what are we in Cuba? You do whatever you want with your money... but I'll make whatever I'm able to make and do what I want with it.

Realize that when these people are spending $500,000 a year, it's money going back into the economy, circulating around. And a lot of it goes to "low wage" earners, like the teachers at the private school, the janitors at the school -- well, you get the idea.

Let's not let jealousy or envy cloud our minds to the positive effects of having someone rich spending money like crazy and stimulating the economy without any govt bailouts.

Well, you won't have to feed the nanny or the chauffer, so that should cut down on groceries right there.

Instead of living in the City, they could also move upstate or to CT and use Metro North like the rest of the Pee-ons. Oh, and the public schools are MUCH better outside the city.

Ummm...do you have any clue what you're talking about? This populist crap is starting to annoy me. Not that having these kinds of expenses isn't ridiculous. Of course it is. But you guys just don't know what you're talking about. This is Manhattan - everything is ridiculous here.

As a non-rich resident of Manhattan I can say the following:

-I would not send any child of mine to the public schools here, at least not for elementary school, unless I wanted them to learn nothing except for gang signs.
-There is no such thing as a house in Manhattan with no co-op fees unless you own a townhouse, which has its own sets of fees. All apartments have co-op or condo fees.
-Park below 65th street? Park where? In another garage? It will cost the same. There is no place to park in Manhattan unless you are willing to risk having your car badly damaged by parking it on the street - I've seen cars set on fire, jumped on, pissed on, etc etc - not to mention what that will do to your insurance costs.

Please know what you are talking about before making posts like this. You're basically saying "Leave Manhattan, assholes!" without actually coming out and saying it.

This is up there for the number one post on consumerist. Congratulations!

@nicemarmot617: There are quite a few people that live on Manhattan on less than $500,000

@shoelace414: Um, yeah. I'm one of them. Did you actually read my post?

I find equating "the other spouse" with the nanny service insulting.
Who says "the other spouse" isn't also working? And if they aren't, what gives you the right to say what they should or shouldn't be doing? That their value is less because their spouse makes a high wage? Or a low one for that matter?
I could rant further, but I'm just too... mad.

The problem is that the logical end to the above could be a similar list, explaining to middle-class people why they're so wasteful and should be living like the lower classes. It never ends, and its not our place to decide all the threshholds.

I'm for executive pay caps for bailout money, but we need more scientific, less arbitrary. This is the country that brought you the most complex tax code in the modern world--surely we can do better than "durr, half million dollars!"

@drb023: Precisely.. freedom to make whatever and make choices to spend whatever.. even if it seems silly. Half those people give a TON of money to charity when times are good too. Look at Bill Gates.

@geoffhazel: But it's not without government bailouts--that's the point. These are people from companies seeking and/or receiving bailouts. Which means they're locking into a standard of living on taxpayer money, and as a taxpayer, I think my money would be much better spent on infrastructure than on $16,000 worth of vacations per year. I mean, I suspect the recession is hurting deBeers like crazy, too, but I'm not exactly crying in my soup over them.

I like the article's point that this is a class standard rather than a life necessity, but I think it's interesting to contemplate how much such standards respond to style and trends--in other words, that this is follower, not leader spending. I wonder if some sharp financier/CEO will attempt to make a public virtue of personal austerity?

@jaydez: Please, don't send any more of these jackasses to CT! We're overrun by them as it is.

@geoffhazel: I'm confident that currently poor people can spend just as crazily as the rich, given the chance.

@geoffhazel:
Its not jelousy on my part. I'm hoping that a $500,000 a year cap for companies that have taken a chunck of my tax money will choke to death from an abundance on ineptitude generated by salary caps. That way they'll die like they should have in the first place, allowing healthy banks to pick the meat off of their bloated carcasses.

I dig the snark and the options presented, especially the Netflix subscription. However, I didn't have a fancy private education, I went to 'gasp' public, so I can't tally the difference presented. Could you do it for me?

@nicemarmot617:
You basically hit the nail on the head. As someone planning a move to NYC very soon, this doesn't come as a surprise to me. It's a very expensive city to live in, which is in part why the salaries are so high. This post is essentially saying "Your lifestyle is wrong, so change it". Most of the guys making these big salaries have worked long and hard to get to where they are, and it's wrong to judge the lifestyles they've come to lead like this. Some of the stuff may be a bit extravagant, but that's not for us to judge. I think part of the point of the NYT article was to simply expose how much it costs to live in Manhattan. It's a lifestyle choice and it comes with certain expenses. As Nicemarmot pointed out, you don't buy a "house" in Manhattan, that is unless you're just obscenely wealthy and own one of the few single-family homes. Co-op maintenance fees and condo association dues are just part of the gig, you can't get away from them.

"You're not going to get through private school without tutoring a kid"

Somebody's gonna need to explain this one to me.

I can understand reluctance to send your kid to a public school, but imparting good study habits to your kid shouldn't cost money.

SAT tutors are about $250 an hour

I rocked the ACT (32) and it cost me $20 for a prep book from Kaplan. They don't give you a more difficult standardized test based on where you live or how much money your dad makes. That's why it's called a STANDARDIZED test.

