Middle Class in NYC

"KISS the downside is being exagerrated to glorify the preference."

rhino,

True that. Methinks a fair amount of exaggeration/self-deception to justify the sacrifices we make to live here.

"KISS the downside is being exagerrated to glorify the preference."

rhino,

True that. Methinks a fair amount of exaggeration/self-deception to justify the sacrifices we make to live here.

"KISS the downside is being exagerrated to glorify the preference."

rhino,

True that. Methinks a fair amount of exaggeration/self-deception to justify the sacrifices we make to live here.

"KISS the downside is being exagerrated to glorify the preference."

rhino,

True that. Methinks a fair amount of exaggeration/self-deception to justify the sacrifices we make to live here.

"if middle class is anybody that doesn't collect food stamps nor has a yacht, it's too big of a group to say what they can and cannot afford."

Again, Middle Class as defined by the Department of Labor is having a household income of $35K-55K. Upper Middle Class is $55K-90K. UPPER class is anything above $90K. Over $165K is in the top 5% of U.S. households. Again, the top 5% isn't the "middle" of anything, by any stretch of the definition.

I wonder how many NYC parents whose kids score at the 95th percentile would call their kids "average"?

"Wow.

Nothing is more depressing than a condo in the suburbs. it's like the worst of both worlds."

Which I don't disagree with, but it still makes me right.

"KISS the downside is being exagerrated to glorify the preference."

BINGO.

Listen, I can't imagine moving to the suburbs, I just can't give up what I like. But there are certainly pros and cons on both sides. Hell, if there weren't, and the suburbs were worse and as expensive, how do you think they get people to live there?

Seriously, its getting a little silly.

Yes, most manhattanites would rather be in manhattan if money was no object. We get that. (and we'd get different answers from suburbanites".

But methinks too many people are just trying to rationalize their decision here.

"Again, Middle Class as defined by the Department of Labor is having a household income of $35K-55K."

so the idea is to use a national definition based on income quintiles to apply it to a small area that concentrates more higher income people than any other? wow, that's sound statistics.

"so the idea is to use a national definition based on income quintiles to apply it to a small area that concentrates more higher income people than any other? wow, that's sound statistics."

Actually it is.

Manhattan is a disproportionately affluent -- and at the same time, expensive -- city. If you want to live "comfortably" here, you have to be affluent.

Just as if you want a fully-loaded Mercedes versus a fully-loaded Buick, you're going to have to pay appreciably more for the same "comfort" level.

> I wonder how many NYC parents whose kids score at the 95th percentile would call their kids "average"?

80% of Americans think they are smarter, better looking, and funnier than average. Americans overestimate with most things, except for their sense of wealth.

> Again, the top 5% isn't the "middle" of anything, by any stretch of the definition.

Sure it is, it depends on the frame of reference. Average for a colllege student would be significantly higher than population in general, etc.

One could be talking about middle class on national standards, international standards, or regional levels.

Given we're talking "class" here, which is a definition that goes beyond just money here, I think its fair to have different frames of reference.

If the british pound goes up, but nothing else changes in the country (prices/salaries) really changes, did a bunch of people just change classes?

I think raising two kids in Manhattan has to be recognized as what it is. Its a decision that makes little to no financial sense. There is no solution to middle school. The only solution to high school is the magnet school. To exagerrate the compromises, and to claim rents here don't encompass property taxes on the houses out there, its a bunch of bull. And just as many people claim they have short commutes inside Manhattan. Granted in general they are talking about overall shorter commutes. I think it really boils down to whether its worth $70k-80k to you pre-tax to have a 1/2 hour commute instead of an hour fifteen. Its an hour and a half a day for $120-140k pre-tax.

"Again, Middle Class as defined by the Department of Labor is having a household income of $35K-55K. Upper Middle Class is $55K-90K. UPPER class is anything above $90K. Over $165K is in the top 5% of U.S. households. Again, the top 5% isn't the "middle" of anything, by any stretch of the definition."

Honestly, who gives a shit?

"If the british pound goes up, but nothing else changes in the country (prices/salaries) really changes, did a bunch of people just change classes?"

You can twist and spin it as much as you want, but the fact of the matter remains that "Middle Class" in America is defined by the Department of Labor at HHI between $35 and 55K. How you choose to SPEND that $35 to 55K is up to you.

