Quote
Bonus Withdrawal Puts Bankers in "Malaise"
By Max Abelson - Feb 28, 2012 11:01 PM CT
Andrew Schiff was sitting in a traffic jam in California this month after giving a speech at an investment conference about gold. He turned off the satellite radio, got out of the car and screamed a profanity.
"I'm not Zen at all, and when I'm freaking out about the situation, where I'm stuck like a rat in a trap on a highway with no way to get out, it's very hard," Schiff, director of marketing for broker-dealer Euro Pacific Capital Inc., said in an interview.
Andrew Schiff, director of communications and marketing at Euro Pacific Capital Inc. Source: Euro Pacific Capital Inc. via Bloomberg
Schiff, 46, is facing another kind of jam this year: Paid a lower bonus, he said the $350,000 he earns, enough to put him in the country's top 1 percent by income, doesn't cover his family's private-school tuition, a Kent, Connecticut, summer rental and the upgrade they would like from their 1,200-square- foot Brooklyn duplex.
"I feel stuck," Schiff said. "The New York that I wanted to have is still just beyond my reach."
The smaller bonus checks that hit accounts across the financial-services industry this month are making it difficult to maintain the lifestyles that Wall Street workers expect, according to interviews with bankers and their accountants, therapists, advisers and headhunters.
"People who don't have money don't understand the stress," said Alan Dlugash, a partner at accounting firm Marks Paneth & Shron LLP in New York who specializes in financial planning for the wealthy. "Could you imagine what it's like to say I got three kids in private school, I have to think about pulling them out? How do you do that?"
Bonus Caps
Facing a slump in revenue from investment banking and trading, Wall Street firms have trimmed 2011 discretionary pay. At Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) and Barclays Capital, the cuts were at least 25 percent. Morgan Stanley (MS) capped cash bonuses at $125,000, and Deutsche Bank AG (DBK) increased the percentage of deferred pay.
"It's a disaster," said Ilana Weinstein, chief executive officer of New York-based search firm IDW Group LLC. "The entire construct of compensation has changed."
Most people can only dream of Wall Street's shrinking paychecks. Median household income in 2010 was $49,445, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, lower than the previous year and less than 1 percent of Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein's $7 million restricted-stock bonus for 2011. The percentage of Americans living in poverty climbed to 15.1 percent, the highest in almost two decades.
House of Mirth
Comfortable New Yorkers assessing their discomforts is at least as old as Edith Wharton's 1905 novel "The House of Mirth," whose heroine Lily Bart said "the only way not to think about money is to have a great deal of it."
Wall Street headhunter Daniel Arbeeny said his "income has gone down tremendously." On a recent Sunday, he drove to Fairway Market in the Red Hook section of Brooklyn to buy discounted salmon for $5.99 a pound.
"They have a circular that they leave in front of the buildings in our neighborhood," said Arbeeny, 49, who lives in nearby Cobble Hill, namesake for a line of pebbled-leather Kate Spade handbags. "We sit there, and I look through all of them to find out where it's worth going."
Executive-search veterans who work with hedge funds and banks make about $500,000 in good years, said Arbeeny, managing principal at New York-based CMF Partners LLC, declining to discuss specifics about his own income. He said he no longer goes on annual ski trips to Whistler (WB), Tahoe or Aspen.
He reads other supermarket circulars to find good prices for his favorite cereal, Wheat Chex.
"Wow, did I waste a lot of money," Arbeeny said.
$17,000 on Dogs
Richard Scheiner, 58, a real-estate investor and hedge-fund manager, said most people on Wall Street don't save.
"When their means are cut, they're stuck," said Scheiner, whose New York-
based hedge fund, Lane Gate Partners LLC, was down about 15 percent last year. "Not so much an issue for me and my wife because we've always saved."
