Middle Class in NYC

Privately if you prefer.

I don't think of it as blowing it. I think two people can live in Manhattan and spend the $150k a piece. Hell the landlords are looking for 50x rent in income. At $5,000/mo they are basically talking about the same thing. They got that figure from somewhere. I am away from my home network hard drive where the budget is. Now I am curious myself. I know there is $1500 for each of us per month unaccounted as miscellaneous. And I don't think we actually hit the $15000 most month.

"Rhino: think you hit it on the nose. Until two non-finance professionals making 300-500k combined income can afford a family-size apartment to raise two children (thinking 1mm classic six in better neighborhoods), this city continues to have less "soul" than it should and could."

I am not talking about soul at this particular time. I am talking about what might be necessary on the asking prices ultimately to balance the market if finance returns to the normal of previous decades.

AH: I don't relish the thought of the NYC middle school process for my kids. But having experienced both extremes myself (extremely gilt-edged private school world and "ghetto" no white MC class person would touch with a barge pole HS), I am dubious as to how bad it can be for my kids to go to a "bad" MS if we spend enough time uneducating them at home.

Rhino: I'm a Quicken maniac. It hurts so good to see where all the pennies go. Sorry, you are "blowing" it if you are spending 300k gross. Not that there's anything wrong with that, we are not much better ourselves (cell phone bill $600+ last month). Aside from the fact that family-sized apts are out of whack with even traditionally UMC salaries, you have to admit that there is something crazy about our larger society that so many of us wouldn't blink at $$$ cell phone bills that would support an entire family of 4 in India for a year.

ah, salk is appropriate for some students, but definitely not mine. the writers middle school in chelsea might work, but i haven't looked into the details for most of the schools recently, as i haven't had to.

i spent some time 9 or so years doing a fairly exhaustive study of them, when we were considering ps234. 10023, we have the same dichotomy here, husband went to top private school, i went to drug-infested public. was just remarking on something lizyank wrote, the decision isn't as easy as deciding to go public and finding a good school district, is all i was saying.

i do something similar to your lack-of-spending exercise, also as a challenge. i'll allot the family a certain amount to spend for the week, and it won't be much, and that's it. makes the youngest member of the household a bit cranky, but it's good for her.

oh my, i need to read this thread. 10023 - $600+ for cell phones? yikes! I couldn't stomach wasting $100/month on cell phones we rarely used. Now we have pay-as-you-go basics averaging $25 every couple of months. Hubby's bb is thru work and i could care less about "staying connected" when out of the house. definitely need to read this thread.

Yep, I'm not tight when it comes to being connected. My partner has an infuriating desire to surf the web with his iphone when out of the country (hence the $600 bill).

I agree with this...

"Middle class to me means certainly no private school. One can find a basic 1200 sq ft 2-3 bed room apt on the UES for $1mm (no marble bath, high ceilings, fancy views, no designer furniture, Hermes bags, and high-end designer clothing as we are talking middle class). I think that is affordable at $250-300K household income for a family of 4."

You guys are are out of wack. Indoor parking?

I know families of 4 living in an 800 square foot 1 bedroom in GV sending their kids to PS41. They are happy. Loft spaces, etc. make it work for them. I'm a family of 4 living in a 1100 sq ft 2 bed. Across the hall is a family with 3 kids in a 1100 square foot going to public school. This is a great city. Nothing else like it. You live in the city, not your apartment. That's why these folks make do.

Oh good to hear its just the science focus (I think). I have young relatives at Salk, and I'd hate to think they're learning the criminal arts. Or, more likely, teaching them.

Nyc10023, our cell bills are about $100 each per month. I just evaluate expenses on a case by case basis. By some quirky rules of bonus amortization, I decided this is roughly where we should be. I don't know what your opinion is in order of magnitude of how much we are blowing. Our big $3000/mo miscellaneous line each month doesn't get spent often times. I am sure the argument can be made my wife overdoes it on 92Y baby classes...Neither of us is crazy about clothes spending. This is the first year I have attempted to do this. The reality may be closer to $12-13k/mo...which is closer to a $250k pre-tax income. The obvious cut we could make is spend $4000 on rent vs. $5000.

