Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

wh7y t1_j7xhs7w wrote

Reply to comment by TheSheikYerbouti in Median New York rent passes $4,000 a month in January by geoxol

Yeah if a couple is making 150k each they could afford 4k rent fairly easily and maybe even save. There are many couples like this out there.

I think it's tough because these rents are exorbitant and we need to build housing, but there are many very well paid and wealthy people in this city.

36

Unlike_Agholor t1_j7yydq4 wrote

if both are making 150k they can afford way more than 4k a month on rent.

19

soflahokie t1_j813h1g wrote

Just an FYI, if both individuals make $150k and choose to max out their 401k's assuming a 6% match, they'll be taking home between $14-$15k a month.

That's a 20% savings rate already, then you have an additional $10k after rent to live on. Anyone without other debts or obligations making that kind of money should be saving quite a bit.

6

Honest_Ice_7239 t1_j84x2th wrote

True but don't use the world easily. It hurts me because I make 50k a year and still live at home.

1

Discount_Lex_Luthor t1_j7y5pgp wrote

The housing doesn't just need to be there. It needs to be moderated somehow. Tax the fuck of of big landlords and management co's. MURDER the airbnb market.

The wreckless trickle down profiteering is a huge problem. I've seen buildings where the rats were calling in 311 complaints and it was $3k a month in Brooklyn. At this point your better off trying to figure out how to buy something because your paying the same amount monthly.

−6

TOMtheCONSIGLIERE t1_j7yns1n wrote

> Tax the fuck of of big landlords and management co's. MURDER the airbnb market.

You can always tell when someone doesn’t have a basic understanding of economics and the result is a post like that. A tax to make housing more affordable, genius!!! Educated people, even those that could avoid having their knuckles drag on the sidewalk, would say increase the supply, but not this poster. Amazing stuff!

20

Holiday-Intention-52 t1_j808e70 wrote

I think his point is to essentially "break" the big landlords that own dozens if not hundreds of properties and play games like leaving half of them empty to artificially inflate rents. Capitalism is awesome ONLY when it leads to aggressive competition. I really wish this country understood decades ago that capitalism was only so amazing because it led to competition. It's actually competition that leads to amazing outcomes, capitalism is just a mechanism to get there.

If all the apartment unit owners owned at most 2-3 units there would be insane competition and none of those owners would ever want to leave a unit vacant. The competition with thousands of other owners would lead a race to the bottom for rent prices (while easily still staying very profitable due to NYC demand) it would be a true buyer/seller equilibrium.

Right now you have a dozen big landlords conglomerates that lazily all move in the same direction and hardly compete at all with each other.

If you look at 60s rents in this city where the environment was infinitely closer to the ideal with almost all landlords being small owners with just a couple properties and then adjust for inflation........you can easily see that the rents for the city would be cut in half. All while landlords would still make a killing.

So yes, a huge part of the solution here would be to find a way to break up the current landlord situation.

7