Gothamist: Survey Basically Claims We're Not Living Well

priscilla

Wed, 22 Jun 2005 13:58:59 -0500

my family of three seems to be doing fine for a little over 50K-- a bit of a struggle-- but we are happy-- pffffht on Forbes

KeithS

Wed, 22 Jun 2005 13:43:52 -0500

This artcle (much like the one in the Sunday Business section a few months ago about how making 200k a year is the new 100k) makes me want to start setting fire to things.

A

Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:54:32 -0500

There is a provision for $4,800 in savings, and I presume that the gross income figure is net of deferred compensation plan contributions. I think that a family with TWO children in 10021 would be hardpressed to find a private school that will charge $26000 for tuition for TWO children. This is closer to the figure for one child for most schools in ISAAGNY that parents in 10021 would be interested in, at least if those kids are first graders or older. There are a couple of catholic schools that charge significantly less, but they are skewing the system. The chart also does not reflect the accumulated wealth required to get past a coop board or provide the necessary down payment for the $4 million primary residence; its not like 10% does it.

Max

Wed, 22 Jun 2005 09:03:36 -0500

This report should be called "The Cost of Living Lavishly" not "The Cost of Living Well." To imply that if you don't have a BMW, a $4MM apartment in the Upper East Side (gag me!), and a house in the Hamptons must mean you aren't living "well" is ridiculous. Living well is having everything you need, being comfortable, and no worries about money or the future.

me

Wed, 22 Jun 2005 08:36:25 -0500

Interesting how Forbes allows for virtually no savings or investments (10%???) It would be hard to live in 10021 for very long with that kind of investment plan....

me

Wed, 22 Jun 2005 08:34:59 -0500

Interesting how the Forbes chart doesn't allow for savings or investments (10%? please). Without those, you're not going to be "living well" 10021 for very long.