"You live in the city, not your apartment." ... I want this in needlepoint on a throw pillow.

our cell phone bill for our trip to Europe was over $2000. most of that was business-related, but now i've got to get the husband to go through the charges.

remember the good old days when utilities, including phone, were a couple of hundred dollars monthly at most? i'm dating myself, but i remember them being about $50/person in a share, gas, electric, phone and cable.

UWSer people make due if they want to. Living with two kids in an 800 sqft one-bed...not something I would do. If we had another girl, maybe they'd share rooms....and if it came down to living here (1200 sqft) it would be conceivable. I think 1500 would be more like it. 1200/1500 is my bracket for space. Yes whatever makes people happy, though, for sure. My wife claims to be willing to make these hypothetical compromises.... I'm not living with two kids in an 800sqft apt. Time and space and fungible. People can take trains into Manhattan as well after all.

ah, would you take the pillow with you on the bus?

UWSmom: I was happily using my $30/month plan when I decided to upgrade to bberry. And by a twist of fate, a year after I upgraded, I had a medical emergency where my bberry proved absolutely essential. Partner out of country, had to arrange childcare for 2 kids from ER with no phone access, but excellent data access (go figure). I arranged everything (back-to-back bsitting, night coverage) with my bberry.

"ah, would you take the pillow with you on the bus?"
I have nowhere to go ... I'd just stay home with it.

AR: you have mail from me.

I carefully perused last month's record bill, and have upgraded to 200MB international data for my partner. As well as unlimited Web surfing for bberry to me (great when I had medical emerg. as I could double-check diagnosis by googling from hospital bed).

Rhino: I guess what I mean by "easy" to blow is if you feel the 8k spent monthly is utterly and completely justified (assume 5k rent fixed and necessary for comfort). I often feel that we personally spend way too much without having anything to "show" for it. I have even more frugal friends who NEVER go out to eat, brown bag every single lunch, never have an alcoholic beverage. A few years ago, prior to having children, we decided never to order bottles of wines for dinner, just glasses, and substantially cut our dining out bill without feeling deprived. Ditto with takeout. I keep ready-to-go meals that are tasty, so that we don't end up ordering out 2x/week.

Alanhart "Capitalist theory dictates that a family of four living on $600-700K will quickly spend up to that level on "necessities", and feel that a middle class family like themselves must need %750-900K to live in NY."

ah, this conversation sounds so familiar. I believe this is true, no matter how financially conservative one may want to be. We try hard to maximize our savings, but dinner time rolls around, we don't feel like cooking, and Gari's or Neo sounds pretty yummy. Having a baby has helped this bad habit a bit (though the kiddie classes are pretty expensive), but I have to admit we were at Neo a week or two ago. Damn this city! Luckily, hubby and I are fashionably challenged, so we aren't slaves to those trends.

10023, response sent.

10023, I've never been much on bottles of wine with dinner. Not ordering out 2x a week saves what about $200 a month tops? Figure $8 x $30 minus the $40 that the food costs? Hmmmm.... Utterly and completely? I think we could cut it down, but I don't feel its extravagant. I am not sure how to value in the context of what I can earn and have in the bank an effort to save $1,000-1,500/mo. In some sense, I think its something to show to order out a couple of times a week for Thai food or something else and enjoy it. Interestingly, people on this thread are arguing that the experience of living in Manhattan is worth stuffing a family of four into 800 sqft. It would not be for me. Maybe I am saying on a similar basis, I am not so interested in watching closely enough to cut back $1,500 so to speak.

Rhino: it all adds up. I never order cheap Chinese takeout and I tip $5, so 8x/month takeout ends up closer to $400/month for us. The point is, none of this feels extravagant which is why it's easy to end up spending $8k/month without leading a luxe life. Not asking you to squeeze yourself into 800 sqft - that's why I said the $5k is not discretionary for you.

