Fortunately for me, my apartment is the third cheapest I've found here, and is the cheapest with things that I consider necessary, like a kitchen (although really, I lived for a year and a half with only a hotplate in Germany), and a fridge. If I were looking in NYC, and looking at the same level of amenities (I could do without all of the, frankly, amazing perks of my complex, so I'm talking about a stove and a fridge), are you saying that I couldnt' find a place for less than $2,000?
Yes, you could (see below). But one thing to note is the 45% I mentioned included rent+commuting costs. Since the two can be highly correlated, I evaluate them dependently. Lowering housing expenses by $200 but increasing commuting costs by $300 is an ill advised decision, but one commonly made.
I guess it would depend on definitions then, I was considering all of NYC, not just Manhattan.
Within NYC, outside of Manhattan, you can definitely find better prices. However public transportation was designed for borough <-> Manhattan travel, not borough <-> borough travel. So it realistically restricts your search to the borough you live in or Manhattan (unless you work
in Manhattan, in which case you can live pretty much anywhere within a 50+ mile radius).
However, when I said "NYC area" I was actually referring to Bergen county in NJ, across the GWB from Manhattan. As well those costs were based on my particular housing requirements, not the ones you listed. I work less than a half mile away from the GWB. It has all of the high costs associated with Manhattan, without the unilateral ability to live car free. Many of the coworkers I've chatted with either live in the City and ride a company shuttle to work ($300/month), or drive at least a 45-60 minute one-way commute from New York state or Connecticut.
I like using absolute numbers for comparing rents in the same area, since $100k and $47k earners can live in the same neighborhood.
This +1,000,000. To the OP, if you are calculating rent as a portion of your income, you deserve a giant punch in the face! Look at how much space you NEED (mostly a function of family size and storage of material belongings), then compare several properties that meet the bare necessity, adjust for things like cost of transportation, and make a judgement call based on things like noise and criminal activity.
I agree that calculating how much to spend on rent as a proportion of income is a terrible idea. I am calculating rent as a portion of income, but to sanity check a region more so than my choice within one. My employment opportunities and wage potential after graduation varies a good bit by region (due to different fields I can go into), but so too does living expenses. I'm trying to normalize that figure by coming up with a relative percentage my living expense in relation to wage potential within that particular region. I'm then collecting data points to see what others currently pay, just to get an idea of what's "normal".
Rent is a FIXED cost, like food, or a car. You should no more upgrade an apartment when you go from 50k income to 100k income than you would buy a shiny 2013 sports car or start to eat out 3 times a week. I repeat, your rent is not based on your income, NOT AT ALL, it is based on your housing needs, and determined by the price of the housing market.
Again, I agree completely. However, as your income increases over time, so too do your housing needs. As time goes by and your wage increases, so too may the size of your family, material belongings, schools/crime become more of a factor, etc. As such, your housing costs rise with your wage increases (although not at the same rate), and the percentage stabilizes within a range.*
For a single 21 yo, 500-650sqft should be ample for your needs (unless you're an artist or something who needs additional space for professional use). Any space over that is likely to become a repository for expensive and rarely used stuff.
I'm not single.
*This is a theory of mine. Collecting insights here is a way for me to test this theory.