More of New York City's middle-class tenants, their jobs gone, are falling behind on rent,

Hello! Is this surprising? These people were irresponsible and over-extended themselves if they dont even have 3-6months of rent payments saved. People need to grow up and start saving for a rainy day.

people need to have an income that is sufficient to cover reasonable fixed costs. then they might be able to save. iamlooking, do you know how few people have even one month savings to cover fixed costs?

That's the problem. Too many people paying more than 1/2 their income in rent. Rents have to come further down.

AR, i am talking about when the times were good these people needed to save by cutting out ALL non-essential spending. I know plenty of people in this boat, who would not skip their 4$ lattes, or going out, but still had over 20K in credit card debt. People are not willing to make the sacrifices. And now that the going is bad, they are in deep shit.

if you have no money for non-essential things when times are good, then i'd posit they really weren't so good after all.

that's the problem. people were told that times were good, they should be doing fine. they didn't buy it entirely, but people are optimists generally, and they made some unwise decisions.

the other problem is that HUGE numbers of people are in "deep shit," as you put it. which means our economy, and our RE market, is in deep shit as well.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. If everyone saved at a very high rate (think Japan, Taiwan, Singapore), it makes certain services and products more expensive because people have more to spend. On a very selfish note, the fact that people save very little benefits us, the people who save much more.

My cash is more valuable because everyone else fritters it away.

nyc10023, i have one eye that is a bit near-sighted.

our whole economic system has been functioning under the assumption that we would never save.

Yes. Just pointing out that if everyone saved, my savings rate would have to ratchet up as well. I don't know if people can be educated to save. The American mentality is to spend, spend, spend. I remember when I had my first job, I diverted part of my salary to savings so I could not have easy access to it. When I was a student, I took out X amount from bank every week and it had to last me all week. One of the best lessons my painfully frugal father taught me when it came to big-ticket items. Delay, delay, delay the decision - if you still want it in 6 months or a year, then buy it.

very true nyc10023, AR, our whole system is set up to get people to spend without thinking about tomorrow. This includes buying the over-inflated manhattan real estate.

Right, but in places where people save a lot, RE prices are super-high because they bear even less relation to the average prof. salaries. RE values then are correlated to how much accumulated wealth families have to buy RE. I complain about the savings rate here, but a little hypocritically as I benefit so much from everyone else saving so little.

I had 2 free months when I moved in, up front. So my first rent check was due, I didn't pay. Just curious about the notices I'll get. I've never done this before.

10023, Japan's real estate issue makes NYC's look like cotton candy. I save too. But I'm cheap (or am I frugal?) Cash is a beautiful thing at this moment.

Some people do save. They have lovely portfolios. Most Americans don't have portfolios, they have 401ks and homes and, hopefully, a savings account and not a credit card for rough patches.

Yep. John Steinbeck was a paranoid revisionist: The real title should have been "The Grapes of Wrath: They Should HAve Saved More Grapes"

The worry is our cash may not be worth much in the future. There are gold bugs out there, but I'm not convinced that gold is the place to be. Sadly, it's difficult for foreigners to accumulate renminbi.

nyc10023, you're funny.

the chinese have been on a tear buying up gold (of course they also bought a ton of US equities during the run up, so maybe they are not the ones to follow). interesting times, indeed.

Given all the recent government spending, I'm a bit worried about inflation in the future. For now unemployment and other factors will curtail inflation, but in the not too distant future isn't it a real threat?

"That's the problem. Too many people paying more than 1/2 their income in rent. Rents have to come further down."

Or do they? Part of the problem is that SO many young people move to NYC and insist against all reason and common sense that they MUST live in "prime" Manhattan, even if it well beyond their means, and fall further and further behind. This rather than "slum" and live in say Astoria, Hoboken, or Harlem...and even when they do live in low rent areas, they spend WAAAAAY more than they should on eating out, bar-hopping, etc. This describes 9/10 people I know under 40 in NYC. People who can afford 1k a month live in a place that cost 2k. People who could afford 2k pay 3k. Etc.

Of course there are genuinely poor families, but so many who "can't afford" NYC rents REALLY can't afford Chelsea or Tribeca rents.

what about all of the people who could afford it and now have lost their jobs?

jason, the test is to compare median income to median rent. NYC fails the test, and the grade has been going down.

