You now need to earn at least $160K a year to rent anything in NYC

[Kamaji]

You now need to earn at least $160K a year to rent anything in NYC

By Hannah Frishberg
June 7, 2022

Earn less than six figures? Good luck scoring even a modest New York City apartment.

The median ask for a rental in Manhattan has skyrocketed to $3,925 a month ⁠— a staggering 31.9% year-over-year jump from April 2021 ⁠— according to Douglas Elliman’s latest market report.

That means, in order to apply for a city apartment, a renter would need to earn $157,000 per year, under the 40 times rent rule that landlords generally require.

It’s a new record high for rent in the city, coming off record lows during the thick of the pandemic. The unprecedented demand for apartments in the city, as New Yorkers return to work and new work-from-homers move to NYC, has even resulted in bidding wars for studio apartments, as The Post previously reported.

*  *  *

Source:  https://nypost.com/2022/06/07/you-now-need-to-earn-at-least-160k-a-year-to-rent-anything-in-nyc/

[Right_in_Virginia]

Is NYC looking for sympathy?

[cato potatoe]

I don't know why people live in NYC, but I am glad they do.

[sneakypete]

Which is one of the reasons why so many NY'ers are moving to Virginia.

That,and the fact that they want to be closer to the source of their wealth,the US Treasury.

Hell,they can buy a horse farm in Virginia for less than they can rent an apartment for in NYC, and don't even have to mingle with the street trash in NYC. Not that they would ever admit this.

[PeteS in CA]

NYC's WW2-era "temporary" rent control continues to have predictable consequences.

[Kamaji]

NYC's WW2-era "temporary" rent control continues to have predictable consequences.

Yup.  And I believe they finally gave up the canard about it being an "emergency" measure and simply made it truly permanent.

[jmyrlefuller]

Low supply: after four centuries of existence, there is virtually no land left in New York City to develop.

High demand: major corporations insist on putting most of their jobs in big cities, despite the economic disadvantages of that strategy—which was temporarily relieved during the early part of the pandemic but is slowly being reinstated. That coerces people into a situation where you have to pay high rents to get a decent job.

[Fishrrman]

PeteS wrote:
"NYC's WW2-era "temporary" rent control continues to have predictable consequences."

and Kamaji replied:
"Yup.  And I believe they finally gave up the canard about it being an "emergency" measure and simply made it truly permanent."

Wait a minute, guys.
You're forgetting something.

It was some years' back -- maybe as long as 15 or 20 years ago -- that the NYC rent control law (which I believe is actually tied into NY state law) was on the chopping block in Albany.

I don't recall all the details, but it came down to the deciding vote of one REPUBLICAN in the NY state legislature (or somewhere thereabouts).

If he voted "nay", the rent control law was kaput.
If he voted "aye", it remained.

Caving into enormous pressure, he chose to vote "aye".
That's why it exists today.
Because, of a REPUBLICAN's lack of political courage.

Credit where credit is due.

[sneakypete]

While I freely admit I have never even visited NYC,I just ain't buying this. IF it were true,where the HELL would the waiters,waitresses,bus drivers,cops,carpenters,painters,auto mechanics,and all the hundreds of other hourly wage occupants live?

Hell,even the actresses,actors,and most of the lawyers couldn't afford it.

Now,if you want to talk about rent prices on Wall Street or downtown Manhattan condos,I could go along with that.

No way in HELL can tradespeople afford that kind of rent,though.

[Free Vulcan]

Well maybe you could successfully live in cheaper Brooklyn or Queens if they made any effort to keep a lid on crime.

[Gefn]

@Kamaji

Surely it’s still cheaper to live in the other boroughs , or parts of Jersey or parts Connecticut?

Even the outskirts of NY I’m sure the rents are cheaper like New Rochelle for example.

I just know what I and others pay for rent, you can get a house in other parts of the country, a whole house for under 100K!

[Smokin Joe]

Which is one of the reasons why so many NY'ers are moving to Virginia.

That,and the fact that they want to be closer to the source of their wealth,the US Treasury.

Hell,they can buy a horse farm in Virginia for less than they can rent an apartment for in NYC, and don't even have to mingle with the street trash in NYC. Not that they would ever admit this.

They have a Federal Reserve Bank right there in NYC. 

[sneakypete]

They have a Federal Reserve Bank right there in NYC. 

@Smokin Joe

Well,the Rockefellers don't want to have to travel to count their money and roll naked in it.

[Kamaji]

Low supply: after four centuries of existence, there is virtually no land left in New York City to develop.

