Cobble Hill on $350K, Revisited
Yesterday’s discussion on the difficulty (or not) of surviving in Cobble Hill on $350,000 a year resulted in the first triple-digit comment thread in quite some time. If you can overlook a little of vitriol and sarcasm, it’s actually quite an interesting debate. One of the comments that came in from a virgin commenter towards…
Yesterday’s discussion on the difficulty (or not) of surviving in Cobble Hill on $350,000 a year resulted in the first triple-digit comment thread in quite some time. If you can overlook a little of vitriol and sarcasm, it’s actually quite an interesting debate. One of the comments that came in from a virgin commenter towards the end of the day was particularly worth highlighting, we thought:
Okay folks. I am a bonafide one-percenter and for 2011 I made something like what our subject makes, though for me, it is more of a low point, than a norm. I am used to making somewhat more. But I can attest to the fact that, after Fed/State/City taxes, after FICA, insurance, 401K contributions, etc, that take home would be around $200,000. I can also confirm that, while it is certainly not an amount to be sneezed at, that for me and my household, it represents a certain amount of belt-tightening, actually a lot of belt-tightening, and no, we really don’t feel like we live high on the hog. Our lifestyle is not all that different from many of our non-NYC friends making substantially less.
I am (unlike the subject) a Park Slope brownstone owner, but I got in several years ago, and rolled the equity from a co-op sale into the down-payment and reno costs. Still there’s the big mortgage. And then it costs a lot to insure and heat an antique home. And then there’s the fact that I work just about 24/7 and can’t do a lot of stuff myself, so we have to hire people to repair, clean and maintain the place.
Here’s the basic problem with my pal’s situation…
…He ramped up his lifestyle far too quickly, with the expectation that his income was going to grow to match the life to which he (and by default his family) have become accustomed. A lot of people made that assumption pre-2007. He got caught in a “squeeze” as we like to say in the business. He zigged, when he should have zagged. It’s understandable to the extent that him, and many like him took it for granted that trees grow to the sky. Let he or she among us who is truly without sin cast the first stone.
I’m old enough now (but not very old) to have seen a couple of cycles on the street. I learned a long time ago that the high income also comes with what we call “income volatility”. Our pay is geared. Which is to say, when it’s good, it’s f-in good. And when it’s bad, it can get pretty nasty. So I learned a log time ago (with the help of my trusty mate and fiscal auditor) to live somewhat below my means, and actually bank some of that loot.
Ft Greene Corey – thanks you’ve made the point (not yours – mine) You define B-A-L-L-I-N as:
“wow if I was making $250K I’d be B-A-L-L-I-N!!” I would live in Dumbo, I would buy a car, I would go to Miami every MLK weekend and Presidents day weekend, I would do a summer share in the Hamptons….”
Guess what THAT IS (more or less) how this guy Schiff IS living….and he is still bitching. Thats what is so ridiculous
“Here’s your typical Park Slope owner. Ponzied up just like the overwhelming majority.”
BHO your comment makes it sound like second or more time home buyers in brownstone brooklyn did something wrong or unethical. The truth is that for almost the entire time of this republic middle class and higher people tended to buy up or improve their housing as they moved through their peak earning (and family) years.
The recent runup in prices in NYC generally does not benefit 2nd time home buyers – at best it allows them to stay flat (since the cost of their 2nd purchase will have appreciated at least as much as the home they are selling) – and in many cases, these buyers would have been better off with flat prices, since their incomes would have appreciated more than the housing.
“Here’s your typical Park Slope owner. Ponzied up just like the overwhelming majority.”
BHO your comment makes it sound like second or more time home buyers in brownstone brooklyn did something wrong or unethical. The truth is that for almost the entire time of this republic middle class and higher people tended to buy up or improve their housing as they moved through their peak earning (and family) years.
The recent runup in prices in NYC generally does not benefit 2nd time home buyers – at best it allows them to stay flat (since the cost of their 2nd purchase will have appreciated at least as much as the home they are selling) – and in many cases, these buyers would have been better off with flat prices, since their incomes would have appreciated more than the housing.
well said Mattbrooklyn – It is that people only look up that causes them perpetual consternation (especially since so many people are pretending to be wealthier than they are anyway). Unfortunately so much about peoples self-perception (especially about success) is made solely on a competitive basis rather than an objective one.
But I will say, one of the reasons that I think this particular story (Schiff’s) seems to have gotten so much attention (besides the ridiculous of whining about 350k) , is that his ‘struggle’ (which as you so accurately point out – totally isn’t), shouldn’t be. If he wasn’t a short-term thinking idiot, he could have everything he CURRENTLY aspires too. [ignoring your point that he will never satisfy his economic aspirations because of his view of life]
There is always someone better looking than you
There is always someone smarter than you
and there is always someone richer than you.
Once you accept those truths – figure out a way to be happy
well said Mattbrooklyn – It is that people only look up that causes them perpetual consternation (especially since so many people are pretending to be wealthier than they are anyway). Unfortunately so much about peoples self-perception (especially about success) is made solely on a competitive basis rather than an objective one.
But I will say, one of the reasons that I think this particular story (Schiff’s) seems to have gotten so much attention (besides the ridiculous of whining about 350k) , is that his ‘struggle’ (which as you so accurately point out – totally isn’t), shouldn’t be. If he wasn’t a short-term thinking idiot, he could have everything he CURRENTLY aspires too. [ignoring your point that he will never satisfy his economic aspirations because of his view of life]
There is always someone better looking than you
There is always someone smarter than you
and there is always someone richer than you.
Once you accept those truths – figure out a way to be happy
Neanderthal
Hope you get anal cancer
I dont know what ‘ballin’ means to you – but Schiff’s lifestyle is ‘ballin’ to most – a 1200 sq ft duplex apartment in a fancy NYC neighborhood, a vacation home in Ct for 4 (or 1) mo every year, private school for the kids, a funded 401k – presumably decent amount of eating out, and I guarantee at least 1 reasonably late model car.
That’s ‘ballin’ in this man’s NYC. And frankly its essentially how you defined ‘ballin’ too – I just left out most of the colorful descriptions.
But if you complain in a well-distributed article, don’t be surprised if people are offended. I know plenty of people who wish they had ANY money to put in a retirement plan, or pay an insurance premium (which is far more costly when you don’t have plan through your employer), or pay their FICA (also more if you are self-employed), or manage to meet their basic and truly modest living expenses. I’m not saying that this guy is horrible but just that considering the very difficult economic times we have been going through some dude who has a very well-paying job at his brother’s firm starts claiming that it is tough if your kids have to go to public school or you have to do dishes comes off as whiny. Savings, retirement plans, investment…these things also separate the truly struggling from those who who simply “want stuff they can’t have”.