Disaster or Hyperbole

>> I think contrasting with suburban homes, NYC apartments tend to be "just so" size-wise for a given cycle of a persons life

In NYC, housing overconsumption is something to be careful of. Hence i am not too sad we are in a “cheap” coop 2br. We spent covid in a rental 1br at the expense of our sanity, so i would not do that again. But also not looking to keep upgrading the current space too much. I am extremely focused on keeping monthly housing expense down as much as possible.

>> Most industries that pay this well have a decent growth curve so anyone on $650k hasn't been there for long, certainly not 8.

That’s what I am saying to brokers and boards for years. This high income, young couple with 1M in savings does not exist. And no, I don't have a gambling problem, or a spending problem, but I did pay off 6-figure student loans.

I’ve concluded they really actually looking for a young couple with a trust fund.

> That’s what I am saying to brokers and boards for years. This high income, young couple with 1M in savings does not exist.

You just need to be working for longer before you buy and save up by keeping your expenses down. 40 is still young. Manhattan real estate is sheer luxury just like any major global business cities - Tokyo, London, HK, Mumbai, Beijing, Paris.

We didn’t buy till we had savings exceeding my purchase value and went for 3x the space we were living in as for us that was the reward for working hard and being diligent savers. No second home etc desires for us.

I know many people who had more savings than the purchase price. Of course mostly in finance where incomes can be higher than $650k for one. In fact, they viewed their purchases as prudent as they know the finance income levels can be short lived.

Another way for people in finance is to treat bonuses as a windfall. Just spend according to base salary and accumulated savings.

Thanks all for the replies. The last classic seven in our building closed a little over a year ago at $1650000 after being on the market for a few years with multiple price drops. We currently have two others who want to sell and refuse to go lower than approx $2M, which is clearly not low enough to offset the high maintenance. My building is doomed. :(

@Krolik - 100%
The "1% income with 0.1% savings" couple is basically trust fund or "liquidity event" (sold a startup).
We have some of each in my condo.
I don't think you want to structure your application rules to filter exclusively for these people as there really aren't THAT many.

The probability of accumulating $1M liquid they wish to allocate to housing (+$XXXk to non-RE hopefully).. but not having already spent it on a smaller unit / lower down payment building / etc.. are low.

By the time you've flipped the switch mentally to "I want to buy" it's hard to imagine continuing to put away $100K/year for 5 more years past the point you could have already bought something adequate. At the end of that 5 years, adequate probably changes definition.

It took us years to save for the downpayment&closing on our BK condo, but now we make enough that we can save that downpayment again in a year. However we wouldn't be a typical buyer for unit of this price/size now as I watch the treadmill of 30-35ish buyers rotate out to the next round of 30-35ish buyers.

> @MCR - $6500/mo seems like a ton of monthlies to me & surprised there's a classic seven to be had at $2M, but I suppose that's because of the monthlies?

$6,500 is a a huge issue. My total monthly cash outflow for housing is less than that right now. There was a 4br top floor apartment I linked recently, close to the same geographic area, and offered for $1.5M with similar monthlies. Based on estimated cap rate it was still not a great deal…

@krolik - How low would the prewar three bedroom (classic seven - which can be 4 bedroom if you are willing to use small maids room as bedroom) have to be priced for you to take on $6500 monthlies?

Steve>> After tax $650k is $325k income

It’s not that bad, more like $400K without kids. If you max out two 401k’s, closer to $420K.

https://smartasset.com/taxes/new-york-tax-calculator#kbuJE0hTt1

@MCR
I think very roughly, back of the envelope, in present interest rate environment, about ~1M to 1.2M, if i was looking to upgrade living situation. One couple I am friends with (same age, similar income, two kids) is looking for a 3-4 br in the area, and i think this would also be a price at which it would make sense for them. I realize a lot of people (trust fund couples? older folks with large nest eggs? or people that you previously referred to as “not good with money”, people that really love this kind of apartment) would be interested at a higher price point, including the couple that you mentioned that bought a similar unit for 1.65M (but they also bought when interest rates were lower).

I have a lot of unknowns as I have not seriously considered a pre-war purchase before. I understand that due to ceiling height it might be a more luxurious apartment than a post-war, and many would put a higher premium on that than I would (because i am short? LOL) On the other hand, I am not sure about any useful life/depreciation considerations, as well as electric, plumbing and air conditioning situation in such an apartment.

Also, partially depends on what is driving the maintenance number. Is it taxes, operating expenses, or a huge mortgage?

> It’s not that bad, more like $400K without kids. If you max out two 401k’s, closer to $420K.

This is interesting thinking. The take home after maxing out two 401K's will be smaller, but I guess that you added the pre-tax 401K deduction as the savings.

> https://smartasset.com/taxes/new-york-tax-calculator#kbuJE0hTt1

I wish it has the option to specify the actual income from each spouse. The current version only considers one earner so the FICA deduction will be off for two earners.

@nada - I don't know why I typed $650k I think mentally I was using $600k after we were discussing a mix of $600k & $650k up thread.

I don't think your retirement savings are relevant to include in the savings side of the "how much can you save for a downpayment given XX income in NYC" discussion, other than to say - you better be maxing out your 401k.

it also does depend on 1 or 2 earners as you have to cap out FICA twice with 2 earners
Using @woodside link, putting in $650K and $20k 401k, it gives me $386k take-home, with $22k going to FICA. Without 401k it gives me $396k take-home.
2 earner version of $650 household take-home if both do $20k 401k and obviously pay FICA would probably be closer to $364k I think?

The $600K 2-earner version with $20k 401k each seems to end up with $329k take-home.

So I think you very quickly end up in the $329-364k range of spendable/saveable after tax cash to live & put towards DP savings. So I would suspect annual downpayment savings is closer to the $100k end than the $200k end of things for most, especially if they live in Manhattan and already have at least 1 kid.

> At that income/age profile, I’d spend 25-33% across *everything* and save the remaining 67-75%. Perhaps it’d be 50%/50% with young children. And to preempt any incredulity regarding how impossible it is to live on *only* $200K after-tax with children, if 99% of the population can do it with a fraction of that, trust me, I’d be fine.

Not sure about 99% statement for the people can do a fraction of $200K for a family of four (two kids, two adults) in Manhattan

I'm living in the poor Queens and we spend money very cautiously, not eating out too often and not spending much money on vacations. The expense of a family of four is about $100K a year (the fraction of 200K=0.5), where half of it is for the housing, the other half is for other expense (food, clothes, kid's actives, etc). I can imagine that a similar family in Manhattan can easily double my family's $100K cost.