UWSmom: with child #1, I sampled all of the kiddie classes that the UWS had to offer. Swimming, Little Maestros, Music Together, signing, art, museum, foreign language classes. We averaged about 3 classes per term - if I tot up the cost, probably 10k over 2 years (and that was before preschool). Child #2 has had a grand total of 1 kiddie class her whole life, and is not suffering for it.

"You live in the city, not your apartment" - I've learned that when you have the luxury of space, you live in both. When you are cramped for space (due to financial constraints, etc), you make rationalizations like this one. Sad, but true...though not so sad if you can make it work (as many do...)

10023 - whenever i'm too lazy to grab my cell on the way out the door, I always tell myself that if an emergency should arise, there would certainly be someone around with a phone, bb, god only knows what else. Probably not the most responsible mindset, but likely true, nonetheless. And, yes, it's just not the same with 1+.

"Middle Class" has nothing to do with what you can afford, or what city or town you live in. It's a fixed household income scale delineated by the Department of Labor.

In the United States, "Middle Class" ranges from $35,000/year to $70,000. "Upper Middle Class" ranges from $70,000 to $165,000. Households earning above $165,000/year ... whether it's $165,001 or $7,000,000,000 ... are considered "Upper Class".

Yes, I realize that making $170K in Manhattan, raising a family, *feels* like "middle class" -- especially since you could live like kings just about anywhere else in the country for that kind of money.

But that's the rub. You likely wouldn't be making that kind of money in Pittsburgh or Cleveland anyway. A professional earning $170K in Manhattan would likely only command $70K in the Midwest.

Still, families "struggling" on $170K in New York who insist on calling themselves "Middle Class" don't realize how insulting that is to the TRUE Middle Class of this city -- those families living on half, or even a third of that. Cabs? Restaurants? Private schools? Apartments with doormen, elevators, and pipes on the INSIDES of the walls? Fuggetaboutit!

How about cramming three (or more) kids into a single bedroom, with the family sharing one bathroom ... in a crummy apartment in a walk-up building. Clipping coupons and taking a drive out to New Jersey with your sister-in-law to Wal-Mart for groceries once a month. Taking subways and buses all the time. Sending your kids to public school. Weekending not in the Hamptons but Coney Island. Wake up people! THAT is "Middle Class" in New York City.

Households in New York City making over $170K/year comprise the top TEN percent of all households in New York. Being in the top TEN percent isn't the "middle" of anything, by any stretch.

very true matt. issue is that those are according to many "not deserving" of living in manhattan (at least, not below 96th street)

Anyone ever see "I am because we are"? I just caught it last night. A documentary (produced by Madonna...not one of my favorite people, but..) about Malawi, the AIDS epidemic, and the 1 million orphans who live there. You could probably catch it on hulu. I enjoyed it so I thought I'd give it a plug...this thread seemed appropriate ;)

NYCMatt -- thank you for the voice of reason. I tire of hearing how people consider their earnings middle class when they make several times the median for our city. As a middle-class couple we feel the pinch and we live frugally.

To hose who were claiming that 300k/year was middle class (with or without kids) are really and I say this with all due respect -- being utterly ridiculous. That isn't middle class, even if you happen to live in NYC where it seems like every 6th person makes 7 figures. Your 'perception' is not the reality of the situation.

But back to the topic at hand, I look around and this is what I see my fellow middle-class-ers doing to live in the city: a) RC/RS apartments, b) moving to modest neighborhoods in the boros, c) family financial 'help', d) living with extended family (and then buying a home/apartment with extended family), d) living in small spaces.

"There will always be sellers and new construction. Even if Wall Street doesn't "suck" its just not going to create enough down payments at these prices. What do 1990s style affordability ratios say about prices? Scaled down Wall Street is basically 1990s Wall Street. Don't we basically need a market of decent $500k two beds and $300k one beds...$800k-$1mm family apartments?"

I'm sorry it wasn't clear that this is akin to the point I was trying to make.

"Don't we basically need a market of decent $500k two beds and $300k one beds"

Even THAT would still be out of the reach of the "Middle Class", who, with household incomes ranging from $35K-$70K, could afford a maximum of $105K-$210K.

