Market Conditions: If Manhattan Luxury Prices are Falling- What About Chicago?
This week Barron’s discusses the state of the luxury housing market in Manhattan given the carnage in the financial sector which makes up nearly a quarter of all jobs in the New York metropolitan area.
Chicago isn’t nearly as dependent on the financial sector but Chicago still sports quite a few hedge funds, mutual funds, investment banking jobs, as well as consulting and legal jobs.
In the Barron’s article, “luxury” is designated as being priced over $5 million. Here in Chicago, I would put the number more at $1 million or maybe $1.5 million and higher.
How far might prices fall in Manhattan?
And what are the implications for the Chicago housing market in that same price range?
“It’s a ‘cart before the horse’ discussion,” says Jonathan Miller of Miller Samuel.
“Credit has to stabilize and liquidity returned to the market before we can talk about stabilized housing markets and ‘bottoms.’ …It will be a multi-year period for things to sort themselves out.”
Michael Shvo, one of Manhattan’s mega-brokers, thinks that prices across the city will have to come down further, and credit will have to become more available, before demand picks up. How far will prices fall?
“Certain projects will be down 50% from the peak; Certain others will be down 30%.”
Manhattan on sale [Barron’s Magazine, Leslie Norton, Feb 23, 2009]- free preview or subscription only.
I have been tracking some units in the Palmolive Building at 159 E. Walton. I would consider this one of the few true luxury buildings in Chicago which would be akin to some of those in NYC. I have seen several of these units reduce from their “sizzle prices”, i.e. 700,000 dollar one bedrooms now in the low 600,000’s (which are also not renting for 3,000-3,500 a month) and immediate reductions on a new unit they squeezed into the building on the 5th floor. It will be interesting to see what comes in the next few months especially if Chicago gets the Olympic bid…will there be a small pop in the market here?
Fairbanks, what’s so luxury about the Palmolive? (A genuine question. I have a hard time figuring why some buildings are luxury and others aren’t.)
The amenities are first class. Their “party room” or what they call the Beacon Club is amazingly pretty. Great view and first class finishes with catering kitchen…a really nice space. Their workout facility and hot tub feel like a high end health club complete with towels/lotions/etc. Secondly, two doormen (who will put your groceries away for you) and an elevator which allows you to stop only on your designated floor and the common ones. The finishes are all high end as well with great touches throughout the unit. Many in the building (with real money) tore out the developer finishes and put in very high end custom finishes. Compared to other buildings in the city I term this “luxury”.
I personally think Chicago’s luxury market will end up falling harder than Manhattan. Manhattan has (well had) a Wall Street and a large group of people that made well into the 6 figures just by working for Wall Street superstars (butlers, secretaries, etc..) I am pretty sure that their ratio of qualified high end buyers is much higher than ours. We don’t have a wall street let alone people making 6 figures thanks to them. Maybe had banks done a little research before funding those projects, they would have seen that Chicago doesn’t have enough residents making $500/year and foreigners will never flock to Chicago the way they do to Manhattan.
We still have lots of lawyers making easily north of $150k.
And well we have the PE folks, but that is really a tiny number.
And, yeah, that is about all I can come up with…
There are 90,000 lawyers in the state and 70,000 in the chicago area. I doubt more than 40% make more than $150k a year at any given time. The biggest law firms in chicago, the firms that pay $150k or more, hire only about 600 new lawyers a year. The mid-size firms, the ins def firms, etc, they pay about 50% of what a big firm attorney makes. Even 5 or 10 years out a mid-size firm attorney still won’t make $150k. Maybe a $150k household if there are two professionals but not a single person. Corporate lawyers can make a good buck but there are way way way more attorneys who make the $125k corporate attorney job than there are jobs available.
There are plenty lawyers making well into the 6 figures but I doubt they are the ones that the bank will qualify to buy some of these luxury units marinating on the market. Considering banks are barely approving people with low DTIs for units that cost 4x their income; I can’t even imagine what banks are saying to JDs/MDs that have 75k in student debt to pay back.
Just because you make $150k doesn’t mean you want to live in a shoebox in the gold coast for $600k. And just because you make over $150k doesn’t mean you are wealthy at all. Hell if you have kids, forget about it! You’re almost broke if you’re living in Chicago!