And the middle class of the world makes $50.

The spin is all yours...

btw, the department of labor defines a poverty level based on ability to afford certain things. The level is completely invalid in Manhattan.

But, hey, if you like working off invalid data, awesome for you.

Go with the $50.

"I think raising two kids in Manhattan has to be recognized as what it is. Its a decision that makes little to no financial sense. There is no solution to middle school. The only solution to high school is the magnet school. To exagerrate the compromises, and to claim rents here don't encompass property taxes on the houses out there, its a bunch of bull. And just as many people claim they have short commutes inside Manhattan."

Agreed.

Its expensive to live here. You can't justify it financially. Its just something you have to decide if you want to pay extra for.

"The level is completely invalid in Manhattan."

No it's not.

It's just more expensive in Manhattan.

Yes, and its a bigger extra for every additional kid and every additional stage of life.

If $150k is not middle class, then Matt we should agree that middle class is not relevant to our discussion. If people have two kids and get by on that in Manhattan, then they are living with those two kids in a one bed and watching every penny. Arguably, they are effing their kids because they won't let go of a location that is basically out of their reach and they haven't admitted it to themselves.

How is that "effing" their kids?

> "The level is completely invalid in Manhattan."
> No it's not.
> It's just more expensive in Manhattan.

Now you're simply contradicting yourself.

I think its effing their kids to squeeze into a tiny space and send them to crappy schools when you could provide them a much more decent lifestyle in a suburb.

So how much space does a kid need before you're "effing" him?

Anyone in homes less than 6,000 square feet?

Is he being "effed" if there isn't a tennis court in the backyard? How about a pool? Or a math tutor?

Or a high school allowance big enough to keep him in the blow.

> So how much space does a kid need before you're "effing" him?

More than a chicken.

And the school should have at least 50% of kids be able to read.

Matt, let the grown ups talk. No one is looking for perspective on this matter from a kid in his mid twenties. Honestly, the answer is different for everyone. Maybe its like porno. I know it when I see it. Let me put one example out there. People who live with two kids in 800 sqft one beds in Greenwich Village...I think that's a little much. I could be wrong. Who knows. Where do they go to school when they graduate PS 41? Maybe I dont know all the options out there.

"People who live with two kids in 800 sqft one beds in Greenwich Village...I think that's a little much."

And who are YOU to say it's a "little much"?

Plenty of families are perfectly healthy and happy living minimalist lives in very small spaces.

I have a question for the city parents and I honestly mean it as an inquiry. (All of my friends who have kids went the burb route.) Where do kids play these days? In my day when dinosuaers walked the earth we used to play in the street once we outgrew the playground. Older kids would keep an eye on younger kids and you left your block or agreeded to boundaries at severe risk of getting in trouble. I never see kids playing in the street anymore, no more hopscotch, football tossing, jump rope etc that was such an integral part of urban life in way back when. Maybe in a self contained community like StyTown/PVC but not in general. I see a lot of kids in Bleecker playground but they are almost all very young and still at the age where parent/caretaker supervision is necessary. What happens when they get to be about 7 and want to say "hey Ma I want to outside and play?"

lizyank, i'm sorry to report that most kids over the age of seven are kept too busy to go out to play much. they usually only have a couple of afternoons free (if that), and depending on the school, they may not have much those days due to homework. the kids quite eerily become used to the situation, and are usually content to have a friend over because they don't have much time at school to interact with their friends either (20 minute lunches).

kids are certainly one of the reasons

family of 5, me yougest, elder bro and sis.....waz in 2bdrn rental till age of 13(?) then 3bd rental till off to college... not bad for me but I felt bad for eldest sister... esp. when she was dating : )

"And who are YOU to say it's a "little much"?"

Matt, are you the self proclaimed king of the obvious? Is this a discussion board? Who I am is someone on the discussion board, discussing, you dope. Who are YOU to tell me anything? You are a wet behind the ears 20-something who uses so many words to say nothing and/or the obvious.

Now that's what I'm talking about. Put some legs into it rhino. : )

According to Bloomberg, Pharma CEOS who make $12 million a year are middle class. (or at least that is what he implied when he said they don't make a lot of money).

"You can also buy a condo in the suburbs... and get all those amenities, still cheaper than Manhattan. There are TONS of townhouse complexes in the suburbs if you want, or even taller buildings."