Even among the UPPER Middle Class, with household incomes topping out at $170K, the most apartment they could afford would be $500K.

I know this thread is titled "Middle Class", etc...But I don't think people have been talking about the middle class for a long while. I don't think anyone was claiming $300k was middle class. Matt, I think you are making the point that true middle class families can't live in Manhattan without rent control...Nor can they dream about buying today because $500k family apartments do not exist here.

It is all about perception and your peer group. People post here who think fourth floor walkups or 800sq. ft. family apartments are unlivable. People in Paris and Tokyo live in those conditions and consider it normal. People in the NY metro area will spend two hours each way commuting to the suburbs and consider that normal while people in the MidWest consider that oppressive.
Owner occupied apartments in lower Manhattan are a very small percentage of housing stock in New York. But if all of your peers and associates own three bedroom coops it seems like a birthright.

The problem with rent control in regards to families is that the rent control apartments are all occupied by people who moved in decades ago, and won't leave until they die. So we end up with a large percentage of the bigger apartments occupied by single elderly people while young families are stuck with market rates.

"I don't think anyone was claiming $300k was middle class. Matt, I think you are making the point that true middle class families can't live in Manhattan without rent control...Nor can they dream about buying today because $500k family apartments do not exist here."

But that's always been the case.

Manhattan is one of the most expensive cities in the world, and always has been. No one has a birthright to home ownership in this city. If you're middle class and have a burn to own your own home, you have one of two options: earn more money, or move out of the city.

"But that's always been the case.

Manhattan is one of the most expensive cities in the world, and always has been."

No, you just have an incredibly short horizon. Huge swaths of Manhattan were built for the working class (i.e. the middle class of the time). Almost all of Yorkville, Chelsea, the Village, EV, LES, half the UWS, etc. etc.

AR I didn't mean to crititize you (PLEASE SE add a spellcheck feature) for sending your child to private school. It is certainly your right to make that choice if you believe its the best one for your child who, having read your posts, I have no doubt you have as your priority. I was reacting to those who placed private school as a "necessity" of living in Manhattan, which I do not believe it do--even from the relatively uninformed perspective of a non-parent. I attended a top-rated elementary school (not sure they had ratings then but PS 41 has always been considered good) then really "bad" JHS and HS. Not just in the quality of education but, drugs,crime and violence (albeit the 70s blade not the 90s Glock 9 variety). Despite this I was able to establish myself in a respectable, intellectual challenging career that has been--until this economic disaster--lucrative by anything but Wall Street or big law standards.

So far as elderly RC/RS tenants go..why shouldn't they have the same rights to "age out" (aka or at least live until they need a car facility) in their life long home as much as someone who owns their house/apartment? I had urged my mother for years to move to a smaller space but not only was money an issue (it would have cost her at least 2.5x for a studio but I was willing to pitch in) but leaving the home where she had spent her entire married life, motherhood and widowhood was inconcievable. Further, many of these buildings with elderly RC/RS tenants have converted to co-op/condo in the interim and thus their apartments would not be within reach of "middle class" families regardless of whether they moved.

bump...for some reason my comment above never got to the top of the heap and I wanted to be sure AR saw my delayed apology/explantion. There are so many idiots on this board, why PO those people you really respect?

lizyank, as my relatives in Austin would say, bless your heart.

"lizyank, as my relatives in Austin would say, bless your heart."

what does it mean? my experience is that only church goers use it, is that true?

I thought it's to tell people to stop sneezing.

i only heard if from very old southern ladies, very church going ones. so don't know whether it's a very old slang or a churchy slang.

admin, it's not just a Christian thing. They use it whenever anyone does something kind. I do prefer alanhart's interpretation though.

lizyank, you're one of my faves. i never thought you were critical of my decision. it's a tough one, i was just saying that as someone who's been through the process, it can be a multi-tiered process. doesn't just stop with renting or buying in a good elementary school district.

and as someone crazy enough to spend $35,000 a year for something as basic as primary school education, hopefully i'd see SOME value in it. no apologies necessary, but the thought was very nice.

sometimes bless your heart is also used when saying something negative (although not bjw, here). some southern women use the phrase any time they insult someone. well aren't you a brazen thing, bless your heart.