LOL…..don’t cry for me, but as a former Big Law attorney making $165k+ is chump change when your clients (most of whom were seriously dumber/worked less than me) were easily clearing north of $500k.
but that was the good ole days….
Most upper-bracket buyers don’t generate their wealth via salary but via investment income/year-end partnership distributions/capital gains.
A lot of people/households are rich are paper but cash poor until those distributions come….and then those distributions are supposed to last the entire year.
Agree, Sonies. My wife and I are mid-career and take in well over $200k between us. We came to the US only 12 years ago, so we are probably not typical because we had to start from scratch. But we would battle to buy even an fairly humble apartment, let alone a “luxury” unit. With 2 young children’s expenses plus rent, we barely make it each month. Our savings have been depleted by the payroll taxes we pay for our nanny (unlike the Treasury Secretary, we do pay them).
to continue my above comment…(had a distraction)…this “recession/downturn/whatever” is a lot more serious than 2000-1 (too young for 1990-1) as a LOT of upper bracket people who never had too worry about finances are very concerned.
You have a triple whammy of falling home prices, falling stock portfolios, falling income, tightening credit. Don’t cry for Joe 6 and 7-figures, but be aware that the upper-bracket in housing is going to be dead money for a while which will trickle down to the average home owner. Just my $0.02.
Fairbanks,
Can someone please tell me why they think the 2016 Olympics will help this city’s real estate market?! We have a huge supply of homes in the area available today, the Olypics are mostly going to provide construction jobs for commercial properties and the Athlete Villages are supposed to be turned into Condos at the close of the games, thus adding MORE supply to the mix. I know we are 7 years away, but again, I don’t see how the Olympics are going to solve things.
“Can someone please tell me why they think the 2016 Olympics will help this city’s real estate market?!”
A few dozen (or even a few hundred) high-ish end condos (and probably some of the languishing condo-tel units, too) will sell to foreign buyers who wouldn’t be interested in Chicago but for the Olympics. Is that going to “save” the market? Not a chance. Will it help a few developers and some currently-stuck-potential-sellers? Definitely.
Brand new associate salaries at mid and large sized law firms now start at $160k.
Wild, but true.
***Brand new associate salaries at mid and large sized law firms now start at $160k.
Wild, but true.***
Yes, with the following caveats….there are less than twenty firms that pay at this scale. Of these twenty firms the average associate class is 20 per firm ***rough guess***.
Of these 20, 16 or so borrowed $150,000+ between law school and undergrad to get their $160k job. Obviously, not a lot of discretionary income left over for a while.
So once again don’t cry for big law associates, but don’t expect them to buy your $800k Lincoln Park duplex either.
To clarify, the annual incoming associate class is about 20 or so….so at a firm of say 300 lawyers, 15-20 are “freshman”.
I love how everyone here thinks that the only people in this city making over 100k are lawyers. I know a ton of small business owners who make well over 100k. Even my roommate who never finished college is making over 100k in a sales position. People grossly underestimate how many “wealthly” people there are in the city.
“Fairbanks, what’s so luxury about the Palmolive? (A genuine question. I have a hard time figuring why some buildings are luxury and others aren’t.)”
I think it’s the fact they wouldn’t let me in one day when I went to take a look. It’s all about the doorman. 🙂
dont call it solo — How right you are. I’m speaking from my experience in audit when I had access to entire companies’ payrolls.
100k jobs are not rare. They don’t demand a lot of talent, they aren’t limited to one industry or management types. I’d say that the company’s compensation philosophy was the biggest driver of how well they paid. Some firms weren’t very profitable, but they put almost all their resources into payroll and had receptionists making 70k. Other firms just didn’t spend that way. They’d hoard their cash or distribute it to the owners.
200k jobs were a lot less common than 100k jobs. 500k jobs were very rare…I only saw them in the types of industries you’d expect (consulting, finance, law). The business owners, though, were always, ALWAYS highly compensated. (These were small businesses…mostly S corps and LLCs.) This is the only place I would ever see 7 (sometimes 8) figures.
We’re talking about 100k like it’s a golden ticket, though. It’s not. 100k gross turns into roughly 60k net, which is $5000 per month. It’s enough for a comfortable lifestyle, but it’s not inexhaustible.
