DISQUS

AMERICAblog: $123,322 salary in NYC equals $50,000 in Houston

  • Steven Flowers · 10 months ago
    Congress does take cost of living into account for certain employees. I spoke with a US Marshal several years ago in Los Angeles. He had recently been promoted out of the San Diego office. He got a raise and a cost of living adjustment because he was in a more expensive area. His promotion earned him the raise. The cost of living adjustment was because he was in a more expensive area than his last post.
  • Soundboy_jeff_meanie · 10 months ago
    state and federal employees tend to get pay that matches where they live. everyone else?

    nope.

    As I've said before, I'm making about $15k MORE in San Diego than I made in Syracuse NY... HOWEVER, to actually LIVE at the same level (you know, be able to afford food as well as rent?) I should be making $20k MORE than I am.

    cost of living varies from city to city and state to state.

    and I agree, taxes and incentives should take this into account...

    for the people that slam us for saying so... should everyone move out of the cities?? are there JOBS in the country that will support us?

    if not, stfu.
  • Sugar · 10 months ago
    Mid-range (GS-11, step 5) federal salary in NYC: $71847; in Houston: $72027; in San Diego: $69309; in KC: $63930.
  • John Aravosis · 10 months ago
    That's true. I wrote about it before. The FAA, for instance, gives you 25% more salary if you live in Alaska or Hawaii. Why? Because it's more expensive there, for starters.
  • Dianne_in_DC · 10 months ago
    I agree that rebates and credits should be indexed by your location. They also ought to take your current situation into account. I had my 2008 stimulus check cut because I "made too much." However, at the time, I was unemployed. I was without work for 7 months. Shouldn't take a genius to figure out I needed the whole check!
  • LynxSL · 10 months ago
    AMEN!!!!.

    That's why you guys shouldn't hate everyone who get's bonus checks on Wall St.
    The executives make multiples of that $123k and then get bonuses that are multiples of that. If they had any decency they would have passed that up or started taking $1 per year salary when the went on the government dole.

    The little guys get a maximum bonus of about 20% of $123k in the best of times after doing the best possible job and that ain't happening this year. It's just enough to help. ( That and hoping you aren't let go in a layoff ).
  • SCLiberal · 10 months ago
    What many of us object to is bonus money for management that ran the company into the ground then had to beg from the public for help. Those people should not get bonuses—they should get a pink slip.
  • LLDEM · 10 months ago
    Mean income - Houston: 45,762
    Mean Income - NYC: 121,549 (although with pay caps on wall st. that may change)
  • LynxSL · 10 months ago
    The pay caps won't do it. The provide no incentive to pass any cash down to lower paid employees.

    What's really needed in addition to cost of living adjustments, is maximum ratio on executive pay. That way in order for the CEO to raise his salary or bonus, he would have to raise the salary and bonus of the lowest paid employees. Which would then force the salary of all employees, not just executives, higher.
  • lpeggy · 10 months ago
    Glad I live in the midwest. I would never choose to live in a place that had such high costs of living.
  • recusancy · 10 months ago
    You get the benefit of living in a nice area but you also have to pay for it. Don't like it, then move to a place that cost if living is lower.
  • John Aravosis · 10 months ago
    Yeah, I get the benefit of living in a nice area! We have shootings every month in my neighborhood, it's ridiculously expensive, people are kind of mean, I've 700 miles away from my family. And I live here in spite of this because I'm trying to make my country a better place. You're right. We're very screwed up people who should simply get up and leave. Jesus, some of you people are bitter.
  • Bush_Bites · 10 months ago
    That's pretty much why people retire down south.

    They just keep their heads above water up north, then cash out their expensive big city real estate and use that money to live on in a cheaper place when their money earning days are through.

    Or, at least, they used to do that.
  • SCLiberal · 10 months ago
    Now they are retiring to Mexico or points farther south.
  • Older_Wiser · 10 months ago
    They're still doing it...and not just retired people, but people who can't find a job up north or are banksters being transferred to Charlotte (Wall St. South). Not so many coming that look for jobs or to open a business in this economic climate now, though. They can sell a semi-detached house up north and with those proceeds, buy a McMansion with an acre down here in NC and have money left over. The downside? It's driving up real estate prices and taxes here.
  • example · 10 months ago
    Quit whining.
  • larry · 10 months ago
    Give it up...no one is going jump on that train. The comparison are flawed and you know it. When 95% of the US populous makes less that 75k for a family of four no one is particularily inclined to kick in some help if you are making 100k.
  • Soundboy_jeff_meanie · 10 months ago
    That family of four making 75k in NYC is right at the poverty line.

    you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
  • caphillprof · 10 months ago
    Tell that to anybody west of the Appalachians.
  • Soundboy_jeff_meanie · 10 months ago
    I'd tell them exactly what people who are insinuating that I'm whining are... move.

