salary to live in chicago and survive (lease, house)

[Jandur]

Originally Posted by Larry Siegel

These are all good points and I appreciate the feedback.

Mysteriously, one of the people who criticized my post claimed to be able to live in a studio condo in the Hancock on $40,000 a year. It may be true but it is not typical. When I rented a studio apartment (not a condo) in a class B/C building in New York I had to prove that I had an income of $140,000 a year *or more if I had debt*. Is it really that much cheaper in Chicago? If it is, everyone should move here. (Of course, if they did, it wouldn't be cheap any more.)

Rental prices here are nothing like NYC for the most part.

[aragx6]

Yes, Chicago really is that much cheaper than New York.

[Chicago60614]

And honestly the whole TAXES HIGHEST IN THE COUNTRY thing really isn't THAT bad in Chicago. I hear people scream bloody murder at all hours about the taxes, but there are plenty of other places worse. It's one of those things that's just stuck in people's heads.

Sales taxes will be 9.5% in two months, the same as San Fran, the same as Phoenix, lower than LA, only 0.6% higher than NYC. They're high, but basically in line with most other large cities. Even cities on the low end of the spectrum are only about 1% lower.

Income taxes are 5% flat, which is roughly middle of the pack for US states. Property taxes are average, etc.

[chicago103]

Originally Posted by Larry Siegel

Mysteriously, one of the people who criticized my post claimed to be able to live in a studio condo in the Hancock on $40,000 a year. It may be true but it is not typical. When I rented a studio apartment (not a condo) in a class B/C building in New York I had to prove that I had an income of $140,000 a year *or more if I had debt*. Is it really that much cheaper in Chicago? If it is, everyone should move here. (Of course, if they did, it wouldn't be cheap any more.)

The answer to you question about Chicago rent yes it is absolutely true that you can live like a king here as a renter compared to New York City. It is also true that I lived in the Hancock. I was a 25 year old recent masters in urban planning graduate and working at Chicago City Hall. The rent was $1250 a month and thus I was paying about 37.5% of my gross income on rent (actually my income was slightly less than $40K so in reality about 40% of income on rent), a bit on the high end but still very doable. The reason I could do it was because I owned no car, had no student loan debt, in fact no debt of any kind. I also am not big on fancy material possessions, I am not into brand label clothing and all my furniture is hand me downs and I bought a lot of cheap used stuff from wealthier people in the Hancock who were practically giving old furniture away. Since I lived and worked in the downtown area during the summer months I sometimes went a week or two without even taking public transit, I literally walked and biked everywhere and my transportation expenses were virtually zero, but I sometimes did and could easily afford to buy a CTA monthly pass. I went out to eat fairly often actually, fast food for lunch on weekdays and average table service places at other times. As far as being why I was allowed to live in the Hancock in the first place on my income well it is a condo building and individual owners all have their own standards and frankly many just want to get the place rented ASAP so they can sign a one year lease and start collecting money, but overall in my experience Chicago landlords are not that strict about income, maybe in part because many people here are not that wealthy and people paying relatively high %'s of income on rent is not that uncommon. I have heard that in New York City, particularly Manhattan they are very strict about income requirements. In general though 1/3 of your income on housing is considered the more liberal standard and I was only slightly above that, really 1/3 makes sense if you have no car. So that is why I got a bit sensitive when you called $100k for a single person in Chicago "middle middle class" because I know first hand how well someone can live with much less than that.

[Chicago60614]

Originally Posted by chicago103

The answer to you question about Chicago rent yes it is absolutely true that you can live like a king here as a renter compared to New York City. It is also true that I lived in the Hancock. I was a 25 year old recent masters in urban planning graduate and working at Chicago City Hall. The rent was $1250 a month and thus I was paying about 37.5% of my gross income on rent (actually my income was slightly less than $40K so in reality about 40% of income on rent), a bit on the high end but still very doable. The reason I could do it was because I owned no car, had no student loan debt, in fact no debt of any kind. I also am not big on fancy material possessions, I am not into brand label clothing and all my furniture is hand me downs and I bought a lot of cheap used stuff from wealthier people in the Hancock who were practically giving old furniture away. Since I lived and worked in the downtown area during the summer months I sometimes went a week or two without even taking public transit, I literally walked and biked everywhere and my transportation expenses were virtually zero, but I sometimes did and could easily afford to buy a CTA monthly pass. I went out to eat fairly often actually, fast food for lunch on weekdays and average table service places at other times. As far as being why I was allowed to live in the Hancock in the first place on my income well it is a condo building and individual owners all have their own standards but overall in my experience Chicago landlords are not that strict about income, maybe in part because many people here are not that wealthy and people paying relatively high %'s of income on rent is not that uncommon. I have heard that in New York City, particularly Manhattan they are very strict about income requirements. In general though 1/3 of your income on housing is considered the more liberal standard and I was only slightly above that, really 1/3 makes sense if you have no car. So that is why I got a bit sensitive when you called $100k for a single person in Chicago "middle middle class" because I know first hand how well someone can live with much less than that.