Scheiner said he spends about $500 a month to park one of his two Audis in a garage and at least $7,500 a year each for memberships at the Trump National Golf Club in Westchester and a gun club in upstate New York. A labradoodle named Zelda and a rescued bichon frise, Duke, cost $17,000 a year, including food, health care, boarding and a daily dog-walker who charges $17 each per outing, he said.
Still, he sold two motorcycles he didn't use and called his Porsche 911 Carrera 4S Cabriolet "the Volkswagen of supercars." He and his wife have given more than $100,000 to a nonprofit she founded that promotes employment for people with Asperger syndrome, he said.
'Crushing Setback'
Scheiner pays $30,000 a year to be part of a New York-based peer-learning group for investors called Tiger 21. Founder Michael Sonnenfeldt said members, most with a net worth of at least $10 million, have been forced to "reexamine lots of assumptions about how grand their life would be."
While they aren't asking for sympathy, "at their level, in a different way but in the same way, the rug got pulled out," said Sonnenfeldt, 56. "For many people of wealth, they've had a crushing setback as well."
He described a feeling of "malaise" and a "paralysis that does not allow one to believe that generally things are going to get better," listing geopolitical hot spots such as Iran and low interest rates that have been "artificially manipulated" by the Federal Reserve.
Poly Prep
The malaise is shared by Schiff, the New York-based marketing director for Euro Pacific Capital, where his brother is CEO. His family rents the lower duplex of a brownstone in Cobble Hill, where his two children share a room. His 10-year- old daughter is a student at $32,000-a-year Poly Prep Country Day School in Brooklyn. His son, 7, will apply in a few years.
"I can't imagine what I'm going to do," Schiff said. "I'm crammed into 1,200 square feet. I don't have a dishwasher. We do all our dishes by
hand."
He wants 1,800 square feet -- "a room for each kid, three bedrooms, maybe four," he said. "Imagine four bedrooms. You have the luxury of a
guest room, how crazy is that?"
The family rents a three-bedroom summer house in Connecticut and will go there again this year for one month instead of four. Schiff said he brings home less than $200,000 after taxes, health-insurance and 401(k) contributions. The closing costs, renovation and down payment on one of the $1.5 million 17-foot-wide row houses nearby, what he called "the low rung on the brownstone ladder," would consume "every dime" of the family's savings, he said.
"I wouldn't want to whine," Schiff said. "All I want is the stuff that I always thought, growing up, that successful parents had."
Vegas, Ibiza
Hans Kullberg, 27, a trader at Wyckoff, New Jersey-based hedge fund Falcon Management Corp. who said he earns about $150,000 a year, is adjusting his sights, too.
After graduating from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in 2006, he spent a $10,000 signing bonus from Citigroup Inc. (C) on a six-week trip to South America. He worked on an emerging-markets team at the bank that traded and marketed synthetic collateralized debt obligations.
His tastes for travel got "a little bit more lavish," he said. Kullberg, a triathlete, went to a bachelor party in Las Vegas in January after renting a four-bedroom ski cabin at Bear Mountain in California as a Christmas gift to his parents. He went to Ibiza for another bachelor party in August, spending $3,000 on a three-day trip, including a 15-minute ride from the airport that cost $100. In May he spent 10 days in India.
Wet T-Shirt
Earlier this month, a friend invited him on a trip to Mardi Gras in New Orleans. The friend was going to be a judge in a wet T-shirt contest, Kullberg said. He turned down the offer.
It wouldn't have been "the most financially prudent thing to do," he said. "I'm not totally sure about what I'm going to get paid this year, how I'm going to be doing."
He thinks more about the long term, he said, and plans to buy a foreclosed two-bedroom house in Charlotte, North Carolina, for $50,000 next month.
M. Todd Henderson, a University of Chicago law professor who's teaching a
seminar on executive compensation, said the suffering is relative and real.
He wrote two years ago that his family was "just getting by" on more than $250,000 a year, setting off what he called a firestorm of criticism.
"Yes, terminal diseases are worse than getting the flu," he said. "But you suffer when you get the flu."
