What is Middle class in Manhattan

not answering so quickly now .... I think C0lumbiaC0unty likes slimy!

"jason, I am not saying Manhattan is not expensive. I am only saying realistically people make more than $67k as a median adjusting for the factors I mentioned (very few burbs have these adjustments)."

No, the median income is what it is, period. You can't NOT count certain people. All people are people. There are people with HUD vouchers, in low income housing, and on foodstamps or getting other forms of aid in every large city, and despite what you think in many suburbs of NYC. There are such people in LA, SF, Dallas, Chicago, and yes, despite what you say in Suffolk, Nassau, Westchester, husdon, Bergan and other surrounding counties, not to mention in the other five boroughs.

I mean all five

There are literally hundreds of thousands of people in low income housing and/or with HUD vouchers in the NY metro area who do NOT live in Manhattan. Hundreds of thousands in the Bay Area (plus rent control in some cities there still). Etc. Using my Maryland example above...hundreds of thousands with the same things.

Jason, sorry but I can't fathom your ignorance in statistics, an area that has 40% at the top of the income ladder, 40% at the bottom and 20% in the middle might have the same median as an area with much different distribution patterns.

Btw, read the article.

to me a middle class person who worked already for 1 decade shouldn't be in trouble financially for ~1 year after losing their jobs. guess that's my measure of what middle class is, it's rooted in childhood though, that's how my family saw it.

it's not paycheck by paycheck but it's not "let go to paris in 1st class with the whole family" on a whim either.

>Jason, sorry but I can't fathom your ignorance in statistics,

Ignorance or retardation?

Notadmin, you are clearly out of touch with Middle Class New York.

I don't know of anyone who can miss even ONE paycheck, living on the NYC median HHI (less than $60K), let alone who can miss 52 weeks' worth.

And I'm talking people who've worked for DECADES as a "middle class" worker.

Middle Class in NYC is, in fact, living paycheck to paycheck. Not only is it not "let's go to Paris", it's not even "let's go to the Jersey Shore" for most.

Clearly there is no one middle class in your co-op.

I never said there was.

Duh.

Triple_Zero and Lookingglass, yes, absolutely, I agree: almost all Columbia profs at almost all levels have it almost all better than almost all profs at CUNY. I wasn't claiming otherwise.

My point was simply that it's silly to imply, as that NYTimes article does, that tenured Columbia and NYU profs are "on average" doing just fine financially, or at least would be if they didn't have to contend with the NY real estate market. The average annual salary that's listed in that CHE chart is so skewed by the tenured folks in the law and business and med school that it's meaningless.

"The average annual salary that's listed in that CHE chart is so skewed by the tenured folks in the law and business and med school that it's meaningless."

The average is the average. Its not meaningless to those who make more than the average. What, they are not actual people living in Manhattan? I love how so many on this board say don't include law professors, people in rent control, certain neighborhoods, etc, when the article said MANHATTAN. The stats quoted for the article were 100% for ALL PEOPLE in New York County. Not cherry-picked people or places.

It is meaningful in terms of trying to get a sense of who you are competing with in the market, when you're not eligible for cheap housing.

This is why the MEDIAN income is a bit more accurate than the "average".

Even still, it's patently absurd to allege that anyone making over $150K in NYC -- making THREE TIMES the MEDIAN household income -- and firmly ensconced in the upper ten percent -- is "middle class". Making more than 90% of everyone else in your locale isn't "middle" anything, regardless of how your lifestyle stacks against someone in Dallas or Akron.

Re: Even still, it's patently absurd to allege that anyone making over $150K in NYC -- making THREE TIMES the MEDIAN household income -- and firmly ensconced in the upper ten percent -- is "middle class".

How's this Matt:

Person #1 - Income $150K: single male; he makes $150,000; lives very comfortably in 1 BR apt @ $3000/mo; saves 15% in 401k; has $3000 /mo net discretionary cash to live a relatively posh lifestyle - dinner out 3-4 times a week, long getaway weekends, spends money without thinking about it.

Person #2 - Income $150,000: married couple w 1 kid; she makes $125,000, he makes $25,000 as substitute teacher; live jammed into the same $3,000 1 BR apt (jr 4 w/ tiny bedroom now); save 6% in 401K, dinner out rarely, a week at Disney World each year; after the kid-related expenses, daycare, school, etc, they're essentially broke and paycheck to paycheck.

Now you would call them BOTH UPPER MIDDLE class???