When RE prices skyrocketed in NY, people usually had three choices (1)stick it out and pay the increases (2)move to cheaper neighborhoods (3)leave the city. Only problem was that most people actually stuck with choice 1. Why? Simply, there were no cheaper alternatives. The "hood" became gentrified & commuting has become expensive. It was more actually more economical to stay and pay then move.

The other part you guys have to realize is just how many months people have been out of work. The collapse of Lehman/Merrill/BearS was in September. That was EIGHT MONTHS AGO. If the ideal is to have 6mo-1yr saved, then some of these people have run out of money or are about to. People are still losing their jobs - or if they haven't lost their jobs, then they haven't gotten raises/bonuses or had their pay cut. Yet the cost of living keeps increasing. So many are going to fall behind.

I don't know, Jason, I think I would disagree with you. In my late-20s-to-late-30s circle, rent is pretty much a solid 20-25% of their income. I know a few people who started out higher than that, with the expectation that they would grow into the apartment, and it worked for them. It's difficult to find a landlord that will allow you to go outside the 40 or 45 times the rent ratio. I do see people cramming into tiny, tiny spaces to be in Manhattan, but not as much now that we're getting older.

But, don't you know... all these renters are actually sideline buyers just waiting to get in!

ladyjay, exactly. we're not just losing jobs, we're not creating them as well. the U6 is out of control.

a_g, wage and benefit cuts, systemically, almost never happens. it is incredibly deflationary. right now it is prudent to worry about both deflation and inflation. the former would be worse. the latter will probably come, but hopefully not in the near term. i would personally welcome a rise in interest rates, but it would kill many people (and the financial industry), so the Fed will do everything in its increasingly complex bag of tricks to avoid that. for how long they'll be successful, who knows. but right now deflation is enemy number 1.

"Or do they? Part of the problem is that SO many young people move to NYC and insist against all reason and common sense that they MUST live in "prime" Manhattan, even if it well beyond their means, and fall further and further behind. This rather than "slum" and live in say Astoria, Hoboken, or Harlem...and even when they do live in low rent areas, they spend WAAAAAY more than they should on eating out, bar-hopping, etc. This describes 9/10 people I know under 40 in NYC. People who can afford 1k a month live in a place that cost 2k. People who could afford 2k pay 3k. Etc."

And they put this all on their... what, credit cards?
That gravy train is over...

So, of course rents will continue to come down as these folks get evicted and their landlords don't take american express.

"So, of course rents will continue to come down as these folks get evicted and their landlords don't take american express."

the discretionary income of landlords and the possible FC of those that bought taking for granted high rental income is a given. not that i don't welcome it. what annoys me is why the f*k the gov gives gravy to overextended homeowners but doesn't help priced out renters? the formula that puts mtg payments below 30% to homeowners that bought more that they could afford is not fair when you see how many in nyc have to spend 50% in rent.

admin, my guess is that people always have the option to move to a cheaper rental once their lease is over.

i don't agree. i think that it happens cause renters don't organize themselves. 30% of the usa population rents, yet they have no lobby to fight for them as supposed to homeowners having several powerful lobbies that have their incentives aligned with them.

Admin, I agree with you that many renters get left out in the cold..

but do not pretend that renters as a class are not represented.

They are. HUGELY so.

Ever hear of rent stabilization? The program we have where landlords and other renters SUBSIDIZE renters?

The rent lobby chose to help poor renters and screw middle class renters. They are there, and they are powerful, they just happen to want to help the poorest, and the folks with the best deals.

move to a cheaper rental...where...I do see things changing and rents are lower...also there are more vacant apartments which will help in negotiating even lower prices.

"And they put this all on their... what, credit cards?
That gravy train is over...

So, of course rents will continue to come down as these folks get evicted and their landlords don't take american express."

Speaking as a young person who does not spend more than she makes (but I have friends who do) - I would say most of the people I know in this overspending boat either called mommy and daddy or moved to cheaper areas where they probably should have been in the first place. That said, rents need to come down for young people too. Many industries expect 12-16 hour days and are located in "prime" areas. If you have to add a 45 minute commute to that your day become impossible. There should be apartments available at reasonable prices close enough to prime areas (not necessarily in them, but close).

Of course cutting down on going to bars every night doesn't hurt either.

right in target julia, the lower limit on rental range is too high according to incomes. nyc10022, the lucky ones are represented at the local level. i'm talking about having more leverage in DC, it's 30% of the USA population, more than the AARP for god sakes.

but money makes the world go round---who is going to fund lobbying for renters?