'Have to Cut'
Dlugash, the accountant, said he's spending more time talking with Wall Street clients about their expenses.
"You don't necessarily have to cut that -- but if you don't cut that, then you've got to cut this," he said. "They say, 'But I can't.' And I say, 'But you must.'"
One banker who owes Dlugash $20,000 gained the accountant's sympathy despite his six-figure pay.
"If you're making $50,000 and your salary gets down to $40,000 and you have to cut, it's very severe to you," Dlugash said. "But it's no less severe to these other people with these big numbers."
A Wall Street executive who made 10 times that amount and now has declining income along with a divorce, private school tuitions and elderly parents also suffers, he said.
"These people never dreamed they'd be making $500,000 a year," he said, "and dreamed even less that they'd be broke."
To contact the reporter on this story: Max Abelson in New York at [email protected].
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-29/wall-street-bonus-withdrawal-means-trading-aspen-for-cheap-chex.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fms-brown.wikispaces.com%2Ffile%2Fview%2F1-15--guillotine.jpg%2F167791865%2F1-15--guillotine.jpg&hash=51a0db7f792c3ec059f52a62adc3e5c42203211d)
First world problems.
My heart bleeds for them. :rolleyes:
This reminds me of an old joke about an investment banker complaining that after you deduct all the expenses (private schools for kids, three homes, international vacation four times a year, four cars, a yacht, a private jet, tailor-made suits, investment fund contributions, life insurance plans, dinners at top restaurants, several clubs' membership fees etc. etc.) it leaves him only $100 to live on until the next paycheck. :lol:
That being said, I gotta say that the psychological pressure to maintain your lifestyle is a real thing. I can imagine it is even more stressful to someone with stay-at-home wife and kids.
He needs some perspective. Slash his salary to a tenth.
Quote"I can't imagine what I'm going to do," Schiff said. "I'm crammed into 1,200 square feet. I don't have a dishwasher. We do all our dishes by
hand."
He wants 1,800 square feet -- "a room for each kid, three bedrooms, maybe four," he said. "Imagine four bedrooms. You have the luxury of a
guest room, how crazy is that?"
What a baby.
I imagine complaints of having to make do on 'only' a $40K salary on an 8 hour day seem just about as unsympathetic to most people of the globe, and indeed, to most of our ancestors. In other words, after a certain (low) point, it's life style expectations ueber alles.
Yeah, Pitiful Pathos is right.
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2012, 09:01:02 AM
That being said, I gotta say that the psychological pressure to maintain your lifestyle is a real thing. I can imagine it is even more stressful to someone with stay-at-home wife and kids.
Totally. I think the failure here is the investment bankers allowing themselves to be interviewed on the topic unless they were actually paid for their comments. Clearly, this article was not going to be received sympathetically and they should have avoided participating in it.
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2012, 09:01:02 AM
That being said, I gotta say that the psychological pressure to maintain your lifestyle is a real thing. I can imagine it is even more stressful to someone with stay-at-home wife and kids.
not to mention that the stay at home wife will leave your ass if the cheques stop coming in :lol:
Yeah. I'm surprised so many people agreed to comment - unless I am missing something here. Surely, they can't be so out of touch not to realize that the plebes are going to sneer on them for missing their high flier lifestyles.
But at the same time, the idiot Languish lowlifes going all pitchforks-and-torches on their social betters is equally stupid, as Pitiful Pathos pointed out.
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2012, 09:47:21 AM
Totally. I think the failure here is the investment bankers allowing themselves to be interviewed on the topic unless they were actually paid for their comments. Clearly, this article was not going to be received sympathetically and they should have avoided participating in it.
Whiny bitches are whiny. Film at 11.
Why wouldn't they whine to the reporter? Because they will look like what they are? If they didn't want to look like whiny bitches, they would just stop whining, wouldn't they? It isn't possible for whiny bitches to whine in private.