That stupid 8) is supposed to be an eight.
Concerning lawyers and big ticket homes, the relevant number is how many of the new big firm associates make partner 7 years later, when their school debts should be paid off and they are pulling in $350K and up. These are the ones who will be buying the high end properties.
I don’t know what percentage of the 300-500 new associates the big firms hire each year end up making partner, but it’s nowhere near 100%.
a little tiny prediction: big law salaries and hiring will take a dive and some major lay offs are up ahead.
You shouldn’t really be buying a place over 375k if your pre-tax income is $100k
If I want to work 45-50 hours a week I could easily land a job making 120k. I dont think its too hard.
Sonies: I thought it was 2.5x your pre-tax income? Wouldnt 100k/year be a 250k place?
Well interest rates are very low right now, and that is the MAXimum I would say to spend, with 20% down.
In higher interest rate (and less money down) times 2.5x would be more acceptable.
You haven’t dipped into the job market lately, have you?
“a on February 23rd, 2009 at 1:37 pm
If I want to work 45-50 hours a week I could easily land a job making 120k. I dont think its too hard.”
In Chicago, a GS 13/6 in the Federal government is making over 100,000. Granted regional locations like Chicago tend to have somewhat lower grade levels than DC, but a 13 in a region in my old agency was relatively achievable if you were good.
It’s so easy to make $100k a year that everyone should and if you don’t you must be a moron!
****a little tiny prediction: big law salaries and hiring will take a dive and some major lay offs are up ahead.****
you’re a little late with your prediction….. partners at the bluest of blue chip firms are experienced double digit percentage declines in income between 2008 and 2007. 2009 hours billed generally suck across the board. And there are been plenty of layoffs that get no press cuz even the biggest law firm layoffs are miniscule to the number of layoffs from any Fortune 500 company.
oh and ya, if you really want a $100k+ income, my advise is to be a really, really, really good salesperson in an industry with a decent commission payout structure.
imho, understood and acknowledged, lets just say what you see now is a trailer for whats coming this summer.
In sales you’ll be working a hell of a lot more than 40 hours if you want to make more than 100k.
sonies, thats just flat out untrue.
Whocouldofknown?
“Downtown apartment rent falls by most in 7 years”
http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=33086
If it’s so easy to make $100k a year you should star in an infomercial on late night tv: YOU TOO CAN EARN $100k per year!
“sonies, thats just flat out untrue.”
Ok you might want to share some examples of why or a sales job that pays that much with that few hours? Oh wait that’s not how the internets work…
My favorite example is an office-furniture salesperson who made about 250k per year. Repeatedly. I found it nauseating.
That was the exception, not the rule. There was usually a revolving door of salespeople who lasted 2-3 years and made a decent wage. When they left, the senior salesperson took the top accounts and doled out the more mediocre stuff. It was like a pyramid scheme, and without exception, there was some stiff at the top making as much as the CFO.
And THAT is how you too can earn $100k per year: start a pyramid scheme of your own, possibly involving an infomercial.
Heitman has definitely not been to this site lately. If he were on here today he’d no doubt come into this thread and tell us all what losers we are for making less than $250k/yr or whatever he claimed to make. Maybe he won’t be making that much this year.
Heitman’s been locked in meetings all day negotiating with his creditors..
ever heard of the 80/20 Rule?
20% of sales people make 80% of the money.
There are plenty of people making $100k. It isn’t all that rare in a big city like Chicago and they all aren’t biglaw attorneys or bankers. I have seen plenty of sales guys consistently making 100k, project managers, brand managers, nurses, cops (w/ over time), doctors, professors, ad execs, ups drivers (gotta love the teamsters), etc. A young couple can easily have a household income greater than $200k.
I am not sure why people on here think $100k is some kind of big feat. Maybe in middle america, but certainly not in a big city like Chitown. The new $100k is $250k imho. $100k in the 80s and early 90s was “ballin”, but it isn’t all that hard if you are reasonably intelligent, a hard worker, and decent skills and educational background. $250k is making bank nowadays.
Come on. It’s not that common- even in a big city like Chicago. I don’t know any “young couples” making over $200k who aren’t professionals like doctors or lawyers.