You know, what I found interesting was the articles definition of middle class. I don't disagree with it, I just think that if someone such as the guy behind on the $5500 rent qualifies as middle class, well, assuming his income is 45 times the rent, that's $247,500 annual income, which is very near Obama's definition of rich ($250k).

"article's" Oops.

neurosiren,if you're working 12-16 hours a day, you might need the bars.

evnyc, their was a great article about this a couple of years ago. why all the upper-middle-class new yorkers felt like paupers.

"Speaking as a young person who does not spend more than she makes (but I have friends who do) - I would say most of the people I know in this overspending boat either called mommy and daddy or moved to cheaper areas where they probably should have been in the first place."

So, the mommies and daddies who lost half their stock portfolios are going to subsidize at the same level?

We're running out of rationalizations here.

"there" oops.

true cc, i'm not sure how it would work. maybe funding is part of the reason why it doesn't exist.

what surprises me is that with so many people being actual victims (although not recognized as such by the government) of the bubble (renters, priced out first time buyers), there seems to me to be no resistance to have their tax money used to try to re inflate home prices. which is pretty much a double stabbing. don't they see that happening or they just don't care or they don't have a proper avenue to complain (besides a website here and there like angry renter)?

the lack of recognition of the pain the bubble inflicted on that groups (renters, priced out, ...) is very surprising to me.

but i don't have any doubt that politicians will finally pay attention towards renters when they are a big source of decreasing home prices ahead (REOs driven by high vacancy rates and lower than expected rents).

admin, i'm not even sure the money went to bail out homeowners in need. the re-fi boom only helped selected subsets of distressed owners. most of those who received the benefit were likely current on their mortgages and took advantage to have more money monthly. as an added bonus, banks collected huge fees for the refis.

foreclosures are still heading higher and higher. nothing has been done, from the financial world perspective, to help virtually anyone other than the financial industry. and yes, I think people are getting mad, but mostly they're afraid or trying to deny that it will have any impact on themselves. until it does, of course. soon it will be obvious, the unemployment rate at 10% will be scary, but by then the money will have already been diverted. gee, i was feeling kind of optimistic this morning.

>>A woman found herself dipping into a 401(k) to keep her $3,375 unit in Peter Cooper Village after her husband was laid off in February from his six-figure marketing job.<<

Where else but in NYC would a guy making six figures in a marketing job and renting a $3400 apartment be considered 'middle class'? I mean, come on.

"Speaking as a young person who does not spend more than she makes (but I have friends who do)"

neurosiren, this was exactly my point. You think its ok to spend what you make, but you should be saving some, just in case ..

http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2009/02/its_tough_out_t.php

123k in nyc is equivalent to 50k in houston. you need to adjust for cost of living to make "middle-class" judgments. in san francisco a 6 figure job can be middle class too.

"Where else but in NYC would a guy making six figures in a marketing job and renting a $3400 apartment be considered 'middle class'? I mean, come on."

someone making 100k with a family living in manhattan is probably lower middle class.

Being in the middle within a rich city d(and having an income in the top few percent) oes not make one "middle-class" in this country.

iamlooking, i agree. but for most, because of this bubble, that would be a sad life of ramen and water. it's easy to call people imprudent, but considering that so many people fell into that category, it seems a bit smug to say you should have seen this coming and prepared when the powers that be failed to do so themselves, spectacularly.

"neurosiren, this was exactly my point. You think its ok to spend what you make, but you should be saving some, just in case .."

I do save as do several of my friends. However, with increasing costs for the subway, the insane cost of living in this city (and I'm speaking of buying groceries, not clubbing or pubbing), it is very difficult.

Also to the point above - making 100K a year is many many years away for me and for most people my age, and even then, it's difficult to have a family with a decent apartment. Though there are some very wealthy people in this city, the average salary here is completely out of proportion with the cost of living. As I mentioned, new yorkers especially are expected to work long hours and commuting (esp with the MTA as it is now) is draining if you live too far from your job, and can cost you points in health and well-being. People have to make tough choices because there is so little regulation on housing costs. It shouldn't have to be this way. Rents need to fall into a place where people are not expected to spend most of their income on living expenses just to survive in the city.

it is difficult, if not impossible, for many to save. iamlooking, if you would like a thoughtful analysis on the issue, i posted on the important economic links (early in the thread, do a search for Warren) a video that outlines these issues in explicit detail. it's a bit long, but it becomes quite fascinating, almost hypnotic, as you watch the explanation of the American train wreck.

on a lighter (ironic, maybe?) note, msn is reporting that Gen Y might not be able to retire because they are saving too much and not investing more. which is it? spendthrift or miser? you think the media likes to pump up the market any?