My two kids are already in middle school and above, no need to for day-care and after school care or summer camp. These will increase the cost much more.

>> If the career requires lots of overnight travel, they might need daycare AND a nanny. That is easily 8-9k a month.

All the more reason to not blow $15K/mo on housing, IMO.

>> The take home after maxing out two 401K's will be smaller, but I guess that you added the pre-tax 401K deduction as the savings.

Yes. To me, the (rough) value of tax-free compounding in a 401k is as if you pay zero taxes. Company march is additional, if present.

Steve>> So I think you very quickly end up in the $329-364k range of spendable/saveable after tax cash to live & put towards DP savings.

Understood. My focus is very wrapped up in percent of income saved, and I don’t care much (or more accurately, I’d rather) it go via 401k. You’re talking about how long it takes to save up for the “apartment of your dreams”.

Woodside>> Not sure about 99% statement for the people can do a fraction of $200K for a family of four (two kids, two adults) in Manhattan

I *think* we’re on the same page here. The basis for my comment was a $400K after-tax income, and it if I were living that live with kids, I’d manage to “squeeze by” with $200K of spending and $200K of saving. You seem to be making it work on $100K, and $200K would feel (to me) like a nice enough bonus atop that. I don’t need to push spending any further with $400K after-tax; I would prefer to save/invest it.

>My focus is very wrapped up in percent of income saved

I don't think it works like that due to fixed nature of many expenses. The % saved depends on many things, including absolute amount of income, job requirements (how important is it to live next to the office?), family expenses (kids or no kids), health and transportation requirements, student loans, etc

A person with lower income will manage to save only a small portion, as a lot of cash goes to essentials.

For some fast-track careers, it makes sense to spend more as a % of income in the beginning on takeout, housekeeping help, professional attire, dry cleaning and rent next to the office. As income rises, % saved will increase significantly. With kids, first few years are very expensive due to limited govt help with childcare costs, and less as kids transition to public school. And don't forget student loans.

https://streeteasy.com/building/439-east-51-street-new_york/3a
Were I in the market for a classic 7, I might low ball this one. A trust-fund seller who traded up to a $10M townhome condo who might be willing to absorb the loss of capital? I can't say for sure; just spit-balling here . . .

And, rumor has it that the current board is will approve 20% down with 3 yrs maintenance in liquidity. Fascinating experiment in play. Just got it passed and waiting to see if anyone actually reads the minutes and does anything about it!

So, we are looking at $370 down, with roughly $216 in post-closing reserves and $500K household income. Anyone? I would totally have taken this at an earlier stage in life, but I also realize that I prioritize controlling my living space more than many (most?).

But, to be an honest broker, I suspect the downside is living in a building with a heavy population of septuagenarians, ogtogenarians and more than one nonogenarian. Or is that really a downside? Few of the aforementioned leave their apartments on a daily basis (weird), and many are not involved in building management. Indeed, it turns out that some (many?) of the aforementioned do not have any right to vote in building matters because their shares are held in trust by others who could not care less. The building is ripe for shareholder activism.

> And, rumor has it that the current board is will approve 20% down with 3 yrs maintenance in liquidity.
This is funny since doing the math.. "3yrs maintenance liquidity" is a solid +11% , not inconsequential.
What was the official liquidity requirement when 35% down was enforced? Still 11%? So about 50% required all-in?
How picky are coops like this about the flavor of liquidity? CDs/Bonds only? They OK with S&P ETF? Single stocks?

Re: elderly neighbors
Having elderly neighbors home all day can become a problem because instead of worrying about having annoying loud neighbors, you run the risk of inadvertently becoming one. Rich old former masters of the universe people with time on their hands, what could go wrong? I have a friend who, once his older neighbor downstairs got divorced and was home all day alone, started to inundate his family with spurious noise complaints. It went all the way to board, lawyers, and sound measuring consultants. Months of his life he isn't getting back.

Krolik>> I don't think it works like that due to fixed nature of many expenses.

It’s curious to hear someone explain how things work for me. As I said, for *me*, as a young family with $650K income, *I* would spend $100K-$135K without kids and perhaps $200K with kids. Whatever the circumstances, *I* would make it work. Spending $200K is way more than the vast majority of households, so clearly it can be done by making trade offs. *We* may not fit the image that others have of a $650K earning young family, but *we* don’t care.

I acknowledge that others may have different priorities, with different notions of what is important and/or needed for themselves. I’m sure you can concoct some example of a young family with 4 kids where both parents work 80 hours each, have to be on call next to the office at all times, but who simultaneously have to travel for work all the time, and have home offices each for when they WFH, and have $500K in student loans, and also need to send $10K/mo back to the home country to support large families, etc. I suppose if you pile up enough circumstances atop each other implausibly, I’d spend the full $400K too. But for the most part, these are choices at this level of spending. For example, the indefinite spending of $15K/mo on housing with $650K pre-tax income, per MCR’s example, may be called a “fixed expense” I suppose if you remove any agency in making the decision initially.

I obviously was talking about “most couples” :)
Agreed on circumstances differing between people.

Being a “young couple” with no kids and with that income at some point in the past, we were spending about 3-3.5k per month on a rental 1br (and paid off large student loans in a couple of years/saved for a downpayment on the current place). But if we had kids, it would have been a different story. Also when we had to WFH during covid, that really did not work, we desperately needed more space.

Two couples i know with that income or a little under with 1-2 kids in 2br 1ba in Manhattan, each spending under 5k/mo on housing, but both couples looking to upgrade soon. One of the couples is moving to a rental in jersey city. The other is looking in sutton and ues area (no urgency) to purchase a 3br.

Spending $15k on housing at that income for any of this couples or for us is a non-starter. I think our budget is like $8-9k tops. We are spending under $6500.

If your after tax income is 350k, and you apply the common wisdom of about 30% spent on housing, your budget is ~9k tops (but you might not want to max out the budget).

I think a couple with young kids before they go to a. public school will spend more and save less, because that is the time you want all the help you can get to keep sanity and avoid derailing careers. Childless couples or those with kids in public schools can save more.