Not necessarily true. Go to the Hoboken waterfront and look at the sky high prices.

I think the point Alpo is that even if you truly hate maintaining a house, you can buy or rent a condo in Greenwich instead of Greenwich Village. Hoboken is not a suburb. That said, you are getting a lot more space for the same price over there.

So where are we? $150k is not middle class, but you are still going to have a tough time making ends meet in Manhattan with a family of four on that unless you have a special rent deal. Or at least that's my view.

I sort of agree with both sides here. You have to make A LOT to comfortably raise a family in Manhattan. Not sure what the right number is, but $500-700K doesn't sound crazy.

However, no one has to live in Manhattan. It's a choice, and there is nothing middle-class about that choice.

Just for entertainment value...

The AVERAGE compensation package for the end of 2007 for a Goldman Sachs employee was $661,000. At the end of 2008, the AVERAGE dropped to $364,000. So assuming that the folks who think comfortable is in the $100ks, then I guess your middle class is gonna bounce around between $300k to $700k based on what year we are talking about. From what I am hearing, this year is gonna be SWEET for Goldman Sachs employees.

In all seriousness, I see iPhone caring hipsters working in media making $55K-90K per year doing just fine in NYC. I also see $250k per year IT consultants who hasn’t gone on vacations for years because they have to pay the MAN just getting by to provide for their family. It’s all a matter of what you make of it. All I see is how you compare yourself to your compadre….

Post grade, you think $50k is all you need… Married and expecting a kid, you think $200k will get you what you need… At near retirement, it’s prolly that $300k-$600k salary because you think that’s what it will take for you to retire at 65. It’s all perspective.

Also found this neat little tid-bit:

AVERAGE expected salary for Manhattan for Q1 of 2007 was $127,000. And that wasn't including bonuses by wlal st that year. Crazy sh!t.

http://www.nyjobsource.com/manhattansalaries.html

the thing is, newbuyer, until the credit-induced bubble, it was a choice. and since the bubble was just that, there is no reason to think it won't be a choice sometime in the future. assuming the bubble is allowed to pop.

and jac, perspective doesn't get you a decent-sized apartment, or a decent education for a middle-school-aged child.

i meant a viable middle-class choice, of course.

Jac, how does a post grad rent an apartment at $50k? Are you assuming everyone has a guarantor? That doesn't really count as making it.

Listen you don't buy the first 25% dip in a market at the center of what is now recognized as an epic credit bubble. You watch it for at least two years....which is a year from this September. End of story. The US market is only now bottomed from a peak in what, 2005? Come on.

"he AVERAGE compensation package for the end of 2007 for a Goldman Sachs employee was $661,000. At the end of 2008, the AVERAGE dropped to $364,000. So assuming that the folks who think comfortable is in the $100ks, then I guess your middle class is gonna bounce around between $300k to $700k based on what year we are talking about."

Again, Middle Class is not about PERCEPTION, it's a REALITY, regardless of how much you make and how you spend your money.

If you're making over $167K, you're UPPER CLASS. End of discussion.

"how does a post grad rent an apartment at $50k? "

He rents this: http://newyork.craigslist.org/brk/abo/1339393779.html

Or if he insists on living in Manhattan, this: http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/fee/1339361330.html

If you are going to judge what is middle class based on standards for the whole US, why stop there? Globally we are all superwealthy. How's that for reality? Pretty useless I would say.

matt, you couldn't be more wrong. there are multiple definitions of middle class. look it up. wage quintile is but one of them. and most experts don't use it.

Part of why the middle class income classifications have become less relevant is because actual income medians have represented increasingly shitty lifestyles. And since we're here on a real estate blog, part of the reason is low interest rates drove real estate prices out of reach.

This thread is an odd combination of seemingly pointless yet oddly compelling.

One of the things about Manhattan that I didn't understand until I moved here is that uncertainty about your cost of living (especially your housing costs) is so high here. If you own, it's hard to know what your maintenance (or assessments) might be in the future, and if you rent, it's hard to know whether some year your neighborhood will heat up and market rates for your building will skyrocket.

One thing psychologically I would characterize as "middle class" is living with a reasonable sense of having a cushion financially, while not living in financial ease. I don't know how you establish any sense of having a reliable cushion here.

"matt, you couldn't be more wrong. there are multiple definitions of middle class. look it up. wage quintile is but one of them. and most experts don't use it."