I did the same thing when I moved here at 22 years old. Lived with 3 other people in an amazing large 4-bedroom gut rehab with granite, washer/dryer, security, private deck, ect. for $425 a month.

I made $39,000 a year but was seriously living a life much beyond what that would get you. No debt of any kind, no car, not into flashy toys, $425 rent, utilities split 4 ways, etc. It's certainly possible.

[chicago103]

Originally Posted by Chicago60614

I did the same thing when I moved here at 22 years old. Lived with 3 other people in an amazing large 4-bedroom gut rehab with granite, washer/dryer, security, private deck, ect. for $425 a month.

I made $39,000 a year but was seriously living a life much beyond what that would get you. No debt of any kind, no car, not into flashy toys, $425 rent, utilities split 4 ways, etc. It's certainly possible.

You had it better than me, $39K is what I made but was paying much higher rent. The one thing I was not able to do paying $1250 a month was have much savings (but considering the average american has negative savings as in debt I was still better than many, but that is my doing in choosing the prestige of living in the Hancock and I am glad I did it for the experience but I could have easily gotten a much cheaper apartment and been able to create a huge savings account, YES on $39K a year and living in Chicago. Actually before I lived in the Hancock I lived in a 300 square foot studio at 1100 N. LaSalle for $630 a month, mostly when I was still in grad school as a paid intern but also the first few months after I got the full time $39K a year job, I just felt like upgrading to the Hancock to celebrate my new job. If I had stayed at $630 a month or even upgraded to say an $850 a month apartment I would have been able to save money or I would have spent more on other things, it is hard to sell the idea of saving money to a 25 year old but with discipline it could have been done even on my modest income.

Some people were not as fortunate as me, many have massive student loan debts that were unavoidable but also a lot of it is people spending money on a bling bling lifestyle that they don't really need and perhaps are pressured to lead because of the social circles they hang out in. If you have massive student loan debt and still insist on owning a car in Chicago where you have to pay for parking and insist on a large apartment for yourself with fancy furniture and clothes and going to pig out at the most expensive restaurants and bars and clubs every weekend evening then yes I can see how some can think $100K is not much for a single person but seriously who the hell needs to live like that to survive or even thrive? For me not by a long shot.

Honestly I just rounded up and said I made $40K a year because I didn't think people would even believe me below that psychological threshold (I was scared some brains would short circuit on here if they knew how well I lived as someone so "poor"; "39K in the Hancock, does not compute, does not compute, error, error, shutdown"), but yes in reality I made $39K a year and so far that is the most I have ever made (got laid off from city hall job and no live near Midway Airport but still in the city working odd jobs and trying to restart my career) and I have never had trouble getting by in Chicago, maybe it is because I am just a low maintenance person but it can be done, it is not even that hard. That is the reason I get so annoyed about all these people who make relative to me tons of money wondering how they will "survive" here.

[aragx6]

^Totally agree. I made $38,500, lived in an apartment that cost $1,050/month, supported two humans (me and my unemployed SO), paid a relatively low student loan bill, and still lived pretty well. Did I want more? Hell yeah (and eventually made it), but it was absolutely doable.

[expatChicagoan]

Originally Posted by aragx6

^Totally agree. I made $38,500, lived in an apartment that cost $1,050/month, supported two humans (me and my unemployed SO), paid a relatively low student loan bill, and still lived pretty well. Did I want more? Hell yeah (and eventually made it), but it was absolutely doable.

Agreed - I was making not much more than that, supporting an unemployed husband and elementary aged child, enjoying our high rise condo (rental) in the loop. We didn't eat out a lot or entertain, but were able to have a lot of fun - the whole city was at our doorstep, and everywhere we wanted to go was accessible by public transport.

[TheSunshineKid]

Brother was making 50K upon undergrad. graduation and he got by just fine. Granted his work required him to fly or drive out of Chicago for the past 2 1/2 years so he basically was just paying rent & utilities for a place he rarely slept in. Due to his absence his refrigerator resembled those on MTV Cribs - almost empty. Any expenses he accumulated outside the city his job refunded him. His last over sea project ended in July 2010. Till then and now the kid hasn't actually lived IN his apartment for an entire year and he's saying the city is already "old." (He's comfortable in his own neighborhood as well as the Loop, Rogers Park and Lincoln Park. Put the child in any other neighborhood he'll think he's in the ghetto.) He's planning to transfer to another city come fall 2012. What a douchebag.

[debian]

I'm moving to Chicago for a promotion. My salary is 62K. I am moving into an apartment on a 6 month lease to feel the city out that's about 850 with heat included. Am I going to be poor? I don't have an elaborate lifestyle and usually try to save money (want to buy a house). Currently I pay 600 dollars a month in the suburbs about 55 miles north. The commute is going to be hefty on gas so it almost balances out I think if I stay in the burbs.