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/why-gen-y-might-never-retire.aspx

> Though there are some very wealthy people in this city, the average salary here is completely out of
> proportion with the cost of living.

Absolutely.... which is what Shiller based his model on that showed priced nationwide would be cut in half (and he did this before the crash began).

Prices are declining, and will continue to decline.

that's why so many people start their careers here, save and leave for good. maybe come to visit, but that's it. consider that even if you are in the low-middle class level (earning less than 100k) if you are able/capable of saving you can save way much more $ and more quickly than if you are living in a place with low salaries & low cost of living. so it's not a bad plan to work hard for few years, save as much as possible and move on.

Sorry, but no one is entitled to live here. No one owes you an affordable place to live. If you want the convenience of living in NYC (and please don't whine about your 'draining' intra-city commute--try schlepping in from Long Island or Westchester every day) then you've gotta be able to pay for it, period. If you cannot afford to 'survive' in this city, then you have the option to move elsewhere.

> Sorry, but no one is entitled to live here.

Except people with rent stabilized apartments, of course...

Yeah. Rent stabilization laws could use an overhaul.

squid, if everyone who couldn't afford to live in the city left, the majority of the landlords would go under. just envision what would happen if RS were eliminated in the near term. it's more nuanced than pack up and leave if the going gets tough.

Squid, this city really would be screwed if all the people in 35-60k a year jobs left because they couldn't afford it. And we're not talking ditch-digger jobs either...lots of people with more than one MA sitting in low paying jobs throughout NYC. A city for the rich can't survive if there is no one there to serve them.

"Sorry, but no one is entitled to live here. No one owes you an affordable place to live. If you want the convenience of living in NYC (and please don't whine about your 'draining' intra-city commute--try schlepping in from Long Island or Westchester every day) then you've gotta be able to pay for it, period. If you cannot afford to 'survive' in this city, then you have the option to move elsewhere."

I disagree. People don't all need to live in Tribeca lofts or 5th Avenue apartments -sure, but to be priced out of most areas within the city in decently commutable distance? That's unreasonable. Also, a lot of people (esp people between 22 and 35) have jobs that require them to be "on call" and have to be within 30 minutes of their office in case of emergencies. This makes Westchester and Long Island out of the question - not to mention those areas require different expenses such as cars and commuter rail costs in addition to the subway.

"what about all of the people who could afford it and now have lost their jobs?"

If losing your job meant you couldn't afford the rent the very next month, you couldn't afford the apartment in the first place. Like the guy in TriBeCa with the $5700/month rent. I'm sorry, I don't care how "rich" you are, no one "needs" a $5700/month apartment. And anyone who can truly afford a $5700/month apartment should easily have $50K parked in a savings account.

"squid, if everyone who couldn't afford to live in the city left, the majority of the landlords would go under. just envision what would happen if RS were eliminated in the near term. it's more nuanced than pack up and leave if the going gets tough."

Yes, because when rents start to decline, the amount of folks who CAN afford increases.

Given how much RS there is and how severe some of the discounts are, landlords would easily do better in the long run. Market rates would come down, of course, but that would be nothing compared to freeing up hundreds of thousands of apartments to finally cover their costs.

Some landlords would get hurt, but overall, it would be a boon to landlords.

10022, not right now it wouldn't be. they can't even fill what they have with this population demand. the dislocations would be enormous.

Look, there are plenty of affordable places in Manhattan and the outer boroughs. But people whine that they're too small, or too dark or not in choice areas.

The point is, yeah--when you're first establishing your career (as we all have had to do) you may need to stand on your head for a few years. If you have to be 'on call' and at the office within 30 minutes, then you find yourself a cheap walk-up over a Chinese food joint in the neighborhood that allows you to get to work quickly. And you budget your income so you are able to save to eventually move into a better place.