High demand: major corporations insist on putting most of their jobs in big cities, despite the economic disadvantages of that strategy—which was temporarily relieved during the early part of the pandemic but is slowly being reinstated. That coerces people into a situation where you have to pay high rents to get a decent job.

Not really.  It's true that there isn't a lot of virgin undisturbed dirt in Manhattan (or the outer boroughs) - Central Park doesn't count - but there are still plenty of development opportunities in Manhattan - or there would be, if the government would get out of the way.

For example, when we lived in NYC, our grocery store was a Gristedes that occupied a one-story space on First Avenue between 20th and 21st.  It always struck me as almost sacrilegious that there would still be a one-story building taking up that much room in Manhattan.  In fact, when we were there, at one point the owner wanted to knock it down and put up a multi-story building that would still have a grocery store on the ground floor, but would have several floors of apartments above, and that was shut down by the leftists and their enablers in the Boro president's office and the NYC council.

And that's just one little example.  Manhattan abounds with plenty of low-rise buildings - some of them decrepit walk-ups that were built in the early, early 1900s or even in the 1890s - that in a sane world would be torn down and replaced with higher rise buildings.  There is no Earthly reason - other than liberalism and government pressure - that there should be four-story walkups left in most of Manhattan, other than in the really pricey wealthy neighborhoods.

The outer boroughs are even worse.

So, to the extent that supply is limited, it is being limited by government regulation and by the political power of those who arbitrage government regulation for their own private profit.  It is not limited because there is no place left to build in NYC.

[Smokin Joe]

Not really.  It's true that there isn't a lot of virgin undisturbed dirt in Manhattan (or the outer boroughs) - Central Park doesn't count - but there are still plenty of development opportunities in Manhattan - or there would be, if the government would get out of the way.

For example, when we lived in NYC, our grocery store was a Gristedes that occupied a one-story space on First Avenue between 20th and 21st.  It always struck me as almost sacrilegious that there would still be a one-story building taking up that much room in Manhattan.  In fact, when we were there, at one point the owner wanted to knock it down and put up a multi-story building that would still have a grocery store on the ground floor, but would have several floors of apartments above, and that was shut down by the leftists and their enablers in the Boro president's office and the NYC council.

And that's just one little example.  Manhattan abounds with plenty of low-rise buildings - some of them decrepit walk-ups that were built in the early, early 1900s or even in the 1890s - that in a sane world would be torn down and replaced with higher rise buildings.  There is no Earthly reason - other than liberalism and government pressure - that there should be four-story walkups left in most of Manhattan, other than in the really pricey wealthy neighborhoods.

The outer boroughs are even worse.

So, to the extent that supply is limited, it is being limited by government regulation and by the political power of those who arbitrage government regulation for their own private profit.  It is not limited because there is no place left to build in NYC.

Usually such artificially imposed shortages work out to the benefit of the people imposing them, directly or indirectly. There's plenty of rot in the Big Apple, not that it isn't elsewhere, too, just on a smaller scale.

What I don't get is why have the whole operation in NYC if it serves a global market. Put an office there, but move the bigger parts out to the boonies where relatively small towns will give tax breaks for the 'economic development' and the promise of long term economic gain, crime is lower, and prices can be cheaper. Haute Coture can't be worth that much unless that is the business.

[Kamaji]

Usually such artificially imposed shortages work out to the benefit of the people imposing them, directly or indirectly. There's plenty of rot in the Big Apple, not that it isn't elsewhere, too, just on a smaller scale.

What I don't get is why have the whole operation in NYC if it serves a global market. Put an office there, but move the bigger parts out to the boonies where relatively small towns will give tax breaks for the 'economic development' and the promise of long term economic gain, crime is lower, and prices can be cheaper. Haute Coture can't be worth that much unless that is the business.

I have a feeling that that will start happening as a result of the 2-year enforced experiment in remote working.  It seems to me that a lot of companies that, prior to 2020, had huge staffs that were commuting to Manhattan have now realized that a significant portion of that workforce can instead work "remotely" from the HQ office in satellite offices, such as in Garden City on Long Island.  For example, in an accounting firm, with all of the remote working technology available now, and a two-year shakedown cruise, there really isn't a lot of reason to have the associate staff trekking all the way in to Manhattan every day since they do all or substantially all of their work on computers anyways.  As long as the managers and team leaders have learned how to lead their staff remotely - that may be the bigger learning curve - it should work out better to have the associate staff working in satellite offices.