To be fair to certain people, the AVERAGE for NY county is $120k per household. The median is SOOOO skewed from the average because of the ultra-wealthy here. But making $120k in Manhattan, believe it or not, STILL puts you in the top 25 percentile for Manhattan. Here is what the Census estimated for Manhattan households 2011:

New York County, New York Percent in Group
Estimate
Total: 728,520 100%
Less than $10,000 75,192 10%
$10,000 to $14,999 39,312 5%
$15,000 to $19,999 34,083 5%
$20,000 to $24,999 31,151 4%
$25,000 to $29,999 26,727 4%
$30,000 to $34,999 26,501 4%
$35,000 to $39,999 23,784 3%
$40,000 to $44,999 24,516 3%
$45,000 to $49,999 17,541 2%
$50,000 to $59,999 38,773 5%
$60,000 to $74,999 55,939 8%
$75,000 to $99,999 68,209 9%
$100,000 to $124,999 54,418 7%
$125,000 to $149,999 34,615 5%
$150,000 to $199,999 56,994 8%
$200,000 or more 120,765 17%

Sorry top 30%.

West34 --

Yes, I most certainly would.

In both cases the HHIs are higher than 90% of the rest of the households in the city.

What each household DOES with its money doesn't change their "upper class" status.

Here is the same for NYC as a whole and to the right of that, NY (small version) metro area. Only 16% make above $125k per year in NYC and 22% in NY metro. 7% and 9% above $200k.

New York City, New York Percent in Group Metro Area Percent in Group
Estimate Estimate
Total: 3,023,330 100% 6,789,943 100%
Less than $10,000 336,074 11% 520,664 8%
$10,000 to $14,999 198,383 7% 334,692 5%
$15,000 to $19,999 176,613 6% 329,785 5%
$20,000 to $24,999 170,415 6% 321,976 5%
$25,000 to $29,999 141,985 5% 278,203 4%
$30,000 to $34,999 142,749 5% 286,344 4%
$35,000 to $39,999 122,382 4% 254,727 4%
$40,000 to $44,999 128,938 4% 260,659 4%
$45,000 to $49,999 103,000 3% 220,234 3%
$50,000 to $59,999 205,087 7% 453,333 7%
$60,000 to $74,999 269,368 9% 613,386 9%
$75,000 to $99,999 318,390 11% 802,272 12%
$100,000 to $124,999 221,018 7% 615,596 9%
$125,000 to $149,999 131,400 4% 404,682 6%
$150,000 to $199,999 157,683 5% 498,916 7%
$200,000 or more 199,845 7% 594,474 9%

But Matt you do understand that the whole point of the article is that most feel the concept of "middle class" implies both a level of income and a standard of living? And that social and economic factors in NYC that are independent of income level can have huge impacts on standard of living?

But at least you're consistent -- a "strict incomist" when it comes to evaluations that most would consider requiring more nuance -- sort of the Antonin Scalia of coop boards and Streeteasy Talk.

West34, I understand that many people live beyond their means and have unrealistic ideas of what "middle class" really is.

"I don't have a Mercedes" = "middle class"

"My Fifth Avenue apartment is smaller than a mid-sized Texas house" = "middle class"

"I spent all my money on a Ferrari and now I'm forced to live in the ghetto" = "middle class"

Do you see the absurdity of it?

"Middle Class" is not a lifestyle, nor is it an elastic measure of how one "feels" on one's income. It's a cut-and-dried measurement of how you stack up against everyone else.

"We are a family of 3 sharing a single bedroom and we have no money" = middle class

Once upon a time they called that poor

Privacy isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution so you ain't really entitled to any -- A. Scalia

NycMatt which class would you put yourself in?

Matt makes $700,000/yr so he's part of the "Uber Wealthy"

""We are a family of 3 sharing a single bedroom and we have no money" = middle class

Once upon a time they called that poor"

***

No, they NEVER called that "poor".

12 people living in a single ROOM was "poor".

But I digress.

If you're making $150K/year you're UPPER CLASS. Period. What you do with your upper class take-home pay is your business -- whether it means having 11 kids in an overpriced Fifth Avenue studio, or living as a single lesbian in a 12-room Victorian in Ditmas Park.

Rugmunchers in Ditmas Park ??? hahaha

Re $150k = upper class, what is the next tranche up in terms of dollar cutoff and its associated label?

$150K = upper class
$400K = ridiculous class
$1M = ludicrous class

Back in da day ...That govt cheese was REAL GOOD !! What class was that ?

Again - people who make $100k per year don't FEEL middle class in Malibu or Fairfax County or Star Island. To them, I say move to the Valley north of Ventura, mainland Miami, or Prince George county.

Thanks w34, but let us hear from nycmatt on this.

And Jason what are you talking about??

> Notadmin, you are clearly out of touch with Middle Class New York.

they think they are middle class, paycheck to paycheck after decades of work isn't middle class to me.