@nicemarmot617: I live in NYC too, in Brooklyn, but before that I lived on the Upper East Side, then in Astoria, Queens, then in Inwood, then between the East Village and Gramercy. So I know Manhattan.

That's the point about the house--move out of Manhattan and commute. If you're living on a government handout, you can't afford a coop building in Manhattan.

Public schools are indeed subpar. That's the snarky hidden commentary in that suggestion.

I did a quick search for parking garage prices and saw that monthly fees seemed to drop if you started looking below about 64th street on either side of the park. Granted, this was a cursory look, but it led me to believe that if you were willing to do some research *and* park in a less popular part of the city, you could find a lower monthly fee. Failing that, you can try parking on the street. It's hard work, but lots of poor people do it all the time.

So yeah, I do know what I'm talking about. And I firmly support this woman and think the people bitching about her are complete idiots, so I'm not blindly populist. But the point here is you don't *have* to live at any specific level; it's a choice. I have trouble believing anyone is trapped at a certain level of spending.

@drb023: I agree. I have no problem with Obama capping the salaries of people tax money is bailing out. I also dont expect to get a top level CEO to take the low of a salary, so expect this cap to lower costs but also get some poor quality executives in office.

@North of 49: Well, if the other spouse is working, then that should add enough money to the household budget to afford that nanny.

@geoffhazel: Trickle down economics?
A simple google search shows it doesn't work.

[www.nytimes.com]

@North of 49: The argument being made is this family can't live on one spouse's $500K annual salary. If both are working, they have more than $500K a year, and they can add the nanny fee back in.

Motherhood, fatherhood, parenting -- none of these is a disrespectful path in life. You're looking for an insult where none exists.

@drb023: If they want the freedom to make whatever they want, they have it. They just have to decide not to take the government's money.

@floraposte: re. follower and leader spending, and making a public virtue of personal austerity -- this is exactly what I was wondering as I wrote this post. Here's a perfect time for a leader to demonstrate even more leadership through a more frugal public lifestyle.

@North of 49: i think you're off base a little here. they do jump to assume the other spouse isn't working, but that generally is the case for this social class. he merely says if the mother (or father, the author never specifies gender)isn't working that it's unnecesarry to get a nanny. i don't see how you can disagree with that. if one parent isn't working they should raise the kid, unless you'd rather them be raised by a stranger, in which case you probably shouldn't be having kids.

@nicemarmot617: Hm, I lived in Manhattan and never made $100,000.
I have a friend who just BOUGHT an apartment, I can surely wager that as a bartender she doesn't make anywhere near $500,000. She also has a vehicle that she, PARKS on the STREET!!!
I have an other set of friends who are married who OWN their own apartment and also have a vehicle, they park on the street too.
The husband works for sanitation, guess he isn't making 500k. Oh, their daughter? Yeah, she goes to public school in the East Village.
Its kind of amazing isn't it?

@Ash78: Most people in the middle-class are wasteful. Why do you think they had to go into debt? The point of this post is not "you should complain about making only $500K per year," but "live within your means." I don't care if you make $500K or $50K, if you can't afford it, it should be cut.

@artieb: NOOOOOO! NOT FRACTIONS! My public school education did not equip me for this!

Frozen hot chocolate? Here in real America, we call them fudgcicles. $.50 each

@Its The Beer Talking: Good, you were able to learn from a book on your own. I didnt get a study guide and I did well on my ACT and SATs, I know people who spent weeks going to study sessions for the exams that did worse than me, I also know people who studied and did better than me.

The point is, differnt people lear differnt ways. Some cant just buy a book and learn on their own, not efficiently anyway.

@North of 49:
Wow. Can you say calm down? The point was, that if the article is talking about surviving on JUST $500,000, then the assumption is that there is no other income. Which means the spouse isn't working. And in that case, why is there a nanny? So they can go shopping? Or book clubs or whatever? I don't think that anyone was suggesting that anyone quit their job. But if they do have a job, their income needs to be included in the "But we can't survive on just $???,???" game.

And when our society is even more economically unjust, me with my $32k/year private school education, will lead the masses in destroying you for your greed, lack of compassion, and general crimes against humanity. So,

1) You're a selfish ****. If you honestly believe you as a human being are worth more than a single digit multiplier more than any other human being on this planet, you should be taken out behind a power station. You're worth is not your value to a corporation.

2) Remember our constitution, one vote one person? Except for blacks who are 3/5ths. Since you're worth as much as you can make, apparently so much more than another person, who are our modern day 3/5ths? I hope the get your children when they come for you.

3) Repent. Because, while there is no god, the poor might be merciful. Just like you might consent to returning your marginal tax rate to the pre-Reagan figures of ~70%.

That was @drb023.

So these people who have highly stressful jobs, that make decisions everyday that keep thousands of people employed and moreover, the world running, should live like one of us who has not 1/1000th of the responsibility?

Awesome. Let me know how that works out.

