Following up on last week’s L.A. Times story on how laid-off wealthy people are enjoying “funemployment” comes a story in today’s New York Times on the tragic plight of twentysomething hipsters in Brooklyn’s Williamsburg neighborhood who are being forced by the recession to live in slightly less opulent homes:
The number of sales in Williamsburg dropped nearly a quarter in the first three months of this year compared with the same period a year ago, according to HMS Associates, a Brooklyn appraisal firm. And in three recent cases, [Union Square Mortgage Group partner Ross] Weinstein said, owners sold their apartments in short sales — selling for less than the bank is owed, to avoid foreclosure — because they were no longer receiving parental help.
Mr. Weinstein has been advising two brothers in their late 20s who wanted to buy a $700,000 apartment with $250,000 from their parents. But their parents’ investment portfolio has lost so much value that they now can give only $50,000. Since the brothers make about $45,000 a year each, they are now shopping for a $500,000 apartment.
It is an adjustment that many have to deal with. Eric Gross, 26, a construction worker, was going to buy, with help from his father, a $600,000 one-bedroom condo with city views at Northside Piers, a luxury building, he said.
But his father, who works in the auto industry, said he had to reduce his contribution. “He’s pulling back the lifeline,” Mr. Gross said.
So Mr. Gross is scaling back, shopping for a $300,000 apartment, said his real estate agent, Binnie Robinson of AptsandLofts.com…
[P]arental help was obvious in the intersection of residents with low-paying jobs and $3,000-a-month apartments.
“You can put two and two together, that they have money coming in from somewhere else,” [author Robert] Lanham said.
Consider the plight of Williamsburg’s trustafarians in the light of the following Fun Facts. In 2008, the median annual wage for an American worker was $32,390. In 2007, the median amount spent by homeowners on housing was $1,084/month. (The median renter paid even less — $789/month.)
So if you’re one of those kids whose parents can now “only” (!) afford to front you as much for a down payment on your new pad as an ordinary working man or woman makes over nearly two years, maybe you should be counting your blessings rather than whining about it to the Paper of Record. You know?
(And, I might add, maybe the Paper of Record should spend less time chasing down stories like this and more time telling us how people whose incomes aren’t padded by five-figure checks from Mom and Dad get by in the Big Apple.)
Comments (1)
Comments posted to CtW Connect are the sole property of the individual posting them, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Change to Win, its affiliated unions, or its leadership.
A few comments here:
First, your math logic is incorrect. This is the NYC/NJ metro area they are referencing in the articles. The median home price in the NYC/NJ metro area is $470,000. Median monthly rent is $2500. And those are 2009 figures - down from median home price of $700,000 in 2008.
Even in "far less than average" areas still within metro NY/NJ, it is not possible to find a home for less than $375,000. Because of the business, educational and arts vicinities to the area, the cost of housing is 4 times that of the country's median. Unfortunately, the location of their jobs - to those who are still employed, and often the generations of family that are rooted in the area (many are descendants of original immigrants) keep residents anchored to this area despite the high cost. During times of normal employment, the salary is in line with the cost of living. Same reason why someone living in, say, Kansas might make $25,000 less than someone doing the same job in NYC - cost of living in Kansas is that much lower in ratio if you're living in Kansas.
More importantly, why the snarky tone? Why harbor so much resentment? My brother lives in Hoboken, NJ and was working on Wall Street until his company was shut down. He did nothing wrong, never hurt anyone like yourself, made maybe about $75,000 a year and lived in a $350,000 condo. So what? He spent the prior 20 years working labor jobs at minimum wage and as a gas station attendant, a cook, a waiter...he worked his way to where he was. This is the first time ever he's been on unemployment in his life, and it has devastated him - financially and his pride. He cannot find work because in this environment, who likes a former Wall Street worker? He nearly died on 9/11 in the towers, but still returned to work a week later when the markets re-opened out of a sense of patriotism and a stand against terrorists. And now you call his temporary setback "Funemployment"? Wow, what an insult - you could not be more wrong about most of the people in my brother's situation.
People like you are hell-bent on creating this unfair discrimination against people like him; successful people who did nothing wrong but work their own way out of the slums to get where they are (as did I). We had hard, hard childhoods, me and my siblings. We deserve any financial rewards we've earned, however small, modest or large. And I'd hope that if we want to pass some of that on to our kids someday when they buy their own homes, we can still do that, because we can and because we want to. (Though I'll probably make my kids earn it the same way I did - but still, it will be MY choice, and not the choice of the general populace.)
I lived a hard life and worked for everything I have, yet I harbor no resentment or anger toward anyone who's successful or has "daddy" helping them. Why do you care? Why do you feel the need to be snarky and snotty and act like you've personally been wronged somehow? Because the President acts like that? Is that why? It's a free country - well, for a little while longer at least - so you're entitled to your opinion. But it's a very, very unhealthy attitude.
"Pity the Poor Rich"? I pity you.
Posted by libertychick on June 9, 2009 at 6:45 PM
Posted on June 9, 2009 at 6:45 PM