> Person #2 - Income $150,000: married couple w 1 kid; she makes $125,000, he makes $25,000 as substitute teacher; live jammed into the same $3,000 1 BR apt (jr 4 w/ tiny bedroom now); save 6% in 401K, dinner out rarely, a week at Disney World each year; after the kid-related expenses, daycare, school, etc, they're essentially broke and paycheck to paycheck.

his salary doesn't make up for childcare costs so he'd become a stay at home dad instead, unless she's not getting good benefits.

paycheck to paycheck is not middle class

> paycheck to paycheck is not middle class

exactly. given the biggest housing bubble in history, you can easily find a household who stupidly participated on it, even becoming the biggest losers by winning bidding wars. those guys right now will feel much less middle class than a household with lower income that saw the bubble for what it was and stayed on the sidelines prioritizing their savings rate instead.

the first couple didn't care about their savings rate cause they were leveraging on a sure bet. this shows how having a middle class job/income while making the biggest mistake possible on the biggest expense kicks you our of the middle class as they live literally paycheck by paycheck. imho with decent savings rates after a decade or two of work who you invest your $ becomes the key.

i think of the financial picture of a household in terms of its balance sheet and quality of earnings more than in terms of what they seem to own from the outside (many times, rent from the bank). to me, it's peace of mind after work/savings/investing was well done for a decade or two.

Person #2 - Income $150,000: married couple w 1 kid; she makes $125,000, he makes $25,000 as substitute teacher; live jammed into the same $3,000 1 BR apt (jr 4 w/ tiny bedroom now); save 6% in 401K, dinner out rarely, a week at Disney World each year; after the kid-related expenses, daycare, school, etc, they're essentially broke and paycheck to paycheck.

It is possible to get a one bedroom in the New York metro area near a subway for half of that price. Since this couple is throwing at least $1,500 a month of discretionary spending at housing, I would consider them at least upper middle class to upper class. If you wan't to live in a $3,000 apartment, you need to work hard to earn more or sacrifice other discretionary spending, but $3,000 one bedrooms aren't middle class apartments - it is not an entitlement. As a Queens resident, if $3,000 apartments are middle class, does that make all of the teachers, policemen and admin assistants who live out here dirt poor?

> If you wan't to live in a $3,000 apartment, you need to work hard to earn more or sacrifice other discretionary spending, but $3,000 one bedrooms aren't middle class apartments - it is not an entitlement. As a Queens resident, if $3,000 apartments are middle class, does that make all of the teachers, policemen and admin assistants who live out here dirt poor?

+1. by not only accepting, but also bidding up housing costs, these "middle class" households made themselves poor. it'll take years for them to get it, but eventually they realize that first they need to set a reasonable iron-clad savings rate and then see how much in housing they could spend.

Manhattan is a luxury market. It costs more to rent/own there than any reasonable definition of middle class. It is like asking what does it take to make it into the middle class in Brentwood. If you're middle class you do not live in Manhattan. Okay, now bring on the exceptions, the civil servant living for decades in their parents' rent stabilized or rent controlled Hells Kitchen or Yorkville tenement, the family living in a Mitchell Lama, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Manhattan is Brentwood?

"paycheck to paycheck is not middle class"

It most certainly is.

Show me a household bringing in $60K in NYC who's NOT living paycheck to paycheck.

THAT is middle class.

Matt nobody is buying your strict incomist schtick. And the reason is obvious -- the term is middle CLASS not middle INCOME! Class involves the concept of standard of living.

I would argue that you can be "upper income" and "middle class" at the same time.

"Show me a household bringing in $60K in NYC who's NOT living paycheck to paycheck."

If they own their home and are just paying maintenance, they aren't living paycheck to paycheck. In your neighborhood, where RE prices and incomes are both reasonable, there must surely be many such households. If I ever move there, I'll be one too.

Your argument would be invalid.

"Middle Class" is a fixed point on the income scale.

It's not how you "feel".

"If they own their home and are just paying maintenance, they aren't living paycheck to paycheck."

What color is the sky in your world? Does it have cotton candy clouds??

Seriously -- that would be maybe 3/8th of one percent of people who OWN in NYC.

Lower class includes people who cannot afford to exist without public assistance (welfare, public housing, etc.)

Middle class includes people who do not need public assistance but must work in order to pay the bills. The lower middle class consists of blue-collar workers, while the upper-middle class includes salaried professionals such as doctors, lawyers and executives. The distinction is typically that upper-middle class jobs require a college education.

Upper class is being able to afford a upper middle class lifestyle without holding job. People in the upper class may work, but they don't need to work to afford their homes or lifestyles.

This concept of "class" is consistent across all geographic regions.

So the answer to the question "what is middle class in Manhattan?" is the same as "what is middle class in Akron?": Middle class = People who work for a living and don't get handouts.