I know plenty making about $150k (with TWO salaries) and that’s before kids.
That’s not going very far in Chicago these days (even with the downturn.)
It’s a myth that everyone is making $100k.
“I love how everyone here thinks that the only people in this city making over 100k are lawyers. I know a ton of small business owners who make well over 100k. Even my roommate who never finished college is making over 100k in a sales position. People grossly underestimate how many “wealthly” people there are in the city.”
I don’t know anyone who make under $100k per year. I know people in sales, attorneys, bankers, traders, real estate sales, ect. Can’t think of 1 person who makes less. A 1st year accountant makes $60k in the city, consultants $80k at least. That is all I have to say about that
Wow. I guess you don’t know any 20 or 30-somethings Steve.
I know people in marketing barely making $35,000 at major advertising firms.
I know a librarian with 15 years experience who makes $65,000 (in the private sector.)
I know some stock analysts at major investment firms who make about $80,000.
And on and on and on. Not everyone lives in Lincoln Park and is a doctor or a lawyer. Thank goodness.
Like I said- it’s a myth that “everyone” makes $100,000 a year. Check the government statistics. Average income in Lakeview is like $55,000.
When it comes down to it, it doesn’t matter to the real estate market if you or anyone you know make a ton of money. What matters is if there are enough high income earners willing and able to buy up all the high priced properties all over the city.
If you need one person to buy your multi-million dollar property (and it is really worth that much), you’ll eventually find the buyer. If you have to sell out an entire building of multi-million dollar condos in order to pay off a construction loan, well, I wouldn’t want to be you right now.
“$100k in the 80s and early 90s was “ballin”, but it isn’t all that hard if you are reasonably intelligent, a hard worker, and decent skills and educational background. $250k is making bank nowadays.”
Totally agree. $250K would be “hard” IMO because there aren’t that many jobs that pay that much. I don’t think it’s “easy” to make $100K, but it’s not exactly “hard” either. Honestly, it’s about being savvy in the office (you MUST be able to play office politics), semi-competent at what you do (or at least be good at FAKING it), and picking the right career path (choose some anti-lucrative major and you’re gonna have a hard time).
But regardless of salary, the easiest path to building wealth, for normal folk is…..(drumroll)….. real estate. Yeah I said it. I’m about to put $50K into a multi unit out of state. Sabrina might ask, am I catching a falling knife? LOL.
The quickest path to building wealth for smarter-than-normal folk is online business. It takes a bit more ingenuity and effort but any one of my friends could do it, yet they don’t seem interested in learning at all. I find this strange because if I had access to someone who could show me how to earn money in an easier way, I’d be all over it. But that’s just personalities I guess. Most people won’t do a goddam thing to improve their situation. They’d rather slave away at the office for peanuts. If you make $35K for 40 hours a week, you are doing something wrong. If you are over 40 years old and make $55K for 40 hours a week, you are doing something wrong. Figure it out. Change it.
In all this debate about salaries and condo prices it seems one thing is being overlooked: just because someone makes a good salary doesn’t mean they need to flaunt it with a luxury condo. Given what we are facing in the broader economy I’d think that truly successful professionals would shy away from luxury condos and leave the knifecatching to the wannabes.
All I have to say is that if 100k a year jobs were so easy or ‘not hard’ to get then everyone would have them (excluding county government workers which is outright looting). I have a handful of comments to follow up with this thought:
1) $100k per year jobs become more common among older workers – there are more 40-50 year olds making $100k per year than 25-30 year olds;
2) I think many people don’t see the facade of wealth that others display. Just because a person seems like they make $100k a year doesn’t mean they make $100k a year; That person may be living paycheck to paycheck and going crazy on the credit cards; unless you do an audit of their personal financial situation you have absolutely no idea how much money someone really makes; and chances are they are living well beyond their means in a paycheck to paycheck fashion.
3) Finally, many $100k a year jobs are not guaranteed to be long term. I’ve seen first hand many times though the cases I’ve had, very many times actually, where regular people have a nice run of $100k+ a year, but then it ends, often abruptly. In the last few years quite a few mortgage brokers, realtors and salespersons made good incomes only to watch it dwindle.