    It makes as much sense.
  • John Aravosis · 10 months ago
    Tell them what exactly? If they have half a brain, and I think they do, I'd explain that rents are $3000 a month for many people in Manhattan and I think the Appalachian family would shit their pants. It's really not that hard a concept to understand. Prices. Salaries. I think some of you have an emotional problem with this issue that's coloring your views, and prompting some rather fascinating, and irrational, anger.
  • John Aravosis · 10 months ago
    Exactly what Jeff said, your argument is ludicrous on its face. That's like saying someone in America who makes $10,000 a year with a family of four is filthy rich because if he lived in Mali he'd be filthy rich making that much money. It's just simply a ridiculous argument to make.
  • RitornaVincitor · 10 months ago
    Thanks John. I knew you were right when you posted about this before, but now you have the figures to back it up. We know a lot about this in San Francisco too.
  • Gary · 10 months ago
    Oh crap. We live in NYC and do not make anything near $100K. I'm disabled and my partner makes only $48K, with his company making him pay for 25% of his insurance. I'm spending about a grand a month on COBRA.
  • Tex · 10 months ago
    I've worked in New York and lived in Houston and your comparison is not apples to apples. For example, Houston has no real metro (no trains, no subways, crappy buses) and cabs are EXPENSIVE. In Houston, you'll be required to have a car and have insurance to get around. This is one expense that many New Yorkers can live without.

    Houston (Texas) has high property taxes so if you own a home, you'll be paying a hefty fee each year, often at least $8,000 per year. Houston (Texas) has high sales tax but no income tax. New York has income tax but lower sales tax.

    I agree that basing tax incentives or punishments on salary amounts is outdated and ridiculous but all of these factors should be considered. Better yet, just make EVERYONE pay a flat 10% or 12% and get rid of the ridiculous tax code.
  • justadood · 10 months ago
    While I agree with your reasoning, the rent figures suggest to me that NYC is in for a painful correction in pricing/costs, depending on how the *average* rent price aligns with the *mean* rent price for the area.

    Granted, there are going to be many other factors as well, but personally I find little to justify that high a price for living space, depending on availability of amenities (food, medical services, work, social scene).
  • Soundboy_jeff_meanie · 10 months ago
    In order for the rent to average itself out... you're talking about a TON of building management companies, landlords and other property owners having their places foreclosed on.

    you see... people won't see rents going down as long as the costs of the buildings are still sky high. and for people who own the buildings outright (maybe they bought them 30 years ago?), they're probably living off the income of the property... how often do you tell your boss to give you a pay cut? why would they lower rent unless EVERY other rental property in the area goes down?

    I'm still seeing cond buildings sitting empty or even half-built out here... nobody wants to spend $700k on a condo when all the properties are being foreclosed on (including the half-built condos!).

    they whack $100k off the price and STILL don't attract buyers... either you can't get a loan, or you're holding onto your money and waiting for prices to drop even more... OR maybe you're wondering if you're going to have a job in a month.

    .
  • nicho · 10 months ago
    Actually, rents in NYC are going down -- AND they're offering first month free and absorbing the cost of the realtor fee on many apartments. This is a complete 180-degree turn from a few years ago when people used to follow hearses around to find where there were going to be empty apartments. Some even went so far as to bribe people in the classified ad sections of the newspaper to give them a heads up on a new listing.
  • LynxSL · 10 months ago
    Well I won't get my lease renewal until August. But I'll be anyone dollars to donuts that it goes UP the customary 4% minimum.

    Rent Control good in theory, not so good when the rent control board is controlled by the landlords.
  • An Other Greek · 10 months ago
    speculative and/or new rental properties are indeed going down... a little...
    my rent is certainly NOT going down, and I well expect an increase...

    Property owners are legendary and mercenary here, established renters are unlikely to see true benefit from any slowdown...

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  • AngelaChanning · 10 months ago
    They should dp the salaries by zip code. One could find out the cap by going to a website and typing in their zip code. Easy Schmeasy.
  • Soundboy_jeff_meanie · 10 months ago
    you know... I'm hearing the people saying quit whining... and I'm wondering a couple things.

    are you happy where you live or did you get stuck there because of family ties and/or industry?

    put it this way... if you're working in the computer industry, you don't move to podunk Montana to find a job. They aren't there.

    if you move to silicon valley... you'll find a job, and you'll probably struggle to live on starting pay of $75k (or at least, you USED to be able to find a job... not so much anymore).

    city living isn't for everyone... I wouldn't want to live in NYC. San Diego is a slower lifestyle, but its still expensive. When I moved here, there were jobs paying enough to make it affordable (still pricy by comparison to Syracuse, but affordable)... now? all the jobs are going away.

