Why do people favor NYC firms? Forum

[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.

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.

Let's not even get started on what a total cluster-fuck the rental process is in NYC.

[rayiner]

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.

Brooklyn, as described above, is a polluted sewer.

Link to the building in FiDi? Sounds perfect.

[D-hops]

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.

Yeah, I live in Chicago and have both lived there with a car and without. The thing about those cities is that you are able to live in them and have a car because parking is not cost prohibitive, but I know a ton of people that get by without a car.

[alumniguy]

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).

I do think so. I explicitly said that you wouldn't be getting anything renovated, it would be a walk-up and you wouldn't have a view. Perhaps Soho, West Village and Tribeca are a bit of a stretch, but Chelsea, Gramercy, Flatiron and Greenwich Village are all doable at that price point. You're likely looking at studios and small one-bedrooms.

[alumniguy]

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.

Yes I did. But I know several biglaw associates that I graduated with who all have cars.

[Anonymous User]

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.

I think if you're ready to pay $2,500 and are willing to live in the Upper West Side, Hell's Kitchen, FiDi, Gramercy, Upper East Side, or East Village, you will find plenty of places far superior to your current abode.

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!).

Then go live somewhere else.

NYC-ers think that caring about marble counter-tops, nice bathrooms, in-building gym/pool, etc makes one "materialistic."

I don't think you're being materialistic at all. I'm just saying that if you legitimately had other options and chose NYC, you just shouldn't be complaining. Yeah, you can complain for a bit, but it just gets old after a while, like people who rag on and on about how superior NYC is to every other place. I'm also saying that you can get all of the amenities you want, but you might have to sacrifice in commute time (or maybe not, if you look at the right time).

[dresden doll]

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?

No one is disagreeing with the idea that NYC is worth putting up with if the alternative means not getting a job elsewhere. Some of us just happen to think that the city's drawbacks outweigh its advantages.

[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.

Brooklyn, as described above, is a polluted sewer.

Link to the building in FiDi? Sounds perfect.

20 Pine is the building in FiDi. My friend signed his lease last week. Interior was done by Armani Casa.

Williamsburg in Brooklyn is glorious. I just can't stand Brooklyn because of the people who live there

Edit: 20 Pine is a condo building. But there are plenty of owners who rent out their units. Just look on StreetEasy or consult a broker.

Also, apparently 20 Pine is on top of several major subway lines, so that's a huge deal.

[alumniguy]

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.

Yeah, I live in Chicago and have both lived there with a car and without. The thing about those cities is that you are able to live in them and have a car because parking is not cost prohibitive, but I know a ton of people that get by without a car.

I wasn't even thinking about parking expenses. Just owning a car is usually way more than $100 a month. It's been a long time since I owned a car, but isn't insurance alone like $100 a month? And with gas prices at $3/4 a gallon, we are talking significantly more money.

Here is the thing about "knowing people that get by without a car." I agree you can get by without a car. But for a fair comparison, lets assume that we are comparing a biglaw associate living in NYC to a biglaw associate living in Chicago or a biglaw associate living in Boston. I would imagine a significant majority of those biglaw associates living in Chicago and Boston own a car (and probably use public transportation as well). So to get back to the original assertion, those associates living in Chicago and Boston spend more money than their NYC counterpart on transportation. Perhaps the people I know in those cities are atypical.

[paratactical]

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.

Yes I did. But I know several biglaw associates that I graduated with who all have cars.

Wait, you mean people in the higher brackets of income earners choose to have a car? WHY BY GOLLY.

[alumniguy]

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.

Yes I did. But I know several biglaw associates that I graduated with who all have cars.

Wait, you mean people in the higher brackets of income earners choose to have a car? WHY BY GOLLY.

By Golly - way to avoid the issue. Choose to have a car or not, those people are spending more on transportation than NYC dwellers - who almost universally choose not to have a car because public transportation is perfectly adequate and/or cabs are cheap.

[bk1]

I would put Chicago/LA/San Fran in the same category as Boston.

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.

You also don't need a car in SF. I think alumniguy's frame of mind i/r/t having a car (except maybe in the shithole known as LA) is similar to the one he had about all those "necessities" of being a first year associate that eat away at your salary.