"So far as elderly RC/RS tenants go..why shouldn't they have the same rights to "age out" (aka or at least live until they need a car facility) in their life long home as much as someone who owns their house/apartment? I had urged my mother for years to move to a smaller space but not only was money an issue (it would have cost her at least 2.5x for a studio but I was willing to pitch in) but leaving the home where she had spent her entire married life, motherhood and widowhood was inconcievable. Further, many of these buildings with elderly RC/RS tenants have converted to co-op/condo in the interim and thus their apartments would not be within reach of "middle class" families regardless of whether they moved."

i was wondering the other day... if housing keeps on being out of reach of many young and they end up having to rent... how willingly will they pay for entitlement/pensions to people that own a home (or more htan 1) that are out of reach for themselves? is it possible they will end up realizing they are paying for that homeownership they are not "enjoying" themselves?

"i was wondering the other day... if housing keeps on being out of reach of many young and they end up having to rent... how willingly will they pay for entitlement/pensions to people that own a home (or more htan 1) that are out of reach for themselves? is it possible they will end up realizing they are paying for that homeownership they are not "enjoying" themselves?"

meaning, the fact that they are agreeing in transferring wealth from themselves to the old might end up helping the old not to downsize (which was normal thing to do before those transfers). does the aging of the population with much higher longevity (& many of them don't need to downsize thanks to those transfers) have anything to do with higher home prices?

I would guess it partly depends on what they think of their parents.

This was an artificial run-up in prices. It didn't need to occur, and if allowed to, it can correct. if it doesn't you have tension created by that artificial inflation in prices. there's plenty of housing these days.

lizyank - of course elderly tenants have the right to stay in RC/RS apartments. I was objecting to the idea that RC/RS is helping middle class families, who largely started their families long after the RS/RC apartments were unavailable.

"largely started their families long after the RS/RC apartments were unavailable."

there's plenty of RS uptown, unless you consider it not a middle class area.

"I would guess it partly depends on what they think of their parents."

totally agree, many of my college friends were "kicked out" (meaning, it was clear they were not able to come back once they graduated) and some friends with babies were asked $ by their moms for baby sitting. something tells me those are not gonna be "transfer to the old" friendly.

this part just threw me...

> we each go through about $300 a week in petty cash

$31k in petty cash?

A respectible full time salary (before taxes) for odds and ends?

wowzuh.

I'm wowed by the idea that it surprises people that a couple and a baby could live a $250-300k family lifestyle...How that splits out is almost beside the point. When landlords require 50x monthly rent in income (and we pay $5000), that comes to $250k. They got it from somewhere. And again, do people who live alone, make $150k, and pay $2700-2800 in rent save a ton of money?

Rhino: It doesn't surprise me at all. But this is exactly how (other) people get into financial trouble. Not knowing your bonus or how you amortize it or what you put into savings or the amount of family $$ you expect to inherit, the penny-pincher/hoarder in me would try to ratchet down the non-rent part of the spending.

Lizyank: the generational gap is exactly what we're up against here. Demographically, seniors have more voting power and thus vote according to their monetary interests.

" do people who live alone, make $150k, and pay $2700-2800 in rent save a ton of money?"

They do if savings are a priority for them. I think these are the people who are surprised at your numbers.

Nyc10023 - well if thats the criteria, then you need not worry. I haven't said anything about what I have made or saved. I can easily see the point that we could cut a thousand or two a month out, but if this represents a small fraction...one could alternatively say, don't worry - be happy. For instance I had lunch at Baxters in Hyannis the other day. Was $70 a lot of spend on some fried seafood and a few mudslides? Yes, but it was really good, and we're on vacation.

Rhino: I figured that was the case.

Again, ChasingWamus, there are assumptions being made here. Riddle me this, are single finance professionals who spend their $150k base in full and bank their $150k base being spendthrift or are they being frugle?

oh my goodness, Rhino needs some financial management ASAP!