If you have two small kids simultaneously in daycare, plus at least a part time nanny for days when you need to be out of town or work late, you are looking at 3500 + 3500 + 3000 to 5000 = 10000+ a month in childcare cost. That is more than 100k extra on top of other expenses. If move to queens, I hear a good daycare is 2700-3000 per month, but nanny is going to cost a similar amount. It might be close to impossible to save much at that income level if you need a lot of support.

Many people, especially internationals, get free childcare from grandparents they relocate from countries with lower incomes and retirement ages, and solve the problem that way. Not our situation, unfortunately, as my parents still work for another few years, and his parents live on the other coast and not willing to relocate. We just don’t ever get a break :( no bank of mom and dad, no free childcare, paid for own education, no jobs through family connections, pay taxes through the roof, etc.

With multiple little kids, and without mom and dad help, would need to deal with a bit overcrowding, and/or don’t live in Manhattan, and/or give up on saving (outside of 401ks) for a while, or just make more money, which is our plan A (but income above 300k per person is really not a given, as @300mercer stresses every time, especially if you don’t count on volatile things like bonuses). People with kids, please comment if I am off here?

We live in a non-fancy place, don’t have a car, and will see how it goes with one kid.

I am sorry you "do not get a break" (and I feel you about being envious of people who have family nearby who are willing to pitch in) but that second kid that you are budgeting is the jump that would make everything exponentially more expensive (childcare costs rise, housing costs rise, education costs rise, vacation costs rise, and as a result, standard of material things drops considerably and/or retirement gets pushed off.) Leisure disappears.

The jump from zero to one is hella expensive, but the jump from one to two, and moreover from two to three, is simply not an option for many New Yorkers who would otherwise desire it.

300_Mercer -- Love those examples of stuffy coop opportunities. Not sure I want to deal with another renovation, but agree these don't need a lot. Issue for me is whether central air (and, in at least one, W/D) is doable, and the master baths need to be enlarged. We are shortly destined to leave the village for some place of this size in a quiet (geriatric) neighborhood/building. If 1040 Park unit could flip the dining and primary so that the dining/breakfast/staff room was turned into a master, master bath, laundry room, walk-in closet (and perhaps central air in the staff room window), I am all in.

Sport, I think if the apartment has enough back facing windows, more than 9 foot ceilings (ideally 10foot) and extra space as in this case, central ac is always doable. Bathroom expansion is typically possible as long as the fixtures are still within old area. Please post some listing you may be interested in for our entertainment.

For your flipping the layout, I think it will depend on whether the coop considers staff room a wet area. It may be the case as it is between two wet areas. Master bedroom at the back may indeed be nicer.

> At that income/age profile, I’d spend 25-33% across *everything* and save the remaining 67-75%. Perhaps it’d be 50%/50% with young children.

I understand that it's important to have money saved for the raining days or whatever purposes. With a high pressure career and during the time when the kids are young, it's important to have the support that is needed and saving money should not be the number one goal at that time.

I'm sorry to hear a young mother and her child lost their lives. Not sure of her income, probably much less than 650K as it is a single earner.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-york-city-cancer-doctor-kills-baby-police-say-rcna98422

For my own self, I didn't save much money when the kids were young. At that time, my wife was a student and the kids do have grandparents support (it is a lot of help) and I was only able to maximize the Roth (primarily as an emergency money or as back-up money for the down payment), deducting very little 401K.

We were eventually able to finally purchase the first apartment after my wife had her job about two years and after renting for 10 years. During the two years when my wife was working, we were able to accumulate more money for the down payment so we didn't have to touch the ROTH for the first apartment purchase

Right now with the kids in middle school and higher (public school of course), I still don't have much money saved after the maximizing the 401K deduction, Roth and 529, though the total savings of these (including the employer's match) is about 100K, almost the same as my annual spending, according to nada's calculation, LOL.

@MCR so I think there are two somewhat separate questions:

1) What is a hypothetical "young" (or early middle aged) professional couple's housing budget,

and

2) At what price would they (or someone with a high income) would consider the Sutton Place classic seven with high maintenance, instead of alternatives

It seems like the answer to 1) is with $650 of pre-tax/ $350 after-tax income, the budget is likely $9k/month or less (30% or less of after-tax monthly income going to housing), depending on circumstances specifics. It might also be quite a bit less as some people are only going to consider their base salaries for recurring monthly expenses (and not stock-based comp, or volatile bonuses). Base salaries at or above $350k are extremely rare. For example, Amazon has a company-wide salary cap at $350k, and not a single person at this huge company has a cash base above that.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-pay-increase-350000-corporate-tech-workers/
So a couple with $650k income is not a candidate to purchase a classic seven. A candidate with a larger budget would likely have a higher income, or someone not "young" with a nest egg, or someone with a trust fund/parent assistance.

The answer to 2) is a comparison to rental prices, and housing options in other types of buildings or outside of Manhattan. At that very luxury price point and unit size (incl high maintenance as part of price point), and in the present interest rate environment, the best deal in Manhattan seems to be a rental. This may change if money is cheap/free again or if rents rise (which would happen if incomes rise, or there is an influx of population), and until then anyone who does a bit of math will likely conclude that the classic seven needs to be priced a lot lower to make sense over other options. This does not apply to people who don't need or don't want to count money and are set on buying no matter what the math says.

>> Please post some listing you may be interested in for our entertainment.

yes :-)

>> I am sorry you "do not get a break"

Did not mean to sound whiny.
We are incredibly well off and whenever I complain to my partner that any aspect of life is unfair, he says "Thank goodness it isn't. Many with the same talents but not as lucky to be in New York/USA (or a handful of similar places) have a much harder life after putting in the same or more effort".

> At that income/age profile, I’d spend 25-33% across *everything* and save the remaining 67-75%. Perhaps it’d be 50%/50% with young children.

@inonada
Considering the % of income saved, including earlier on in career, and all the high return investment opportunities you have access to, you will accumulate quite a fortune.
What is the end goal? Is it early retirement? Finally pursuing an expensive hobby or traveling the globe? Charity? Leaving an estate to children?

@krolik - That is helpful analysis. I need to give up on the idea of a young professional couple buying the classic 7. Were you on the board of a coop with such apartments, what income level, down payment minimum and post-closing reserve liquidity would you hope to see for a $2M purchase?

And @nycsport - would you be turned off by a building's only requiring 20% min down payment? Indifferent? View it as a plus?