It is true that it is impossible for them to avoid talking and coming off sounding like something you want to wipe off your shoe, but it is also impossible for them to realize that they come off as despicable losers. It is just their nature.
I no more feel sorry for them now than I envied them when they were lining their pockets and cratering the economy. They aren't worth the effort of either emotion.
New York is pretty screwed up like that. One of my good friends works for their city government and he pays a ridiculous amount of rent to share a Brooklyn brownstone with like four other professionals. I fully understand making 350K a year will get you exactly jack and shit in that city.
Quote from: Valmy on March 01, 2012, 10:12:22 AM
New York is pretty screwed up like that. One of my good friends works for their city government and he pays a ridiculous amount of rent to share a Brooklyn brownstone with like four other professionals. I fully understand making 350K a year will get you exactly jack and shit in that city.
And yet 95%+ of the people who don't make even that pittance somehow make it. The problem is expectations, not income.
Quote from: grumbler on March 01, 2012, 10:10:16 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2012, 09:47:21 AM
Totally. I think the failure here is the investment bankers allowing themselves to be interviewed on the topic unless they were actually paid for their comments. Clearly, this article was not going to be received sympathetically and they should have avoided participating in it.
Whiny bitches are whiny. Film at 11.
Why wouldn't they whine to the reporter? Because they will look like what they are? If they didn't want to look like whiny bitches, they would just stop whining, wouldn't they? It isn't possible for whiny bitches to whine in private.
It is true that it is impossible for them to avoid talking and coming off sounding like something you want to wipe off your shoe, but it is also impossible for them to realize that they come off as despicable losers. It is just their nature.
I no more feel sorry for them now than I envied them when they were lining their pockets and cratering the economy. They aren't worth the effort of either emotion.
Maybe that's the case but I don't know enough about these individuals to say that. I don't really have enough evidence that these specific individuals were cratering the economy and are worthy of scorn.
What I do know is that I make a pretty decent salary for most places in the nation, but I've certainly made complaints about it...especially when my salary was less than I'd made before. It's all about frame of reference and a person does tend to get unhappy when their quality of life drops. Sort of why it isn't helpful to say well have some perspective, there are people out there that would be happy to have just a warm place to sleep and guaranteed meals. That's so outside one's frame of reference that it doesn't do much of anything.
Quote from: DGuller on March 01, 2012, 10:26:20 AM
And yet 95%+ of the people who don't make even that pittance somehow make it. The problem is expectations, not income.
The problem is once you reach the pinnacle of your field I guess you feel like you should be on easy street. In that city you need to like own your own multi-national corp to really do a luxurious victory lap.
These bonus Wall Street dudes need to live on farms in Connecticut or something.
Quote from: DGuller on March 01, 2012, 10:26:20 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 01, 2012, 10:12:22 AM
New York is pretty screwed up like that. One of my good friends works for their city government and he pays a ridiculous amount of rent to share a Brooklyn brownstone with like four other professionals. I fully understand making 350K a year will get you exactly jack and shit in that city.
And yet 95%+ of the people who don't make even that pittance somehow make it. The problem is expectations, not income.
Is it expectations though? If you had something and then now you don't - it isn't odd that you still want what was good and not the crappy bit that you can now afford.
Quote from: Valmy on March 01, 2012, 10:31:22 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 01, 2012, 10:26:20 AM
And yet 95%+ of the people who don't make even that pittance somehow make it. The problem is expectations, not income.
The problem is once you reach the pinnacle of your field I guess you feel like you should be on easy street. In that city you need to like own your own multi-national corp to really do a luxurious victory lap.
These bonus Wall Street dudes need to live on farms in Connecticut or something.
Exactly. It'd be a different story if they were unhappy that they never achieved the wealth/status that they thought they could...but to achieve it and then have to go back? That's awful.