The article explores what means are necessary to attain a "middle-class" lifestyle. This is distinct from being "middle-class". A middle-class lifestyle includes being able to afford basics like food and shelter. Real estate, particularly the housing bubble, distorts our thinking about this.

Most people who live in Manhattan are middle class, the majority being "upper-middle". These people must hold jobs to afford their apartments. A married couple, doctor + lawyer, say, would not be considered upper class in any geographic region, despite potential income of $1 MM+ (unless they had significant investments that afforded them a upper-middle class lifestyle without the need to work). A teacher + cop couple, making considerably less, would still be considered middle class. Both couples could afford Manhattan, but the teacher + cop may live in a white-brick postwar Yorkville co-op, while the doctor + lawyer may live in a cast-iron TriBeCa loft.

The people who live in the tony buildings along Park, Fifth and CPW are mostly Upper class. Most people with $20MM+ in the bank probably don't need to work for a living, and that's the kind of liquid reserves you'd need to afford apartments in those coveted places. Of course there are Upper class folks scattered all over the city, but it's not something you can look at by income alone, because it's wealth, not income, that defines the class to which a person belongs.

A person with significant investments that generate say 150K per year would be considered Upper class, but a working couple with incomes totaling 150K and little savings would be considered middle class. That's why it's tough to use income as a measure for determining class.

As usual, Matt is totally and objectively wrong:

From Wiki "Middle Class":

The size of the middle class depends on how it is defined, whether by education, wealth, environment of upbringing, social network, manners or values, etc. These are all related, though far from deterministically dependent. The following factors are often ascribed in modern usage to a "middle class":[by whom?]

Achievement of tertiary education.
Holding professional qualifications, including academics, lawyers, chartered engineers, politicians and doctors regardless of their leisure or wealth.
Belief in bourgeois values, such as high rates of house ownership and jobs which are perceived to be "secure".
Lifestyle. In the United Kingdom, social status has historically been linked less directly to wealth than in the United States,[5] and has also been judged by pointers such as accent, manners, place of education, occupation and the class of a person's family, circle of friends and acquaintances.[6][7]
Cultural identification. Often in the United States, the middle class are the most eager participants in pop culture whereas the reverse is true in Britain.[8]

Let me break it down ghetto style to u wanna be braniacs. Paying yo rent with 1 week pay in manhattan = Uppa class.. 2 weeks = middle class 3 weeks or more = take yo punk azz back to DA BRONX

First of all, Wiki is hardly a source of record. Ever.

Second, MS has it mostly right, but gets it wrong saying a doctor and his wife making over a million a year are not "upper class". They most certainly are, even though they have to work for a living to maintain that status.

"Upper class" doesn't necessarily equate to "independently wealthy" (meaning you don't need an occupation to bring in income). There are many shades of upper class ... from myself to Michael Bloomberg and beyond, for instance. But because I may not have wealth beyond most people's imagination like Michael Bloomberg doesn't discount the fact that I'm still earning more than 97% of everyone else in this city. That in absolutely no measure puts me in the "middle" of anything.

> "paycheck to paycheck is not middle class"
> It most certainly is.
> Show me a household bringing in $60K in NYC who's NOT living paycheck to paycheck.

you seem to be condoning financial illiteracy. there are plenty of people earning $60k and saving. i know plenty of even students w/ a phd stipend who save. don't be so complacent, it's going to hurt you in the long run.

"you seem to be condoning financial illiteracy. there are plenty of people earning $60k and saving. i know plenty of even students w/ a phd stipend who save. don't be so complacent, it's going to hurt you in the long run."

I'm talking $60K PER HOUSEHOLD, not per earner.

> If they own their home and are just paying maintenance, they aren't living paycheck to paycheck. In your neighborhood, where RE prices and incomes are both reasonable, there must surely be many such households. If I ever move there, I'll be one too.

exactly, it's all about housing costs and how rational households are about it. if you want to be middle class (hence have a reasonably high and stable savings rate) you might need to rent uptown or in Bronx if you are a newcomer cause we just went through the biggest housing bubble in history. if you are a local with family in NYC for generations, you might have a house free and clear, hence you can save like there's no tomorrow with that $60k.

falling for the bubble to me represents what behaving non-middle class is: uncontrolled gambling lured by promises of riches the easy way. middle class requires a decent stable job but also financial literacy so that spending is not dependent on debt. the middle class builds its net worth steady the old fashion way: through a high savings rate. not an embarrassingly low 5% cause it gambled it away on an already over-leveraged game.

those with otherwise middle class jobs who fell for the bubble fell out of the middle class. while they live paycheck-by-paycheck the true middle class keeps on saving each year a good amount. it's the hair and the tortoise: the tortoise is the middle class, the hair is not (it's poor cause of not being patient).