Para is perfectly right that a car is luxury and that is the point.

[Holly Golightly]

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.

Yes I did. But I know several biglaw associates that I graduated with who all have cars.

Wait, you mean people in the higher brackets of income earners choose to have a car? WHY BY GOLLY.

By Golly - way to avoid the issue. Choose to have a car or not, those people are spending more on transportation than NYC dwellers - who almost universally choose not to have a car because public transportation is perfectly adequate and/or cabs are cheap.

I'm sure it is entirely based on the adequacy of public transportation and not at all related to the exorbitant cost of having a car in NYC.

[quakeroats]

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.

Yes I did. But I know several biglaw associates that I graduated with who all have cars.

Wait, you mean people in the higher brackets of income earners choose to have a car? WHY BY GOLLY.

How are things since Bulger's been back?

[rayiner]

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.

Yes I did. But I know several biglaw associates that I graduated with who all have cars.

Wait, you mean people in the higher brackets of income earners choose to have a car? WHY BY GOLLY.

By Golly - way to avoid the issue. Choose to have a car or not, those people are spending more on transportation than NYC dwellers - who almost universally choose not to have a car because public transportation is perfectly adequate and/or cabs are cheap.

Public transportation in Chicago is perfectly adequate and cabs are cheap. Heck, a lot of folks I know at K&E Chicago just walk to work. From their sweet high-rise apartments by the river. If they have a car, it's because they can (MARKET SHATTERING BONUS) not because they have to.

EDIT: Re cabs: It's actually practical to catch a cab in Chicago, unlike in NYC where the cab industry has the city government by the balls and artificially restricts supply. NYC has less than twice as many cabs as Chicago for more than three times as many people.

[D-hops]

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.

Yes I did. But I know several biglaw associates that I graduated with who all have cars.

Wait, you mean people in the higher brackets of income earners choose to have a car? WHY BY GOLLY.

I bet they also spend money on a much larger TV because they can fit into their HUGE apartments that they are getting for WAY cheaper than they could in NYC.

[Lwoods]

I wasn't even thinking about parking expenses. Just owning a car is usually way more than $100 a month. It's been a long time since I owned a car, but isn't insurance alone like $100 a month? And with gas prices at $3/4 a gallon, we are talking significantly more money.

Here is the thing about "knowing people that get by without a car." I agree you can get by without a car. But for a fair comparison, lets assume that we are comparing a biglaw associate living in NYC to a biglaw associate living in Chicago or a biglaw associate living in Boston. I would imagine a significant majority of those biglaw associates living in Chicago and Boston own a car (and probably use public transportation as well). So to get back to the original assertion, those associates living in Chicago and Boston spend more money than their NYC counterpart on transportation. Perhaps the people I know in those cities are atypical.

Insurance is not $100/month, at least not for my crappy old cars. My husband and I pay I think around $600/year total for 2 cars, so about $25/month per car.
Gas is close to $100/month, though. Then you have maintenance, which is a lot on an old car. If you have a new car, you save on maintenance but likely have a car payment or lease payment.

Since our rent in the Bronx was $600/month, my husband's and my expenses are actually much greater here in the Midwest than they were in NY.

But, maybe I just always did NY the cheapass way since I started out there as a poor college kid? I can see when you're starting out there in a professional career having different expectations because of your peer environment.

[Lwoods]

^didn't mean that to be snotty, though I guess it could be read that way.

NY isn't for everybody. We all have different tastes.

[alumniguy]

Whether a car is a necessity or a luxury, it is a transportation cost. Maybe you guys would chalk it up to a hobby cost, I'm not sure. Regardless, yet again the original statement that TRANSPORTATION COSTS IN NYC ARE LESS THAN OTHER CITIES AND THEREFORE YOU CAN SPEND MORE MONEY ON HOUSING is completely correct. I mean this is true when you compare any big city to a smaller city - be that in Boston, Chicago, San Fran, etc. You'll pay more money to be in places that allow you to enjoy urban environments without cars.