Wrong.

There's only one -- the Department of Labor's.

"I don't know how you establish any sense of having a reliable cushion here."

Easy: Live well within your means.

"One thing psychologically I would characterize as "middle class" is living with a reasonable sense of having a cushion financially, while not living in financial ease. I don't know how you establish any sense of having a reliable cushion here."

Right it takes so much effing money to have that here, that you can hardly call the income necessary middle class. This is the epicenter. If you think the middle class is getting squeezed around the country, its arguably impossible to live south of 96th as a middle class wage earner without an inherited rent controlled apartment.

"Easy: Live well within your means. "

Matt, its rare to come across someone who can make such little sense and miss the crux of a discussion so wildly, yet do it so forcefully.

matt, wrong. but thanks for playing.

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2003/nov/29/20031129-105855-7412r/

There is no real definition of the middle class in the United States, assert economists and sociologists, who say "middle class" always has been more of a state of mind than an actual economic status.

"Right it takes so much effing money to have that here, that you can hardly call the income necessary middle class. This is the epicenter. If you think the middle class is getting squeezed around the country, its arguably impossible to live south of 96th as a middle class wage earner without an inherited rent controlled apartment."

So?

Manhattan is for rich people. It's been that way for quite a while. Just like Mercedes automobiles are for rich people. If you want to overextend your finances just to live in Manhattan (or drive a Mercedes), don't whine about being financially "squeezed". No one is forcing you to live here.

Matt is adamant about resisting nuance in discussions. Listen, he is 25 and he knows everything. He won't let us get off topic, even if the original topic is moot.

"matt, wrong. but thanks for playing.

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2003/nov/29/20031129-105855-7412r/"

This may surprise you, but the Washington Times doesn't always get things right.

matt, park avenue has always been expensive. manhattan has not. certainly not to this degree, not even close.

"If you want to overextend your finances just to live in Manhattan (or drive a Mercedes), don't whine about being financially "squeezed". No one is forcing you to live here."

If you have not picked it up by context, you never will. This discussion is about what amounts of money are necessary to live in Manhattan like middle class people live in other places. DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? Yes, these amounts are not middle class by strict dept of labor definitions. THIS IS THE POINT OF THE CONVERSATION YOU FUCKING MORON.

matt, do a search. i could come up with 200 sources for that premise. it's widely held.

aren't you the one who derided the blogger who used to be head of the IMF, asserting that he wasn't at a reputable source like the NYTs? hif'nglarious.

Aboutready - Matt has no historical context. His knowledge is based on the last four years since he graduated college. Don't try to talk to him about what it was like here in the 1990s, the 1980s and heavens not the 1970s. Manhattan was always out of reach likes its been since 2002.

"matt, park avenue has always been expensive. manhattan has not. "

Manhattan has not always been expensive? Last time I checked, Manhattan has always been more expensive than 99% of the rest of the country.

Matt, you're confusing "middle-income" with "middle class"

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

Apologize and admit that you're wrong. Use the Spanish verb "ser".

alpo, go back to jersey.

i bought a two bedroom for $105k in 1996. in 2007 that line traded for over $900k. you want to tell me that the incomes for people interested in 950sf 2/1s multiplied over 8 times in those 10 years?

Manhattan has never been this much more expensive. Thank cheap debt. You didn't have to be Tiny Fey to buy a 10-room apartment on WEA until recently. I think the issue here is that the bulls do not have to accept the possible scope of a correction if they deny that 2004-2008 was an wildly unusual period. I think I understand now. "Its always been like this" allows for denial of the potential for a gut wrenching protracted decline in values.

Rhino86: Wow, quite astute. I think you have something there.

"Aboutready - Matt has no historical context."

I've actually been living here 20 years.

"Matt, you're confusing "middle-income" with "middle class"

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

Apologize and admit that you're wrong. Use the Spanish verb "ser".

Wikipedia? Why not just cite the crack ho down on East 119th?

"I think the issue here is that the bulls do not have to accept the possible scope of a correction if they deny that 2004-2008 was an wildly unusual period."

Exactly, denial or lack of historical perspective is what allows people to say "There's never been a better time to buy." with a straight face.

you've been following real estate prices since you were five? how forward of you.

stubborn is not a virtue. you were wrong. and there are many sources that will tell you so.