Quote from: DGuller on March 01, 2012, 10:26:20 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 01, 2012, 10:12:22 AM
New York is pretty screwed up like that. One of my good friends works for their city government and he pays a ridiculous amount of rent to share a Brooklyn brownstone with like four other professionals. I fully understand making 350K a year will get you exactly jack and shit in that city.
And yet 95%+ of the people who don't make even that pittance somehow make it. The problem is expectations, not income.
That is only partially true. In most well paying jobs, the expectations from you in terms of spending/lifestyle become quite specific to the point that they become almost a part of your job description.
You *have* to wear more expensive suits, shirts and shoes. You *have* to be well groomed. You *have* to treat yourself (and your clients) to expensive restaurants. Etc. This all carries with itself additional costs that cannot be regarded in terms of wanton consumerism - they are essentially professional expenses.
Plus, while people in high flying job may sometimes be overpaid, we should not forget that they *do* actually work much longer hours than an average employee. And this carries with itself a slew of addition costs - with such work-life balance you just can't be expected to clean and cook for yourself on a regular basis, for example.
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2012, 10:35:21 AM
Plus, while people in high flying job may sometimes be overpaid, we should not forget that they *do* actually work much longer hours than an average employee. And this carries with itself a slew of addition costs - with such work-life balance you just can't be expected to clean and cook for yourself on a regular basis, for example.
Do they though? I find it hard to believe they work as much as the individual holding down 3 part time jobs who then, because they don't have the money to afford staff, have to take care of their homes/children as well.
Quote from: DGuller on March 01, 2012, 10:26:20 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 01, 2012, 10:12:22 AM
New York is pretty screwed up like that. One of my good friends works for their city government and he pays a ridiculous amount of rent to share a Brooklyn brownstone with like four other professionals. I fully understand making 350K a year will get you exactly jack and shit in that city.
And yet 95%+ of the people who don't make even that pittance somehow make it. The problem is expectations, not income.
Amazing, isnt it. :lol:
Tying your lifestyle to a bonus doesn't seem prudent.
Quote from: The Brain on March 01, 2012, 11:04:54 AM
Tying your lifestyle to a bonus doesn't seem prudent.
Didn't AR already state for us that bonuses for bankers are really kind of like a piece of their salary? Sort of the same way that commission comes into play for salespeople? American waitresses on tips?
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2012, 09:01:02 AM
That being said, I gotta say that the psychological pressure to maintain your lifestyle is a real thing. I can imagine it is even more stressful to someone with stay-at-home wife and kids.
I think you are correct. People in that sphere really have to look successful or others might not be so quick to do business with them.
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2012, 10:35:21 AM
That is only partially true. In most well paying jobs, the expectations from you in terms of spending/lifestyle become quite specific to the point that they become almost a part of your job description.
You *have* to wear more expensive suits, shirts and shoes. You *have* to be well groomed. You *have* to treat yourself (and your clients) to expensive restaurants. Etc. This all carries with itself additional costs that cannot be regarded in terms of wanton consumerism - they are essentially professional expenses.
Not really though.
You have to wear decent enough suits, but not necessarily high-end designer brand fashion. You do not need to treat yourself to expensive restaurants. Client functions sure - but those are either paid for by the firm, or tax deductable. You certainly do not need to go on expensive vacations, nor do you need to drive an expensive luxury-brand vehicle.
I certainly understand the herd mentality of "keeping up with the Joneses", and I understand why people do it. But you can't fool me into thinking they have absolutely zero choice.
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2012, 11:20:20 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 01, 2012, 11:04:54 AM
Tying your lifestyle to a bonus doesn't seem prudent.
Didn't AR already state for us that bonuses for bankers are really kind of like a piece of their salary? Sort of the same way that commission comes into play for salespeople? American waitresses on tips?
Exactly. Bonuses in investment banking used to be a given - they were just a way of paying out salary, pretty much.
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2012, 11:40:54 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2012, 11:20:20 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 01, 2012, 11:04:54 AM
Tying your lifestyle to a bonus doesn't seem prudent.
