettas can be described as light operas with acting, whereas most musicals are plays with singing. This can be seen in the performers chosen in the two forms. An operetta's cast will normally be classically-trained opera singers. A musical uses actors who sing, but usually not in an operatic style. These distinctions can be blurred: W.S. Gilbert, for example, said that he preferred to use actors who could sing for his productions, while Ezio Pinza, and other opera singers have appeared on Broadway. There are features of operetta in Kern and Hammerstein's Show Boat (1927), among others.[10]

The characters in a musical may be more complex than those in an operetta, given the generally larger amount of dialogue. For example, the characters in Lerner and Loewe's musical My Fair Lady, which is based on George Bernard Shaw's 1914 play Pygmalion, are essentially unchanged from those in Shaw's stage work, because the musical version is quite faithful to the original (except for the changed ending, which is pessimistic in the play), even to the point of retaining most of Shaw's dialogue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operetta

As for Phantom of the Opera, Andrew Lloyd Webber did an interesting bit of unacknowledged borrowing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej1zMxbhOO0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Thwwd3S9 ... be&t=2m35s

[seriouslyinformative]

Guys, it's BEFORE. Now I'm not saying that paying 1/40th of your pre-tax salary is WISE. I'm just saying that that's what most landlords will check when you apply.

Right, but I think we are discussing what is a reasonable amount to spend, not what you would need for approval from a landlord.

Ideally, assuming a full loan debt and market salary, rent should really be no more than $2,000-$2,500 (excluding utilities). Plenty of places in Brooklyn that satisfy that. Friend just signed for a new-dev condo-like building in FiDi that cost him... $2,600. It's 700 square feet and has all the amenities and fixtures rayiner above is pining for. You can find plenty of places in the Upper West Side, Upper East Side, and East Village that will cut it. Things just really get pricey when you're looking at Chelsea, West Village, SoHo, Tribeca, etc. Those are the celebrity areas.

Agreed that the "celebrity areas" are more expensive when comparing apples to apples; however, there are certainly decent apartments to be had for $2500 in those areas. They are going to be non-renovated, walk-ups without great views. But for many (including me), I'd rather be in a great neighborhood with just an average apartment.

You really think so? My dream area was SoHo. But when I was browsing around with the broker and compared the SoHo places in my price range to the other areas, I was easily getting half the space in SoHo with not nearly as many amenities and just overall terrible fixtures (none of the buildings were renovated, for example).

[rayiner]

So, a person making $160k can probably rent an apartment at $4k without a guarantor.

No, fulfilling the income requirement is usually not sufficient. If you don't have an employment history of making that kind of money, and the tax filings and bank statements to show for it, they'll either still want a guarantor, more months' rent up front, or extra security deposits.

So how do new lawyers even get an apartment rented in NYC?

[paratactical]

I didn't say "all other" cities. I said other cities generally. And yes, if you took a poll MOST other cities would require significantly more than $100 per month on transportation. Please don't forget insurance, car repairs, gas, etc. Are you really suggesting that isn't the case?

I think you're arguing simply to argue. This is a law school discussion board and most people here aspire to biglaw - which is found predominantly in major metropolitan areas. There are very few other cities in the U.S. where people can live without a car and there is legitimately no need for a car. Boston for example, is possible but after going to school there, almost everyone I knew had a car (not used on a daily basis, but still they owned a car). I would put Chicago/LA/San Fran in the same category as Boston. DC's public transportation is significantly more expensive than NYC. So while other cities may have less expensive monthly plans, most practicing attorneys in those cities probably still have cars.

You went to BC or BU didn't you?

I live in Boston. I don't have a car. I don't need a car. I occasionally zipcar, but that is a luxury expenditure and not a transportation cost.