    Its going to wind up that the only people who live in major cities are millionaires.

    question, who cooks the food at Burger King? who stocks the shelves at the grocery store? when do cab rides start at $40 for the first mile?

    are you getting the picture?

    we live where we want to live... ALL of us. if you don't, then you lack ambition and I have no sympathy for you. however, slamming someone for 'whining' because they make enough money to barely break even seems like jealousy to me.

    put it this way, if you like where you live... would you want someone telling you to move to a 3rd world country? no?

    its the same thing... and in JOHN's case... he NEEDS to live in DC. you don't get involved in national politics if you live in a town of 2,000 people in North Dakota... North Dakota where, I might add, $100k a year is probably super-rich.
  • Bubbles · 10 months ago
    "we live where we want to live... ALL of us. if you don't, then you lack ambition and I have no sympathy for you."

    Hmm, I seemed to have heard something like this before, ....

    Where...?

    Oh I know: "The poor are poor, because they are lazy" - George W. Bush during his Harvard MBA years.
  • Soundboy_jeff_meanie · 10 months ago
    you didn't answer the question.

    and the comparison is lame.
  • LLDEM · 10 months ago
    I live in Los Angeles and started as a renter. Over time I saved enough money to buy an entry level townhouse which I then sold for enough to buy a home in the Valley. I know folks here who say, "ew, why would you want to live in the valley". The answer is, it's what I can afford and it's close to my job and as it turns out, I rather like it. Compromises I made with eyes wide open so that now my monthly housing check actually builds me some security for the future. This process took almost 20 years but in my opinion, it was worth the effort.
  • DangerWillRobinson · 10 months ago
    Similar situation here. Work in NYC, brought beautiful townhouse in Jersey City, renovated and still pay less in mortgage, taxes and insurance than my peeps pay to rent in the city. I make over the $100K threshold and am quite comfortable. SO LONG AS I HAVE A JOB!

    Besides, NYC died a long time ago but someone forgot to tell the residents :-0
  • Gary SF · 10 months ago
    There are many people who live in DC on FAR LESS than John makes and they don't constantly whine about this. And you show your ignorance when you say that we all live where we want to live. I know plenty of people that moved to be close to work, just at you claim that John MUST LIVE in DC.

    For those who are living paycheck to paycheck and get laid off, moving for work - to a place that they don't necessarily like - is very common. Get a fucking clue.
  • John Aravosis · 10 months ago
    But of an anger problem there. I notice that you don't bother refuting any of the facts presented in the article. Are you simply jealous of people who are successful and live in big cities, or what's the problem?
  • Soundboy_Jeff_meanie · 10 months ago
    For those who are living paycheck to paycheck and get laid off, moving for work - to a place that they don't necessarily like - is very common. Get a fucking clue.

    ---

    so what's the point? no work-life balance?

    again, you live where you want to live... or you move. either you figure out how you can stay (living paycheck to paycheck? multiple jobs? selling your ass? whatever?) or you really didn't want to live there. As I'm doing in San Diego. When the job dries up (as its likely to do... EVERY IT job is disappearing fast, or is paying half of what the going rate was 8 years ago), I'll find a way to stay here.

    moving to east bumfuck nowhere to keep a job? you've got to love your job (or money in general) a lot more than you like where you live or your general well-being... otherwise, you resent your job. how is that good??

    get a fucking clue? and you live in San Francisco (from the SF I gather)?? seriously, John's right... you've got an anger issue.



    .
  • John Aravosis · 10 months ago
    Thank you. I suspect the majority of our readers get the point. Some people on the left simply have a problem with money, and a problem more generally with success. It would be interesting to see them move to NYC and try to survive paying $3k a month in rent. :-) Then we'd see who the whiner is, I suspect.

    And yes, it's interesting that folks appreciate my political advocacy on gay rights and other issues, but they don't appreciate that I need to be in DC in order to do it well. Well, most do appreciate that. Some of the vocal minority don't, but you'll never please them anyway, that's why I don't try :-)
  • Older_Wiser · 10 months ago
    Not again. Most of the people who work in Manhattan don't even live there, as I learned when I was there for 3 months; they live elsewhere and take the train. It's simply too expensive. Most people I knew had roommates and were single, but that wouldn't usually work for families. Even living in Harlem was expensive, as I learned from an office mate at NYU who lived there.