4) $100k isn’t all that much money, like someone said above, it’s like netting $5k a month. The mortgage on some of the properties on this site can come close to 5k a month.
I just briefly researched it and Chicago’s median income is $45,550, so the ‘myth’ that MOST people here make $100K+ IS just that, a myth. I do make $100k +, but I am have been in my profession for a number of years now and it was a hard climb to get there. Now had I been an Attorney, Doctor or Sports figure then yes my income would be higher and ALL of my acquiantances would be of the same standing.
Isn’t it amazing westloopelo how your personal anecdotal experiences of hard work, wealth and high income contradict what others have been saying here?
“but I am have been in my profession for a number of years now and it was a hard climb to get there. “
No one is saying that most people make $100K. That would be illogical given the median income.
But it’s not rare, uncommon, or overly impressive to make $100K. It’s very achievable for most. It takes some manuveuring and good choices, but certainly it’s attainable, isn’t it?
thanks edumakated and madfly, thats exactly what i mean.
hey sonies. just ask someone who works at CRW. a lot i know break the 100k barrier. not by a lot, but they do. and they work 40 – 50 a week. and they are late 20, early 30s.
homedelete, i agree with most, if not all of your last post, but the discussion was, 100k was not possible at all at w/ a sales job w/o working excessive amounts of overtime.
er sorry, i meant CDW
I know sales people at CDW too. Early 30’s. He’s still working there today actually – a good friend. Base is $2,000 a month. I doubt he makes more than $50k a year right now. Of course I don’t know for sure but I do know that thing have been tight lately and business has been extremely slow. I’m not saying that people don’t make $100k but it is a lot more difficult than people think, especially in this economy.
________________________
MADFLY you are such a goof! Hahahahah. Do you work for the County?
“But it’s not rare, uncommon, or overly impressive to make $100K. It’s very achievable for most. It takes some manuveuring and good choices, but certainly it’s attainable, isn’t it?
“But regardless of salary, the easiest path to building wealth, for normal folk is…..(drumroll)….. real estate.”
As with anything the easiest path to building wealth is to time the market well. Not saying anyone can do this perfectly, but looking at the CS numbers today its pretty obvious which way the trend is.
But yeah I intend to lever up on a home big time in 4-6 years from now if the dust has settled by then. Put 20% down but get the biggest place possible within the conforming loan limit. Because at sub 4% mortgage rates it will be a good play, IMO. Barring any sort of Mad Max deflationary scenario, of course.
MADFLY is probably assistant to the assistant deputy general of the Cook County sanitarium district. Yes it is included in your county tax bill. He helps prevent the spread of TB. He makes over $140k a year plus benefits for life and a pension. Because his cousin is a county commissioner or something like that. “It’s not what you can do but who you know”
http://www.suburbantb.org/
Homedelete- is this necessary/relevant to the discussion?
Yes.
HD- didn’t you say you made $750k per year before? I would think someone with that kind of income would be more open to the premise that a $100k income is attainable.
Strawman argument. I never said I made $750k, I’ve said some pretty ridiculous things here but I would never say something as stupid as that.
Gotta run I have a very busy day ahead of me.
Why am I not surprised that when thinking of how to make a good salary, the first two things out of MADFLY’s mouth are to play office politics and fake competence?
This is the new subprime — the shady white collar worker whose idea of productivity and advancement involve cutting other people down and wasting time. I don’t think a shakeout of the real economy has much mercy for people like that.
sounds like something a poor person would say
“Chicago’s median income is $45,550, so the ‘myth’ that MOST people here make $100K+ IS just that, a myth”
True enough, but remember the context is: “who’s buying real estate”. Also, the median Chicagoan is a renter–homeownership rate in the city is under 50%. So the median income is not *that* relevant to who is buying condos in general.
Although it is probably relevant to what the bottom price will be for all those Rogers Park, Humboldt Park, etc. condos–as those roughly represent the marginal unit for the marginal buyer. And will likely clear at around $150k–“affordable” for the median Chicago household.
Getting back to the topic of this thread. What is the prediction for the luxury market in Chicago? I am looking at 340 on the Park, not a true luxury building, but nice. The prices there do not seem to be coming down much. Will some of the higher end buildings escape the downturn? 340 seems to be a lot of people buying second homes and flippers are still making pretty nice profits.