Neuro, you mentioned previously you don't spend more than you make but you have friends who do. Well, you're in the intelligent minority here (and if my guess is correct and you're a doctor, you'll out-earn all of us soon enough). It's the folks who overspend and over-leverage who wind up crying foul when they realize they're in too deep and can't find a way out. And sorry, but they really don't deserve much sympathy.

squid, i mostly agree with you, but just curious, how old are you and when did you buy in nyc if you did?

"10022, not right now it wouldn't be. they can't even fill what they have with this population demand. the dislocations would be enormous."

I disagree.

Even in this market, it won't be hard to find $1k tenants for the formerly $250 or $500 apartments.... hell, the old tenants themselves will be part of that group.

If nothing else, think of it this way, say there is no more RS tomorrow. If all the landlords do is ask for $100 more each month from the folks paying under market who they think can afford it, they've already made out substantially... when the leasese come due, of course.

You can't leave out the folks who are paying under market but can and will afford more. If nothing else changes, there is more to be had out of them.

Neurosiren, while I philosophically disagree with rent control and rent stabilization, one way we can address the issue of skyrocketing rents is to correct one of the problems that's feeding it: multiple roommates. As I posted in another thread, a family looking for a two-bedroom apartment with a household income of "only" $150K (who could comfortably afford $2500/month) can't possibly compete with, say, FOUR recent MBA grads willing to pool their resources into a $400K "household income".

lets remember that's a hypothetical that you just made up.

>>A woman found herself dipping into a 401(k) to keep her $3,375 unit in Peter Cooper Village after her husband was laid off in February from his six-figure marketing job.<<

How come these people have no savings? Granted a six-figure income might not be a lot but then you shouldn't rent for $3,000 if you can't save on top of that. If I lose my job tomorrow, I still would be able to live a couple of years.

just to make sure we're comparing apples to apples, can we assume that your income is at the very least high six figures? without revealing anything personal, perhaps you can tell us, what percent of your after tax income is required to meet your monthly nut?

>>squid, i mostly agree with you, but just curious, how old are you and when did you buy in nyc if you did?<<

Late 30s (let's round it to 40), bought small studio just after college around 1990.

Actually, Columbia, it's not a hypothetical. I personally know of this very situation in an apartment on the Upper East Side.

cc, you won't even tell my what your do professionally. I will not disclose my income. My point is if you make low six figures, it's probably not so much bonus driven but salaried. That means you know exactly what you make. This family should have rented cheaper and put some money aside. They don't need to live in Manhattan if it means they can't save.

And one doesn't need a "high six figure" income (over $600K/year) to have at least 24 months' worth of living expenses in the bank.

i positively love it when rich people lecture those less fortunate about how to live. its a hell of a lot easier to put money away when you're bringing in more in the first place. How many $4 lattes do you have to cut out to save $1,000 per month?

Columbia, please define "rich", so we're all on the same page here.

over $5 million net worth or current income over $1 million or reasonable approximation of both, ie net worth of $3 million, current income $800 K.

10022, agree to disagree.

47% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck (Harpers, 04/09). To say it's entirely their fault is not particularly kind.

So you know for a fact that Carnegie is in that category?

cc, don't start this class fight again. I am not 'rich'. If someone with a six figure salary can't save, he/she is spending too much. We are not talking about someone who makes $40K a year. I do agree with you that it makes saving impossible. I do however have friends with low six figure incomes and they live (and save) very well. Only difference: they live in Queens/Brooklyn etc.

Aboutready -- I'd be interested to know how much of those paychecks of the 47% living on the edge are going to non-essentials like monthly video game access, cell phones, and premium cable television.

what if you make a home, have children, send them to school? at first you can save, but over time things keep slipping backward instead of forward? can you so cavalierly state that you wouldn't try (particularly if you are an optimist who thinks that the relatively high income that you earn should be sufficient, or that you'll be progressing soon) to keep that home? maybe so that the child can see his/her parents once in awhile?

NYCMatt, I refuse to have this discussion with anyone who has not watched the Elizabeth Warren speech at Berkeley. I linked to it in the important economic news thread. Search for Warren.

can we agree that "six figures" includes a huge range? you stated above that you have the ability to live for a couple of years with no income. i congratulate you on that and hope you realize that you represent a very small minority of working people in this city---particularly given the extensive decline in the equity markets. the implication in your statement is that people in general have the financial ability to save that kind of money if they simply didn't spend so much---i think you need to be at least in middle six figures particularly if you have kids and for a number of years in order to achieve that.