"A lot of 92Y classes for the baby. I spend a few hundred a month on books. One wedding or another costs a couple thousand every few months. One nice trip amortized. A number of trips to the Cape are $500-1000 each time. My credit card bill which carries dinners out and some of the afforementioned expenses seems to be $3000/mo consistently. And now that I think about it, we budget $15000 conceptually, but it comes in $13-14k a month many time."

Seriously, classes for a baby? Why on earth does a todler need classes? A couple of thousand for weddings every few months? What the hell? What kind of wedding presents are you buying? And a few hundred on books? Ever heard of the library? I rarely buy books. After all, I'm not going to read the book a second time since I already know the ending!

rhino, you make a good point. i'm cheap, but i don't like to feel poor. that's why i decided not to buy. if buying meant committing so much just to get back in the door, and then spending so much to stay there, what was the point? i'd rather have a few mudslides. to those who can do both without any sacrifice, that's a different story. but until you get to a fairly high level (for this city, at least) the trade-offs are quite real.

It depends entirely on their career trajectory, the winds that blow in the finance world, and how old/how many dependents they accumulate (you assumed single).

A single 25yo associate who is a superstar (they ALWAYS know where they stand) in a good spot (as far as the prevailing winds blow) - not a big deal if they spend 150k base and bank every bonus (minus a little splurge). I've known many people in this position, most of them spend the 150k base, a very few don't. And 10 years down the road, the superstars that don't spend down their base aren't in a better or worse financial position than those who do.

The ones who get in trouble are the "middle of track" - good enough to pull down 1m+ (inc. bonus) in good years, but easily out of a job in bad years. By the time they've scaled up to 1m+ income, they've also acquired a couple of dependents. Vast majority spend down their base at that point, and then some. Not necessarily on frivolous things, but definitely an upper-middle-class lifestyle. Because of our age (mid-late 30s), we know a few in this position. Should there be firings or zero bonus, watch out!

Of course, neither group is middle-class anymore, sorry I went off-topic.

Its sheer luck that I didn't buy before Lehman. After Lehman, I didn't see any argument that we weren't going down. For us it was never an issue of rich or poor to buy or not buy. I was never going to leave us with nothing in the bank (nor really would any coop board have allowed it). Also, I'd always budget a monthly payment the same in a purchase or rental. So it seems Aboutready you are saying in another way that owning right now is still more expensive...which is basically true...unless you ignore risk/opportunity cost, transaction costs, like the famed LICC to Steve's perpetual chagrin.

Please Alpo, knowing what my opinion is of you, why would you ever offer me any advice?

Who cares about the topic? :) Haven't we determined that middle class doesn't exist in Manhattan?

I think that $1mm person you describe should be spending like...$300k pretax.

i would disagree with you, 10023, on the superstar status, and it being oh-so-apparent. i think it depends on the area. i think many people overestimate the trajectory of their careers. and the timing in many areas has been constantly shifting the past decade or so, i wouldn't rely solely on expectations for planning purposes.

and i wouldn't call 1m+ middle of the track, good year or no, unless you're talking about one industry and one only.

Rhino, this was the context of my comments:
Mercer said: "I think that is affordable at $250-300K household income for a family of 4."
You said: "This is dead wrong. My wife, baby and I go through $15k a month easy."

To me, affordable means paying bills and taking care of the basics and not living paycheck to paycheck. Taking a vacation once in a while. You seem to be talking about something much more than that.

Ah sorry, I was talking about the bonus-heavy financial industry. AR: respectfully disagree on knowing whether you're a superstar. The other industry I know something about in terms of compensation is biglaw. Biglawyers I know tend not to ratchet up their spending quite so much.

Rhino: the 1m middle of the track person, agree - they should be spending 300k pre-tax. But it's awfully hard to keep yourself to that, even if you are cognizant of your status.

rhino, yes i am saying that owning is more expensive still. many people did spend all their savings on condos, or bought coops with a decent level of savings but then found themselves spending what was in the bank.