Steve, I wanted to point out some significant inaccuracies in your psots. First year accountants do not make $60K. They make $50-54K. I know very few people under 30 years old other than BIGLAW attorneys who make over 100K, and all of the people I know graduated from big ten schools or better, and have been moving up in their careers rapidly. First year consultants out of underegrad do not make over $60K, NOT $80K. Income largely depends on age and years of experience in corporate America. Steve, you are very inaccurate in your portrayal of the job market. What is going to happen in Chicago with all of the white collar job losses? Are these people all going to become teachers and stay in the city and struggle to make ends meet? What will happen to those who rely on bonuses for major sources of their income?
Max,
If 340OTP isn’t a “true luxury” building, I’d be curious to see your criterion of what constitutes a “true luxury” building. 340OTP has so far commanded some of the highest $/sf of any building in Chicago. For me “luxury” building is determine by the pricepoint people are willing to pay.
“I’d be curious to see your criterion of what constitutes a “true luxury” building”
Well, one thing would be not having those crappy, crappy standard closet fixtures. Those things fall off the wall if you actually fill them with clothes (i know from direct experience). “True Luxury” units should not have entry-level anything, much less something you use every day that’s crap that’s “cheaper” than what you can buy at Target.
Homedelete- I found the quote. Google actually works.
“I make close to $750,000 per year; My salary was just capped at $500k by the feds and $250k per year in passive investment income. I live in a studio because I don’t like to clean much. A studio is perfect for me. I don’t see why any 2 people should have to spend more than $500 per month for living. Sure the neighborhood is terrible in Uptown but it’s not like I have to hang in the streets or anything. My driver drops me off at my front door so it’s not like i’m taking the el or bus late at night.”
LOL. Obviously you were joking. But the first time I read it I thought you were serious. You know what I thought when I saw this? Good for you. See, I don’t hate on success.
Haha that’s a quality post.
I dunno what the implications will be, but I’m a firm believer that if you have a quality product you will be better insulated. Of course, at those price points, you have fewer buyers.
I agree, the Palmolive is a luxury building. There are some incredible properties on East LSD too. Also, I’ve not been inside, but the conversion of what was once the Ambassador West looks pretty damn nice as well.
With respect to newer buildings, 132 E. Del is a nice lux bldg, the residences @ 800 N. Mich. & 900 N. Mich. are nice too. I reckon The Elysian should be a great building as well.
I don’t think you’re going to see anyone take any major hits in those buildings, although market time may be a bit longer than one would wish for.
You’re right I did say that. I shoot off my mouth so much I can’t remember half of what I say. Nice catch.
“I don’t think you’re going to see anyone take any major hits in those buildings, although market time may be a bit longer than one would wish for.”
That’s what all the brainwashed NAR idiots in Manhattan were saying too. We will see, but I’d imagine 20% drops in Streeterville to not be that uncommon over the next two years.
The quality of the finishes does not define the luxury segment. It is the price people are willing to pay. The quality of the finishes is subjective and one persons quality exposed concrete ceiling is another person’s parking-garageesque hatred of it.
Immune? Take 132 E Delaware, for example. Here are the last 4 resales in the MLS with the prior sale amounts:
5703 2/6/2009 $887,000 last sold 3/1/1995 $492,000
6204 10/7/2008 $1,250,000 last sold 9/19/1989 $1,175,000
5502 10/6/2008 $2,150,000 last sold 7/28/2004 $2,225,000
5505 10/17/2008 $850,000 last sold 4/25/2004 $820,000
I guess MADFLY has nothing to say to defend himself and his awesome ethos of “Survivor” strategies for the workplace.
“The quality of the finishes does not define the luxury segment. It is the price people are willing to pay.”
So, those $1mm+ properties in East Humboldt Park are “luxury”. Or all kinds of crap properties in SoCal and NorCal are/were “luxury” b/c someone stupidly overpaid? Or a $1mm studio in Manhattan, just b/c it’s $1200/sq ft? C’mon, Bob, you’re being irrational.
anon(tfo),
Well I don’t consider your examples luxury so I guess you’ve exposed some flaw in my reasoning. My definition I guess is more amorphous but I do consider 340OTP luxury. But from an objective standpoint yes those 1MM properties would be considered luxury if you were doing some study of RE.