Didn't AR already state for us that bonuses for bankers are really kind of like a piece of their salary? Sort of the same way that commission comes into play for salespeople? American waitresses on tips?
Exactly. Bonuses in investment banking used to be a given - they were just a way of paying out salary, pretty much.
And what's the balance between them? Out of all the money earned in a year, what % did bonuses usually represent?
As far as I understand, bonuses could represent 50% or even more.
Most high-earners save very little and live a highly-leveraged lifestyle (plenty of debt). Their net worth is usually smaller than we think and very susceptible to sudden life downturns.
Quote from: Phillip V on March 01, 2012, 11:56:36 AM
Most high-earners save very little and live a highly-leveraged lifestyle (plenty of debt). Their net worth is usually smaller than we think and very susceptible to sudden life downturns.
Cite? After all, how is that different from most people?
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2012, 12:00:25 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 01, 2012, 11:56:36 AM
Most high-earners save very little and live a highly-leveraged lifestyle (plenty of debt). Their net worth is usually smaller than we think and very susceptible to sudden life downturns.
Cite? After all, how is that different from most people?
Not that different at all. :) Except the climb and fall are much steeper.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204336104577096410776256928.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204336104577096410776256928.html)
http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Mind-Set-ebook/dp/B004EPYWM4/ (http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Mind-Set-ebook/dp/B004EPYWM4/)
Quote from: Phillip V on March 01, 2012, 12:06:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2012, 12:00:25 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 01, 2012, 11:56:36 AM
Most high-earners save very little and live a highly-leveraged lifestyle (plenty of debt). Their net worth is usually smaller than we think and very susceptible to sudden life downturns.
Cite? After all, how is that different from most people?
Not that different at all. :) Except the climb and fall are much steeper.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204336104577096410776256928.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204336104577096410776256928.html)
http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Mind-Set-ebook/dp/B004EPYWM4/ (http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Mind-Set-ebook/dp/B004EPYWM4/)
Yep, people who make a lot of money didnt suddenly become smarter then the rest of us with how they spend it. They just have more epic ways to screw up when things go bad.
Quote from: DGuller on March 01, 2012, 10:26:20 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 01, 2012, 10:12:22 AM
New York is pretty screwed up like that. One of my good friends works for their city government and he pays a ridiculous amount of rent to share a Brooklyn brownstone with like four other professionals. I fully understand making 350K a year will get you exactly jack and shit in that city.
And yet 95%+ of the people who don't make even that pittance somehow make it. The problem is expectations, not income.
The problem is the cost of positional goods.
The population of Manhattan and prime Brooklyn at this point consists of:
+ residents of subsidized housing
+ recent college grads living 3 to an apartment
+ young single professionals and couples without kids
+ one child households making 200K +
+ Larger families earning 400-500K plus.
Of course, it is possible to stretch by moving to more "marginal" areas. That has been happening since the 70s. But the consequence is to drive out the people in the next income rung and eventually to bring up prices back to unaffordable level. Gentrification has spread from the Upper West Side and the East Village in the 70s and 80s (both centrally located Manhattan neighborhoods) to neighborhoods deep in the outer boroughs in Brooklyn and Queens. That may temporarily solve the problems of the second tier finance professionals but at the cost of driving out police, firefighters, teachers, middle manager types etc to the far outskirts of city and beyond.
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2012, 11:20:20 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 01, 2012, 11:04:54 AM
Tying your lifestyle to a bonus doesn't seem prudent.
Didn't AR already state for us that bonuses for bankers are really kind of like a piece of their salary? Sort of the same way that commission comes into play for salespeople? American waitresses on tips?
So they only have themselves to blame for not getting the bonus?
I don't argue that NYC isn't a basketcase. It certainly is, and I find it to be a highly unpleasant city. However, most of my family lives in Brooklyn, they don't make six figures, and yet they manage to somehow live decently in a safe neighborhood and save. It's all about setting your expectations level, and what you consider to be a life necessities.
