NYC families need over $125k in income to live in any borough
boh
32 points
43 comments
April 06, 2026
Related Discussions
Found 5 related stories in 49.4ms across 3,752 title embeddings via pgvector HNSW
- $800 Monthly Car Payments Are Hurting Car Sales WarOnPrivacy · 22 pts · March 05, 2026 · 34% similar
- High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being RickJWagner · 15 pts · March 17, 2026 · 34% similar
- Families Can Now Eat Some Fish from Hudson River for First Time in 50 Years geox · 17 pts · April 05, 2026 · 34% similar
- More Americans are breaking into the upper middle class alephnerd · 30 pts · April 06, 2026 · 33% similar
- US to require $15,000 bond to visa recipients from 12 more countries onemoresoop · 26 pts · March 19, 2026 · 32% similar
Discussion Highlights (6 comments)
oldnetguy
I know people making less than that but they are getting subsidies. It's people who are not poor enough for subsidies and not affluent that is getting squeezed
kelsey98765431
sounds cheap and affordable coming from sf bay
tacostakohashi
Don't worry, just today the mayor has announced a plan to fix it: https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2026/04/mayor-mamdani...
wat10000
And yet the median household income is only about $87,000. I’m skeptical.
sethev
I don't doubt that number, but it's always a bit baffling to look at the median income in expensive cities. New York city's median household income is $87k, which means that the majority of households are well below the income level it takes to live there. That stresses me out just to think about it.
stego-tech
I'd argue they need significantly more than that, if they're expected to also pay for childcare, healthcare, save for emergencies, etc. This is a polycrisis we absolutely need to take seriously lest cities become cesspools again. "Move somewhere cheaper" ignores the reality that most good jobs are in cities nowadays, not rural or cheaper areas. It also ignores decades of calculus of the "city to save, suburbs to live" mentality that's been gradually eroded away over decades of housing mismanagement, not to mention serves as a giant middle-finger for folks who, for one reason or another, MUST live in a major city (healthcare, job prospects, career field, etc). Even if someone were to move somewhere cheaper, they'd forfeit their higher salary in the process - which would likely make the newer, cheaper location just as, if not more unaffordable than their city life was; hell, some of us were trying to move somewhere cheaper in the era of remote work, and look how that turned out . Half the planet lives in cities by UN estimates, and "moving somewhere cheaper" is the most cowardly rebuttal of the problem one could muster. I'm also shrugging off the uninformed whinging about "welfare kings/queens". Reagan couldn't prove it, two Bushes couldn't prove it, Clinton couldn't prove it, Obama couldn't prove it, two Trumps and a Biden couldn't prove it, because they don't actually exist . Talk to people actually on benefits rather than swallow naked pro-austerity propaganda by rich people angry that their tax dollars help the working poor they themselves created in the first place, and they'll tell you how impossibly difficult it is to get benefits in the first place, nevermind keeping them. There's a vastly more evidence supporting the harms of means-testing than any WFA coming from it. At the end of the day, NYC is not alone in these problems - but is unique in having an openly Democratic Socialist as Mayor, meaning Capital has a vested interest in pinning all the ills to him and astroturfing the same austerity bullshit that worked with Reagan et al to try and defend the problems they caused in the first place. America cannot roll back to an era where six-figure salaries meant you were "rich" and five-figures were the norm, so we need to build an America where said salaries at least cover essentials again and where median incomes can afford median housing.