I guess what are we trying to protect against with 30/35/40/50% down payments?
Benignly, it seems like over the top risk mitigation (wanting 0.0001% risk of default instead of 0.001%).
If the bank is approving a 20% mortgage, and you are already demanding 3 years liquidity from buyers, what is the building truly at risk for? If we are protecting against strategic defaults when prime Manhattan somehow draws down 20%, then certainly 20% is enough.

Malignly, it seems mostly a "right sort of people" filter.
Maybe the whole coop application could be reduced to a postcard (like some famous tax reform pitches) except it has a single yes/no checkbox "are your parents rich?"

To me the question of how much of a financial hurdle to put in front of new buyers is interesting since no one then requires any financial check-in 5/10/15/30 years later when owners may have retired/had loss or reduction of income/drawn down assets/etc, and therefore be unable to meet a new assessment anymore than a "only 20% down payment buyer".

Sort of like drivers licenses where you pass it at 16, and then you are free to mow down people and cause fender benders into your 80s.

And to the above, aren't coops exacerbating the risk of dues non-payment on the back end when they hold sellers hostage rejecting buyers for months/years, disallowing rentals, and creating high bars for new buyers.. leaving owners who've had to move out due to life events in the lurch?

@steve123 - All good points. I don't see any benefit from requiring more than banks do. I suspect that if apartments in our building don't move even with lower DP requirements the board will raise them again. We'll see how the experiment goes.

>>Were you on the board of a coop with such apartments, what income level, down payment minimum and post-closing reserve liquidity would you hope to see for a $2M purchase?

@MCR I personally think the assets requirements should always be no more than 20% down and 1-2 years of monthlies. Can also enforce some ratio of debt payments to gross income (where debt is mortgage + maintenance + required minimum payments on other debts) like a bank would. A "younger" professional earning $350k in her career prime in NYC is highly employable and is unlikely to be out of a job for a long period of time (and especially, not two people at the same time). So asking for more savings than a reasonable down payment + 1 to 2 years of monthlies should not be necessary for financial stability of the building.

I believe it should be up to the couple if they want to over-allocate their income and savings to housing more than the typical person responding in this thread. Lots of people in NYC spend upwards of 40% of their income on housing, I have seen statistics on that somewhere.

Lowering the down payment requirement to 20% would also allow the building to compete for buyers with condos and less stuffy coops. Even people that have more savings don't love the idea of concentrating all of their wealth in one illiquid coop apartment.

By the way, a "young" professional couple with $400k - $700k in income is in a great position to buy a 2-br - not rejecting them from such a purchase would be a great start!

@krolik - I agree on all points. Here is to hoping my building moves forward in this regard.

@steve love all the points but particularly the post card idea :)
Could save so many trees!!!

>I'm sorry to hear a young mother and her child lost their lives. Not sure of her income, probably much less than 650K as it is a single earner.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-york-city-cancer-doctor-kills-baby-police-say-rcna98422

@woodsidepaul
What a tragic story of a new mom. Looks like her career was going great as well.

Spending a bigger portion of my income or even some of my savings will be well worth it to keep my partner and I from becoming a sad statistic. A friend of mine who is a new parent recently told me how hard it was for him and his wife to care for a newborn in the first few months... he had suicidal thoughts, too. So my partner and I have already booked a highly qualified and expensive "night nurse" for a few months post-partum. This will cost us a small fortune.

I have seen some articles and studies on (un)happiness of parents in the US (or elsewhere):
https://time.com/collection/guide-to-happiness/4370344/parents-happiness-children-study/
https://www.fatherly.com/love-money/parents-happiness-kids-afford-them
and apparently, it does come down to finances, especially in the US where there are no subsidies for early childcare. Parents that are struggling financially are really unhappy in the US. Older parents are happier than younger parents, because they tend to have accumulated more resources and have higher incomes.

Interestingly, I also saw a statistic somewhere, that it used to be that high earners did not have as many kids as poor people in the US, but that trend is now reversing.

@krolik - theres a general happiness curve which is U shaped that's been reported on but somewhat counterintuitive - most people actually get happier from their late 50s or so onwards
20s are fun
30s are tough raising kids
40s-mid 50s become even tougher taking care of aging parents while still handling kids
past there you have the freedom of your 20s without the self consciousness

I feel like it may be similar for wealth-

at the low end its hard, but you dont have the means/consideration to send your kids to private school/hustle private tutors/college prep resume building for 18 years..

at the high end you have the awareness, and ability to pay for everything

somewhere in the middle you may become aware of all the child raising maximizing but not have the means to afford all of it, so you feel the conflict of wanting to do more than you can

>> It seems like the answer to 1) is with $650 of pre-tax/ $350 after-tax income, the budget is likely $9k/month or less (30% or less of after-tax monthly income going to housing), depending on circumstances specifics.

So let me put in a note of disagreement on this. The “no more than 30%” sorts of guidelines are off gross income, not net income. That would put a $650K family at $195K on housing, or $16K/mo. It still leaves $45K to 401K, plus employer match for another (say) $22.5K, plus $150K to save or spend elsewhere, or $12.5K/mo. That’s a lot of spending money — most people get by with quite less — and even saving “only” 10% of gross income via 401k is more than many. Is that how you or I would budget $650K? Clearly not. But others with different priorities do.

I can think of at least two colleagues who bought apt at the $15K/mo “spend level” as young professionals with that sort of income. One, a classic six around $2M; the other, a shiny new dev 2BR for somewhat more (with ZIRP-era interest rates). Neither had kids at the time. No family money either. They just saved aggressively for the life goal of owning their home, and pulled the trigger as soon as they could with some degree of financial cushion.

Were they being financially imprudent? I don’t think so at all. Owning a family-sized apt was important to them and within reach, so they avoided buying anything smaller for years. Once they could get it done, they did. Employment outlook was secure enough, as was the cash cushion. Was their position 100% rock solid? Probably not, but better than most. In-demand fields, income on an upward trajectory, and spending elsewhere such that they’d earn & save fast enough to a rock solid position.

Should they have waited longer for a more secure positioning before pulling the trigger? Up to them. But regardless, the 40% vs 20% down thing eats into that cushion by ~2 years of expenses. That’s ~2 less years to find a job, to sell if you cannot, etc.

MCR>> I suspect that if apartments in our building don't move even with lower DP requirements the board will raise them again. We'll see how the experiment goes.