Wamus...here is where we disagree. There isn't enough fluff in my budget to swap in another grown child and the incremental spending on our baby growing up and come to the same place. Call grown > kindergarten. What are your circumstances? I think 2 kids on $250k in Manhattan is a lower lifestyle than you imagine it is...and that my budget is less wasteful/extravagent than it sounds.

10023, that's because in biglaw you don't hit the big money for 8-10 years. many don't have kids until the latter part of the process, but plenty a superstar doesn't make partner in biglaw. and those that have had kids and bought, well i'm seeing some not that pretty scenarios play out right now.

Chasing wamus: You're missing the point. Taking care of the bills & not living paycheck to paycheck while renting/owning an apartment (excluding the extreme cases of 2 adults, 2 children in a 500sqft studio or RS/RC situations or buying way before the boom) in Manhattan so. of 96th is out of reach for the traditional middle-class today. That seems to be the consensus.

I would extend this to many of the NYC suburbs as well (Bxville, Scarsdale, Rye, parts of LI).

AR: exactly. Superstar is a differing ball of wax in biglaw world anyhow. Agree that they have generally been conservative or had family wealth. The ones that reproduced and maxed out before making partner or acquiring career stability are few and far in between (that I know of anyway).

Forget middle class. What do you think that costs 10023? Keep in mind that average total tax burden on $300k is roughly 40%. I punched it in on a website I found.

What does a new partner at a mid-range firm like Kirkland & Ellis earn? I have no idea what lawyers earn.

Rhino, I'm in the same situation as you, we have a baby at home. We are spending significantly less per month and managing to save as well. My wife and I have a thrifty streak and we don't feel like we are depriving ourselves.

Rhino: you should rephrase for poor Wamus. As I see it, you have an enjoyable lifestyle now at X/year in Manhattan, as long as Junior doesn't need private school or if you have another child. You are reluctant to spend any more. Stop right there. This is the point at which most people move to the burbs, and buy a sub 1m 3 or 4br house. More if you feel like spending down some of your savings.

The only way that I can see it changing is if your career prospects change (you may be a superstar, I don't know) and you bank a huge bonus one year.

"Forget middle class" I thought that was the point of this entire thread.

nyc10023 - Yes, I agree it is out of reach for the middle class. I was arguing Rhino's point that it is out of reach for a family with hhi of 300K.

Wamus: this is getting tiresome and all too reminiscent of UB/youbemom debates. The bottom line is: you and Rhino have different lifestyles. He can afford his, you can afford yours. Why should he change his lifestyle? He is (correct me if I'm wrong), trying to keep the same luxuries/necessities in his life at the same spending level while figuring out if it is possible to do so with one more child and private school.

rhino, it depends on the firm. whether or not they are lock-step, have non-equity partners, etc. the numbers are published every year by law firm (AmLaw), but they generally only include profits per equity partner. some of the larger firms don't pay particularly competitively. some boutiques kick ass.

Rhino: you are a brave man for putting your numbers out there. Simply put, no. You can't add private school or a bigger apt to your budget without altering it by a significant amount or changing your lifestyle (in a way unappetizing to you). The factors that may make it possible are, of course, if rents and/or RE costs plunge.

And we are way off-topic.

"Rhino: you should rephrase for poor Wamus. As I see it, you have an enjoyable lifestyle now at X/year in Manhattan, as long as Junior doesn't need private school or if you have another child. You are reluctant to spend any more. Stop right there. This is the point at which most people move to the burbs, and buy a sub 1m 3 or 4br house. More if you feel like spending down some of your savings."

I wouldn't say I am reluctant to spend more. For now I am. The point at which we have a second child, would likely be the point at which I would prefer to move to the burbs. My wife feels differently right now.

About ready - give me a range...a big range. I am curious.

Rhino: if you have 2 kids in public school, and you can keep your housing costs to 5k/month - assume either same gender kids sharing a bedroom (in an apt with LR/DR, 2b2b) or convertible 3 (with longer LR that accommodates dining), it's doable on your current budget. Things aren't going to change much with a 2nd kid unless your wife needs more babysitting help.