> I'm talking $60K PER HOUSEHOLD, not per earner.

you really think that with $60k/HHI doesn't allow you to rent in Bronx and save? btw phd students w/ stipends earn less than half that. usually the only earners in their household and many can put the avg USA savings rate to shame.

> "Middle Class" is a fixed point on the income scale. It's not how you "feel".

let's see if you get it with this image: you have a guy who earns $60k/yr in a middle class wage. he's a heroin addict, which cost him $50k/yr. is he middle class? not really, he's not even above poverty line after his addiction.

now replace real estate with heroin and you will get the picture. you need to understand how ex-middle-class members shoot themselves on the foot by accepting housing costs. if they thought buying was an "investment" they are now living maybe even at poverty level (with a money pit). what's interesting is not this, imho everybody can see this issue, but what effect these "addicts" had on the real middle class households for which decent savings are non-discretionary (they are not pissed away in over-leveraged gambles like buying inflated housing).

"btw phd students w/ stipends earn less than half that. usually the only earners in their household and many can put the avg USA savings rate to shame."

No they're not.

First of all, being a Ph.D. student is an extremely temporary situation -- and many are living off of loans, in addition to their stipends.

And most Ph.D. students *I* know (and I know quite a few) are married to major breadwinners.

"let's see if you get it with this image: you have a guy who earns $60k/yr in a middle class wage. he's a heroin addict, which cost him $50k/yr. is he middle class? not really, he's not even above poverty line after his addiction."

Even if you replace the heroin with real estate, it doesn't change middle class status.

What you do with your middle class income doesn't change your middle class status, whether you're blowing the money on an apartment you can't afford, a Ferrari, or a warehouse full of Oreo cookies.

> And most Ph.D. students *I* know (and I know quite a few) are married to major breadwinners.

i meant aside from PhD students of the university of interior design, you know, i'm talking about top universities.

Matt you didn't answer about the level over $150k

> What you do with your middle class income doesn't change your middle class status, whether you're blowing the money on an apartment you can't afford, a Ferrari, or a warehouse full of Oreo cookies.

sorry, i cannot help you further. you seem to have issues.

What is the highest level of income in NYC where you can qualify for some sort of housing allowance?

Matt you said you earn more than 97% of all earners in Manhattan?

"Matt you didn't answer about the level over $150k"

What was the question again?

"sorry, i cannot help you further. you seem to have issues."

Yes. "Issues" with logic and accuracy. Join me sometime.

"i meant aside from PhD students of the university of interior design, you know, i'm talking about top universities."

Uh huh.

Me too.

Either they're married to someone paying the mortgage, or they're living off a combination of their "stipend" AND loans AND/OR a "stipend" from Mom and Dad.

"Matt you said you earn more than 97% of all earners in Manhattan?"

Yes.

@NYCmatt

u r spending a lot of time trying to get people agree to a definition. it is clear by the NY times article as well as what a lot of people have posted here that they disagree with u. isn't a definition pointless if no one except u agrees with it? and even if someone makes $1m+ and is not technically middle class, does that change anything about the fact that living in manhattan is not quite as luxurious as one would think at that income level?

"Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth."

> Either they're married to someone paying the mortgage, or they're living off a combination of their "stipend" AND loans AND/OR a "stipend" from Mom and Dad.

boy, you are so wrong it's funny!!! the lion share isn't even married. you clearly hadn't been close to academia in decades

also, when it comes to how we talk about how to be middle class, i'm thinking about how to help the young avoid mistakes the olders made inflating home prices... i'd say that only wage income is obviously not the only variable to look at, that it takes more than an avg paying job. i'd go even further and encourage the young to think about ways to earn $ aside from wages and put most of their best energy and efforts there.

otherwise the boomers and the promises they made to themselves might really sink the young.

>being a Ph.D. student is an extremely temporary situation -- and many are living off of loans, in addition to their stipends.

The average span of a PhD in the US is what, eight years? With, at the most, three years of tuition breaks and $20K annual stipends from the university? And half of them can't get full-time jobs in academia for a year or two or three after completing the PhD?

>And most Ph.D. students *I* know (and I know quite a few) are married to major breadwinners.

That's nice for your circle of friends, but the fact working towards a PhD is truly accessible only to the independently wealthy does not help your argument, Matt. It's like saying the minimum wage should be $4/hour because, hey, there will always be people willing to accept that.

Most PhD students I know (and I'm guessing I know many more of them than you do, as that's my line of work) are not married to breadwinners of any kind or otherwise supported by their families.