    It's called living within your means and/or making do, I think, when a city is very expensive. It's a choice, and it might mean living in not so great circumstances.

    It's not working class people who raise property values, it's the rich. We're finding that out in this county, where property taxes are going sky high because of McMansion developments which used to be on farmland, sold to people who work in Charlotte and make enough to live there, but live here instead and demand services (more schools, roads, utilities, etc.) The only people who have an advantage are those who moved up here 10-15 yrs ago (or even before) and whose mortgage payments are still reasonable. You can't even rent a place like this (very modest) for anywhere near that payment these days.
  • SCLiberal · 10 months ago
    This method of figuring tax credits makes as much sense as the current proposal of three months of no payroll taxes. What does this do for the millions who have no jobs, and thus no paycheck?
  • Barbara917 · 10 months ago
    I have lived in Houston or the Houston metropolitan area for the better part of my life - some39 years. We deal with heat, humidity, bugs. We don't enjoy the wonderful climate of California or the soaring landscapes of Colorado or the rich metropolitan culture of NYC. Many times we have wished to live in one of those "more desirable" locales. And we never do. Because of our standard of living. I have not found anywhere in the country that competes with Houston for standard of living. People make their choices of where they choose to live. They accept the whole package - the trade offs. They make their choices. The way I see it you pay for your choices one way or the other. Houston is not a secret. Many would not live here. That is their choice. You want a higher standard of living? I know a place you can come live and work. If you want to....

    :/ corrected for spelling
  • John Aravosis · 10 months ago
    And if you want Hurricane relief, I know a place you can come live and work where you won't have hurricanes, so there's no need to send the government, and billions of dollars, to help the next time you're about to die ;-) Do you see the problem?
  • Barbara917 · 10 months ago
    Seems like an apples and oranges comparison to me. A non sequitur. Year in year out standard of living is not the same thing as disaster relief. In thirty nine years of living in Houston there has only been one hurricane Ike. NYC has a higher frequency of terrorist attacks. I don't begrudge disaster relief to flood victims along the Mississippi or tornado victims in Kansas or earthquake victims in California. What are we talking about here? Standard of living? Or natural disasters?
  • Lolis · 10 months ago
    I think most people agree with you on this. Lobby Congress on it or something.
  • John Aravosis · 10 months ago
    I just thought it was interesting that after I mentioned this problem a few times, there was coincidentally an article about it in a big paper a week or two later. It is interesting to see actual facts. And you know, I wish I could lobby Congress on it - it takes more than one person. That's the hard part about lobbying - typically, you need a lot of people, or a lot of money behind you. Having said that, that's part of the reason I'm writing about this - people in Congress and the administration read this blog. It's helpful to educate them about this stuff, and hopefully, some day, may influence some of them.
  • BloggerDave · 10 months ago
    Obama Appoints Gay Man To Faith-Based Council

    http://www.gaypolitics.com/2009/02/06/obama-nam...
  • aratina · 10 months ago
    That's a good way to stick it to Warren. I wonder though, is Fred Davie married? Then it would be awesome. The Christian zealots would have to take handouts from a married gay man. We need to know more about this guy. Is Fred Davie even religious?
  • jgm22 · 10 months ago
    when/if things get better i want to take this to my boss! i shouldn't say this but i'm down on the unions lately. my partner's nephew didn't go to college and makes more money than me at 23 than I do at 35. the only reason is because he's in a union. he gets better benefits, too. i work my butt off at least 5 days a week in a very respectable company in mid-level management and i want to know what I'm doing wrong. Should i have gone into something else? Should I have just not gone to college and worked so hard? I see it all over the city. I used to live in DC and it was the same thing with the government employees. They worked half the time I did and got more money and better benefits. I tried to get in for years, but you have to know someone and half the jobs they post are just because they have to. They already have the person picked and don't intend to hire anyone else. People wait years to get in. So, no to the unions and the way government employs and yes to getting your fair share!
  • spanky · 10 months ago
    Move it is that simple.
  • spanky · 10 months ago
    Move.

    Problem solved.