Rhino: anywhere from 300k as a first year service partner with no book of biz in a middling-sized law firm that bills in a trad. way (not Wachtell or some place that gets some extra $ on a non-billed hour basis) to tens of millions in a good year for some of the top firms. Diff. from IB/HF/finance in general because usually it takes years to get to the tens of millions point, and people don't tend to spend that much. The nice thing about law firms is that they usually publish the home addresses of everyone, so you can see what they spend it on :)

Speaking as a housewife (like your wife), I can see why she would be reluctant to move to the burbs. Most of us, in this position, are. It's the (potential) isolation, the loss of 2 hours per day of help from your spouse, and the lack of adult contact.

Okay, but keep in mind that things have been changing rapidly in this area. some firms are sucking air right now, and some paid far more than historical norms the past couple of years. most of my info is kind of old for this market, but i think i have a general sense.

right now i'd say that for an equity partner $700k would be on the lowish side (at an amlaw 100 firm), starting out, and $1.1mish would be on the higher side (not counting outliers like Wachtell and maybe Quinn). the spread in the difference increases hugely over time, with some partners at top firms bringing down a few million during their peak years, while those at lesser firms would make much less. Non-equity partners frequently make somewhere around $500k, although some make significantly more if they are older and non-equity for other reasons.

agree with AR about not so apparent superstar status in biglaw. We've seen a few devastated 8th & 9th years passed over. Partners have admitted to my husband that they're "bad at pushing people out". Interestingly, just learned that some inhouse attorneys at some of the big banks do fairly well...upward of $400k and its a much much easier lifestyle.

"The nice thing about law firms is that they usually publish the home addresses of everyone, so you can see what they spend it on "

I love that part!

Hmm, having been part of the "who's going to be partner" betting pool, I would say that some of those devastated 8th/9th years (and their families/spouses) were the only surprised ones :)

Oh, and you can usually lay your hands on mortgage info too :)

10023 - that was the argument I tried making to my husband. He sincerely disagreed.

wait, i'm confused. right, he and i would both agree.....

Which one? The one about housewives, in general, not wanting to move to the burbs?

Oh, and add another one. Assuming you're not too badly cramped for space in the city, imagine having to keep a whole house in presentable shape AND lose 2 hours of your spouse daily AND lack of places to walk to AND loss of random human contact.

point is - some people are clueless. I really need to each lunch :)

10023, I disagree. the top law firms like having senior associates around. the clients like them. they just don't like them or need them enough to make them partner. there are plenty more coming up the ranks. one top law firm has made 1-3 litigation associates partner yearly for the past four years. great odds. many of the associates are assured yearly that they are "on track." believe me, most of the senior associates and those around them know if they should be on their way out the door.

I am sure we could trade neighborhood for space and stay under $5000. I am not sure our 'fluff' could cover clothes and books and toys, but maybe it could. I am more worried about #1 getting past 5th grade and having to deal with the uncertainty and process. I would rather dial it into CT somewhere after #2 is born and before #1 is in the first grade. YES, the wildcard here is if real estate truly plummets.

rhino, maybe you've said this, but i don't recall. how old is one?

8 months.

Rhino: but why move before you absolutely need to, for middle school? In the interim (if you don't go for the CT job), your wife gets more of your time, and things are certainly far more convenient in the city.

I'm arguing for your wife here ...

AR: yeah, I guess I'm cynical. Of course, they're going to tell you you're on track. In my experience, there are those associates that are TOTAL absolute locks, and then there are the rest. They're probably not told differently at reviews (how well would that serve the partnership?)

Yes, you sound like my wife. I can appreciate the baby-carrying lifestyle in Manhattan. That could take us out another five years (through #2 at age 2). And your conclusion is probably correct (unless I ended up in a CT based job). Really there is nothing for me to think about until kid two (3 yrs) or job move... So yes, until then I am enjoying it... And trying not to think about the $1-2k a month that could probably be cut out of our spending habits.

Your wife owes me one.