But frankly if we're really talking class, and not economic status, then PhD students in the humanities and their professors are aristocrats.

Matthew, we go through this same conversation about once a year.

Middle-income/wealth is not the same concept as middle CLASS. The latter is a social class, not an economic one, and thus is not quantifiable.

Governments don't keep statistics on social class.

The lower class lives for/in the present.

The middle class lives for/in the future.

The upper class lives for/in the past.

@ NYCMatt

sorry u r sorely mistaken. if something is blue, and u r alone convinced it is black, that minority representation doesn't mean u r correct, nor does it validate ur mistaken opinion of the item in question.

nyc1234, that might be true IF I were wrong.

I am not.

nycmatt:canada::stevejhx:mexico

"A foolish consistency..."

Come on, Matt, quit looking down on your neighbors.

I'm confused about "Seriously -- that would be maybe 3/8th of one percent of people who OWN in NYC." Of the people who make middle-class incomes, 3/8 of 1% own outright and pay only maintenance?

Check out what someone in your neighborhood can live in:

525 sf, $167k:

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/673011-coop-579-west-215-st-inwood-new-york

2 BR, $165k; probably HFDC:

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/684722-coop-509-west-160th-street-washington-heights-new-york

750 SF, $160k (huge multi-year chopper):

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/691873-coop-25-indian-road-inwood-new-york

And this is limiting things to Manhattan.

All of these are livable by a couple or parents of one kid, and all require but a single $50-60k-earning breadwinner. If you earn a salary in that range, you should eventually be able to buy, and pay off a mortgage on, a home in this price range before age 40. Then you have only to pay maintenance in the $600 range. You'll live a nice sold middle-class life, and you don't need to have been born into riches or elite connections to reach a salary like that; regular white- and blue-collar people earn this much.

Why would there be so few intelligent, future-time-oriented earners of $60k who want to live in NYC and are saving diligently to do so?

"And Jason what are you talking about??"

This:

West34: "But Matt you do understand that the whole point of the article is that most feel the concept of "middle class" implies both a level of income and a standard of living? And that social and economic factors in NYC that are independent of income level can have huge impacts on standard of living?"

You can live in super expensive places and not "feel" middle class, duh. Move someplace cheaper.

"What is the highest level of income in NYC where you can qualify for some sort of housing allowance?"

There are "middle income" units set aside in some privately owned buildings or coops that you can qualify for if your HH income is up to 8X (EIGHT!!!) the poverty level. Thats about $180k currently for a family of four. I think they give preferences to teachers, police, etc for these. You see a lot of these in Harlem. Some market rate, some low income, some moderate income, and some "middle" in the same building at times. In return the developer gets some sort of tax break. Someone else fill in the blanks, I am not 100% sure on all this.

Depending on the program, you can qualify for subsidized housing at less than 50% of AMI (area median income) to up to 175% of AMI.

https://www.nychdc.com/content/pdf/Developers/Mixed%20Income%20termsheet.pdf

Re: [in Washington Heights] If you earn a salary in that range, you should eventually be able to buy, and pay off a mortgage on, a home in this price range before age 40. Then you have only to pay maintenance in the $600 range.

Triple -- but certainly not in a special building like Matt's (aka Chateau Pompous), where the pretentious middle class snob board prez would never deign to approve someone who doesnt have 27 times the $160K purchase price in liquid assets and the monthly mortgage payment cannot exceed 2.5 days worth of TAKE HOME pay. Even tho said board prez and likely 99% of other current resisdents couldn't pass their own standards.

REMom everything you say is obviously true. I see that "But those income figures are based on a broad region that includes Long Island and Putnam, Rockland and Westchester Counties. " So the median is $76,800.

> Even tho said board prez and likely 99% of other current resisdents couldn't pass their own standards.

so right! they got caught up on the bubble and want to push those numbers on everybody else. fortunately not everybody fell for the bubble, so the smarty ones kept on being middle class.

the silly real estate addicted types will live paycheck-to-paycheck as if they weren't middle class and accumulate no real wealth, it's their fault. they are in rehab for real estate addiction.

NYCMatt: middle income and middle class are two different things.

Occupation and income do NOT define the class to which you belong. But they can help you move from one class to the next. For example, you can be born poor, then get a college degree and become a nurse, thus ensconcing you into the middle class. Or, you can be born to middle class parents and start an internet company (a la Mark Zuckerberg) and be thrust into the upper class.

If you earn more than 97% of NYers, you're most certainly upper income. But are you upper class?
Maybe. If are independently wealthy then I'd say yes. But if you need a job to survive, and cannot live a very comfortable lifestyle on your assets alone, then you're not upper class.

Look, for example, at a businessman with around $10MM in investments.
He can live off of his investments alone. He's upper class.