The experiment seems conflated by high rates to the extent outcomes are compared to pre-2022. But seems worthwhile to run nevertheless!

>> Right now with the kids in middle school and higher (public school of course), I still don't have much money saved after the maximizing the 401K deduction, Roth and 529, though the total savings of these (including the employer's match) is about 100K, almost the same as my annual spending, according to nada's calculation, LOL.

You have a chunk of home equity, though. That counts as savings in my book, as does 401k, etc.

It’s definitely hard to save aggressively at lower income levels. I spent much of my 20’s at $40K/yr in today’s dollars. Didn’t save anything; avoiding debt was accomplishment enough. Not terribly hard as a single person, I suppose. If I were living your income & family situation, I’d probably be spending vs saving the same as you. It’s more that if there were another $300K/yr after-tax available, the majority would go to savings with a minority going to additional spending. The incremental value of spending drops off rapidly, IMO.

Growing up, I worried about my parents’ savings and retirements over the years. Especially once I was going to college. They did me the favor of paying for it, I returned the favor by finishing in 2.7 years. When I asked about the state of their own investments / retirement, the running joke was, “Investing for retirement? What do you think I’m sending you to X for? You’re the investment!” The response was, “Don’t worry Ma, we’ll make sure to put you into the finest nursing home there is.” She’s still in good health and living in her own home thankfully, and has enough of money of her own, but I send gift checks every year because it’s easy enough for us to afford, so why not?

Brass tacks, compounded RoR on money spent raising me (including pre-college) will end ~6% after-tax. Better if she ever wants/needs more. Not bad for a “pension”, she was right after all!

Point being, you need to sprinkle similar running jokes into the heads of those kids of yours ASAP.

>So let me put in a note of disagreement on this. The “no more than 30%” sorts of guidelines are off gross income, not net income.

Partner and i think about this off net income. The effective tax rate at $650k and $65k is vastly different. At $60k gross and net numbers are close enough that people don’t really think too much about the difference.

>I spent much of my 20’s at $40K/yr in today’s dollars. Didn’t save anything; avoiding debt was accomplishment enough

Same here. It was my “starving artist” phase. LOL

>theres a general happiness curve which is U shaped that's been reported on but somewhat counterintuitive - most people actually get happier from their late 50s or so onwards

Apparently happiness boost coincides with kids being finally out of the house. Also, the bottom of the U is less deep for parents with means. Which is why we plan to spend whatever necessary to keep our sanity :)

Krolik>> Considering the % of income saved, including earlier on in career, and all the high return investment opportunities you have access to, you will accumulate quite a fortune. What is the end goal? Is it early retirement? Finally pursuing an expensive hobby or traveling the globe? Charity? Leaving an estate to children?

Good friggin’ question.

Early savings and avoiding home buying in favor of investments in the market yielded what has now grown into a small fortune. Atypical income growth thereafter, coupled with low spend rates and good investment return rates, piled on to make it a sizable fortune. Avoiding home buying certainly helped, again.

Is it going to become a large fortune? Perhaps, if I continue to get it right / lucky. To what end? I dunno, mainly because I’m stuck in a loop. Still not interested in home buying. The money demands respect in the form of good RoR and wise spending, and it is my job to serve it!!!

Early retirement? Unlikely. The day job is my idea of a good time.

Finally pursuing an expensive hobby or traveling the globe? Perhaps, if I had any goddam sense. I fear not getting to the point of able to move onto a different stage of life.

Leaving an estate to children? Absolutely not. First, no kids. Second, not my style — after college, offspring would be on their own. Maybe a hidden “reasonable” amount set aside, but no “dynasty” building. Screw that.

Charity? Most likely. Not because of any life goal or grand vision, but more as a default. Likely incognito, with no grand gesture like founding the Inonada Society of Renters so my name will be remembered “forever”. I accept the human fate of turning to ash and being forgotten, like the billions that came before me.

@nada - I was thinking the same thing about the timing of the building's experiment, but I was pleased they were willing to go for it at all. We have a number of shareholders in our building who have been there for decades. They must have purchased the family-sized apartments at around age 40 and raised their kids in them. They plan to die in the building, which was historically the only way apartments in building turned over.

It is what it is. I go back and forth on "what was I thinking?!" getting on the board again, but at the end of the day, I have to say that I am pleasantly surprised at how professionally the board is functioning these days. One of the other members says that everyone is on their best behavior because Eliot Ness is back. I don't care what the reason is; I am just glad to see that the building has it in it to operate in the manner I am witnessing.

@Krolik - the happiness curve thing really made sense to me looking back at my own parents. They (accidentally im sure..) had a big age gap from first 2 kids to last kid, and so were probably in "peak unhappiness" for most of my middle/high school years. My siblings I think developed a much different BFF relationship with them once I was out of the house.

@MCR
Couldn't pay me enough to sit on the board again.
Reminded me of working my old high school retail job, but for less money ($0).
Constant noise from the underemployed or simply miserable 5% of unit owners.
Genuinely nastier people routinely saying nastier things than anything I saw in 2 decades of Wall St.

I have much too thin skin to deal with when basically doing volunteer work. I help out at an animal shelter now, much more impactful.

Threats of litigation, filing discrimination complaints with the state, flyers under peoples doors making allegations, posters in the lobby, weekend & holiday rant emails, texting videos of themselves whinging to me, all coordinated with a secret "shadow board" newsletter as if they were an opposition party out of power.

New board is self dealing, wasting money, and being huge hypocrites on all the things they harassed the former board over, but their waste costs me the equivalent of my Verizon bill so whatever.

Sometimes it really is easier to be a critic.

On a lighter note, Perigold has been chasing me with this ad about 24K Gold Plated faucet. Nada may be better person to chase.

https://www.perigold.com/bath/pdp/devon-devon-swan-mixer-wall-mounted-bathroom-faucet-bvon1215.html?piid=59369910

May be for a gift for his super-mom.

Would have fit into that supposed ~$600K UWS 1BR renovation sponsored content!

With some equally fancy "if you have to ask the price you can't afford it" vanities to go.
https://nellavetrina.com/product-category/bathroom?filter_style=traditional|luxury&filter_types=bathroom-vanities-cabinets

>> Would have fit into that supposed ~$600K UWS 1BR renovation sponsored content!

Ha. Just one faucet.

Sounds like a lot of people in MCR's building are of similar ages. Could there be a situation down the line with a lot of simultaneous estate sales? What would that do to prices?