"i bought a two bedroom for $105k in 1996. in 2007 that line traded for over $900k. you want to tell me that the incomes for people interested in 950sf 2/1s multiplied over 8 times in those 10 years?"

No.

But what DID happen, partly thanks to technology (the Internet, cell phones, email, cheap access to video conferencing), and partly thanks to an influx of foreign money, is that a greater number of affluent people moved to New York City since then.

New York City's real estate market no longer depended as much on the local economy; people were moving here who didn't make their LIVINGS here. Anyone with enough money could have a New York address and run their business enterprise from Manhattan, regardless of that enterprise: the hedge fund manager from Hamburg ... the oil baron from Houston ... the e-commerce geek from Seattle ... etc.

What followed is a basic law of economics: A greater number of dollars chasing the same small pool of goods and services (and real estate). When this happens, you get price inflation. But this "crash" that people are expecting isn't going to happen. As I mentioned above, New York's real estate market isn't as dependent upon the local economy or job market. These affluent people who don't necessarily make their livings here aren't going anywhere, and more are continuing to arrive.

"Its always been like this"

is never a good reason for anything imho

I just had a vision of a 25-year old paging through his dog-eared, annotated version of the Department of Labor Manual for the 17th time, trying to comprehend what it all means.

the irish carpenters will save us!!!

gee matt, where did those excess dollars come from? and where are they now?

they're on the balance sheets of banks, slowly eroding. slooooowwwwwly but surely.

Not necessarily.

"is that a greater number of affluent people moved to New York City since then."

So it is a zero sum game of people taking their wealth to the most desirable place in the world? That would mean that all these other cities effectively became poorer during that time and property values fell in all of those places proportionately?

Unless MILLIONS of affluent people moved here from all over the world (which they didn't), there really wouldn't have been any appreciable notice in any ONE of those cities or towns of origin.

trenchant rebuttal, matt. two words for you, underwriting standards.

Aboutready -- yes, I'll give you that as well.

Never before had we seen so many people leverage themselves to the extent that they were buying homes 10 times their annual income. The resulting problem with that, of course, was that it bid up prices across the board, for everyone.

But as I just explained, that's not the ONLY reason why property values increased.

Matt, Rhino put it best:

"If you have not picked it up by context, you never will. This discussion is about what amounts of money are necessary to live in Manhattan like middle class people live in other places. DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? Yes, these amounts are not middle class by strict dept of labor definitions. THIS IS THE POINT OF THE CONVERSATION YOU FUCKING MORON"

But to add to his post, AR's posts are obviously preventing you from understanding Rhino's posts.
AR is talking about how the middle class by your definition used to be able to afford to live in Manahttan, Rhino and AR are both saying that this is no longer possible.

Everyone has accepted that this premise holds true (which is the only point you are making - repeatedly) and moved onto discussing what it now takes to try and live in Manhattan fairly comfortably, raise children here, etc., regardless of what middle class means. You have decided not to move on - which is your perogative of course, but do you not understand that everyone else has done so?

I have been quire critical of CC in the past but he is dead on right about you.

Interesting how the board is full of Rhino ass kissers today. Could they all be Rhino? Nah, they couldn't be...

The arguement that Manhattan is for rich people and has always been is ridiculous. As someone noted (Alanhart?) whole entire neighborhoods that used to house people within the normal income bell curve now cater exclusively to outliers at the high end. Park Ave, Fifth Ave, Washington Square, Sutton Place and CPW were the only rich areas of New York 40 years ago. The UWS ranged from some Upper Middle Class residents to the comfortable shabby to downright scary. Ditto the West Village. As for Chelseam East Village (excluding the "Summer of Love" phenomenon), they were considered "bad". My grandfather lived in the Mitchell Lama houses in the 20s and my parents would always take the bus back and forth to the West Village (17 blocks? True they smoked but.) because walking through Chelsea was considered unsafe even in the daytime.
Manhattan needs economic diversity to maintain its soul. And those at the lower end of the scale should not be limited to "creatives". Cops, firemen, teachers, construction works and supermarket checkers add alot to this city. As a second generation native, I have every right to live on Manhattan and plan to die here but I'm not enthused at the prospect of living on Rodeo Drive, Belgravia or some other "gilded ghetto"

To lizyank's point: http://nymag.com/news/features/47182/

You can find similar stories all along the way about Tribeca, East Village, Hell's Kitchen, etc.