The doctor + lawyer couple from before, earning $1MM+, but with less than 1MM in savings.
Upper income, upper middle class.

As we all know, there is an uneven distribution of people in each class.
Most people are middle class. There are far fewer lower class and even fewer upper class people.

So, what is middle income? it's the interquartile range of the income distribution of all incomes in NYC. 25th percentile to 75th. That's it. It's simple math.

I think what the article is getting at is that many "middle income" people can't afford to actually live here. And the reason for that, as the article mentions, is that many people 1) are middle income but are actually upper class because they have lots of money in the bank 2) bought real estate back when it was affordable, and wouldn't get board approval if they tried to buy the apartment they live in today or 3) have rent-regulated/subsidized housing and are paying way below market and are living in a place they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford

Matt belongs in the middle ages.

> If are independently wealthy then I'd say yes. But if you need a job to survive, and cannot live a very comfortable lifestyle on your assets alone, then you're not upper class.

so true, being free from wage-earning jobs is what the top is about, not a high wage. it's amusing when this distinction escapes the main voter, who thinks about sby earning a high wage when he's told "we need to tax the rich" (basically anybody earning a wage he know he himself would never be able to aspire to).

if it weren't for this mistake the typical voter falls for, there would have been talk already about a wealth tax (not earned income tax) to help out fund Medicare, Netherlands does, France does it... as population ages, most countries might end up doing it.

ms_w71 said it very well. I may add that traditionally the term "middle class" represents the group with steady jobs (and income) that can support his/her family of better than basic living standards. They would also have some saving every month. Those saving would afford them some vacation trips and some major purchases every once in a while. It represents a life style that comes from their optimistic view of their job security and satisfaction of what they already have.

So income is only one of the many factors to determine if you are in the middle class, even in Manhattan. The other factors can be more abstract. what is better than basic living standards? private schooling for your children? live in nanny? eating out 3 times a week? luxury apartments? If you don't need all these to be satisfied, then you can earn much less and still be in the middle class.

@ MS_W 71 : please post more often (if you can).

@ Huntersburg : FUNNY!!!

> Those saving would afford them some vacation trips and some major purchases every once in a while. It represents a life style that comes from their optimistic view of their job security and satisfaction of what they already have.

this might have been true several generations ago, but for GenX and GenY savings are non-discretionary both for their retirement and for educating their kids. remember that pensions and entitlements are collapsing as we speak and that tuition at a public university is not basically nothing anymore.

Excellent point about pensions.

Regarding professors/salary: Certainly nobody sets out after their Ph.D. to earn an adjunct's salary (pittance.) That stops far short from proving that society rewards people according to their contributions. If it did, nurses would make more than drug dealers and fine elementary school teachers more than pro basketball players. My back goes up when someone reasons from the assumption that pay=worth.

Palomalou ...

I'll agree with you that pay does not necessarily equal worth in this economy.

Still, however, most Ph.D.'s really are worth only an adjunct's salary.

It’s the Economy
Who Says New York Is Not Affordable?
By CATHERINE RAMPELL
Published: April 23, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/who-says-new-york-is-not-affordable.html?

One of the first things you learn when living in New York is that what qualifies as wealthy somewhere else seems barely middle-class here. On the Upper West Side, where I live, it’s hard not to feel as if Manhattan is impossibly expensive for young professionals. The average nondoorman, one-bedroom apartment in the neighborhood rents for about $2,500 a month. Oatmeal-raisin cookies at Levain Bakery cost $4 each. A pair of sensible, unstylish walking flats from Harry’s Shoes can set you back $480. I suppose, by comparison, that the $198 chef’s menu at Jean-Georges doesn’t sound so ridiculous.

New Yorkers assume that we live in the most expensive city in the country, and cost-of-living indexes tend to back up that assertion. But those measures are built around the typical American’s shopping habits, which don’t really apply to the typical New Yorker — especially not college-educated New Yorkers with annual household incomes in the top income quintile, or around $100,000. According to a recent study by Jessie Handbury, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, people in different income classes do indeed have markedly different purchasing habits. That may not be surprising, but once you account for these different preferences, it turns out that living in New York is actually a relative bargain for the wealthy.

While compiling her research, Handbury looked at Nielsen shopping data for 40,000 American households, across more than 500 food categories, with details on everything from organic labeling to salt content. Remarkably, she found that for households earning above $100,000, grocery costs are 20 percent lower in cities with a high per-capita income (like New York) than in cities with a low per-capita income (like New Orleans). There’s evidence that the same forces hold true for other products that cater to upper-income people, from high-end retail to beauty services. The average manicure, for example, is about $3 cheaper in New York City than in each of the rest of the top 10 biggest cities in the United States, according to Centzy, a company that collects data on the prices of services.