I am also surprised that all of these retirees are able to afford $6500 maintenance per month.

@Steve123 - I hear you. I got back on the board because the people I put in power turned out to be exactly the same as the ones I overthrew. It turns out they were never upset about the abuse of power; they were just upset they weren't the ones abusing the power. I have unusually thick skin and don't take any of the nonsense personally. However, I do have a freakish sensitivity to abuse of power that I wish I could just let go of. I don't know why I care when I am not personally affected.

@krolik - we are going to have a reckoning indeed.

PS to krolik re retirees being able to afford the maintenance: Back in the day the building was an all cash building. The depth of the pockets of the old guard is on another level.

>>Charity? Most likely.

What cause would you support?

>>Back in the day the building was an all cash building. The depth of the pockets of the old guard is on another level

But the prices were a lot lower as well, I am sure.

Might they run out at some point? Has anyone in the building ever defaulted or shown concern?

I enjoyed this video explaining why $650k earning couple in Manhattan is not middle class.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxIxk6h6RiE

300>> On a lighter note, Perigold has been chasing me with this ad about 24K Gold Plated faucet. Nada may be better person to chase.

Seems like the type of thing they’d put in a 2% cap rate place. For $0.70 per day on rent, why not? My mom would be into it, that’s for sure.

Krolik>> What cause would you support?

Currently earmarked towards stuff that improves opportunity & freedom, sorta like this:

Krolik>> Many with the same talents but not as lucky to be in New York/USA (or a handful of similar places) have a much harder life after putting in the same or more effort

But old people have been known to change on a whim, so there may be an Inonada Society for Renters after all. The most gilded & audacious museum building you’ve ever seen, replete with gold plated swan faucets in the restrooms. The Room of Legendary Cap Rates will have oil paintings of the best cap rate apts hung with endless math etched in marble below it. The building will be leased, of course, and perpetually funded by compounding endowment investment gains.

In terms of retirees running out of money, what nest egg would you require to accept a retiree's financial longevity for a $1.5M apartment with $5K maintenance? Assume retiree is 75 and in good health. Would $1.5M liquid (assume all in VBAIX) after all cash purchase be enough for your comfort level? Assume also retiree is collecting pension and social security to the tune of $4K per month.

I am thinking that with a retiree, I'd almost prefer that they have a mortgage they did not intend to pay off because then the building is protected by the bank's solvency in terms of maintenance collection, or am I thinking about this wrong? This is where I need the insight of all of you finance types!

@MCR - it would be interesting to see some case law on this
Arguably a bank holding a mortgage is more likely to pay maintenance to protect their asset than some flunkey nepobabies fighting over their parents estate

I have no idea if thats true or not though!

$1.5M annuitizes into $11.5K/mo for a 75-yo. Add $4K pension & SS, you get to $15.5K/mo. That leaves $10.5K/mo to spend on whatever. Also on backup is the ability to tap a reverse mortgage on ~$450K equity for an additional $3K/mo starting today. Starting later would increase that amount, as would going to ~$900K by going private rather than federal (there are reverse mortgage limits on federal, like with conforming loans).

If your hypothetical 75-yo is anything like most, they won’t do any of that for various (often irrational) reasons. Rather, they will spend out of that $1.5M as if they’ll live to 100 — so $5k/mo only — and never tap into a reverse mortgage. They’ll live on the $4K/mo left over, grumble about how expensive everything has become, and simultaneously worry about outliving their expenses while wanting to leave money should they die early. They’ll likely die at 87 (per actuarial tables), having underspent their means, and leave a $2M+ estate.

So in a nutshell, I think the coop should be fine.

Thanks @steve123 and @inonada - very helpful!

The convo about setting one's annual spend @ $200k vs $400k reflects a very specific vision of "Manhattan family life". Median household income in Manhattan is $75k, pretax.

However, I actually wanna take the richie rich view & push back on $800k savings being problematic for the target demographic. High earners tend to start families later in life, and they probably won't be shopping for classic 7s until they're on #2 or #3. Marry at 30, first kid at 33, by the time they're making an offer on Sutton or Park Ave we're talking 15 years of postgraduate savings & investment.

As an illustration of the power of those extra couple years, here's a quick model: $100k salary upon graduation, 10% raise each year, 20% savings rate, 8% CAGR = $1,085,000 saved by age 37. That's on a single income, which is just about to cross the $400k mark for the first time. If spouse #2 worked the same job for the first decade of this period (graduation -> birth of kid #1), the couple would have $1.8M banked. If their earnings curve was steeper (in order to arrive at the presumed $650k by year 15), they'd be over $2M. If they saved and/or timed the S&P more like nada, they'd be deep into the mid-7-figures.

Does that make it wise to stick half of your nest egg into an oversized downpayment? No. But IMO it's the co-op's risk management that's wonky in this picture, not their buyer profile.

Not sure where the disconnect is, but this website for example says median hh income is 128k
https://www.point2homes.com/US/Neighborhood/NY/Manhattan-Demographics.html

Of course there are lots of not high earning people in Manhattan, ~18% retirees and people living in all those non-market rent apartments.

Kroili, Strip out students, renters, studios, one bedrooms, in addtion to non-market rate apartments + upper manhattan. You will realize that buying a 2 bedroom+ in Manhattan (below 96E and 110W) is previleged.

@300
Oh, I fully realize that. I was responding to RichardBerg's comment above about all sorts of people with lower incomes living in Manhattan. Yes, there are lower income people. They are either not living just on their incomes (students/even new grads borrowing or being financed by parents, or retirees spending down savings), or don't pay market prices.

We were surprised it was possible to find a just under 1M 2br/2ba (with reasonable maintenance and reasonable board) that we purchased, and we did it by going further east and in less popular area of Murray Hill. Also by being high earners (on absolute scale, not relative to Manhattan super-rich), diligent savers, and much older than the young couple MCR or RichardBerg are picturing.

National Average of first time home buyers 36. NYC is expensive so I would think it is close to 40. That basically shows how people can afford it. Plenty of saving opportunity using the math suggested by Richard Berd. I was 42 when I bought but I am very conservative with financial decisions.