Honestly, I agree with those people who say that no matter how much you make, you have to save. Saving has to be a deliberate action, not an afterthought.

boo, people CAN'T save. there is no room too, for most people. most people have been going negative, due to fixed costs, not discretionary costs.

agreed...but there is a base number that it costs to live...until you make more than that base, how the hell are you going to save. i would echo AR's comment from above...watch the elizabeth warren lecture and make up your own mind as to what has really been going on.

i was frankly shocked.

aboutready, thanks for leading me to that article on Elizabeth Warren. I think I have a new hero. :) "The Two-Income Trap" should be America's new economic Bible.

BTW ... what Elizabeth Warren "video"?? I managed to find only an article.

the article is great, Matt, but check out the video I also posted. It is shockingly good.

I'll repost. It really does belong here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

Thank you!!!

let us know your thoughts afterwards.

Just watched the lecture.

WOW.

I read her book a few years ago, so I was already familiar with much of the information -- but what a powerful presentation. I've just forwarded the link to a bunch of family and friends. I also worry about the demise of America's Middle Class, and what it means for the future of our nation.

aboutready - I am familiar with Elizabeth Warren's work (lectures, some articles, have not yet read the two-income-trap)- and I don't disagree with her conclusions for the majority of the middle class and lower middle class across the country - I was referring to anybody who lives AND works in Manahattan, which is what I thought this discussion was about, whom I separate from the majority of the country because there ARE viable, affordable alternatives outside of Manhattan proper. Apologies for being unclear.

ar, do you have an off-streeteasy contact? I understand if you don't want to share it, but I find your advice and commentary to be very level-headed and sound, and would love to send an email to you about something, if you have the time.

(Also, apologies if this gets posted a bajillion times, this is the 4th time I'm trying to post this)

This thread has my name written all over it. I lost my job but have savings to last me 2 years. I'm currently paying 1600 in rent with lease coming up while I study and apply to grad school. I want to stay in the city, but don't know what I should do for my living situation. Can I renegotiate a lower rent if I no longer can show proof of income? My landlord is a no fee mgmt co. that manages multiple units and I've noticed other units are available for cheaper. If I were to ask to switch units, will I need to give proof of employment again, or is better if I just pretend I'm still employed? Help!

Player, you might be able to swing yourself a great deal if you're willing to lay out the cash for an entire year up-front.

booyakasha, I've just been there recently (a few years ago) myself. things should have been very doable, then they weren't. Saw health care premiums rise from $400 to $1700 per month. Saw real estate taxes double. Saw price of private school almost double in eight years. Those types of increases are hard to plan for. I am very frugal so we sold and now live in Peter Cooper, but I could have done so much worse with some bad luck. Now we're fine, but according to many here I should have packed it up and put my daughter in a public middle school in queens.

i'd be happy to hear from you. aboutreadyse. @gmail.com.

"Elizabeth Warren's work (lectures, some articles, have not yet read the two-income-trap)"

i read it and found it very complacent. she tries to make a case that good parents HAVE to overextend themselves as they HAVE to buy the last big SUV for safety reasons and they need to buy the house in the best district to get the best education possible for their kids, bla bla bla

sorry, but don't buy it. sounds just nuts to me, to put your family at risk of financial trouble and justify it in the name of "i want the best for my kids"...

admin ... there's much more to her data than that.

sure nyc, i've read some papers of her and weren't as bad. in the book, which is targeted towards those middle income people themselves, i could sense that complacency with 2 of the most expensive consumption decisions: housing and cars (why they buy new and change cars much more frequently than really needed).

AR: About private school tuition. Approx. 20 years ago, private school administrators around the world (not just NYC) woke up to the fact that they had a product that people would pay through the nose for, and keep paying. We always have this discussion with the head of my partner's prep school - why has tuition risen disproportionately to inflation? He never gives a straight answer, but the answer is obvious in the armed race between top private schools for the most tech. adv. campus, stunning health/gym facilities, very healthy pay packages for top administrators (Brearley head makes over 300k year, for example). None of these things enhance teaching or the learning experience of the child... But the race goes on.

and the race went right through our paycheck. but we had to decide whether to keep on paying for a school we love that loves our child and our child loves as well, or move and put her in public. then I would have had the problem you know all too well, middle school. we wound up choosing to exchange the Chelsea loft for the Peter Cooper apartment. and kept private school. not horrible compared to what many have, but it felt like a bit of a defeat at the time.