Part of the reason high-income residents get good deals, Handbury explains, results from a particular economic system. Highly educated, high-income New Yorkers are surrounded by equally well-educated and well-paid people with similar tastes. More vendors compete for their business, which effectively lowers prices and provides variety. There’s also a high fixed cost to distributing a niche product to an area; if there’s more demand for that product, then the fixed cost can be spread across more customers, which will justify bringing the product to the market in the first place. That’s why companies go through the expensive hassle of distributing, say, St. Dalfour French fruit spreads in rich cities but not in poor ones and why New York can support institutions like the Metropolitan Opera.

Of course, not everything that wealthy New Yorkers spend money on is cheaper here. Housing, after all, is absurdly expensive, even for the rich. Complex zoning regulations and limited land make it all but impossible for supply to grow alongside demand. Still, it’s somewhat unfair to compare housing costs here to those in a place like Buffalo, or even Atlanta, since perks like access to amenities and unusually lucrative jobs are baked into the cost of New York real estate. Yet those higher rents all but ensure that tenants will appreciate an amazing bakery or a fancy shoe store — and that retailers will have to lower prices to compete for their business. Regardless, the rent burden isn’t actually as onerous as people assume: the typical resident here pays roughly the same share of her income in rent as does her counterpart in Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia and Houston, according to N.Y.U.’s Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy.

Professional-class workers who like to moan about the cost of living in New York — and I’m including myself in this group — don’t realize how spoiled we are by both variety and competitive pricing. Truthfully, things seem more expensive here because there’s just way more high-end stuff around to tempt us, and we don’t do the mental accounting to adjust sticker prices for the higher quality. We see a sensible shoe with a $480 price tag or an oatmeal cookie for $4 and sometimes don’t register that these are luxury versions of normal items available from Payless or Entenmann’s. The problem, in part, is that people tend to anchor their own expectations for what they should buy based on what their neighbors are buying, not what some abstract, median American buys. It’s a phenomenon known by some as affluenza, and it partly explains the overborrowing by the lower and middle classes during the bubble years, when their incomes were flat but their high-income neighbors’ incomes were growing phenomenally.

Next Page

Weiner claws Red Lobster
By SALLY GOLDENBERG
Last Updated: 2:39 AM, June 4, 2013
Posted: 2:16 AM, June 4, 2013
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/weiner_claws_red_lobster_NqFmdi5sP7BFLUC8baEI5O

Anthony Weiner looked bored at a candidate’s forum last night — that is, until he took time out to attack, of all places, Red Lobster.

As he blasted the city for creating only low-paying jobs and hurting the middle class, he suddenly played restaurant critic and gave the seafood chain thumbs- down.

“It ain’t enough just to say I created another job at a Red Lobster . . . I don’t know what Red Lobster is . . . It’s like a Lundy’s for tourists or something,” he said.

Weiner told a roughly 50 people at the Council on Urban Professionals mayoral forum in Manhattan that the rising cost of living has rendered poor those making $45,000 or less in New York City.

"'Enough to Get by' Depends on Where You Live in the U.S...

...The median cost of modest living for an American family of four in the United States can be found in Newaygo County, Michigan, where $63,000 covers food, transportation, housing, child care, healthcare and taxes - but no extras such as vacations, eating out, or savings.

In New York the same lifestyle costs $93,500 and in Mississippi it can be had for $48,000..."

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2013/07/03/us/03reuters-usa-budget-family.html?hp

Lets all move to Mississippi!

But anyway, this is another measure CLEARLY showing that middle class, even in NYC, is a lot less income than numbskulls on these boards think.

Makes sense for someone who knows nothing about NYC to have to turn to Michigan and Mississippi as a benchmark. Retard.

food, transportation, housing, child care, healthcare and taxes - but no extras such as vacations, eating out, or savings

-- that is not "living"

The article refers to "getting by", which is an entirely different thing from the concept of "middle-class", by the way. I once read a good working definition of the latter, I think by a mid-20th Century US President, but I can't find it these days. Anyway, it had everything to do with confident hope for the future: ability to raise children, see that they're well-educated and healthy, and be able to live a comfortable retirement.

A controversial writer/lecturer on education (more recent, 10 years ago or so, can't remember her name) broke it out like this, and I think it's generally very wise:
Rich people live in/for the past.
Middle-class people live in/for the future.
Poor people live in/for the present.

The "rich" thing makes sense only for old money. Otherwise spot-on, and a source of many of the problems poor people have, and a clear indication that recent societal changes have made the middle-class start acting more like poor people, living in the present, taking on ridiculous mortgages with inadequate thought to the future, living without health plans, etc.