@North of 49: Are you saying that a stay-at-home caregiver's value is less than their working partner? That's what it looks like. Some would argue that the one raising the children is more valuable than the one making money.

@aloe vera:

I live in CT, I know... but I live near Hartford so we have fewer of them... oh wait... forgot about West Hartford. Okay, we have enough jackasses.

Hey CEOs. I hear Westchester county is really nice! ;)

@undefined: @Chris Walters: Hey! I live in Manhattan too. Funny, I live on the UES make far less than $500k and yet have no problems with my living arrangements and if I for some reason couldn't afford it, you know what I would do? I'd move to a cheaper place. These people need a reality adjustment, if they want to maintain the income level, then they should switch jobs to a firm without an income cap or adapt their lifestyle to economize.

It's insulting to people like myself who bust our asses for every dollar we earn and we surely don't make any complaints about things being too expensive or not earning enough. It's called life and we deal.

This woman just smacks of self-entitlement and it pisses me off.

I'm afraid the New York Times may be shitting where it eats on this one.

@xtc46: Here's the problem with that. No good CEO's are going to be willing to take a job that only pays 500K. So that tax money you hope you would get back from a company that would get turned around by "good" leadership. Well the "good" part just left with the pay cap.

@U-235: Uhm, so then you won't get back that tax payer investment opportunity that we were sold/being sold.

@veronykah: Precisely why the stimulus packages WILL NO work. They need to give that money to the people of this country.

@nicemarmot617: Hey Marmot- STFU.

This populist crap is great. As another non-rich resident of Manhattan I would like to say, get off my boat.

1) Hunter. PS6. Perfectly good public schools, elementary. I went to private school, but those are perfectly acceptable options.

2) Co-op and condo fees that equal your mortgage payment are purely ludicrous. A perfectly acceptable $2 million 3 bedroom would have roughly $2-3k/month in co-op or condo fees, tops.

3) If you don't buy a $200k car, you don't give a shit if it gets beat up. This is why you have a city car thats for moving around (if you have kids) such as a Toyota. And an Aston Martin for driving around in the Hamptons. Also, if you don't have kids, take the fucking subway like everyone else, or, flag a cab, it will still cost you less than an hour of parking.

4) I'm coming out and saying leave manhattan, asshole. I've lived here my entire life, a family can live on $1 million income and have a wonderful life. I find it completely appalling that the New York Times would see it fit to publish such a piece of shit with my high school's picture plastered across the top. I'm mortified. It's a disgrace. That anyone working at any of these companies involved in trashing our financial system would think compensation greater than this amount justified is absolutely absurd.

Lets keep bailing out the superclass. And lets watch our beautiful city burn when the masses find out what has been done to them in the name of their precious retirement funds.

@Ash78: We've seen those lists a hundred times before, all the lists about cutting spending that recommend not eating out as much and not going to Starbucks, for example. As for a scientific way to determine how much people get paid, we already have that, it's called the free market. If these bank execs want to get paid more, they're free to find a job that will pay them.

@Ingram81: What part of the morons who created the crisis is 'good'. You could get some very competent MBA's who lack the connections to become an upper executive to take the gig and they'd probably do MUCH better job that the current field of incompetents.

@Ingram81: Actually, I dont think the plan will be all that successful. I have no expectation of the money ever being paid back. No good CEO will work for 500k, not for a company that size anyway, so for the vast majority, they will fail completely, or the cap will be raised. there may be 1 or 2 where a new 500k CEO does a great job and that company will succeed, but it will be rare.

This kind of plan really will ruin many companies and waste our money. I like Obama, but this is just trying to please people who think 500k is more money than anyone should ever make, and that is stupid.

@Ash78: The middle class isn't taking bailout monies. End of fucking story.

There are a lot of people in this country, besides CEOs and Wall Street wonder kids, who are having to make do with less. CEO compensation has gotten out of hand and if companies need bail out money (my money) to survive than the CEOs are going to have to do with less.

But, NYC is expensive and once you are wedded to a certain life style it is hard to disengage. If you are locked into a mortgage and fees on a condo it is hard to walk away.

I would hardly qualify this post as being clouded by jealously or envy. It is merely a joke suggesting how they trim the fat, but your support for their stimulus is off base.

These are the people that caused the lose of trillions of dollars in capital. Much of it out of peoples' retirements. All while getting kickbacks, bonuses, and ridiculous salaries. They even have tons of tax right offs the average person does not have access to.

You can argue that it is there entrepreneurial skill, but you might want to take a quick look at the system favors the really rich. Since the 1970's the bottom 90% is no richer than it was. With this last down turn you might even argue it is poorer. The Top 10% is much better off. But hey apparently if you are rich it does not matter if you pay your taxes or what you do. Who knew, Tom and Madoff.

This post is not a cry for a cap on salary. It is about questioning why we have been paying them so much for so long, yet they have continued to swindle away our investments. I am not going to take that pill any longer. I still believe in capitalism, but not all regulation infringes on free trade, regardless of what they say. Some of it standardizes it so they can no longer hide their crocked ways.