    I live in the Seattle area and it isn't cheap either.
  • John Aravosis · 10 months ago
    Well, if you want federal government policy to provide incentives for people to leave all the big cities, that is your choice. I'm just not sure that's very wise policy. i assume you also support the "just move" policy when hurricanes hit southern states, and earthquakes hit California, yes? And you also have the same attitude about unemployment compensation? (Get a job?)
  • gymnjim · 10 months ago
    But subsidizing the cost of living would in fact increase the gap.
  • Forty2 · 10 months ago
    I'm very specialized in a dying industry and pushing an age where a career change is not really going to happen. I have to go where the jobs are. Right now, that's just north of Boston. If something paying 2/3 or even 1/2 opened up in Omaha or Louisville I'd seriously consider it, but nothing's opening up.
  • gymnjim · 10 months ago
    Some one in the government figured that out over 40 years ago,

    Google HUD income limits. A map will show you income limits county but county.
  • Gary SF · 10 months ago
    Yeah and you still don't get it. Your constant whining about this shows that you don't have a fucking clue about the true suffering that people are going through right now.
  • John Aravosis · 10 months ago
    So, you're disputing the facts presented in the study, in detail, about the cost of living in NYC? So far I'm only hearing childish personal attacks coming from you. I think we all deserve a little better.
  • Gary SF · 10 months ago
    Nope, I'm not disputing the facts. I live in San Francisco which, at times, has the highest housing costs in the nation. I don't see constant posts from you regarding the social injustice towards the poor. I see plenty of posts from you regarding how much you have to pay for meds, how you didn't get the $300 relief last year and how you are being 'cheated' out of this new home-buying subsidy.

    In the world of the truly needy, choices between eating and getting meds are a daily routine. In the world of the working poor, living as you do is an unattainable dream. Frankly, I'd prefer to see you tell us how thankful you are for the position of privilege that you have. You may have worked for it but luck plays an important part as well. Just look at how many hard working folks never escape being poor.

    I'm not calling you rich - we are probably more or less economic equals. But we have it much better than 80% of the WORLD'S population and we need to remember that. A little humility now and then from you would go a long way.

    Sorry for being so bitchy in my reactions to your posts about this. I will work to be more articulate.
  • John Aravosis · 10 months ago
    First, thanks for saying sorry. But this isn't a third world poverty blog. We write about US politics, and that occasionally includes poverty, just like it includes the auto industry, gay rights, the environment, the economy and everything else. I'm not going to write exclusively about the poor, so sorry. It just so happens that the Republicans do everything they can to help the rich, and the Democrats do the same for the poor and blue collar. But neither helps the upper middle class, and expect us to pay for everything. At some point, that becomes rather unfair. Lots of people, rich and poor, are getting benefits from this legislation. The rest of us deserve to be helped as well in a very scare year. There is nothing wrong with pointing out that fact. I simply do not believe that all of government policy should be exclusively focused on helping the poor and no one else. I'm sorry, but there are lots of problems in America in addition to poverty. And lots of people are in trouble this year, beyond the poor. They all deserve their government's help and support.
  • Kathy · 10 months ago
    The fact that you're talking about a tax credit for people to buy an asset clearly shows that government isn't excluively focused on helping those in poverty.

    Kind of a straw man there, John.
  • acknight · 10 months ago
    I think what's missing is if you scale the limits, you need to be able to scale the benefit/incentive, too.

    Because a $7500 credit in DC doesn't go anywhere near as far as in, say, Syracuse, NY. It's effectively pocket change on a $300k condo; it's a real difference on a $90k house.

    If you're going to argue to scale one, you need to scale both - or else, effectively, the whole scheme is mostly pointless anyways.
  • Houndentenor · 10 months ago
    I live in NYC and don't make anywhere near $100k. We have an inflated idea of what "middle class" is these days. The median income in New York City is actually lower than the national average. Look it up. Not everyone can afford to live in a luxury apartment. We deal.
  • rgblk · 10 months ago
    This is nothing new. There have always been cities that are more expensive to live in. Wherever you live is basically a lifestyle choice and I don't think the government should support your lifestyle choice.

    Manhattan has always been expensive. If you can't afford it you can live across the river in New Jersey.

    I moved from a big expensive city to a small rural town 20 years ago because I couldn't afford the big city. I'm happy with my choice and have never looked back.
  • eloise4 · 8 months ago
    If a person wants to live in Manhattan he/she will pay Manhattan's prices. That's a choice, not a right one way or the other. Manhattan is a stinking island that's huckstered folks into thinking that to live here is to "make" it. Nonsense. Move to a city that's liveable and affordable and give up the illusions about this clubby, little city. A few media types write about themselves and their friends endlessly; they do this in magazines and publications that only they care about. The outer 4 boros don't even count. Working class stiffs who are normal and wonderful. Developers work with NYC mayors in running this city into the ground. It's a dirty, poorly maintained, over-hyped mess...that's what Manhattan is.