I find NYC totally fascinating, and would love to live there. Only thing is, it's full of New Yorkers.
But Marti actually has a point for a change; in certain professions and at certain levels, you need to look the part, and that costs money.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 01, 2012, 01:06:20 PM
I find NYC totally fascinating, and would love to live there. Only thing is, it's full of New Yorkers.
But Marti actually has a point for a change; in certain professions and at certain levels, you need to look the part, and that costs money.
Okay there, Hollywood :rolleyes:
Quote from: DGuller on March 01, 2012, 12:53:20 PM
I don't argue that NYC isn't a basketcase. It certainly is, and I find it to be a highly unpleasant city. However, most of my family lives in Brooklyn, they don't make six figures, and yet they manage to somehow live decently in a safe neighborhood and save. It's all about setting your expectations level, and what you consider to be a life necessities.
I found living in NYC was a lot more pleasant than having to travel to or from it regularly. I'd never call NYC unpleasant, but it does have its own set of inconveniences.
Wow, I feel so bad for them! To paraphrase, they say others don't understand the problems of the wealthy? Wow, just wow... such problems, to earn hundreds of thousands a year and still be able to get themselves into financial problems. Too frigging bad. :glare: What, do we now need welfare and food stamps for the wealthy? ;)
Quote from: frunk on March 01, 2012, 01:16:01 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 01, 2012, 12:53:20 PM
I don't argue that NYC isn't a basketcase. It certainly is, and I find it to be a highly unpleasant city. However, most of my family lives in Brooklyn, they don't make six figures, and yet they manage to somehow live decently in a safe neighborhood and save. It's all about setting your expectations level, and what you consider to be a life necessities.
I found living in NYC was a lot more pleasant than having to travel to or from it regularly. I'd never call NYC unpleasant, but it does have its own set of inconveniences.
Well, I'm not a social person, so the one advantage it does have is lost on me. If you're a socialite, then of course NYC is for you.
Quote from: derspiess on March 01, 2012, 01:08:00 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 01, 2012, 01:06:20 PM
I find NYC totally fascinating, and would love to live there. Only thing is, it's full of New Yorkers.
But Marti actually has a point for a change; in certain professions and at certain levels, you need to look the part, and that costs money.
Okay there, Hollywood :rolleyes:
Remember, it's better to look good than to feel good.
Quote from: DGuller on March 01, 2012, 01:26:08 PM
Well, I'm not a social person, so the one advantage it does have is lost on me. If you're a socialite, then of course NYC is for you.
At the point I was there I didn't have or need a car. That's a huge bonus. I also had hardly any stuff and a tiny apartment. I'm not a social person either, but living in a tiny space and having a city full of museums, parks and scenic attractions meant I'd spend most evenings around town. Activities were easy to find, and just about everything was within 15-20 minutes if you needed to hurry, depending on how you traveled.
Quote from: Phillip V on March 01, 2012, 12:06:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2012, 12:00:25 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 01, 2012, 11:56:36 AM
Most high-earners save very little and live a highly-leveraged lifestyle (plenty of debt). Their net worth is usually smaller than we think and very susceptible to sudden life downturns.
Cite? After all, how is that different from most people?
Not that different at all. :) Except the climb and fall are much steeper.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204336104577096410776256928.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204336104577096410776256928.html)
http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Mind-Set-ebook/dp/B004EPYWM4/ (http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Mind-Set-ebook/dp/B004EPYWM4/)
Mind you most people on a normal wage who'd answer the questions on the first article would be classified as high beta. So basically they're saying most people are in potential trouble.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 01, 2012, 01:06:20 PM
I find NYC totally fascinating, and would love to live there. Only thing is, it's full of New Yorkers.
But Marti actually has a point for a change; in certain professions and at certain levels, you need to look the part, and that costs money.
Doubt that. Few of my friends here are from New York.