"First-time buyers made up only 26% of all buyers, down from 34% last year and a peak of 50% in 2010 during the First-Time Home Buyer Tax Credit. The age of the typical first-time buyer was 36 years – up from 33 years one year ago – and the typical repeat buyer's age climbed to 59 years from 56 years in 2021. "
https://www.nar.realtor/newsroom/nar-finds-share-of-first-time-home-buyers-smaller-older-than-ever-before

All NYC is 3 years older than national average.
https://streeteasy.com/blog/most-nyc-buyers-are-first-timers/#:~:text=The%20typical%20first%2Dtime%20buyer,time%20buyers%20in%20New%20York.

> I was 42 when I bought but I am very conservative with financial decisions.

That was roughly my partner's age at the time of our purchase (which was his first real estate purchase). He is probably in a slower ramp/lower earning career than you are, but very frugal, partially as a consequence of very modest upbringing.

I brought down the average by being 20-something when I first bought a cheap 1br coop in an outer borough (later sold it to pay off student loans and because I could not rent it for more than 1 year while going to grad school).

So basically first time buyers around 40 answers how people can build enought of nest egg for down payment and liquidity. Almost 12-18 years of savings after grad/undergrad.

Yeah, but then they are in a 2br at 40 with fewer than desired number of kids.

Do you mean 2 kids and 3 bedroom should be the benchmark of affordability?

>> As an illustration of the power of those extra couple years, here's a quick model: $100k salary upon graduation

By the way, those starting salaries are way, way up recently. Entry level pay is more than 50% higher in my field than when i started less than 10 years ago.

But yes, once you get to mid-career, each of these extra years is a lot of extra savings. In the first few years you are paycheck to paycheck if you live in Manhattan, it is hard to save anything aside from some small safety cushion and loan pay down. And from utility maximization / smoothing out consumption perspective, those could be years when you are much better served by spending more of what you make. Similar story in the years with little kids (that out gov’t offers no childcare and education solution for).

>Do you mean 2 kids and 3 bedroom should be the benchmark of affordability?

Kind of a benchmark of American Dream.

Of course there are people with fewer kids and different lifestyles, but majority of people to have kids at or above population replacement rate, else we have a serious demographic problem on our hands (see Japan and China).

Krolik, I think you missing the point. 3 bedroom in Manhattan as a benchmark for a family will surely lead to unhappiness and a lot of complaining. People have moved to burbs or other boroughs from Manhattan for at least last 50 years if they wanted 3-4 bedrooms. If they wanted the conveniece and the stuff Manhattan offers, they compromised with smaller space with kids sharing a bedroom.

In answer to this question re downpayment %:
"If you were an young professional family with household income of $650K and liquid savings of $800,000, would you consider a classic seven at $2M with 20% down and monthly maintenance of $6500?"

I think 20% vs 35% downpayment makes quite a big difference in that case, since it's $300,000 difference in post closing liquidity and their liquid savings are not that high relative to the apartment they are purchasing. They could probably (almost certainly) accrue wealth faster via investing that extra capital in something other than more equity in a coop.
Our coop went from 40% to 30% a couple of years ago, hoping to be more accommodating to this kind of buyer (maintenance on a family sized apartment in our building would be more like $4000 than $6500/mo). I would go further if it was just my choice.

Nada, if my friends' parents are any benchmark, the 75-year-old spends wildly -- traveling, renovating, buying "consumption" goods like art "because I've earned it" for a few years, maybe snowbirding into a luxurious second home, perhaps generously helping the grandkids with their schooling -- and then at ~ 80 faces the need for 24-hour care, which, if private and personal, runs around $200K a year. ($21/hr* 24* 7* 52.)

Then there's a move to nonprivate and personal 24-hr. care -- aka "a nursing home," and that last bit can go way past 87, depending.

>> 3 bedroom in Manhattan as a benchmark for a family will surely lead to unhappiness and a lot of complaining. People have moved to burbs or other boroughs from Manhattan for at least last 50 years if they wanted 3-4 bedrooms.

I get the point. But I think it is more like last 25 years. I was not around then but i think in the 90s manhattan (or brooklyn) was a lot more affordable.
If you look at profile of those in my building that got their units thru the original conversion program, they don’t seem to be in ultra high earning careers. Yet, that is what is required today for anyone to buy a unit in their building.

Combine this with information that manhattan over 65 population increased by 50% in the last few years, and you see that it is a particular generation that is getting screwed specifically. The older generation is squeezing everyone else out.

Perhaps the genZ is taking some of that power back via a tough labor market.

>> Krolik, I think you missing the point. 3 bedroom in Manhattan as a benchmark for a family will surely lead to unhappiness and a lot of complaining.

Cannot agree more. Comparison is the theft of joy. Humans experience happiness more due to rate of change (in a positive direction) more than absolute level. As long as you have reasonable expectations and your life is getting better at a reasonable pace, you will be happy. If you set a benchmark that requires being a member of the 1%/0.1%/0.01% then you will be unhappy.

>> I was not around then but i think in the 90s manhattan (or brooklyn) was a lot more affordable.

This is an unreasonable compare because NYC of the 90s is not NYC of 2023. As much as I whinge about crime/safety/cleanliness all getting worse from 2019 thru 2022, at peak it didn't hold a candle to the 90s. Murders bottomed in 2018 at 292. They re-peaked in 2021 at 481 (+65% in 3 years!). There were 2242 murders in 1990, all time peak. Was in 2000s for a few years and above 1000 for most of the 1990s, only ending at nearly 700 in 1999.

Anecdotes - I lived in a full service doorman&concierge condo in the UWS that was, prior to conversion in the 80s... a drug&alcohol halfway house / rehab home. On my block, another building was a rental building & experienced a rental strike and had both an infamous gay bathhouse and sex club in its basement til AIDS epidemic in the 80s.. all before prior to going condo in the 90s.

Very fancy buildings now, $3M for a 3bed. Too rich for my taste, and I'm "a hedge fund guy".

Just a completely different world. Buying real estate in Manhattan in the 90s was a bit more akin to buying Tesla stock in 2010 than it is to buying Manhattan RE in 2023.

Also this 2014 NYU paper shows that over 65 population is 5% of market unit renters and 22% of non-market in “core manhattan”. (42% of all rental units are non-market in core manhattan.)

This spread is a lot less in other boroughs. In the Bronx 11% of market rate units are occupied by over 65 renters, vs 13% non-market.