NOBODY has a right to live in Manhattan.

"The arguement that Manhattan is for rich people and has always been is ridiculous. As someone noted (Alanhart?) whole entire neighborhoods that used to house people within the normal income bell curve now cater exclusively to outliers at the high end. Park Ave, Fifth Ave, Washington Square, Sutton Place and CPW were the only rich areas of New York 40 years ago. The UWS ranged from some Upper Middle Class residents to the comfortable shabby to downright scary. Ditto the West Village. As for Chelseam East Village (excluding the "Summer of Love" phenomenon), they were considered "bad". My grandfather lived in the Mitchell Lama houses in the 20s and my parents would always take the bus back and forth to the West Village (17 blocks? True they smoked but.) because walking through Chelsea was considered unsafe even in the daytime.
Manhattan needs economic diversity to maintain its soul. And those at the lower end of the scale should not be limited to "creatives". Cops, firemen, teachers, construction works and supermarket checkers add alot to this city. As a second generation native, I have every right to live on Manhattan and plan to die here but I'm not enthused at the prospect of living on Rodeo Drive, Belgravia or some other "gilded ghetto""

****

HELLO! You're not listening.

40 years ago, you had to make your living in New York to LIVE in New York.

Thanks to technology, that no longer holds true. As a result, we have not just the most affluent of the nation, but the most affluent of the WORLD elbowing their way into Manhattan, bidding up prices of real estate so that even marginal neighborhoods are now out of reach for anyone outside of the Upper Class.

That's how economics works. And unless cops, firemen, teachers, construction works and supermarket checkers can compete with this new influx of affluent residents, they can't afford to live here.

THAT is the economic reality of New York City in the 21st Century.

Lizyank - You had to go and do it didn't you?

don't forget---matt's primary source remains his cable bill. in light of that, what would you expect?

matt, by the same reasoning someone can move to bermuda and still work in NYC.

lizyank, you go girl! i lived in Chelsea and Hell's Kitchen before the matt's of the world stunk up this city so horribly.

That telecommuting theory of Manhattan real estate price appreciation is a good one. You should write a book on it.

Did you ever consider that more people might choose to come here because this was where you could MAKE money rather than SPEND it?

Holy cr*p, I heartily agree with Matt's last four posts.

Manhattan has become a supercity that pulls rich people throughout the world, much as London does. It's not "fair" (especially to creatives like me) but it's happened.

ali r.
{downtown broker}

People who think the story of 2000-2008 Manhattan is more than leverage at banks = more comp per person and easier underwriting standards are too caught up in whimsical tales. Don't mistake secular trends in place since the 1970s for the tripling or quadrupling in values that took place from the mid 1990s to the peak...in order to justify a shallower correction. Supercity my ass. You are both tre dramatical.

needless to say i agree. sounds far too much like the old argument that manhattan is an island, manhattan is different, they're not building any more land (particularly hilarious) in manhattan, etc.

the superwealthy have been acquiring homes like underwear. and now they're not. it might have been just the thing in Russia in 2006 to buy a manhattan apartment, but today i'd bet vlad is looking to sell.

plus, which superwealthy person is going to buy a 2/2 in a white brick 1970s building in Yorkville? this is not one uniform market, the housing stock is what it is, and it's certainly not all appropriate for those in search of a "supercity."

although it could explain why Ali doesn't believe prices will fall much.

the superwealthy have been acquiring a lot of things like underwear. take a look at the market for private jets. god help us if we're dependent on the super rich.

as the great Felix said:

"if it Flies, Floats or F*cks better to rent it!"

as the great Felix said:

"if it Flies, Floats or F*cks better to rent it!"

uf, double again? this time i press only once... sorry about Felix' dixit.

"the superwealthy have been acquiring homes like underwear. and now they're not."

It's not just the "superwealthy" ... it's the "regular wealthy" who comprise the biggest influx.

oh yes, the regular wealthy can afford manhattan, no prob. let's just whip out matt's definition of upper class, and see how far that income will get you in 2007 manhattan.

Again, according to the Department of Labor, the Upper Class comprises ALL those who make over $167K (not just $167K).

"But this one goes to 11."

you keep using this phrase, middle class. i do not think you know the meaning of this phrase.