Quote from: DGuller on March 01, 2012, 01:26:08 PM
Well, I'm not a social person, so the one advantage it does have is lost on me. If you're a socialite, then of course NYC is for you.
There's a huge excluded middle between not social and socialite. ;)
Quote from: PJL on March 01, 2012, 02:02:22 PM
Mind you most people on a normal wage who'd answer the questions on the first article would be classified as high beta. So basically they're saying most people are in potential trouble.
Yes, as I understand it, that is the point.
Quote from: PJL on March 01, 2012, 02:02:22 PM
Mind you most people on a normal wage who'd answer the questions on the first article would be classified as high beta. So basically they're saying most people are in potential trouble.
Yeah, didn't seem particularly useful as you were only low beta if you were negative about your life.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2012, 02:09:52 PM
Quote from: PJL on March 01, 2012, 02:02:22 PM
Mind you most people on a normal wage who'd answer the questions on the first article would be classified as high beta. So basically they're saying most people are in potential trouble.
Yes, as I understand it, that is the point.
But that hardly says much.
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2012, 02:12:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2012, 02:09:52 PM
Quote from: PJL on March 01, 2012, 02:02:22 PM
Mind you most people on a normal wage who'd answer the questions on the first article would be classified as high beta. So basically they're saying most people are in potential trouble.
Yes, as I understand it, that is the point.
But that hardly says much.
Agreed.
Quote
Andrew Schiff...director of marketing for broker-dealer Euro Pacific Capital Inc.
Peter Schiff's brother, I assume?
Quote from: Valmy on March 01, 2012, 10:12:22 AM
New York is pretty screwed up like that. One of my good friends works for their city government and he pays a ridiculous amount of rent to share a Brooklyn brownstone with like four other professionals. I fully understand making 350K a year will get you exactly jack and shit in that city.
Yep. It is pretty much the same in all big, popular cities. You pay the price, or you commute forever.
Quote from: grumbler on March 01, 2012, 03:25:12 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 01, 2012, 10:12:22 AM
New York is pretty screwed up like that. One of my good friends works for their city government and he pays a ridiculous amount of rent to share a Brooklyn brownstone with like four other professionals. I fully understand making 350K a year will get you exactly jack and shit in that city.
Yep. It is pretty much the same in all big, popular cities. You pay the price, or you commute forever.
Yes though New York is particularly egregious on that front at least when I compare the same bit with SF.
Boston is no damn deal either. <_<
In London there are two comfortable ways of living, poor and bohemian or rich and successful, being middling is no good at all. I wouldn't like to live there on a household income of "only" £100,000 or so, I think it would have to be £200,000 or so to even be tempting. That is no reason to feel much pity for the guys in the original post, but it is fair to acknowledge that their finances could easily be stretched pretty tight.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 02, 2012, 12:37:18 PM
Boston is no damn deal either. <_<
Not in the same league. Looks infinitely more affordable compared to New York.
Quote from: PJL on March 01, 2012, 02:02:22 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 01, 2012, 12:06:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2012, 12:00:25 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 01, 2012, 11:56:36 AM
Most high-earners save very little and live a highly-leveraged lifestyle (plenty of debt). Their net worth is usually smaller than we think and very susceptible to sudden life downturns.
Cite? After all, how is that different from most people?
Not that different at all. :) Except the climb and fall are much steeper.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204336104577096410776256928.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204336104577096410776256928.html)
http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Mind-Set-ebook/dp/B004EPYWM4/ (http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Mind-Set-ebook/dp/B004EPYWM4/)
Mind you most people on a normal wage who'd answer the questions on the first article would be classified as high beta. So basically they're saying most people are in potential trouble.
Well, most who are broadly speaking in the middle class. Anyone who is a home-owner in a big city is surely fucked if they are not wealthy - most of their net worth is sunk into one asset (their house) and they likely have a big mortgage on it to boot.
Everyone thinks his own burden heavy.