And since 2014 manhattan population got a lot older overall.

https://furmancenter.org/files/FurmanCenter_FactBrief_RentStabilization_June2014.pdf

Krolik,
So you are basically complaining about rent stabilization. It sucks. You just have to accept that NYC is a left leaning city and has increasingly become so. That is who people elect. Taxes aren’t going to reduce. Education will not get better. Childcare will remain expensive and govt does not provide that anywhere in United States. None of the above will change. The best one can expect is improved safety and cleanliness.

Guessing you like many of us are here for job/business opportunities and family connections. So why be unhappy with stuff which is not going to change in NYC?

Just one example of the reasons why I am here for last 30 years.

I went out for a last minute drink with my neighbor who is in Commerical Real Estate. In one hour, I learnt a lot about what is happening in CRE and his views on how it may impact the rest of the economy. Nada here is giving top-notch opinions (not advice) for free. I can find experts in so many areas to meet and talk to and I am not that connected. The intelluctual stimulation and exchange of ideas in NYC is top-notch.

I have hopes. Gov’t here was trying to be the first in the country to provide free universal 3K, but had to cut the program because of budget deficit and no idea how to pay for it.

Also, in comparison to most people I know, I am quite well off (and I am not pointlessly comparing myself to trust fund babies), so my comparative benchmarks are in a place where I can be quite happy :)

What I am doing is just commenting on the trend of the city aging aggressively and squeezing out younger folks in the process. It is no one’s fault in particular, everyone is just optimizing for their own situation, though I think rent control/stabilization policy does not help. Nor do boards asking 40% down+ on an apartment (while board members bought their apartments a long time ago for a lot less dollars or were born rich). The city is certainly changing, and yes, gentrifying. If you extrapolate into the future, what do demographics look like in the city in 10-20 years?

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/where-have-all-the-children-gone/594133/

I am here, because I like living in a walkable city (and we have a mobility issue). I grew up in a big city and I can hardly imagine living in a suburb or a small town. But will there be a new generation of city kids? I am not just talking Manhattan, Queens and Brooklyn are wonderful places to live. School enrollments are falling city-wide.

When I turned 40 I was approximately a 100th time buyer.

I got the $75k median HHI figure from https://statisticalatlas.com/county-subdivision/New-York/New-York-County/Manhattan/Household-Income

I now suspect that's out of date. Google results are all over the place, suggesting rapid rise over the last few years. Restricting ourselves to the latest data from official government sources (both 2022 estimates of 2021 surveys), the Census Bureau says $94k while the Fed says $84k. I'm more inclined to believe the former i.e. that the sudden drop in the final year of FRED's trend line is a fluke.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/newyorkcountynewyork/INC110221#INC110221
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MHINY36061A052NCEN

> If you extrapolate into the future, what do demographics look like in the city in 10-20 years?

I think it'll age & gentrify (higher Gini) roughly in line with the broader U.S. Or at least the trends in other large, productive metros. Covid already accelerated the "flattening" out of such destinations, and middle-class economic squeeze is a national issue.

In an alternate history sans pandemic, the 2023-2033 decade might've given a larger & more sustainable COL advantage to Nashville/Denver/Phoenix/Tampa/Austin/Raleigh/etc...but back in reality, they have been fast-forwarded to the front lines of our same battles. (trends in Appalachia, western oil towns, rust belt cities, the Delta, etc will vary more widely, but have little bearing on American urbanism writ large)

10 years ago the systemic imbalances in housing stock vs population & capital flows were perceived as unique to the NYC/SF markets. That is, there were plenty of other yuppie-friendly cities whose family-size housing had not yet hit an inventory crunch, and had favorable cap rates even at their low rents. Come 2023, their valuations look a lot more like ours, as does their supply mismatch.

I wouldn't assume that the winners will be the ones with lowest taxes. The capacity to build housing, infrastructure, and services is more important.

But yes, our tax code creates some unique headwinds. We've carved out enormous subsidies for certain populations (SFH owners, long-term RC/RS tenants, commuter suburbs) -- all of whom skew older, oppose development, and vote reliably. The sum of these handicaps is at least equivalent to the big footgun on the other coast (Prop 13), just less well known & discussed.

We also have some unique advantages including:
* the continent's best transit infrastructure -- yes it's creaky and expensive, but in sheer capacity no other system in the Western Hemisphere comes close
* the continued inflow of prestige industries -- hiring pools for tech, healthcare, film, research, finance, etc are as strong as ever
* vast immigrant workforces -- whether you're arriving from Fujian, Yemen, Ghana, or Ukraine, you can quickly join a productive community. In most of the country, lack of English (or at least some Spanish) basically makes you indigent.

>> Guessing you like many of us are here for job/business opportunities and family connections. So why be unhappy with stuff which is not going to change in NYC?

Precisely. If you are going to let your happiness be dictated by NYC politicians resoling one issue of yours or another, good luck. NY is a difficult and expensive place to live. A lot of things cost time, money or both. Regardless theres a nearly endless stream of 20-somethings and global 1% lined up to take our place shall we punch out, so it is what it is.

Re: demographics, this isn't just an NYC or even NYS issue but a broader Northeast issue. People are moving to where, primarily, housing is cheaper, secondarily, taxes are lower and third.. less winter weather. The population center of this country has been moving South & West since forever, barring a few years of peak European immigration in late 1800s. CT/RI/NH/VT/ME/DE/PA all have higher 65+ % population than NY, with MA/NJ basically within half a % point of NY.

Median age of Manhattan of 38 ranks it behind both the US average and ~37 states - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_median_age
The US is greying, generally.

@Krolik - that may have some logic to it. It's sort of like adverse selection.

Look around at your peers (not your neighbors) and ask how many would be able & want to continue affording NYC lifestyle post retirement? I know my peers who OWN mostly consider the answer to be "no". Now consider my peers who never managed to buy and are still renting into their 40s/50s+? Even less so.

As much as I rant about maintenance/tax increases on my condo, as a % of the equivalent rent for my unit its like 1-4%. Most market rate renters would kill for 1-4% increases. Paying 3-5% BAU & occasional 10-20% rent increases isn't going to work for most people in retirement.

People already in non-market rate rentals where they have both low rent & low increases to their rent, are more likely to be able to maintain their lifestyle on social security, etc.

Whether that's desirable or not, and the best use of non-market rental stock is another question. But old people vote, so good luck getting a "kick the old people out" law passed.

FP>> Nada, if my friends' parents are any benchmark, the 75-year-old spends wildly

That’s the way to do it!