First, I really enjoyed the film. My question is about the 2 leads. Can single people, with what seem to be regular 9-5 gigs, afford that nice of homes in Manhattan/Brooklyn? From the prices I've seen, it seemed to be a big reach.
shareThey were a charitable investment advisor and an advertising executive. I'm pretty sure they can afford those apartments. They look like they make over $70 or 80,000 a year and rent is probably around $1500 a month.
"Oh, my God. Bear is driving! How can that be?!"
You're not from Manhattan are you?
Rent for those apartments is probably closer to $3,000 a month even rent stabilized and considering even low level jobs in Manhattan they were probably both getting over $100,000. $50,000 a year in Manhattan qualifies you for government assitance. $1,400 a month gets you a tiny studio in a so-so neighborhood.
That's what I was thinking for the rent range. I didn't realize their jobs would command a 6 figure salary though.
shareMy boyfriend works in an entry level position at a fashion agency in NY and makes 30K...late 30s professionals with great jobs in NY definitely make WELL over 50K, lol.
shareYes, especially if the aparments are rent controlled as was mentioned here. That's the trick.
share[deleted]
If that guy is in his mid thirties and at a high level he's probably making 200-300k. He's got to be very important in a successful agency to be making that much. If he makes that much he could afford that house. They show their apartment building to be on Riverside drive on the upper west side of Manhattan. A 2 bedroom there rents for 5000 or more per month.
She moves to a brownstone in Brooklyn - those houses are very expensive. If she rents there, a two bedroom should cost at least 3500 per month. She's got to be making at least 200K to sensibly afford that.
The truth is - it's a movie, so they made them live in really nice houses.
Totes making at least 200k. I feel like that was kind of the point, they were wealthier liberal new yorkers. Because they both made a substantial amount of money, and because of their age, their economic status totally made them feel like they could devout to having children.
shareI think more importantly, what the heck was the Adam Scott character doing with a car at the end of the movie? NO ONE who lives in Manhattan has a car except the very rich (and even then, they have drivers).
shareThis is what kills me about the TV show Damages too! I mean, true, they were lawyers, and a few of them were making a ton of money. But like you said, the people who are insanely wealthy have drivers. Damages had a public sector attorney driving a new vehicle with all the bells and whistles in Manhattan. So unrealistic.
shareIf you look really closely as he drives away, you can see the tagline "wheels when you need them" on the bumper. That's what's written on every Zipcar - they're a car sharing company that rents out cars cheaply by the hour. So he didn't have a car - he'd rented one for the hour or so he needed.
shareMy apartment in the Upper West Side cost $3,200 a month, and it was nowhere near as nice as what they had in this movie! I'm assuming the woman who wrote this was already wealthy enough when she came to New York City that she doesn't realize how realistic that was for most 9-5 people.
share