The problem with the bubble was that too often it was not the buyer overpaying but it was the buyer’s banker.
Actually, I do. Chris, “office politics” sounds negative but if you aren’t aware of it, you are not in the game. Manuveur yourself into roles where you are exposed to decision-makers in the company. Facetime matters. You need good relationships with higher-ups, align yourself with other performers.
Once you’ve attained a supervisorial position, leadership and people skills matter more than technical ability, which is what I meant by “fake” it. I am stronger technically than my superiors. You’ve never had a “dumb” boss? The thing is, they are better at managing people. I’m better at doing the work.
Bob:
I don’t dispute that price plays a role. But luxury is about amenities, fixtures, finishes, too. You could build an exorbitantly expensive (per sqft) prison and it certainly wouldn’t be luxurious, while can’t have “luxury” at very low prices (at least not in the USA, right now).
But the embarassing closet fixtures at 340 are a bit of a hobbyhorse for me here. If you don’t remember them, look at one of the prior posts–they are the cheapest of the cheap wire rack crap. The developer couldn’t be bothered to spend $50 on the closet fixtures and it’s insulting. It would have been better to leave it completely empty and permit buyers options to be installed at closing (maybe they did?).
MADFLY.. but do you enjoy yourself every day? Shouldn’t that be what matters most. I mean who cares what they pay you if you hate it and have to be brown nosing higher-ups all the time.
Anon.. my fear when I see the crappy closet fixtures or the $40 garbage disposal in the “high end” places is that if they cut back where they think you won’t notice then what the hell did they do between the walls.
“I mean who cares what they pay you if you hate it and have to be brown nosing higher-ups all the time.”
There’s a pay level at which I could (probably) do that well. But it’s be a level where I’d only have to do it for a year or two. And I’d need a parachute, too.
Ze: “what the hell did they do between the walls”
Stuffed them with dollar bills, of course. How else could they budget so poorly that they couldn’t even spend an extra $50/closet to upgrade to adjustable wire closets (still from Home Depot)? The crap they used at 340 would be an insult at half the asking price.
MADFLY,
You are correct and I agree with your sentiments. However I am the type of worker that won’t work for a ‘dumb boss’. I’ve had both kinds in the past and I greatly prefer the boss who knows how to do my role as much as they can do their own.
I’d sooner resign than work under someone who really has no idea of the deliverables of what they’re managing or no notion of how they attain them.
MADFLY, yeah, I get it. And I have no idea why you would assume from anything I said that what you are describing is somehow novel to me. I have worked hard to find a place for myself where I don’t need to butter up my superiors, beat up my subordinates, degrade my rivals and otherwise play a phony and demeaning game at the office, a place that is ostensibly for doing business and creating value but in practice seems to be populated by a small number of doers and a large number of braggarts, laurel-resters and sycophants. And may I say that I am a much happier person for having hacked out this small patch of earth for myself, and sincerely recommend it for others.
On the other hand, I would say there is a widespread attitude, depicted quite well by you above, among white-collar workers that thinking and doing should take a backseat to pandering and obfuscating. And there are lots of offices where that’s the culture. Fine. But I always wonder, can you live the six-figure, “green zone,” wife-and-kids dream when your career is built on that shit? For me, I’d have a hard time looking my kids in the eye.
All I can say is I saw some crappy construction in many of the new bldgs… The worst was probably The Fordham. I was scared they were going to try and put up the Spire. 200ft of leaking pipes all over the place. Surprised that bldg and the Pinnacle never pop up here.
2000ft
I never said that you should do any of the following:
“butter up my superiors, beat up my subordinates, degrade my rivals and otherwise play a phony and demeaning game at the office”
I actually detest these types of people and the corporate atmosphere in general.
The things I’ve said you can do without negatively effecting your karma.
A lot of traders in Chicago had a really good year last year, myself included, and you may be surprised that the downturn this year made a lot of people here a lot of money.
Sweet, gggg-unit, have you found your 4000 square foot bachelor pad yet?
gggg-unit only makes money trading. He doesn’t need a P&L statement he just needs a P statement.
He can only make $ being long on straddles, good traders never bet wrong.