[dresden doll]

Heck, a lot of folks I know at K&E Chicago just walk to work. From their sweet high-rise apartments by the river. If they have a car, it's because they can (MARKET SHATTERING BONUS) not because they have to.

The kind of life I should have known I'd want back in a day when there was still time for me to gather my shit together.

[bk1]

Whether a car is a necessity or a luxury, it is a transportation cost. Maybe you guys would chalk it up to a hobby cost, I'm not sure. Regardless, yet again the original statement that TRANSPORTATION COSTS IN NYC ARE LESS THAN OTHER CITIES AND THEREFORE YOU CAN SPEND MORE MONEY ON HOUSING is completely correct. I mean this is true when you compare any big city to a smaller city - be that in Boston, Chicago, San Fran, etc. You'll pay more money to be in places that allow you to enjoy urban environments without cars.

wut

It isn't a cost if you don't pay it (i.e. when it is a luxury and you choose not to pay it).

[seriouslyinformative]

Public transportation in Chicago is perfectly adequate and cabs are cheap. Heck, a lot of folks I know at K&E Chicago just walk to work. From their sweet high-rise apartments by the river. If they have a car, it's because they can (MARKET SHATTERING BONUS) not because they have to.

Well, people make certain sacrifices for prestige I guess. Me? That seems like a pretty awesome option. Only problem is that I don't think I could deal with the Chicago weather, but I'm not sure if it's appreciably worse than NYC, so I might just be being irrationale.

[D-hops]

Whether a car is a necessity or a luxury, it is a transportation cost. Maybe you guys would chalk it up to a hobby cost, I'm not sure. Regardless, yet again the original statement that TRANSPORTATION COSTS IN NYC ARE LESS THAN OTHER CITIES AND THEREFORE YOU CAN SPEND MORE MONEY ON HOUSING is completely correct. I mean this is true when you compare any big city to a smaller city - be that in Boston, Chicago, San Fran, etc. You'll pay more money to be in places that allow you to enjoy urban environments without cars.

The point is that you do not need a car to enjoy the urban environment in those cities, thus transportation costs are not cheaper in NYC.

[bgdddymtty]

I just moved to Gramercy. My commute is 15 minutes tops. Studios and 1BRs are affordable on a biglaw salary, as are other areas with great commutes. Those who complain typically have sky-high demands (luxury condo-like rentals with a doorman, etc.). But my apartment is plenty fine. If you don't have unreasonably high living standards, you should be fine. And yes, expecting there to be affordable new condo-like buildings in the center of Manhattan is unreasonable. If you want to be that pampered, go to Williamsburg and stop complaining.

Nice strawman, buddy. My Gramercy 1BR is a luxury unit in a renovated pre-war building. I'm sorry if you need some sterile building.

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.

LOL.



Also,

If you can find that in a prime location in Chicago for a decent price, then go to Chicago. If you're going to live in NYC when you had these other oprions, then stop whining and deal with it. That's really what this thread has come down to: a bunch of people who are whining. I get that NYC is ridiculous, but you only make it harder for yourself when you voluntarily come to this place and fail to realign your expectations. If you want that white picket fence, you chose the wrong place.

You obviously don't get the point of the discussion. None of us are saying that there's no upside to living in NYC. We're responding to the conventional wisdom among NYC folks that NYC is TEH AWESOMEST PLACE EVAR, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is a backwater moron. As one of the pro-NYC folks said a few pages back, to each his own. It is simply a matter of fact, however, that there is a huge price to be paid for the "NYC experience." Anyone who doesn't recognize that is being willfully blind.

[paratactical]

Whether a car is a necessity or a luxury, it is a transportation cost. Maybe you guys would chalk it up to a hobby cost, I'm not sure. Regardless, yet again the original statement that TRANSPORTATION COSTS IN NYC ARE LESS THAN OTHER CITIES AND THEREFORE YOU CAN SPEND MORE MONEY ON HOUSING is completely correct. I mean this is true when you compare any big city to a smaller city - be that in Boston, Chicago, San Fran, etc. You'll pay more money to be in places that allow you to enjoy urban environments without cars.

Holy shit you're an idiot.